HAHA BREXIT WINS
I don't get it. If they knew this was going to hurt their economy, why would they vote for this? I guess I don't really understand why they're voting to leave the EU to begin with.
I don't get it. If they knew this was going to hurt their economy, why would they vote for this? I guess I don't really understand why they're voting to leave the EU to begin with.BREXIT side used a lot of appeal to fears and scared people with the immigrants and refugees. They also relied on peoples hate of bureaucracy and they claimed that UK is giving more money to the EU than they gain from it. Which relies on faulty logic as many of the benefits from being a member of EU are hard to count. Like the free mobility in Europe that was bringing in foreign talent to UK and helping UK citizens find work abroad (which reminds me, an old roommate of mine is living in UK and I wonder if he has to take his family and leave now...) not to mention that the foreign trade is going to get a lot more complicated and rather than trading with a bunch of separate countries that make up Europe UK will now have to make trade deals with a united EU so they can't find a weak link that they could influence individually. Though the rest of the world is still the same any dealings with EU are going to cost a lot more.
Remember, destroying your economy is preferable to letting brown people in.
Scary Brown skinned invaders are taking over!!! was the main thrust of the leave side regardless of whether or not brown skinned people in Britain voted for it.
Thought he was Aussie?HAHA BREXIT WINS
I, too, am laughing. Enjoy watching your economy collapse, nationalist britbongs.
Oh look, it's already happening. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/23/markets-live-will-sterling-surge-or-slump-as-the-eu-referendum-c/)
Because brown people can't be xenophobic or swayed by anti migrant rhetoric. Right?Remember, destroying your economy is preferable to letting brown people in.
What about all the brown people who voted to leave?
Or are you claiming that, of the 17,410,742 Britons who voted to cut ties with the EU, absolutely ALL of them were BNP-voting evil white people?
Because that's...demented.
Because brown people can't be xenophobic or swayed by anti migrant rhetoric. Right?Remember, destroying your economy is preferable to letting brown people in.
What about all the brown people who voted to leave?
Or are you claiming that, of the 17,410,742 Britons who voted to cut ties with the EU, absolutely ALL of them were BNP-voting evil white people?
Because that's...demented.
Also isn't some of the anti migrant whinging against EU migrants? Poles look pretty white to me.
Thought he was Aussie?HAHA BREXIT WINS
I, too, am laughing. Enjoy watching your economy collapse, nationalist britbongs.
Oh look, it's already happening. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/23/markets-live-will-sterling-surge-or-slump-as-the-eu-referendum-c/)
Of course there will be less jawbz in the UK once the economic fallout sets in-for anybody. Wonder what the mood on the street is in Edinburgh right now...
Thought he was Aussie?HAHA BREXIT WINS
I, too, am laughing. Enjoy watching your economy collapse, nationalist britbongs.
Oh look, it's already happening. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/23/markets-live-will-sterling-surge-or-slump-as-the-eu-referendum-c/)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/scotland-considers-second-referendum-vote-1.3650596
Sturgeon: "As things stand, Scotland faces the prospect of being taken out of the EU against her will. I regard that as democratically unacceptable. I think an independence referendum is now highly likely."
Basically, the UK would take another blow right when they're already going to be hit by leaving the EU, and Labour would find it much harder to form government since they've typically needed Scottish seats to do it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-referendum-results-and-live-maps/
Specifically:
England: 46.8% remain, 53.2% leave
Scotland: 62% remain, 38% leave
Wales: 48.3% remain, 51.7% leave
Northern Ireland: 55.7% remain, 44.3% leave
But notably, London voted to remain (59.9%).
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/scotland-considers-second-referendum-vote-1.3650596
Sturgeon: "As things stand, Scotland faces the prospect of being taken out of the EU against her will. I regard that as democratically unacceptable. I think an independence referendum is now highly likely."
Basically, the UK would take another blow right when they're already going to be hit by leaving the EU, and Labour would find it much harder to form government since they've typically needed Scottish seats to do it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-referendum-results-and-live-maps/
Specifically:
England: 46.8% remain, 53.2% leave
Scotland: 62% remain, 38% leave
Wales: 48.3% remain, 51.7% leave
Northern Ireland: 55.7% remain, 44.3% leave
But notably, London voted to remain (59.9%).
