British Politics

[downzy]

20 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

We are tired of voting: since 2015 we've had two General Elections and one referenda - two if you're Scottish: that is 2015, 2014, 2016, 2017 in which the country has been faced with grave constitutional issues! At some stage representatives, i.e., elected Members of Parliament, have to do the job they're paid to do which would be to enact the results of the 52% majority of 2016.

The job of MPs are meant to weigh the will of the voters against what they truly believe is best for the country.  Again, there's nothing legally binding MPs from following through on the referendum poll.  If voters disagree with their choice of not to support leaving the EU, then they can vote those MPs out the next election and vote in MPs who campaign on leaving the EU.  

 

[downzy]

2 hours ago, action said:

when you think of it, isn't is baffling how we are totally willing to let fundamental, life changing decisions like leaving or staying, depend on an accidental majority?

we would never let one fool make such a decision. but it's not problem when, say 1.000.000 fools make the decision. how does that work, again?

so why is it suddenly making a difference, when the majority of a any number of fools decides to leave or stay?

given how there are more dumb people in society than there are smart people (as per definition), why do we give more weight to a decision when the majority number increases?

doesn't the moderate level of intelligence lower with increasing the population of a voting vehicle? How could moderate intelligence levels increase, when there are more dumb than smart people?

Exactly.  Which is why few democracies operate with direct votes.  The framers of the US constitution understood the dangers of giving the populace direct control over policy, hence they, like almost every operable democracy in the world, opted for a representative democracy where the country's supposed best and brightest could weigh the will of the people with what they thought was best.  It's why U.S. elections are staggered every two years and different legislators serve different term lengths.  Canadian and UK politics work on a parliamentary system but the representational dynamic is still present and important.  If legislators defy the electorate and their decisions do not pan out, then voters have the opportunity to vote in different representatives.  That's how the system is suppose to work.  

I wouldn't have much of an issue had Britain had everything in place and left soon after the vote.  But things have changed.  It is wholly irresponsible and contrary to the burdens and responsibilities of current British MPs to continue marching towards leaving the EU regardless of whatever a flash referendum said held two years ago.  The same would apply if Britain had decided to stay and current UK membership to the EU now substantially damaged the country. 

[Dazey]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are a bit myopic when it comes to the EU if you don't mind me saying.

Says you? Your entire argument seems to revolve around fish and getting fucked up the arse! You’re the political equivalent of a Led Zeppelin after show party.  

Edited January 18, 2019 by Dazey

[DieselDaisy]

28 minutes ago, downzy said:

The job of MPs are meant to weigh the will of the voters against what they truly believe is best for the country.  Again, there's nothing legally binding MPs from following through on the referendum poll.  If voters disagree with their choice of not to support leaving the EU, then they can vote those MPs out the next election and vote in MPs who campaign on leaving the EU.  

 

Well I'd support another general election before a second referendum.

2 hours ago, Padme said:

You are the one making bizarre statements and accusations about the EU just because of one person and one country. Sure nothing is perfect. There is always room for change. But it's silly to hate the EU just because of one person and one country.

If I say I hate the U.S. because Trump is corrupt and undemocratic. Wouldn't you ask me for more and better reasons than just Trump?

One person? Should we then turn to - let's see? - Barroso then, Manuel Barroso former President? Barroso got caught out on Latsis's yacht, the same Latsisis whose company the EU squandered 10 million Euros upon? Barroso would later work for Goldman Sachs for crying out loud!

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Says you? Your entire argument seems to revolve around fish and getting fucked up the arse! You’re the political equivalent of a Led Zeppelin after show party.  

My own personal argument isn't even about fisheries. I'm the messenger here. I'm not from a maritime background. The EU is woefully corrupt, capitalistic (''Blairy'') and bureaucratic. There is reason enough to hate it without resorting to the Common Fisheries Policy.

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

My own personal argument isn't even about fisheries. I'm the messenger here. I'm not from a maritime background. The EU is woefully corrupt, capitalistic (''Blairy'') and bureaucratic. There is reason enough to hate it without resorting to the Common Fisheries Policy.

