Wannabe Prime Minister Andrea Leadsom Thinks Websites Should Be Rated Like Films (theregister.co.uk) 208
An anonymous reader quotes a report fro The Register: The UK's possible future prime minister thinks all websites should be classified with minimum age ratings, just like films. Andrea Leadsom is one of two candidates left in the race for the leadership of the Conservative Party; the winner of which will become the country's Prime Minister. Although many are concerned with the authoritarian stance taken by her rival, Theresa May, Leadsom's views on many topics -- including the internet -- have come under scrutiny following her unexpected success in the leadership election. Key among those is Leadsom's apparent belief that the best solution to troublesome content on the internet is to have film-rating organization the British Board of Film Classification rate all websites, and have any unrated websites blocked by ISPs. [Writing in the New Statesman back in 2012, she focused, initially, on the need to protect children. "There are two sound ways to ensure that children are not exposed to dangerous or disturbing content," she argued. "At the level of Internet Service Provider, individual sites can be blocked 'at source' by ISPs [...] The other way is with a move away from the standard '.co.uk' and '.com' top level domains (TLDs) for more explicit content, to separate entirely inappropriate sections of the web."] She argues: "Outside of cyberspace, we have bodies such as Ofcom and the British Board of Film Classification that continually work to ensure our children are not exposed to the wrong things. This could be implemented in some way online, whereby a website would have to have its content 'rated' before being accessible online. While it sounds like a massive leap, the majority of new websites already go through testing when they are hosted to make sure that a site is intact and that files and content are free of viruses. This would simply be adding another check to the list, and in reality it is a burden already carried by film-makers."
I have a better idea (Score:3, Insightful)
How about rating Prime Ministers like films? Wouldn't that help even more?
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Interesting)
How about rating Prime Ministers like films? Wouldn't that help even more?
I can only imagine the Rotten Tomatoes ratings...
Re: (Score:2)
I can only imagine the Rotten Tomatoes ratings...
It'll be just like the fantastic 4 reboot or ghostbusters reboot. Critics and media lapdogs will give them a 60-80% approval rating, and the public will give them around 4% Though I might be generous with the 4% rating...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
How about rating Prime Ministers like films? Wouldn't that help even more?
Apparently not. The same idiot already made a play for a parental guidance (PG) rating by claiming that as a mother she would make a better prime minister. Unsurprisingly that didn't work out well either [theguardian.com].
I'd like to say that she has no chance of being the next PM but she is being selected by Conservative party voters and a large fraction of them seem intent on destroying the UK given the recent referendum result so who knows?
Re: (Score:2)
Its idiots like u taking what she daid out of context, Roger W moore. Hooe she wins nd home she is the next pm of the uk for many years to come.
Did I miss any of the grammar mistakes?
Re: (Score:2)
That gives us a choice of two clueless morons about to become Prime Minister. Though to be fair posh boy Cameron did not have a clue either.
Re: (Score:2)
At least they are better than the top two candidates in the US...The corrupt grandmother who doesn't understand email, and the grandfather that believes everything he reads on Facebook (shamelessly stolen from someone else).
Please forgive me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please forgive me if I decide I don't want the government to determine what is appropriate or inappropriate for my children and then enforcing it. I think the rating idea doesn't hold water, but I wouldn't be terribly offended if they decided to rate as many websites as they like. In fact, like movie ratings I would take it under advisement. However, I certainly wouldn't want them blocking the content based on their decision to rate or not rate. I am the sole authority in deciding what is right for my children. The government gets no say in it beyond an advisory role.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. I think a rating system might be handy, and if a parental control is built into a browser, it might actually be useful in some cases.
However if they try to block sites based on it, then it is pure censorship with all the slippery slope problems that brings.
Awful (Score:5, Informative)
For those not familiar with what is happening in the UK at the moment, we are about to get a totally unelected leader.
Our Prime Minister resigned after the Brexit vote. Most of the Brexit supporters went to ground too, there was some backstabbing worthy of Shakespeare, and now it's down to two candidates to replace him.
Only members of the ruling party get a vote on who it is. The general electorate has no say, and this new ruler can stay in power for at least another four years unless something unpredicted happens.
The choice is between Theresa May, an authoritarian bigot who is openly racist and wants repeal our human rights, and this woman who is a religious fruitcake and, for good measure, also bigot. She lied during the Brexit campaign and lied her CV.
At least with Trump and Clinton you get to vote.
Re:Awful (Score:5, Informative)
You never voted for David Cameron in the first instance. You voted for your local member. The party that held the majority chose one of its own to be the prime minister. It is totally possible for the party in power to change the prime minister at any time.
So you have NEVER EVER voted for the leader of the UK. And neither has any other Westminster system of government such as Canada, Australia, or NZ.
Re: (Score:3)
I fully agree, our democracy is a joke.
At least at the last election we knew with a fair degree of certainty who the prospective leaders were. The Brexit camp claimed they would "take back democracy", but have left us with the very thing they were fighting against - unelected leaders.
If course , the EU has PR, so is actually much more democratic than the UK system...
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? You voted for Jean-Claude Juncker? Donald Tusk?
Or do you believe, some "remainers" do, that "the problem with democracy is voting"?
Re: (Score:3)
MEPs are directly elected. Our elected MPs select representatives for the Council, and unlike the Lords it's not a lifetime job. The president is then elected by our elected representatives too, so there is accountability and democracy at all levels.
By your standard the UK is totally undemocratic too. We didn't vote for the Prime Minister, or any of the Lords, or the Queen. At least in the EU they have PR and everyone has some kind of mandate, even if you feel it is a bit too remote.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm confused, but I thought MPs were directly elected and your elected MPs select the PM? And Lords didn't have binding authority, just a bully pulpit? (But admittedly I don't understand how they amend bills)
True for US too (Score:3)
You never voted for David Cameron in the first instance. You voted for your local member.
Actually this is technically true for the US as well - they do not actually vote for Trump to Clinton they vote for someone who will go to Washington and cast a vote to select Trump or Clinton as the US president....which could lead to some interesting events if they change their mind after being elected.
Re: (Score:2)
So you have NEVER EVER voted for the leader of the UK.
In theory correct, in practice that's not how it works. To give a current example, I probably won't be voting Labour at the next election, not because I don't want my local Labour MP re-elected (as actually I quite like her), but because I don't want Corbyn as PM.
So who the leader of a party is does affect how you vote in elections, even if you're not actually directly voting for that leader as PM.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody voted for Ryan or Pelosi, and those are the closest match to prime minister.
If you want to change Queen, you'll need a farcical aquatic ceremony.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to change Queen, you'll need a farcical aquatic ceremony.
a'what? Aquatic ceremony? ...do tell....
Re: (Score:2)
"Farcical aquatic ceremony" is from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, an irreverent take on the Arthurian legends. That particular term comes from Arthur being handed a sword by the Lady of the Lake.
Video clip (Score:2)
Here's a clip, the line occurs at about the 2:20 mark
Help! I'm being repressed! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, If I went around saying I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd say I was barmy.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. A large collection of idiot shitbags voted for Pelosi.
Ain't that funny, Theresa May got 35,453 votes. Same ratio of "idiot shitbags" as Pelosi. You must be on to something, keep digging!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes: it's a parliamentary democracy. That's how leaders are chosen in such a system. It's how European democracies work, such as they are.
Again, Britain is a parliamentary democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point: GP wants bigoted and narrow-minded government and he is getting it; he just differs about some details.
You mean the Labour Party? They are even more bigoted and n
Re:Awful (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the Prime Minister doesn't have to be the leader of the largest party, but in practice they always are since Parliament can throw out any Prime Minister they don't like and clearly the biggest party will like their leader best.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And just to clarify, the way to get a life peerage is to donate lots of money to the ruling party or otherwise kiss their collective arse.
The other way to get in its to become a high ranking member of the Church.
Re: (Score:2)
When the advertising hoardings say "Vote Labour" or "Vote Conservative" and plaster the statesmanlike face of their leader-du-jour all over the place, there can be little doubt we are being expected by the powers-that-be to vote for a Prime Minister, despite what we are technically doing.
Re:Awful (Score:4, Insightful)
UK is a monarchy. Nobody elected the Queen.
Technically true but if she actually held the power then I doubt we would be in this mess and when the politicians who do are far more right wing than your hereditary monarch you know you are in trouble.
