In fairness 'Marxist-utopia' was ill-judged. It's just a buzzword for expressing scepticism of socialism.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
In fairness 'Marxist-utopia' was ill-judged. It's just a buzzword for expressing scepticism of socialism.
A good summary. I’d also add pandering to eurosceptics since he first became leader of the Conservatives and rarely saying anything positive about the EU while PM - meaning his only option in the referendum campaign was to emphasise the economic cost, which after years of austerity was not going to get much traction in struggling Leave areas.
History will be very harsh on Cameron, even if we do extricate ourselves from this mess.
I don't think the Daily Heil is the best reference to prove a point TBH.
There may be many things to criticise him for but starting a dialogue with the IRA via Sinn Fein isn't one of them. Dialogue was what produced the GFA and in the end you have to talk to people you might prefer not to, to end violence.
Last edited:
Definitely.
I think history will judge May as a PM that was dealt a horrible hand, and played it badly. Whereas Cameron was someone who was dealt a perfectly good hand and played it catastrophically.
And as for McDonnell, well it beggars belief but it’s true, and to think our taxes pay for his wages.
This current labour lot are not fit for office. The party should have a bloody big clear out and make themselves respectable again.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ontinues-display-plaque-ira-terrorists-study/
Oh yeah, its worse than remaining, but might allow politicians to say "we left" and everyone can try to move on.
The problem is this is a left leaning Forum, so any right thinking posters get short shrift.
The poster that was constantly calling out Corbyn ending up getting banned, although, tbf, he didn't get banned for calling out Corbyn but for acting like a tit when he was prevented from calling out Corbyn.
Reading the comments on the BBC site regarding May's vote of no confidence.
"Try as I might, I still can’t manage to recall any mention of a “deal” on the 2016 ballot paper. No, no, I’m sure I did not imagine it. I’ve tried searching on the internet but it must have been removed without trace. "
So many people like that. Like, of course we're going to make a fecking deal... Wtf else are we gonna do? "Peace, bitches!" & just walk off?
"Try as I might, I still can’t manage to recall any mention of a “deal” on the 2016 ballot paper. No, no, I’m sure I did not imagine it. I’ve tried searching on the internet but it must have been removed without trace. "
So many people like that. Like, of course we're going to make a fecking deal... Wtf else are we gonna do? "Peace, bitches!" & just walk off?
Last night parliament rejected May's deal either because it was too soft or it was too hard. It is beyond me how parliament is going to agree on anything.
May had become a real life parody of George Bluth Sr
Using the most extreme measures to teach people a lesson.
Using the most extreme measures to teach people a lesson.
50 + 1 % isn’t enough to change anything? I’m sure remainers would have taken that result in a referendum with no quibbles whatsoever.
May as well keep the status quo forever then in your world. Or maybe you’d like a dictatorship-lite?
If you want a 2/3 majority for anything of any note, you’ll in all likelihood will be waiting a long time for any significant changes in any field that you propose. And potentially, civil unrest etc depending on the issue.
There is NO WAY the right wing would have voted for Cameron in 2015 on the terms you are proposing & simple fact is he wanted to win a Tory majority for the first time in 23 years and that was very much in the balance.
I think it’s unfair to keep blaming Cameron. Did Harold Wilson have any well crafted contingency plans for a no vote in 1975? Probably not. Lucky for him, he got the right result.
As regards it being reduced to a binary issue, let’s take the Brexiteers at their word and leave with no deal then. It’s what they voted for after all in its simplest form isn’t it? No EU.
Simon Hattenston's peice on Today In Focus was quite grim listening for anyone who holds out
Of course it's relevent. It was a needless, afterthought of a promise to appease voters in an election where he promised stability yet failed to see out his tenure and left the UK in, what will probably be, a decade or so of chaos.
Of course it's relevent. It was a needless, afterthought of a promise to appease voters in an election where he promised stability yet failed to see out his tenure and left the UK in, what will probably be, a decade or so of chaos.
Perhaps so you should be less dismissive of others opinions which is just ignorant and rude and instead argue your points.
Being challenged is not giving short shrift it's just disagreement, feel free to argue back or not that's your choice but the constant moaning from those more right leaning that they're being treated unfairly is tiresome.
What a waste of time PMQs is.
If 50.1% voted for it, that means a majority of the people want to see the rules of their country altered accordingly. Undemocratic to say otherwise whether you agree with it or not.
