Brexit shenanigans

[bernorange 8359]

Quote

An amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill giving MPs the power to stop the UK from leaving without a deal, or to make Theresa May return to negotiations, was approved by 335 votes to 244.

Its supporters said Parliament, not ministers, must "determine the future of the country".
...
Ministers said giving Parliament a decisive say on the Brexit deal risked "weakening" the UK's hand in negotiations.

But Labour said the vote marked a "hugely significant moment" in the fight to ensure Parliament has a "proper role" in the Brexit negotiations and a no-deal situation was avoided.

It was one of three government defeats on the Brexit bill on Monday evening.
...

More:  http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43951405

Subverting the will of the people on a national referendum?  Bold strategy Cotton.  We'll have to see how that works out for them.

[High Plains Drifter 11031]

Well, in fairness, the people are generally idiots.

[TwiceHorn 31439]

And, I am not sure that the people as sovereign is as enshrined as it is here.  To a large extent, the UK could stop recognizing civil rights of all kinds and little could be done about it.

[kevwun 15764]

Also with the Russian influence stuff being known about now, they should probably have another vote at the very least.

[Pods 7551]

Just now, kevwun said:

Also with the Russian influence stuff being known about now, they should probably have another vote at the very least.

The Cambridge Analytica/SQL scandal too. There were massive violations of British electoral laws on behalf of at least two of the Leave campaigns. The CA/SQL execs have been getting the speculum by British and Canadian MP's. So far, it's been cancer as far as the eye can see. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

The referendum was non-binding and the people knew that.  Also, the question was yes or no.  Brexit itself is actually shades of gray.  Anti-globalists like to pretend that all leavers voted to leave at any cost, but they didn't.  It was dumbass Cameron who decided to bind the UK to it unconditonally, not the people. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Brisketexan 105071]

29 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Well, in fairness, the people are generally idiots.

Yes.  They are.

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I am not sure that the people as sovereign is as enshrined as it is here.  To a large extent, the UK could stop recognizing civil rights of all kinds and little could be done about it.

Also this.  People mistake the UK for the US with funny accents and bad teeth.  It's not.  It's quite different with respect to the rights of the people. Sometimes, in some alarming ways.  But that's the way it is.

As it stands, most voters are not in favor of another unspecified referendum.  However, if they were given a chance to vote on an actual Brexit plan -- as in "here's the ACTUAL deal we have negotiated -- do you want to take it, or do you want to stay in the EU, or EVEN, do you want to just bail without a deal?" - that would be much more acceptable to the voters, and I actually think it makes some sense.

It's kind of like when the board votes to pursue merger talks with Company X.  Then, you bring the actual merger proposal to the board for a vote.  Maybe the continue to be enthusiastic about merger, and take the deal.  Maybe they say "well, I like the idea of merger, but if THAT'S the deal, no way -- I vote nay."

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.  They are.

Also this.  People mistake the UK for the US with funny accents and bad teeth.  It's not.  It's quite different with respect to the rights of the people. Sometimes, in some alarming ways.  But that's the way it is.

As it stands, most voters are not in favor of another unspecified referendum.  However, if they were given a chance to vote on an actual Brexit plan -- as in "here's the ACTUAL deal we have negotiated -- do you want to take it, or do you want to stay in the EU, or EVEN, do you want to just bail without a deal?" - that would be much more acceptable to the voters, and I actually think it makes some sense.

It's kind of like when the board votes to pursue merger talks with Company X.  Then, you bring the actual merger proposal to the board for a vote.  Maybe the continue to be enthusiastic about merger, and take the deal.  Maybe they say "well, I like the idea of merger, but if THAT'S the deal, no way -- I vote nay."

 

It was a stupid question to put to the people.  Its like asking, "Do you want mass transit in Austin?"  Yes/No.  You vote yes and then you get a light rail to nowhere installed that nobody wants.

[GopherRock 1765]

Also, they still haven't figured out what to do with Northern Ireland. Nothing but bad options for the Government. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

29 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

It was a stupid question to put to the people.  Its like asking, "Do you want mass transit in Austin?"  Yes/No.  You vote yes and then you get a light rail to nowhere installed that nobody wants.

Or asking if they support "Universal Background Checks"....and 90% will support it..,.until they are polled on specifics involved in the UBC, and support plummets.

[David Dennison 18850]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Or asking if they support "Universal Background Checks"....and 90% will support it..,.until they are polled on specifics involved in the UBC, and support plummets.

To what?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 hours ago, bernorange said:

Subverting the will of the people

Like we’re so innocent...

[David Dennison 18850]

Gotta protect those slave states, errrr, small states.

[Brisketexan 105071]

55 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

It was a stupid question to put to the people.  Its like asking, "Do you want mass transit in Austin?"  Yes/No.  You vote yes and then you get a light rail to nowhere installed that nobody wants.

Bingo.

It was a referendum about feelings, not a specific action, with details and consequences.

