Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Old 22nd Oct 2018, 09:06
  #16241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 335
There are a few points here.

Firstly, Brexit is going to happen. Whether that is wonderful or a disaster or something in between will always be a personal opinion.

Secondly, unlike in many countries we have the freedom to peacefully demonstrate. We recently had an EDL march where there were more police than marchers, and a march in London about Brexit. Both were valid, and the numbers are irrelevant.

Thirdly, campaigning to reverse Brexit is not anti-democratic. We can see that it is amusing to some to poke fun at those who 'lost' at the referendum, but on that basis campaigning at a general election to change the result of the previous one is also anti-democratic.
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 10:52
  #16242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,216
Originally Posted by pax britanica View Post
PDR while your post is the funniest, best and most informative of any of the thousands on here on the subject I am not quite sure how you might deduce Ia m pro Brexit with my tongue in cheek remarks about Mr Raab.

I am certainly not rascist and if I wanted to be i would quote from a Czech friend of mine about what they think of Mr R , but I am not so i wont .
I'd love to see by what contortions you can make "And that along with a Brexit sec who is not British (ethnically, not a paper Brit)" a non-racist remark. Go on - give it a go!

PDR
PDR1 is online now  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 11:29
  #16243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
Thirdly, campaigning to reverse Brexit is not anti-democratic. We can see that it is amusing to some to poke fun at those who 'lost' at the referendum, but on that basis campaigning at a general election to change the result of the previous one is also anti-democratic.
General Elections are regular, and change of government is a normal process. Change of Constitution is different. The electorate were promised a number of times that this would be subject to a referendum, but when it was observed that those in other countries who gave the 'wrong' answer were asked to vote again until the 'right' answer was achieved, successive UK governments were reluctant in case UK also gave the wrong response. The last Constitution Change of the EU was rejected by those countries given the choice, so it was reframed as a 'Treaty' with all the same changes, but no refeenda required.

Eventually (in an effort to win a General Election, we were promised a one-off, in or out referendum The assumption was that if an apocalyptic doom and gloom scenario was presented, the right answer would be forthcoming. In spite of being promised a collapse of civilisation and World War 3 if we got it wrong, leave won the vote.

Now very well meaning, sincere, but I believe wrong people think that democracy doesn't work if they get the wrong answer. In trying to frustrate the result they are helping to ensure a worse outcome to the negotiations. Of course the EU are trying to make leaving impossible, to discourage others from seeing the light o exiting an undemocratic, protectionist cartel.

Meanwhile, we will see how an organisation that consistently says their rules are fixed and nonnegotiable copes when next year's Italian budget drives a coach and horses through them.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 11:46
  #16244 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,048
I'd love to see by what contortions you can make "And that along with a Brexit sec who is not British (ethnically, not a paper Brit)" a non-racist remark. Go on - give it a go!
Not in anyway a racist statement, it is not derogatory just states the 'Bleedin' obvious'. Yet another example of the gross misuse and misunderstanding of the most misused and abused word in the English language, 'racist'.
parabellum is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 12:58
  #16245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,216
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
Not in anyway a racist statement, it is not derogatory just states the 'Bleedin' obvious'.
Twaddle. The statement was suggesting that the Brexit Secretary was either less suited to his role or or less capable of undertaking it (or both) solely due to his race. The trouble is that you racist chappies have become so accustomed to spreading your obnoxious racial hatred that you can't even see you're doing it any more.

PDR
PDR1 is online now  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 13:12
  #16246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 335
In spite of being promised a collapse of civilisation and World War 3 if we got it wrong, leave won the vote.
Just to set the record straight, it was Boris Johnson who spouted the comment about WW3. The same person who promised that we would maintain a free trade union with the EU.

Both statements of course were complete rubbish but had the desired effects amongst his followers.
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 14:33
  #16247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
Just to set the record straight, it was Boris Johnson who spouted the comment about WW3. The same person who promised that we would maintain a free trade union with the EU.

