UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash

[Hirota]

How about no?

The people voted to leave, and thus leave you should.

A non-binding advisory referendum.

That both the main parties accepted in their 2017 manifestos. Only the lib dems argued for a second ref in their 2017 manifesto.

[Alvecia]

A non-binding advisory referendum.

That both the main parties accepted in their 2017 manifestos.

Which are also not legally binding.

[Hirota]

That both the main parties accepted in their 2017 manifestos.

Which are also not legally binding.

Sure. But it's at that point that the main parties should be held accountable to the electorate - they were elected on the basis of their pledges, and the electorate has the opportunity to vote on how they accomplished those pledges in subsequent general elections.

When put like that, it's pretty obvious why Labour doesn't want an election - they are terrified that the position they are taking isn't one their electorate finds acceptable. And if you look at the polls that keep putting the tories ahead they've got good reason to believe the electorate doesn't accept their position.

[Gormwood]

And the buggers said no. For shame.

Because if they said yes then they wouldn't be able to lie about how No Deal is the best thing ever any more.

It's almost like Johnson wants to go down in history as the clown who managed to balkanize the UK.

[The Blaatschapen]

Which are also not legally binding.

Sure. But it's at that point that the main parties should be held accountable to the electorate - they were elected on the basis of their pledges, and the electorate has the opportunity to vote on how they accomplished those pledges in subsequent general elections.

When put like that, it's pretty obvious why Labour doesn't want an election - they are terrified that the position they are taking isn't one their electorate finds acceptable. And if you look at the polls that keep putting the tories ahead they've got good reason to believe the electorate doesn't accept their position.

Labour took a position?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

A non-binding advisory referendum.

That both the main parties accepted in their 2017 manifestos. Only the lib dems argued for a second ref in their 2017 manifesto.

Ahh yes, 2017.

Also known as 2 years ago, when the idea of a backstop what inconceivable and Norway+ was still on the table.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I assume you have evidence to back up your claim then?

From those twin assumptions has flown significant funding for electric vehicle infrastructure and energy storage R&D; an evolving vision for a UK smart grid; new, if still early stage, plans to improve business energy efficiency; the construction of the first new nuclear power plant in a generation; a fleet of giant new offshore wind farms; co-ordinated Sector Deals for key green industries; a raft of new regulations and initiatives to tackle plastic waste; an international coal phase out plan; a bid to host the critical COP26 UN climate summit; the greenest Treasury statement in years, including the promise of a major new review on the economic value of nature and beefed up green standards for new homes; the first draft Environment Bill in 25 years; a potentially transformational plan to reform agricultural subsidies to benefit the environment; a repeated pledge to maintain and strengthen environmental protections post-Brexit, including clear commitments in the Withdrawal Agreement; and, perhaps most important of all, an official review of whether to set a net zero emission target that everyone knows is only going to come back with one answer.

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/blog-p ... -no-really

So yeah, fuck all that's even remotely close to being significant enough to hit the target.

So you don't have anything to back up your claim?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Because if they said yes then they wouldn't be able to lie about how No Deal is the best thing ever any more.

It's almost like Johnson wants to go down in history as the clown who managed to balkanize the UK.

I think the SNP would like to do that also. And SF, and PC. It's not just a tory thing.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Because if they said yes then they wouldn't be able to lie about how No Deal is the best thing ever any more.

It's almost like Johnson wants to go down in history as the clown who managed to balkanize the UK.

Now that sounds interesting.

[Salandriagado]

So yeah, fuck all that's even remotely close to being significant enough to hit the target.

So you don't have anything to back up your claim?

You just provided it: there's nothing there that's anywhere near a fast enough reduction to get us anywhere close to 0 emissions by 2050.

[Rojava Free State]

And the buggers said no. For shame.

Because if they said yes then they wouldn't be able to lie about how No Deal is the best thing ever any more.

Boris johnson: this can't possibly fail. We don't need a deal

Irish Republican army: *criticizes in car bomb*

[Hirota]

Sure. But it's at that point that the main parties should be held accountable to the electorate - they were elected on the basis of their pledges, and the electorate has the opportunity to vote on how they accomplished those pledges in subsequent general elections.

