Jump to content
Beautiful Sunday
Sign in to follow this  
Buster

The Scottish/UK Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, chuckitphilliben said:

Behave.  There are plenty of people who have well considered and cogent reasons for wanting to leave.  I am happy to listen to them and see a lot of sense in what they say.  My own view is that the advantages of being in outweigh the advantages of being out.  

Farage and his tinfoil hat brigade are driven by a different agenda.  

Yet I would have no alternative but the Brexit party to stop MP's doing what they've done for decades. Should I order my tinfoil hat and I luv xenophobia T shirt early?  You've ducked the question. How do I stop them signing more treaties without a mandate when the remain MP's get their way? How do you?  You know the answer. We can't!   That's why you ducked it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darth Bino said:

Yet I would have no alternative but the Brexit party to stop MP's doing what they've done for decades. Should I order my tinfoil hat and I luv xenophobia T shirt early?  You've ducked the question. How do I stop them signing more treaties without a mandate when the remain MP's get their way? How do you?  You know the answer. We can't!   That's why you ducked it. 

I didn't duck anything.  Politics is a dirty game.  As Hoederer said 'Moi, j'ai les mains sales. Jusqu'aux coudes' 

We elect MPs to represent us.  The vast majority of them are interested only in lining their own pockets.   Kids leaving university with a politics degree become government special advisers when they've no life experience, bugger up the country then get elevated to the house of lords when they're barely 30. The main brexit leaders are financially secure and stand to gain enormously through leaving the eu and avoiding forthcoming tax avoidance laws.   

None of the people involved in our future can be trusted.  Leaving the EU in order to avoid undemocratic signing of treaties is fine if that's your aim but its treating a symptom and not the cause.

I just accept they are all corrupt but choose pan-European corruption to little englander corruption.  Same cesspool, different depth 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, chuckitphilliben said:

I didn't duck anything.  Politics is a dirty game.  As Hoederer said 'Moi, j'ai les mains sales. Jusqu'aux coudes' 

We elect MPs to represent us.  The vast majority of them are interested only in lining their own pockets.   Kids leaving university with a politics degree become government special advisers when they've no life experience, bugger up the country then get elevated to the house of lords when they're barely 30. The main brexit leaders are financially secure and stand to gain enormously through leaving the eu and avoiding forthcoming tax avoidance laws.   

None of the people involved in our future can be trusted.  Leaving the EU in order to avoid undemocratic signing of treaties is fine if that's your aim but its treating a symptom and not the cause.

I just accept they are all corrupt but choose pan-European corruption to little englander corruption.  Same cesspool, different depth 

The pro EU MPs and MEP's are also financially secure. A pension for life as an MP, as an MEP. A second pension for life when you get appointed to the EU commission when you're toxic and washed up. Umunna getting 65 thousand a year, for 4 hours work a week chairing a globalist  "think tank."  Paid by who? Why is it that you only find corruption among Brexiteers a problem.?  Isn't the Fabian Society getting funded by Exxon, Shell, Barclays, the EU and the Rockefeller Foundation, to name a few, corruption when 80% of  Labour MPs are members of it?  Funnily enough Chatham House on the supposed other side of the political spectrum, funded by the same corporate monsters.  Oh it's corrupt all right, but it's not  just little Englander corruption, it's on all sides.

Different depth when it's Pan European? is it?  The 94 million the EU can't get signed off in its books because it's going to people like Jeremy Clarkson to not grow stuff on his land, that's a different depth? Even the expenses our MP's were at it with don't get close to that. Preserving your right to remove a government that makes your laws, defines your taxes and decides your foreign policy, isn't treating a symptom. It's making sure the symptoms don't end up in a dead democracy. It's treating one hell of a disease.   

"None of the people involved in our future can be trusted."  Absolutely agree with that, so why give one group a carte blanche to do with it as they please without a mandate? That's not treating a symptom either, that's denying there's an illness at all. 

Last, here's a lovely conversation I had with more than one paragon of tolerance on the remain side.   I can't believe someone on the left like you voted to leave. I answered. That's exactly why I voted to leave, I'm a democrat, not a supporter of a Marxist/capitalist alliance that wants to rule without interference by the plebs.   Ignoring that, what came next or later. was this. I don't see the problem with the Poles, after all, they're white!  Nope, no xenophobes on the remain side, just bloody unashamed racists.  There's no doubt there's some nasty racist xenophobic bastards supporting leave, but there's some beauties on the remain side.  Oh, I did tell them they were racist and got this....No I'm not, that's you lot. Yep, there's a lot of post truth shameless crap flying about.  Since it seems I cant avoid having to hold my nose and side with racists either way, I'll stick with supporting democratic accountability and order my tinfoil hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Darth Bino said:

The court decision certainly is a shock, because all the government is required to do is get royal assent prorogue it and call election. I guess the court has ruled that way due to the opposition parties refusing to hold an election,  therefore parliament can't be prorogued. I doubt that will be the end of that legal battle, but have no idea how that will turn out. 

