UK political shitshow
- Stokely
- Least Likely to be a Moderator, ever !
- Reactions: 183
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:19 am
Come on guys you've go to hand it to Margaret Thatcher.
She fucked more miners than Jimmy Saville
She fucked more miners than Jimmy Saville
"Now, then, in order to understand white supremacy we must dismiss the notion that white people can give anybody their freedom." Stokely Carmichael
Er, sorting those work-shy out.
pew, pew, pew, pew!
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 pm
The referendum allowed any citizens of Commonwealth nations or British Overseas Territories who are also residents of the UK to vote. Thus people from all the following countries were allowed to vote:
“Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Australia Bahamas, The Bangladesh Barbados Belize Bermuda Botswana British Antarctic Territory British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Cyprus Dominica Falkland Islands Fiji Ghana Gibraltar Grenada Guyana India Ireland Jamaica Kenya Kiribati Lesotho Malawi Malaysia Maldives Malta Mauritius Montserrat Mozambique Namibia Nauru New Zealand Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Pitcairn Island Rwanda Samoa Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Solomon Islands South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Sri Lanka St Helena and dependencies St Kitts and Nevis St Lucia St Vincent and The Grenadines Swaziland Tanzania Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Vanuatu Zambia Zimbabwe. “ ( Indy)
These citizens have zero rights under EU law and are not EU citizens. Their existence and rights in the UK are solely based on UK immigration law.
Yet some million UK citizens in the EU exercising their rights as EU&UK citizens were denied a vote.
Our fundamental constitutional rights were changed without us being given a voice.
We were disenfranchised.
YET the citizens of the countries listed above were allowed to change our fundamental rights as British citizens even though they do not have these rights. ( And then there are the EU citizens in the UK who were not allowed to vote even though those on the list above were).
The referendum was a travesty of democracy. In fact it was undemocratic.
“Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Australia Bahamas, The Bangladesh Barbados Belize Bermuda Botswana British Antarctic Territory British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Cyprus Dominica Falkland Islands Fiji Ghana Gibraltar Grenada Guyana India Ireland Jamaica Kenya Kiribati Lesotho Malawi Malaysia Maldives Malta Mauritius Montserrat Mozambique Namibia Nauru New Zealand Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Pitcairn Island Rwanda Samoa Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Solomon Islands South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Sri Lanka St Helena and dependencies St Kitts and Nevis St Lucia St Vincent and The Grenadines Swaziland Tanzania Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Vanuatu Zambia Zimbabwe. “ ( Indy)
These citizens have zero rights under EU law and are not EU citizens. Their existence and rights in the UK are solely based on UK immigration law.
Yet some million UK citizens in the EU exercising their rights as EU&UK citizens were denied a vote.
Our fundamental constitutional rights were changed without us being given a voice.
We were disenfranchised.
YET the citizens of the countries listed above were allowed to change our fundamental rights as British citizens even though they do not have these rights. ( And then there are the EU citizens in the UK who were not allowed to vote even though those on the list above were).
The referendum was a travesty of democracy. In fact it was undemocratic.
Satirical piece on the ECO douches in London.
Not Brexit related but a little.
“I have always been super worried about the environment. Climate change causes erratic weather conditions, which is really bad for the hedge maze on my estate. And I’m very aware of my carbon footprint. For instance, I always make sure that at least one of my cars is energy efficient. Besides, as a social justice activist, I can do an awful lot of good by sending angry tweets from a ski slope in Val-d’Isère.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... GRATH.html
Not Brexit related but a little.
“I have always been super worried about the environment. Climate change causes erratic weather conditions, which is really bad for the hedge maze on my estate. And I’m very aware of my carbon footprint. For instance, I always make sure that at least one of my cars is energy efficient. Besides, as a social justice activist, I can do an awful lot of good by sending angry tweets from a ski slope in Val-d’Isère.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... GRATH.html
pew, pew, pew, pew!
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 pm
Time for brief analytical overview before it all starts again next week on the 23rd.