When put like that, it's pretty obvious why Labour doesn't want an election - they are terrified that the position they are taking isn't one their electorate finds acceptable. And if you look at the polls that keep putting the tories ahead they've got good reason to believe the electorate doesn't accept their position.

Labour took a position?

I rather suspect thats the reason the Lib Dems don't want an election. They'll increase certainly their share based on current polling, but I don't think they trust their partners in this anti-brexit alliance to keep to their position. Labour has been famously muddled and directionless, after all.

I certainly wouldn't entirely trust Corbyn to keep us in Brexit if I was a hardcore remainer, because of his long standing euroskeptic credentials for the last 30 or 40 years.

[Rojava Free State]

Because if they said yes then they wouldn't be able to lie about how No Deal is the best thing ever any more.

It's almost like Johnson wants to go down in history as the clown who managed to balkanize the UK.

If you think about it, johnson is just Britain trump. Not only are his politics to the right but he has a history of controversies and even looks like Donald trump (same hair, same skin, same body shape)

[Hirota]

That both the main parties accepted in their 2017 manifestos. Only the lib dems argued for a second ref in their 2017 manifesto.

Ahh yes, 2017.

Also known as 2 years ago, when the idea of a backstop what inconceivable and Norway+ was still on the table.

Sure, you might not care. Are you confident the bulk of the electorate agrees?

[Hirota]

It's almost like Johnson wants to go down in history as the clown who managed to balkanize the UK.

If you think about it, johnson is just Britain trump. Not only are his politics to the right but he has a history of controversies and even looks like Donald trump (same hair, same skin, same body shape)

Sounds like you didn't really think about it at all for much more than a couple of seconds.

[Vassenor]

Ahh yes, 2017.

Also known as 2 years ago, when the idea of a backstop what inconceivable and Norway+ was still on the table.

Sure, you might not care. Are you confident the bulk of the electorate agrees?

Are you confident that the bulk of the electorate agrees with No Deal?

[Fartsniffage]

It's almost like Johnson wants to go down in history as the clown who managed to balkanize the UK.

If you think about it, johnson is just Britain trump. Not only are his politics to the right but he has a history of controversies and even looks like Donald trump (same hair, same skin, same body shape)

That's a bit harsh. At least Trump knows how many children he has.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

So you don't have anything to back up your claim?

You just provided it: there's nothing there that's anywhere near a fast enough reduction to get us anywhere close to 0 emissions by 2050.

How not? The UK's carbon emissions per capita have dropped by almost 50 % since 1980. They are over 1/3 lower than that of germany, much lower than the Netherlands, at a similar level to Italy and only a little higher than France and spain. A third of the united states, much lower than Japan, less than half of Canada, and around half of Australia. Amongst developed countries, we actually have a good record, and it has only improved during a conservative government.

[Hirota]

Sure, you might not care. Are you confident the bulk of the electorate agrees?

Are you confident that the bulk of the electorate agrees with No Deal?

I see no real reason to answer your questions when you are incapable of answering mine. If you don't have the basic human courtesy to answer questions why should anyone have the courtesy to answer yours?

I'll only do so because the question is so insane, so baseless, so unhinged from reality that the answer I provide gives you the full scorn such a stupid attempt at a gotcha deserves.

No - and I have no idea why you rationally would think I might believe that, because at no point have I said it was. I'm confident it is amongst the most popular current solutions amongst the electorate, but that no solution is actually "popular" amongst the bulk of the electorate:

Full article here from yougov

[Vassenor]

Are you confident that the bulk of the electorate agrees with No Deal?

I see no real reason to answer your questions when you are incapable of answering mine. If you don't have the basic human courtesy to answer questions why should anyone have the courtesy to answer yours?

I'll only do so because the question is so insane, so baseless, so unhinged from reality that the answer I provide gives you the full scorn such a stupid attempt at a gotcha deserves.

No - and I have no idea why you rationally would think I might believe that, because at no point have I said it was. I'm confident it is amongst the most popular current solutions amongst the electorate, but that no solution is actually "popular" amongst the bulk of the electorate:

Full article here from yougov

So you resort to ad hominems when your deflections are called out? Classy.

