Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
|
Errr ... you’re usually a little more measured than this. Is the constitutional chaos getting to you?
There are a couple of problems here. The first is, how do we say people have met the “alleged requirements” if they can’t provide the evidence? What evidence are you leaning on in order to judge this case?
Second, if she has met the requirements but her application has failed because of an excessively rigid application of the rules, how does that amount to politicians lying? Are you (or Reuters) suggesting a systematic programme of denying settled status to people who ought to qualify, in order to keep the numbers down?
Third, are we seriously still pretending we don’t understand the difference between a referendum campaign, in which participants suggest what opportunities their preferred outcome might present, and an electoral campaign in which the winners gain power and may reasonably be expected to make good on their promises?