Get the PM to call an election then. Why don't you petition him to do that, if that's what you want?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Printable View
Get the PM to call an election then. Why don't you petition him to do that, if that's what you want?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Do you not agree the leader of the opposition should have agreed to the election when called?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Yes or no.
~:smoking:
No. There's been an election in 2017. The will of the people as asked in 2017 has resulted in the present Parliament. The constitution says another election is not due until 2022. If you're questioning whether the will of the people is still the same, shouldn't you be pushing for the 2016 question to be asked again?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Will of the people doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, especially when you campaign on a deal with the European Union.
Take the example of Romania - in 2016, the ruling party was elected and had a comfortable majority to pass their agenda. An agenda of economic boom, development and a better deal with the EU. (sounds familiar?) Unfortunately, they diverted to serious corruption scandals and legalising corruption essentially so naturally, the people protested heavily, we sent their party president to jail, their popularity has cratered and they're on track to have a stinging defeat in Presidential elections next year.
When you lie to the people to get elected, consequences will happen.
Hence why they wont call an early election despite the ruling party having its majority broken; they know the current remainer majority parliament wont be there after the election and anything they do now with it will be undone by the next parliament.
I dont think there's a plan behind thier current actions, they're reduced to stalling brext at any cost in the desperate hope that something, anything will change in their favour before 2022 when the election law they are relying on to maintain the dealock runs out.
The solution is simple. If you want to pass a Law, form a proposal that will pass through Parliament. That's the basic principle of lawmaking in any country that has a Parliament, Congress or other lawmaking body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
There's an assumption in the UK, particular among the right, and more prevalent the further right you go, that will of the people results in an authority to do whatever you like without further checks and balances. As you have the Great Man theory of history, the far right also has the Great Man theory of politics, where one man, unconstrained by customs and law, shapes the world as they see fit, backed once and for all by the monolithic authority that is the Will of the People.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Such as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot? Cromwell, Robespierre?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Or has it nothing to do with Right / Left and it is Authoritarian regimes?
But no - just the Right.
~:smoking:
Very good, and when the representatives of the people wont pass or overturn the laws the voters want, despite promising to do so when running for election, the people replace them with someone else who will next election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
This process is exactly why the majority of represetatives in parliament want to put election off as long as possible, now that their majority relies on those who have openly refused to do what they promised.
I can add Corbyn to that list. But, unlike those who see themselves as centre right, there is no evidence of anything of that sort in the centre left. I value rule of law, lawmaking by Parliament, and the executive acting within bounds that I've been accustomed to all my life. Do you support lawmaking as Parliament's prerogative?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I totally agree. Like I've said before, If a government implementing Leave will keep the promises made by Leave, I'd support Brexit myself. Do you think that a government implementing Brexit should keep the promises made by the Leave campaigns?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Who are these centre right who are supporting this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And how is the current absence of centre left with this view evidence they could not occur?
Parliament makes laws - although I know there are "King Henry 8 powers" but I am unclear what they are.
~:smoking:
If you support Parliament as the lawmaking body, shouldn't you be pushing the government to make a proposal that will pass Parliament and enact your satisfactory Brexit? I know that IA has declared that the next referendum should be held in 40 years time, so presumably he and others like him won't like votes before their time. So if you want Brexit to be enacted, the government will have to work with the present Parliament. The constitution clearly states that the next one is due in 2022, so it's not the indefinite future.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
No you are confused. This logic is meaningless: Brexit is leaving. It requires no legislation as was set out by EU law. The statement has been given over 2 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Parliament makes laws.
~:smoking:
Yes, pity that now finally we have a leave govenment after three years of a remain one; this parliament is doing everything to prevent it even trying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Johnson, a confirmed Leaver, is PM. Should we expect him to keep his promise that he famously campaigned in front of? All he has to do is present a satisfactory proposal in front of Parliament, and it will be passed. When is he going to put this proposal before them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
So what's all the bother about this Parliament obstructing Brexit? Why are you calling for a new Parliament, if this one does not affect matters?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Why would Corbyn be on the list that includes dictators? There's a huge difference between totalitarianism and social democracy / labour movement.