"Brexit being the battleground between xenophobes and Internationalists (to put it in it's simplest form)"

Well you certainly couldn't put it in a more simple, stereotypical and offensive form than that.  So 17.1 million of the adult population eligible to vote, are all xenophobes including me are they?  I did not vote motivated by any form of xenophobia or racism.  I voted Brexit, because it was the only way I was given, to stop MP's signing more treaties on further integration without a mandate or consent. It's called being a democrat, not a xenophobe. The fact is that's the "status quo" the "internationalists" voted to continue with. So what do we call you?  You want to play the insult game, I'll play it.

First explain to me how someone who has no problem giving MP's the right to sign up for more treaties on " ever closer political and fiscal union" without a mandate or consent, actually qualifies as a democrat?  How can the MP's who jumped ship for Change UK, then the Lib Dems,  claim to be represent their constituencies, when they've represented three different parties in less than a year, without ever asking for approval in a by election?   I know the "internationalists"  love to scream about democracy as an excuse for spitting on it, pity they've all had a democracy bypass operation themselves though, isn't it?   Let's hear it, this should be fascinating.

As you're probably aware, the 2 decisions of the English and Scottish courts about whether proroguing was lawful in this case have been referred to the Supreme Court, the hearing to be held next week. These cases have got nothing to do with refusing to hold a general election.

You're quite right that the use of the word xenophobe was inappropriate. I was going to argue how the divide on Brexit mirrored an apparent worrying trend in some other countries (USA being the most obvious) where there is a growing hatred of some other nationalities by large parts of the population. I realised I didn't have the time to develop the themes and should have edited my post to say Leavers and Remainers. You're many things I'm sure, but don't think you could ever be called a xenophobe, nor could many or most leave voters.

I did vote remain, but the country as a whole voted leave in a referendum called by our legally elected representatives. There's another discussion to be had about referenda, but the fact is that was the decision reached in a democratic society and we should abide by that Of course we haven't discounted it yet, our democratically elected representatives just can't agree on the terms of our departure. That of course includes the ERG group mostly voting against May's deal until it suited them poltically to vote for it.

I think MP's do have a mandate to make decisions on closer fiscal and political unions with other countries for the very reason that they have been democratically elected to make decisions on our behalf. These are big decisions, but do we say some decisions must go to the people before they can be implemented? Who decides what decisions can be safely left in MP's hands and what ones can't?

I'm sure there's some rule(s) about MP's leaving the party they were in (when elected) in the middle of a parliament, so those rules should be applied. Holding a by election would seem the logical way to deal with it.

For what it's worth I made no suggestion of ignoring democratic decisions in my post and resented your implication that I was advocating it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of juicy stuff here. 

It makes me wonder who our elected representatives are meant to represent? They are certainly elected by a constituency but they vote for or against legislation that affects the whole country. Moreover they are GB MPs. So their boundaries of influence extend far beyond their constituency. So should they promote the predominate view in the constituency or the majority view in the country?

Answers on used £5 notes please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Darth Bino said:

The pro EU MPs and MEP's are also financially secure. A pension for life as an MP, as an MEP. A second pension for life when you get appointed to the EU commission when you're toxic and washed up. Umunna getting 65 thousand a year, for 4 hours work a week chairing a globalist  "think tank."  Paid by who? Why is it that you only find corruption among Brexiteers a problem.?  Isn't the Fabian Society getting funded by Exxon, Shell, Barclays, the EU and the Rockefeller Foundation, to name a few, corruption when 80% of  Labour MPs are members of it?  Funnily enough Chatham House on the supposed other side of the political spectrum, funded by the same corporate monsters.  Oh it's corrupt all right, but it's not  just little Englander corruption, it's on all sides.

Different depth when it's Pan European? is it?  The 94 million the EU can't get signed off in its books because it's going to people like Jeremy Clarkson to not grow stuff on his land, that's a different depth? Even the expenses our MP's were at it with don't get close to that. Preserving your right to remove a government that makes your laws, defines your taxes and decides your foreign policy, isn't treating a symptom. It's making sure the symptoms don't end up in a dead democracy. It's treating one hell of a disease.   

"None of the people involved in our future can be trusted."  Absolutely agree with that, so why give one group a carte blanche to do with it as they please without a mandate? That's not treating a symptom either, that's denying there's an illness at all. 

