Area for all other political discussion
:sunglasses: 50 % :thumbsup: 50 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#578310
youngian wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:17 am
Likewise, Ireland's second vote on the Nice(?) Treaty was about presenting an amended version of the elected government's central strategic aim that could command a majority (tighter assurance about NATO and abortion policy staying national satisfied enough voters to switch). Referendums are not government by opinion poll.
In simpler terms, Ireland has an organised, self contained and non-party political system for setting up referenda, and operates a system where the legislation for the result must be drafted *first*. It's proven rather effective in shutting down the Unicorn farming industry.
spoonman liked this
 
By Boiler
Posts
#578427
No offences took place with three of the five allegations of malpractice at a by-election in Peterborough earlier this month, a police inquiry has found.

A Cambridgeshire Police spokesperson said: "I can confirm police received several reports of electoral fraud following the Peterborough by-election. Of the five allegations reported, two incidents are currently being investigated to establish if any offences have been committed. No arrests have been made."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-48680715
 
By AOB
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#578434
A referendum is merely a snapshot.

General Elections prove how people can change their minds in a short space of time. Nobody says we shouldn't have GEs because it endangers democracy. The Tories had a majority in 2015, they didn't two years later.

It's a load of ifs. If Cameron hadn't needlessly pledged in his manifesto to call a referendum. If Blair had been 20 years younger and was opposition leader in 2016/17 there would have been a second referendum by now, in fact he would have swung enough votes from leave to remain in 2016, I think.

A part of me wants, would relish, this to go all belly-up. But it's the same part of me that after a bad day at work wants the place to get burnt down that night, but then I'd realise I'd have no job. Leave obviously will be devastating but I won't relish the fall-out, countless people's lives being ruined.
Arrowhead, Oblomov liked this
 
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#582659
Posted by someone on another forum I frequent today

Brexit - a lunchtime conundrum

In an office there are 112 people. It is decided that they will all have a vote of what to have for lunch.
12 people are deliberately excluded from the vote because they are vegetarians, but will nevertheless have to put up with the lunch chosen and eat it.
52 people vote to get lunch from McDonalds. 48 people vote to get a bargain bucket from KFC.
It is therefore decided that lunch will be bought at McDonalds.

Of those 52, the motive to get lunch from McDonalds is based on the following wants of a meal;
- 15 want a Big Mac, fries and a Coke
- 10 want a Big Mac, fries and a milkshake
- 8 want a Filet o'Fish, fries & a Coke
- 7 want a Big Mac, salad and a Coke
- 7 want a Big Mac, salad and a milkshake
- 5 want a Filet o'Fish, salad and a Coke

15 people can therefore be said to want a Big Mac, fries & a coke from McDonalds for lunch. The other 97 people in the office do not want this. However they all now have to eat this lunch because to go against this would apparently be a betrayal of office democracy. This is in spite of the fact 12 are vegetarians, 14 cannot eat beef for religious reasons and 60 don't actually like Big Macs at all.
spoonman, Arrowhead, Timbo liked this
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#583007
Just noticed that in this thread, no-one has yet mentioned the killer argument that completely destroys the arguments of those who claim that to have a further referendum more than three years after the 2016 plebiscite would be to "endanger democracy" because in 2016, there was a vote and the people voted to leave the EU.

Well, in 1975, there was a vote and the people voted - overwhelmingly - for the UK to remain part of the EU.

Following the logic of their own arguments, the 2016 referendum "endangered democracy" and should never have been held, because the matter was decided by the 1975 referendum. We definitely should not now be preparing to end UK membership of the EU.

But, they will say, that was in 1975. Fine, you answer, if you are now saying that it was quite okay to have another referendum on EU membership in 2016 after the question had been decided by a previous referendum in 1975, then your argument that a further referendum after the previous referendum in 2016 would somehow be invalid and a danger to democracy completely collapses. By saying in effect that a new referendum is fine, you are conceding that a new referendum today to decide whether to take a final decision to leave is perfectly fine. And it is. It's a further dose of democracy, just to be sure. As such, it ain't anti-democratic.
Boiler, Oblomov liked this
 
By lord_kobel
Membership Days Posts
#583057
Abernathy wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:28 pm
By saying in effect that a new referendum is fine, you are conceding that a new referendum today to decide whether to take a final decision to leave is perfectly fine. And it is. It's a further dose of democracy, just to be sure. As such, it ain't anti-democratic.
I've tried that. I've been told we can't have another vote until the result of the previous one has been enacted...
 
