Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Yeah it is - especially seeing as we’ve all been fucked by one.
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (28 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Is page two a picture of him with his tongue down Liz Truss
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
‘The focus groups said it would go down well’
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
He has his tongue that far down Reeves throat they've swapped voices
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Can see a groundswell of support for SM access over the next five years. Only at a third so far according to most recent polling I can find.
“We’re we wrong in hindsight” is a very different question to “should we rejoin” as we certainly won’t have the sweet deal we had before and questions about currency etc pop up. And SM access without input on rules is another question again. But if we don’t see this buccaneering global Britain soon people’s pockets will make the decision for them.
“We’re we wrong in hindsight” is a very different question to “should we rejoin” as we certainly won’t have the sweet deal we had before and questions about currency etc pop up. And SM access without input on rules is another question again. But if we don’t see this buccaneering global Britain soon people’s pockets will make the decision for them.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Rejoining the SM in around 10 years is inevitable, IMO…I don’t think the UK will rejoin now in our lifetime though.
The Mail is already getting agitated - Government 'considering a Swiss-style relationship with the EU'
If there had been a proper debate and compromise, the EEA option would have been better at avoiding the division and polarity around it all - even the likes of a Farage were going on about “the Norway option” pre-referendum.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Labour would abolish the House of Lords
The House would be replaced with a "new, reformed upper chamber", the BBC is told.
www.bbc.co.uk
Yes, this is what everyone has been saying for ages, but the issue has always been what to replace it with, which has been conveniently left out of the conversation.
Do you think a second chamber filled with the Government party members are going to really scrutinise and block proposed Government legislature, be it if they are elected or unelected?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Labour would abolish the House of Lords
The House would be replaced with a "new, reformed upper chamber", the BBC is told.www.bbc.co.uk
Yes, this is what everyone has been saying for ages, but the issue has always been what to replace it with, which has been conveniently left out of the conversation.
The leaked Labour internal report on this said an elected body representing nations and regions of the U.K.
I’ve said before on here im not a fan of two elected chambers, Id rather see expertise than more vote chasers.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
The idea of the modern second chamber is to chuck out bad ideas from becoming law.
In reality, it is just another shit fest for the political classes to fight over and destroy.
See the issues with the Senate in America if you want an example.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Seems quite benign and straight forward, but this is where the blame lies for everything which has gone wrong in the American legislative arm of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights being the other thing which is completely out of date for the modern era.
That, and allowing political parties into the second house
en.wikipedia.org
For good reason, this isn't what John Locke suggested, which they totally ripped off
At least there weren't copyright laws back then.
That, and allowing political parties into the second house
Connecticut Compromise - Wikipedia
For good reason, this isn't what John Locke suggested, which they totally ripped off
At least there weren't copyright laws back then.
Last edited:
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
The Lords is an absolute farce, Johnson has thrown his Oligarchs kids and 20 year old spads in there, christ knows who Truss is going to put in. We need change, or at least reform.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Agreed there, the issue is what change or reform.
No one has ever really nailed the answer.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Nellist suggested going to one chamber, but this, for me, is just throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The idea of second chamber, chucking out bad ideas from becoming law, is just too good of an idea to get rid of.
It is no good having shorter terms for representatives when they are going to pass bad laws which we all need to live by.
We need to stop these ideas before they become law.
The idea of second chamber, chucking out bad ideas from becoming law, is just too good of an idea to get rid of.
It is no good having shorter terms for representatives when they are going to pass bad laws which we all need to live by.
We need to stop these ideas before they become law.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I agree, but the problem is that you rarely get someone who is affiliated in some way to political parties or individuals. So often you get people that you can kind of second guess what their plan of action will be, even though they're supposedly independent.
