|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't think that's the narrative. This whole "oh, the nasty secularists are trying to erase British Anglican Christian values" has been around for ages. I don't think Brexit makes much difference - it is more that it is a distraction from real questions as to the competence of May to deliver on her Brexit promises.
Talking about Easter and Happy Holidays and all that is an easy way to rile up a certain constituency without actually saying anything of any consequence.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On a sidenote, it is rather hilarious that Santamu and May condemn Cadburys on the basis that their founder was a Christian.
In fact he was a Quaker in an era when they steadfastly refused to celebrate religious festivals. The idea that he'd be bothered if the "meaning of Easter was lost" is laughable.
It's even funnier when you consider that May issued her condemnation from that well known bastion of religious pluralism and Christian values, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Presumably, May was also there to help sell arms, which are being used to kill Yemeni people. Well, Easter eggs seem more important in any moral calculus.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Some journalists are saying that May has basically acceded to the EU timetable, that is, trade negotiations start in 2 years. It looks like it, possibly because the Brexit ministers didn't have a clue what Brexit might mean or how to achieve it. So it goes.
So how long for the whole process? Go on, guess. 7 years?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, May was also there to help sell arms, which are being used to kill Yemeni people. Well, Easter eggs seem more important in any moral calculus.
Filthy, brown, foreign heathens killing other filthy, brown, foreign heathens . Morally neutral at worst.
Much less important than preserving the sanctity of a co-opted pagan festival filled with co-opted pagan symbols and the vaunted Christian symbology of sacred Capitalism.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how long for the whole process? Go on, guess. 7 years?
I've heard "7 years" cited in another, non-Brexit context as the minimum amount of time to go from initial negotiations to final implementation if you're creating an international trade agreement from scratch. So if negotiations start roughly two years from now there should be something in place by roughly 2026, assuming everything goes smoothly.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think that's the narrative. This whole "oh, the nasty secularists are trying to erase British Anglican Christian values" has been around for ages. I don't think Brexit makes much difference - it is more that it is a distraction from real questions as to the competence of May to deliver on her Brexit promises.
I think these things tend to be over-determined, there's a certain amount of what you say, but also it fits in with the current 'taking back control from foreign' narrative - the various UKIP types were going on about 'Judeo-Christian values' and blaming 'halal'.
At the same time May herself seems to be rather credulous on the 'PC Gone mad' line (see the migrant vans, and the tale of the immigrants cat), but then I suppose that's going to play well with a certain part of the Tory membership. As someone put it elsewhere "why wouldn't a credulous, intolerant, mildly-hysteric reactionary who'll make people *who aren't you* suffer be popular in Britain?".
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I wonder if the government are in full retreat over Brexit. So far, they seem to have conceded that two years is a ludicrous under-estimate of the time required for negotiations, and that talks on a trade deal won't start for two years. Also that the transitional arrangement after that, could take a number of years, during which time, freedom of movement may still apply.
Also, the idea that there will be 'regulatory alignment' appears to concede that some companies, and possibly the City, will be 'shadowing' EU regulations. Actually, they have no choice.
Also, that just leaving is not really appropriate.
Without doubt, Mrs May will gloss over all this, and will spin fine gossamers around it, or will talk about bizarre stuff such as Easter eggs.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how long for the whole process? Go on, guess. 7 years?
I've heard "7 years" cited in another, non-Brexit context as the minimum amount of time to go from initial negotiations to final implementation if you're creating an international trade agreement from scratch. So if negotiations start roughly two years from now there should be something in place by roughly 2026, assuming everything goes smoothly.
I think that period refers to the negotiations going on between Canada and the EU. If such famously polite people as Canadians can't strike a deal with the EU in seven years what the hell chance have the British?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
Apparently UKIP and their spokesman are blustering about the EU putting conditions that are impossible to comply with in negotiating Brexit. Prior to the Referendum, it seemed fairly obvious to me that the EU would be dictating the terms of Brexit, and that any claims otherwise were delusional. Yet it was dismissed as 'Project Fear'. Is there a website tracking the claims made by Remain and which ones have come true already and which are still to come true?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Apparently UKIP and their spokesman are blustering about the EU putting conditions that are impossible to comply with in negotiating Brexit.