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#583058
That's logic akin to a man jumping off a cliff being offered a parachute halfway down but deciding he has to hit the rocks to see if he dies before he chooses whether to take the parachute.
Boiler, Samanfur, Kreuzberger and 2 others liked this
 
By davidjay
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#583065
But that was only to stay in the Common Market it was a trading bloc and we were told that there would be no further integration by Heath the traitor and now they want a European super state and 17.4milliondemocraticwillofthepeoplebiggestvoteinhistory and YOU LOST!!! GET OVER IT!!!
 
By Boiler
Posts
#583069
davidjay wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:49 am
But that was only to stay in the Common Market it was a trading bloc and we were told that there would be no further integration by Heath the traitor and now they want a European super state and 17.4milliondemocraticwillofthepeoplebiggestvoteinhistory and YOU LOST!!! GET OVER IT!!!
(and at this exact point, the enraged speaker collapses and falls to bits like The Bluesmobile does at the end of the epic car chase in The Blues Brothers. It's on YouToob)
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#583723
You know, in the endless stream of radio phone-ins, commentary, and newspaper think-pieces around Brexit over the last 3 years, I'm beginning to think that the thing that I'm becoming most heartily sick of hearing is the ill-considered assertion that if Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is rescinded - with or without a new public vote - or a new referendum is held, or Brexit is not "delivered" in whatever way, the "damage to democracy" will be grave and serious.

Really? Here's the truth. If the UK at the end of this saga blessedly does not end its membership of the EU, the "damage to democracy" that people wring their hands over will be precisely NIL.

The UK will *not* transform into North Korea overnight. Our democratic institutions, our parliament, our government, will all continue as usual (though still in need, in my view, of urgent reform). The Scottish parliament will continue, as before - we may even save the UK from fragmentation - as will the Welsh assembly. The NI assembly might even resume if the Good Friday agreement is saved from the impact of Brexit.

"Democracy" as a concept, as the principle on which our polity is allegedly based, will survive abandoning Brexit undamaged, if slightly battered.

Why assert this? You may ask. Because the referendum held in 2016 had no legal status other than as an advisory plebiscite. It did *not* bind any government to act on its result. That the Tories chose to promise to do so was a political choice, not a binding, unalterable course of action. That they have since chosen to disguise this in order to drive Brexit through is nothing short of scandalous.

Had the 2016 referendum had the legal status of a binding referendum, the argument that not to implement its decision would damage democracy may gain some force. Without that status, the notion of damage to democracy resulting from a considered decision not to proceed with the action indicated by its narrowly achieved result is, frankly, absurd.

That the High Court has explicitly stated that, had the 2016 referendum had the legal status of a binding referendum, the result would require to be anulled because of the breaches in campaign law perpetrated by the Leave campaigns, and that the referendum's decision to leave the EU could in fact *not* be anulled precisely *because* of the referendum's advisory-only status - underlines this.

We need to see the absurdity of this notion of "damage to democracy", which has gripped Leave voters and some Remain voters, challenged far more frequently, in my view.

The only "damage to democracy" that will have been caused by the whole sorry Brexit saga is, in my view, the vile distortion of the concept that the Tories have used to push through the whole destructive right-wing project.
Kreuzberger, oboogie, Watchman and 2 others liked this
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Posts
#583724
Maybe I haven't read my semi-modern European history well enough, maybe I'm overthinking it, maybe I'm looking to connect dots that aren't really there, or maybe I'm a tad melodramatic. But in the last few days I'm getting a hunch that the UK is somewhat at a position equivalent to the early days of the beginning of the end of the Weimar Republic - albeit with the UK fracturing, with it's core wanting to be more isolated and rid of its perceived hangers on as opposed to the thinking of Anschluß or Lebensraum - well the latter not for the time being at least.
 
By Snowflake
#584290
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/b ... li=BBoPWjQ
Boris Johnson has asked the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, whether parliament can be shut down for five weeks from 9 September in what appears to be a concerted plan to stop MPs forcing a further extension to Brexit, according to leaked government correspondence.
The prominent Tory remainer and former attorney general Dominic Grieve added: “This memo, if correct, shows Boris Johnson’s contempt for the House of Commons. It may be possible to circumvent the clear intention of the House of Commons in this way but it shows total bad faith
I thought Grieve had been a bit quiet over the past week or so, and he now appears to be admitting that yes, prorogation is possible. I'm also beginning to suspect that compared to say, Hammond, his zeal for bringing down the government may be starting to diminish a little.
Brexit Fuckwit Thread

That's it.

The LibDems, generally

Spotted this elsewhere. Warning: contains Piers Mo[…]

GE 2020

The deluded fuckwit still thinks there's such a […]

David Cameron

Compassionate conservatism: putting professionals […]