[Politics] UK Suspends Parliament

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,131
3,586
118
Country
United Kingdom
Dreiko said:
Yeah this is kinda what has me conflicted. I support most of the Labor policies but they were going too far in the remain camp which is anti-democratic
It's anti-democratic to have a vote?

What seems more undemocratic to me is to allow a referendum in which one side engaged in proven illegal activity to decide the matter. What seems more undemocratic is for the Leave campaign to explicitly campaign on the basis of getting a deal, and then to allow us to leave without a deal, which was never on the ballot and wasn't espoused by either campaign.


Dreiko said:
[...]more communist than socialist [...]
Anybody who would describe Corbyn as "communist" has zero idea of what communism is.
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
1,569
945
118
Country
The Netherlands
Dreiko said:
Gergar12 said:
Corbyn was right the first time they did one of these snap elections. He should have stuck to Lexit, but now since he wants it both ways he lost leave labor, and remain conservatives didn't bulge.

Now the UK will lose their universal healthcare in the trade deal, and if it comes to either that or staying in the EU I would prefer people in the Uk not die/go into bankruptcy due to American health insurance companies who other than the oil companies are some of the scummiest, rent-seeking, horrible people on the face of the planet.


So basically, for just the UK, I think this is a bad result, but for Europe and the world in its totality, weakening the EU is a good result. as birds of a feather.
Why is weakening the EU a good result? All it leads to is foreign vultures being more able to bully and dominate Europe into submission.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,573
2,496
118
Country
United States of America
Dreiko said:
Seanchaidh said:
Dreiko said:
cause Corbyn had actual valid concerns of antisemitism
Did he, though? Did he actually?
Of course he did, even if you brand being against antisemitism as islamophobia that doesn't make you less antisemetic. People won't be fooled or scared into actually buying that crap, even if they can't vocalize it publicly for fear of being smeared as racist.
It's not antisemitic to criticize Israel for being an apartheid state or various other shortcomings.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,573
2,496
118
Country
United States of America
Hades said:
Dreiko said:
Gergar12 said:
Corbyn was right the first time they did one of these snap elections. He should have stuck to Lexit, but now since he wants it both ways he lost leave labor, and remain conservatives didn't bulge.

Now the UK will lose their universal healthcare in the trade deal, and if it comes to either that or staying in the EU I would prefer people in the Uk not die/go into bankruptcy due to American health insurance companies who other than the oil companies are some of the scummiest, rent-seeking, horrible people on the face of the planet.


So basically, for just the UK, I think this is a bad result, but for Europe and the world in its totality, weakening the EU is a good result. as birds of a feather.
Why is weakening the EU a good result? All it leads to is foreign vultures being more able to bully and dominate Europe into submission.
Arguably, the EU is an undemocratic institution that seems mostly to enforce the wishes of finance capital. But equally arguably, that means it should be reformed to be democratic, not so much weakened. But also arguably, that would require its various member states to also become (vastly?) more democratic. And certainly that would be very difficult.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
Hades said:
Dreiko said:
Gergar12 said:
Corbyn was right the first time they did one of these snap elections. He should have stuck to Lexit, but now since he wants it both ways he lost leave labor, and remain conservatives didn't bulge.

Now the UK will lose their universal healthcare in the trade deal, and if it comes to either that or staying in the EU I would prefer people in the Uk not die/go into bankruptcy due to American health insurance companies who other than the oil companies are some of the scummiest, rent-seeking, horrible people on the face of the planet.


So basically, for just the UK, I think this is a bad result, but for Europe and the world in its totality, weakening the EU is a good result. as birds of a feather.
Why is weakening the EU a good result? All it leads to is foreign vultures being more able to bully and dominate Europe into submission.
Because the EU has aspirations for becoming the united states of europe, having a military and so on. I'm Greek so you may understand my misgivings lol. Thankfully I don't actually live there any more but I can't help but see the results of the experiment as being a failure.