It is largely not in UKIPs interests that the negotiations go well, and in the short term anything they can do to stir up conflict raises their profile and allows them to play up the 'difficult eurocrat' angle to their base.
Longer term, their policies are going to be a failure, in that whatever form Brexit takes, it is unlikely to deliver the sorts of social change that their supporters think it will. When that dawns on them, they will demand an ever more radical set of changes, and it'll be easier to create the scapegoats necessary if the economy is doing badly at the time.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Is there a website tracking the claims made by Remain and which ones have come true already and which are still to come true?
I'm still waiting for the 'punishment budget', an 18% drop in house prices and World War III to start. (Not sure in which order they're supposed to occur.)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if the government are in full retreat over Brexit. So far, they seem to have conceded that two years is a ludicrous under-estimate of the time required for negotiations, and that talks on a trade deal won't start for two years. Also that the transitional arrangement after that, could take a number of years, during which time, freedom of movement may still apply.
Also, the idea that there will be 'regulatory alignment' appears to concede that some companies, and possibly the City, will be 'shadowing' EU regulations. Actually, they have no choice.
Also, that just leaving is not really appropriate.
A change in the May tone has become noticeably lately. There could be something going on behind the scenery whereby someone will eventually poke their head through the curtains and say this has all been a bad dream.
It is the government and the House which run the Country, not the people. They could quite easily turn around and say --- You Know What? Let's just forget all about that 'kin' Referendum.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Is there a website tracking the claims made by Remain and which ones have come true already and which are still to come true?
I'm still waiting for the 'punishment budget', an 18% drop in house prices and World War III to start. (Not sure in which order they're supposed to occur.)
No "punishment budget" yet, but property prices are being kept high by overseas buyers and WW3 hasn't become less likely thanks to Trump's enlightened approach to NK and his only rival for the title of the worst national leader's haircut.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
17.1% drop in the pound since the Brexit vote. I guess it's still 0.9% inaccurate though; there's always that argument.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
17.1% drop in the pound since the Brexit vote.
One of the very few silver linings (and I admit you have to look hard) in all this is that the £ has been about 20% overvalued for the best part of a decade (if not longer, depending on who you believe) and the BoE has been praying for a way to get it down for at least that long.
I accept it's going to cause problems for a lot of people, and Brexit is a heavy handed way of going about it, but the £'s level was too high to start with.
Still, it does seem like a painful way of achieving devaluation (which is not in itself a bad thing).
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
If you could make it drop another 15% at a minimum that would be quite good. It would certainly make import duty for all us Europeans that little bit easier to bear in two years time.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If you could make it drop another 15% at a minimum that would be quite good. It would certainly make import duty for all us Europeans that little bit easier to bear in two years time.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) - but then it would be actually low rather than recovered from an artificial high so I won't be praying for it sorry!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If you could make it drop another 15% at a minimum that would be quite good. It would certainly make import duty for all us Europeans that little bit easier to bear in two years time.
- but then it would be actually low rather than recovered from an artificial high so I won't be praying for it sorry!
I'm a bit perplexed by the distinction between market forces valuing a currency "actually low" versus "artificial[ly] high", given that currency and everything to do with it is a product of human artifice (i.e. "artificial"). Seems like a case of "the valuation of the pound most convenient for my personal circumstances is the 'actual' value, and anything else is 'artificial'".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...WW3 hasn't become less likely thanks to Trump's enlightened approach to NK and his only rival for the title of the worst national leader's haircut.
Point of order - if Trump starts WW3 then it won't be because of Brexit.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how long for the whole process? Go on, guess. 7 years?
I've heard "7 years" cited in another, non-Brexit context as the minimum amount of time to go from initial negotiations to final implementation if you're creating an international trade agreement from scratch. So if negotiations start roughly two years from now there should be something in place by roughly 2026, assuming everything goes smoothly.
I think that period refers to the negotiations going on between Canada and the EU. If such famously polite people as Canadians can't strike a deal with the EU in seven years what the hell chance have the British?
Probably a better one. The glaringly obvious difference is that there is currently free trade between the UK and all other EU member states. Everyone knows what it looks like and what the ramifications of it are. All the regulations have been thought through and are in place, via EU legislation. This was clearly not the case with Canada, for the simple reason that it was not an EU state and was therefore subject to border tariffs and other import restrictions.
The equivalent shift for the UK would therefore not be towards free trade, but away from it.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On a sidenote, it is rather hilarious that Santamu and May condemn Cadburys on the basis that their founder was a Christian.
In fact he was a Quaker in an era when they steadfastly refused to celebrate religious festivals. The idea that he'd be bothered if the "meaning of Easter was lost" is laughable.
Perhaps a subject for another thread, but I expect they realise that outside in the real world, the average person only thinks of Christianity in terms of paedophilia, gay bishops, homophobia, superstition, the patriarchy and spats about Easter eggs. This is due to the steady and deliberate removal of Christianity from the public sphere. I can understand why they might get just a little bit sensitive.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
This is due to the steady and deliberate removal of Christianity from the public sphere.
I think it less deliberate than a recognition that it doesn't belong in the public sphere along with more and more people just not being fussed.
Prissy little fits about stupid things doesn't put Christianity in a better light, so counter productive regardless.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
You're confusing motive with result. Christianity no longer provides the dominant source of ethics and morals in the average Western society. If it did, it would be absurd to "recognise" that it had no place, as it quite clearly would.
And if you subscribe to a system of ethics that is not only being pushed relentlessly to the margins but is also regarded as absurd in many parts of polite society, a little hissy fit every now and then seems forgivable.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
What does "a place in the public sphere" actually mean? Concrete examples please, for the weirdly-wired.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
You're confusing motive with result. Christianity no longer provides the dominant source of ethics and morals in the average Western society. If it did, it would be absurd to "recognise" that it had no place, as it quite clearly would.
And if you subscribe to a system of ethics that is not only being pushed relentlessly to the margins but is also regarded as absurd in many parts of polite society, a little hissy fit every now and then seems forgivable.
Not sure what system of ethics and morals is unique to Christianity.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think it less deliberate than a recognition that it doesn't belong in the public sphere along with more and more people just not being fussed.
I liked this piece in the Guardian from Victoria Coren Mitchell.
quote:
I remember a News of the World columnist writing, at the time: "I'm always suspicious of lefties who live in palaces… yet still feel entitled to pontificate about the poor."
But he's the Archbishop of Canterbury! "Entitled to pontificate" is precisely what he is.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, I thought we were talking about multiple options for a future relationship between the UK and EU, not multiple reasons for leaving (though they may be related). We have a referendum result which shows that a small majority of the 2016 electorate wanted to leave the EU, that result stands regardless of why they wanted to leave. In many ways the why they wanted to leave is irrelevant. What is relevant is that nowhere in the process was what they wanted to leave to defined.
Given that the none of the conditions of leaving the EU can be unilaterally dictated by the leaving member, trying to include them in the referendum would have been deceptive. Especially since Article 50 seems to be written with an implicit 'no backsies' structure.
In other words, the referendum addressed the only question (Leave or Remain) that was actually within the power of the British government to act on. Trying to cram in "we'll leave if X, but not if Y" implies powers not available to a country leaving the EU.
[Sorry for going all the way back to this. I've been suffering a severe case of loss-of-internet (and, I can't even blame it on UKIP)]
You seem to have missed the point I have been (repeatedly) trying to make. No one (or, at least, no one with brains) expects to be able to put the final terms of a constitutional change on the ballot prior to the start of negotiations. What I've been saying is that an informed vote requires the intention of the government to be defined. So, a year ago we should have known that the intention of the government was to seek a bespoke deal with the EU retaining tariff -free trade with the EU on specified sectors and control over EU immigration (etc... the exact intention would need a document of several hundred pages). The expectation of the electorate would then be that the government try their hardest to reach a deal that is as close as possible to that intention (assuming a vote in favour of the government trying to do that). With a General Election in 2020 (and, every 5 years after that) in which we can express how well we thought the government did.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Probably a better one. The glaringly obvious difference is that there is currently free trade between the UK and all other EU member states. Everyone knows what it looks like and what the ramifications of it are. All the regulations have been thought through and are in place, via EU legislation.