Last, here's a lovely conversation I had with more than one paragon of tolerance on the remain side.   I can't believe someone on the left like you voted to leave. I answered. That's exactly why I voted to leave, I'm a democrat, not a supporter of a Marxist/capitalist alliance that wants to rule without interference by the plebs.   Ignoring that, what came next or later. was this. I don't see the problem with the Poles, after all, they're white!  Nope, no xenophobes on the remain side, just bloody unashamed racists.  There's no doubt there's some nasty racist xenophobic bastards supporting leave, but there's some beauties on the remain side.  Oh, I did tell them they were racist and got this....No I'm not, that's you lot. Yep, there's a lot of post truth shameless crap flying about.  Since it seems I cant avoid having to hold my nose and side with racists either way, I'll stick with supporting democratic accountability and order my tinfoil hat.

As I said above - same cesspool, different depth

But I like the idea of free movement of people within Europe.  I like the idea that food is affordable to everyone within the EU.  I like the idea of not being a poodle of American FAANG surveillance capitalism.  I like the idea of food safety standards.  I like a big fight on climate change.

I don't think the UK has the stomach to fight for any of those things.  So, on balance, I will take my cesspool rather than yours but neither is a particularly pleasant thing in which to dip a toe.  A strong UK government could and should have fought for those things within the EU as it has had - over the years - plenty of opportunities and advantages (like vetoes) that some other member states didn't enjoy.   It could have influenced the direction of travel by working within a failing structure if it had not been laced with the suspicion of johnny foreigner on the one hand and the arrogance of an erstwhile empire on the other.  

Putin and Trump must be sitting back comfortably, stroking their respective white cats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gmca said:

As you're probably aware, the 2 decisions of the English and Scottish courts about whether proroguing was lawful in this case have been referred to the Supreme Court, the hearing to be held next week. These cases have got nothing to do with refusing to hold a general election.

You're quite right that the use of the word xenophobe was inappropriate. I was going to argue how the divide on Brexit mirrored an apparent worrying trend in some other countries (USA being the most obvious) where there is a growing hatred of some other nationalities by large parts of the population. I realised I didn't have the time to develop the themes and should have edited my post to say Leavers and Remainers. You're many things I'm sure, but don't think you could ever be called a xenophobe, nor could many or most leave voters.

I did vote remain, but the country as a whole voted leave in a referendum called by our legally elected representatives. There's another discussion to be had about referenda, but the fact is that was the decision reached in a democratic society and we should abide by that Of course we haven't discounted it yet, our democratically elected representatives just can't agree on the terms of our departure. That of course includes the ERG group mostly voting against May's deal until it suited them poltically to vote for it.

I think MP's do have a mandate to make decisions on closer fiscal and political unions with other countries for the very reason that they have been democratically elected to make decisions on our behalf. These are big decisions, but do we say some decisions must go to the people before they can be implemented? Who decides what decisions can be safely left in MP's hands and what ones can't?

I'm sure there's some rule(s) about MP's leaving the party they were in (when elected) in the middle of a parliament, so those rules should be applied. Holding a by election would seem the logical way to deal with it.

For what it's worth I made no suggestion of ignoring democratic decisions in my post and resented your implication that I was advocating it.

I thank you for correcting the use of the term xenophobe as a generalization.  The popular myth that all leavers are racists and xenophobes  and all remainers by default are not, does not hold up in personal experience.  Scotland is no bastion of tolerance under the surface. It's a place where the use of words like wogs and niggers, is by no means confined to who voted one way or the other.  I have no problem admitting that these elements are disgustingly more open about it on the leave side. 

I do question the understanding of what democracy means in voting to permit the signing of treaties on political and fiscal union without specific democratic consent.  It may not be a conscious denial of democratic rights, but in practice that's what it is.  We hold elections to decide who political and legislative power gets entrusted to in the UK. Not to transfer that power without consent to the EU.  If a political party  stands on a manifesto of ever closer union with the EU, then fair enough, they have a mandate. They do not though!  Without that mandate MPs are not exercising the power they were given, they are abusing it.  That is using the democratic system to act as tyrants where they choose. No democracy can survive that and it is no surprise to me that ours is in pieces at this point.   That's the reality of the fatuous claim by MP's that they are sovereign. They are temporary trustees of the people's sovereignty. If they are sovereign, they can declare a police state on a whim. I reject my serfdom to the new monarchs.

Unfortunately there are no rules preventing MPs from resigning from one party, joining or forming another and refusing to fight a by election.  Umunna Has been Labour, Change UK and Liberal Democrat all in the space of a few months. His constituents are stuck with him giving them two fingers until the next election.  Where he will not even be submitting himself to the people of Streatham, he will be standing for Westminster. Rules? What rules mate?