Churchill on Democracy (Score:2)
That's why you idiots are being lead to believe democracy is bad.
It's well known that democracy is bad but Churchill explained it best: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".
Re: (Score:2)
So, just in theory, what would happen if the Queen invoked some ancient but technically never repealed power to put an end to the Brexit?
Actually from the discussion in the UK media it would be quite easy for her to do this without resorting to arcane and ancient laws. Apparently invoking article 50 requires use of the "royal prerogative". Effectively the queen invokes the article herself as head of state. However this is only done on the advice of the prime minister. Technically the queen could just say "no" and refuse to invoke it. There is also a legal question in the courts at the moment about whether invoking the article lies under the
Re: (Score:2)
The house of Lords only has power to delay legislation requiring it to be improved. In most cases over the last 40 years that I have seen they have done a good job of preventing populist elected MP's from introducing simplistic legislation that fucked some minority or other. An elected House of Lords would just pass the shit legislation on party lines. Sometimes I wonder if voters who comment on this issue are paid to make their bone idle shilling about the House of Lords by the likes of Murdoch who could j
Re: (Score:2)
I do not see the difference between the people. The only difference is that the Muslims cannot get the separation of state and religion that we spent the last 500 years fighting for in Christian countries. Though given the current state of politics in the USA that seems to be threatening to go into reverse there with creationism and various other cult favorites.
Turkey 1923 (Score:2)
Turkey 1923.
Your other point about going backwards makes sense though.
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet it hasn't unless you want to say Christianity in the USA came completely undone after Charles Manson.
Re: (Score:2)
Worrying about it being imposed near you is like worrying about sudden gravity reversal.
What we do have to worry about is the people nearby profiting from the fear campaign.
Re: Awful (Score:2)
No, I actually live in the UK and I've yet to see any beheadings. The caliphate doesn't seem to have stopped gays getting married or 24 hour selling of alcohol either. It's almost as if you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Re: Awful (Score:2)
Sharia is allowed under the same laws that have given the Beth Din courts authority for centuries, honour killings are incredibly rare and are prosecuted to the full extent of the law and one of my friends is a Muslim woman married to a white guy who's still very much alive. They even had a baby recently but still no trouble. They're more likely to get shit from white supremacist fuckwits like yourself. Face it dumbass you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I didn't miss the German rapes but we're
films only need to be rated if they're in theaters (Score:5, Insightful)
Films only need to be rated if they're in theaters and even then they're not rated by the film's producer but rather by the MPAA, which isn't a free service. Home videos, as an example, pretty much never receive MPAA ratings.
If you require websites get rated by an independent third party you make it a lot more expensive to launch a website. So much so that unless you're in it for the money it probably wouldn't be cost effective to actually do it. I mean, if they wanted to create a search engine that only shows sites that have been rated, that'd be one thing, but to expect the whole of the internet to be rated is naive
And what happens if the content of the site changes? Does every wikipedia editor need to pay $100 to have their addition of a semi-colon reviewed by this hypothetical MPAA-like agency?
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think the 'A' at the and of 'MPAA" would be a clue, but nooooooo....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Having ratings applied by a secret cadre hasn't made them all that meaningful either. "Rated PG due to scenes of minor peril." What the fuck does that mean? Is that really useful for information for deciding if you should watch "Ice Age" with your 6 year old? Is the mild peril in "Ice Age" slightly less mild or more perilous than the G-rated "The Lion King"?
PS: I can remember (barely) when movies didn't have ratings. Shocking, right? Oh, and when ratings were new, people understood they were guidelines that
Re: (Score:2)
Ratings Board: We were in the nick of time. You were in great peril.
Sir Galahad: I don't think I was.
Ratings Board: Yes, you were. You were in terrible peril.
Sir Galahad: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
Ratings Board: No, it's too perilous.
Sir Galahad: Look, it's my duty as a knight to sample as much peril as I can.
Re:films only need to be rated if they're in theat (Score:5, Funny)
I tried to submit my home videos to the MPAA for rating, but they just ignored me. Apparently, they didn't take seriously a three-hour documentary about a man who dresses up his penis like action figures.
Re: (Score:2)
CGI and green screen.
Re: (Score:3)
She seems to be very confused... she compares it to virus scanning, for example. So perhaps she thinks we can invent an AI to judge the site. Personally, if I invented such an AI is charge serious money for it, and use that to build a mansion to put my Nobel prize in, but still...
I don't think she even understands what she is proposing.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think she even understands what she is proposing.
Leadsom is proposing a Brinternexit.
Let's show some /. support! (Score:2)
Absolutely clueless (Score:2)
The medium is the message
we had this before (Score:2)
not surprisingly, it didnt work.
Don't forget books! And newspapers... And... (Score:5, Insightful)
If rating Web sites is a good idea, then why not rate books too? This is a long overdue initiative, which would put the UK right up at the top of the Fahrenheit 451 Censorship League. Of course there are some practical drawbacks, such as the unlikelihood that any government flunkey or private contractor would be willing to read the whole of any book. But it would be very amusing (not to say revealing) to see a list of books that Andrea Leadsom would consider dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that "Fahrenhiet 451" would be near the top of that list.
Think of the Children! (Score:3)
Seriously, I have an immediate visceral reaction to any politician that tries to play up the 'think of the children' angle, especially conjunction with technology. Such people inevitably have a poor relationship with technology.
She's OLD (Score:3)
Remember that she's over 50, so grew up before the Internet was endemic. As a result she doesn't have an instinctive understanding of how it works. She therefore parrots the phrases that she thinks make sense, whilst the kids who grow up with it merely giggle at their elders ignorance.
[I'm in my 50s myself, but as an IT professional, I can claim to be an internet colonist, even if not a resident]
Before you start another FAILED mission... (Score:2)
...how about you randomly police movie theatres to see how well that whole "rated-R" system is actually enforced.
...how about you randomly police music stores to see how well that whole "explicit lyrics" system is actually enforced.
...how about your randomly police people's homes and see how well that whole "mature" rating is actually enforced.
The nightly news these days is practically a form of visual terrorism when thrown in front of children, and there's no ratings or warning system in place to keep t
Re: (Score:3)
Those rating systems aren't meant to be enforced, they're just advisory. I can say from my experience growing up that at least some parents used them.
That said, this idea is terrible.
She's absolutely right, you know (Score:5, Insightful)
"There are two sound ways to ensure that children are not exposed to dangerous or disturbing content,"
Yep: mothers and fathers. Not, however, big brother.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the parents do not exist (e.g, dead), but the child has a bigger brother then? [grin]
Big difference (Score:2)
There is one problem with the proposal. The film ratings are entirely voluntary and done by the content producers, you can still buy unrated movies (typically lower quality but Netflix is full of them). There are various ratings for sites ranging from decided by church ladies to voluntary web rings. Google kind of has a filter that's fully automated but it's still possible to get around it. Censoring content never works, even regional filters are being circumvented both in and out of the U.K. (BBC IPlayer a
Re: (Score:2)
It is isn't about censoring, it is about having a choice what you want to view and what not.
Spam always finds way around, but spam filters still are able to filter most of it.
People should be able to filter web the same as their mailbox. Whatever the rating system, they can be different and I don't know how to invent the best.
Mixing preschool kid cartoons with adult content like Youtube does is evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, people want to restrict their preschool kids to adult porn when leaving them with computer to watch some cartoon or game. This concept may sound very strange, odd and unnatural to you, but it is so in real life.
Even adult persons do not expect porn ads when viewing e.g. respectable news site and would be offended by them. You may call it self censorship when choosing ads as porn sites would pay better.
It is government job to encourage and provide incentives for some kind of rating system. It will never
Lets start ringing all the bells (Score:2)
1 doomed from the get go (most ISPs will not slit their throats)
2 Dynamic content anyone??
3 way too easy to Misrate something
4 GoodThink anyone??
5 wanna start riots?? this would be a good way
One word: (Score:2)
Parental supervision.
I don't care except ... (Score:2)
... the word, "blocked," jumped out at me, so tl;dr, but, "NO!"
Some insight for the idiot... (Score:2)
Movies typically do not change much after creation
Movies are not hosted in countries outside of your legislative reach
Who does the rating? Who pays?