They are trying to pass laws to delay, and nothing to actually provide anything that could be called a solution. A massive game of hot potato / chicken where they are all positioning themselves to blame the others - those that aren't petrified that they might be deselected for doing what they want not for what their electorate want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
He's no social democrat. He's a full on Marxist.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
If he gets into Number 10 as a caretaker government leader you'll need a crow bar to get him out.
I think that is one of those words that greyblades says "has become meaningless by incessant misuse".Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Well the fact is he's an old style commie, and like all socialists regimes whether international of national it ends up the same, piles of bodies, prison camps and mass starvation. How anyone could even consider socialism is a good thing with regards it's history is astounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Main reason there isnt a deal right now I hear is that parliament's current composition joined with the "no no-deal" bill has kicked the stool out from under Boris' negociating position and the EU hasnt assented to anything better than the chequers deal.
As for why boris hasnt decided to present a good deal to parliament before taking it to the EU; not sure, I assume something about not wanting to use up political capital on votes that probably would be rendered moot by the EU.
This conundrum explains precisely why negotiating with foriegn powers has always been a prerogative of the executive, as it was understood as a matter of plain sense that negotiating by committee doesn't bring goox results.
Labour socialism has done pretty good for the UK over the years. Have you read Labour's current manifesto? What do you dislike in it?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
As for Brexit, the best option for a negotiated withdrawal seems to be to throw out all the Conservative parameters and just negotiate a new deal that cleaves closer to the EU. What's hampered May have been the Hard Brexiters among her party, not the Remainers. Maintain a full customs union.
Far be it from me to speak for Labour, but at this point it seems to me their whole 2019 orientation in campaigning should have been to make explicit commitments while offering something to both sides (while marginalizing the overwhelmingly Tory hard Brexit minority):
We are a Remain party and prefer Remain. To that end we back a second referendum, binding, to clarify the public opinion on critical points. HOWEVER, if the people do return a Leave result here is our bespoke vision for the type of Brexit we ought to have...
At least they seem to have been doing something productive...
Quote:
As Brexit looms, a surge of community organizing from within is bridging political divides and refocusing the British Labour Party.
Interesting select view of History you have. British invented the concentration camp during the Boer war. There is also the genocide of Native Americans and the Japanese internment camps, Chinese exclusion rights, slavery, etc. Looks like we are screwed by being a democracy!Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
In short, if you cherry pick bad examples, then you can make anything look bad.
If you look up the principles of Socialism, none of them are 'stick people in prison camps'. What happened in reality is a certain brand of authoritianism capitalised on the ideology to expliot masses, mostly in countries which are originally not mature enough to embrace it. This resulted in Totalitarian 'communist' governments.
However, if you look at the track record of Social Democracy (socialist regime!), it is doing very well, in places like Scandinavia.
One thing Corbyn does have is a cult of personality, the incessent droning of "Corbyn, Corbyn, Jeremy Corbyn" is cringe worthy.
Anti-Brexit forces have, I think, waged a successful campaign to reverse the referendum. A 'hard' Brexit will be delayed and deferred (and no 'deal' enacted) until sweeping electoral change in parliament allows parliament to rescind the withdrawal or another plebiscite repudiates the first with a 51.5% to 48.5% reversal.
I am not sure what price (direct or indirect) the EU will extract after the retraction.
No price could be directly extracted since the UK could cancel at any point. That is the Law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The EU would gain that the most independant country in Europe was brought to heel. I doubt anyone else would dare even bother trying.
I have no idea what the next election would bring. I hope Labour implode and the Lib Dems become the opposition.
Every other plebiscite the EU has had they lost the first time and after judicious massaging they won the second. We can't have the populace blocking what their masters want.
~:smoking:
Ahh the old "That wasn't real socialism" meme. Pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Can you show me where in Europe I can find these, because there are plenty of governments that follow socialist policies and do well enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
You can probably find more issues with roots in capitalism, to be honest.
You could at least try to refute his argument. I know that critical thinking and research are for those Uni-going twits, but you could at least try doing something other than screaming "fake news" when someone proves you wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
As a progressive you surely believe human society moves forwards - so surely those 18th-19th century examples are less pertinent than the numerous 20th Century Socialist ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Are only progressives charged with wanting to see these times behind us? Or are we fairly unanimous in not wanting these times to return? For most of my life I've believed the latter, but the current lot seem to want to go back to the 1930s on the Axis side, while their popularity goes up with each stunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Also, presumably you mean 20th century. 10th century socialism only really existed in those who really believed in following Jesus's lifestyle.
I made the correction - thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
My point to Beskar was two-fold.
1. Socialism claims to be progressive yet in recent memory it has impeded progress more than helped and it recent memory it has been the worst culprit.
2. Many conservatives tend to see history as cyclical rather than progressive, which is to say humanity has not "progressed" so much as we have moved through phases on civilisation and barbarism.
At the moment the West is doing badly and it's not inconceivable our society will collapse - you could make the argument that British society already largely has - even pre-Brexit.
Scandinavia doesn't look that way. Social Democracies (which are socialist) have a very good track record. Labour party is a Social Democratic party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
What people on the right tend to do is point to Communist China and the USSR, and similar nations. Yet those were Totalitarian regimes and they pretty much exist today, even if Russia rebranded from "left" to the "right". There are also many examples of right-wing governments such as Franco and various other tinpot dictators. Problem is, these are growing, with Brazil, Russia, Hungary, USA (Trump), etc the global establishment is creating the era of the "Strongmen".
Social Democrats are not Socialist. They do not support the state controlling the means of production. Rather they are content to leave the means of production in private hands and tax it heavily to fund social programs for the citizens. Socialism is a stage progressing towards a communist utopia. A lot of Yanks get the two mixed up as you apparently do.
The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics is a bit of a clue.
Might be better if this theme was left here or started in another thread lest we derail this one.
They're what I'd like Britain to be more like. Instead, your lot is pushing Britain towards tyranny.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
You want the UK to be more like the USSR? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I agree. I don't think we actually disagree on the topic, I think conflicting use of terminology is the error here.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Social democratic Europe. You knew that, but you persist in asking anyway. I'll return the favour and ask you a question. What do you make of the complaints from MPs regarding death threats?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
You are trying to argue with someone presenting arguments in bad faith. He's not interested in anything other than "showing it to the libtards". When you understand this, you can augment your approach appropriately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I know it very well. I've described the Anglo-American (location) far right (orientation) Bannonite (central figure of) politics, that takes the form of Brexit in the UK and Trump in the US. People who support Brexit in the UK will commonly support Trump in the US. And the methodology is the same. The red light should light up whenever someone argues for either of those, so that common debating tricks are recognised and given no quarter. Because, as you say, their arguments are given in bad faith. I've pleaded elsewhere for a reasonably common basis from which a political discussion can be had, independent of political orientation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Do you mean the ones that are colluding with foreign powers to stop Brexit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Do you think it is justified then, to judge by your question?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
It's hilarious, because the rest of Europe is actually pretty happy to get rid of you, and would more readily do so if not for Russian aggression. So yes, collusion. Somewhat in the same way one would be trying to lead a drunk friend home, but is strongly considering leaving him there for being a jerk most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
It's even more ridiculous than your sketch, farcical though it already is. IA is implying that said death threats are justified if they're aimed at traitors, defined as those who collaborate with foreign powers. Which then begs the question of who is collaborating with foreign powers. When you look into that, in whatever depth, IA's ire at those who collude with foreign powers gets ever more hilarious and hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
The whole #JoSwinsonIsATory just adds fuel to the fire to the dislike I have of Corbyn's Momentum sponsored cult of personality.
I mean...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Could easily be flipped to:
"Stop No Deal Brexit", "Let No Deal Happen Because We Refuse to let anyone but Corbyn be Prime Minister"
They've been doing the same to john mcternan for years now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Smearing Swinson with Tory support over the issue of Brexit. Except that Swinson never voted for the referendum (she was outside Parliament at the time), and Corbyn, not Swinson, voted for article 50 to be triggered. And of course Corbyn was the first person to call for article 50 to be invoked, beating Farage, Johnson and all the others to the mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corbynite website
I dislike Corbyn only marginally less than I dislike Brexit.
