Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corb Blimey!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post
    But there are only three options for the uk. Pass the withdrawal agreement, and leave the EU. Forget the whole thing and stay in the EU, or go for a no deal brexit. So vote on those three options. Anything else would simply be yet another childishly and stupidly run referendum.

    Well, that's Remainer nonsense designed to split the Leave vote and transparently so.

    In reality, there are three possible referendum question sets:

    1. Do you agree with the result of the 2016 referendum and believe that the UK should leave the EU?
    Do you disagree with the result of the 2016 referendum and believe that the UK should remain in the EU?


    In other words, a horrible-sounding please "reconsider the earlier democratic decision" vote.


    2i The UK should leave the EU?
    The UK should remain in the EU?

    In the event that the vote is to leave there is a second referendum:

    2ii The UK should leave with ND?
    The UK should leave with the current WA?
    The UK should renegotiate the current WA?


    In other words, a binary choice followed by a series of options if the first re-vote reconfirms the 2016 result. Probably way too complicated for the UK electorate.


    3. The UK should leave with ND?
    The UK should leave with the current WA?
    The UK should renegotiate the current WA?


    In other words, the result of the 2016 result is respected and the nature of the terms of the departure are decided upon. See above re. complexity.


    (Obviously the wording of 1 and 2i could be the that of the other one.)
    Last edited by Nocturnal Submission; 09-07-2019, 15:12.

    Comment


      Only trouble is the "renegotiate the WA agreement" is an unknown unknown, and invites obvious questions: would it be possible? Would it be desirable? Would that then need further ratification in yet another referendum?

      Comment


        Originally posted by TonTon View Post
        (It's usually a bit less than half, isn't it?)
        FPTP vs 50%+1.

        As for the Labour Lords resigning, timed with the Panorama programme.

        It is no longer a safe political environment for Jewish people or other opponents of antisemitism. It it time to recognise the reality. I always said it was worth hanging on to fight so long as there was a prospect of winning. I now donít believe with this leadership there is.
        This would be the only Party that adopted - after huge demands - the IHRA antisemitism definition in full.

        Comment


          Originally posted by E10 Rifle View Post
          Only trouble is the "renegotiate the WA agreement" is an unknown unknown, and invites obvious questions: would it be possible? Would it be desirable? Would that then need further ratification in yet another referendum?

          Absolutely. None of this is going to be clean. And if that option were chosen there would be a debate over whether it meant attempt to time-limit the NI backstop, do away with it because we're going to stay in the CU, £39bn is too much or whatever, but at least these issues would be aired during the campaign and a sense given to where the electorate's thinking was at.

          And yes, a renegotiated WA but have to go to yet another referendum, with perhaps just that or ND as options.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post

            FPTP vs 50%+1.
            I don't follow, can you elaborate please?

            Comment


              Christ, why can't we have a three option poll using the realities of the situation, with everyone having to mark a 1 and a 2. Anyone marking a single X doesn't have a second preference to count.

              The three options:

              1) Leave the EU with No deal
              2) Leave the EU under the terms of the WA
              3) Rescind A50

              Anyone voting remain in 2016 is going to vote the third as their preferred option, followed by 2. This pretty much ensures that it comes down to which of the leave options the leavers prefer most.

              If it is the WA over the ND, the issue is whether the WA is so toxic that No dealers would prefer to remain or abstain than vote for it. If vice-versa, the issue is whether the WA supporters prefer remaining to no dealing.

              This referendum question deals with actual options facing us, not unicorns. They can all be implemented the day afterwards without the EU needing to do anything. They all give the public the option to take a more nuanced position on the key question the ballot paper and referendum process left unanswered, namely, what type of Brexit do you want?

              Comment


                Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post
                OK, how do you tell 17.4 million people that their democratic vote doesn't fucking count?
                Oh you're not doing that. You're attacking that they voted for something more nebulous than the concept of happiness. You're attacking that their vote is being used to push through something incredibly extreme, that bears no resemblance to what they were promised, that even the mildest form of brexit will shatter the economy like an egg. .And you're attacking that they voted ultimately for britain to be so strong that everyone gives it what they want.

