Brexit shenanigans

[Captainant 27637]

18 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Hey y’all lay off the hammer. He’s one of our resident trump supporting dumbasses like Zook who also, for some strange reason, is a big brexit supporter. 

Its an interesting combo for sure, since I know plenty of trump supporters in real life and not one of them has ever mentioned brexit, not once. 

It makes a fellow wonder sometimes, who am I talking to on the net? 

It's almost like there's a common thread of Russian interference in both situations, and bagofhammers can't get enough borscht

[Ghost of LL 15531]

3 hours ago, hpslugga said:

It used to be a tenable distinction between the two. If you were comparing it to today in the US, the LibDems would have been the establishment Democrats and Labour would have been the AOC/Bernie/Omar types. But that distinction got severely blurred by the tenure of the vampire known as Tony Blair. So the LibDems are still very much in the dead center of their political spectrum while Labour is probably a flea's hop to that left. It seems increasingly clear that Brexit is going to be a colossal failure, and those two camps would do well to put their petty differences aside and form a coalition like you suggested in order to mitigate or reverse it as much as they can...but those people are fucking hardheaded and I doubt that would ever happen.

I'm not sure they're so easily analogized to American political parties.  That's generally because Britain is a much more class-conscious society, and their party politics reflects that.

The Liberal Democrats are classical liberals.  They favor free markets and generally oppose further nationalization of industry, while at the same time favoring increased social welfare spending.  It's very much the politics of the urban and suburban middle classes.

Labour is traditionally a socialist party, and under Jeremy Corbyn, it is that again.  Its foundation and base is in the trade unionist movements, which is a problem when manufacturing is drying up and trade unions membership is decreasing.  But that focus has really limited Labour's appeal in London constituencies, for example.

In the early 20th Century, Labour and the Liberals entered into an informal alliance whereby they agreed not to run candidates in certain constituencies, thereby hoping to maximize their votes.  So Labour may agree not to run a candidate in a suburban London constituency in the expectation that their supporters would vote for the Liberal candidate.  In the absence of such an agreement, the Tory candidate would win the election, even though he was far short of 50%.  The Liberals would do the same in various constituencies in the Midlands.

It may be worth exploring that type of deal again.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4975]

5 hours ago, bolverk said:

I think the Unionists wouldn't go for that option as an option as it would de facto cede control of Northern Ireland to the EU and, by extension, the Republic of Ireland.

Imagine a scenario with the US exiting NAFTA but with Texas remaining and, as a consequence, the Rio Grande no longer has border controls with Mexico but we do have with the US. And, of course, all trade from Texas to the rest of America is subject to customs inspections but not with Mexico or Canada.

At that point, you basically have an independent Texas or we just become a part of Mexico. So, if you support staying in the Union, there's no way you'd go for that. I'm pretty sure UK loyalists feel just as strongly about not being a part of Ireland as most Texans feel about not being a part of Mexico.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

5 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I told you why they didn't vote to hold an election on October 15--because Labour and the LibDems didn't want to run the risk of Johnson being able to cobble together the votes (either with a Tory majority or through a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Brexit Party) to overturn the law mandating that the Government seek an extension to the October 31 deadline.I think everybody would be perfectly happy with an election in November.  And I'm sure that's what you're going to get.

When the law was passed, Boris immediately stated that he would ask for an extension "over my dead body" or they could "pry Brexit from my cold dead hands" or some other colorful language. That's why they need to get rid of him. If they don't, Brexit happens.

 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

3 hours ago, hpslugga said:

Look at hammer's link. The "majority" to which he refers is not a majority. It's a plurality of around 30-33% with the LibDems and Labour tallying 40+%. Even if you added UKIP to the Tories, they'd still lose that one as well. And there's no way in hell the arrangement you suggested would happen because Labour polls noticeably better than the LibDems. If a hypothetical coalition were to be formed, Corbyn would be at the forefront.

It's a parliamentary system. Do you know what that means? It most certainly does not mean that Tories get 33% of the seats.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Fudge Nuggets 19189]

8 hours ago, Loco said:

Black Rod huh?  So that's how the Brits like to roll.....  

I was hoping Black Rod was a new Marvel comics action hero.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

17 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

It's a parliamentary system. Do you know what that means? It most certainly does not mean that Tories get 33% of the seats.

Point of clarification--it's a first-past-the-post or "Westminster" system, which means that the candidate in each constituency who gets the plurality of the vote wins.

A proportional-representation system can still be parliamentary.  It's just different from a Westminster parliamentary system.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

27 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Point of clarification--it's a first-past-the-post or "Westminster" system, which means that the candidate in each constituency who gets the plurality of the vote wins.

A proportional-representation system can still be parliamentary.  It's just different from a Westminster parliamentary system.

I stand corrected.

As I understand it, there are 650 geographic constituencies (we would call then districts) each of which elects one MP. The winner is whomever has the most votes. The result is that the combined (Tory+Brexit) advantage of 21 points likely gives them a massive overall win. The Parliament elects the PM, who is never voted on.

So where the US has only one nationally elected official, the British have none.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[hpslugga 4058]

56 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

It's a parliamentary system. Do you know what that means? 

Do you know what a majority is? 

What you’re talking about is what’s known as a “plurality.”

[Loco 3752]

35 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Point of clarification--it's a first-past-the-post or "Westminster" system, which means that the candidate in each constituency who gets the plurality of the vote wins.

A proportional-representation system can still be parliamentary.  It's just different from a Westminster parliamentary system.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

Do you know what a majority is? 

What you’re talking about is what’s known as a “plurality.”

If you need a clarification, I was referring to Parliament.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1175767/boris-johnson-news-nigel-farage-brexit-party-general-election-John-Curtice

Tony Blair says the same, even though he's a staunch remainer. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-blair-idUSKCN1VN0QW

Quote

An election would be framed as a choice between Johnson delivering Brexit plus a populist Conservative programme or turning the country, its economy and security over to Corbyn and his small group of acolytes from the far left, Blair said.

This is why they should have done the vote of no confidence earlier. The deal would have gotten the second referendum. They basically rejected the 2nd referendum, it's dead. It's a very reasonable path and they rejected it. I don't understand their motivations, but there isn't some huge push for another vote. Betting odds for a revote are like 20 to 1.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[bolverk 29655]

Scotland's highest court ruled the suspension of parliament is unlawful. That ruling is being appealed and will be heard by the Supreme Court in London next week.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-49661855

[Gil Bang 25919]

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19189]

On 9/10/2019 at 8:16 PM, Thetexashammer said:

If you need a clarification, I was referring to Parliament.

Indeed.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Indeed.

[Rusty Shackelford 414]

 

Power chord!

[zork 629]

On 9/10/2019 at 3:45 PM, JimmyJames said:

Hey y’all lay off the hammer. He’s one of our resident trump supporting dumbasses like Zook who also, for some strange reason, is a big brexit supporter. 

Its an interesting combo for sure, since I know plenty of trump supporters in real life and not one of them has ever mentioned brexit, not once. 

It makes a fellow wonder sometimes, who am I talking to on the net? 

yes, yes, Jiminy, a russian conspiracy!  Or maybe just someone who is supporting the will of the people, in the UK, and observing with the latest prime minister that brexit is more likely to happen than with the utter failure to make it happen, multiple times, under May.  Clearly only anti-brexit followers from the US are allowed to follow the shitshow that has been brexit/anti-brexit since the vote long ago.(and subsequent currency movements)

BTW,  I've been posting on UT boards probably longer than you've been alive.  Back when it was celebrated that Dell was moving into Russia,(among other multinational companies at the time) more than a decade before Hillary 'reset' with Russia.  Russia, Russia, Russia.  It isn't all about them.

[hpslugga 4058]

50 minutes ago, zork said:

yes, yes, Jiminy, a russian conspiracy!  Or maybe just someone who is supporting the will of the people, in the UK, and observing with the latest prime minister that brexit is more likely to happen than with the utter failure to make it happen, multiple times, under May.  Clearly only anti-brexit followers from the US are allowed to follow the shitshow that has been brexit/anti-brexit since the vote long ago.(and subsequent currency movements)

BTW,  I've been posting on UT boards probably longer than you've been alive.  Back when it was celebrated that Dell was moving into Russia,(among other multinational companies at the time) more than a decade before Hillary 'reset' with Russia.  Russia, Russia, Russia.  It isn't all about them.

You only support that when it’s convenient to do so

[Brisketexan 105066]

Just now, hpslugga said:

You only support that when it’s convenient to do so

This.

Now that we're years after the people voted for the CONCEPT of Brexit, how about we let them vote on the REALITY: the choice is stay, or leave with no deal.  Vote on that.

The "Leave" crowd is both 1) uniformly opposed to doing that, while 2) crowing about "honoring the will of the people."  The cognitive dissonance -- it's impressive.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

Now that we're years after the people voted for the CONCEPT of Brexit, how about we let them vote on the REALITY: the choice is stay, or leave with no deal.  Vote on that.

The "Leave" crowd is both 1) uniformly opposed to doing that, while 2) crowing about "honoring the will of the people."  The cognitive dissonance -- it's impressive.

Ain't no dissonance if there ain't no cognitive.

Edited September 13, 2019 by cactusflinthead

[hpslugga 4058]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

Now that we're years after the people voted for the CONCEPT of Brexit, how about we let them vote on the REALITY: the choice is stay, or leave with no deal.  Vote on that.

The "Leave" crowd is both 1) uniformly opposed to doing that, while 2) crowing about "honoring the will of the people."  The cognitive dissonance -- it's impressive.

And they have that inbuilt into their electoral processes. Yeah they may have voted for Tory candidates, for example, but that doesn’t in itself mean it’s a “til death do us part” proposition. Again it’s only when they want to execute outcomes that they think they want. 

3 years ago, I said that the American public is going to learn for the first time what buyer’s remorse is on 1/20/2017. The UKIP and their idiot Tory colleagues are hellbent and determined to learn that same concept on Halloween.

Edited September 13, 2019 by hpslugga

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 9/13/2019 at 12:11 PM, Brisketexan said:

This.

Now that we're years after the people voted for the CONCEPT of Brexit, how about we let them vote on the REALITY: the choice is stay, or leave with no deal.  Vote on that.

The "Leave" crowd is both 1) uniformly opposed to doing that, while 2) crowing about "honoring the will of the people."  The cognitive dissonance -- it's impressive.

Yep.  You see, that single referendum was the will of the people for all time. It was absolutely democratic. Allowing future votes is not.  Voters that voted on June 23, 2016 are the only voters that matter for all time.  Even if 100 years pass, it would just not be right to hold another referendum. It would violate the people's will.  It's a 100 decision just like aggy made.

So it isn't democratic to vote on actual Brexit scenarios.  It wouldn't be democratic to vote to rejoin the EU after Brexit occurs either.  It's far more Democratic to dissolve government instead.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 9/13/2019 at 2:17 PM, hpslugga said:

And they have that inbuilt into their electoral processes. Yeah they may have voted for Tory candidates, for example, but that doesn’t in itself mean it’s a “til death do us part” proposition. Again it’s only when they want to execute outcomes that they think they want. 

3 years ago, I said that the American public is going to learn for the first time what buyer’s remorse is on 1/20/2017. The UKIP and their idiot Tory colleagues are hellbent and determined to learn that same concept on Halloween.

The whole thing is Cameron's fault really. He should have never stated that he would act on a non-binding referendum.  The referendum result should have been the conversation starter for options for Brexit or negotiation for concessions with the EU. Instead, Cameron made it a cliff to jump off. 

[Biff Tannen 45665]

Just spent a few days in London and Brexit talk was EVERYWHERE.  Not sure if it's been like that the whole time or just because the deadline is looming, but people seemed much more involved than we do with the dotard disaster.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Just spent a few days in London and Brexit talk was EVERYWHERE.  Not sure if it's been like that the whole time or just because the deadline is looming, but people seemed much more involved than we do with the dotard disaster.

Because we have some constitutional protections that limit dotard and his term will also be limited to 4 or 8 years as long as we still have a nation. Brexit is the equivalent of electing dotard forever and following his shitty ideas and policies long after he is gone. 

[Biff Tannen 45665]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Because we have some constitutional protections that limit dotard and his term will also be limited to 4 or 8 years as long as we still have a nation. Brexit is the equivalent of electing dotard forever and following his shitty ideas and policies long after he is gone. 

So not that far off from our reality then?  Seriously, if he is re-elected, what you described is basically what we are saying.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Because we have some constitutional protections that limit dotard and his term will also be limited to 4 or 8 years as long as we still have a nation. Brexit is the equivalent of electing dotard forever and following his shitty ideas and policies long after he is gone. 

Tell that to the chucklefuck in the White House who repeatedly "jokingly" mentions he will stay President past 8 years. In reality, he's shifting the Overton window, bringing up something that should be repugnant to everyone and normalizing the idea. 

The Constitution is only a piece of paper. That piece of paper requires human beings to enforce it. 

[HenryJames 66038]

 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/other/uk-port-of-dover-says-its-100percent-ready-for-no-deal-brexit/ar-AAHytC8?li=BBr8Mkj

Quote

Quote

The Port of Dover -- through which a sixth of the U.K.’s trade in goods flows -- can cope with any disruption thrown up by a no-deal Brexit, Chief Executive Officer Doug Bannister said, suggesting some of the direr predictions of chaos are wide of the mark.