So let's make this an analogy, those are always fun.
Someone somehow manages to table a nationwide referendum to make Fundamentalist Mormonism the official state religion of the USA. It gets put to the vote, gets shot down by a majority in 50 states with only Utah voting for it (with a convenient 62-38 majority).
Utah screams about the unfairness of the vast majority of the population not going along with their decision and decides to leave.
A: Do we give a fuck?
B: Why do we give a fuck?
Lets kick out Wales and Cornwall while we're at it and foist Norn Iron back on their ginger cousins. This is a perfect opportunity to divest ourselves of some hangers-on.Sure, kick them out. England's economy hangs on finance and services that were strategically placed because you were in the EU. What are you gonna do, open the coalmines again?
Lets kick out Wales and Cornwall while we're at it and foist Norn Iron back on their ginger cousins. This is a perfect opportunity to divest ourselves of some hangers-on.Sure, kick them out. England's economy hangs on finance and services that were strategically placed because you were in the EU. What are you gonna do, open the coalmines again?
Boot out Wales and watch the Welsh join the EU and a shitload of London bankers relocate to Cardiff.
I am learning so many Scottish insults from all the people who wish to correct Trump after he claimed that Scotland had voted to leave EU: http://imgur.com/gallery/bW0og
Scotland has the best insults they're great they're terrific, absolutely amazing insults, let me tell you they're absolutely tremendous.
Also this
(http://i.giphy.com/3oEjHJNiUWM8DaRQ8E.gif)
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
It may be that Scotland can use their veto right to prevent BREXIT. And since the vote isn't binding the government can simply choose to not go through with it.
...Although EU itself may have already lost it's collective and multinational patience with UK acting like a spoiled brat as there are demands for UK to start the process immediately.
When the majority are voting against their own interests, then...well, tough. The government is supposed to help society, not help the ignorant fuckers screw themselves.
“We will be insisting that Cornwall receives investment equal to that provided by the EU programme which has averaged £60m per year over the last ten years.”
European money has helped develop infrastructure, universities and broadband internet in the county. From 2007 to 2013, €654m was given to pay for these projects, the Financial Times
...
Cornwall, which has a population of just 530,000 people, voted resoundingly to leave the EU, with 56.52 per cent opting for leave – more than the national average - compared to 43.48 per cent voting to remain.
The council said they will now be studying the impact of Brexit on Cornwall, “now and in the future”.
While the majority of Cornwall’s MPs supported Brexit, there have long been warnings on the possible consequences to the county of its effects.
The fuck did the Polish do to the Brits anyways?
When the majority are voting against their own interests, then...well, tough. The government is supposed to help society, not help the ignorant fuckers screw themselves.
Yeah, it's quite the conundrum. On the one hand, majority rule is a decent thing that should be valued. On the other, we're really entering a post-factual democracy (America and Britain, see Trump) were facts, experts, and "political insiders" are distrusted. No real easy answer, as either we deny the masses, set of procedures to disenfranchise people, or back away from democracy.
Fucking luddites.
UKIP will blame the Scots who will duly give no fucks and the Tories can publicly lament that their hands were tied and privately breath a sigh of relief before shuffling off to their private clubs to get munted on brandy. Job done. *being optimistic*It may be that Scotland can use their veto right to prevent BREXIT. And since the vote isn't binding the government can simply choose to not go through with it.
...Although EU itself may have already lost it's collective and multinational patience with UK acting like a spoiled brat as there are demands for UK to start the process immediately.
Because over-ruling the majority of those who voted will certainly end well ;D
It seems like Oliver was a bit more vulgar than normally. Perhaps this hit a bit too close to home and seeing his country of birth sticking its head in its arse got him off balance.
The fuck did the Polish do to the Brits anyways?
To repeat myself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toL1tXrLA1c
Contrarian has been remarkably quiet of late, could be the plummeting pound has given him pause?
The fuck did the Polish do to the Brits anyways?
To repeat myself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toL1tXrLA1c
You'll link to copyright claimed video?>
Contrarian has been remarkably quiet of late, could be the plummeting pound has given him pause?
Well he did make a comment about how he made a huge investment which will make him rich as soon as Pound regains some value. Maybe he made a mistake with that investment and had to sell his computer to afford food?
When the majority are voting against their own interests, then...well, tough. The government is supposed to help society, not help the ignorant fuckers screw themselves.
Yeah, it's quite the conundrum. On the one hand, majority rule is a decent thing that should be valued. On the other, we're really entering a post-factual democracy (America and Britain, see Trump) were facts, experts, and "political insiders" are distrusted. No real easy answer, as either we deny the masses, set of procedures to disenfranchise people, or back away from democracy.
Fucking luddites.
If we could check the popular power with a panel of established experts with rigorously validated credentials in various fields, it would probably go a long way towards solving one of the inherent problems in democracy. When a policy decision needs to be made, a group of experts in any applicable fields comes in to judge the effects of said policy. For example, a bill raising the debt ceiling would go by a panel of well-vetted economists. Cyber security? Call in cyber security experts. Give their decisions and opinions actual, political weight.
When the majority are voting against their own interests, then...well, tough. The government is supposed to help society, not help the ignorant fuckers screw themselves.
Yeah, it's quite the conundrum. On the one hand, majority rule is a decent thing that should be valued. On the other, we're really entering a post-factual democracy (America and Britain, see Trump) were facts, experts, and "political insiders" are distrusted. No real easy answer, as either we deny the masses, set of procedures to disenfranchise people, or back away from democracy.
Fucking luddites.
If we could check the popular power with a panel of established experts with rigorously validated credentials in various fields, it would probably go a long way towards solving one of the inherent problems in democracy. When a policy decision needs to be made, a group of experts in any applicable fields comes in to judge the effects of said policy. For example, a bill raising the debt ceiling would go by a panel of well-vetted economists. Cyber security? Call in cyber security experts. Give their decisions and opinions actual, political weight.
I mean. yeah. Something like that, carefully implemented, could work.
But you do that before you call the vote, not after. It's too late for that now.
When the majority are voting against their own interests, then...well, tough. The government is supposed to help society, not help the ignorant fuckers screw themselves.
Yeah, it's quite the conundrum. On the one hand, majority rule is a decent thing that should be valued. On the other, we're really entering a post-factual democracy (America and Britain, see Trump) were facts, experts, and "political insiders" are distrusted. No real easy answer, as either we deny the masses, set of procedures to disenfranchise people, or back away from democracy.
Fucking luddites.
If we could check the popular power with a panel of established experts with rigorously validated credentials in various fields, it would probably go a long way towards solving one of the inherent problems in democracy. When a policy decision needs to be made, a group of experts in any applicable fields comes in to judge the effects of said policy. For example, a bill raising the debt ceiling would go by a panel of well-vetted economists. Cyber security? Call in cyber security experts. Give their decisions and opinions actual, political weight.
I mean. yeah. Something like that, carefully implemented, could work.
But you do that before you call the vote, not after. It's too late for that now.
True, but it could be used as a preventative measure to stop such things from happening again.
When the majority are voting against their own interests, then...well, tough. The government is supposed to help society, not help the ignorant fuckers screw themselves.
Yeah, it's quite the conundrum. On the one hand, majority rule is a decent thing that should be valued. On the other, we're really entering a post-factual democracy (America and Britain, see Trump) were facts, experts, and "political insiders" are distrusted. No real easy answer, as either we deny the masses, set of procedures to disenfranchise people, or back away from democracy.
Fucking luddites.
If we could check the popular power with a panel of established experts with rigorously validated credentials in various fields, it would probably go a long way towards solving one of the inherent problems in democracy. When a policy decision needs to be made, a group of experts in any applicable fields comes in to judge the effects of said policy. For example, a bill raising the debt ceiling would go by a panel of well-vetted economists. Cyber security? Call in cyber security experts. Give their decisions and opinions actual, political weight.
I mean. yeah. Something like that, carefully implemented, could work.
But you do that before you call the vote, not after. It's too late for that now.
True, but it could be used as a preventative measure to stop such things from happening again.
It would also probably spark a revolt as a lot of people would see it as a way for the elites (whom many no longer trust to have the public's best interests at heart) to subvert the democratically expressed will of the people.
"You can make any choice you want, as long as it's the one we want you to make."
