2017 UK General Election - 8th June

solodeogloria

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The SDLP haven't been relevant for 20 years and declined away to nothing.
I know former SDLP voters who are happy to have SF lead the way.
Events are huge eyeopeners. Britain will get to see the DUP in all their fundamentalist glory and those in the north will get to see very clearly that London does not give a damn about them.

Good morning,

I don't think the DUP are after social policy in this deal with the Tories. They are far more shrewd than that. They are happy with devolution and the petition of concern that comes with it.

You're going to see them challenge certain austerity policies in the Tory manifesto and ask for more funding for the Northern Executive. They will get it too.

Previously they had been told that they could have the 12.5% tax rate if they agreed to cuts in public spending to pay for it. Now Northern Ireland will have the cake and eat it. I don't think that's a good thing if it significantly impacts wider UK deficit reduction.

By leaving social policy off the table and by shrewdly sorting out the money the DUP will claim that they are the party that puts Northern Ireland's interests at heart while Sinn Féin do sweet nothing by refusing to participate in British parliamentary democracy.

Sinn Féin will be red faced.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

I don't think the DUP are after social policy in this deal with the Tories. They are far more shrewd than that. They are happy with devolution and the petition of concern that comes with it.

You're going to see them challenge certain austerity policies in the Tory manifesto and ask for more funding for the Northern Executive. They will get it too.

Previously they had been told that they could have the 12.5% tax rate if they agreed to cuts in public spending to pay for it. Now Northern will have the cake and eat it. I don't think that's a good thing if it significantly impacts wider UK deficit reduction.

By leaving social policy off the table and by shrewdly sorting out the money the DUP will claim that they are the party that puts Northern 's interests at heart while Sinn Féin do sweet nothing by refusing to participate in British parliamentary democracy.

Sinn Féin will be red faced.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What will happen here is that the UUP will suffer. And anything in the middle. And, have no doubt about it, tensions will rise as the secret parts of this deal (which there will be) take effect in the north.

LeinsterDub

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/boundary-changes-could-make-sinn-fein-biggest-party-in-northern-ireland-35831665.html

Will May sell a other piece of her soul to the DUP and allow them to gerrymander NI's constituencies?

Leroy42

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/boundary-changes-could-make-sinn-fein-biggest-party-in-northern-ireland-35831665.html

Will May sell a other piece of her soul to the DUP and allow them to gerrymander NI's constituencies?

What difference would it make. SF, no matter how many MP's they get have no power whatsoever due to not taking their seats.

So even if they do gain a few extra seats from the DUP, the DUP will still be the party able to get anything done in Westminster

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

I don't think the DUP are after social policy in this deal with the Tories. They are far more shrewd than that. They are happy with devolution and the petition of concern that comes with it.

And yet we now have news of Arlene Foster having allegedly attempted to interfere with Scotland's gay marriage laws because she wanted N.Ireland citizens blocked from availing of said laws.

If this transpires as being correct, "shrewd & restrained" my @rse; it'll be a case of "can't help themselves" more like.

Irishweather

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

I don't think the DUP are after social policy in this deal with the Tories. They are far more shrewd than that. They are happy with devolution and the petition of concern that comes with it.

You're going to see them challenge certain austerity policies in the Tory manifesto and ask for more funding for the Northern Executive. They will get it too.

Previously they had been told that they could have the 12.5% tax rate if they agreed to cuts in public spending to pay for it. Now Northern Ireland will have the cake and eat it. I don't think that's a good thing if it significantly impacts wider UK deficit reduction.

By leaving social policy off the table and by shrewdly sorting out the money the DUP will claim that they are the party that puts Northern Ireland's interests at heart while Sinn Féin do sweet nothing by refusing to participate in British parliamentary democracy.

Sinn Féin will be red faced.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-assembly-election/ni-election-dup-loses-petition-of-concern-power-opening-door-for-gay-marriage-sinn-fein-slashes-lead-to-one-seat-35501483.html

Irishweather

Leroy42 wrote: »

What difference would it make. SF, no matter how many MP's they get have no power whatsoever due to not taking their seats.

