UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash

[Agalaesia]

Ideally, the UK would stay in the European Union, it would be advantageous for them to do so, and Britain shouldn't have voted Leave.

But, it's been three years and a second referendum should be out of the question. 52% of Britons did vote for the damn thing, and to all of a sudden pull the plug on Brexit would be disastrous. At this point, all parties in the House should work collaboratively and ask for one last extension, in order to craft some sort of deal.

Several Things To Say Here:

Firstly, the referendum question was terrible, and the leave campaign was accused of lying, so much so that (as I'm sure you will remember), Aaron Banks was referred to the NCA.
Secondly: 52% of the Electorate did not vote for Brexit. Only 75% of the electorate voted in the referendum, and only 50% of that voted for Brexit. Overall, only 35% of the total electorate in 2016 voted for it.
Thirdly: Another thing that lead is here is a terrible question on the referendum. We should have another referendum to clarify what the people think is best for Britain: May's Deal; No Deal; Canada Plus; Norway style Deal or Remain.
Finally: The EU has made it clear that they won't negotiate with Britain at this point. Re-starting negotiations is futile when France; Germany et al. will veto the extension.

[The New California Republic]

It's not only on the forums that you can get banned for advocating death:

A parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats has been deselected after he was reported as saying Tories should be "burned at the stake".

Galen Milne stood for the party in Banff and Buchan at the 2017 general election.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49718015

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Ideally, the UK would stay in the European Union, it would be advantageous for them to do so, and Britain shouldn't have voted Leave.

But, it's been three years and a second referendum should be out of the question. 52% of Britons did vote for the damn thing, and to all of a sudden pull the plug on Brexit would be disastrous. At this point, all parties in the House should work collaboratively and ask for one last extension, in order to craft some sort of deal.

Several Things To Say Here:

Firstly, the referendum question was terrible, and the leave campaign was accused of lying, so much so that (as I'm sure you will remember), Aaron Banks was referred to the NCA.
Secondly: 52% of the Electorate did not vote for Brexit. Only 75% of the electorate voted in the referendum, and only 50% of that voted for Brexit. Overall, only 35% of the total electorate in 2016 voted for it.
Thirdly: Another thing that lead is here is a terrible question on the referendum. We should have another referendum to clarify what the people think is best for Britain: May's Deal; No Deal; Canada Plus; Norway style Deal or Remain.
Finally: The EU has made it clear that they won't negotiate with Britain at this point. Re-starting negotiations is futile when France; Germany et al. will veto the extension.

Unless you want to bring in compulsory voting for this new referendum, I doubt it'll even have the same level of turnout as the first. When politicians ignore what the people have said in the first vote, you don't exactly fill people with confidence that the second will lead anywhere. It's the same reason so many people don't even bother voting in general elections because 'they're all the same anyway.'

[The Archregimancy]

How?

Well thats an easy one the house of commons have voted against all the deals put forward by Theresa May.

No, May only put forward one deal. The House of Commons voted against that one deal multiple times.

And the deal put forward by May failed to pass the House of Commons not because of 'sabotage' by pro-Remain politicians, but because she couldn't get her own party to vote for it after she decided to call a general election which resulted in her losing her majority.

Let's be clear about this; it wasn't remainers in the House of Commons that killed May's deal. It obviously didn't help her position that the opposition parties were (almost) united against her deal, but it was her inability to get Leave-supporting members of the ERG to support her deal that ultimately torpedoed her. If the pro-Leave ERG had voted for her deal, it's not unlikely that we would have left the EU months ago. The need to diminish the influence of the no deal Ultras of her own party so she could actually get a deal through was, ironically, one of the key reasons why she called that disastrous election.

So let's not run around pretending that this mess is all the fault of a cabal of Remoaner saboteurs.

The rest of your post consists of similarly misleading simplistic platitudes; but I have to do the dishes, so I just can't spare the time and effort to subject them to the same scrutiny.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Well thats an easy one the house of commons have voted against all the deals put forward by Theresa May.

No, May only put forward one deal. The House of Commons voted against that one deal multiple times.

And the deal put forward by May failed to pass the House of Commons not because of 'sabotage' by pro-Remain politicians, but because she couldn't get her own party to vote for it after she decided to call a general election which resulted in her losing her majority.

Let's be clear about this; it wasn't remainers in the House of Commons that killed May's deal. It obviously didn't help her position that the opposition parties were (almost) united against her deal, but it was her inability to get Leave-supporting members of the ERG to support her deal that ultimately torpedoed her. If the pro-Leave ERG had voted for her deal, it's not unlikely that we would have left the EU months ago. The need to diminish the influence of the no deal Ultras of her own party so she could actually get a deal through was, ironically, one of the key reasons why she called that disastrous election.

