Printable View
:hehe:
Between watching Labour flip-flopping between two potentially party-destroying options and an endless parade of Tory leadership candidates attempting to secure support by espousing policies that the actual membership of the Tory party (upon whom their candidacy depends) absolutely fúcking hate, it is increasingly hard not to feel that the old two-party system may be irretrievably broken.
With a bit of luck b.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Of course that will leave us with the tricky question of who to vote for. And who gets to govern. :-( There doesn't appear to be anyone, you know, competent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I tend to agree, h. Rip it up and start again. Social class is such an outmoded basis for political parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbert Augustus Chapman
Well someone will, won't they? The amazing thing is the way that Brexit has proved the most extraordinary catalyst for radical political change in this country since the First World War. It has changed absolutely everything and I do think that's sort of wonderful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Change can be wonderful, of course, but that depends on what the changed thing changes into.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Ask Gregor Samsa for his views of metamorphosis and see what he has to say on the matter.
Well we all have a chance to shape that change, don't we? Indeed, those of us who voted Leave voted explicitly for change. Now we couldn't have foreseen that our established order - rather than doing the wise and historically tried-and-trusted British thing of allowing evolutionary change to prevent revolutionary change - has dug its heels in and thus effectively guaranteed the latter. But given that that has been the case, it's clearer than ever that change is necessary and desirable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
The Peterborough by-election result will be such fun. Some will dismiss it as a protest vote and something which can happen from time to time in the middle of a parliamentary session. This is not the SDP in the early 80s - this is a sea change in politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESy-Z8vqMrEQuote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I'm filling in for redgunamo ;-)
I imagine Lib Dems & Brexit Party (if run at GE) will become big forces. Cannot see one party winning outright we might have a few coalitions for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
We?Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bunnell
I thought you is a septic..?
What does that even mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
septic, sherman... he thinks you are a yankee doodle dandy.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bunnell
The rest of us think you are a **** :)
Soppy synth playing ****sQuote:
Originally Posted by barrybueno
There is nothing wrong with synths, h.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbert Augustus Chapman
Soppy ****s, maybe.
But not synthesisers. Apart from the DX7.
HMQ should prorogue Parl, introduce STV with multi-member constituencies by royal decree and then call a general election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
You think I jest, but it's probably the best way out of this Brexit impasse.
I despise May's deal, but that would have been the evolutionary change of which you speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Instead, it was voted down by the ERG no-dealers.
Two score rabid Tories does not the established order make.
:hehe: The idea that it was the ERG who kept us in Europe is possibly the stupidest take remainers come up with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
The EU have explicitly and gleefully said - on camera, mind - that this deal was designed to and did make us a colony of the EU. It was not leaving in any meaningful sense and kept us in the mechanisms of the EU. It was specifically designed by remainers to effectively keep us under the heel of the EU.
Aren't an Allen John?Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bunnell
The bottom line is that had the ERG voted with the whip, we'd be out of the EU now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
During the 2016 vote, none of the leave campaigns advocated no deal. Farrage openly discussed being in the SM (Norway) and the CU (Switz), both of which would have made us rule takers, and as such, just as much a "colony."
So 52% voted for a from of Brexit which would have involved some form of vassalage. May's govt put this to Parl 3 times. The only reason it didn't pass was because the ERG voted against said Govt.
There is no way that a no deal Brexit could be described as evolutionary change by historical British standards. It would be completely revolutionary. You'd have to go back to 1649 to find such a break with the existing order.
So please explain simply what deal you'd have tried to get 2016-19 with the EU that would be both "evolutionary" and avoid making us, to some extent, "a colony of the EU", to the extent that as opposed to pooling sovereignty, we would take rules over which we had no say.
And that's before we mention the Irish border.
There's no such thing as an "evolutionary" no deal Brexit. And that, coupled with the Irish border, has been the crux of the problem.
If this logic held up for a second, Leave voters would be angry with the ERG, wouldn't they? But they're not. Instead, they're angry with the Remainer establishment that deliberately scuppered Canada-style deals offered by the EU in order to facilitate Chequers and the WA, which were only ever Remain by any other name. This is a matter of public record, by the way. Number 10 and the Cabinet Offic repeatedly undermined the DExEU's negotiations in order to pursue their appalling WA. This was a Remain stitch-up from day one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
The Irish border has always been a non-issue that the EU has been able to exploit mercilessly because May was stupid enough to make it one of her 'red lines'. Had she not done so, the fact of the matter is that ultimately the EU would have been faced with the need to either establish a border itself against the wishes of the RoI and the UK (not possible) or reach an accommodation. But for May's idiocy, an accommodation would have had to be found.
I wish I was a Yank. This country is rubbish. I want Trump to be my President... But no I am from Finchley.Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
Cheers m8. When a beta cuck thinks I'm a **** it means I'm doing a good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
I must have missed something then. According to the description of May's deal that I read, had it been approved on March 29 we would have left the single market, no longer be obliged to pay the EU fees, have complete control of our borders and no longer been subjected to ECJ decisions except in a few trade related areas. That sounds an awful lot like leaving in many meaningful ways, does it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
The only thing it did not achieve was a clear path to an exit from the customs union as this was meant to be achieved through the negotiation of a free trade deal. And the motivation for the EU to achieve a free trade deal was significant given that during the negotiations the UK would be the only country in the world to have tariff free access to the single market while having control of its borders and not having to pay any EU fees, a situation which the EU could clearly not accept on an ongoing basis.
I'm still not too sure what was so wrong with the deal, if I'm honest. :shrug: