British Politics

[Padme]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is not true. The Tories were officially neutral and there was also significant cross-party collaboration for withdrawal: five (Conservative) cabinet ministers and ten opposition (Labour) MPs for instance.

Cameron, who was the PM, was not neutral neither was May. There were a few members from both parties joining Brexit campaign just out mere populism. All those fans of Brexit and hard Brexit should voted UKIP instead of voting Tories and Labour. But the election turned out to be about domestic issues and little about Brexit. That's why May struggled. She didn't have answers for domestic issues. Or at least she just didn't have the answers people were expecting from her. She came on top because of Scotland. Tories made the big gains there. All because Sturgeon stupidity with her second referendum. If May wanted  a mandate over Bretix she should've called for a second referendum. So at the end she ended up with a hung Parliament, making a deal with DUP. And on top of that now also asking Lib. Dem. for help yet again

If Scotland parked their independence referendum then May should call off Brexit. She doesn't have the mandate she wanted. Nor UKIP, the party of Brexit, is relevant at all after the election.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Padme said:

Cameron, who was the PM, was not neutral neither was May.

The official party line was neutral: in practical terms, Cameron allowed his Members to vote independently, free of Whip interference, and neither camp could draw on Conservative Party funds and activist lists in order to support their respective campaigns.

12 minutes ago, Padme said:

If Scotland parked their independence referendum then May should call off Brexit. She doesn't have the mandate she wanted. Nor UKIP, the party of Brexit, is relevant at all after the election.

The SNP lost their independence referendum. The Brexit campaign won their referendum. I fail to see how there is not a mandate for the latter - NB Theresa May voted 'remain' as did Corbyn but both feel obligated to enact EU withdrawal under their governments because of the force of a democratically binding plebiscite.

[bucketfoot]

Not one Leaver I have met regrets their decision, seems to be a made up/wishful thinking thing from Remainers. You could just as easily say how many people who voted Remain through fear of the predicted armageddon would now see through all of that utter nonsense and vote to leave? The incessant bleating from the extreme Remainers over the last year has been ridiculous.... although very amusing. They don't believe in democracy, clearly..... well, unless they get the result they want, of course.

[bucketfoot]

22 minutes ago, Padme said:

If Scotland parked their independence referendum then May should call off Brexit. She doesn't have the mandate she wanted. Nor UKIP, the party of Brexit, is relevant at all after the election.

Call off Brexit. Just like that, eh?

[Padme]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The official party line was neutral: in practical terms, Cameron allowed his Members to vote independently, free of Whip interference, and neither camp could draw on Conservative Party funds and activist lists in order to support their respective campaigns.

The SNP lost their independence referendum. The Brexit campaign won their referendum. I fail to see how there is not a mandate for the latter - NB Theresa May voted 'remain' as did Corbyn but both feel obligated to enact EU withdrawal under their governments because of the force of a democratically binding plebiscite.

Cemeron was the PM. The one who decided to call for the referendum He campaign against Brexit. And so did Corbyn and most of the Tories and Labour members. Despite the fact that some members had the freedom to go any way they wanted.

What was this year election about? Did May call the election because of NHS? No, she wanted a mandate on Brexit. I understand why she did it. She was not elected PM. She just replaced Cameron. But she didn't get the mandate she was expected. Neither Sturgeon got any mandate for a second referendum on independence. I said before that both May and Corbyn are tied to those 52%. If those 52% are still there. I have doubts because of UKIP did really poorly in the election and Tories lost their majority. Labout made big gains because of domestic issues not because of their Brexit plan. People who voted Labour were not like "I'm voting Labour because their Brexit plan is better"

 

[Padme]

41 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

Call off Brexit. Just like that, eh?

Just like that, even the guy who the leader of Leave has doubts. There was a similar article on BBC website. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/05/brexit-error-vote-leave-dominic-cummings

 

[bucketfoot]

11 minutes ago, Padme said:

Just like that, even the guy who the leader of Leave has doubts. There was a similar article on BBC website. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/05/brexit-error-vote-leave-dominic-cummings

 

Brexit is going to happen, I'm afraid. It's probably best you try to get your head around that. Do you honestly believe there is a realistic chance of reversing it? Also, is there any possibility you will accept it because, seriously, if the vote had gone in favour of Remain, I would have got over it in a couple of days.... if that.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Padme said:

Cemeron was the PM. The one who decided to call for the referendum He campaign against Brexit. And so did Corbyn and most of the Tories and Labour members. Despite the fact that some members had the freedom to go any way they wanted.