This is the intelligence of the average Englander.
Prior to the No Confidence Vote and further debate I'm going for
65% No Deal , 30% Revoke A50, 5% Revive or alter the deal, 0% Corbyn's unicorns.
65% No Deal , 30% Revoke A50, 5% Revive or alter the deal, 0% Corbyn's unicorns.
Where am I dismissive of others opinions? Perhaps you should read people's posts before insulting them?
The fact remains that any right leaning poster is fighting a losing battle on this Forum as it is predominantly left leaning. That has always been the case and no one on here, left or right, would deny it.
btw, Lefties talk bollocks most of the time, as regards politics
Our expectation of the PM role is so low in this country. They turn up every week, don't answer a single question, pretty much lie and that's fine apparently. Don't carry a majority in parliament or in your own party? Who cares!
I'd be intrigued to know if it's as bad in other EU countries but from what i manage to catch of their news it isn't.
Unicorns? I missed that
.Unicorns? I missed that
Where he expects to negotiate a deal with the EU having exactly the same benefits as now without being in the EU or having any responsibilities regarding Freedom of Movement, the ECJ and still expecting to negotiate their own trade deals .
Same as the Tories back in 2016.
To be fair, that's not necessarily the case.
For example, when the referendum - a legally binding one! - was held about whether Hungary should join the EU, the requirement was that 25% of all constituents vote the same way. That is to say, in the case of a 50% turnout, 50% + 1 "yes" vote would have been enough for a valid and legally binding result.
The lesson of Brexit, the reason why we have a constitutional crises, is there was no supermajority to see through the delivery of such a massive impactful decision. In the absence of that, given the result, there then was no attempt to gain 'loser's consent'. Read this, it explains it well. Just because Leave won, didn't mean they got to impose their will carte blanche. The closeness of the result suggested concessions would be needed to bring enough of the 48% into the tent. Which never happened.
(It's worth noting Farage etc are on record as saying if Leave lost narrowly, they'd be back arguing for anothe rreferendum
If anything, this political crises proves why supermajorities are even a thing.
That seems that it should be a profoundly desirable thing for a Conservative? In the proper sense of Conservative of someone who tries to preserve things, rather than these pretend Conservatives who want continual revolutions.
Last edited:
Where am I dismissive of others opinions? Perhaps you should read people's posts before insulting them?
The fact remains that any right leaning poster is fighting a losing battle on this Forum as it is predominantly left leaning. That has always been the case and no one on here, left or right, would deny it.
btw, Lefties talk bollocks most of the time, as regards politics
You're disregarding the opinions of others because of their political leaning, that's dismissive and i didn't insult you anywhere. There's a good few centre or right leaning posters who talk good sense on plenty of issues they're not hounded out.
Of course right leaning posters face more opposition but it's not partisan it's just you're in the minority view. No different to the football forum where people are in the minority sometimes, if the minority find the level of opposition discouraging that's their issue.
I think Oscie got banned for generally acting like a tit in this thread and the Corbyn one. The final straw was him going on a mad one (more than his usual) in here and the Corbyn thread on the same night, culminating in him calling someone a twat in this thread. I think he got a temporary for that, which was made permanent when he went on a huge rant in the Admin/Mod thread.
On topic though, Cameron gets a hammering because he made the decision to call the referendum purely to strengthen his hand in internal party politics and misjudged the public mood disastrously. If it had come off and he'd won the ref I think most would have grudgingly regarded it as a shrewd bit of politics. As it is he's both shown himself as intrinsically self-interested and incompetent to boot.
What if 51% of the country votes for massacring the other 49%? Is that a democratic decision and is therefore the sitting government obliged to carry out genocide?
Democracy is a lot more complicated than "whatever the majority wants, happens". Well, at least it SHOULD be more complicated.
50%+1 is enough to change a lot of things. Its enough to change policy, to carry a motion in the House of Commons. But for a major constitutional change? No, I dont think it is. We are not talking about policies that come and go here, passed by one government and repealed by the next, this is for major, long term issue, the effects of which will be felt for generations, which require a high level of consensus.
That is why a two thirds majority is needed for significant constitutional amendments in a lot of countries, as I said before. This is not unusual, this is not me throwing out a wacky idea to thwart the will of the British people, there are rules like this in the US, there are rules like this in the EU. If Brexit had passed by a two third majority, rather than a paper thin majority, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in. To change a country so fundamentally you need an overwhelming number of people behind you or you are going to end up with the kind of acrimony and gridlock we see now. That is why Remainers would have taken a 50%+1 victory without a quibble: it was the status quo. There is no contradiction there.