Parents should parent, not rely on a nanny government, which cannot ever correctly choose what is right for a child
Re: (Score:2)
You'll find the submission paperwork in the basement of your local courthouse. Remember to bring a flash light and to take heed to all cautionary signage.
We've already been down this road (Score:2)
Translation (Score:2)
"Wannabe Prime Minister Andrea Leadsom Thinks Websites Should Be Rated Like Films"
Translation:
"Wannabe Prime Minister Andrea Leadsom Is A Gormless Wanker"
To protect young minds ... (Score:2)
maybe they ought to block/censor religious web sites.
And that's not all (Score:2)
She thinks gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married thanks to her particular kind of Christianity, a brand which, however, apparently does not preclude a bunch of toffs from dressing up and tally-hoing around the countryside, hoping for a pack of dogs to rip a fox to shreds - because she wants to have a vote on fox hunting to give people a chance to bring it back.
On point one, her name is an anagram of "some dread anal."
And now she's a) suggested that being a parent makes her a better choice than her
Just kill web hosting... (Score:2)
A useless step like this will just cripple or kill the web hosting business in the UK.
What rating would the candidate give this one? (Score:2)
Tell you what, Ms. Leadsom. I'll name a website, and if you can rate all th
Browser Enabled Child Protections (Score:2)
I'm not a parent so I've never looked into this, but every time I hear someone like this woman ranting about ratings. This could be solved a lot differently if we added something to HTML specifications. A meta tag be it. A company who feels their website is safe for children could add the meta tag to their website that says it is for purposes of this conversation "GA", "PG", "R", "X". Mandate that any site that displays pornography rate their site. The browsers then have parental controls added that b
Re: (Score:2)
This was done a very long time ago, and went nowhere.
The ratings website would be named Rotten Ramen (Score:2)
It would assign a stars rating and a big red percentage of good reviews number to each rated site. Underneath would be a list of links to authoritative reviews in publications like the Greater Southeast Duluth Shopping Cart Advertiser, plus many counterparts in random foreign villages. In the spirit of adventure, about half the links clicked on would lead to comically snarky 404 pages.
Most websites with adult content are already rated (Score:3)
While there's no "standard rating system", pretty much any site that is not appropriate for kids have either on its rules or on the main page a warning that its not for minors.
Of course, this might be just a censorship move that both the old conservatives and new libs want, while the old libs and new conservatives dont.
What happens when porn sites start using SSL/TLS? (Score:2)
If this law passes, I can see it already:
- Porn sites decide to move to SSL/TLS.
- 16 year old "children" keep watching porn.
- Politicians "denounce" that people are circumventing the system, and Jesus is unhappy.
- Crypto gets the blame! Child molesters are using cryptography to expose our kids to porn!
- Crypto is evil! Let's ban crypto, or "control" it better.
Re: (Score:2)
A 'G' rated website would have no comments section. Obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
While your objections are obviously correct, I think you are flogging a dead horse. Andrea Leadsom's suggestion is so utterly brain-dead that, even in the world of British politics, it is a non-starter. As soon as Andrea got back to her Ministry (oh wait, I forgot she hasn't got one) Sir Humphrey would take her aside and explain the facts of life as gently as possible. Maybe a few G&Ts would help her to feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
He is about pushing his agendas and not allowing unmoderated comments on his outlets so it would not bother him. Breaking the rest of the internet would please him greatly as seen by some of his earlier suggestions.
Don't expect it to actually happen but keep in mind the people the Tories treat as idols.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing to stop non-British websites from being rated by a UK body, and blocked by British ISPs if necessary; they already block non-UK pirate sites for example. They could easily set criteria such as revenue or visitors per day, so sites with say more than 500 visitors per day, or sites with a certain amount of traffic per day would need to be rated, or whatever.
That's not to say the whole idea isn't incredibly dumb and impractical, but there's no technical barrier to those parts, other than scale.
Re:I'm not a company (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm.... this horse has already bolted.
The Internet is built on porn. Nothing she can possibly do will change that.
"There are two sound ways to ensure that children are not exposed to dangerous or disturbing content," she argued....
I think there might actually be a third option: Take responsibility, be a parent.
