UK Politics Thread IX: The Masses Against the Classes

[The Archregimancy]

Parliament can, and has before, up and decided to change who the monarch is, and who can succeed the monarch. The reason the queen is the queen is that a bill in parliament has designated Sophia of Hannover as the starting point for the British Monarchy, with male preference primogeniture as the line of succession.

This was ammended, by parliament, to be a gender neutral primogenture recently.

Parliament can up and decide to replace her.

While broadly accurate - at least considerably more accurate than the nonsense offered up by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States - this isn't quite right.

It's not true that Parliament designated Sophia of Hanover as the 'starting point for the British Monarchy'. It's entirely true that, by long precedent, Parliament can adjust and amend the succession to the Crown, as specified by the 1701 Act of Settlement and most recently demonstrated by the move to cognatic primogeniture (though note that this required the approval of all of the Commonwealth Realms, not just Westminster).

But the Act of Settlement didn't designate Sophia as the heir to the British thrones (thrones plural because this predates the 1707 Acts of Union); it instead specified that the succession had to be Protestant. While this made Sophia of Hanover the Heir Presumptive on the basis that she was the senior Protestant heir to the throne under strict agnatic-congatic primogeniture, she wasn't specifically named as such. Had a more senior representative of the Stuart line renounced Catholicism, they would have replaced Sophia - and subsequently her son George I - in the line of succession.

[Novus America]

Incredibly fucking disappointing.

“education not indoctrination”

FUCKING

LOL

The article makes it sound like it's not even sex education. Just "these people exist don't be shitty to them".

Throw the book at the lot of them. Keep the lessons going, fine the parents every day their kids don't attend. And rake that Labour MP over the coals. If she shows her true colours, expel her from the party.

Labour will not and cannot. Labour has to appease its Pakistani Muslim interest groups, which are very powerful, and many of whom are very opposed to homosexuality.

Labour is an interesting position, many members of its base are very socially conservative.
While many are very socially liberal.
Which leaves Labour in a bind.

[The Blaatschapen]

Incredibly fucking disappointing.

“education not indoctrination”

FUCKING

LOL

The article makes it sound like it's not even sex education. Just "these people exist don't be shitty to them".

Throw the book at the lot of them. Keep the lessons going, fine the parents every day their kids don't attend. And rake that Labour MP over the coals. If she shows her true colours, expel her from the party.

For a moment I read "throw the book of Lot at them".

Which would make things just a tad more complicated.

Yes, I know, Lot didn't have his own book, merely an important person in several chapters of Genesis

[Thermodolia]

Elderly ex-paratroopers could be charged with murder within weeks, 47 years after Bloody Sunday

Elderly former Parachute Regiment soldiers fear they will face criminal charges over the Bloody Sunday killings in Londonderry, according to reports.

Well-placed sources have suggested in today's Daily Telegraph that four ex-paratroopers, now in their 60s and 70s, fear being told they will face murder charges.

Northern Ireland's Public Prosecution Service (PPS) is to announce on March 14 the decision on whether any of the former soldiers will face charges in connection with the shooting of 14 men at a protest march.

....

Thirteen people died when soldiers from the Parachute Regiment opened fire on civil rights marchers in Londonderry in January 1972, with a 14th victim dying later.

The landmark Saville Inquiry concluded in 2010 that all those killed or injured were innocent.

Prime Minister David Cameron issued an official apology in the House of Commons, describing the killings as "unjustified and unjustifiable".

Two years later, in 2012, the PSNI launched a murder investigation and passed the files to the PPS in 2016.

The police concluded that charges related to Bloody Sunday could be brought against 18 former soldiers.

About fucking time

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

The article makes it sound like it's not even sex education. Just "these people exist don't be shitty to them".

Throw the book at the lot of them. Keep the lessons going, fine the parents every day their kids don't attend. And rake that Labour MP over the coals. If she shows her true colours, expel her from the party.

Labour will not and cannot. Labour has to appease its Pakistani Muslim interest groups, which are very powerful, and many of whom are very opposed to homosexuality.

Labour is an interesting position, many members of its base are very socially conservative.
While many are very socially liberal.
Which leaves Labour in a bind.

Then let them vote Tory.