In fact 138/185 of Tories voted Leave, i.e. approx. 74% of the Parliamentary Conservative Party (as thus constituted in that Parliament). This included five cabinet ministers.

1 hour ago, Padme said:

What was this year election about? Did May call the election because of NHS? No, she wanted a mandate on Brexit. I understand why she did it. She was not elected PM. She just replaced Cameron. But she didn't get the mandate she was expected. Neither Sturgeon got any mandate for a second referendum on independence. I said before that both May and Corbyn are tied to those 52%. If those 52% are still there. I have doubts because of UKIP did really poorly in the election and Tories lost their majority. Labout made big gains because of domestic issues not because of their Brexit plan. People who voted Labour were not like "I'm voting Labour because their Brexit plan is better"

 

Theresa May who voted remain incidentally!

You do realise that Euroscepticism did not suddenly bubble up in 2014, as if the whole of Britain suddenly took collective leave of her senses? The United Kingdom has always been ambivalent about the EU. Some of this stretches back to De Gaulle's veto in 1963 ('an act of unparalleled ungraciousness'), and perhaps beyond, to Britain's geo-strategic role. There is a long list of grievances which can be lumped onto this, e.g. the Common Fisheries Policy. A EU survey conducted 2009 determined that Britain was the most Eurosceptic country. Even proponents of Europe tended to be 'moderate proponents', of the ''Brussels needs to reform'' persuasion (the Blairites and Cameron's stance infact).

Also, Britain is not exclusively Eurosceptic. There are many in Italy and Greece, and to a lesser degree France, who desire their own withdrawal . You could argue that at no point has the EU ever looked more unpopular.

[Padme]

19 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

Brexit is going to happen, I'm afraid. It's probably best you try to get your head around that. Do you honestly believe there is a realistic chance of reversing it? Also, is there any possibility you will accept it because, seriously, if the vote had gone in favour of Remain, I would have got over it in a couple of days.... if that.

You shouldn't be talking to me. You should talk to Mr. Cummings. He is the one saying the referendum was a "dumb idea". And he was the Leader behind the Leave vote.

It can be reversed by one of these 2 steps. 1) Second referendum 2) The UK government can decide to call off negotiations and stop everything. There are formalities that needed to be done. Signing of documents saying basically here nothing happened. The negotiations last 2 years, so everything can happen.

Still It is about the complexity, uncertanty and mess that Brexit is. We know now that the UK must pay a Brexit divotce bill. It has been agreed last month in the first formal Brexit negotiation meeting.

In theory Brexit may sound a wonderful idea. But when you are engaged in the process that's when things look very hard to achive. I'm afraid there were lies!!! The NHS will never get 350 million pounds a week as it was promised. The fish agreement Gove mentioned the other day it won't happen either. Because other rules done later nullified that 1964 agreement. Boris Johnson has backpedaled with his having the cake and eat it. He, himself has said that it won't be that way.

When you take everything into consideration. Remain is still the lesser evil. I think that being pragmatic is the best way to go

[Padme]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

In fact 138/185 of Tories voted Leave, i.e. approx. 74% of the Parliamentary Conservative Party (as thus constituted in that Parliament). This included five cabinet ministers.

Theresa May who voted remain incidentally!

You do realise that Euroscepticism did not suddenly bubble up in 2014, as if the whole of Britain suddenly took collective leave of her senses? The United Kingdom has always been ambivalent about the EU. Some of this stretches back to De Gaulle's veto in 1963 ('an act of unparalleled ungraciousness'), and perhaps beyond, to Britain's geo-strategic role. There is a long list of grievances which can be lumped onto this, e.g. the Common Fisheries Policy. A EU survey conducted 2009 determined that Britain was the most Eurosceptic country. Even proponents of Europe tended to be 'moderate proponents', of the ''Brussels needs to reform'' persuasion (the Blairites and Cameron's stance infact).

Also, Britain is not exclusively Eurosceptic. There are many in Italy and Greece, and to a lesser degree France, who desire their own withdrawal . You could argue that at no point has the EU ever looked more unpopular.