                It's like respecting the decision of a five year old to run away from home. They can be as convinced as they want about the merits of running away from mean mammy and daddy, and how they and their stuffed rat Nigel are going to live on unicorn milk in the magical forest. But if you let that child actually live under a railway bridge, you should be locked up.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post
                  Well, that's Remainer nonsense designed to split the Leave vote and transparently so.
                  Those are the three options open to the UK. they can forget Brexit, they can implement the brexit that is actually possible, or they can prepare to get their fucking head kicked in in a brutal economic war. it is that simple. It has been exactly the same position since the UK caved to all of the EU's demands in 2017.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by TonTon View Post

                    I don't follow, can you elaborate please?
                    You keep trying to compare a GE, run on a constituency by constituency basis under a FPTP system with a take or leave it Yes/No referendum with a 50%+1 majority.

                    The two are totally incompatible.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post

                      Oh you're not doing that. You're attacking that they voted for something more nebulous than the concept of happiness. You're attacking that their vote is being used to push through something incredibly extreme, that bears no resemblance to what they were promised, that even the mildest form of brexit will shatter the economy like an egg. .And you're attacking that they voted ultimately for britain to be so strong that everyone gives it what they want.

                      It's like respecting the decision of a five year old to run away from home. They can be as convinced as they want about the merits of running away from mean mammy and daddy, and how they and their stuffed rat Nigel are going to live on unicorn milk in the magical forest. But if you let that child actually live under a railway bridge, you should be locked up.
                      Right, so yet again you don't have a realistic solution, you're just being a smug blowhard calling everyone idiots without ever troubling yourself with the bother of coming up with a sane, realistic solution.

                      It's like Roy Keane never died.

                      Comment


                        This, from Ellie Mae O'Hagan, remains quite relevant on the subject of any second referendum.

                        https://twitter.com/MissEllieMae/status/1148514925716787201?s=20
                        Last edited by Reginald Christ; 09-07-2019, 16:29.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post

                          Those are the three options open to the UK. they can forget Brexit, they can implement the brexit that is actually possible, or they can prepare to get their fucking head kicked in in a brutal economic war. it is that simple. It has been exactly the same position since the UK caved to all of the EU's demands in 2017.

                          Yes, those are more-or-less the three options, but that doesn't mean that presenting them to the electorate in a three-option referendum would be fair, as well you know.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post


                            Yes, those are more-or-less the three options, but that doesn't mean that presenting them to the electorate in a three-option referendum would be fair, as well you know.
                            It's got nothing to do with being fair. Fair has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit, and even less to do with international politics. . It's about asking them to choose between the three options facing them. Forget about it, starve slowly, or starve quickly. There is no positive side to brexit.

                            Comment


                              Any argument that proceeds with the statement "It's got nothing to do with being fair" isn't really worth pursuing, as far as I'm concerned.

                              Comment


                                True. And people still wonder why Remain lost.

                                Comment


                                  Right, so yet again you don't have a realistic solution, you're just being a smug blowhard calling everyone idiots without ever troubling yourself with the bother of coming up with a sane, realistic solution.

                                  It's not up to me to have a realistic solution. At this point I want the UK to pass the withdrawal agreement, and fuck off until you've sorted out your Political nervous breakdown, and steady descent into fascism thing. I've been calling for the labour party to look for a referendum on the agreement they strike with europe since the fucking referendum. I see Labour have finally come to that position three years later. The Problem with Labour only coming to that position now, is that it does rather suggest that the people in charge of the Labour party's position on brexit have been completely wrong for the last three years. That can't pass without comment. The Labour party leadership have managed to keep labour out of the hunt for a second referendum until several months after the UK was supposed to leave the EU. I view that as the act of useful idiots at best, and fellow travellers at worst. The Labour leadership aren't fit to wipe their own arses.

                                  But the thing that convinced me that Labour was lead by a shower of utterly useless, posing fuckers, was when John McDonnell agreed that Labour wouldn't raise income tax on people earning less than £80,000 a year. That is a promise more shatteringly destructive of any hope of making progressive advances than Gordon Brown agreeing to stick to the tory spending plans for the first three years of a labour govt. If I'm supposed to just support these fuckers because they are supposedly more left wing than the others, I would like some fucking evidence of meaningful left wing policies, because if the Daily Mail weren't telling me that Jeremy Corbyn was a dangerous socialist, It would be fucking hard to detect from labour's policies on taxation, spending, and combating income inequality.