I don't really think foreign powers are colluding to stop Brexit - on the contrary, most of the continent would like the UK gone and the whole leave/not leaving antics.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Theresa May's first year in power was marked by more or less hope this would be an orderly and elegant goodbye but it turned extremely sour and now it's turning into serious bickering even inside the EU.
The impression I get is that pretty much all of the member states are fed up with the process, which makes the EU itself's seemingly endless patience for the remainer's delaying tactics all the more baffling.
Not to mention the aggravating antics of a certain brexit coordinator.
The equation is simple - they're fed up and want the UK gone, but if possible to stop Brexit, they will.
Why? Because the economic impact will be immense for every single EU country and the political capital lost on this will be massive as well. Hence why EU is more than willing to hope till the end for no Brexit.
There are some sections of the EU, notably Germany, that are still Anglophilic, and recognise the existence of a significant proportion of people who want to remain in the EU. Just because you enjoy the idiocy of the Brexit leaders doesn't mean they represent all of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Which simultaneously pleases and horrifies me.
They could have hashed a deal, minimized the economic impact and gotten the british out of thier hair (as I understand it the ever-closer-union guys never liked our meddling) while retaining good relations a year ago. Hell they could have done it 3 years ago if they were so inclined, instead they've all but ensured that this will be a rocky exit.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
And thanks to the open endorsement of the remainer side by fools like verhofstadt, I dare say they have earned the EU the emnity of over half our country, for playing enabler to our more bastard politicians as they enacted the most painful self destruction of a political paradigm we've seen in 150 years.
Its so damn pointless.
Edit: for the record "over half or country" is hyperbole, I dont need to be told that isnt going to be true.
It's simple. All Leave needs to do to get the support even of Remainers like myself is to set out plans for keeping their promises. For instance, how do they propose to increase the NHS budget by 350 million per week. That particular promise doesn't need cooperation from outside parties like their other promises, like the easiest and bestest trade deals in the world with countries gagging to sign them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
BTW, one of the principle reasons for Brexit, free movement of labour, is part of the Single Market. Which was a British idea, driven by Britain. Another, the expansion into eastern Europe, was also a British idea, driven by Britain. Two of the biggest arguments used by Leavers were British ideas.
No death treats are unacceptable. A public beating is more like it. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If they have colluded at least malfeasance in public office should be put to them.
EDITDon't put words in my mouth.Quote:
IA is implying that said death threats are justified
You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with money. It's about voting out people who make our laws. It says a lot about remoaners that they bang on about money all the time. It shows their true character.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Yeah, all of those remoaners who are complaining on and on about "decreased employment prospects" or "food prices increasing". Little things like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...ects_of_Brexit
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47401160
Who's the traitor, IA? Who's is making their country a worse place to live it? Who's really pulling the strings?
Go on.
Make up a conspiracy theory so i can laugh at it.
Ah. So not selling out is being a traitor?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
~:smoking:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49909309
Government proposes keeping Northern Ireland basically within the EU Single Market etc. for four years with an option to review every four years - descied by the NI Assembly and not Westminster.
So, basically, the people of Northern Ireland or their elected representatives get to decide.
Now, watch the EU shout it down - even after one tiny Belgian region held up the EU-Canada trade deal.
I can think of at least two Leavers who have called on the EU to intervene in this affair. Would you want to charge them with malfeasance in public office too?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
And you don't get it. I'm holding the winners to the promises they made. You won. So you keep your promises. How hard is it to understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Exactly when did I or IA make those claims? Or are you saying that no one would have voted leave unless these claims had been made? Regardless of how many times you are told this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Nor I.
Does it count for anything that the bloke making these promises currently leads the UK government?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I dont remember much in the way of promises from leave during the referendum, I remember a lot of predictions of outcomes, prospects of what would be made possible and proposals of what we should do after though.
"We'll be free to make trade deals as we wish, lets get back to dealing wigh the anglosphere and the commonwealth"
"We'll be free to choose how many people and who are allowed to immigrate, lets reducw it to a sane amount and favour our cousins in the former colonies"
And yes: "We'll have this much money each year we no longer send to the EU, lets put it in the NHS"
The only people I saw to mistake proposals for promises were remainers, every brexiteer I knew understood that what was done with the new situation this vote would bring would hinge on elections not this referenda.
