UK political shitshow
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 pm
Size really does matter.
Trade agreements are at the forefront today.
The government:
...
The government’s own forecasts show that a UK-US trade deal would boost the British economy by 0.2% in the long run, while deals with Asia – including China and India – the Gulf, Australia and New Zealand, would add up to 0.4%.
...
Anybody believe them? Especially after that NHS funding rubbish they were spouting before.
Common sense:
...
Supporters of the UK striking its own trade deals have never explained why Germany manages to export more than three times the value in goods to China than Britain while also being in the EU customs union.
...
...
Japanese trade negotiators have said they will demand better terms from the UK than it gets from the EU, and Australia poured cold water on the UK’s hopes to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, due to its distant location.
...
...
What is it that the advocates of an independent trade policy think an independent trade policy could deliver that the EU doesn’t?
...
...
AS a country of 66 million people facing much larger blocs, the UK would struggle to get its own way in trade talks. “The truth in trade negotiations is size really does matter.”
RSVP CRG
Buy British!
Go to work on an egg.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... toms-union
Trade agreements are at the forefront today.
The government:
...
The government’s own forecasts show that a UK-US trade deal would boost the British economy by 0.2% in the long run, while deals with Asia – including China and India – the Gulf, Australia and New Zealand, would add up to 0.4%.
...
Anybody believe them? Especially after that NHS funding rubbish they were spouting before.
Common sense:
...
Supporters of the UK striking its own trade deals have never explained why Germany manages to export more than three times the value in goods to China than Britain while also being in the EU customs union.
...
...
Japanese trade negotiators have said they will demand better terms from the UK than it gets from the EU, and Australia poured cold water on the UK’s hopes to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, due to its distant location.
...
...
What is it that the advocates of an independent trade policy think an independent trade policy could deliver that the EU doesn’t?
...
...
AS a country of 66 million people facing much larger blocs, the UK would struggle to get its own way in trade talks. “The truth in trade negotiations is size really does matter.”
RSVP CRG
Buy British!
Go to work on an egg.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... toms-union
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 pm
The iron baby.
She used to come from my hometown until I got lost in the woods and was adopted by Americans.
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 pm
IF we lived in a real democracy that had held a truly democratic referendum, but we don’t. IF the referendum had been fairly played and fairly lost, but it wasn’t. Democracy is rule by the majority of the people, which has never happened in Britain since the earliest sitting of the earliest parliament and never will while we use the ludicrous seat allocation system in the HoC known as First Past the Post (FPTP). The so-called mandate that David Cameron claimed he had to hold the referendum when the Tories won a majority of the seats in the HoC came from a popular vote of only 37%. This is not democracy, this is oligarchy and a farce. In whose name was that mandate? Certainly not mine, nor the remaining 67% of the electorate who bothered to vote.
The referendum unfortunately also followed FPTP rules – let the biggest vote count – which gives us the same mockery of a farcical oligarchical result. The 17.4m votes, while certainly an impressively large number, constituted only 37.44% of the electorate, which means that 62.56% did not vote to leave the EU. Viewed as a percentage of the population of the UK, only 23% voted to leave the EU and 77% did not.
This undemocratic referendum process is compounded by the fact that the electorate itself was an incorrectly constituted set of voters because the referendum was originally only intended to be advisory – thus excluding Brits abroad, for example, who have very strong opinions about freedom of movement, citizens’ rights, and so on; and then, having decided which subset of the true electorate would be allowed to vote, the referendum all of a sudden became binding. Flawed? I think so. This is further compounded by the corruption behind the Leave campaign – the sinister behind-the-scenes influences at play, the overspend, the rule-breaking, the lies – all of which mean we’ve been sold the equivalent of a car with a dodgy MoT by a known liar whose dodgy sale is propped up by sanctification in law.
Should we hold a second referendum? You bet. Not doing so is undemocratic.
The referendum unfortunately also followed FPTP rules – let the biggest vote count – which gives us the same mockery of a farcical oligarchical result. The 17.4m votes, while certainly an impressively large number, constituted only 37.44% of the electorate, which means that 62.56% did not vote to leave the EU. Viewed as a percentage of the population of the UK, only 23% voted to leave the EU and 77% did not.
This undemocratic referendum process is compounded by the fact that the electorate itself was an incorrectly constituted set of voters because the referendum was originally only intended to be advisory – thus excluding Brits abroad, for example, who have very strong opinions about freedom of movement, citizens’ rights, and so on; and then, having decided which subset of the true electorate would be allowed to vote, the referendum all of a sudden became binding. Flawed? I think so. This is further compounded by the corruption behind the Leave campaign – the sinister behind-the-scenes influences at play, the overspend, the rule-breaking, the lies – all of which mean we’ve been sold the equivalent of a car with a dodgy MoT by a known liar whose dodgy sale is propped up by sanctification in law.
Should we hold a second referendum? You bet. Not doing so is undemocratic.
- Miguelito
- Ordinary Schmo
- Reactions: 219
- Posts: 7053
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:19 pm
- Location: Penh's Hill
I can't fathom why they wouldn't hold a second referendum on the actual terms of the withdrawal. Perhaps some of the ardent Brexit supporters can explain how it would be undemocratic to do so...
Because it’ll end up like it did when the monkeys had eight choices.
Maybe they could have a referendum on what choices the referendum about what terms are on offer etc etc.
Leave with no deal. Done.
pew, pew, pew, pew!
I would not necessarily be against a second referendum, as long as NO DEAL was on the ballot.
On e reason many politicians are reluctant about a new vote is they are scared to death of an even bigger victory for Leave.