Yeah but leaving it makes us worse off and that’s the only thing I’m interested in.  Giving Johnny Foreigner a bloody nose is likely going to put tariffs on UK imports/exports. I work in chemical manufacturing so this will cause all sorts of grief within my company. Increased raw materials prices and higher sales prices making us less competitive. Why do people not understand simple economics?

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Yeah but leaving it makes us worse off and that’s the only thing I’m interested in.  Giving Johnny Foreigner a bloody nose is likely going to put tariffs on UK imports/exports. I work in chemical manufacturing so this will cause all sorts of grief within my company. Increased raw materials prices and higher sales prices making us less competitive. Why do people not understand simple economics?

You're looking at things using a narrow self-interested economic criteria whereas I am being more broad. 

[Dazey]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You're looking at things using a narrow self-interested economic criteria whereas I am being more broad. 

Bollocks!

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Bollocks!

The Scots did this also. They reduced an independence debate to a dreary argument about whether they'd have 20 pence less in their wallet or 30 pence less in their wallet. It was not exactly William Wallace. I doubt even Walter Scott himself could have found ways in which to embellish the whole saga.

[Len Cnut]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

My own personal argument isn't even about fisheries. I'm the messenger here. I'm not from a maritime background. The EU is woefully corrupt, capitalistic (''Blairy'') and bureaucratic. There is reason enough to hate it without resorting to the Common Fisheries Policy.

All that goin' on about the fisherman all this time and you don't even have naff all to do with em?  Why the fascination?  It seems to be a point you bring up quite often.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

All that goin' on about the fisherman all this time and you don't even have naff all to do with em?  Why the fascination?  It seems to be a point you bring up quite often.

I live on the Northumbrian coast. There are a lot of those ghost towns described where I live. 

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

All that goin' on about the fisherman all this time and you don't even have naff all to do with em?  Why the fascination?  It seems to be a point you bring up quite often.

Isn't it obvious? He is a hopeless traditionalist with a xenophobic slant. Everything outside UK is understood in nothing but caricatures and everything in UK should have stayed liked they were 50 years ago, at least. Keep that in mind and it explains him quite well. 

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Isn't it obvious? He is a hopeless traditionalist with a xenophobic slant. Everything outside UK is understood in nothing but caricatures and everything in UK should have stayed liked they were 50 years ago, at least. Keep that in mind and it explains him quite well. 

I like him, he thinks of the little man.  What price progress if it tramples the weak beneath its wheels.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Isn't it obvious? He is a hopeless traditionalist with a xenophobic slant. Everything outside UK is understood in nothing but caricatures and everything in UK should have stayed liked they were 50 years ago, at least. Keep that in mind and it explains him quite well. 

You are like one of those annoying kids who rat out the other kids in school to teacher. ''Look at him miss. He smuggled in fags''. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are like one of those annoying kids who rat out the other kids in school to teacher. ''Look at him miss. He smuggled in fags''. 

Did I rat you out? Was it supposed to be a secret?

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Did I rat you out? Was it supposed to be a secret?

Talking over the person in third-person? Toddler behaviour. 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I like him, he thinks of the little man.  What price progress if it tramples the weak beneath its wheels.

Really? I can't recall ever having read any opinion from him that suggests he cares more about "the little man" than about preserving traditions and institutions. His apparent concern over the devastated fisheries just springs from his distaste over foreginers influencing UK domestic matters (EU) and the disruption of traditional lifestyles (the age-old fishery culture of England). It isn't about humans, it is about him being uncomfortable with change and foreginers.

[Padme]

30 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

One person? Should we then turn to - let's see? - Barroso then, Manuel Barroso former President? Barroso got caught out on Latsis's yacht, the same Latsisis whose company the EU squandered 10 million Euros upon? Barroso would later work for Goldman Sachs for crying out loud!

Two people in a 27 countries group.

29 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

My own personal argument isn't even about fisheries. I'm the messenger here. I'm not from a maritime background. The EU is woefully corrupt, capitalistic (''Blairy'') and bureaucratic. There is reason enough to hate it without resorting to the Common Fisheries Policy.