Even though he was not the head at the time of the Referendum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
How is that relevant? If he was one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, which he was, then shouldn't he be required to keep his promises once he's in a position to do so, which he is? Are you going to argue that Johnson becoming PM has nothing to do with Brexit?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/pol..._630/image.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Go on. Show us your plans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris Johnson, PM of the UK
My view, and the view of many others, was not determined by who was in the Leave campaign. All I expect of the Government is to leave. You are trying to conflate the two issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Exactly who should be responsible for the reality of leaving the EU then? Or is it some kind of existential fuzzy logic, where pinning down responsibility is missing the point because we should just wibble umbrella marshmallows?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Apparently holding one of the leaders of Leave to his promises now that he is in power is unreasonable. Despite him reiterating said promise when he was PM.
If that is the comfy blanket that makes you better then so be it. But for many - if not most - who actually voted to leave they wanted to leave and did not fantasise that there would be vast amount of money flowing in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Half of UK still believes £350m message plastered on side of Vote Leave's bus (as of October 2018)Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Quote:
A new study has found that a majority of voters (42%) believed the “we send the EU £350m a week - let’s fund our NHS instead” message to still be true. Just 36% believed it to be false, while 22% were unsure.
...
Polling - carried out by Ipsos MORI - found that Conservative voters and pro-Brexit voters were the most susceptible to the £350m line. It found that 54% of Tory voters and 61% of Leave voters believed the claim compared with 33% of Labour voters and 22% of Lib Dem voters - and 23% of Remain voters.
Vote Leave’s Dominic Cummings said after the Brexit vote he believed that Leave would not have won the EU referendum without the NHS claims.
He said: “It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic”.
While I remain astonished at the comfort level of - certain groups - at being constantly lied to, 42% is neither half nor a majority. Watch out for malicious framing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Or, actually, fuck it, let's go for a maximalist socialist agenda, gratuitously deceive the public about its contents and implementation, and shamelessly declare lies to be truth and vice versa when we're proven wrong. What can go awry?
When the margin was 52-48, 42% still believing a lie, 2 years on, is significant. Especially when the director of the Leave campaign reckons it was the most effective message in the campaign, and one which the Leave campaign would not have won without.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Incidentally, for those unfamiliar with the details of Britain's current affairs, Boris Johnson is our current PM, while Dominic Cummings is his chief of staff, and Brexit is their stated raison d'etre.
noble attempt to actually talk about the issue du jour. futile possibly, but noble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
seems like a pretty good basis to negotiate from:
NI free from flanking policies and services (like GB), which is good.
GB free from goods regs, which i'm not bothered about.
GB free from CU - which i'm only bothered about to escape common commercial policy competence (not goods tarifs per-se).
NI free from CU - which feels a bit pointless given that they'll be in dynamic alignment with eu goods regs.
GB free from the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ (which is great)
NI free... possibily from direct jurisidiction of the ECJ (but great that it is not locked forever as per backstop).
kinda feels like the NI customs unions position is there to be traded away (even if only tarifs - leaving ukgbni services deals)
also feels like the default to diverge is there to be traded away into a default to remain in eu goods regime (which i can live with - their choice).
just the usual mountain of skulls. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I concur with your analysis, it seems to me this position is primed to be moved so that NI ends up in a Customs Union unless or until the NI Assembly votes otherwise. At that point the UK's position is the same as the Backstop, except that the NI Assembly votes on it every four years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I think I suggested basically this a year ago - execpt it was Westminster voting every five years - although that assumed an all-UK alignment.
I doubt that will be allowed though - despite it being a good compromise position.
Sounds like your boy Boris is the one selling out to those Forex neckbeards.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Again, it would be interesting to see what would happen to the UK if Farage and friends got it their way. The problem is that real people are going to be affected in a negative way.
I asked for this too, but got a laughing smiley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It's kind of the same mindset when you had those tiki nazis running around a couple of years back, where everyone shared their views, but didn't see themselves as nazis. They didn't tell them to wave around nazi flags. They didn't tell them to run over someone with a car.
They didn't tell anyone to shoot remain politicians.
They aren't doing anything, but by golly they support the results, of which there aren't any because the opposite side is keeping those things from them.