British Politics

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

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. 

In other words, it hasn't been possible to reach an agreement with the EU that would benefit the UK and hence the Parliament have had to reject them all...

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

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. 

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.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

In other words, it hasn't been possible to reach an agreement with the EU that would benefit the UK and hence the Parliament have had to reject them all...

...and consequentially paralysis. More procrastinating. 

The rest of your post is just gibberish.

[DieselDaisy]

We all know why Corbyn now doesn't want a general election of course,

 

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

...and consequentially paralysis. More procrastinating. 

They did what they are supposed to do: Act in the best interests of the UK. Sure, the have received a mandate to get the UK out of the EU, but without any details regarding that mandate they have to wait until an agreement presents itself that makes sense, one that actually benefits the UK and their constituents. That's their job. It is not like people voted to leave the EU under any circumstance.

Edited September 5, 2019 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The rest of your post is just gibberish.

I don't think it is gibberish to point out that politicians can't declare a referendum to be final on a subject, nor can any single politicians simply decide to limit the populations' democratic right to voice their opinion on a subject, and lastly, it is not gibberish to point out that the "once in a lifetime" rhetoric was directed towards the outcome of the referendum (because a Brexit is kind-of final) and not the democratic process of letting the people voice their opinion on the matter.

The more time that passes, the more obvious it is that a second referendum must be held for any decisions (leave or remain) to have sufficient democratic legitimacy. Especially considering all the lies from the "Project Fear" campaign leading up to the first referendum.

I get that this must be vexing to a proud nationalist like yourself, but, like, get with the times?

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

They would what they are supposed to do: act in the best interests of the UK. Sure, the have received a mandata to get the UK out of the EU, but without any details here they have to wait until an agreement presents itself that makes sense. That's their job. It is not like people voted to leave the EU under any circumstance.

They have had three bloody years!! 

Let's get one thing in perspective. This prorogation which triggered Boris's defeat would have shaved 3-4 days off of Parliament's session! They have had three years under a remainer Prime Minister (Theresa May) to decide how to implement the outcome of the referendum, yet are triggered by the shaving off of three days!

What are they going to do in three months that they couldn't do in three years?

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think it is gibberish to point out that politicians can't declare a referendum to be final on a subject, nor can any single politicians simply decide to limit the populations' democratic right to voice their opinion on a subject, and lastly, it is not gibberish to point out that the "once in a lifetime" rhetoric was directed towards the outcome of the referendum (because a Brexit is kind-of final) and not the democratic process of letting the people voice their opinion on the matter.

The more time that passes, the more obvious it is that a second referendum must be held for any decisions (leave or remain) to have sufficient democratic legitimacy. Especially considering all the lies from the "Project Fear" campaign leading up to the first referendum.

I get that this must be vexing to a proud nationalist like yourself, but, like, get with the times?

That is one of the worst dodges I have ever heard. You'll literally will not accept that 17.4 million chose to leave the European Union in an once in a lifetime vote. Every sort of dodge, explanation and falsehood has to be provided by yourself to avoid this fact.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

They have had three bloody years!! 

It is not their fault, really, that a good agreement hasn't been put before them. Thye can't just accept an agreement that is deeply flawed and which they know will hurt the UK. That's not what people voted for in the last referendum, there was no option "Leave the EU under any circumstance, even if we can only get a deal that is really fucking bad for us".

Maybe a good agreement can't really be done with the EU and you will simply have to reconsider your foolish and brash decision to leave?

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is one of the worst dodges I have ever heard. You'll literally will not accept that 17.4 million chose to leave the European Union in an once in a lifetime vote. Every sort of dodge, explanation and falsehood has to be provided by yourself to avoid this fact.

Because it wasn't a "once in a lifetime" vote. Politicians can't just make such a decision. And, sorry to say it, if they fooled you into thinking so you are a bit slow. Only the people in a democracy can make a decision to limit their own democratic right in such a way. Not politicians, especially not some politicians who use it rhetorically.

Edited September 5, 2019 by SoulMonster

[Dazey]

People obsessed with parliamentary sovereignty crying because parliament exerts sovereignty!  

[Padme]

55 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

We all know why Corbyn now doesn't want a general election of course,

 

You're forgetting that Labour has faced this situation before. The last time around when May called for an election, early polls showed Labour was dead. Well the election showed they were alive and well.

I believe that Remainers should vote for Lib. Dem if Labour doesn't come up with a clear plan. And Brexiters should vote for Brexit Party. Polls at this point don't mean too much. There is no election day yet. We haven't seen any manifesto from anyone. And the campaign hasn't started.

 We don't even know if the EU has agreed to the three months extension. Once there is a answer. And once more negotiations have been agreed. Then an election can take place.

And btw... there is something called first time voters

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/more-than-100000-people-apply-register-vote-youth-uk-general-election

Edited September 5, 2019 by Padme

[Dazey]

18 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.

