Jump to content

British Politics


Gracii Guns

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The United Kingdom said they didn't want to remain in the EU. Three years later and we are still in the European Union. And pertaining to current opinion - you are a big admirer of opinion polling,

 

I don't understand the poll. In the Remain there is a 23% Leave because of Corbyn? And in the Leave there is a 10% Remain also because of Corbyn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dazey said:

What about the poor fuckers like me who weren't mislead and knew this was all a colossal clusterfuck from day one?  

I feel even more for you. 

I even feel for Diesel. Living in abandoned fishing villages, full of bitterness, willing to risk other industries in a desperate effort to get back on a union for something he believes they did to his ancestors.

In the words of Trump: SAD! 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But Parliament isn't stopping a Brexit (and hence being in conflict with the outcome of the referendum 3 years ago), they are trying to stop a hard Brexit, which it is unlikely the majority of the populous wants. So you are wrong in saying that the Parliament refuses to implement the Democratic outcome of the referendum, they are just trying to do it in a not mind-blowingly stupid way. 

I should remind you that this Parliament voted down various soft-Brexit solutions (customs union, common market, etc). They also voted against holding a second referendum. They even voted against cancelling Brexit entirely and staying within the EU!!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/how-did-your-mp-vote-in-the-indicative-votes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If the referendum result was the reverse, 52% for remain, I would believe the British public to have made the wrong decision, and freely discuss the reasons why I believe they have made a mistake, but I would not ask for the referendum to be re-run, nor question its legality. My opinion would have been on the losing side. Such is democracy. 

After three years passing with a likely shift in opinion, you'd be stupid not to consider whether a second referendum wouldn't be required to maintain the Democratic integrity of the decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If the referendum result was the reverse, 52% for remain, I would believe the British public to have made the wrong decision, and freely discuss the reasons why I believe they have made a mistake, but I would not ask for the referendum to be re-run, nor question its legality. My opinion would have been on the losing side. Such is democracy. 

The point in that case would be that in order to make such a significant change to the status quo there should be the requirement for more than a simple majority. In that case 52% would have been more than enough to not effect the change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoulMonster said:

After three years passing with a likely shift in opinion, you'd be stupid not to consider whether a second referendum wouldn't be required to maintain the Democratic integrity of the decision. 

No. The referendum was ''once in a lifetime/generation''. How could I? I'm not a toddler throwing his toys out the pram like remainers!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I should remind you that this Parliament voted down various soft-Brexit solutions (customs union, common market, etc). 

Well, since the referendum alternatives were somewhat lacking in detail, you can't blame the parliament for rejecting solutions that they consider bad for the country, while waiting for an acceptable Brexit deal. I would even say it is their job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

The point in that case would be that in order to make such a significant change to the status quo there should be the requirement for more than a simple majority. In that case 52% would have been more than enough to not effect the change.

You are altering the goalposts, altering the rules of the referendum after the result, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, since the referendum alternatives were somewhat lacking in detail, you can't blame the parliament for rejecting solutions that they consider bad for the country, while waiting for an acceptable Brexit deal. I would even say it is their job. 

What would be an ''acceptable Brexit deal''? There is NOTHING left!! Every conceivable outcome of Brexit has been thrown out by this ridiculous Parliament.

(soft to hard)

- revoke Article 50: nope

- second referendum: nope

- various soft-Brexit solutions, customs union, Norway, Norway Plus: nope

- Canada free trade deal: nope (this would be my preference).

- no deal: nope.

PS (forgot)

Oh yes, the most obvious one of all: the Withdrawal Bill. Thrice!!!

 

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The Brexit is a one-time event, not the gauging of the people's will :lol:

It rather is though as it was instigated by a referendum. 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It rather is though as it was instigated by a referendum. 

Firstly, politicians cannot just decide that the people get one and only one chance to voice their opinion on a subject. Politicians cannot make such restrictions on the Democratic rights of a people. Only people can reduce their own power. 

Secondly, this is especially true if it is only some politicians trying to limit the Democratic rights of people. A Tory can't just stand up and declare that there will be only one democratic election regarding a subject. The entire collegium of politicians don't hold that power, much less some of them.

Thirdly, the once and for all argument obviously was directed at the outcome of the referendum, not the referendum itself. Brexit is a once in a lifetime thing. But deciding on whether to Brex doesn't have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Firstly, politicians cannot just decide that the people get one and only one chance to voice their opinion on a subject. Politicians cannot make such restrictions on the Democratic rights of a people. Only people can reduce their own power. 

Secondly, this is especially true if it is only some politicians trying to limit the Democratic rights of people. A Tory can't just stand up and declare that there will be only one democratic election regarding a subject. The entire collegium of politicians don't hold that power, much less some of them.