Both statements of course were complete rubbish but had the desired effects amongst his followers.
But the EU have already agreed with Boris and offered a Free Trade Agreement. It is the Remainers in the Cabinet who are holding out for the Chequers deal. Boris wants what the EU wants - Canada ++

Last edited by BAengineer; 22nd Oct 2018 at 15:06.
BAengineer is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 16:14
  #16248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 369
I can't get my head around those who believe that the people of the UK can just change their mind, decide to stay in the EU, with the apparent assumption that all will be rosy.

Once the decision was made to leave, then there was no going back. There is no way that the EU would accept the UK back on the original terms under which it is a member; at the very least there would be a prolonged period of negotiation over the terms under which we could remain in the EU, with a strong probability that we would be forced to join the Eurozone and lose any rebates that we currently enjoy. If we were to ask if we could rejoin, or remain a member, then the EU would be in an unassailable negotiating position, and could pretty much dictate the conditions of our new membership.

Would that be preferable to trying to get the best deal we can now?

If not, then why are so many pro-EU supporters determined to try and disrupt the current negotiations?

I can understand that some have very strong pro-EU feelings, but pursuing those now, to the detriment of the UK in the short to medium term, seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Far better if the pro-EU supporters accepted what is going to happen now, but look at how they might put together a credible plan to try to convince the majority that re-joining the EU would be in the best interest of the country in future. Who knows, things may well change such that re-joining the EU in 5 to 10 years time looks like a good option. For example, if the EU has, by then, decided to ditch the idea of a federal Europe, and reverted to original idea of being a common trading block, then I think there would be a lot of support for re-joining.
VP959 is online now  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 19:09
  #16249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,903
Well said VP
ShotOne is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 19:33
  #16250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 68
Posts: 902
Originally Posted by ATNotts View Post
Even supposing, as you suggest it was a quarter of 700k, then it would still be a big number. I would have expected the mainstream media to have called out the number if they had thought it was a gross over estimate. To suggest that Sadiq Khan has knobbled the Met Police is frankly disingenuous, and total fantasy. The UK isn't (quite) a banana monarchy (yet) and whether you like or dislike a particular politician for their politics or personality it just ins't a runner.

It is pure extreme right wing "fake news".
Your naivety regarding the politics is touching.

700,000 is the fake news.
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 19:34
  #16251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,437
Originally Posted by sitigeltfel View Post
Strange how the Met Police say they are unable to give an estimate of the attendance when they have done so for previous marches?
No, in fact they didn't for the last three marches either.

Which is a little feeble - there were two choppers up (I assume one was police and one was TV), and all they had to do was feed the footage through some crowd counting software.

But perhaps the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation did actually do that, and didn't want to publicise the figures they got. There were a lot of people there.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 21:31
  #16252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 68
Posts: 902
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
No, in fact they didn't for the last three marches either.

Which is a little feeble - there were two choppers up (I assume one was police and one was TV), and all they had to do was feed the footage through some crowd counting software.

But perhaps the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation did actually do that, and didn't want to publicise the figures they got. There were a lot of people there.
Someone on twitter calculated the surface area of the march boundaries and using a very generous figure of five people per square metre got a number of 220,000. Using a more realistic density figure would get close to some independent observers estimate of 130,000.

I suppose the 700k number was dreamt by the same people who would argue that 48% is greater than 52%.
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 21:53
  #16253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,437
Originally Posted by sitigeltfel View Post
Someone on twitter
One particular raving #brexshitter came up with that number, yes, but it was just him.

Other estimates were up to 1.2m. Most were around 700k. There certainly seemed to be several times as many people as there were last time, which was generally reckoned to be 250k.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 22:06
  #16254 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,890
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e...78df7fa8489a93
Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 22:38
  #16255 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,646
My view on Brexit are 48-52 or,for the sake of doubt,52-48. I think anyone who is 100% at either extreme is as wrong headed and uninformed as they allege as those in the middle ground.

The extremists see the voters as in two bars in a bar chart whereas in fact the voters views are probably akin to a Gaussian curve with the peak 4% off centre.
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Old 23rd Oct 2018, 00:08
  #16256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Watching BBC Parliament this afternoon, I was struck by how many times the anti-Brexit politicos called for a 'Peoples Vote' instead of just 'A 2nd Referendum'

Who voted in the 1st Referendum - the same peoples' domestic pets or, perhaps, their Android Assistants ??