So even if they do gain a few extra seats from the DUP, the DUP will still be the party able to get anything done in Westminster

Well, I'd prefer the current seats. Not a fan of DUP but it's a better alternative to SF who I despise!

Being represented by them would probably be my worst nightmare.

Rjd2

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-how-theresa-mays-two-aides-seized-control-of-the-tory-campaign-to-calamitous-effect-a3566796.html

What an absolutely wretched campaign this from The Tories. What makes it more absurd it was an election that simply was not needed and issues like security where they the right are supposedly stronger on was something that killed them.

Thomas__

Another blow against Mrs May as she has to face legal challenge against her deal with the DUP because it concernes the GFA:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/20/theresa-may-faces-legal-challenge-proposed-deal-dup

Theresa May is facing a landmark legal challenge over her proposed deal with the Democratic Unionist party on the grounds that it breaches the Good Friday agreement.
An experienced legal team, which has been involved in constitutional challenges, is planning to apply for a judicial review of the deal once it is announced, the Guardian has learned.
High court judges would be asked to examine whether the pact breaches the British government’s commitment to exercise “rigorous impartiality” in the Good Friday agreement.
...

The days seem to be numbered anyway and she might not survive in the house next Wednesday, 28. June when the 10 days she´s been granted to fix problems are ending.

One wonders why such matters have not been checked beforehand, but it is no wonder that this was rather ignored cos the desire of Mrs May to cling on to power was stronger and stable than anything else.

A Little Pony

If you think Theresa May won't last 6 months then why bother challenging it. Not that I think any challenge would take down the deal anyway. The DUP wouldn't go into it and neither would the Tories if it was illegal.

Sam Russell

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you think Theresa May won't last 6 months then why bother challenging it. Not that I think any challenge would take down the deal anyway. The DUP wouldn't go into it and neither would the Tories if it was illegal.

Well the Tories were required by the High Court and then by the Supreme Court to consult Parliament on the Brexit referendum which they had no intention of doing. Now not consulting was deemed illegal by the highest court in the land and was only complied with reluctantly. They could have accepted the High Court but chose to appeal to the Supreme Court. [The judges were called traitors by the red tops].

I think that if they want to do something, the Tories will wait for the judges to tell them it is illegal.

A Little Pony

Sam Russell wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you think Theresa May won't last 6 months then why bother challenging it. Not that I think any challenge would take down the deal anyway. The DUP wouldn't go into it and neither would the Tories if it was illegal.

Well the Tories were required by the High Court and then by the Supreme Court to consult Parliament on the Brexit referendum which they had no intention of doing.  Now not consulting was deemed illegal by the highest court in the land and was only complied with reluctantly.  They could have accepted the High Court but chose to appeal to the Supreme Court.  [The judges were called traitors by the red tops].

I think that if they want to do something, the Tories will wait for the judges to tell them it is illegal.

No one has put any evidence up that it is against the law.

Sam Russell

A Little Pony wrote: »

No one has put any evidence up that it is against the law.

I understand that there is a court case that will be taken once the details of any agreement is published on the basis that it contravenes the GFA. Now that will be a judicial review, just like the successful action about parliament having a say on Brexit.

The UK cannot be an impartial guarantor of the GFA when they have a confidence and supply agreement with a NI party that is in power - or at least that is what will be argued. There is when you will see the evidence.

Then the courts will decide if it is against the law.

LordSutch

Just looking through tomorrows papers, and its beginning to look like there's (a chance) that the proposed marriage of convenience between the DUP & the Tories may end up with one of the parties being jilted at the altar. The Queen's speech has been delayed, and the rumblings are that at least some of the delay is down to the on-going hard bargaining/stalling talks ......

But might they fail, or succeed (in the short term)?

Capt'n Midnight

LordSutch wrote: »

Just looking through tomorrows papers, and its beginning to look like there's (a chance) that the proposed marriage of convenience between the DUP & the Tories may end up with one of the parties being jilted at the altar. The Queen's speech has been delayed, and the rumblings are that at least some of the delay is down to the on-going hard bargaining/stalling talks ......