Re: (Score:3)
I have three grown children who grew up in an internet connected house. I never used a filtering system of any kind. Do you know how much of a problem I had with them accessing content they shouldn't have? None. Zero. I suppose parents actually have it a little harder now that 9 year olds have smartphones, but not much.
(Ok, there was that one time when my son was about 10 and and found a naked she-hulk drawing while searching for superhero pictures. We all thought it was pretty funny, but if you want to cou
Re:I'm not a company (Score:5, Informative)
She is a Christian and feels she has to force her dubious morality and beliefs on everyone else. She opposed same sex marriage on the grounds that Christians "own" it and everyone else can have a civil partnership.
Naturally, she feels shame over internet porn and wants to make sure other people feel it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so of course we all have to endure pants-on-head stupid nonsense like this.
Is that British pants or American pants?
Re: (Score:2)
I think there might actually be a third option: Take responsibility, be a parent.
... leading to some rather unrealistic expectations and standards. It's not exactly a documentary...
As opposed to the realistic expectations set by movies, television commercials, and other mass media? Teach your children to use their brains. The rest will take care of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
... Teach your children to use their brains. ...
Are you kidding me?!?!?!?
Actually having the population use their brains would totally undermine politics as we know it. Do you have any idea how much chaos would happen if people actually started thinking critically instead of reacting emotionally? What would our demagogues^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h statesmen do for a living?
Re: (Score:2)
I think there might actually be a third option: Take responsibility, be a parent.
Sure, whatever. Just realize that your kid will have friends and the chance of all their parents being tech-savvy enough to block porn is slim to none.
Sheesh. The derp is strong in this one.
Who said anything about blocking anything or trying to hide anything?
"Being a parent" means preparing your children for the world. The real world. The one real people live in.
If that world is full of porn then let them see it (but also tell them it's mostly about as realistic as any other fantasy movie).
Re: (Score:2)
but there's no technical barrier to those parts, other than scale
Ask the Chinese about their experiences in suppressing "subversive" content. Joe-Ping Random-Lee out on the street will probably be able to give you 5 different types of VPNs, proxies, or other ways to circumvent the Great Firewall.
Yet another example of the idiots in The U.K. trying to force their ridiculous standards on everyone. It's up to parents, not politicians. I'm glad they're taking their stupid shit out of the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance those owned by someone like Rupert Murdoch who has a LOT of influence with the Tory party.
It's a stupid idea that would break the internet if actually implemented but Rupert Murdoch has pushed a few of those in the past. He likes government mandated barriers of entry, it cuts down on competition from those who are not so close to government.
Re:I'm not a company (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably she understands quite well how it works. After all, if every bit of content has to be 'rated' before publication (same as with movies), and assuming there will be a large, slow, and expensive burocracy to perform this rating (with all sorts of forms to be filled in, no doubt), it will put a certain end to anyone voicing his opinion outside of large, rich organisations. And that, I suspect, is not an accident but very much the whole point of the exercise.
Poor Brits. After succesfully escaping the totalitarian clutches of the EU, they get this kind of asshole as a potential future leader...
Re:I'm not a company (Score:4, Insightful)
Poor Brits. After succesfully escaping the totalitarian clutches of the EU, they get this kind of asshole as a potential future leader...
Any one with any sense knew the EU were the ones holding back this tory authoritarian nightmare.
Re: (Score:3)
Seconded, also the French will not accept TTIP and will block the EU from adopting it. The Tories are crawling over each other to be first to join it with no conditions asked so long as they get good directorships after graduating from being MPs.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously there are not enough people with any sense. The average person is a moron more often that not.
Re: (Score:2)
The *only* reason website ratings and "think of the children" narratives are being mentioned now is simply to appeal to the people who may select her. And that's all.
It's entirely self-serving.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I know: wannabe president Clinton wanted to build a fence, until her political handlers told her that it would play better with some of her voters to change her story.
Re: She's not going to win (Score:2)
Nit pick: The UK (and the republic of Ireland) isn't part of Schengen, unless you mean the next PM is so bad at negotiating with the EU that she joins Schengen by accident, which would be fucking hilarious!
Other than that, I think you're spot on. We'll leave the EU and fuck our economy up (even further) while we negotiate to get back to the position we were in.