The Brexit Impossibility Triangle
Apr 12, 2019 EMILY JONES , CALUM MILLER
As the United Kingdom's chaotic quest to leave the European Union drags on, the country's leaders need to accept that the primary objectives of Brexit are, and always have been, mutually incompatible. Sadly, their refusal to acknowledge this is indicative of the kind of leadership that led to the current impasse.
OXFORD – With the European Union’s latest extension of the United Kingdom’s membership in the bloc, onlookers around the world are right to wonder why the Brexit process has proved so intractable. The short answer is that the UK’s government and parliament are trying to achieve three incompatible goals: preserving the country’s territorial integrity, preventing the return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and enabling the UK to strike its own trade deals.1
The British are finally confronting the fact that only two of these objectives can be met at any one time. This implies that there are three basic scenarios for moving ahead with Brexit.
The first scenario centers on a “free-trade union,” which would grant Britain autonomy over trade policy and territorial integrity in exchange for the return of a hard border in Ireland. Trade-policy autonomy requires that the UK leave both the EU customs union and the single market. In either case, customs and regulatory checks would have to be established at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Though some have suggested that new technologies could obviate the need for physical border checkpoints, no such technologies exist. Hence, a major risk in this scenario is that the return of a hard border would jeopardize the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of violence in Northern Ireland.
The second scenario would offer an answer to the Irish question. The UK could enjoy trade-policy autonomy without a hard border in Ireland by sacrificing territorial integrity. This would involve keeping Northern Ireland in the EU customs union and single market while establishing a border in the Irish Sea – that is, between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The problem with this arrangement is that different parts of the UK would have different trade rules and regulations. Not only would Unionists in Northern Ireland object to being separated from the rest of the UK – again, raising the risk of renewed conflict – but Scotland would probably demand its own closer relationship with the EU. And if the Scots decided to pursue another independence referendum, the entire UK could be at risk.
Under the third scenario, the UK could avoid the Irish question and preserve its territorial integrity, but would have to abandon the vision of “Global Britain” by remaining in both the customs union and single market. Under this scenario, there would be no meaningful autonomy over trade policy. This is the essence of the “Common Market 2.0” proposal that has been put before the House of Commons.
Following Norway, the UK could opt out of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, thereby reducing its EU budget contributions. But it would still have to permit significant migration from the EU – a key red line of the “Leave” camp. Likewise, Britain would still fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, albeit indirectly.
Moreover, even a simple customs union with the EU – the option that has so far come closest to commanding a parliamentary majority – doesn’t resolve the Brexit trilemma. While it would grant the UK control over immigration, it would require new regulatory checks between Britain and the EU. It also means that Britain would be locked out of the single market in services, which constituted around 40% of British exports to the EU in 2017, accounting for a surplus of £28 billion ($36 billion).
The Brexit impossibility triangle makes clear why UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s withdrawal deal has been rejected by the House of Commons multiple times. As an exit treaty, it leaves open the details of the UK’s future relations with the European Union, but it does include a legally binding commitment (the “backstop”) to prevent the return of a hard border in Ireland. In the terms of the Brexit trilemma, May’s deal rules out the first scenario of a “free-trade union,” but leaves the inevitable choice between trade-policy autonomy and territorial integrity for the next stage of the Brexit negotiations. It is this ambiguity that worries many MPs.
For their part, hardline Brexiteers are determined to secure autonomy over trade policy, which means they would accept a border through the Irish Sea. But then Scotland would demand its own special arrangement vis-à-vis the EU, putting the UK on track for a major constitutional shakeup, and possibly dissolution. Avoiding this scenario means sacrificing autonomy over trade policy for the sake of the Good Friday Agreement and territorial integrity. But this would upset hardline Brexiteers and could split the Conservative Party, a risk Theresa May has been unwilling to take.
British leaders need to acknowledge that all Brexit scenarios involve tradeoffs, and the country urgently needs to hold a national debate to rank the electorate’s preferences. The choice is between one of the three Brexit scenarios and suspending the Brexit process altogether. Without a mature and frank discussion, the UK will continue to bear the costs of interminable uncertainty and indecisiveness.
