Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mormont

UK Politics: Time Marches On

Recommended Posts

1.  We where promised to leave with a Deal, and the Deal would be the easiest deal ever.

2.  We where promised leaving would save us money.

3.  we where promised we would have trade deals lined up and ready to be signed on the day we leave.

 

the deal we where promised was very vague and was different depending on who you asked, but basically involved all the benefits for us with non of the costs.  This has been undelivered and we still can't even agree on what deal we want between ourselves without even considering if the EU would also accept the deal.

 

Brexit as promised in the fraudulent referendum has so far proven to be undelivered.  - I guess tonight we find out if its still partially salvageable.

If the government has proven to be incapable of delivering on Brexit with a deal as promised in the referendum campaign. and the facts on leaving are now so much clearer on what leaving actually means.   why should we not have a 2nd referendum on Staying.  or leaving with no deal.     or if No deal is also taken off the table  Staying and May deal?

 

or since the referendum was advisory and we have tried to implement it, maybe just cancel the thing entirely as its proven to be unworkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Yes, and there is a bit of a gap between 1975 and 2015. There were also major political decisions taken regarding our relationship with Europe which didn't involve a referendum. But at the very least you need a period of time to see how the effect of being outside the EU is. 

Why?

When it is clear that leaving the EU without a deal would deal a catastrophic blow to the British economy and represents an existential threat to the future of the United Kingdom - even May today seemed to suggest a further Scottish independence referendum was more likely if Britain left without a deal - which was not as clear in 2016, then blindly proceeding with it without a further referendum becomes reckless and foolhardy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Why?

When it is clear that leaving the EU without a deal would deal a catastrophic blow to the British economy and represents an existential threat to the future of the United Kingdom - even May today seemed to suggest a further Scottish independence referendum was more likely if Britain left without a deal - which was not as clear in 2016, then blindly proceeding with it without a further referendum becomes reckless and foolhardy.

Well May doesn't want No Deal obviously, and she has been doing everything in her power to scare people into voting for her deal.

If we need to delay leaving for a period of time to allow for proper preparations then fine. But what happens if you have a second ref (which btw takes no small amount of time to organise and implement) and we get an even larger vote for Leave. Same position we are in now? It doesn't fix the problem. 
If you get a vote for Remain, same problem. How often do you want these votes and when do they stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If we need to delay leaving for a period of time to allow for proper preparations then fine. But what happens if you have a second ref (which btw takes no small amount of time to organise and implement) and we get an even larger vote for Leave. Same position we are in now? It doesn't fix the problem. 

Then we leave, since the third referendum would be on the basis of "Remain" or "Leave (with/without this/that deal)," not on the same basis as the last question.

At this point I can only assume deliberate obfuscation, since we've had this discussion before and you've asked exactly the same question and had it answered exactly the same way several times.

Quote

 

If you get a vote for Remain, same problem. How often do you want these votes and when do they stop?

 

When the situation changes and an argument is made for holding another referendum based on developing information. For example, if far-right groups in the EU Parliament start gaining more power and risk taking the EU in an unpalatable direction, then many current Remainers might be inclined for voting for Leave rather sharply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is anyone planning on joining the Peoples Vote Protest on the 23rd?

 

I was at the last one, and will be at this one unless something strange happens and May's deal passes.  then I will have to seriously think on weather I go or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Nitpick, or rather clarification, but under English law at least there's no legal obligation to rescue the drowning child. Morally of course, but legally no (save the various exceptions where one is under some kind of duty to intervene).

Interesting. I think under German law there actually is such an obligation for cases like passing the pond although I am not exactly sure how widely it applies. And of course you do not have to put your own life at risk. If you have a heart condition you don't need to jump into the lake and probably kill yourself in the process but you certainly have to call further help asap, otherwise you would neglect your duty to help the child. But if you are a swimming champion you cannot claim that you could not ruin your best suit or miss an appointment but you have to try the rescue.

I meant the moral obligation.

I don't want to claim that young people who ran away to join ISIS are clear cut cases and it might still be the merciful thing to get them somehow back to their European home countries. (Although there is also the problem that one might re-import fairly dangerous people who due to legal complications and lack of evidence might walk free in a few months.) But I also think that one certainly does not have the right to be pulled out of any circumstances one got himself involved in, especially not when one is legally adult and not clinically insane. And while I also understand that one should be slow to revoke citizenship (especially if the person would end up without any citizenship), I think that joining ISIS or a similar group would be very good reasons for losing citizenship. These are not really similar cases to innocent journalists or missionaries etc. although the last two groups are frequently also foolhardy and should not expect to be pulled out of any situation they got themselves into.

Edited by Jo498

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

Interesting. I think under German law there actually is such an obligation for cases like passing the pond although I am not exactly sure how widely it applies. And of course you do not have to put your own life at risk. If you have a heart condition you don't need to jump into the lake and probably kill yourself in the process but you certainly have to call further help asap, otherwise you would neglect your duty to help the child. But if you are a swimming champion you cannot claim that you could not ruin your best suit or miss an appointment but you have to try the rescue.

I meant the moral obligation.

