brommy

I think Daesh don't give a hoot whether it's Ramadan or not. EDIT: alternatively, most people get moody when they are hungry.

The government were stupid enough not to plan for something that could and did happen so it doesn't surprise me that we need to spend some time gathering a suitable team. I'm aware that Article 50 keeps us in the EU for up to 2 years from when it has been submitted but, other than 'being urged', is there an actual time limit for submitting Article 50? What's to stop us spending a year or so gathering our team together before submitting and therefore gaining the full 2 years to negotiate a good deal for us?

Most posts are constructed from what people believe is happening or should happen. If it were up to me, I would make all education religion-free from now so there would be no hypocrisy from me.

Indeed. It is time governments across the world stopped pandering to the immediate demands of 'big business' and started thinking of the long term benefits of education in the hope of a more stable world.

Education makes the whole world richer, not just a few dozen large companies.

Education is cheaper than warfare. Just 10% of the US and European defence budget would go a long way to educate millions, including, as it has been described, educating the educators.

I think we should support and demonstrate the advantages of education to those who live in areas that are not directly controlled by Daesh. As the military conflict continues, Daesh are losing control of the higher populated areas (mostly in Syria and Iraq) and gaining some control in the lower populated areas of Libya. The more people that are educated in a non religious context, the less likely they are to take up arms in support of Daesh. It may take decades, but short of rolling over and all becoming Daesh converts or trying to 'bomb them all to hell', neither of which is acceptable and/or practical, I don't see another way forward.

By the time the economic dust has settled (and people can't even agree on that time frame), it will be difficult to compare against what the UK and it's economy would have been like if we had remained in the EU. I'm sure Leavers will say that we would have suffered from massive failures in the level of public services due to large immigration numbers overloading 'the system'. I also predict Remainers will be claiming everything would have been fine if only we hadn't left. Then there's the uncertainty of what the EU's long term economic and political outlook will be over those years. Perhaps we will have been better off out of that. Even time won't tell as their won't be indisputable facts on either side. To add to the above, there are those Leavers who are quite willing to accept a certain level of disruption to the economy for what being outside the EU means to them. Unless I had lived the experience of a thousand lives scattered across all communities of the UK, I'd find it difficult to criticise anyone's referendum decision and I don't think anyone will ever be able to be categorically proved wrong or correct.

Is it now in the EU's own rules that any new members must adopt the Euro?

Is it possible that the Labour party could run the next GE campaign on an 'in Europe' ticket in the hope of collecting millions of votes from people of all political persuasions who are strongly in favour of being in the EU? I assume the UK will have completed Article 50 and left the EU by then, but there is an 'Article' for entering the EU.

I assume the aim of talking is to improve understanding and promote compromise in the hope it will lead to less violence on both sides, but it certainly has some problems: 1) I don't believe 'the West' have a lot more to understand about Daesh and I'm not sure which of Daesh's aims we'd be willing to accept as a compromise. 2) I don't believe Daesh are interested in increasing their understanding of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their doctrine and Daesh aren't willing to compromise. Where does that leave talking? The long term solution may be through education at the expense of any religious doctrine.

I realised that! If a politician gained 3 votes to his opponent's 2 votes from an electorate of 100, the politician would still claim 'a clear mandate' and yet this government is insisting on union votes meeting a criteria. Hypocrisy aside though, 37.4% is a reasonably high figure from a close decision in a national referendum without compulsory voting.

I wouldn't hang too much on the importance of those figures as 37.4% is relatively high. After all, this very government gained power with just one quarter of the potential electorate.

So it appears there are plenty of reasons to vote for either side. The hardest part is to be tolerant of those opinions.

I don't think the Leavers have the monopoly on idiotic thought processes. For example, my wife recently spoke to a clothes shop assistant who freely admitted she voted to 'Remain in Europe' because she didn't want to be part of something else 'like Africa'. A genuine quote!

Are the EU too intransigent to consider amendment of just one of their numerous founding principles? Perhaps they might realise the current and impending further instability of the EU is more self destructive than change.

Will Parliament's submission of Article 50 be a 'free vote' or a three line whip? As of 22nd June, only 158 of the 650 MPs had declared a Leave preference. Those 158 (assuming none has moved to Remain) need a lot of support from the 479 MPs who have declared a Remain preference, especially as many MPs may see the decision as a vote of conscience.

It'll all come out in the wash. Besides, there's a possibility that Article 50 won't be submitted by the UK Parliament. Perhaps the next Conservative leader will put the will of Parliament above the will of the electorate.

Eh? Some things are fine. Some are not. Time heals some things and breaks others. Time and humanity will continue regardless of any political party or trade group.

Do those countries still get by well enough that they might believe being outside the EU but still trading with the EU, is a price worth paying? EDIT - I think we have strayed off the topic of this thread! Happy to continue in the EU thread.

Are you sure?

Without shouting, aren't there already numerous countries without uncontrolled immigration that trade with the EU?

I don't believe any politician, let alone Johnson, would or could plan such a narrow window of defeat amongst such a massive electorate.

When will we know when all the 'facts' have been established and whose version of the facts do we trust?

I don't see how Johnson could have hoped to damage Cameron and obtain a Remain vote. Wouldn't anything other than a Leave result (or possibly a 51% Remain vote that was seen a too slender) have strengthened Cameron's position and pushed Johnson out in to the cold?