But might they fail, or succeed (in the short term)?

DUP need this, but they know May is in a hard place. And the DUP have been dealing with SF for years. So yes they will deal, but no they won't be a pushover.

Junkyard Tom

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

DUP need this, but they know May is in a hard place. And the DUP have been dealing with SF for years. So yes they will deal, but no they won't be a pushover.

Maybe the Tories understand that DUP support for them is reflexive in the current climate.

What the Tories should be saying is 'well, if you don't play ball with us we're going to have a general election so you're probably going to have to deal with a Corbyn/Labour led coalition that neither need nor want your support.

Peregrinus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe the Tories understand that DUP support for them is reflexive in the current climate.

What the Tories should be saying is 'well, if you don't play ball with us we're going to have a general election so you're probably going to have to deal with a Corbyn/Labour led coalition that neither need nor want your support.

The DUP have a reflexive instinct to support the Tories in this situation.

But the DUP are also the products of a culture in which they see themselves as the besieged righteous minority, with the world arrayed against them. They feel very happy to bring the house down about their ears on a point of principle; it makes them feel good about themselves, and about how truly committed they are to what is right and good. No compromise!

Which is what makes them such a bugger to deal with. The last generation of Tories who had to deal seriously the the DUP were John Major's government in the 1990s, so no-one in May's government had any idea (until a couple of weeks ago) what a thankless task it is to be eyeballing Nigel Dodds across a table.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe the Tories understand that DUP support for them is reflexive in the current climate.

What the Tories should be saying is 'well, if you don't play ball with us we're going to have a general election so you're probably going to have to deal with a Corbyn/Labour led coalition that neither need nor want your support.

This is an odd tactic from the Tories if you say is true. Stick it to the DUP by letting Corbyn become PM? This makes no sense. It would be like throwing yourself under a bus just to show a friend that you had the courage to do it.

The Torries are actually somewhat united despite the disaster that May led them to in the recent GE. They see an extreme left wing take over of the Labour party and a potential subsequent Corbyn led government as a fundamental threat to the state, so for now, they are sticking with a fatally wounded May as PM and will wait until the time is right to change leader and contest a GE in the future in better health.

If there had be a centrist labour type like a Blair or a Miliband as leader they would already be a leadership challenge underway and they would be tearing strips of each other. However as Corbyn as leader they are united in the fact that they will do anything to keep him out.

So, after all the bluster a deal with the DUP will be done, as the alternative for the Tories will be too much.

LordSutch

DUP deal with Conservatives proving elusive. (Wed 21st/June).

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0621/884319-dup/

FrancieBrady

Arlene caught in a blatant lie about an important issue.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/arlene-foster-letter-on-same-sex-unions-released-1.3127208?mode=amp

What did the ordinary British punter do to deserve these two as potential leaders?

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Arlene caught in a blatant lie about an important issue.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/arlene-foster-letter-on-same-sex-unions-released-1.3127208?mode=amp

What did the ordinary British punter do to deserve these two as potential leaders?

They voted for them.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They voted for them.

Good morning,

Or more accurately - the British people as a whole decided to put the country in a rock and a hard place in respect to governance.

It isn't ideal - but do you have a better alternative?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Or more accurately - the British people as a whole decided to put the country in a rock and a hard place in respect to governance.

It isn't ideal - but do you have a better alternative?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I'd agree with Churchill's assertion that democracy is the worst form of government save for everything else that has been tried.

I'd prefer it if the electoral system were more representative but after 2011 it seems unlikely that we'll get change like that unless we get an absolutely horrendous Tory government.

I wish people would think their choices through and research their local candidates and their parties. Sadly, many people will vote for party first no matter what. When people don't engage with the system properly, this is the result.

Short answer, no. I do not have a better alternative.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Or more accurately - the British people as a whole decided to put the country in a rock and a hard place in respect to governance.

It isn't ideal - but do you have a better alternative?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

May should ditch the DUP and go for a minority government. DUP will never vote for Labour anyway, SF aren't there and even within Labour they are not as one, so they hold enough seats to get most votes through.