When the majority are voting against their own interests, then...well, tough. The government is supposed to help society, not help the ignorant fuckers screw themselves.
Yeah, it's quite the conundrum. On the one hand, majority rule is a decent thing that should be valued. On the other, we're really entering a post-factual democracy (America and Britain, see Trump) were facts, experts, and "political insiders" are distrusted. No real easy answer, as either we deny the masses, set of procedures to disenfranchise people, or back away from democracy.
Fucking luddites.
If we could check the popular power with a panel of established experts with rigorously validated credentials in various fields, it would probably go a long way towards solving one of the inherent problems in democracy. When a policy decision needs to be made, a group of experts in any applicable fields comes in to judge the effects of said policy. For example, a bill raising the debt ceiling would go by a panel of well-vetted economists. Cyber security? Call in cyber security experts. Give their decisions and opinions actual, political weight.
I mean. yeah. Something like that, carefully implemented, could work.
But you do that before you call the vote, not after. It's too late for that now.
True, but it could be used as a preventative measure to stop such things from happening again.
It would also probably spark a revolt as a lot of people would see it as a way for the elites (whom many no longer trust to have the public's best interests at heart) to subvert the democratically expressed will of the people.
"You can make any choice you want, as long as it's the one we want you to make."
If that happens, then the common man is every bit the ignorant beast the elites see him as, and we're all but completely fucked, either way.
The other thing you'll do if you make academic opinions chess pieces is you'll see a hell of a lot more bribery and intimidation aimed at academics who voice the "wrong" opinion.Who would decide who's an expert? And what's to prevent say, some hardcore neo-liberals from blocking any attempts at regulation or welfare programs?When the majority are voting against their own interests, then...well, tough. The government is supposed to help society, not help the ignorant fuckers screw themselves.
Yeah, it's quite the conundrum. On the one hand, majority rule is a decent thing that should be valued. On the other, we're really entering a post-factual democracy (America and Britain, see Trump) were facts, experts, and "political insiders" are distrusted. No real easy answer, as either we deny the masses, set of procedures to disenfranchise people, or back away from democracy.
Fucking luddites.
If we could check the popular power with a panel of established experts with rigorously validated credentials in various fields, it would probably go a long way towards solving one of the inherent problems in democracy. When a policy decision needs to be made, a group of experts in any applicable fields comes in to judge the effects of said policy. For example, a bill raising the debt ceiling would go by a panel of well-vetted economists. Cyber security? Call in cyber security experts. Give their decisions and opinions actual, political weight.
The EU has made pretty clear the terms of Brexit:So just like being in the EU minus a seat at the table? "Fuck you pommy twits" would have carried the same information more concisely.
Britain will have access to the common market if they,
1) Pay 100% of the same amount to the EU
2) Accept the ECHR as the supreme legal structure
3) Accept 100% of the immigration rules.
4) Accept all the same regulations on trade goods.
Britain can choose to eliminate their representation in the European parliament and end subsidisation by the EU of some of their communities though.
So a big win for Britain, all told.
The EU has made pretty clear the terms of Brexit:So just like being in the EU minus a seat at the table? "Fuck you pommy twits" would have carried the same information more concisely.
Britain will have access to the common market if they,
1) Pay 100% of the same amount to the EU
2) Accept the ECHR as the supreme legal structure
3) Accept 100% of the immigration rules.
4) Accept all the same regulations on trade goods.
Britain can choose to eliminate their representation in the European parliament and end subsidisation by the EU of some of their communities though.
So a big win for Britain, all told.
Who would decide who's an expert? And what's to prevent say, some hardcore neo-liberals from blocking any attempts at regulation or welfare programs?
You don't think economic deregulation and austerity are issues? If you do think they're issues then what's the problem with using a neo-liberalism as a shorthand for it?Who would decide who's an expert? And what's to prevent say, some hardcore neo-liberals from blocking any attempts at regulation or welfare programs?
Man, what is with people and saying the word neo-liberal? It's like some boogeyman that if you say 100 times, you get a free car or something.
You don't think economic deregulation and austerity are issues? If you do think they're issues then what's the problem with using a neo-liberalism as a shorthand for it?Who would decide who's an expert? And what's to prevent say, some hardcore neo-liberals from blocking any attempts at regulation or welfare programs?
Man, what is with people and saying the word neo-liberal? It's like some boogeyman that if you say 100 times, you get a free car or something.
Please don't put words in my mouth: I never said those are not important issues. What I mean is I've seen more people in the last six months throw around the word "neo-liberal" as in "that's neoliberal," "neoliberalism is bad," or "he's a neoliberal." In this sense, it is no different that when the GOP says "Obama is a Marxist," "Obamacare is communism," or "Dukakis is a liberal." It lacks substance and is nothing more than creating a political boogeyman out of a term you don't like and then throwing around said term with reckless abandon against perceived political enemies.
Now, if you want to say deregulation is bad, then say that. Say that deregulation reduces oversight and worker protection laws. That businesses, caring more about short-term than long-term profits are more likely to discriminate on the basis of sex (pregnancy), race (scary looking blah people), LGBTQ status (can't have "strange" people in customer relations), are more likely to disregard the environment, shirk proper accounting and finances (think Enron or Lehman brothers), and run the economy through dangerous "boom and bust" cycles. If you want to say austerity is bad say that government expenditures factor into GDP and reducing a sizable chunk of you GDP, via government expenditures, is a good way to bring about a recession. You can say all of this pretty easily and provide a post of substance instead of using a boogeyman of a political buzzword.
Please don't put words in my mouth: I never said those are not important issues. What I mean is I've seen more people in the last six months throw around the word "neo-liberal" as in "that's neoliberal," "neoliberalism is bad," or "he's a neoliberal." In this sense, it is no different that when the GOP says "Obama is a Marxist," "Obamacare is communism," or "Dukakis is a liberal." It lacks substance and is nothing more than creating a political boogeyman out of a term you don't like and then throwing around said term with reckless abandon against perceived political enemies.Was I misusing the term in my original post?
Now, if you want to say deregulation is bad, then say that. Say that deregulation reduces oversight and worker protection laws. That businesses, caring more about short-term than long-term profits are more likely to discriminate on the basis of sex (pregnancy), race (scary looking blah people), LGBTQ status (can't have "strange" people in customer relations), are more likely to disregard the environment, shirk proper accounting and finances (think Enron or Lehman brothers), and run the economy through dangerous "boom and bust" cycles. If you want to say austerity is bad say that government expenditures factor into GDP and reducing a sizable chunk of you GDP, via government expenditures, is a good way to bring about a recession. You can say all of this pretty easily and provide a post of substance instead of using a boogeyman of a political buzzword.
This scandal just keeps getting better. Boris Johnson hasn't got the guts to run for the prime minister's seat. He just helped create a chism to tear apart Britain and then he goes "not my problem trololoo."
This scandal just keeps getting better. Boris Johnson hasn't got the guts to run for the prime minister's seat. He just helped create a chism to tear apart Britain and then he goes "not my problem trololoo."
Well, according to the Guardian he was stabbed in the back by Michael Gove (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/how-boris-johnson-was-brought-to-his-knees-by-the-cuckoo-nest-pl/), the same political ally of his who had persuaded him to support Brexit. Cove used Johnson to gain support for Brexit and being a long-term opponent of EU he gained political influence with the vote, too. He immediately turned around and used this influence to get Johnson's other allies to turn against him in an operation he had apparently started to build already before the vote.
Well, I certainly didn't see THAT coming.
Dirty mob of unwashed lefties protest against referendum result (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36692990)
Progressives tried Patented Progressive Tactic #1: "call it racist until it goes away" (read basically every comment on the first page of this thread to see this in all its' spasticated glory) and it didn't work.
So now it's time for Patented Progressive Tactic #2: "cringeworthy protest march". Unfortunately, since you've already had your say on this issue and you LOST, you are literally protesting against the democratic process itself.
"NO no no! Ignore the will of the people, we alone know what's best!"
Lulz.
Well, I certainly didn't see THAT coming.
Dirty mob of unwashed lefties protest against referendum result (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36692990)
Progressives tried Patented Progressive Tactic #1: "call it racist until it goes away" (read basically every comment on the first page of this thread to see this in all its' spasticated glory) and it didn't work.