 

“The Port of Dover is 100% ready,” he said in an interview in his harbor-side office with views of the town’s castle, its famous white cliffs, its all-important port, and -- across the English Channel -- France. “Ferry operators: 100% ready. Calais, Dunkirk: 100% ready.”

Bannister’s assessment is a boost to the government’s efforts to portray Britain as Brexit-ready, even after Prime Minister Boris Johnson was forced by Parliament to publish details of “worst-case scenario” projections under no-deal Brexit planning dubbed Operation Yellowhammer. That portrayed a country in crisis, with nationwide protests, shortages of some medicines and fresh foods, and a huge drop-off in trade flowing through Dover.

 

 

[smokebomb 357]

3 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/other/uk-port-of-dover-says-its-100percent-ready-for-no-deal-brexit/ar-AAHytC8?li=BBr8Mkj

 

[Zonahorn 8079]

13 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/other/uk-port-of-dover-says-its-100percent-ready-for-no-deal-brexit/ar-AAHytC8?li=BBr8Mkj

 

Good to know you’re still a dumbass 

[Ted Lange 16084]

The caller reminds me so much of every Trump voter.  JFC

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/caller-wants-to-leave-the-eu-because-of-abu-hamza/

 

 

[Bookman 4638]

UK Supreme Court drops the hammer on Boris Johnson. He's not having a good term.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Wow, incredible 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13509]

Has Boris accomplished anything yet? From his point of view? 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

 

[hpslugga 4058]

32 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Has Boris accomplished anything yet?

No. Nothing

32 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

From his point of view? 

Yes. Everything 

[GopherRock 1765]

41 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Has Boris accomplished anything yet? From his point of view? 

If you consider getting his ass kicked by both the Commons and the Supreme Court in the span of 3 weeks to be an accomplishment, then yes. 

[Ghost of LL 15531]

Wow, incredible 

Depends on whether you regard James Madison as having accomplished something by being the named respondent in Marbury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hayden_horn 11362]

3 hours ago, Bookman said:

UK Supreme Court drops the hammer on Boris Johnson. He's not having a good term.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261

Quote

'This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices. 

'It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.

damn. unanimous quashing. we should quash some shit in our own country.

[kevwun 15764]

Unanimous, huh?  What a neat concept of putting country and the rule of law before party.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13509]

22 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

The caller reminds me so much of every Trump voter.  JFC

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/caller-wants-to-leave-the-eu-because-of-abu-hamza/

 

Very common these days for people to have an opinion on a subject based on false info.  For the uninformed:

• Abu Hamza was an Egyptian-born, UK resident. He's a terrorist with ties to several groups
• The UK struggled to extradite him to the US to face charges as the Euro court/commission doesn't allow extraditions in cases where the person might be treated inhumanely or put to death.  
• the Euro court decided that imprisonment at an ADX Supermax prison is NOT inhumane.  
• He was extradited, found guilty and has a life sentence.

This European commission is unrelated to EU membership. In fact many non-EU countries are apart of it, including Russia.

 

Fun fact about Abu: apparently the US prison has since replaced his hook with a spork.

[Bookman 4638]

I have high expectations for how the MPs treat Boris Johnson tomorrow. Hope I'm not disappointed.

[Bama Chick 28596]

And with Bercow retiring I have a feeling he’s gonna be feeling loose and breezy and giving fewer fucks than usual.

ORRRRRRRRRRRDAHHHHHHHHH

[Bookman 4638]

Today in the UK they said "Nobody is Above the Law."

Today in the US they said "Nobody is Above the Law."

[hpslugga 4058]

8 hours ago, Bookman said:

Today in the UK they said "Nobody is Above the Law."

Today in the US they said "Nobody is Above the Law."

Their applications of that principle, historically, has always been curiously selective. So take the US.

Nixon would have been impeached, had he not resigned, for crimes relating to the burglary of DNC headquarters at Watergate. Nowhere in his articles of impeachment is his participation and endorsement of COINTELPRO mentioned; nowhere are his war crimes in Vietnam, Laos, or Chile mentioned. His crimes in Cambodia were mentioned, but those got voted down; and that’s the problem: it was ok, for the Democrats, when Nixon was committing heinous war crimes against a defenseless country like Cambodia, but it wasn’t ok when he was covering up for the goons that burglarized the DNC headquarters.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

Wrong thread 

Edited September 25, 2019 by cactusflinthead

[Francisco 2.0 32387]

 

[GopherRock 1765]

Boris talking a lot of trash to Corbyn right now...