"Our democratic representatives just can't agree on the terms of our departure."  That is of course the popular media line, but it is bollocks. For a start the Lib Dems, the Greens and the SNP have no interest in any deal. They are for remain full stop. At least they're open about it, I'll give them that.  The rest of the those demanding no deal should be off the table are putting forward the ludicrous proposition that you can get a better treaty out of the EU, by refusing to leave without one.  They know damned well  that's nonsense and in fact they are all in full agreement. They don't want a "deal", they want to remain. They know full well, that their best chance of getting a remain vote in a second referendum, is to put a deal to the public that is so nonsensical, that remain would win.   Just to be on the safe side, they propose a 2nd referendum where leaving with or without a deal isn't even on the ballot paper. There is no disagreement, just dishonesty. 

Corbyn of course has said he thinks leave with no deal should be on the ballot, but he's done so many somersaults with full double twist, to placate his remainer MP's I've no doubt he can perform more acrobatics on that one.....or else.  In fact, just about every time he opens his mouth on Brexit, Watson. or Thornberry, or McDonnell pops up with a different position about an hour later. What a busted flush that man is. 

Then we have good old Boris. Ranted on about May's bad deal......then voted for it. Like May, gave a do or die date for leaving, knowing full well his own MPs wouldn't let him. It's all a blame game for not following through on a referendum, not some crusade for any "deal.

Finally let's not leave out good old Donald Tusk, he of special place in hell for people who want to leave without a plan fame. It wouldn't matter what plan you presented, Donald would reject it, if it actually meant leaving the authority of the EU over the UK parliament.   Without doubt it's a pantomime with a cast of liars on all sides, but buried behind it all, there was  are referendum  and Leave won and leaving is what should happen. They say there's no mandate for leaving with no deal.  The majority of them stood for election on a leave platform. Not an only leave with a deal platform.  Were we all too thick to understand their manifestos as well?  Who hasn't got a mandate again?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, chuckitphilliben said:

As I said above - same cesspool, different depth

But I like the idea of free movement of people within Europe.  I like the idea that food is affordable to everyone within the EU.  I like the idea of not being a poodle of American FAANG surveillance capitalism.  I like the idea of food safety standards.  I like a big fight on climate change.

I don't think the UK has the stomach to fight for any of those things.  So, on balance, I will take my cesspool rather than yours but neither is a particularly pleasant thing in which to dip a toe.  A strong UK government could and should have fought for those things within the EU as it has had - over the years - plenty of opportunities and advantages (like vetoes) that some other member states didn't enjoy.   It could have influenced the direction of travel by working within a failing structure if it had not been laced with the suspicion of johnny foreigner on the one hand and the arrogance of an erstwhile empire on the other.  

Putin and Trump must be sitting back comfortably, stroking their respective white cats.

I've never had a problem with free movement. My problem is with the lack of necessity of a political and fiscal union to agree it between states.  I do not accept the all encompassing premise that joining the European project made food cheaper. That is rewriting history. Did it make European food products cheaper? Yes it did, but the bulk of our food imports originally came from the old commonwealth countries on zero tariffs. What actually happened, was that the European products got cheaper, but were still more expensive than the commonwealth products were before we slapped EEC tariffs on them.  The truth is that the price of our staples shot up, not down. God knows I remember my late mother complaining about it enough.It did benefit UK farmers who could now compete with the New Zealand, Australia and Canada, but not consumers. There is a reason why farmers love the EU and it's not all about getting paid to keep fields fallow, limit supply and keep prices UP!

Over the past decades the UK has proposed reforms to the EU and been defeated 72 times in the council of ministers. Other countries have vetoes as well. This is why the phrase "it's better to reform it from the inside" is akin to asking a horse to agree to become a pig. It's not in the horse's interest so it's not having it. Policies on climate change, food safety and workers rights are things we should pressure our own parliament to adopt, not rely on the EU to adopt for them. If the UK politicians won't give you what you want, don't vote for them. Don't surrender power to politicians you can't get rid of.

Who the hell are these people who long for an Empire? I don't know any. My slated generation are the ones who condemn and rejected Imperialism.  How can you be a little Englander and an imperialist in the same breath?  Where are all these masses calling for the reconquering of colonies? They don't exist anywhere but in phoney remainer rhetoric. 

Ah Putin and Trump! They can stroke whatever they want, it's a pathetic irrelevance.  If someone said you can't vote for Scottish independence because it's what Putin and Trump want you to do, you'd absolutely ridicule that as a reason to stay in the union and you know it.  I don't vote according to what foreign politicians want or don't want. Voting No was what Obama wanted me to do and he can go fuck himself as  much as Putin and Trump. :classic_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darth Bino said:

I thank you for correcting the use of the term xenophobe as a generalization.  The popular myth that all leavers are racists and xenophobes  and all remainers by default are not, does not hold up in personal experience.  Scotland is no bastion of tolerance under the surface. It's a place where the use of words like wogs and niggers, is by no means confined to who voted one way or the other.  I have no problem admitting that these elements are disgustingly more open about it on the leave side. 