Dictatorship lite? What are you talking about? Have a word.
I see, that’s a shame. I thought something remarkable had happened within those hallowed chambers, such as a question been answered truthfully and in full.
Corbyn the people’s true enemy.
So the second referendum petition has just 71 Labour MPs, highlights the issue really.
That's the Brexit vote, right?
Yes but that is two thirds majority in Parliament. Referendums (referenda?) rarely require a two-thirds majority.
Basically, the stupid thing was to hold a referendum that was non-binding and without actual tangible information about the consequences.
OK well there will be some exceptions. But the point stands: setting such a significant constitutional issue as this up as a winner takes all on a simple majority is not normal among most advanced democracies. Not normal, and definitely not wise.
Ill repeat what I said above. If the Brexit had won with that kind of a majority, there would be a clear mandate to deliver it. We would not have the kind of chaos we have in the UK right now. @Strachans Cigar talks about civil unrest if we had set the terms of the referendum like that - which I think is complete nonsense BTW, but even if it were true - what have we got now? And what are we going to have if we leave without a deal? What will the 48% think if we leave on WTO terms and even half the predictions about how bad it will turn out are true? Are the majorities in cities, among educated, among young people, just going to shrug their shoulders and get on with it, because they lost an election by a paper thin margin, amid lies and broken election rules?
Conversely, what is going to happen if MPs decide to pull the plug on the whole thing and cancel Brexit altogether, because nobody can agree on what kind of Brexit they want, and 95% agree that leaving with no deal is sovereign suicide? I imagine the people who voted Brexit will be pretty damn pissed off, they will feel betrayed. I imagine there will be some serious civil unrest if that happens.
A lot of those same people, who voted Brexit and who would lose their shit if it was snatched away from them, would not have been similarly aggrieved if the terms of the original referendum had been clear. I think interest in the referendum would have been much lower, it would have been seen as a stitch up, there would have been grumbles from the minority of people who really, really give a shit about leaving the EU, rather than the many people who voted leave but if they hadnt been asked would have just got on with their lives. But nothing like the kind of shit that is brewing now.
Ultimately we live in a representative democracy. The idea that any referendum is the embodiment of our democracy is a complete nonsense. If people wanted to leave the EU that badly they should have voted UKIP in large enough numbers to force the issue in Parliament. But they never did. They may have posed a bit of a threat to the Tory party, but that is exactly the problem. The country is being torn apart right now because the Tory party wanted to shore up its support among nostalgic, grumpy old right wing dickheads. That is on Cameron.
What if 99% of the country vote for massacring the 1% of people who's surnames start with the letter X.
What has Xavi ever done to you?
Fair enough.
If the proposition is that referenda are a horrible idea, I agree. Even in the case of the People's Vote, though I cant see any better way out of this mess.
Perhaps Norway has the goldilocks level of rigidity?
I agree with all that. As I said: setting up the referendum was stupid in itself, regardless of the minutiae of its rules of validity. It was an uninformed choice - and it's not just the public that was ignorant, the leadership didn't have the faintest clue what leaving would entail either.
To cite my earlier example, when Hungary was about to join the EU, the issue was put up to a referendum only after all terms had been thoroughly discussed with the EU. The information was available to make an informed choice. That's the big difference, in my opinion.
Something as big as this shouldn't have been left to the public. Cameron treated it as some kind of reality TV vote off, with soundbites (it's YOUR vote, the power is in YOUR hands) and basically allowed himself and his government to sleepwalk into the matter. There were no proper safeguards in place for an actual leave win, no fail-safes, nothing.
This is on him. I do have a grain of sympathy for May because simply no one else wanted to follow on from Cameron. Boris, Raab, Mogg, all self-servicing opportunists who talk, but aren't willing to get stuck in. Happy to trash her deal, but support her in tonight's vote because they are scared of the repercussions.
This is on him. I do have a grain of sympathy for May because simply no one else wanted to follow on from Cameron. Boris, Raab, Mogg, all self-servicing opportunists who talk, but aren't willing to get stuck in. Happy to trash her deal, but support her in tonight's vote because they are scared of the repercussions.