Of course Brexit could cause an issue, but then if the deal gets voted down she didn't do a good enough job anyway.

She asked for a mandate to lead negotiations, and now wants to dilute her own parties position by going into coalition ( they can call it whatever they want but it is a trade off of votes for something) and she should get on with it.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

She asked for a mandate to lead negotiations, and now wants to dilute her own parties position by going into coalition ( they can call it whatever they want but it is a trade off of votes for something) and she should get on with it.

She has to do that because, though she asked for a mandate, she didn't get one.

The Tories have no mandate to negotiate Brexit on their own. They don't have a majority in the country or in Parliament. For any Brexit they negotiate to have credible constitutional legitimacy they need to build a coalition (or whatever you want to call it) that goes beyond their own party.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

She has to do that because, though she asked for a mandate, she didn't get one.

The Tories have no mandate to negotiate Brexit on their own. They don't have a majority in the country or in Parliament. For any Brexit they negotiate to have credible constitutional legitimacy they need to build a coalition (or whatever you want to call it) that goes beyond their own party.

Do they, or do they simply need to get the majority of votes in the parliament?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do they, or do they simply need to get the majority of votes in the parliament?

The don't have a majority of the votes in Parliament (on their own). That's why they have to seek the support of non-Tories.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

The don't have a majority of the votes in Parliament (on their own). That's why they have to seek the support of non-Tories.

I understand that, but can a minority government rule in the UK?

They have 318 out of 650 seats. 7 SF won't vote either way so 643/2=322. But I doubt the DUP would ever vote for a Labour vote, so even if Labour get all their MP's, all SNP, LD and others (excl SF) it only adds to 315, so Tory still win.

Precarious no doubt, far from stable, but far from unmanageable.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand that, but can a minority government rule in the UK?

They have 318 out of 650 seats. 7 SF won't vote either way so 643/2=322. But I doubt the DUP would ever vote for a Labour vote, so even if Labour get all their MP's, all SNP, LD and others (excl SF) it only adds to 315, so Tory still win.

Precarious no doubt, far from stable, but far from unmanageable.

But the Tories have to win all significant votes. If they lose even one, it;s general election time. And, on a majority of just three votes (on your figures) they are crucially vulnerable to resignations, deaths or inconveniently-time illnesses - not to mention breaches of party discipline by MPs who think, e.g. the Brexit deal they negotiate is not hard enough/not soft enough.

May isn't talking to the DUP for fun. (Believe me, nobody talks to the DUP for fun!) She's doing it because it's an imperative political necessity. If she could possibly avoid it, she would.

Can a minority government rule in the UK? Not for very long, is the short answer, without entering into some formal arrangement for support with a minor party. The UK electoral system is designed to minimise the possibility of minority governments (by tending to give massive over-representation to whichever party secures the most votes) and the result is that they have little experience of how to deal with minority government, and their political and parliamentary culture lacks mechanisms and conventions for making it feasible.

Leroy42

I understand that, but the backlash she is facing would make me wonder whether it is worth it. The fact that full coalition isn't being discussed means that DUP wants to hold onto the threat of being able to vote against whenever they like.

Of course May wants a majority, she had one but wanted a bigger one and UK is hardly used to coalitions never mind minority. But maybe therein lies the problem with parliamentary democracy. Why would losing one vote necessitate an election. A government, of whatever party, can never be right all the time, yet this is what we seem to expect.

It this winner takes all approach that has so many people disillusioned with democracy at the moment. If May believes in what she is doing, in the decisions she will make and the outcome she can achieve with EU, then what has she got to fear (I get this is all pie in the sky thinking of course).

It doesn't seem to me that whatever deal she gets with DUP will be worth it

FrancieBrady

Oh the people voted alright but I am certain they didnt vote to be governed by somebody who cannot 'recollect' trying to discriminate in a religiously bigoted way.

Thomas__

Peregrinus wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand that, but can a minority government rule in the UK?  