I do question the understanding of what democracy means in voting to permit the signing of treaties on political and fiscal union without specific democratic consent.  It may not be a conscious denial of democratic rights, but in practice that's what it is.  We hold elections to decide who political and legislative power gets entrusted to in the UK. Not to transfer that power without consent to the EU.  If a political party  stands on a manifesto of ever closer union with the EU, then fair enough, they have a mandate. They do not though!  Without that mandate MPs are not exercising the power they were given, they are abusing it.  That is using the democratic system to act as tyrants where they choose. No democracy can survive that and it is no surprise to me that ours is in pieces at this point.   That's the reality of the fatuous claim by MP's that they are sovereign. They are temporary trustees of the people's sovereignty. If they are sovereign, they can declare a police state on a whim. I reject my serfdom to the new monarchs.

Unfortunately there are no rules preventing MPs from resigning from one party, joining or forming another and refusing to fight a by election.  Umunna Has been Labour, Change UK and Liberal Democrat all in the space of a few months. His constituents are stuck with him giving them two fingers until the next election.  Where he will not even be submitting himself to the people of Streatham, he will be standing for Westminster. Rules? What rules mate?

"Our democratic representatives just can't agree on the terms of our departure."  That is of course the popular media line, but it is bollocks. For a start the Lib Dems, the Greens and the SNP have no interest in any deal. They are for remain full stop. At least they're open about it, I'll give them that.  The rest of the those demanding no deal should be off the table are putting forward the ludicrous proposition that you can get a better treaty out of the EU, by refusing to leave without one.  They know damned well  that's nonsense and in fact they are all in full agreement. They don't want a "deal", they want to remain. They know full well, that their best chance of getting a remain vote in a second referendum, is to put a deal to the public that is so nonsensical, that remain would win.   Just to be on the safe side, they propose a 2nd referendum where leaving with or without a deal isn't even on the ballot paper. There is no disagreement, just dishonesty. 

Corbyn of course has said he thinks leave with no deal should be on the ballot, but he's done so many somersaults with full double twist, to placate his remainer MP's I've no doubt he can perform more acrobatics on that one.....or else.  In fact, just about every time he opens his mouth on Brexit, Watson. or Thornberry, or McDonnell pops up with a different position about an hour later. What a busted flush that man is. 

Then we have good old Boris. Ranted on about May's bad deal......then voted for it. Like May, gave a do or die date for leaving, knowing full well his own MPs wouldn't let him. It's all a blame game for not following through on a referendum, not some crusade for any "deal.

Finally let's not leave out good old Donald Tusk, he of special place in hell for people who want to leave without a plan fame. It wouldn't matter what plan you presented, Donald would reject it, if it actually meant leaving the authority of the EU over the UK parliament.   Without doubt it's a pantomime with a cast of liars on all sides, but buried behind it all, there was  are referendum  and Leave won and leaving is what should happen. They say there's no mandate for leaving with no deal.  The majority of them stood for election on a leave platform. Not an only leave with a deal platform.  Were we all too thick to understand their manifestos as well?  Who hasn't got a mandate again?

 

I see your argument about democracy at play when signing treaties on political and fiscal union. I've always felt that our representatives are elected to act in the best interests of the UK, and that allows them to e.g. transfer power to the EU if they think that is ultimately in the best interests of the UK. The difficulty of course is that those people to whom that power is transferred are at arms length to the electorate of the relevant countries who have signed over power and are not directly accountable to those electorates. Not sure that means our representatives need consent from the UK electorate to make any decision to take this type of action, but accept it's a tricky area. The only resort we have is to vote those who've taken the action out at the next election, but reversing the effects of their action would be problematic. Perhaps the best way would be to exit any such unions, but can't see that happening …..oh hang on a minute.

Cameron really has a lot to answer for. It is quite clear that there's a majority for remain amongst our MP's. I'm not quite as cynical as you seem to be on their motives, but I think the majority (if they accepted the result and acted on it) would want to retain too close a relationship to the EU to satisfy those who voted leave. I think it would have been preferable if some debate on the terms of leaving could have been done before the vote and perhaps alternatves included in the paper. Given the standard of the campaign though, I suspect that might have made it even more of a shitfest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gmca said:

I see your argument about democracy at play when signing treaties on political and fiscal union. I've always felt that our representatives are elected to act in the best interests of the UK, and that allows them to e.g. transfer power to the EU if they think that is ultimately in the best interests of the UK. The difficulty of course is that those people to whom that power is transferred are at arms length to the electorate of the relevant countries who have signed over power and are not directly accountable to those electorates. Not sure that means our representatives need consent from the UK electorate to make any decision to take this type of action, but accept it's a tricky area. The only resort we have is to vote those who've taken the action out at the next election, but reversing the effects of their action would be problematic. Perhaps the best way would be to exit any such unions, but can't see that happening …..oh hang on a minute.