But, of course, a proper debate requires effective leadership that highlights the choices and creates space for compromise. If the wounds of Brexit are ever to heal, voters will have to move past transactional, tribal politics and embrace leaders who are willing to reach out to the other side and speak honestly about policy tradeoffs. Only by working together will the UK arrive at an outcome that all can respect and live with.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... er-2019-04
The Brexit Impossibility Triangle
Apr 12, 2019 EMILY JONES , CALUM MILLER
As the United Kingdom's chaotic quest to leave the European Union drags on, the country's leaders need to accept that the primary objectives of Brexit are, and always have been, mutually incompatible. Sadly, their refusal to acknowledge this is indicative of the kind of leadership that led to the current impasse.
OXFORD – With the European Union’s latest extension of the United Kingdom’s membership in the bloc, onlookers around the world are right to wonder why the Brexit process has proved so intractable. The short answer is that the UK’s government and parliament are trying to achieve three incompatible goals: preserving the country’s territorial integrity, preventing the return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and enabling the UK to strike its own trade deals.1
The British are finally confronting the fact that only two of these objectives can be met at any one time. This implies that there are three basic scenarios for moving ahead with Brexit.
The first scenario centers on a “free-trade union,” which would grant Britain autonomy over trade policy and territorial integrity in exchange for the return of a hard border in Ireland. Trade-policy autonomy requires that the UK leave both the EU customs union and the single market. In either case, customs and regulatory checks would have to be established at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Though some have suggested that new technologies could obviate the need for physical border checkpoints, no such technologies exist. Hence, a major risk in this scenario is that the return of a hard border would jeopardize the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of violence in Northern Ireland.
The second scenario would offer an answer to the Irish question. The UK could enjoy trade-policy autonomy without a hard border in Ireland by sacrificing territorial integrity. This would involve keeping Northern Ireland in the EU customs union and single market while establishing a border in the Irish Sea – that is, between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The problem with this arrangement is that different parts of the UK would have different trade rules and regulations. Not only would Unionists in Northern Ireland object to being separated from the rest of the UK – again, raising the risk of renewed conflict – but Scotland would probably demand its own closer relationship with the EU. And if the Scots decided to pursue another independence referendum, the entire UK could be at risk.
Under the third scenario, the UK could avoid the Irish question and preserve its territorial integrity, but would have to abandon the vision of “Global Britain” by remaining in both the customs union and single market. Under this scenario, there would be no meaningful autonomy over trade policy. This is the essence of the “Common Market 2.0” proposal that has been put before the House of Commons.
Following Norway, the UK could opt out of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, thereby reducing its EU budget contributions. But it would still have to permit significant migration from the EU – a key red line of the “Leave” camp. Likewise, Britain would still fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, albeit indirectly.
Moreover, even a simple customs union with the EU – the option that has so far come closest to commanding a parliamentary majority – doesn’t resolve the Brexit trilemma. While it would grant the UK control over immigration, it would require new regulatory checks between Britain and the EU. It also means that Britain would be locked out of the single market in services, which constituted around 40% of British exports to the EU in 2017, accounting for a surplus of £28 billion ($36 billion).
The Brexit impossibility triangle makes clear why UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s withdrawal deal has been rejected by the House of Commons multiple times. As an exit treaty, it leaves open the details of the UK’s future relations with the European Union, but it does include a legally binding commitment (the “backstop”) to prevent the return of a hard border in Ireland. In the terms of the Brexit trilemma, May’s deal rules out the first scenario of a “free-trade union,” but leaves the inevitable choice between trade-policy autonomy and territorial integrity for the next stage of the Brexit negotiations. It is this ambiguity that worries many MPs.
For their part, hardline Brexiteers are determined to secure autonomy over trade policy, which means they would accept a border through the Irish Sea. But then Scotland would demand its own special arrangement vis-à-vis the EU, putting the UK on track for a major constitutional shakeup, and possibly dissolution. Avoiding this scenario means sacrificing autonomy over trade policy for the sake of the Good Friday Agreement and territorial integrity. But this would upset hardline Brexiteers and could split the Conservative Party, a risk Theresa May has been unwilling to take.