I do hope you weren’t advocating for action by unelected bureaucrats in order to frustrate the will of the House of Commons?   

[DieselDaisy]

16 minutes ago, Dazey said:

People obsessed with parliamentary sovereignty crying because parliament exerts sovereignty!  

What is parliamentary sovereignty though but something that solely emanates from the electorate, the same electorate (17.4 million) who voted to exit the European Union?

50 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Maybe a good agreement can't really be done with the EU and you will simply have to reconsider your foolish and brash decision to leave?

Nope. They voted against that proposal also (184 for, 293 against).

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

I do hope you weren’t advocating for action by unelected bureaucrats in order to frustrate the will of the House of Commons?   

You should note that at no stage did I endorse Boris's prorogation, which is what has triggered this cynical, although perfectly legal, parliamentarian behaviour. Refusing a general election is of the same ilk. 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What is parliamentary sovereignty though but something that solely emanates from the electorate, the same electorate (17.4 million) who voted to exit the European Union?

But they never gave the Parliament a mandate to accept any deal on Brexit. What they said was the very vague, "we would prefer to leave than to remain". In fact, the absence of such a clearly described mandate means the Parliament will have to carefully consider any possible deals and assess whether it satisfied two criteria: results in Brexit, and is beneficial to the UK.

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Nope. They voted against that proposal also (184 for, 293 against).

They can always reconsider when the hopelessness of the situation further sinks in.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You should note that at no stage did I endorse Boris's prorogation, which is what has triggered this cynical, although perfectly legal, parliamentarian behaviour.

You did seem mightily giddy about it 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

But they never gave the Parliament a mandate to accept any deal on Brexit. What they said was the very vague, "we would prefer to leave than to remain". In fact, the absence of such a clearly described mandate means the Parliament will have to carefully consider any possible deals and assess whether it satisfied two criteria: results in Brexit, and is beneficial to the UK.

I repeat, they have had three years (to do this). What is going to change during the three month extension? Or to rephrase: what sort of agreement will be reached in the three months that couldn't be reached in the three years? Boris is utterly correct that it will mean even more circumnavigating and procrastinating and political deadlock. 

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

You did seem mightily giddy about it 

It was admittedly funny watching remainers have an utter meltdown.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I repeat, they have had three years (to do this). What is going to change during the three month extension?

Probably nothing. Which really just tells us it was a fool's errand to try to think you could leave the EU with a good deal. Silly you.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

It was admittedly funny watching remainers have an utter meltdown.

I am sure it was, like it probably is for remainers to watch leavers now.

I haven't started reading UK newspapers yet (except the Man U section of Manchester of the Manchester Evening News), but with all this mess I am starting to consider a shift from US newspapers to UK newspapers just for the laughs. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Probably nothing. Which really just tells us it was a fool's errand to try to think you could leave the EU with a good deal. Silly you.

But they are not even wanting to depart on, what you would call, a ''bad'' deal, either - hence the events we are witnessing, the victory over Boris. They actually voted out no deal in an earlier indicative vote also. They also, as earlier stated, did not want to revoke Article 50. They don't want your second referendum proposal either! This is why a general election is the only solution, to put this parliament out of its sorry existence.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I am sure it was, like it probably is for remainers to watch leavers now.

I have never seen such a vitriol and lack of intellect as I have from remainers - not all of them but many of them. 

 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

But they are not even wanting to depart on, what you would call, a ''bad'' deal, either 

Of course they don't want to depart on a bad deal. The populace hasn't given them mandate to depart on any deal. It would be bad politicians and bad humans to accept a bad deal knowing it will hurt the UK and their fellow men. They have to wait until a deal emerges that both results in Brexit and is good for the UK.

Again, this goes back to the mess of the whole thing The referendum should have had clear options, not just vague "leave" or "remain", but "leave on specific terms" and "remain on specific terms". The UK government went about it completely backwards and now you suffer for it - all of you. You should have discussed and arrived at the rudimentary of a deal, a term sheet, that could then have been presented to the people in a referendum. Then the people knew the two options and could give a concise mandate to the politicians.

I am not saying it wouldn't have been challenging to arrive at such a term sheet, but an effort should at least have been made.

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have never seen such a vitriol and lack of intellect as I have from remainers - not all of them but many of them. 

And I have only you as a representative of the leavers.

[soon]

16 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Decent rack,

If you follow the eye lines of the 4 people to the right of her, it seems that she's got a great caboose as well

[DieselDaisy]

39 minutes ago, soon said:

If you follow the eye lines of the 4 people to the right of her, it seems that she's got a great caboose as well

Even Caroline Lucas.

[DieselDaisy]

[soon]

56 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Even Caroline Lucas.

Dare I say she is the most enamoured. What’s those chicks deal anyways? They down for a hard brexit?

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, soon said:

Dare I say she is the most enamoured. What’s those chicks deal anyways? They down for a hard brexit?

It shouldn't be surprising she wants to cop a feel then as she'll be into LBSHG rights being a green.