Cameron really has a lot to answer for. It is quite clear that there's a majority for remain amongst our MP's. I'm not quite as cynical as you seem to be on their motives, but I think the majority (if they accepted the result and acted on it) would want to retain too close a relationship to the EU to satisfy those who voted leave. I think it would have been preferable if some debate on the terms of leaving could have been done before the vote and perhaps alternatves included in the paper. Given the standard of the campaign though, I suspect that might have made it even more of a shitfest.

Our representatives are elected on the basis of manifesto commitments. If the further transfer of decision making power is not one of them, then they have no mandate. A dictator can claim to be acting in your best interests, but is still a dictator.  If MPs consider the transfer of more power to be in your best interests, you put it to the electorate. That's an essential definition of a democratic state.

Exiting the union was put to a ballot and passed into law, but more than 3 years later......oh hang on a minute. These remain MPs have been screaming for another referendum before May even got to her "deal." It is not cynical to recognize that it was never about deal or no deal and all about not leaving on any terms. What none care to explain is why they voted for article 50 in overwhelming numbers when the legal default position was leave with or without a deal. Did they not know what they were voting for?  

A panicking Cameron suggested a commitment that no new treaties would be signed without a referendum in the final weeks of a referendum. Since they only needed about a 2% swing to get remain over the line that would likely have been enough. It was then quickly dropped and never spoke of again. Remain preferred to gamble all and they lost and they lost because the uncompromising fools deserved to lose. It wasn't all about Cameron, it was also about the entire remain cross party group, preferring to use the referendum to bury public consultation for good, rather than submit themselves to it. 

Where Cameron directly made remain's plight worse, was his public farce running around Europe threatening to leave if he didn't get an emergency brake on immigration. What he came back with, (claiming a success) was an emergency brake he couldn't apply unless the other 27 states voted to let him. Which of course they wouldn't because it was a direct contravention of the principle of free movement. To secure this unworkable brake he surrendered the British veto as a price in some 60 areas with no mandate to do so. In doing so, he merely confirmed how easily British vetoes could be disposed of at the whim of government. British vetoes are dispensable to MPs, they are not reliable insurance and he made that abundantly clear to even more voters.

Alternatives on the ballot. Let's look at that. That would be Leave with a deal. Leave with or without a deal. Or remain. The only logical result of that is the Leave vote splitting between the two options and remain being the highest and therefore winning vote. This even if the split vote for leave put together was higher than the remain vote. Leave would claim leave won and there should be another ballot with remain off the ballot and Remain would insist no, we won that's the end of it and another shitfest. It's not a solution, it's a fix.

Equally a fix is the attempt by Remain MPs, to rerun the referendum with another binary option of their own choosing. Remain, or accept a deal dictated by the EU which keeps you in it's institutions and under it's legal authority, without a veto, or even a vote. That is their idea of giving a democratic vote to the people who voted leave in the referendum and it's bloody disgraceful.   Ok, so we're all supposed to know now what we really voted for. That's what they tell us. We all have the right to change our minds now they say.  Yet we're not to be allowed the right to not change our minds in a repeat binary referendum, now that we've all been "educated."  That I repeat, is not democracy, that is blatant and vile abuse of power by  elected public servants behaving like autocrats.  You'll get what they dictate you can get.

Eventually MPs will have to face the electorate in an election and those in remain constituencies will survive, fall to Lib Dems, or the Brexit party will nip in between the split vote. Those in constituencies that voted leave however, are liable to get annihilated by the Brexit Party.  Not a problem for Labour. They'll happily blame it on Corbyn and go back to caring, caring, values values, passionate caring and values, people of aspiration, save the NHS and ....umm.....we're passionately for remain. Let's put all this behind us and heal the nation. To which half of it is going to reply, go fuck yourselves!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Darth Bino said:

Our representatives are elected on the basis of manifesto commitments. If the further transfer of decision making power is not one of them, then they have no mandate. A dictator can claim to be acting in your best interests, but is still a dictator.  If MPs consider the transfer of more power to be in your best interests, you put it to the electorate. That's an essential definition of a democratic state.

Exiting the union was put to a ballot and passed into law, but more than 3 years later......oh hang on a minute. These remain MPs have been screaming for another referendum before May even got to her "deal." It is not cynical to recognize that it was never about deal or no deal and all about not leaving on any terms. What none care to explain is why they voted for article 50 in overwhelming numbers when the legal default position was leave with or without a deal. Did they not know what they were voting for?  