They have 318 out of 650 seats.  7 SF won't vote either way so 643/2=322.  But I doubt the DUP would ever vote for a Labour vote, so even if Labour get all their MP's, all SNP, LD and others (excl SF) it only adds to 315, so Tory still win.

Precarious no doubt, far from stable, but far from unmanageable.

But the Tories have to win all significant votes.  If they lose even one, it;s general election time.  And, on a majority of just three votes (on your figures) they are crucially vulnerable to resignations, deaths or inconveniently-time illnesses - not to mention breaches of party discipline by MPs who think, e.g. the Brexit deal they negotiate is not hard enough/not soft enough.  

May isn't talking to the DUP for fun.  (Believe me, nobody talks to the DUP for fun!)  She's doing it because it's an imperative political necessity.  If she could possibly avoid it, she would.

Can a minority government rule in the UK?  Not for very long, is the short answer, without entering into some formal arrangement for support with a minor party.  The UK electoral system is designed to minimise the possibility of minority governments (by tending to give massive over-representation to whichever party secures the most votes) and the result is that they have little experience of how to deal with minority government, and their political and parliamentary culture lacks mechanisms and conventions for making it feasible.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand that, but the backlash she is facing would make me wonder whether it is worth it.  The fact that full coalition isn't being discussed means that DUP wants to hold onto the threat of being able to vote against whenever they like.

Of course May wants a majority, she had one but wanted a bigger one and UK is hardly used to coalitions never mind minority.  But maybe therein lies the problem with parliamentary democracy.  Why would losing one vote necessitate an election.  A government, of whatever party, can never be right all the time, yet this is what we seem to expect.

It this winner takes all approach that has so many people disillusioned with democracy at the moment.  If May believes in what she is doing, in the decisions she will make and the outcome she can achieve with EU, then what has she got to fear (I get this is all pie in the sky thinking of course).

It doesn't seem to me that whatever deal she gets with DUP will be worth it

Those two Posts sums it up all. Mrs May created this mess and apart from those Facts, re a minority govt., she´s become even more unpopular in the past couple of days when she was seen dealing reluctantly with the Grenfel Tower incident and how quick she appeared after the Finsbury Park Attack. People are becoming more Aware of her lack of empathy and her plain drive to only focus on power and stay as PM. There isn´t much more evidence necessary to give proof of that. The Tories are getting more nervous upon her misconduct and stepping in one problem after another and always showing lack of empathy in one place and lack of leadership in another. I presume that the numbers of people who finally deem her not fit for the Job as PM and for the Brexit is growing day by day.

This Situation as both of you have been discussing cannot sustain itself for a Long time and the better choice would be to have Mrs May resigning and calling for another GE with a different candidate on the Tory side. If that would be a die-hard Brexiter, it might raise the chances for Corbyn to win a sustainable majority in such a new GE to finally become PM.

The worst thing in all this present situation is to have the DUP being the "pressure group" in the govt and hold the others in ransom which I have no doubt that they would play that card the moment it suits them.

The EU is rather inclined to look at the present UK govt as rather unreliable because of the problems this hung-parliament provides and certainly will deliver further. Nearly one year after the Brexit Ref, the uncertainties remained and it rather looks the way that it might get even worse.

Mrs May as PM is the biggest failure in UK politics ever. But the other Tories as well for not showing the guts to simply "overthrone" Mrs May and make her go, whether she likes it or not.

laugh

Never watched a Queen's speech before, some operation.

Fratton Fred

laugh wrote: »

Never watched a Queen's speech before, some operation.

there's a whole heap of tradition in there, but a lot of it is very important in terms of the constitution and demonstrates publicly where the seat of real power is in the UK.

FrancieBrady

Medieval pointlessness. Time the UK modernised this stuff.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Medieval pointlessness. Time the UK modernised this stuff.

Here we go again. Why cant some Irish people respect other peoples cultures and traditions? Do we do the same for the Japanese or the Ethiopians?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Here we go again. Why cant some Irish people respect other peoples cultures and traditions? Do we do the same for the Japanese or the Ethiopians?

