Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

Remain voters aren't desperate for answers. I am quite relaxed about it, looking forward to seeing how the Brexiteers work it out.
I notice that Boris has said today that Turkey should be allowed to join the EU and have capital punishment, which is completely against EU law.
The man doesn't have a clue.

I don't think anyone realised how complicated it would be, either. But a lot of people had made their minds up long before all the campaigning which way they were going to vote.

Why would a determined Leaver vote to Remain just because it might be a bit messy to sort out the leaving process?

I know Remain voters are desperate for answers, but everyone's going to have to wait.

Most political things are.

I talked to hardly anyone about it and I always thought it would be complicated.

Spoke to hundreds of ordinary people in the run up to the referendum. I don't think many (any?) of them had any idea how complicated it would be to leave. Certainly nobody said "I think we should stay in because it would be very complicated to get out" The level of comprehension about what was involved and what was at stake was very low indeed. Most people seemed to think it was something very simple that could be accomplished quickly.
Favourite quote "I'm going to leave to keep out the illegal immigrants"
Hmmm.

Was anyone really expecting it not to be exceptionally difficult? I've had the impression since it was announced that the referendum would go ahead that most people think our withdrawal from the EU will be very difficult as well as causing various difficulties.

The Remain campaign certainly gave that impression and even Leave up to a point, the difference being that Leavers thought the difficulties were "worth it".

They can't feel particularly confident about the court case

Rumour has it that the bill is just a few lines long as that would make it more difficult for anyone to try to amend it. Thus making it easier to push through parliament.

I see that a bill has been drawn up relating to A50 to present to parliament should they lose the court case.

I do think that they need to be less cowardly in admitting that they are finding it exceptionally difficult. No one would think any the worse of them, indeed it would help towards everyone pulling together in deciding what we want post Brexit uk to look like.

I suppose it will be a diversion from the road to Shangri-La.

Leaked report from consultant (front page, Times, today) implies they don't have a clue. But that lots of civil servants and consultants are beavering away on different bits. And that it is a great job creation scheme for civil service jobs (in London no doubt)
Trouble is PM is in a cleft stick. Damned economically if we leave the single market. Which will upset most of the business people who donate to her party as well as causing major economic problems. And damned in the ballot box if she lets down all the normally-tory voters who want to stop free movement. She can't have it both ways. The EU won't let her. But lets have lots of teams working expensively on all the options while she hopes for a road to Damascus moment.

For those who want to pick me up on defending our prime minister's decisiob not to give away details of her negotiating strategy, please note the expression "broad brush" above. I think she or other government ministers will give us a broad brush outline when they have one.

Same with EU negotiations .. the electorate need to have at least some broad brush info: on what a government is aiming for..what they are prepared to negotiate on what they are not etc.

I agree, pen, but I don't think the government knows yet. There have been a few stated aims. I think there will be more in due course. You have to remember that nobody expected the EU referendum vote to go the way it did so of course the government was not prepared. They are preparing their case as we speak.

There will always be some stories that are not in the National interest tp print, especially if it will cause panic or unrest.

I would say that our press is as free as it gets!

I fully understand that state security needs protecting and cannot be discussed openly but facts and figures on the impact of government policies should not be 'hidden'! Otherwise how can the electorate make properly informed decisions when it comes to voting!

Same with EU negotiations .. the electorate need to have at least some broad brush info: on what a government is aiming for..what they are prepared to negotiate on what they are not etc.

We've never had a free press in the sense that every story they get hold of is printed. Government has always had the final say.

Did you read durhamjen's link? If not, to summarise:

The DWP has been forced to release secret documents illustrating how they control and manipulate the media:

The DWP monitors and analyses both mainstream and social media to reduce and manage negative coverage.

The reports show that on a nearly monthly basis from March 2014 to September 2015 the DWP “spiked” (persuaded journalists not to run) a total of 385 stories.

In August 2015 the DWP “proactively briefed” the media about long-awaited statistics which showed the amount of ESA claimants who had died after being found fit for work, and successfully spiked coverage in a range of news outlets.

The reports confirm that the DWP considers the right-wing press to be supportive of them, and highlights cases where they have used them to “set the record straight” and further government policy.

Without actually having a process whereby the government blatantly censors press stories, it appears that there is a more informal mechanism used to prevent stories from being aired. This principally seems to be the co-operation of "the right wing press" - and the majority of our papers and their proprietors are right wing - in ignoring or manipulating stories that reflect negatively upon the government's policies.

How then can we say we have a "free" press? It may be freer than in some countries but why must we always excuse our own position by pointing to somewhere else where the situation is even worse?

Many other countries in the world envy us here in the West, having a press that can print what it wants to.
Nobody has to swallow news stories hook line and sinker.
but far better to have even those stories printed than being gagged by the dead hand of the State.

The free press IS still the free press Eloethan no matter which newspaper is affiliated with what political Party, it means they can print their views.

So what's new? It has always been so , the world hasn't change since the coming of Corbyn , I find it difficult to believe long time Labour Party members are so shocked by this.

Oh they probably do in the hopes someone they disagree with will say something they can pick on.

The man that Corbyn was with was a 92 year old that Corbyn took along to the cenotaph. They were in a hurry because Corbyn had been on the Andrew Marr show.
Obviously whoever did that article doesn't watch Andrew Marr, or he would have known.
On the other hand, why expect Mail and Sun political writers to watch Andrew Marr?

The trouble is, Jess, that people don't wonder why people get pissed off. They're too busy defending their views and don't care about anybody else. The truth doesn't matter any more, doncha know? It's been consigned to history along with 'experts'.

rosesarered We haven't got a free press. The vast majority of newspapers in this country are owned by right wing multi-millionaires (several of whom live overseas). At general elections, these papers invariably advise their readers to vote Conservative.

I agree wholeheartedly with JessM that the Corbyn incident amply demonstrates why the Mail often deserves its rabble rousing reputation.