So now it's time for Patented Progressive Tactic #2: "cringeworthy protest march". Unfortunately, since you've already had your say on this issue and you LOST, you are literally protesting against the democratic process itself.
"NO no no! Ignore the will of the people, we alone know what's best!"
Lulz.
In one public appearance just before the vote, he said that he was "not a lover of the European Union." The BBC published emails that show that Corbyn’s office intentionally sabotaged the Labour Remain campaign (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064972/brexit-labour-tories-corbyn-johnson).
Conty would have us believe that all those in favor of Brexit are conservative little Englanders like him, they aren't. (http://www.alternet.org/world/brexit-vote-shouldnt-shock-global-elites) He'd also have us believe that all those opposed to Brexit are "unwashed lefties" like these lawyers acting on behalf of a group of business people and academics (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36700350) presumably. It's never so simple.
Originally it was the Tories who were pro integration into the common market and Labour who were opposed, people are only now starting to remember Corbyn's vote against membership of the EEC in 1975 (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064972/brexit-labour-tories-corbyn-johnson). That changed after Blair but Corbyn decidedly isn't Blair but rather a member of Labour's socialist old guard
The fact that Nigel Farage stepped down as party leader threw yet another wrench into the mix. Honestly, I have to ask if Britain will even have a functioning government before 2020.
The fact that Nigel Farage stepped down as party leader threw yet another wrench into the mix. Honestly, I have to ask if Britain will even have a functioning government before 2020.
The fact that Nigel Farage stepped down as party leader threw yet another wrench into the mix. Honestly, I have to ask if Britain will even have a functioning government before 2020.
How, exactly, does Nigel Farage stepping down change anything? UKIP have gone from being a party with virtually no seats in parliament to being a party with virtually no seats in parliament, (currently) no leader and now no flagship policy (since it's now been achieved).
They're basically a political irrelevance to the functioning of government ^_^
The fact that Nigel Farage stepped down as party leader threw yet another wrench into the mix. Honestly, I have to ask if Britain will even have a functioning government before 2020.
How, exactly, does Nigel Farage stepping down change anything? UKIP have gone from being a party with virtually no seats in parliament to being a party with virtually no seats in parliament, (currently) no leader and now no flagship policy (since it's now been achieved).
They're basically a political irrelevance to the functioning of government ^_^
He may have had no MPs, but along with Boris Johnson, he was the fave of the Brexit movement. With both of them resigned, the now-victorious movement has no visible leader to direct just how this exit is going to be carried out, which, I predict, will just lead to a lot more confusion in the end.
The Queen will step in.
Ironbite-she will almost have to.
The Queen will step in.
Ironbite-she will almost have to.
Stick a few heads on pikes and tell everyone the family is back in charge of the empire. ;D
The Queen will step in.
Ironbite-she will almost have to.
Stick a few heads on pikes and tell everyone the family is back in charge of the empire. ;D
Here I was thinking Ibbles was talking about our Queen.
Brexit had a thin majority on a question that was asked without any forethought about what to do next as the 350 million quid back to the NHS clearly shows. The voters were also told upfront that the referendum was not binding bit rather "advisery. Also the EEC of the seventies doesn't exist, you're stuck with the EU and you have four options.Conty would have us believe that all those in favor of Brexit are conservative little Englanders like him, they aren't. (http://www.alternet.org/world/brexit-vote-shouldnt-shock-global-elites) He'd also have us believe that all those opposed to Brexit are "unwashed lefties" like these lawyers acting on behalf of a group of business people and academics (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36700350) presumably. It's never so simple.
Originally it was the Tories who were pro integration into the common market and Labour who were opposed, people are only now starting to remember Corbyn's vote against membership of the EEC in 1975 (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064972/brexit-labour-tories-corbyn-johnson). That changed after Blair but Corbyn decidedly isn't Blair but rather a member of Labour's socialist old guard
Well, you know. If you're out protesting to try and force the government to ignore the result of a vote you lost, you're in the same boat as a bunch of smelly students who now want to disenfranchise the old because they had the sheer audacity to vote the *wrong* way.
You know, the blatantly undemocratic shit that is the hallmark of campus leftism.
And that "DURR HURR DURR THE TORIES TOOK US INTO EUROPE" thing is just a straight up genetic fallacy.