TheGrimReaper wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:45 pmSlavedog, you do not belong on this forum as you talk too much sense.
- Stokely
- Least Likely to be a Moderator, ever !
- Reactions: 183
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:19 am
Does everyone else remember how everyone constantly complained about Europe before the Brexit referendum?
Nah, me neither.
Nah, me neither.
"Now, then, in order to understand white supremacy we must dismiss the notion that white people can give anybody their freedom." Stokely Carmichael
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 pm
I presume, rightly or wrongly, that you are a British expat living in Cambodia? If so, with your strong views on the matter, surely you'd want to express those views in a legal referendum.
Also, just what exactly is the no. 1 reason you want, given the chance, to vote leave? Is it trade, ECHR, immigration, or what?
I’m British but I don’t give a toss about Brexit otherwise I would have voted the first time. In, out, do the hokey kokey I couldn’t give a rats arse what happens.Aseriousman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:01 pm
I presume, rightly or wrongly, that you are a British expat living in Cambodia? If so, with your strong views on the matter, surely you'd want to express those views in a legal referendum.
Also, just what exactly is the no. 1 reason you want, given the chance, to vote leave? Is it trade, ECHR, immigration, or what?
I’m not going back to that country and don’t have any ties.
I just wish they would sort it out so I can read more about Meghan Markle, what gives me cancer and the best weight loss gimmick on The Daily Mail app.
pew, pew, pew, pew!
-
- MerkinMaker
- Reactions: 62
- Posts: 3232
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:04 am
None of that matters, they are simply side issues. In reality there is only one single issue and that is nation state democracy. Do we as a people, the British people, have a mechanism with which to remove those who create the laws which we live under?Aseriousman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:01 pmAlso, just what exactly is the no. 1 reason you want, given the chance, to vote leave? Is it trade, ECHR, immigration, or what?
"No taxation without representation".
Many wars have been fought to win or defend this basic right. Explain to me the mechanism with which we, the British people have at our disposal to remove specific individuals within the European Commission whom we believe no longer (or more possibly never) represent our interests?
The answer is, that there is no such mechanism, therefore we no longer live in a nation governed by laws, created by our own elected representatives.
Our forefathers fought and died over many centuries for that right, and we are ready to throw away that foundational ideal for mobile roaming, some short term economic gains and some misplaced idea that it's the liberal and progressive thing to do.
The path to a more representative form of democracy is devolved power within existing nation states. Super states are the foundation of tyranny.
[Steps off soap box]
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 pm
I basically agree. Have you ever considered Spain or Italy? Or one of the other 25 nations in the current EU? I mean, it could be Cambodia goes tits-up in the future.YaTingPom wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:46 pmI’m British but I don’t give a toss about Brexit otherwise I would have voted the first time. In, out, do the hokey kokey I couldn’t give a rats arse what happens.Aseriousman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:01 pm
I presume, rightly or wrongly, that you are a British expat living in Cambodia? If so, with your strong views on the matter, surely you'd want to express those views in a legal referendum.
Also, just what exactly is the no. 1 reason you want, given the chance, to vote leave? Is it trade, ECHR, immigration, or what?
I’m not going back to that country and don’t have any ties.
I just wish they would sort it out so I can read more about Meghan Markle, what gives me cancer and the best weight loss gimmick on The Daily Mail app.
Agreed. With 200 nations on earth, there will always be some well-governed ones and some not sell well-governed. But the badly governed ones at least have a chance of overthrowing their rulers, either themselves (e.g. French Revolution) or with a little help from outside (e.g. Vietnam occupation of Cambodia 1979). However, if we were ever to reach the point of full globalisation, a step towards which the EU undoubtedly is, who will overthrow that single all powerful global government? No one, of course, they will have us exactly where they want us; completely under their control and powerless to resist. I'd rather take my chance in a world of nation states with the occasional war here and there (at least there's a chance of moving to another country and starting again) than in a globalised world with the inevitable totalitarianism that would come with it.starkmonster wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:56 amThe path to a more representative form of democracy is devolved power within existing nation states. Super states are the foundation of tyranny.
TheGrimReaper wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:45 pmSlavedog, you do not belong on this forum as you talk too much sense.
- Hot_Pink_Urinal_Mint
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 74
- Posts: 1044
- Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:19 pm
- Location: Right behind you
I agree with much of what you've said but maybe you mean global governance instead of "full globalization," because there's a strong argument that globalization has always existed.slavedog wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:03 amHowever, if we were ever to reach the point of full globalisation, a step towards which the EU undoubtedly is, who will overthrow that single all powerful global government? No one, of course, they will have us exactly where they want us; completely under their control and powerless to resist. I'd rather take my chance in a world of nation states with the occasional war here and there (at least there's a chance of moving to another country and starting again) than in a globalised world with the inevitable totalitarianism that would come with it.
It's quite dangerous to call yourself a nationalist these days and you may find yourself in a "struggle session'" similar to those during Mao's cultural revolution. Nationalism these days is apparently code for racist and right wing.
I still remember reading Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities," as an undergraduate and still think he has relevance.
Anderson argued that nationalism is a way of imagining and thereby creating community. The nation "is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship."
"The reality is quite plain: the 'end of the era of nationalism', so long prophesied, is not remotely in sight, Indeed, nation-ness is the most universally legitimate value in the political life of our time."
Imho, Nation states are not going anywhere because citizens under pressure from globalization seek the reassurance of a local identity.
They also matter because this sense of belonging together is crucial for investments in shared institutions and social welfare and most importantly, democracy flourishes primarily in nation states.