British leaders need to acknowledge that all Brexit scenarios involve tradeoffs, and the country urgently needs to hold a national debate to rank the electorate’s preferences. The choice is between one of the three Brexit scenarios and suspending the Brexit process altogether. Without a mature and frank discussion, the UK will continue to bear the costs of interminable uncertainty and indecisiveness.
But, of course, a proper debate requires effective leadership that highlights the choices and creates space for compromise. If the wounds of Brexit are ever to heal, voters will have to move past transactional, tribal politics and embrace leaders who are willing to reach out to the other side and speak honestly about policy tradeoffs. Only by working together will the UK arrive at an outcome that all can respect and live with.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... er-2019-04
Wow that’s a lot of letters and stuff.
Can something summarise?
Oh hold on, I’ve got it. “UK political shitshow”.
Can something summarise?
Oh hold on, I’ve got it. “UK political shitshow”.
pew, pew, pew, pew!
That's not how "average life expectancy" works. People who reached age 65 were NOT, on average, typically to be dead at age 67 just because the average life expectancy for the country's entire population was age 67 at the time. Learn about statisitics.Aseriousman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:34 amAverage life expectancy back then was 67 for blokes so most blue collar workers retired at 65 and were dead a couple of years later.
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 pm
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 pm
- springrain
- I'm on 3000; na na, na na na
- Reactions: 48
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:25 pm
Unfortunately, I don't trust that guy. Much as I want us to LLLLLeave that insidious, evil union, I don't want it to be on that lunatic's terms.
'History is a set of lies agreed upon.'
Attributed to Napoleon
Attributed to Napoleon
- springrain
- I'm on 3000; na na, na na na
- Reactions: 48
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:25 pm
Bullshit!Aseriousman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:01 pmThe referendum allowed any citizens of Commonwealth nations or British Overseas Territories who are also residents of the UK to vote. Thus people from all the following countries were allowed to vote:
“Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Australia Bahamas, The Bangladesh Barbados Belize Bermuda Botswana British Antarctic Territory British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Cyprus Dominica Falkland Islands Fiji Ghana Gibraltar Grenada Guyana India Ireland Jamaica Kenya Kiribati Lesotho Malawi Malaysia Maldives Malta Mauritius Montserrat Mozambique Namibia Nauru New Zealand Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Pitcairn Island Rwanda Samoa Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Solomon Islands South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Sri Lanka St Helena and dependencies St Kitts and Nevis St Lucia St Vincent and The Grenadines Swaziland Tanzania Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Vanuatu Zambia Zimbabwe. “ ( Indy)
These citizens have zero rights under EU law and are not EU citizens. Their existence and rights in the UK are solely based on UK immigration law.
Yet some million UK citizens in the EU exercising their rights as EU&UK citizens were denied a vote.
Our fundamental constitutional rights were changed without us being given a voice.
We were disenfranchised.
YET the citizens of the countries listed above were allowed to change our fundamental rights as British citizens even though they do not have these rights. ( And then there are the EU citizens in the UK who were not allowed to vote even though those on the list above were).
The referendum was a travesty of democracy. In fact it was undemocratic.
'History is a set of lies agreed upon.'
Attributed to Napoleon
Attributed to Napoleon
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 pm
What do you think the chances are of Farage accepting Labour's request for a televised debate?springrain wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:58 pmUnfortunately, I don't trust that guy. Much as I want us to LLLLLeave that insidious, evil union, I don't want it to be on that lunatic's terms.
I think even Slavedog would have to turn that one down.
I get the feeling that the British public are making a collective decision to treat the forthcoming EU elections as a kind of second Brexit referendum.
They would usually pass by almost unnoticed, with very few bothering to vote at all. But it looks set to be quite different this time.
If the recent polls are accurate, Brexit Party will get more votes than Tories and Labour combined.
If that does happen, I don't see how the government can ignore it.
A lot of MPs must be starting to worry about the safety of their seats.
They would usually pass by almost unnoticed, with very few bothering to vote at all. But it looks set to be quite different this time.
If the recent polls are accurate, Brexit Party will get more votes than Tories and Labour combined.
If that does happen, I don't see how the government can ignore it.
A lot of MPs must be starting to worry about the safety of their seats.
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