Wes Tender

There was also the suggestion that May had acted to rid the Cabinet of the Cameron clique, which of course very much included Osborne. But Osborne, like Cameron, had put his head on the block by his prominent role in the Referendum Campaign, so there was no way that he could have been kept on after the shocking way that he had talked down the British economy in the event of us leaving the EU. His credibility had taken too much of a knock. Regarding the other appointments, the Eurosceptics in the Party and the country will be happy that they are represented by Boris, Fox, Davis and Leadsom. The number of women in the Cabinet has increased too, which will play well with the electorate and make the party look more inclusive and hopefully bring in a softer edge to policy-making. The only controversial appointment is that Hunt remains as Health Secretary, but in the light of her other decisions, I am prepared to trust her judgement and to wait and see whether she can help bring about a satisfactory resolution to the Junior Doctors' contract dispute.

I must say that I'm pretty impressed with May and her handling of her appointments to the new Cabinet.

As others have posted, surely the time has come for Fonte to go on the Legends Banner.

What? No big words to inflate the impression that you are as clever as Verbal Diarrhoea thinks he is from using them? And how did you enjoy Kindergarten this morning?

Of course, it very easy to dismiss this sort of article as being rubbish in a couple of lines, simultaneously masturbating your ego, whilst not bothering to debate the points raised to prove your point. How about you telling us where you think that these legal eagles have got it wrong? And whilst you're pondering it all, here's a little light entertainment for you:-

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-referendum-binding.shtml For all of those who harbour forlorn hopes that some sort of legal challenge can be made against the validity of the referendum, or that it was merely advisory.

Please do concentrate and read it correctly. Freedom of thought.

No, you're quite right, there is no time limit on a British citizens basic human right to freedom of thought. When you are applying that position to the matter of our membership of the sclerotic European project, I have wanted to get out of it since we signed the Maastricht Treaty 24 years ago.

It was just a response to deliberately changing my name. I couldn't very well change it to Sherlock, or that might confer on you the assumption of a higher level of intelligence. Maybe I'll just withdraw from the childish name-calling and leave you to continue it if you wish.

Everybody who wished to express an opinion had the opportunity to do so freely a couple of weeks ago.

You labelled me as a UKIP supporter and you were wrong. You accuse me of anti-semitism and you are wrong again. But think what you like; it doesn't bother me if you have to indulge in childish insults in order to make you feel good about yourself.

I'm loving the conspiracy theory that you believe that the Tory grandees might have deployed a strategy to have May keep a low profile so that she could be their insurance in the long game. The only flaw in that position, is that the obvious candidate to have deployed that position, was David Cameron. Also, it presumes that they were happy to have another woman Prime Minister. The more likely scenario, is that May herself reasoned correctly, as it turned out, that she would be well placed in any leadership contest if she kept her powder dry by keeping a low profile.

He also stated that there was no way that Corbyn would become the Labour leader

Yes, a very low interest loan partly financed by funding to the European Investment Bank from the British taxpayer to export jobs from the UK to Turkey.

Who voted Leave because they were angry about global capitalism? How could he arrive at that conclusion when it is plain that freeing ourselves from the restrictions placed upon us by being a member of the EU, we would seek to increase our trade with the rest of the World. This is the sort of glib satirical sound-bite that epitomises nicely his Private Eye background, but like that publication, it isn't to be taken too seriously.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/02/taking-europe-s-pulse http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21627620-deflation-euro-zone-all-too-close-and-extremely-dangerous-worlds-biggest-economic http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/business/international/eurozone-economy-q1.html?_r=0 https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/02/eu-stagnation-continues-deja-vu-all-over-again/ Do you rank these sources alongside the Express and Mail? I also read the youth unemployment figures for member states like Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, etc and I conclude that if the economic prospects afforded by membership of the EU were so overwhelming, why are the youth unemployment rates so abysmally high in those countries? http://www.statista.com/statistics/276424/youth-unemployment-rate-in-the-eu-and-euro-area/

It is exactly the right time to leave when the EU has stagnated and the rest of the World is pushing ahead. LD is also totally right in his opinion that had the original core of similar countries remained as the only member states, then the entire situation would have been very different, and that there would be no reason to leave. I note that you are another whose main tactic when confronted with an opinion you do not agree with is to just simply remark that the poster doesn't know what he is talkiong about.

Both Fonte and Cedric have been superb for Portugal since they have played together in defence. There have been several mentions by the match commentators that they are both Southampton players and they have been a credit to us.

Osborne was a complete disgrace during the Referendum campaign and I hope that he is removed from Ministerial office as soon as the Leadership election is settled. At least Cameron had the decency to resign after the part he played. As others have said, had he taken a back seat in the campaign, much as Theresa May did, then there would be no reason for him to have resigned, although given his failure to gain anything worthwhile in the pre-referendum negotiations with the EU, one wouldn't have wanted him anywhere near the post-Brexit negotiations

I'm not sure whether it has been asked before, but as this is an American company, why isn't it called Under Armor?

Why are you switching from an argument about the voting in the European Elections (just about Europe) to an argument about voting in the GE, clouded by political alliances and other policy issues? I reiterate, they are not the same thing and parallels cannot be made convincingly.

That isn't what you said in your last paragraph, or didn't you read it before posting it? Clutch at these straws if it comforts you. I suspect that this legal opinion that the holding of a referendum ran counter to the best interests of the electorate is going to be hard to prove as a majority of the public seemed interested enough in voting. Don't you think that the public are capable of knowing what is in their best interests? Furthermore, reading the thrust of that argument, it implies that actions taken by the public authority, i.e. the Government, which affect the legal situation of every person in the UK could be the subject of a judicial review. It therefore follows that logically the same applied to every single European Treaty that successive Governments signed since the Treaty of Rome and that if there had been people complaining at the time that these Treaties affected them adversely, then they could have called for a judicial review. I'm fine with the judiciary finding that all of those Treaties were signed illegally and that we can therefore revert back to the position we did originally agree to, essentially the Common Market.

By your reasoning, even higher percentages of the electorate did not want to have Conservative, Labour or Green MEPs.

You are wriggling like mad. What in your post is incorrect? I pointed that out to you, but you will not have it. It is your position that there wasn't a majority who voted to Leave the EU, because you insist in believing that anybody who didn't vote should be included in the percentage of those who did not support Brexit. This was a simple single issue referendum, and you try to complicate it to suit your agenda. Regarding your last paragraph, do I understand you right? You infer that if the pledge in the Conservative manifesto to hold a simple in/out referendum was included to entiice voters away from UKIP that this would be challenged as being illegal? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious."

More wriggling, as expected. The General Election elected the Tory Party, who made a manifesto promise to hold a Referendum on our EU membership before the end of 2017. Now, you can argue that a majority of the electorate did not vote for the Tories, and that in any event the Referendum promise was just one amongst several policy issues in their manifesto, but as I said, the promise of a referendum was a sop towards preventing UKIP winning support from them. I remind you that the electorate voted with a substantial majority for UKIP in the European elections, the Party whose whole raison d'etre was to leave the EU, although again, you might argue that the outcome was tainted by a low turnout. However, this referendum had a high turnout and it is disingenuous to argue that those who could not be bothered to vote should be included in a percentage of those against leaving. This was a single issue matter, solely concerning our membership of the EU and anybody who didn't vote cannot bleat about the outcome. The essence of Parliamentary democracy which you use in your Sovereignty argument, is that the Members of Parliament are elected to carry out the wishes of the people who elected them, not to ignore them.