I don't want to claim that young people who ran away to join ISIS are clear cut cases and it might still be the merciful thing to get them somehow back to their European home countries. (Although there is also the problem that one might re-import fairly dangerous people who due to legal complications and lack of evidence might walk free in a few months.) But I also think that one certainly does not have the right to be pulled out of any circumstances one got himself involved in, especially not when one is legally adult and not clinically insane. And while I also understand that one should be slow to revoke citizenship (especially if the person would end up without any citizenship), I think that joining ISIS or a similar group would be very good reasons for losing citizenship. These are not really similar cases to innocent journalists or missionaries etc. although the last two groups are frequently also foolhardy and should not expect to be pulled out of any situation they got themselves into.

How many people were threatened with loss of citizenship for fighting with the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pebble said:

So is anyone planning on joining the Peoples Vote Protest on the 23rd?

 

I was at the last one, and will be at this one unless something strange happens and May's deal passes.  then I will have to seriously think on weather I go or not.

We will be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, maarsen said:

How many people were threatened with loss of citizenship for fighting with the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War? 

I don't know. In my country the people fighting with the Thälmann brigade were threatened with concentration camps, so loss of citizenship would hardly matter. (Did anyone believe George Orwell or Ernest Hemingway would turn to suicide bombing after returning from Spain? Probably not. Unfortunately, there are some precedents for former ISIS to do exactly this, I think)

And frankly, I don't care what they did back then. I don't think 2019 policies should be dictated by what happened in the first half of the 20th century.  In any case, loss of cititzenship is a secondary point. The main point for me is, that if I commit a crime in Spain or the US or Indonesia I will usually have to face the local justice system. I will not be deported to Germany and stand trial here. So this should be the standard case for ISIS PoW (or whatever their status) in Syria or Iraq as well. I am not versed in law but I really have trouble understanding why this should be a totally different situation from me getting caught with dope in Singapore or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jo498 said:

I don't know. In my country the people fighting with the Thälmann brigade were threatened with concentration camps, so loss of citizenship would hardly matter. (Did anyone believe George Orwell or Ernest Hemingway would turn to suicide bombing after returning from Spain? Probably not. Unfortunately, there are some precedents for former ISIS to do exactly this, I think)

And frankly, I don't care what they did back then. I don't think 2019 policies should be dictated by what happened in the first half of the 20th century.  In any case, loss of cititzenship is a secondary point. The main point for me is, that if I commit a crime in Spain or the US or Indonesia I will usually have to face the local justice system. I will not be deported to Germany and stand trial here. So this should be the standard case for ISIS PoW (or whatever their status) in Syria or Iraq as well. I am not versed in law but I really have trouble understanding why this should be a totally different situation from me getting caught with dope in Singapore or so.

Having poor taste in boyfriends or husbands is not a crime. Doing criminal acts with them is different. So far all I see is bad taste in men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mormont said:

Leaving the EU isn't designed to be impossible. And it's been difficult largely for reasons of the UK government's own making. 

Article 50, after all, does not specify or attempt to specify when the two-year notice period must begin. We could have spent the last two years negotiating without starting the clock. The only reason the clock is ticking is that Theresa May decided to try to impress the British tabloids and her own backbenchers with how firm and strong she was being on Brexit. 

Even then, the main problem (the NI border) was one that is unique to the UK, was hardly talked about during the referendum and only really became intractable because Theresa May (you may notice a theme) tried to take advantage of what she thought was a favourable domestic political climate by holding a general election, cocked it up, and went cap in hand to the DUP for support. 

And even then, the big problem now (the backstop) was a solution the UK government proposed!

You'll look in vain among all this for the bit where the EU made this process difficult by design. 

Don't exactly disagree with the overall sentiment (this is not primarily EU's fault) but some odd arguments by you. 

1) Leaving the EU might not be designed to be impossible but that's due to it not really being designed at all. Article 50 was never meant to be used, it was popped in the Lisbon Treaty as a kind of sop to eurosceptics (written by Lord Kerr, a British lawyer, I believe).

2) The issue with the claim May could have negotiated a deal with the EU before triggering article 50 is that the EU refused to do this. So, in order to negotiate Brexit and a future relationship she had to trigger article 50. The Brexiteers wanted to negotiate before article 50 was triggered.

Mind you, supposing the EU had agreed to negotiate before article 50 was triggered, and to negotiate the whole thing, withdrawal and future relationship, the Brexiteers would not have liked that either. It would have taken something like 5-10 years! So the whole negotiate before triggering article 50 thing was premised on the unrealistic expectation 'of the easiest trade deal in human history.'

3) The UK government didn't propose the backstop either. The Irish and the EU did, and the UK agreed to it without, it seems, fully comprehending how they would interpret it. What the UK proposed was the all-UK backstop as (in part - other reasons too) a way of mitigating the effects of the original, purely NI backstop, on its territorial unity. 

Overall, it is true that the reason the UK might now not be leaving now is because of Northern Ireland and that if the DUP had not held the balance of power, the odds of a negotiated withdrawal deal going through (which might look a bit different to May's) would be higher. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well she lost.   391  to 242.

 

who is not surprised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ayes 242 Noes 391

Government defeated by 149 votes. 

not happy about being ninjad!!!

Edited by Nothing Has Changed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to have ninja-ed you. 

One thing I think most of us can agree on.  Mrs May needs a throat lozenger  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 Tories who voted against last time switched to supporting the deal, including David Davis and Nadine Dorries.

Only 3 Labour mps voted with the government, including Caroline Flint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

It's progress in the same sense as refraining from that last beer every once in a while takes you closer to winning the Olympics.

That's the spirit. Each day you catch a new MP, and in the end you will be pokemon master.

Progress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×