There will always be Eurosceptics. The EU is far from being perfect. Of course changes need to be made. But change things from the inside. You have better chances to accomplish something. Globalisation is here to stay. Sure  with the 2008 crisis the Eurosceptics become more vocal and visible. But the EU keeps making free trade agreements with Canada, Japan and more to follow. I don't see Japan desperate to make an agreement with the UK alone. Why the UK would miss the opportunity to be part of the agreement with Japan? It is the UK who is losing here. This year a lot of countries had the chance to follow the UK lead and leave the EU. They didn't

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Padme said:

There will always be Eurosceptics. The EU is far from being perfect. Of course changes need to be made. But change things from the inside. You have better chances to accomplish something. Globalisation is here to stay. Sure  with the 2008 crisis the Eurosceptics become more vocal and visible. But the EU keeps making free trade agreements with Canada, Japan and more to follow. I don't see Japan desperate to make an agreement with the UK alone. Why the UK would miss the opportunity to be part of the agreement with Japan? It is the UK who is losing here. This year a lot of countries had the chance to follow the UK lead and leave the EU. They didn't

And when did the European Union suddenly become synonymous with globalisation? Globalisation has existed since The Silk Road. The EEC was only founded 1958! We'll make trade deals in due course, as we did for practically our entire global history.

People have been trying to change the thing since practical the beginning. I remember Blair during his term of office saying exactly that you have said; ''of course the EU needs reform but that is why it is better with us on etc etc''. Remember Cameron's attempt? The EU are stubborn old farts with a distaste for transparency and democracy so nothing ever happens.

 

[Padme]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And when did the European Union suddenly become synonymous with globalisation? Globalisation has existed since The Silk Road. The EEC was only founded 1958! We'll make trade deals in due course, as we did for practically our entire global history.

People have been trying to change the thing since practical the beginning. I remember Blair during his term of office saying exactly that you have said; ''of course the EU needs reform but that is why it is better with us on etc etc''. Remember Cameron's attempt? The EU are stubborn old farts with a distaste for transparency and democracy so nothing ever happens.

 

 They are synonymous of glablization since they become the EU. Do you think Itally, Spain or Greece have competent and decent leaders? No, they always have all kind of troubles with or without the EU. I won't make the EU the scapegoat.  The biggest problem is all these countries who are always trying to catch up, assuming they are trying. 

I sort of remember Cameron's attempt. I don't remeber all the details and how he handle his plan.

[bucketfoot]

53 minutes ago, Padme said:

1) Second referendum

Won't happen.

53 minutes ago, Padme said:

2) The UK government can decide to call off negotiations and stop everything.

Neither will that.

53 minutes ago, Padme said:

Still It is about the complexity, uncertanty and mess that Brexit is.

Where are you getting this from exactly? Stuff you read, see on TV, right? I've seen people, business people, say just as emphatically that it really isn't that complex a thing at all, certainly not what anti-brexiters would have you believe. Even walking away with no deal and falling down on to WTO rules... big deal! Who knows what the truth of the matter is? All I know is that the sky hasn't fallen in as the doom mongers said it would.... and let's be honest, probably never will.

53 minutes ago, Padme said:

The NHS will never get 350 million pounds a week as it was promised.

I doubt many Leavers ever believed it would.

 

I dread to think what the effect of any government trying to weasel its way out of this would be. The question was put to the people and they answered it. Trying to overturn the democratic will of the people would not end well.

Also, the EU has had plenty of time/chances to reform itself, unsurprisingly they haven't bothered.... because they have absolutely no intention to reform. They want more Europe, stronger Europe, a European superstate.... we'll pass on that, thanks.

Edited July 7, 2017 by bucketfoot

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Padme said:

 They are synonymous of glablization since they become the EU. Do you think Itally, Spain or Greece have competent and decent leaders? No, they always have all kind of troubles with or without the EU. I won't make the EU the scapegoat.  The biggest problem is all these countries who are always trying to catch up, assuming they are trying. 

I sort of remember Cameron's attempt. I don't remeber all the details and how he handle his plan.

Do you think the EU have competent leaders? Herr Junker of the 'octopus arms/cognac for breakfast' persuasion. Following his visit to No 10 he promptly stated the food was rubbish and blabbed to all and sundry. The EU is nothing but a set of thieves.

[Padme]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Do you think the EU have competent leaders? Herr Junker of the 'octopus arms/cognac for breakfast' persuasion. Following his visit to No 10 he promptly stated the food was rubbish and blabbed to all and sundry. The EU is nothing but a set of thieves.

Junker won't be there forever. And he talked about the cherry picking that May plan was

5 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

Won't happen.

Neither will that.

Where are you getting this from exactly? Stuff you read, see on TV, right? I've seen people, business people, say just as emphatically that it really isn't that complex a thing all, certainly not what anti-brexiters would have you believe. Even walking away with no deal and falling down on to WTO rules... big deal! Who knows what the truth of the matter is? All I know is that the sky hasn't fallen in as the doom mongers said it would.... and let's be honest, probably never will.

I doubt many Leavers ever believed it would.