For example, we could have a load of economic experts saying we need more market forces etc when the entire premise is built on a foundation of sand. But they're still experts. If you look at many experts in history, a lot of them have been proven wrong later on.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
that account is a bit all over the place, you really have to try and pick out the occasional posts that are valid. the ice skating one is a prime example, moans the price is too high then in the next tweet moans that it lost money last year.
not entirely sure why we need ice skating in Broadgate if its a 6 figure loss every year when we have an ice rink in the city centre
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yes but the idiotic remain MPs voted it down as an option
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
When was that? From what I remember there was little discussion before the vote nor afterwards - positions on both sides seemed to be entrenched to the extremes. Even on here we managed to reach an agreement that EEA would have been a fair compromise.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The problem is it'd end up giving the benefits (and problems) of staying in the EU, but lose all control and ability to influence it, so it's a bit of a non-option really. It's better than what we have now, but ultimately is pointless so falls into the category of not giving an option that's better than staying in, which is what they were (vainly!) hunting for.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
IIRC it was the only parliamentary consensus but May got the job as PM because she was willing to go along with out means out. The Tories wanted to do it by themselves without even a vote in parliament, there was even very high profile JR review that ended in support of parliamentary democracy. There was only ever two options put to parliament. Mays second deal with the back stop which leavers in her own party voted against and Mays first deal with a border in the Irish Sea. Ironically it was her first deal rehashed as the oven ready deal that eventually got through parliament.
Still, no one will be surprised by either leavers trying to rewrite history specifically or blame it on those who didn’t vote for this complete crock of always was going to be shit.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
We’ve lost for good the biggest benefit we had when we left, the veto on the euro. If we fully rejoin it will be with a commitment to dump the pound at some point in the future for the Euro. EEA might actually be the better option now for that reason alone. Maybe not though, the only two countries that ever had a veto on the euro was us and Denmark, plenty of other countries are yet to take up the euro. Some because they don’t meet the criteria however Sweden had a referendum on it and voted not to join the eurozone. I don’t know for sure but I think that referendum takes sovereignty over the commitment to join the euro.
I guess what I’m saying is that any decision to rejoin the EU needs to be more considered than the decision to leave the EU. In other words we try to listen to the experts because they were bang on over brexit.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I think after all the accumulated damage they have caused in this 12 year spell they shouldn't be allowed near government for decades. But at worst for them it'll probably end up being a Labour minority then a Tory majority 5 years later.
D
Deleted member 9744
Guest
Amazing how you criticise Starmer all the time for not being radical enough, and then call people idiotic for sticking to their principles and not voting to make the country poorer. By doing so they would have just been pandering to the xenophobia that underpinned Brexit. Yes it might have meant Labour didn't lose the red wall but it would have been morally bankrupt in my view. Anyway it would never have worked. The Tories were too set on a hard Brexit, and stopping migration from the EU was the main driver behind Brexit.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It isn't really an non option, the benefits far outweigh to the downsides.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Once the referendum had happened it happened, any grown up politician would recognise that. The job after the vote was to minimise the impact and the remain MPs catastrophically failed to do that.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The point being, when it was being decided as to what to do, it was a worse option than staying in the EU, so was not an option.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Staying in the EU was NOT an option though, that's the point. The referendum had happened and there was no way the result was not going to be implemented.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Not quite as much as Leave MPs did. Who kept stabbing PMs in the back until they got the most mental one they could.
D
Deleted member 9744
Guest
It's amazing how now it's remainers who are responsible for the mess and are the idiots rather than those who campaigned for and voted for Brexit. The right always use this argument and it is like Truss' anti growth coalition logic.
Obviously it was the populists/xenophobes, who listened to people like Farage who are most to blame. They campaigned and voted for Brexit so caused the mess. However, next comes the ones who knew it was damaging but failed to out the positive arguments for EU membership.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
And the point is it's clearly not economics that would motivate a vote, in that case. If it were then there was an option, if concluding all options were worse, of sending it back to the people and it's a nonsense spouted that that isn't democratic, it's the very essence of democracy!
As is implementing a result not based on economics, but what you consider the vote to have been about.
I'm sorry, but implementing a Norway style would have been ludicrous for those MPs as it would have failed just about everybody. Yes, it might have been least worst objectively, but the referendum is clearly not an objective decision as if it was, it would have resulted in a clear stay in . What we'd have ended up with would have delivered worse than staying in the EU for those who wanted us to stay, and would have kept us too tied to the EU for those who didn't want that. Blaming MPs for not implementing that option at that point is a nonsense really.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
They only options were flavours of hard Brexit and anyone pretending otherwise has a very short memory. The ERG were in the ascendancy in the PCP and had made it clear no PM would last if they didn’t support hard Brexit. The only votes we got were about how much lube to give to Northern Ireland while we were fucking them raw.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Well yes but I was not making that argument. The remain MPs pre and post referendum failed to articulate the importance of the single market and got stupidly sucked into to every silly binary choice narrative cooked up by the leave campaign.