[Novus America]

Labour will not and cannot. Labour has to appease its Pakistani Muslim interest groups, which are very powerful, and many of whom are very opposed to homosexuality.

Labour is an interesting position, many members of its base are very socially conservative.
While many are very socially liberal.
Which leaves Labour in a bind.

Then let them vote Tory.

And then Labour loses.

Though for a substantial number of British Muslims, (not all but a lot) the Tories are ultra liberal on social policy.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Then let them vote Tory.

And then Labour loses.

Labour lost the last three elections anyway, so that's not really a meaningful statement.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The UK never fails to disappoint me regarding treating disabled people like shit at any opurtunity it can. Next up, you could get a fine if you don't tell the DVLA about something that doesn't affect your driving.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... t-affected

[Vassenor]

May 'did not understand EU when she triggered Brexit'

Theresa May and her circle of advisers did not understand how the European Union works, and consequently followed a negotiating strategy in 2016 that was doomed to fail, the former UK ambassador to the EU Sir Ivan Rogers has said.

Speaking to the Institute for Government on Monday, Rogers said the people around the prime minister at the start of the article 50 process “didn’t know very much about European councils or that much about the EU”.

Rogers, who resigned a year ago and has developed a reputation for producing some of the most caustic assessments of the misunderstandings between the UK and the EU, said the UK lived under the illusion that it could circumvent Brussels by making direct deals with the major capitals.

...Bloody hell.

[The Huskar Social Union]

lol

[Philjia]

lol

Hahaha fuck off Ian

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

May 'did not understand EU when she triggered Brexit'

Theresa May and her circle of advisers did not understand how the European Union works, and consequently followed a negotiating strategy in 2016 that was doomed to fail, the former UK ambassador to the EU Sir Ivan Rogers has said.

Speaking to the Institute for Government on Monday, Rogers said the people around the prime minister at the start of the article 50 process “didn’t know very much about European councils or that much about the EU”.

Rogers, who resigned a year ago and has developed a reputation for producing some of the most caustic assessments of the misunderstandings between the UK and the EU, said the UK lived under the illusion that it could circumvent Brussels by making direct deals with the major capitals.

...Bloody hell.

To be fair, most people didn't know how the EU worked. The vast majority of people was unaware of the existence of the European Council, the delegated powers of the EU, the body of treaties and legislation attached to EU membership...

All the more reason to hold a second referendum.

[Vassenor]

May 'did not understand EU when she triggered Brexit'



...Bloody hell.

To be fair, most people didn't know how the EU worked. The vast majority of people was unaware of the existence of the European Council, the delegated powers of the EU, the body of treaties and legislation attached to EU membership...

All the more reason to hold a second referendum.

I mean we knew that already.

Top Google hit the day after the referendum? "What is the EU?".

[The Archregimancy]

May 'did not understand EU when she triggered Brexit'



...Bloody hell.

To be fair, most people didn't know how the EU worked.

This is true. But then it isn't the job of most people to know how the EU works.

It is, however, the job of the government ministers tasked with negotiating our withdrawal from the EU to know how the EU works.

If what Sir Ivan has said is true, then it would be a profound cause for concern, and further evidence that this government not only doesn't know what it's doing on this issue - which is merely the single most important issue before the government - but has never known what it's doing.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

May 'did not understand EU when she triggered Brexit'



...Bloody hell.

To be fair, most people didn't know how the EU worked. The vast majority of people was unaware of the existence of the European Council, the delegated powers of the EU, the body of treaties and legislation attached to EU membership...

All the more reason to hold a second referendum.

Oh of course! The people were just stupid and made the wrong decision.
Try another line, this one is getting stale.

[Ifreann]

To be fair, most people didn't know how the EU worked. The vast majority of people was unaware of the existence of the European Council, the delegated powers of the EU, the body of treaties and legislation attached to EU membership...

All the more reason to hold a second referendum.

Oh of course! The people were just stupid and made the wrong decision.
Try another line, this one is getting stale.

That large numbers of people didn't seem to know much of anything about the EU, and often believed things that are wrong, does not become less true each time it is pointed out.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

To be fair, most people didn't know how the EU worked. The vast majority of people was unaware of the existence of the European Council, the delegated powers of the EU, the body of treaties and legislation attached to EU membership...

