Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[chupachups]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

They actually have but it doesn't fit your neat little tick boxes so you blithely ignore it.

...

This may come as a massive shock to some but guess what, we do NOT have to justify or give any reasons why we voted Leave or Remain. It was a personal choice for each of us, I don't go around asking if people voted Remain? and if so why? It was their choice too and I fully respect that, that is how the voting system works, our votes are secret.

you all realise what the agenda is ?

ignore the inconvenient responses... keep cross examining in the vain hope that someone will post something that vaguely backs up the racism card, and then jump on that as proof that every single brexit voter is a rabbid racist...the levels remainers go to...unbelievable

perhaps they have to make out the other side is the bogeyman, as deep down, they realise that voting to remain in the EU is all about personal financial gain at the expense of other people's rights

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by judy84

All these attacks on Britain, it's thinking, it's foreign policy, it's democracy, etc.
I would like to ask these "remainers" one question about Britain and the EU, without resorting to "project fear".

Apart from trade agreements, providing employment for British workers, what were the ADVANTAGES of Britain being in the EU?

The advantages should have been:

1. Mutual assurance and security - but Mrs Merkel turned that argument on its head when she invited well over a million totally unvetted economic migrants posing as Syrian refugees to just walk in. She didn't even consult the other 28 member states, she just did it, and everyone else had to try to adjust to her unilateral decision, even non-members such as Serbia [NB the nation and people of Serbia behaved rather well IMHO, better than some others].
2. Economic progress - but the Eurozone project has inflicted a great deal of suffering in places such as Spain and Greece, where youth unemployment is at horrifying levels. Over 40% youth unemplyed in Spain...FFS. Meanwhile the German economy gets to export shedloads of manufactured goods at a very articially low exchange rate, and much of the unsustainable Greek national debt arises directly from buying German goods with money borrowed from German banks.
3. A greater friendship of nations - this one I agree with and this one has worked. It will be a major part of Britain's future task to preserve close ties of friendship after we have finished arguing over who keeps the pet cat and how to divide the CD collection. But the core reason why Britain and the Eu are not, in the end, compatible with one another is that Britain wants to be friends and at least some of the other 28 members want to get married.
4. Common strength - for example the EU stood together against the breath-taking arrogance of the US Helms-Burton Act seeking to enforce the totally illegal US economic blockade of Cuba. I earnestly hope that this is included in the agreement with the EU, that we will have a treaty of mutual support so that Britain will enforce counter-action against US companies who use the Helms Burton Act on EU companies and the EU will enforce counter-action on US companies who invoke Helms Burton on British companies, and we will collectively flick the Vees at the USA and trade with Cuba as much as we fucking well want.

There is a lot more to say but I haven't got the strength...it isn't even 7 am here yet.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by chupachups

perhaps they have to make out the other side is the bogeyman, as deep down, they realise that voting to remain in the EU is all about personal financial gain at the expense of other people's rights

Alternatively, it may be that some of the Remain side have a tenable and arguable point of view. It is a very polarising debate, but the urge to demonise one another should be resisted. I have been called a racist and a bigot to my face by people I have known all my life and always liked and respected. In my turn, I have sincerely wanted to hang Kenneth Clarke, a man who has never personally done one single bad thing to me, but whose high-handed attitude to the vote of the whole British electorate was outrageous to my sense of my own rights as a British citizen. Mercifully we are an even tempered people and we have not come to blows, the awful murder of poor Joanne Cox MP excepted, and may God grant that we never shall fight one another again. But this is a schism, in some ways as profound as the English Civil War. Who are the Roundheads / Parliamentarians and who are the Cavaliers / Royalists in this divide?

[haroldeye]

Clarke, the man who said that he didn't need to read the Maastricht treaty because he just knew it was a good idea.

It is politicians like this that have made a bollocks of the EU. The Commission has been allowed almost unfettered power whilst the men and women who should have been responsible were made to look the other way.

I didn't want to leave the EU, but having watched the behaviour of the Commission and the ECJ, I don't see any sensible option but to leave.

THe ECJ gave a judgement the prisoners in British jails must have the right to vote yet unilaterally took to itself the power to suspend the voting rights of any EU state that fails to comply with one of it's judgements. Funny old thing isn't it.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

THe ECJ gave a judgement the prisoners in British jails must have the right to vote yet unilaterally took to itself the power to suspend the voting rights of any EU state that fails to comply with one of it's judgements. Funny old thing isn't it.

I hate to contradict an ally in our discussions Harold, but if I don't say it, Palo will. It was the European Court of Human Rights which ordered us to give the vote to prisoners in HM prisons. So far we have flatly ignored the ruling and IMHO this is exactly what we need to do, and to retaliate proportionately, for example by confiscating assets, if anyone tries to fine us for ignoring this ruling. The ECHR has exceeded its moral authority and needs to be faced down and taught a lesson. In the words of the original and genuine Napoleon:

Never forbid anything which you cannot prevent.

[Mal Hombre]

"Never forbid anything which you cannot prevent."
That doesn't make any sense,If You can prevent something,You don't need to forbid it..

[chupachups]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Alternatively, it may be that some of the Remain side have a tenable and arguable point of view. It is a very polarising debate, but the urge to demonise one another should be resisted.

don't get me wrong, I am all for freedom of speech and opinions, but when brexiteers are constantly badgered with the same question that has been answered time and again, it appears our opinion and freedoms don't matter to the remain crowd, and the remainers think we are thick (as pointed out by the eloquant yorkshire man in BBC's QT a few weeks ago)

having seen the remain tactics during the referendum, and the remoaning campaign post referendum, I believe some of their ilk are prepared to do anything to keep us in the EU

the remain efforts to keep us in the EU seem extremely disproportionate considering the succinct post you made about the potential benefits of the EU...to me at least these (IMHO small) benefits, most of which haven't been realised, do not outweigh my personal rights to have a direct influence via parliamentary democracy

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

"Never forbid anything which you cannot prevent."
That doesn't make any sense,If You can prevent something,You don't need to forbid it..

It makes perfect sense to me Mal. What is the point of a law which you have not the means to enforce? In order to prevent the incidence of a crime, you first make it a crime: for example, insider trading used to be legal and was even considered to be clever and praiseworthy. In those times it happened constantly. These days we all know it goes on, but no one can seriously think it happens as often as it did in (say) the 1960s; because people know the penalties and are wary of being caught. You can't really prevent crime, but you can prevent open crime by having criminal laws, so Napoleon was only half-right, but he certainly had a point.

In the context of my previous post, the ECHR has ruled against Britain for refusing the vote to prisoners in HM Prisons. I advocate that we carry on refusing the vote to prisoners in HM Prisons and that we take counter-measures against any person or any country which tries to enforce this ruling. Let us see if the ECHR is strong enough to forbid our refusal of the vote to criminals doing time. Let us see if they can prevent this.

[chupachups]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

"Never forbid anything which you cannot prevent."
That doesn't make any sense,If You can prevent something,You don't need to forbid it..

it makes sense

do not make laws you cannot enforce

[chupachups]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

In the context of my previous post, the ECHR has ruled against Britain for refusing the vote to prisoners in HM Prisons. I advocate that we carry on refusing the vote to prisoners in HM Prisons and that we take counter-measures against any person or any country which tries to enforce this ruling. Let us see if the ECHR is strong enough to forbid our refusal of the vote to criminals doing time. Let us see if they can prevent this.

FYI - the UK and ECHR recently compromised on this...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-voting-rights