                                  Brexit is stupid. It's stupid in the way that our property bubble was stupid. Societies do stupid things all the fucking time, not because people are stupid, but because they seem like a fucking good idea at the time. The UK has an opportunity to stop doing the stupid thing, in a way that we didn't with the property crash. This should have been the priority for the Labour party from the very beginning, because people voting for brexit, doesn't make it any more possible, deliverable, or less fucking nightmarishly disastrous. Instead of pointing this out, they kept talking about how they would do it better. That is unforgivable.

                                  Whatever happens at the end of this. Those useless worthless fuckers in charge of the labour party need to fuck off. They're a fucking menace.

                                  Comment


                                    Going through with Brexit isn't fair on Scotland and NI either. Someone has to lose on this, and I'd prefer it was the gammons. I really doubt the majority of the leave vote would give that much of a fuck. At this point Parliament should just revoke admitting the whole thing is too difficult (coz the silly fuckers in the Tories are now aghast at a Backstop they suggested). But instead we'll have No Deal unless the EU have infinite patience.

                                    Comment


                                      Now that bans are a thing, how long before a Berba sin bin?

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post
                                        Any argument that proceeds with the statement "It's got nothing to do with being fair" isn't really worth pursuing, as far as I'm concerned.
                                        This is UK politics. What the hell does it have to do with fairness? It's very late in the day to be thinking in these terms isn't it? It's got nothing to do with being fair. You're four months away from learning what it is like to live under sanctions. That's not fair, but that is the path your government has chosen. Brexit is going to have consequences, and none of them are going to be fair.

                                        This is about constructing a clear referendum question that allows the people to chose between the three options open to them. Having different referendum questions might theoretically be fair, but it would have fuck all to do with the reality facing the uk. Nothing has changed since the referendum, either you stay, leave the EU on their terms, or we have a short, messy one sided economic war. Those are your options. You should choose. Not having a referendum automatically means choosing to have the corpse of your economy put in a gibbet as a warning to others.

                                        Comment


                                          Would Renaissance Florence have banned Savonarola?

                                          They had other options at their disposal.
                                          Last edited by ursus arctos; 09-07-2019, 18:31.

                                          Comment


                                            *Googles*

                                            Ah. I had Harry Enfield "You don't wanna do it like thaaaat" myself, but UA is much classier.

                                            Comment


                                              Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post

                                              FPTP vs 50%+1.

                                              As for the Labour Lords resigning, timed with the Panorama programme.



                                              This would be the only Party that adopted - after huge demands - the IHRA antisemitism definition in full.
                                              Didn't the SNP and Greens also sign up? Not being arsey, sure I saw Chris Deerin types throw that around.

                                              Comment


                                                Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post

                                                This is UK politics. What the hell does it have to do with fairness? It's very late in the day to be thinking in these terms isn't it? It's got nothing to do with being fair. You're four months away from learning what it is like to live under sanctions. That's not fair, but that is the path your government has chosen. Brexit is going to have consequences, and none of them are going to be fair.

                                                This is about constructing a clear referendum question that allows the people to chose between the three options open to them. Having different referendum questions might theoretically be fair, but it would have fuck all to do with the reality facing the uk. Nothing has changed since the referendum, either you stay, leave the EU on their terms, or we have a short, messy one sided economic war. Those are your options. You should choose. Not having a referendum automatically means choosing to have the corpse of your economy put in a gibbet as a warning to others.

                                                The trouble with your arguments, Colm, other than the 1,001 colourful but increasingly unhinged metaphors you use to describe the negative economic consequences of Brexit, is that it's all about the Republic of Ireland. You rarely mention your country in your contributions and you frame your opposition to Brexit in terms of it's effect upon us, but your main if not total concern is the effect which you fear it will have on the Irish economy. Which is quite understandable. But given your motivation, your preparedness to chuck the small matter of a democratic vote in another country under the bus, with no heed to the convulsions which might ensue as a consequence if you do so, you'll excuse me if I don't consider your opinion one that has the best interests of my country at heart.

                                                Comment


                                                  Unfortunately that country is made of 4. As I posted elsewhere, Canada requires refs on such matters to be passed by every province. Ignoring the Nordies and Scotch when England is so huge has stored up a truckload of trouble. Cameron should have followed the Canadian model and then could have pointed to recalcitrant Celts for the failure of Brexit to happen. Now things look really fucked instead.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Ignoring an international EU independent treaty like the GFA if UKania does go for Mad Brexit is going to cause a shitnami for te UK as well when it comes to seeming an honest broker for future deals.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X