Are you saying there is no bureacracy in the UK? Are you saying the UK is corruption free? Are you saying you want the EU to be communist? You're not making any sense. No organization and no country in the world will be corruption and bureacracy free. The best we all can do is try to keep it at the lowest possible level. This is the goal. You're asking for Disneyland. It will never happen

[SoulMonster]

It isn't about corruption or bureaucracy, it is about "the kraut" and "the frogs" etc ruling over his precious country.

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Really? I can't recall ever having read any opinion from him that suggests he cares more about "the little man" than about preserving traditions and institutions. His apparent concern over the devastated fisheries just springs from his distaste over foreginers influencing UK domestic matters (EU) and the disruption of traditional lifestyles (the age-old fishery culture of England). It isn't about humans, it is about him being uncomfortable with change and foreginers.

I never got that from it, I got the aforementioned care for the little man though we'd probably do better to ask him whats behind it than guessing.  As far as xenaphobia, the guys a fuckin' Geordie into foreign films that took Japanese classes, he can't be that xenaphobic.  And on a side point, if someone (not Dies', speaking broadly here) is racist or xenaphobic its not reason to drive them to the hanging tree, there's often a distorted sort of humanity behind it, I've never really held it against people who have a genuine desire to preserve a particular culture and a lot of xenaphobia is a consequence of that.  The sad truth is though that culture is essentially transitory, we are merely the leaseholders of whatever patch of dirt we're born on.  It's not really something I hold against people necessarily.

[DieselDaisy]

Soul, you don't know anything about me. You don't know where I have traveled because I am not generally a look at me social media person. You don't know who my friends are. You have little knowledge of what I have/am studying except perhaps history. How can you possibly determine that I am xenophobic? 

1 minute ago, Padme said:

Two people in a 27 countries group

I'm going through them, one at a time...

2 minutes ago, Padme said:

Are you saying there is no bureacracy in the UK? Are you saying the UK is corruption free? Are you saying you want the EU to be communist? You're not making any sense. No organization and no country in the world will be corruption and bureacracy free. The best we all can do is try to keep it at the lowest possible level. This is the goal. You're asking for Disneyland. It will never happen

No.

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I never got that from it, I got the aforementioned care for the little man though we'd probably do better to ask him whats behind it than guessing.  As far as xenaphobia, the guys a fuckin' Geordie into foreign films that took Japanese classes, he can't be that xenaphobic. 

Well, if I am right then we wouldn't expect him to provide an honest answer, would we?

Of course he can still be xenophobic.

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Soul, you don't know anything about me. You don't know where I have traveled because I am not generally a look at me social media person. You don't know who my friends are. You have little knowledge of what I have/am studying except perhaps history. How can you possibly determine that I am xenophobic? 

Based on almost 30,000 posts on a discussion forum? 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, if I am right then we wouldn't expect him to provide an honest answer, would we?

Of course he can still be xenophobic.

Based on almost 30,000 posts on a discussion forum? 

And how many of them are personal and not, merely me typing up a film I watched last night? 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

 

Well, if I am right then we wouldn't expect him to provide an honest answer, would we?

 

Not really that bothered one way or the other.

[action]

48 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Why do people not understand simple economics?

because "simple economics" matter to business men, but ordinary people do not care about economics.

a business man's world revolves around cutting costs and increasing profit. a steady flow of profit is not enough for a business man, growth is desired. investors in shares aren't satisfied with a steady return. they want "more" return each year.

that's economics.

ordinary people go to work at 7, and arrive back home at 8 (depending on traffic conditions). they worry about food on the table and if the bakery charges too much for a bread, they'll go to the shopping market. they resent their arsehole of a boss, they reluctantly accept that they spend the best years of their lives behind a desk / conveyer belt and can do nothing about it. their world couldn't be further from that of a business man. and they don't give a shit about prices of raw materials. if anything, they'll laugh in their fist when a well-suited businessman loses a couple of millions on stock market. it's the least of their concerns.