This does not make things necessarily any simpler, because of the particular direction of travel that the UK has embarked upon. The UK will assume - as part of the 'great repeal bill' - much of this into UK legislation, without an agreed mechanism for updating this legislation in future, and often the bodies enforcing these regulations are ones that the UK may or may not recognize in future. The ultimate arbiter is often the ECJ - which becomes a problem for all the sovereignty nuts in the current government.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Brexiteers now complaining that the EU has had the temerity to start drawing up plans to relocate agencies serving the EU away from the UK ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
[ 17. April 2017, 15:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Since it was clear more than a year age that EU institutions located in EU nations would have to move if that nation ceases to be in the EU then they have no basis to complain. If they voted Leave expecting the EU to continue operate major institutions in countries outwith the EU then they were stupid. If they didn't realise there are EU institutions in the UK then they're stupidly ill-informed.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Since it was clear more than a year age that EU institutions located in EU nations would have to move if that nation ceases to be in the EU then they have no basis to complain.
These [the politian ones] are the scroungers that proposed to 'pretend to be Irish to get EU funding'. The European values of respect, justice, fair play etc... are a foreign book to them.
[ 17. April 2017, 19:46: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
values of respect, justice, fair play etc...
Strange, I thought those were British values. Clearly since they're European values we need to ditch them to make sure no one mistakes the British for Europeans. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Brexiteers now complaining that the EU has had the temerity to start drawing up plans to relocate agencies serving the EU away from the UK
I wish I was surprised. But very little surprises me about how stupid a significant portion of Brexiteers are. Not all of them, just the ones who appear to be the ones who the politicans believe have the money to pay, and thus are letting them call the tune.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Eyes down for an unscheduled Downing Street statement by the Prime Minister at 11:15 am this morning. All journalists caught on the hop. Snap Election anybody?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Eyes down for an unscheduled Downing Street statement by the Prime Minister at 11:15 am this morning. All journalists caught on the hop. Snap Election anybody?
It's that time of the year. Little practical progress on Brexit beyond Article 50 itself in a whole ten months. Has the PM been to Buck House?
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Eyes down for an unscheduled Downing Street statement by the Prime Minister at 11:15 am this morning. All journalists caught on the hop. Snap Election anybody?
It's that time of the year. Little practical progress on Brexit beyond Article 50 itself in a whole ten months. Has the PM been to Buck House?
Missed the traditional early May date - June 8th allegedly....
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Either the Queen is dead... or there will be a GE (IMO).
If it's a GE, I'm going to volunteer for the LD in whatever constituency they can realistically beat the Tories.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
It is indeed June 8th....
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Bollocks. This is bad.
We have a "one-off" chance to stop Brexit. Will we take it?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I've put a new thread up...
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bollocks. This is bad.
Why bad? It's a chance to get rid of the government you've all been complaining about for so long, rather than being stuck with them until 2020. Surely that should make you happy?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why bad? It's a chance to get rid of the government you've all been complaining about for so long, rather than being stuck with them until 2020. Surely that should make you happy?
Well y'know, I'm being quite positive as to the chances of taking out some of the worst Tory Brexiteers. I don't think they're going to get a majority.
But it is bad that Labour are not united and don't have a leader that looks like winning, so whatever happens we're going to have the Tories as the main party in the Commons, which will be bad.
Even in my most rosy scenario, the election will be indecisive and probably lead to another election.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bollocks. This is bad.
Why bad? It's a chance to get rid of the government you've all been complaining about for so long, rather than being stuck with them until 2020. Surely that should make you happy?
The likelihood is five more years of Tory misrule including five years of hopeless negotiations that will impoverish the country. This old place is utterly fucked and it can't blame anyone but itself.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
So basically, it's bad because you know you're in the minority and will lose the election?
Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work though? You make your points, they make theirs, and whoever is most convincing gets the most votes. Even if you lose, at least an election gives you the chance to make your points.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The problem is that it doesn't look like we'll be voting for policies for the next five years. We'll have an election where the main position of each party will (presumably) be something like:
Tory - vote for a Brexit negotiating position as briefly outlined in the White Paper earlier this year
Labour - vote for a Brexit negotiating position that has yet to be outlined, but presumably will be softer than the White Paper
Lib Dem - vote to stay in the EU
SNP - vote for holding an IndyRef when the Scottish Parliament chooses (oh, and to stay in the EU)
All the other issues of government - welfare, healthcare, education, law and order etc will take a very definite back seat.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So basically, it's bad because you know you're in the minority and will lose the election?
Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work though? You make your points, they make theirs, and whoever is most convincing gets the most votes. Even if you lose, at least an election gives you the chance to make your points.
Man is, by nature selfish and/or stupid. If s/he can't see that we are going to carry on with dumbass populist governments until Trump etc blow us all to kingdom come.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
All the other issues of government - welfare, healthcare, education, law and order etc will take a very definite back seat.
You are quite right about this, as you are about approximately what each party will say about Brexit. But isn't this what you've always wanted? You have said so many times that the PM has no authority to take us out of the Single Market, and that it wasn't what the British people voted for. We will see on June 8th. No political party can take for granted the result of a General Election. The pollsters have been proved wrong many times. In the event of a hung parliament in which Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP can form a coalition, they will have the opportunity to seriously change direction, either by finding a way to cancel Brexit or to water it down or to call another referendum. If Tim Farron is right and all the Remainers and the softer of the Brexiteers support his position, he should get more votes than any Liberal since Lloyd George.
If, however, the polls are right, and the PM substantially increases her majority, the Remainers need to pipe down and accept that twice the British voters have told us what they want. It will be no good saying that there is no mandate for the PM's vision of Brexit if she wins this election. How many ways of testing public opinion do people want before they accept that, even when the result is deeply offensive to their own personal view, it has democratic authority?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
All the other issues of government - welfare, healthcare, education, law and order etc will take a very definite back seat.
You are quite right about this, as you are about approximately what each party will say about Brexit. But isn't this what you've always wanted? You have said so many times that the PM has no authority to take us out of the Single Market, and that it wasn't what the British people voted for. We will see on June 8th. No political party can take for granted the result of a General Election. The pollsters have been proved wrong many times. In the event of a hung parliament in which Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP can form a coalition, they will have the opportunity to seriously change direction, either by finding a way to cancel Brexit or to water it down or to call another referendum. If Tim Farron is right and all the Remainers and the softer of the Brexiteers support his position, he should get more votes than any Liberal since Lloyd George.
If, however, the polls are right, and the PM substantially increases her majority, the Remainers need to pipe down and accept that twice the British voters have told us what they want. It will be no good saying that there is no mandate for the PM's vision of Brexit if she wins this election. How many ways of testing public opinion do people want before they accept that, even when the result is deeply offensive to their own personal view, it has democratic authority?
Pretty much what I would have said if I'd got there first. People have been stating that May doesn't have a mandate so she's decided to go get one. A risky strategy but one that could pay off.
As for the business of government, you're already living that one out. Pretty all my Scottish friends wish the SNP would put the same energies into fixing Scotland's issues - health, education, social etc - as they do into trying to get IndyRef2 The Re-Run. Whatever their stance on independence.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
All the other issues of government - welfare, healthcare, education, law and order etc will take a very definite back seat.
You are quite right about this, as you are about approximately what each party will say about Brexit. But isn't this what you've always wanted? You have said so many times that the PM has no authority to take us out of the Single Market, and that it wasn't what the British people voted for. We will see on June 8th.
Yes, I want the PM to gain a democratic mandate for her position. But, I don't want a general election to determine that. A General Election is an opportunity to elect people to represent us on general issues - it's not a time for single issue questions. I don't want a government (regardless of the colour of the rosette) elected on the basis of a vision for Brexit then considering they have a mandate to enact reforms of the NHS, education, welfare etc over the next five years.
On top of which, of course, the timing sucks. Mrs May (according to what I got from the radio news at lunchtime) is calling for the parties to put forward their vision for Brexit. That should, of course, have been done before the referendum was called last year. At the very least, we should have resolved the issue of what form of Brexit and who will lead the government in negotiations for that before anyone triggered Article 50. We have a very tight 18 months to negotiate Brexit, and now Mrs May proposes that the government stop work on those negotiations for a few months while we have an election campaign, potentially electing a government which will want to scrap everything already done and start again with a different vision of Brexit. What a total and utter farce. Unbelievable.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