All the more reason to hold a second referendum.

Oh of course! The people were just stupid and made the wrong decision.
Try another line, this one is getting stale.

The people were just stupid and made the wrong decision.

And I am the one getting stale lines? That response has been used to death, and does nothing to actually speak to the issues that have been raised.

The fact that most of the UK population was ill-informed about the EU has not changed, and not enough has been done to counter that problem. After more than two years, and now having a deal on the table that no-one could have predicted, isn't it fair to ask of the UK population whether they want no deal, a May deal, or just no Brexit at all?

The people were uniformed and made a decision they might not agree with at this moment, so it's best to ask again. If Brexit wins this time, then it's Brexit. If remain wins, then the UK will remain. This is not the prelude to an endless series of referenda, and no-one is asking for that. The only arguments I have heard against having a referendum are:

"It's undemocratic!" without saying what made the first one more democratic.
"You're just going to hold referenda until one side wins" which has not been proposed.
"The people have chosen, just go with it" as if people aren't allowed to change their minds.

[Tybra]

To be fair, most people didn't know how the EU worked.

This is true. But then it isn't the job of most people to know how the EU works.

It is, however, the job of the government ministers tasked with negotiating our withdrawal from the EU to know how the EU works.

If what Sir Ivan has said is true, then it would be a profound cause for concern, and further evidence that this government not only doesn't know what it's doing on this issue - which is merely the single most important issue before the government - but has never known what it's doing.

In defense of May, most of Rogers assessment was done with the benefit of hindsight. May's original negotiating strategy appeared to be pretty normal manner of doing business within the EU, where EU members meet to lay out a common position before any technical meetings are held. What May likely didn't count on was that the EU members would treat the UK as a 3rd country for the negotiations, forcing her government to take the formal route.

Once that more common informal route was taken out, May's government was left with little options and probably didn't know what they were doing because they never had to take the formal route in negotiating with the EU.

[The Huskar Social Union]

lol

Hahaha fuck off Ian

And it continues

[Ostroeuropa]

Stephan Walsh, 19, was suspended for comments on Islam he gave when specifically asked his opinion on a subject. The offending comments;

"The UK is undergoing a process of Islamization."

And to specifically back this up and provide an example, he points to a concrete example of Islamization of institutions, the presence of Halal meat.

For example, KFC and Subway, in order to sell to Muslims, use halal sourced meat, a practice they would not do without Muslim customers and crucially would not be allowed to do because the process is animal cruelty only exempted because of religious privilege.

He said the practice of halal slaughter is disgusting and barbaric.

These are the complaints the letter he received specifies.

Noting that toleration of presence of Muslims and their religion in a country normalizes the torture of animals by institutions is apparently unacceptable because it goes against progressive dogmatisms.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Stephan Walsh, 19, was suspended for comments on Islam he gave when specifically asked his opinion on a subject. The offending comments;

"The UK is undergoing a process of Islamization."

And to specifically back this up and provide an example, he points to a concrete example of Islamization of institutions, the presence of Halal meat.

For example, KFC and Subway, in order to sell to Muslims, use halal sourced meat, a practice they would not do without Muslim customers and crucially would not be allowed to do because the process is animal cruelty only exempted because of religious privilege.

He said the practice of halal slaughter is disgusting and barbaric.

These are the complaints the letter he received specifies.

Noting that toleration of presence of Muslims and their religion in a country normalizes the torture of animals by institutions is apparently unacceptable because it goes against progressive dogmatisms.

Googling his name literally gave me no results, so could you supply that with a source?

[Ostroeuropa]

Stephan Walsh, 19, was suspended for comments on Islam he gave when specifically asked his opinion on a subject. The offending comments;

"The UK is undergoing a process of Islamization."

And to specifically back this up and provide an example, he points to a concrete example of Islamization of institutions, the presence of Halal meat.

For example, KFC and Subway, in order to sell to Muslims, use halal sourced meat, a practice they would not do without Muslim customers and crucially would not be allowed to do because the process is animal cruelty only exempted because of religious privilege.

He said the practice of halal slaughter is disgusting and barbaric.

These are the complaints the letter he received specifies.