Thirdly, the once and for all argument obviously was directed at the outcome of the referendum, not the referendum itself. Brexit is a once in a lifetime thing. But deciding on whether to Brex doesn't have to.

Oh dear. You really hate democracy, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and now add onto that list

- a general election.

Literally every conceivable outcome of Brexit has been vetoed by this (2017) Parliament, the worst Parliament in our entire history. We cannot even vote them out now! They have removed that from us (or the fixed-term parliament act has). All you have now is constitutional deadlock. I suppose Johnson may as well tend his resignation and request a Corbyn premiership. Soviet Socialist Republics of Britain (he won't want ''Great'' in there) beckon...

Ironically an arch-Eurosceptic also!  

4 minutes ago, Padme said:

So what? The UK didn't vote Leave, only England and Wales. You can't claim the whole UK voted Leave

The referendum was for the United Kingdom in toto, not itemized according to home nations (however such a referendum would achieve an result I will not comment on...). 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

But Parliament isn't stopping a Brexit (and hence being in conflict with the outcome of the referendum 3 years ago), they are trying to stop a hard Brexit, which it is unlikely the majority of the populous wants. So you are wrong in saying that the Parliament refuses to implement the Democratic outcome of the referendum, they are just trying to do it in a not mind-blowingly stupid way. 

Yes they are. That is exactly what they are doing, slowly but surely. If you seriously think that isn't happening, you are being very naive, my friend. We will eventually be forced to have a second referendum, which will basically be a choice between Remain and a deal which is Brexit in name only (Remain). This has been the tactics of Remainer MPs ever since the referendum, to delay and delay again, dragging the process out over such a long period of time, in cahoots with the EU, to the point where we are paralyzed as a country and people are worn down and demoralised. It is disgusting but I wouldn't expect much else from our disgraceful, contemptible politicians, who all have their snouts firmly in the trough.

Edited by bucketfoot
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Literally every conceivable outcome of Brexit has been vetoed by this (2017) Parliament, the worst Parliament in our entire history. We cannot even vote them out now! They have removed that from us (or the fixed-term parliament act has).

They have learnt very well from their EU overlords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You may be too premature in your celebration (I assume you're happy about Benn's bill being passed in its second reading in Commons, or maybe about the defections reducing Boris's majority, or both perhaps?). There are now 102 amendments in Lords introduced by Brexiteering peers - each must be voted on twice so over 100 hours of continuous proceedings.

How about now? :lol: 

69852780_10162062591865702_1530207615324

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Oh dear. You really hate democracy, don't you?

It amuses me that you find the concept of asking the population again, three years after the last referendum, to voice their opinion on something as a guide for politician, as un-democratic. To me, democracy is exactly that: to give the people a voice and a vote. It leaves me with the distinct feeling you only care for democracy as far as it gives you the results you want. I guess I am more ideologically bound to democracy as a governing style whereas you only care about yourself.

Which makes it ironic that you question my feelings for democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Eh, no. The Parliament has not been presented with a deal that would be of benefit to the UK and its population.

There is virtually no conceivable soft-Brexit outcome that they have not vetoed: customs Union; single Market (Norway); single market with customs Union (Norway plus); basic free trade deal (Canada); some vague Corbyn twaddle about ''economic closeness'' - these have all been thrown out of this same Parliament indicatively as has the withdrawal agreement legislatively. There is the (theoretical) withdrawal agreement minus Backstop, which the EU won't countenance. Fundamentally though they don't desire Brexit, well over half of them don't. They aim to frustrate Brexit. I'll ask you a question: what could they conceivably do during the three months' extension that they haven't been able to do in three years? It is just to frustrate Brexit further - with a healthy does of retained Liberal snowflake grievances against Boris Johnson thrown in (''Boris is a rye' sist for commenting on burkas'' etc etc). 

(I'm not a huge admirer of the man myself I should point out. I think he's a tit. But I am just explaining how I perceive it.)

There needs to be a general election immediately. It is that simple. 

5 hours ago, Dazey said:

How about now? :lol: 

69852780_10162062591865702_1530207615324

What an unfortunate misnomering of a surname.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It amuses me that you find the concept of asking the population again, three years after the last referendum, to voice their opinion on something as a guide for politician, as un-democratic. To me, democracy is exactly that: to give the people a voice and a vote. It leaves me with the distinct feeling you only care for democracy as far as it gives you the results you want. I guess I am more ideologically bound to democracy as a governing style whereas you only care about yourself.

Which makes it ironic that you question my feelings for democracy.

I believe if you are going to instigate the virtually unprecedented instrument of a United Kingdom referendum and stick ''once in a generation'' on it, it should be literally that: once in a generation. Otherwise it makes a mockery of the entire process of voting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...