One could claim EU is already allowing this in order to enact its neoliberal policies, the vultures in question being the beneficiaries of the cheap labor provided by all those immigrants it's taking and expecting nations to take with its quotas. Not sure who you're hinting at as a vulture, maybe the US or China? I don't think they're any worse than multinational corporations.



Seanchaidh said:
Dreiko said:
Seanchaidh said:
Dreiko said:
cause Corbyn had actual valid concerns of antisemitism
Did he, though? Did he actually?
Of course he did, even if you brand being against antisemitism as islamophobia that doesn't make you less antisemetic. People won't be fooled or scared into actually buying that crap, even if they can't vocalize it publicly for fear of being smeared as racist.
It's not antisemitic to criticize Israel for being an apartheid state or various other shortcomings.
Sure, as for my opinion, Israel should allow all the Palestinians who were born in land it claims to own full Israeli citizenship and the right to vote in their elections.

At the same time, the people who criticize them, do so while tacitly tolerating other nations who have policies that actively exterminated those nations' nonmuslim population, and they'd deem Islamophobic any such criticism of those nations.
Silvanus said:
Dreiko said:
Yeah this is kinda what has me conflicted. I support most of the Labor policies but they were going too far in the remain camp which is anti-democratic
It's anti-democratic to have a vote?

What seems more undemocratic to me is to allow a referendum in which one side engaged in proven illegal activity to decide the matter. What seems more undemocratic is for the Leave campaign to explicitly campaign on the basis of getting a deal, and then to allow us to leave without a deal, which was never on the ballot and wasn't espoused by either campaign.
You have to first fully carry out the thing that was voted upon, then you get to vote again to undo the carried out thing. You can't vote to cancel a previous vote before it has taken effect because that way all you'll ever have is the losing side asking for a redo and nothing ever will actually get done.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
1,911
1,027
118
Country
United States
Dreiko said:
Hades said:
Dreiko said:
Gergar12 said:
Corbyn was right the first time they did one of these snap elections. He should have stuck to Lexit, but now since he wants it both ways he lost leave labor, and remain conservatives didn't bulge.

Now the UK will lose their universal healthcare in the trade deal, and if it comes to either that or staying in the EU I would prefer people in the Uk not die/go into bankruptcy due to American health insurance companies who other than the oil companies are some of the scummiest, rent-seeking, horrible people on the face of the planet.


So basically, for just the UK, I think this is a bad result, but for Europe and the world in its totality, weakening the EU is a good result. as birds of a feather.
Why is weakening the EU a good result? All it leads to is foreign vultures being more able to bully and dominate Europe into submission.
Because the EU has aspirations for becoming the united states of europe, having a military and so on. I'm Greek so you may understand my misgivings lol. Thankfully I don't actually live there any more but I can't help but see the results of the experiment as being a failure.


One could claim EU is already allowing this in order to enact its neoliberal policies, the vultures in question being the beneficiaries of the cheap labor provided by all those immigrants it's taking and expecting nations to take with its quotas. Not sure who you're hinting at as a vulture, maybe the US or China? I don't think they're any worse than multinational corporations.
Are you purposely ignoring that any actions like that would require the active consent of both the individual nation state governments as well as the directly elected MEPs? If the EU ever does become the "United States of Europe" or whatever, it will be due to a mandate from those living within it. As a Greek, you should know this...

Dreiko said:
Seanchaidh said:
Dreiko said:
Seanchaidh said:
Dreiko said:
cause Corbyn had actual valid concerns of antisemitism
Did he, though? Did he actually?
Of course he did, even if you brand being against antisemitism as islamophobia that doesn't make you less antisemetic. People won't be fooled or scared into actually buying that crap, even if they can't vocalize it publicly for fear of being smeared as racist.
It's not antisemitic to criticize Israel for being an apartheid state or various other shortcomings.
[Snip]

At the same time, the people who criticize them, do so while tacitly tolerating other nations who have policies that actively exterminated those nations' nonmuslim population, and they'd deem Islamophobic any such criticism of those nations.
That's a nice opinion entirely unsupported by anything other than your feelings. Care to join us back in evidenced-based reality?

