Image (OGL)


The prime Minister has given an unequivocal NO to the calls for a second EU referendum.

The UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, has stated that there will be no second Brexit referendum "in any circumstances".

This comes after a Sky Data poll that showed support for a second in/out vote is growing as well as comments by the likes of arch Remainer, Lord Mandelson, that a second referendum was the only way forward.

"The only way to give democratic legitimacy to the final deal, and to get approval from the public is to put it to such a vote." He told Sky News.

I've got to say that, judging by the mood of the people I generally meet, a second EU referendum would be one way forward to a lot of angry voters, a resurgent UKIP and a trashed Tory party for many years to come!

No wonder a Labour politician like Mandelson is so keen on one, he's reckoning that the Tories will be trashed enough to allow Corbyn in to No 10 at the next election and that UKIP will still have too few votes to secure seats!

We'll see on that one!

Now Number Ten is denying reports the that the armed forces will be called in to ensure the supply of food and medicine to the more remote areas of the country in the case of a no-deal Brexit. More Remainer scare-mongering it seems then.

According to reports, sources within the Department for Exiting the EU say there have never been discussions about the use of the armed forces, which suggests that the briefings came from the normal, standard civil contingency plans – in the cabinet office. As I said when these reports came out, it did seem strange that the MOD had received no official notice of this.

The government will however be publishing around 70 separate advice papers covering the implications of a no-deal, reports the BBC.

But Jacob Rees-Mogg is not a happy bunny about any of this.

He is of the opinion that the government has failed to prepare properly for a no-deal Brexit and this makes us look fretful, weak and incompetent.

"The PM has said for a long time that no deal is better than a bad deal. If the Government cannot now show that it can deliver a workable deal based on WTO terms then it is not competent.

"It is not a good look for the Government to appear fretful, weak and incompetent, but this seems to be the way it is approaching the idea of leaving on WTO terms."

I would just say that all of this is just the result of having put a person in charge of the country with the job of delivering Brexit, who is a Remainer and doesn't think the UK can run its own business and agencies but instead must remain tied within those of the EU.

Now here is one piece of general political news has many people concerned.

The government is proposing that online trolls who intimidate election candidates be barred from standing for election.

According to the Constitution Minister, Chloe Smith, the intimidation used by some trolls was putting talented people off of standing in elections and that the government's proposals would:

"Protect voters, candidates and campaigners so they can make their choice at the ballot box or stand for public service without fear of being victims of misinformation or abuse."

But many people argue that there are already laws in place to address many of these issues and that party vetting procedures should ensure that only the best candidates get through, which would stop most trolls in the process.

One issue is that once an election has started anyone found guilty of such a trolling offence would probably be barred from the next election, which is probably years away.

Another is, when does someone go from being in disagreement with you to being a troll?

Where is the line drawn? In most cases it is drawn by the person on the receiving end of the criticism.

Are we going to have a lower bar for rules only in online political debate that includes criticising politicians, than for any other discussions?

Then of course comes the next ratcheting up of the state against freedom of expression when our elected representatives start talking about extending these trolling rules beyond just the election period to protect their whole term in office.

But the real issue here is that what we want to do, is stop really nasty trolling and I would say that most of those trolls would not be the ones who actually wanted to stand for election anyway and probably don't.

Then there is the problem of proving who they are as many use pseudonyms and proxy servers etc to avoid their anonymity being broken.

Even then, if you do identify them, they could well not be from the UK and ineligible to stand in elections here.

So, are such rules actually going to put many of these trolls off? Somehow I doubt it. But it may put some people off of debating online with politicians, if all the politician has to do is press a politicians only troll report button to silence them.

Comment Here!