[hpslugga 4058]

I'm actually hoping Brexit is carried through so that the Scots can reconsider their referendum from 2014 😁

[DanRydell 799]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

To what?

85%

[Ghost of LL 15531]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I am not sure that the people as sovereign is as enshrined as it is here.  To a large extent, the UK could stop recognizing civil rights of all kinds and little could be done about it.

I think your hypothetical about civil rights is somewhat less true now than it was ten years ago, as the judiciary as a separate branch has become more established.  But the point remains fundamentally correct--the referendum was always problematic from a constitutional standpoint.  The British constitution has never had a referendum mechanism.  This case shows the problems with fitting it into the British constitutional structure.  

A real question being asked right now is what role the Lords still has to play in lawmaking.  It's becoming a real constitutional clusterfuck (that's a legal term).

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

17 hours ago, kevwun said:

Also with the Russian influence stuff being known about now, they should probably have another vote at the very least.

Oh noes now the Ruskies done and meddled in the Brits elections ??  The blind faith ignorance of some people to believe a myth is staggering here.

[Fudge Nuggets 19189]

23 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The blind faith ignorance of some people to believe a myth is staggering here.

1.  Tax cuts for the rich and companies will help lower and middle class citizens.

2.  Republicans are for fiscal responsibility.

3.  Obama is a Kenyan Muslim.

4.  Hillary was part of a child sex ring run out of a pizza shop.

5.  Mexico is going to pay for the wall.

etc, etc, etc...

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

1.  Tax cuts for the rich and companies will help lower and middle class citizens.

2.  Republicans are for fiscal responsibility.

3.  Obama is a Kenyan Muslim.

4.  Hillary was part of a child sex ring run out of a pizza shop.

5.  Mexico is going to pay for the wall.

etc, etc, etc...

Stick to the bleedin' topic.  I have no illusions about campaign promises or other myths, but the whole the Russians did this shit is way past old.  

[Anastasis 23463]

But tax cuts!

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

But tax cuts!

But you can keep your doctor, but you'll get back $2,500 in savings every year... repeat hundreds of times on the campaign trail.  See how that works ?  

[deadshank 24652]

17 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Gotta protect those slave states, errrr, small states.

Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, etc.  the hotbed of slavery.  You nailed it.  Take a day off. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, etc.  the hotbed of slavery.  You nailed it.  Take a day off. 

From an electoral college perspective, Texas had enough electoral votes to swing the election.

It’s no wonder why the GOP is terrified of Texas going blue.

[deadshank 24652]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

From an electoral college perspective, Texas had enough electoral votes to swing the election.

It’s no wonder why the GOP is terrified of Texas going blue.

Uh, really?  Such brilliant analysis. 

You love / live to post here.  Can you lay it down for a day? One day?  Serious. 

[High Plains Drifter 11031]

10 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 The blind faith ignorance of some people to believe a myth is staggering here.

The unintentional irony of this post is what is staggering.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

48 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

The unintentional irony of this post is what is staggering.

Oooooooh ain't you the deep thinker.....

[hpslugga 4058]

4 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oooooooh ain't you the deep thinker.....

You forgot to call him glue and refer to yourself as rubber.

[David Dennison 18850]

14 hours ago, deadshank said:

Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, etc.  the hotbed of slavery.  You nailed it.  Take a day off. 

I forgot those were all states in 1787.

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I forgot those were all states in 1787.

 

They should all still be territories really. 

[deadshank 24652]

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I forgot those were all states in 1787.

 

You were referring to the recent election results with your comment to HS's stupidity.  Don't back track.

[bolverk 29655]

16 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh noes now the Ruskies done and meddled in the Brits elections ??  The blind faith ignorance of some people to believe a myth is staggering here.

It's no "myth" that Putin has supported populist-nationalist parties and candidates across the West: Front National, Alternative fur Deutschland, UKIP, and Teh Donal amongst others.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 hours ago, bolverk said:

It's no "myth" that Putin has supported populist-nationalist parties and candidates across the West: Front National, Alternative fur Deutschland, UKIP, and Teh Donal amongst others.

It's no myth we meddle in other nations elections as well.  Who's worse ?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

13 hours ago, hpslugga said:

You forgot to call him glue and refer to yourself as rubber.

You can have that 2nd grade line, it suits you.

[TwiceHorn 31439]

On 5/1/2018 at 2:02 PM, Ghost of LL said:

I think your hypothetical about civil rights is somewhat less true now than it was ten years ago, as the judiciary as a separate branch has become more established.  But the point remains fundamentally correct--the referendum was always problematic from a constitutional standpoint.  The British constitution has never had a referendum mechanism.  This case shows the problems with fitting it into the British constitutional structure.  

A real question being asked right now is what role the Lords still has to play in lawmaking.  It's becoming a real constitutional clusterfuck (that's a legal term).

