British Politics

[DieselDaisy]

''Surrender'' being ''nasty'' language vs the faces on these two remainers (she by the way is the accuser),

Hmm.

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Better to have a Parliament in disarray than one illegally suspended. It is a matter of principles and not accepting anyone setting the law aside to further one's own political goals. Principles, Daisy. You know, those you ain't got.

There is a better solution to both prorogation or simply having a ''Parliament in disarray'': a general election. Indeed, a general election is usually the method to solving Parliamentary deadlock.

Have a vote of no confidence in the prime minister - by all means...

Nope.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

There is a better solution to both prorogation or simply having a ''Parliament in disarray'': a general election. Indeed, a general election is usually the method to solving Parliamentary deadlock.

Yeah, I suppose that could be a good idea. 

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yeah, I suppose that could be a good idea. 

Tell that to Labour, Lib Dems and SNP who, despite calling for a general election for years, have now went rather cold on the idea. 

We need a new House. This House is the worst Parliament in British political history. An election will determine where the nation resides on Brexit, e.g., if you are correct about people swinging from leave to remain, you'll see gains for the Liberal Democrats. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

An election will determine where the nation resides on Brexit, e.g., if you are correct about people swinging from leave to remain, you'll see gains for the Liberal Democrats. 

Not necessarily. An election tells us who the people want to have as their politicians, and it only partly overlaps with their views on the EU. To get an answer to that a new referendum should be done.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Not necessarily. An election tells us who the people want to have as their politicians, and it only partly overlaps with their views on the EU. To get an answer to that a new referendum should be done.

Normally I'd agree but Brexit now dominates everything these days.

I completely disagree with the second referendum idea as you know. I'll only add that the Liberal Democrats have went beyond the extremity of that now and merely want to Revoke Article 50.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Normally I'd agree but Brexit now dominates everything these days.

I completely disagree with the second referendum idea as you know. I'll only add that the Liberal Democrats have went beyond the extremity of that now and merely want to Revoke Article 50.

You might be right and the result of a general election might fully answer the question on Brexit, but I doubt it. 

And yeah, I know you fear the outcome of a second referendum and we don't need to discuss that again. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

You might be right and the result of a general election might fully answer the question on Brexit, but I doubt it. 

And yeah, I know you fear the outcome of a second referendum and we don't need to discuss that again. 

I don't ''fear'' a second referendum. I just think it is an utterly stupid idea for the reasons I have outlined to you on earlier occasions. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I don't ''fear'' a second referendum. I just think it is an utterly stupid idea for the reasons I have outlined to you on earlier occasions. 

Right.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Right.

Even the Liberal Democrats have abandoned the idea so you are actually officially more a leaver than Jo Swinson. Congratulations. Gammon for breakfast olde boy?

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Even the Liberal Democrats have abandoned the idea so you are actually officially more a leaver than Jo Swinson. Congratulations. Gammon for breakfast olde boy?

I think I am more concerned about any decision you make regarding the EU is well anchored in the populace, and you don't make a decision based on a three year-old referendum when people actually believed Brexit would be a good thing. So I suppose in this discussion I am more concerned about the principles of democracy than a leaver or remainer. That being said, of course I think you would benefit from remaining in the EU, and the EU would benefit from having you as a member. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I think I am more concerned about any decision you make regarding the EU is well anchored in the populace, and you don't make a decision based on a three year-old referendum when people actually believed Brexit would be a good thing. So I suppose in this discussion I am more concerned about the principles of democracy than a leaver or remainer. That being said, of course I think you would benefit from remaining in the EU, and the EU would benefit from having you as a member. 

It is only three years because of this Parliament. The chronological failure of this House to deliver the wishes of 17.4 million shouldn't nullify the original wish.  

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

It is only three years because of this Parliament. The chronological failure of this House to deliver the wishes of 17.4 million shouldn't nullify the original wish.  