Noting that toleration of presence of Muslims and their religion in a country normalizes the torture of animals by institutions is apparently unacceptable because it goes against progressive dogmatisms.

Googling his name literally gave me no results, so could you supply that with a source?

Sorry I fucked it up, his name is Sebastian.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10911 ... eil-Graham

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... itain.html

+

Dr Hill, who was dismissed in July, said he decided to speak out after a 19-year-old student and UKIP member, Sebastian Walsh, was suspended from UCLan earlier this month for a “series of offensive and inappropriate comments” during lectures and seminars about the “Islamisation” of Britain and halal meat. Dr Hill was initially suspended at the university in February last year after emailing its student union in response to a public notice about "hate speech". In it he argued "faith is not something to be admired", labelled religious beliefs "nonsense" and said he was legally allowed to express "dislike" and "antipathy" to faith.

Then in a separate incident in April he ended up in an argument with a Muslim student who confronted him outside the faith centre, which he said would used to “indoctrinate people into the Muslim faith” and should be used as a maths centre instead. The student later complained. The university found Dr Hill guilty of gross misconduct for both incidents and he was summarily dismissed.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Oh of course! The people were just stupid and made the wrong decision.
Try another line, this one is getting stale.

The people were just stupid and made the wrong decision.

And I am the one getting stale lines? That response has been used to death, and does nothing to actually speak to the issues that have been raised.

The fact that most of the UK population was ill-informed about the EU has not changed, and not enough has been done to counter that problem. After more than two years, and now having a deal on the table that no-one could have predicted, isn't it fair to ask of the UK population whether they want no deal, a May deal, or just no Brexit at all?

The people were uniformed and made a decision they might not agree with at this moment, so it's best to ask again. If Brexit wins this time, then it's Brexit. If remain wins, then the UK will remain. This is not the prelude to an endless series of referenda, and no-one is asking for that. The only arguments I have heard against having a referendum are:

"It's undemocratic!" without saying what made the first one more democratic.
"You're just going to hold referenda until one side wins" which has not been proposed.
"The people have chosen, just go with it" as if people aren't allowed to change their minds.

One way to honour the referendum result while also presenting the people with a choice of what to do next would be to hold a referendum with a preferencial choice that does not include remaining in the EU, as that has already been rejected.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

And I am the one getting stale lines? That response has been used to death, and does nothing to actually speak to the issues that have been raised.

The fact that most of the UK population was ill-informed about the EU has not changed, and not enough has been done to counter that problem. After more than two years, and now having a deal on the table that no-one could have predicted, isn't it fair to ask of the UK population whether they want no deal, a May deal, or just no Brexit at all?

The people were uniformed and made a decision they might not agree with at this moment, so it's best to ask again. If Brexit wins this time, then it's Brexit. If remain wins, then the UK will remain. This is not the prelude to an endless series of referenda, and no-one is asking for that. The only arguments I have heard against having a referendum are:

"It's undemocratic!" without saying what made the first one more democratic.
"You're just going to hold referenda until one side wins" which has not been proposed.
"The people have chosen, just go with it" as if people aren't allowed to change their minds.

One way to honour the referendum result while also presenting the people with a choice of what to do next would be to hold a referendum with a preferencial choice that does not include remaining in the EU, as that has already been rejected.

Does not work, since some people who wanted Brexit might have changed their position, and the central thesis of democracy is that decisions can be altered if the people desire such. Any referendum that only includes Brexit options would be a democratic farce, since 49% couldn't contribute to such a referendum meaningfully.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

One way to honour the referendum result while also presenting the people with a choice of what to do next would be to hold a referendum with a preferencial choice that does not include remaining in the EU, as that has already been rejected.

Does not work, since some people who wanted Brexit might have changed their position, and the central thesis of democracy is that decisions can be altered if the people desire such. Any referendum that only includes Brexit options would be a democratic farce, since 49% couldn't contribute to such a referendum meaningfully.

I want a second AV referendum, and can I have a second independence referendum as well? Also, labour lied to me, I want the general election to be re-run.

It doesn't work like that. You make a decision, maybe it can be changed after a generation, such as was stated during the Scottish referendum campaign (which, even as a supporter of independence, I support.) You can't change it before you've even inacted the result of the first referendum.