Dreiko said:
Silvanus said:
Dreiko said:
Yeah this is kinda what has me conflicted. I support most of the Labor policies but they were going too far in the remain camp which is anti-democratic
It's anti-democratic to have a vote?

What seems more undemocratic to me is to allow a referendum in which one side engaged in proven illegal activity to decide the matter. What seems more undemocratic is for the Leave campaign to explicitly campaign on the basis of getting a deal, and then to allow us to leave without a deal, which was never on the ballot and wasn't espoused by either campaign.
You have to first fully carry out the thing that was voted upon, then you get to vote again to undo the carried out thing. You can't vote to cancel a previous vote before it has taken effect because that way all you'll ever have is the losing side asking for a redo and nothing ever will actually get done.
Do you have any relevant case law or common law history that backs this statement up? Any notable and well-respected political/social philosophers or academics that even remotely support your hypothesis? What about enlightenment or ancient Roman/Greek thinkers making such claims? Or are we still in "Dreiko feels this so it must be true"-land?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,131
3,586
118
Country
United Kingdom
Dreiko said:
You have to first fully carry out the thing that was voted upon, then you get to vote again to undo the carried out thing. You can't vote to cancel a previous vote before it has taken effect because that way all you'll ever have is the losing side asking for a redo and nothing ever will actually get done.
What was voted on was leaving with a deal. The Leave campaign said we would not leave without one, yet the government is refusing to rule it out. The current course is quite emphatically not what was voted for.

You know the way to avoid having endless re-do votes? Make it a binding vote, rather than an advisory one. You realise, of course, that were the 2016 referendum held as a binding vote, it would have been declared null after the severe law-breaking came to light.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,231
240
68
Has someone come up with a solution for the problem with the Irish border?
 

warmachine

Hating everyone equally
Legacy
Nov 28, 2012
166
13
23
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
CaitSeith said:
Has someone come up with a solution for the problem with the Irish border?
It's already part of the withdrawal agreement. NI remains in the customs union and single market, eliminating any need for border checks. Imports from the British mainland to Ireland, north or south, requires paperwork and compliance checks depending on its expected destination. The unionists hate this.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,231
240
68
warmachine said:
CaitSeith said:
Has someone come up with a solution for the problem with the Irish border?
It's already part of the withdrawal agreement. NI remains in the customs union and single market, eliminating any need for border checks. Imports from the British mainland to Ireland, north or south, requires paperwork and compliance checks depending on its expected destination. The unionists hate this.
And what's the Irish opinion about it?
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,136
335
88
CaitSeith said:
And what's the Irish opinion about it?
It is a slightly more complicated version of something they always said they could accept.

And that is the only reason it is in the withdrawal agreement in the first place.


The DUP was always against it so it didn't seem likely for a couple of months but now it has resurfaced and got a bit rebranded so Boris can say that he is not just using the EU position.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,573
2,496
118
Country
United States of America
I regard Chris Williamson winning his case as good news, though admittedly I'm not terribly familiar with the issue:

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1206831392258232320"]
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,131
3,586
118
Country
United Kingdom
Satinavian said:
It is a slightly more complicated version of something they always said they could accept.
Well, who's "they"? Its definitely not Stormont.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
Silvanus said:
Dreiko said:
You have to first fully carry out the thing that was voted upon, then you get to vote again to undo the carried out thing. You can't vote to cancel a previous vote before it has taken effect because that way all you'll ever have is the losing side asking for a redo and nothing ever will actually get done.
What was voted on was leaving with a deal. The Leave campaign said we would not leave without one, yet the government is refusing to rule it out. The current course is quite emphatically not what was voted for.

You know the way to avoid having endless re-do votes? Make it a binding vote, rather than an advisory one. You realise, of course, that were the 2016 referendum held as a binding vote, it would have been declared null after the severe law-breaking came to light.
When you have the horribly bad for the UK but great for the EU deal that May presented be refused by the EU, you have a situation where the EU is using this element to keep the UK in limbo, unable to leave through their refusal to agreeing with any sort of deal whatsoever.