I think the Parliament has diligently done their duty by not accepting rubbish agreements that would hurt the UK. And those 17.4 million people never voted yes to the question, "do you want to leave the EU, even if we can only do it on really bad terms that would hurt us so bad?" And it's not about nullifying any wishes, the thing is that wishes are transient, they come and go, democracy is not about fullfilling old, possible outdated wishes, but about rule by the populace. So another referendum is clearly the most democratic way forward. But again, you don't care about all this, you just care about a Brexit and is willing to throw any principles under the bus to get what you want. It is so human, really. All the grudges, the alienation, and the desperation.

[DieselDaisy]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think the Parliament has diligently done their duty by not accepting rubbish agreements that would hurt the UK.

They haven't accepted anything! Parliament has to accept an outcome - it has to - yet they have utterly failed to form a majority around an outcome of the referendum in three years of squabbling, so the only possible solution is to dissolve this Parliament and have a general election in hope of A/ determining the present general will of the nation (NB., this Parliament has been extent since 2017) and B/ forming a majority around an outcome of the 2016 referendum.

I include Revoking Article 50 and a second referendum in that ''outcome'' you might note: those were also thrown out by this House also, so no, this isn't strictly a ''remainer Commons'' either. It is a Parliament in deadlock.

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And it's not about nullifying any wishes, the thing is that wishes are transient, they come and go, democracy is not about fullfilling old, possible outdated wishes, but about rule by the populace.

 

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But again, you don't care about all this, you just care about a Brexit and is willing to throw any principles under the bus to get what you want. It is so human, really. All the grudges, the alienation, and the desperation.

''Once in a lifetime/generation'' referendum, and I don't agree with a second referendum for a multitude of reasons that I have hitherto stated so there is no point in reprising all of this. If you wish to I refer you back to our earlier conversations.

Edited September 26, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

A question to remainers, is yesterday's fiasco why you wanted Parliament recalled, why you contested Boris's prorogation? More shouting, point scoring, barnyard noises and general silliness? We have had three years of this shite and you required more?

Not really. We just didn't want Boris to think that the law doesn't apply to him. The prorogation was illegal and clearly for no other reason than to avoid scrutiny of his Brexit "strategy". If it was really about a Queen's Speech he could have prorogued and reconvened with a new agenda within a couple of days.

[AtariLegend]

He said that the best way to honor Jo Cox's memory (someone who campaigning for remain was killed by a right wing basketcase, inspired by the kind of rhetroic he and the tabloids used) was to deliver brexit.

If you think branding judges traitors is swell, there's no hope.

[Padme]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

They haven't accepted anything! Parliament has to accept an outcome - it has to - yet they have utterly failed to form a majority around an outcome of the referendum in three years of squabbling, so the only possible solution is to dissolve this Parliament and have a general election in hope of A/ determining the present general will of the nation (NB., this Parliament has been extent since 2017) and B/ forming a majority around an outcome of the 2016 referendum.

I include Revoking Article 50 and a second referendum in that ''outcome'' you might note: those were also thrown out by this House also, so no, this isn't strictly a ''remainer Commons'' either. It is a Parliament in deadlock.

I believe there should be a general election now. The problem is the Brexit deadline is just one month away.

[DieselDaisy]

4 hours ago, Dazey said:

Not really. We just didn't want Boris to think that the law doesn't apply to him. The prorogation was illegal and clearly for no other reason than to avoid scrutiny of his Brexit "strategy". If it was really about a Queen's Speech he could have prorogued and reconvened with a new agenda within a couple of days.

Correction: unlawful (and no more unlawful than the decision John Major took in 1997). 

Well you have what you want: more squabbling and more political point-scoring; more Brexit deadlock (with no consensus, not even among remainer MPs). Congratulations. Three years...

4 hours ago, AtariLegend said:

He said that the best way to honor Jo Cox's memory (someone who campaigning for remain was killed by a right wing basketcase, inspired by the kind of rhetroic he and the tabloids used) was to deliver brexit.

If you think branding judges traitors is swell, there's no hope.