Respectfully, it is to me archaic medieval rubbish and deepens the sense of a massive divide.
When an Irish forum censors or attempts to censor opinion (which is what expressed, my opinion) that is sad.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Respectfully, it is to me archaic medieval rubbish and deepens the sense of a massive divide.
When an Irish forum censors or attempts to censor opinion (which is what expressed, my opinion) that is sad.

When in the name of the sweet baby jebus did disagreement become censorship?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

When in the name of the sweet baby jebus did disagreement become censorship?

He can 'disagree' with me until the cows come home. He cannot question 'why' I have an opinion on it, that is an attempt to silence me.
Simple really.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He can 'disagree' with me until the cows come home. He cannot question 'why' I have an opinion on it, that is an attempt to silence me.
Simple really.

Questioning "Why?" is censorship. That's quite a stretch there.

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Questioning "Why?" is censorship. That's quite a stretch there.

Getting upset not about the opinion but because I had an opinion is an attempt to shut somebody up=censoring them.
He is entitled to dispute what I said, not that I said it.

oscarBravo

Bizarre.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bizarre.

I genuinely think some Irish people need to question why they get so upset when another Irish person on an Irish forum expresses an opinion on British monarchy.
What protocols did I or anyone else sign up to that forbids this?

solodeogloria

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I genuinely think some Irish people need to question why they get so upset when another Irish person on an Irish forum expresses an opinion on British monarchy.
What protocols did I or anyone else sign up to that forbids this?

Good evening!

I agree that it is a funny little ritual but your views on monarchy have sod all to do with the election result. I don't know why it makes you so impassioned when it's got nothing to do with the country you live in.

Even if they brought a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat to declare the legislative agenda for the next two years I'd still be more interested in the actual substance of the matter.

What's interesting for any observer is to notice what's included and what isn't. Needless to say there isn't going to be a lot of domestic legislation​ for a long time. This indicates to me that May wants to get the legislation she requires for Brexit through and then resign or call another election in 2019. This seems to be why she's got one Queen's speech to last two years.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I agree that it is a funny little ritual but your views on monarchy have sod all to do with the election result. I don't know why it makes you so impassioned when it's got nothing to do with the country you live in.

Even if they brought a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat to declare the legislative agenda for the next two years I'd still be more interested in the actual substance of the matter.

What's interesting for any observer is to notice what's included and what isn't. Needless to say there isn't going to be a lot of domestic legislation​ for a long time. This indicates to me that May wants to get the legislation she requires for Brexit through and then resign or call another election in 2019. This seems to be why she's got one Queen's speech to last two years.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Please don't be so arrogant as to suggest what is 'interesting' to me.
The nonsense of class, which this 'little ritual' is all about is why Britain as a notion/concept is coming to a juddering stop.
The society that was the UK can no longer stop itself devouring itself.

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Please don't be so arrogant as to suggest what is 'interesting' to me.
The nonsense of class, which this 'little ritual' is all about is why Britain as a notion/concept is coming to a juddering stop.
The society that was the UK can no longer stop itself devouring itself.

Little ritual ? It has nothing to do with class. It's the official opening on parliament so little it isn't. So does the history of the event not intrigue you at all ? It's not a crime to be interested in history Francie regardless of what country it's from.

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Little ritual ? It has nothing to do with class. It's the official opening on parliament so little it isn't. So does the history of the event not intrigue you at all ? It's not a crime to be interested in history Francie regardless of what country it's from.

Yes, I'm interested in history and monarchy should be consigned to it .
Time the nation that is the UK defined itself honestly.

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, I'm interested in history and monarchy should be consigned to it .
Time the nation that is the UK defined itself honestly.

Mod note:

OK, you've made your point that you don't agree with the concept of parliamentary monarchy and that you have no interest in actually discussing the topic at hand i.e. the June election. Time to move on.

A Dub in Glasgo

Johnston on the radio today... to think this man could be a future UK PM

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/877583434184609796

ancapailldorcha

British traditions are not the subject of this thread. Back on topic please. Post deleted.