A panicking Cameron suggested a commitment that no new treaties would be signed without a referendum in the final weeks of a referendum. Since they only needed about a 2% swing to get remain over the line that would likely have been enough. It was then quickly dropped and never spoke of again. Remain preferred to gamble all and they lost and they lost because the uncompromising fools deserved to lose. It wasn't all about Cameron, it was also about the entire remain cross party group, preferring to use the referendum to bury public consultation for good, rather than submit themselves to it. 

Where Cameron directly made remain's plight worse, was his public farce running around Europe threatening to leave if he didn't get an emergency brake on immigration. What he came back with, (claiming a success) was an emergency brake he couldn't apply unless the other 27 states voted to let him. Which of course they wouldn't because it was a direct contravention of the principle of free movement. To secure this unworkable brake he surrendered the British veto as a price in some 60 areas with no mandate to do so. In doing so, he merely confirmed how easily British vetoes could be disposed of at the whim of government. British vetoes are dispensable to MPs, they are not reliable insurance and he made that abundantly clear to even more voters.

Alternatives on the ballot. Let's look at that. That would be Leave with a deal. Leave with or without a deal. Or remain. The only logical result of that is the Leave vote splitting between the two options and remain being the highest and therefore winning vote. This even if the split vote for leave put together was higher than the remain vote. Leave would claim leave won and there should be another ballot with remain off the ballot and Remain would insist no, we won that's the end of it and another shitfest. It's not a solution, it's a fix.

Equally a fix is the attempt by Remain MPs, to rerun the referendum with another binary option of their own choosing. Remain, or accept a deal dictated by the EU which keeps you in it's institutions and under it's legal authority, without a veto, or even a vote. That is their idea of giving a democratic vote to the people who voted leave in the referendum and it's bloody disgraceful.   Ok, so we're all supposed to know now what we really voted for. That's what they tell us. We all have the right to change our minds now they say.  Yet we're not to be allowed the right to not change our minds in a repeat binary referendum, now that we've all been "educated."  That I repeat, is not democracy, that is blatant and vile abuse of power by  elected public servants behaving like autocrats.  You'll get what they dictate you can get.

Eventually MPs will have to face the electorate in an election and those in remain constituencies will survive, fall to Lib Dems, or the Brexit party will nip in between the split vote. Those in constituencies that voted leave however, are liable to get annihilated by the Brexit Party.  Not a problem for Labour. They'll happily blame it on Corbyn and go back to caring, caring, values values, passionate caring and values, people of aspiration, save the NHS and ....umm.....we're passionately for remain. Let's put all this behind us and heal the nation. To which half of it is going to reply, go fuck yourselves!

 

I agree manifestos are the basis on which voters should make an informed decision on who to vote for, but they have to be a fluid commitment to some extent based on changes that happen once a party is in power. Sadly that tends to give politicians a cop out on their commitments. Probably major changes like the ones you mention should always go to a referendum. How you incorporate something like that into legislation so a government can't bypass it I don't know.

My suggestion of the choices in the referendum would have been a straight choice between leave or remain with a simple majority winning. The alternatives would only have been to inform our representatives what type of deal (or no deal) the voters wanted them to pursue. I agree anything that waters down the choices one way or the other would be unacceptable.

If and when this is all resolved it's going to leave a dirty mark on the country from which it'll take some time to recover (if we ever do.) Very few come out of this with any credit at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, gmca said:

I agree manifestos are the basis on which voters should make an informed decision on who to vote for, but they have to be a fluid commitment to some extent based on changes that happen once a party is in power. Sadly that tends to give politicians a cop out on their commitments. Probably major changes like the ones you mention should always go to a referendum. How you incorporate something like that into legislation so a government can't bypass it I don't know.

My suggestion of the choices in the referendum would have been a straight choice between leave or remain with a simple majority winning. The alternatives would only have been to inform our representatives what type of deal (or no deal) the voters wanted them to pursue. I agree anything that waters down the choices one way or the other would be unacceptable.

If and when this is all resolved it's going to leave a dirty mark on the country from which it'll take some time to recover (if we ever do.) Very few come out of this with any credit at all.

We all know that governments cop out on manifesto commitments. We've seen it often enough. That is on an entirely different level from the commitments they've entered into with the EU without a mandate. You do seem to get that. I do know how you solve that through legislation and so do MP's. You pass it into law that any transfer of sovereign power must be approved by referendum. They rammed through a law to prevent the government leaving without a deal in less than a week. It's that easy when the will to do it is there. It isn't. They prefer to keep the public disenfranchised over Europe, as they have done since from 1975 to 2016.  The problem now is that the genie is out of the bottle. When finally enfranchised the majority of those who actually voted said, I'm a voter get me out of here.  Oh but people were given this false rosy perception of how easy it was going to be, they scream. Yes they were and that's what politicians do at every general election, whether it be on crime, the economy, employment, or whatever. On that basis every election ever run should have been rerun.....but they're not. It's mendacious hypocrisy and nothing more. 