Also I'm not sure by what logic it is "insane, baseless and unhinged from reality" to ask to what degree an option has popular support given that this entire process has supposed to have been about democracy and the will of the people. If anything, the unhinged approach would be to assume that everyone blindly supports No Deal like the government is doing.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I see no real reason to answer your questions when you are incapable of answering mine. If you don't have the basic human courtesy to answer questions why should anyone have the courtesy to answer yours?

I'll only do so because the question is so insane, so baseless, so unhinged from reality that the answer I provide gives you the full scorn such a stupid attempt at a gotcha deserves.

No - and I have no idea why you rationally would think I might believe that, because at no point have I said it was. I'm confident it is amongst the most popular current solutions amongst the electorate, but that no solution is actually "popular" amongst the bulk of the electorate:

Full article here from yougov

So you resort to ad hominems when your deflections are called out? Classy.

When someone perpetually refuses to answer questions, it's only reasonable that people get annoyed. He answered your question, respond to the answer or there's not really any point you replying.

[Galloism]

How about no?

The people voted to leave, and thus leave you should.

You walk into a bar. The bartender asks if you want a drink. You say yes. He hands you a glass of piss.
You would still drink it I assume?

I mean, Coors exists...

[Hirota]

I see no real reason to answer your questions when you are incapable of answering mine. If you don't have the basic human courtesy to answer questions why should anyone have the courtesy to answer yours?

I'll only do so because the question is so insane, so baseless, so unhinged from reality that the answer I provide gives you the full scorn such a stupid attempt at a gotcha deserves.

No - and I have no idea why you rationally would think I might believe that, because at no point have I said it was. I'm confident it is amongst the most popular current solutions amongst the electorate, but that no solution is actually "popular" amongst the bulk of the electorate:

(Image)

Full article here from yougov

So you resort to ad hominems when your deflections are called out? Classy.

Says the person who can only deflect? I firmly attacked your question - calling your question insane, baseless and unhinged from reality, on the basis that it was.

I did not call you any of them (and therefore it is not an adhom either, and therefore your attempt to call it such is a deflection)... although if a poster has a repeated track record of insane baseless unhinged posts and questions I'm sure some people might sometimes wonder if that's a deliberate tactic or a character flaw. Me personally... I choose to believe that eventually you'll post something of value that validates my well-tested faith in your cognitive ability Vass!

Also I'm not sure by what logic it is "insane, baseless and unhinged from reality" to ask to what degree an option has popular support given that this entire process has supposed to have been about democracy and the will of the people. If anything, the unhinged approach would be to assume that everyone blindly supports No Deal like the government is doing.

You asked me if I'm "confident that the bulk of the electorate agrees with No Deal" - a question which has absolutely zero bearing on the post I made and with absolutely no implication behind it arguing for a no deal brexit. Ergo your question absolutely was insane, baseless and unhinged from reality.

But I'm sure the next question will be great. I still have faith Vass. One day you'll get there!

Now, do you have anything of value to say about the evidence I provided that suggested "No deal" is amongst the most popular (or more accurately - the least unpopular) options that yougov respondents thought was acceptable? Or anything of value to say at all?

[The Huskar Social Union]

I see no real reason to answer your questions when you are incapable of answering mine. If you don't have the basic human courtesy to answer questions why should anyone have the courtesy to answer yours?

I'll only do so because the question is so insane, so baseless, so unhinged from reality that the answer I provide gives you the full scorn such a stupid attempt at a gotcha deserves.

No - and I have no idea why you rationally would think I might believe that, because at no point have I said it was. I'm confident it is amongst the most popular current solutions amongst the electorate, but that no solution is actually "popular" amongst the bulk of the electorate:

Full article here from yougov

So you resort to ad hominems when your deflections are called out? Classy.

Also I'm not sure by what logic it is "insane, baseless and unhinged from reality" to ask to what degree an option has popular support given that this entire process has supposed to have been about democracy and the will of the people. If anything, the unhinged approach would be to assume that everyone blindly supports No Deal like the government is doing.

Coming from you this is fucking hilarious since you seem incapable of answering a single question ever.

[Alvecia]

You walk into a bar. The bartender asks if you want a drink. You say yes. He hands you a glass of piss.
You would still drink it I assume?

I mean, Coors exists...

Fair point, I shouldn’t be kink shaming