Right.  It is my understanding, but I defer to yours, that Lords still retains more or less the ultimate authority on everything in the UK, although it is restrained itself admirably for the last 100 years or so, but nevertheless retains the power to do more or less whatever it wants.

 

And some of the things UK "law enforcement" does, e.g. GCHQ, would make a privacy and civil rights conscious American (far short of VAPA) really blanch.

Edited May 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[David Dennison 18850]

12 hours ago, deadshank said:

You were referring to the recent election results with your comment to HS's stupidity.  Don't back track.

No, I wasn't. I was referring to the ridiculousness of the electoral college. We have it because of slavery.

Edited May 3, 2018 by David Dennison

[TwiceHorn 31439]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, I wasn't. I was referring to the ridiculousness of the electoral college. We have it because of slavery.

While to some extent true, the founders had a healthy distrust of mobocracy and there are valid reasons related to federalism and the place of states in the scheme for the electoral college that are independent of individual issues of "states rights" and slavery.

[Brisketexan 105071]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's no myth we meddle in other nations elections as well.  Who's worse ?

That line of reasoning is the most insane fucking thing out there, and I see it over and over again.

By your reasoning, we should not have been upset by or taken any action in response to 9/11.  Because -- and this is an undeniable fact -- we have killed thousands of civilians in the middle east.

So we have no cause or right to hold anyone over there accountable when they do the same to us.

Right?

 

Jesus fucking Christ, you morons are siding with our enemies all so "your team" can grab momentary political power.  If AQ had blown up the offices of the DNC instead on 9/11, killling 3,000 Democrat leaders, you'd be here telling us "hey, we kill middle eastern civilians as well."

[High Plains Drifter 11031]

If the Russians had helped get Hillary elected, Onboard would be calling for nuclear war.

[David Dennison 18850]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

While to some extent true, the founders had a healthy distrust of mobocracy and there are valid reasons related to federalism and the place of states in the scheme for the electoral college that are independent of individual issues of "states rights" and slavery.

There are many reasons why the founders included the electoral college in the constitution. Wariness of democracy is one. States rights is one. Slavery is one.

The electoral college is a vestigial relic of a political document that unfortunately retains many of its archaic features.

[hpslugga 4058]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You can have that 2nd grade line, it suits you.

I rest my case

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That line of reasoning is the most insane fucking thing out there, and I see it over and over again.

By your reasoning, we should not have been upset by or taken any action in response to 9/11.  Because -- and this is an undeniable fact -- we have killed thousands of civilians in the middle east.

So we have no cause or right to hold anyone over there accountable when they do the same to us.

Right?

 

Jesus fucking Christ, you morons are siding with our enemies all so "your team" can grab momentary political power.  If AQ had blown up the offices of the DNC instead on 9/11, killling 3,000 Democrat leaders, you'd be here telling us "hey, we kill middle eastern civilians as well."

Please STFU about things of which you have no idea what you're talking about, especially about my motives regarding anything.  

You've been out on a building ledge for about year now, get help.

[Brisketexan 105071]

34 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Please STFU about things of which you have no idea what you're talking about, especially about my motives regarding anything.  

You've been out on a building ledge for about year now, get help.

I quoted your exact fucking words, you simpering sycophant.

Your EXACT.  FUCKING.  WORDS.

Why don't you tell US what they mean, as if the plain English wasn't enough?  It's rather clear, you have ZERO problem with any foreign power doing anything to us and our allies, so long as it serves your goals.  If not, please explain what "It's no myth we meddle in other nations elections as well.  Who's worse ?" means?

 

[High Plains Drifter 11031]

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's no myth we meddle in other nations elections as well.  Who's worse ?

Comparing the shit we do to the shit the Russians do is like... , well...., its like comparing DOTUS to Hillary.

[JBJ 3654]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

No, I wasn't. I was referring to the ridiculousness of the electoral college. We have it because of slavery.

This is false as well.

Edited May 3, 2018 by JBJ

[David Dennison 18850]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

This is false as well.

No, it isn't. It's in the historical record.

[JBJ 3654]

Just now, David Dennison said:

No, it isn't. It's in the historical record.

You are misremembering history.  And it doesn't even make sense.  The most populous colonies (NC, NY, VA) were slave states.  Virginia was the delegation pushing for popular representation.

[David Dennison 18850]

Just now, JBJ said:

You are misremembering history.  And it doesn't even make sense.  The most populous colonies (NC, NY, VA) were slave states.  Virginia was the delegation pushing for popular representation.

James Madison came up with the three-fifths compromise because he knew north would outnumber the south. If it was up to him he would have counted all of the slaves for purposes of representation and electoral college votes. 

[JBJ 3654]

a) James Wilson is not James Madison 

b) That has fuck-all to do with the Electoral College.

[David Dennison 18850]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

a) James Wilson is not James Madison 

b) That has fuck-all to do with the Electoral College.

But the electoral college has a lot to do with slavery. It's actually written into the Constitution.