 

I dread to think what the effect of any government trying to weasel its way out of this would be. The question was put to the people and they answered it. Trying to overturn the democratic will of the people would not end well.

Also, the EU has had plenty of time/chances to reform itself, unsurprisingly they haven't bothered.... because they have absolutely no intention to reform. They want more Europe, stronger Europe, a European superstate.... we'll pass on that, thanks.

Ok if you don't want an stronger Europe and more Europe that fine. But I think a lot of people believed that the NHS was going to get a lot more money. Yes I read during the negotiations the UK  can stop everything if they want to.

But again the leader of Leave vote is the one saying the referendum was a dumb idea

[bucketfoot]

8 minutes ago, Padme said:

Yes I read during the negotiations the UK  can stop everything if they want to.

They won't. All they'll do is walk away with no deal and WTO rules if the EU act like arseholes.

[DieselDaisy]

When I saw the bus I just thought it was bollocks, the sort of thing a politician usually bandies about during election time. In fact I didn't pay much attention to it. Storm in a tea cup.

There is certainly nothing in the British Constitution which means a plebiscite is binding, but then neither of the two main politically party would dare being perceived to renege against the popular will in such a flagrant way. Even the Lib Democrats are espousing a ''second referendum' (rather than just dismissing the first referendum outright).

[Graeme]

2 hours ago, Padme said:

Cemeron was the PM. The one who decided to call for the referendum He campaign against Brexit. And so did Corbyn and most of the Tories and Labour members. Despite the fact that some members had the freedom to go any way they wanted.

What was this year election about? Did May call the election because of NHS? No, she wanted a mandate on Brexit. I understand why she did it. She was not elected PM. She just replaced Cameron. But she didn't get the mandate she was expected. Neither Sturgeon got any mandate for a second referendum on independence. I said before that both May and Corbyn are tied to those 52%. If those 52% are still there. I have doubts because of UKIP did really poorly in the election and Tories lost their majority. Labout made big gains because of domestic issues not because of their Brexit plan. People who voted Labour were not like "I'm voting Labour because their Brexit plan is better"

 

Sturgeon has a mandate for a second referendum.

[DieselDaisy]

...not unless you feel mandates are merely democratic things you rerun time-and-time again until you get the answer you desire. Doesn't help that the two fishes leaked seats to the staunchly Unionist Tories either.

[Graeme]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

...not unless you feel mandates are merely democratic things you rerun time-and-time again until you get the answer you desire. Doesn't help that the two fishes leaked seats to the staunchly Unionist Tories either.

Do you mean mandates or referenda? How do you rerun a mandate?

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Do you mean mandates or referenda? How do you rerun a mandate?

Well, I presume you meant Krankie's mandate was connected to Krankie's electoral success.

[Graeme]

I meant that your sentence "not unless you feel mandates are merely democratic things you rerun time-and-time again until you get the answer you desire" didn't make sense as a mandate cannot be "rerun". 

 

As for the point you're trying to make, the current Scottish government was elected into power on a manifesto that explicitly said if, in the outcome of the EU referendum the UK voted to leave, but the majority of votes cast in Scotland was to remain then there would be a second referendum on independence. 

That was exactly what happened. The referendum bill passed the Scottish parliament. According to due democratic process, the mandate is undeniable.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Graeme said:

I meant that your sentence "not unless you feel mandates are merely democratic things you rerun time-and-time again until you get the answer you desire" didn't make sense as a mandate cannot be "rerun". 

 

As for the point you're trying to make, the current Scottish government was elected into power on a manifesto that explicitly said if, in the outcome of the EU referendum the UK voted to leave, but the majority of votes cast in Scotland was to remain then there would be a second referendum on independence. 

That was exactly what happened. The referendum bill passed the Scottish parliament. According to due democratic process, the mandate is undeniable.

 

She'd lose even more than Salmon anyhow so how can any person possibly desire it - including, above all else, those who support the fishes in their ideological campaign? It is a complete busted flush regardless of where it was written.

[Graeme]

Given support for independence (note, independence itself, not a second referendum) is polling higher now than at any point during the 2014 campaign, I doubt that. But we'll see what happens when the cards start to fall. 

[bucketfoot]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

When I saw the bus I just thought it was bollocks, the sort of thing a politician usually bandies about during election time. In fact I didn't pay much attention to it. Storm in a tea cup.

Exactly this. Remainers can't seem to grasp it, banging on that Leavers were conned/lied to. Meanwhile, Leavers are sat chuckling away, like "and?"

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Krankie

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by bucketfoot