You can't get voters to decide what deal they would or wouldn't like, because nearly half the country don't want any deal at all. They just want to remain. With no deal off the table, you will get May's deal again from the EU in the hope that you'd rather remain than accept it. Accompanied by a chorus of the usual suspects telling you remaining is better than this.  Of course it is, pity nobody gave them a mandate to stay in the EU if  they fucked up the negotiations. So you're right, any further referendum should be a straight binary repeat of in or out, but people might vote out again so you can kiss that option goodbye.  

There shouldn't even be a second referendum. The negotiations were supposed to be a settlement deal for withdrawing from all EU institutions and authority. Not a process by which the EU and your own politicians, attempted to keep you in those institutions and under that authority. Attempting to present that is not a valid excuse for another referendum.  The leave group have been trying to negotiate a trade deal from a settlement deal and the EU justifiably will have none of it. At least in that case they remember what a withdrawal settlement actually is because it suits them to.

There's already a dirty stain on this country. Put there by MPs trying to overturn a democratic referendum they voted to hold and voted to carry out. Put there by mindless thugs on the leave side assaulting innocent Poles, because it hasn't been carried out. Put there by the home office for sending out prepare to leave letters to EU citizens, before a deal had even been ratified by parliament. By persecuting and deporting the Windrush generation, who had nothing to do with this whole farce. Both those by the way, presided over by sanctimonious ardent remainer Amber Rudd. She who claimed that as Home Secretary, she had no idea what her own department was doing.  I would describe that stain as filthy, rather than dirty, but there I'm sure we can agree.   I don't believe we will leave the European Union. I never have. If they prove me right, how does democracy recover from that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Darth Bino said:

We all know that governments cop out on manifesto commitments. We've seen it often enough. That is on an entirely different level from the commitments they've entered into with the EU without a mandate. You do seem to get that. I do know how you solve that through legislation and so do MP's. You pass it into law that any transfer of sovereign power must be approved by referendum. They rammed through a law to prevent the government leaving without a deal in less than a week. It's that easy when the will to do it is there. It isn't. They prefer to keep the public disenfranchised over Europe, as they have done since from 1975 to 2016.  The problem now is that the genie is out of the bottle. When finally enfranchised the majority of those who actually voted said, I'm a voter get me out of here.  Oh but people were given this false rosy perception of how easy it was going to be, they scream. Yes they were and that's what politicians do at every general election, whether it be on crime, the economy, employment, or whatever. On that basis every election ever run should have been rerun.....but they're not. It's mendacious hypocrisy and nothing more. 

You can't get voters to decide what deal they would or wouldn't like, because nearly half the country don't want any deal at all. They just want to remain. With no deal off the table, you will get May's deal again from the EU in the hope that you'd rather remain than accept it. Accompanied by a chorus of the usual suspects telling you remaining is better than this.  Of course it is, pity nobody gave them a mandate to stay in the EU if  they fucked up the negotiations. So you're right, any further referendum should be a straight binary repeat of in or out, but people might vote out again so you can kiss that option goodbye.  

There shouldn't even be a second referendum. The negotiations were supposed to be a settlement deal for withdrawing from all EU institutions and authority. Not a process by which the EU and your own politicians, attempted to keep you in those institutions and under that authority. Attempting to present that is not a valid excuse for another referendum.  The leave group have been trying to negotiate a trade deal from a settlement deal and the EU justifiably will have none of it. At least in that case they remember what a withdrawal settlement actually is because it suits them to.

There's already a dirty stain on this country. Put there by MPs trying to overturn a democratic referendum they voted to hold and voted to carry out. Put there by mindless thugs on the leave side assaulting innocent Poles, because it hasn't been carried out. Put there by the home office for sending out prepare to leave letters to EU citizens, before a deal had even been ratified by parliament. By persecuting and deporting the Windrush generation, who had nothing to do with this whole farce. Both those by the way, presided over by sanctimonious ardent remainer Amber Rudd. She who claimed that as Home Secretary, she had no idea what her own department was doing.  I would describe that stain as filthy, rather than dirty, but there I'm sure we can agree.   I don't believe we will leave the European Union. I never have. If they prove me right, how does democracy recover from that?

 

Well said Darth.

Have been watching some Monty Python stuff in the last week, but even they couldn't be as surreal as this lot. Unfortunately this lot don't have the humour to go with it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...