So let's not run around pretending that this mess is all the fault of a cabal of Remoaner saboteurs.

The rest of your post consists of similarly misleading simplistic platitudes; but I have to do the dishes, so I just can't spare the time and effort to subject them to the same scrutiny.

There's still the DUP. They wouldn't have voted for anything that included the backstop.

[Zhivotnoye]

You do know what cherrypicking is right?

It's fact.

Irrelevant.

You do know what cherrypicking is right?

So why don't you explain how I'm cherrypicking by pointing out this fact.

Already did.

[Vassenor]

It's fact.

Irrelevant.

So why don't you explain how I'm cherrypicking by pointing out this fact.

Already did.

Show us.

[Aclion]

And yet it is becoming increasingly evident that being reliant on food imported from other countries was a mistake. Maybe it is time to think about going back to the old way of agricultural self-sufficiency.

When was this, exactly? Are you referring to the Middle Ages?

You guys have a shitload of fallow field up north, just saying.

[The Archregimancy]

No, May only put forward one deal. The House of Commons voted against that one deal multiple times.

And the deal put forward by May failed to pass the House of Commons not because of 'sabotage' by pro-Remain politicians, but because she couldn't get her own party to vote for it after she decided to call a general election which resulted in her losing her majority.

Let's be clear about this; it wasn't remainers in the House of Commons that killed May's deal. It obviously didn't help her position that the opposition parties were (almost) united against her deal, but it was her inability to get Leave-supporting members of the ERG to support her deal that ultimately torpedoed her. If the pro-Leave ERG had voted for her deal, it's not unlikely that we would have left the EU months ago. The need to diminish the influence of the no deal Ultras of her own party so she could actually get a deal through was, ironically, one of the key reasons why she called that disastrous election.

So let's not run around pretending that this mess is all the fault of a cabal of Remoaner saboteurs.

The rest of your post consists of similarly misleading simplistic platitudes; but I have to do the dishes, so I just can't spare the time and effort to subject them to the same scrutiny.

There's still the DUP. They wouldn't have voted for anything that included the backstop.

The same basic point stands.

May's deal failed because she couldn't unite her party or its supporters; the ERG wing of her own party and the DUP - a Party with whom she'd negotiated a support agreement to prop up her government - both failed to support her deal.

Now, you can certainly argue that it was a bad deal; you can also argue over why the backstop was unacceptable to the DUP, and whether it was genuinely unacceptable to the ERG and the DUP, or whether they were just looking for an excuse to kill the deal, and the backstop was just a convenient excuse.

All of those are legitimate points of debate.

But that would also be to miss the key point I'm making: that May's deal didn't fail because of 'sabotage' by remain leaving politicians - it was fairly clear which way the opposition was going to vote - but because she couldn't get the most ardent Leavers in her own party, or the pro-Leave NI party which was ostensibly supporting her government, to support her deal; and the influence of both the ERG and the DUP was increased by her disastrous decision to call a general election in part to lessen the influence of one or both of the latter.

And let's not forget that many of the MPs who were recently expelled from the Conservative Party for voting against the party whip over stopping a No Deal Brexit voted in favour of a deal to leave the EU far more consistently than did either the current Prime Minister or the current Leader of the House.

If nothing else, the ongoing civil war in the Conservative and Unionist Party has been rich in ironies.

[Bienenhalde]

And yet it is becoming increasingly evident that being reliant on food imported from other countries was a mistake. Maybe it is time to think about going back to the old way of agricultural self-sufficiency.

When was this, exactly? Are you referring to the Middle Ages?

The Middle Ages ended long before 1820.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

When was this, exactly? Are you referring to the Middle Ages?

You guys have a shitload of fallow field up north, just saying.

Turning Scotland into an agricultural colony is unlikely to do more than strengthen their desire for independence. In that situation, Scotland would have both more power to negotiate than it currently does and more reason to do so (we all know what happened to Ireland when England turned it into a giant potato farm).

[Ifreann]

Don't worry guys, Brexit is sorted.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

When was this, exactly? Are you referring to the Middle Ages?

The Middle Ages ended long before 1820.

The UK depended on Ireland for food up until the Irish gained their independence. Once they did, the British Empire could draw on the resources of its other colonies.
Last I checked, you don't have that many colonies left.

[Fartsniffage]

When was this, exactly? Are you referring to the Middle Ages?

The Middle Ages ended long before 1820.

Land use in the UK shows that just short of 60% of it is currently used for food production. If you want the UK to become food independent then you would need to start with killing millions of people. It's just that simple.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The Middle Ages ended long before 1820.