Jo Cox was brought up first by a remainer, Jess Phillips, in a speech full of contorted hate. Boris was merely replying. 

The kind of rhetoric which is inflammatory is the type of rhetoric utilised by remainers, rhetoric of class privilege and disdain (and dare I say, with a bit of anti-North and/or anti-rural or anti-small towns thrown in). Leavers have been branded, 'fascists', ''uneducated'', ''ignorant (they didn't know what they voted for)'', ''gammons'', ''Little Englanders'', ''imperial nostalgists'', ''yokels'', etc etc., merely for excising their democratic vote in desiring withdrawal from the European Union, a desire held by the Labour Party until c.1988, as well as the SNP at one time.

Boris said,

''surrender bill''.

Remainer meltdown!!!

Edited September 26, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The kind of rhetoric which is inflammatory is the type of rhetoric utilised by remainers, rhetoric of class privilege and disdain 

Funny that, considering your frequent posts about class and neurotic relationship with it. As for disdain, yeah, I see a lot of it in your posts about the EU so surely you find this on both sides of the fence? Or is disdain towards foreigners more acceptable than disdain towards your fellow Brits?

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Funny that, considering your frequent posts about class and neurotic relationship with it. As for disdain, yeah, I see a lot of it in your posts about the EU so surely you find this on both sides of the fence? Or is disdain towards foreigners more acceptable than disdain towards your fellow Brits?

I make no apologies for having disdain for the European Union. I think it is a monstrous organisation. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I make no apologies for having disdain for the European Union. I think it is a monstrous organisation. 

So your complaint about the disdain observed from remainers is a bit HYPOCRITICAL!

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

So your complaint about the disdain observed from remainers is a bit HYPOCRITICAL!

I am replying specifically to the conversation in the Commons involving the Prime Minister who stands accused of inflammatory speech. Pay attention.

[Len Cnut]

Forgive my wallyness but if its illegal why was it even an option, if that makes sense?  I mean why did it take a court to call it illegal, if it ain't a thing then it ain't a thing, in the same way that mandatory spinning pink bow ties ain't a thing.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

21 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Forgive my wallyness but if its illegal why was it even an option, if that makes sense?  I mean why did it take a court to call it illegal, if it ain't a thing then it ain't a thing, in the same way that mandatory spinning pink bow ties ain't a thing.

Because we have an un-codified constitution creating legal ambiguity. England's constitution and legal system (Common Law) is based on historic precedent, so if a novel case is presented untested in the courts, a ruling sets a precedent for posterity. John Major did exactly the same as Boris in 1997 yet wasn't brought to court for it so there was no ruling and no (illegal) precedent set. 

Europe uses Civil Law. One of the big differences between the continent and countries like the United Kingdom, Australasia, Canada and the United States is in the two different law codes. Europe uses civil law (codified, with more power allocated to the judges) whereas the Commonwealth/USA use Common Law (un-codified with more power allocated to the judiciary).

Edited September 26, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Because we have an un-codified constitution creating legal ambiguity. England's constitution and legal system (Common Law) is based on historic precedent, so if a novel case is presented untested in the courts, a ruling sets a precedent for posterity. John Major did exactly the same as Boris in 1997 yet wasn't brought to court for it so there was no ruling and no (illegal) precedent set. 

Europe uses Civic Law. One of the big differences between the continent and countries like the United Kingdom, Australasia, Canada and the United States is in the two different law codes. Europe uses civic law (codified, with more power allocated to the judges) whereas the Commonwealth/USA use Common Law (un-codified with more power allocated to the judiciary).

Which is the better one?  In your opinion I mean. 

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Which is the better one?  In your opinion I mean. 

I am not really a legal expert but I have heard positives and negatives for both systems. Common Law possesses greater flexibility and adaptability, but there is obviously a degree of clarity in possessing a written-out series of laws. Here incidentally is how the world is divided according to legal codes,

Edited September 26, 2019 by DieselDaisy