Politicians are so....Well....Economical with the Truth....

The most stupid comment was that young people who were inelegible to vote two years ago should and would now be able to vote. What the idiot didn't explain was why you wouldn't use the same logic to have a rerun of each General Election every 12 months.

Meanwhile, a guide to those Bad Losers who financed those Peoples' Voters to actually turn up to Saturday's love in....


Hussar 54 is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2018, 07:07
  #16257 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,200
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...ment-vxd6wrh35

Passing Brexit laws in time is ‘impossible job’ for parliament

Of the more than 800 changes to legislation needed before Brexit only 71 have been put before parliament, a report has found.

The government has said that between 800 and 1,000 statutory instruments (SIs) are required to ensure that British law is functional before Britain leaves the EU on March 29. But even though almost half the time available has passed, 9 per cent of the necessary SIs have been put before parliament, leading to fears that the Commons faces an impossible task in scrutinising them in time.

Ministers use SIs, also known as secondary legislation, to change laws without going through the full legislative procedure. The government used the EU (Withdrawal) Act, which passed in June, to copy EU law on to the British statute book but now needs to use SIs to adapt and remove some of those laws so that they make sense after Brexit.

After heated debate about parliament’s ability to scrutinise the SIs, the government agreed to set up sifting committees in each house, which can recommend that controversial ones are approved before they become law but this makes the whole process longer. Of the SIs tabled so far, two have completed the parliamentary scrutiny process. The Hansard Society, the non-partisan charity that produced the report, warned that because of the government’s slow progress the sifting committees might have to be bypassed completely for some SIs.

The Department for Transport has laid 18 SIs, the most of any government department. According to a National Audit Office report, it plans to produce 63 Brexit-related SIs, suggesting that it has laid 29 per cent of its eventual total. By contrast the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs has laid five of an eventual 86, or 6 per cent.

Ruth Fox, director of the Hansard Society, said: “Since the EU (Withdrawal) Act was granted royal assent in the summer, nearly half the time available to make changes to the statute book before exit day next March has now elapsed. But only 9 per cent of the minimum number of statutory instruments the government says are needed to deliver Brexit have been laid before parliament. If the government does not increase the pace, parliament will shortly be faced with the impossible task of scrutinising too many SIs in too little time. The government promised it would try to avoid a ‘peak and trough’ approach to the production of the SIs so parliament could do its scrutiny job properly. It needs to deliver on that promise.”

The Brexit department said: “We remain confident of passing the required number of exit-related statutory instruments before exit day. It has always been our plan to increase the number of Brexit SIs being laid throughout the autumn and we are working hard with parliament to ensure this is manageable.”


ORAC is online now  
Old 23rd Oct 2018, 08:35
  #16258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,670
Originally Posted by sitigeltfel View Post
Your naivety regarding the politics is touching.

700,000 is the fake news.
I don't believe that you actually believe what you are writing with regard to what you consider to be blatant corruption at the highest level in the UK; had we been having this discussion about a dictatorship, such as NK then sure I'd go along with your analysis, I could even see the likes of Trump manipulating numbers in this way - he does have previous in that regard, but in the UK - no. There is enough independence in the UK media to ensure that such corruption, from wherever it came would be called out, as journalists here don't (yet) have anything to fear from walking into an official building in one piece, and coming out in several.

I feel sure that if the 700k figure was so wildly inaccurate as you suggest it is, then a major news organisation would have called it out by now, but not even rags like the Express or Daily Mail have done that. All you have to go on is claims by rabid Brexiteers, who post things hoping that if something is "shared", "repeated" or whatever else often enough it becomes fact.

Is Sitigeltfel in reality Steve Bannon's PPRuNe handle?
ATNotts is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2018, 08:35
  #16259 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,200
ORAC is online now  
Old 23rd Oct 2018, 08:41
  #16260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 759
Hussar: Like you, I watched parliament on TV yesterday and one thing I thought I noticed was an absence of B. Johnson. Was he there in camouflage or I was just unable to see the buffoon?
KelvinD is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.