Land use in the UK shows that just short of 60% of it is currently used for food production. If you want the UK to become food independent then you would need to start with killing millions of people. It's just that simple.

Don't worry guys, I have an idea!

[Shamhnan Insir]

Now having watched the press conference, I'm somewhat at a loss.
Part of me wants to think that this is all carefully constructed plays where they release the well timed soundbite to hit the papers at just the right time, and then Boris fucks it up to be lambasted as an oaf and making the UK look smaller and smaller. And Boris happily plays the actor in all this as his puppetmasters tell him what to do next as their plans advance.
The other part of me wants to think that this is in fact the most complete series of farcical and stupid events that could possibly have ever been strung together helped along by a collection of the willfully inept.

It was... odd.

The thing that makes me think it was farcical and stupid rather than part of some deliberate 'Hulk stand up for Britain' ploy by Johnson is that the Mail has jumped ship and is covering this across its website top banner headline as a negative story for Johnson:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

The actual story itself isn't quite so negative, but that banner headline approach is a bit of an eyebrow raiser.

The Express is still trying to go the full anti-EU, claiming that this was part of a deliberate ploy by Luxembourg to humiliate the Prime Minister. But then this is the same Express where the most read story in the UK is currently 'Brexit triumph: Merkel and Varadkar will demand Brussels give in to UK in huge EU collapse' (though if you then read the story, it turns out that the Express is merely reporting some wishful thinking by a Telegraph columnist rather than actual inside information or facts).

And before anyone complains that the Mail and Express aren't proper newspapers, so we shouldn't pay any attention to what they're saying, it's perfectly legitimate to link to media that lean towards a particular worldview when the point you're trying to make relates to how supporters of that worldview might approach a specific news story. This isn't 'I'm using the Mail as my citation to prove a story', it's 'the approach of two staunch Leave-backing websites to today's events is mildly interesting'.


(note that the links to the two banner headlines linked to above will obviously change once the websites change their main headlines)

So more likely the gaffe then. Still strikes me as odd though, as to present such a blind flank just doesn't add up. During the Ireland meeting he appeared agitated and somewhat off-kilter, this was plain silliness.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

The Middle Ages ended long before 1820.

Land use in the UK shows that just short of 60% of it is currently used for food production. If you want the UK to become food independent then you would need to start with killing millions of people. It's just that simple.

Let them eat Brexiteers.

[Fartsniffage]

Land use in the UK shows that just short of 60% of it is currently used for food production. If you want the UK to become food independent then you would need to start with killing millions of people. It's just that simple.

Let them eat Brexiteers.

But I don't like gammon.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Let them eat Brexiteers.

But I don't like gammon.

Have they tried this yet?

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Let them eat Brexiteers.

But I don't like gammon.

We won't be able to grow enough pineapples.

[Fartsniffage]

But I don't like gammon.

We won't be able to grow enough pineapples.

Don't worry, global warming will fix that.

[Izandai]

But I don't like gammon.

Have they tried this yet?

I'm very, very happy I watched that. Thank you.

[Chan Island]

Just a fun little tidbit about the events in Luxembourg; last I checked, there are less than two thousand British immigrants to the Grand Duchy, yet they were reportedly the overwhelming majority of the protesters who shut Johnson up, and everyone they interviewed fit that profile.

Yet that was enough to make Johnson grand stand and complain about doing the press conference outside.

I think that's a sign of just how unhappy UK expats are about this whole Brexit malarky. And how thin skinned he is. And how pathetic the PM is.

The Middle Ages ended long before 1820.

The UK depended on Ireland for food up until the Irish gained their independence. Once they did, the British Empire could draw on the resources of its other colonies.
Last I checked, you don't have that many colonies left.

The most relevant part of course about the 1820s (again, it's the ballpark of if memory serves) is that the population of England was less than 10 million. Historically, Britain could only ever support about 5 million with agriculture.

[Fartsniffage]

The most relevant part of course about the 1820s (again, it's the ballpark of if memory serves) is that the population of England was less than 10 million. Historically, Britain could only ever support about 5 million with agriculture.

Doing some fag packet maths, we could currently support about 20-25 million.

[Agalaesia]

Absolutely love the "impartial" BBC news.

They've invited a Daily Telegraph columnist and a former Tory Councillor on to discuss BoJo not appearing at the Luxembourg conference.

They believe that the overall thing was just a "rally for reamin", and that the Luxembourgish president "expressed himself in an undiplomatic manner".

As if BoJo appearing isn't undiplomatic - anyway, the problem is not that they can show their views, but there seems to be no one who tells us BoJo's undiplomatic and idiotic behaviour.