When you have the EU be like this, what is it for one to do? Do you play a staring contest for 20 years while being in limbo still in the EU? Isn't it closer to what people voted for to actually leave even without a deal? And isn't the EU at fault for this first and foremost?

This is the kind of trick they do to get you to give up leaving altogether because of this factor. The spirit of the vote result is best honored through a no deal exit than through eternal limbo remaining.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,131
3,586
118
Country
United Kingdom
Dreiko said:
When you have the horribly bad for the UK but great for the EU deal that May presented be refused by the EU, you have a situation where the EU is using this element to keep the UK in limbo, unable to leave through their refusal to agreeing with any sort of deal whatsoever.
Uhrm, May's deal wasn't refused by the EU. It was negotiated with the EU. The EU had already accepted it by the time it was put to the Commons.

The EU didn't do anything to keep the UK "in limbo". May's deal was rejected by the UK parliament, and the UK government then requested an extension.

(I also hope that if you regard May's deal as insufficient, you also recognise that Johnson's deal is literally almost identical. Its been rebranded, but that's about all).

When you have the EU be like this, what is it for one to do? Do you play a staring contest for 20 years while being in limbo still in the EU? Isn't it closer to what people voted for to actually leave even without a deal?
I doubt it, but I don't know, because the leave option wasn't defined. Hence the case for actually asking the people that question.

And isn't the EU at fault for this first and foremost?

This is the kind of trick they do to get you to give up leaving altogether because of this factor. The spirit of the vote result is best honored through a no deal exit than through eternal limbo remaining.
How are they at fault? There was a withdrawal agreement they were fine with that the UK parliament (including Johnson) rejected. Are you blaming the EU for granting an extension that the UK requested!?

There's no trick. This is the kind of ridiculous blame-shifting game the UK government has been involved in: Johnson voted against the deal, then he pulled his own (slightly amended) deal out of the Commons when the Commons had finally voted in favour.... and yet everything is blamed on the EU.

Its absurd refusal to take responsibility.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,136
335
88
Silvanus said:
Satinavian said:
It is a slightly more complicated version of something they always said they could accept.
Well, who's "they"? Its definitely not Stormont.
Republic of Ireland. You know, people who actually have a say in the negotiation.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,131
3,586
118
Country
United Kingdom
Satinavian said:
Republic of Ireland. You know, people who actually have a say in the negotiation.
Right. And does it not bode poorly for the process that Northern Ireland doesn't?

Let's not forget that Johnson stated that "no British Prime Minister" could accept a border in the Irish Sea.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,136
335
88
At the moment, NI is British. If the British can't manage to include them in the negotiations, can't get the regional parliament to work and only care for NI interests when a northern Irish party can block votes in the British parliament, that is their problem.

If the Northern Irish are unhappy with how they are treated in London, they can vote for reunification. Or try to change Great Britain from the inside. But both is unlikely.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Dreiko said:
When you have the horribly bad for the UK but great for the EU deal that May presented be refused by the EU, you have a situation where the EU is using this element to keep the UK in limbo, unable to leave through their refusal to agreeing with any sort of deal whatsoever.
How was it horrible?
And how did the EU refuse a deal they negociated and approved with May? You're confusing the EU with the UK parliament.

This is the kind of trick they do to get you to give up leaving altogether because of this factor.
You say that as if it was a pattern but this is the first time a member state is trying to leave.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,131
3,586
118
Country
United Kingdom
Satinavian said:
At the moment, NI is British. If the British can't manage to include them in the negotiations, can't get the regional parliament to work and only care for NI interests when a northern Irish party can block votes in the British parliament, that is their problem.
Yes, it is their problem. And the history of Northern Ireland should show us that it's not a good idea to be blase about it.

The UK government is breaking an explicit promise to Northern Ireland, and playing fast and loose with the GFA.