The EEC as it was then is a vastly different concept to the rotten edifice the EU has turned into. A common market is something we like, handing over our sovereignty to a multinational body we have barely any say in...not so much.
The Queen will step in.
Ironbite-she will almost have to.
Stick a few heads on pikes and tell everyone the family is back in charge of the empire. ;D
Here I was thinking Ibbles was talking about our Queen.
I suspect she'd handle it pretty much the same way.
Conty would have us believe that all those in favor of Brexit are conservative little Englanders like him, they aren't. (http://www.alternet.org/world/brexit-vote-shouldnt-shock-global-elites) He'd also have us believe that all those opposed to Brexit are "unwashed lefties" like these lawyers acting on behalf of a group of business people and academics (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36700350) presumably. It's never so simple.
Originally it was the Tories who were pro integration into the common market and Labour who were opposed, people are only now starting to remember Corbyn's vote against membership of the EEC in 1975 (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064972/brexit-labour-tories-corbyn-johnson). That changed after Blair but Corbyn decidedly isn't Blair but rather a member of Labour's socialist old guard
Well, you know. If you're out protesting to try and force the government to ignore the result of a vote you lost, you're in the same boat as a bunch of smelly students who now want to disenfranchise the old because they had the sheer audacity to vote the *wrong* way.
You know, the blatantly undemocratic shit that is the hallmark of campus leftism.
And that "DURR HURR DURR THE TORIES TOOK US INTO EUROPE" thing is just a straight up genetic fallacy.
The EEC as it was then is a vastly different concept to the rotten edifice the EU has turned into. A common market is something we like, handing over our sovereignty to a multinational body we have barely any say in...not so much.
Also the EEC of the seventies doesn't exist
, you're stuck with the EU
The point flew over your hat. You're stuck with the EU as your major trading partner..Also the EEC of the seventies doesn't exist
Thank you for basically reiterating my pointQuote, you're stuck with the EU
Nope :) (http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/0E22/production/_90081630_leaveresult.jpg)
Oh well. So we've got a typical eyepatch feminist as a PM now. I guess you could accuse her of racism or something if you lefties wanted to be true to form. I mean she's basically said your undemocratic bitching and demands for a rerun can piss off, so that's something.It's already amusing to the rest of the world, Great Britain is steamrolling ahead to become Underwhelming England With Self Imposed Recession.
Oh yeah, and Boris as foreign minister. That's a pretty good "HAHA FUCK OFF" to the rest of the world. Maybe this is going to turn out amusing...
Oh well. So we've got a typical eyepatch feminist as a PM now. I guess you could accuse her of racism or something if you lefties wanted to be true to form. I mean she's basically said your undemocratic bitching and demands for a rerun can piss off, so that's something.It's already amusing to the rest of the world, Great Britain is steamrolling ahead to become Underwhelming England With Self Imposed Recession.
Oh yeah, and Boris as foreign minister. That's a pretty good "HAHA FUCK OFF" to the rest of the world. Maybe this is going to turn out amusing...
Plus Re-Fucked Northern Ireland and Nervous Wales-assuming they don't go the way of the Scots.
And in getting rid of the Celts England will become Ireland 2.0.Oh well. So we've got a typical eyepatch feminist as a PM now. I guess you could accuse her of racism or something if you lefties wanted to be true to form. I mean she's basically said your undemocratic bitching and demands for a rerun can piss off, so that's something.It's already amusing to the rest of the world, Great Britain is steamrolling ahead to become Underwhelming England With Self Imposed Recession.
Oh yeah, and Boris as foreign minister. That's a pretty good "HAHA FUCK OFF" to the rest of the world. Maybe this is going to turn out amusing...
Plus Re-Fucked Northern Ireland and Nervous Wales-assuming they don't go the way of the Scots.
Ooh, we might get a chance to get rid of the celts? It's about time we trimmed the dead wood.
Let's hope :)
I think England should have a vote to become a part of the USA, then Britannia can finally be one once again. The center of power will just have shifted.You think the Brexiters should have bloody guns???
I think England should have a vote to become a part of the USA, then Britannia can finally be one once again. The center of power will just have shifted.You think the Brexiters should have bloody guns???
If Boris were packing he'd blow holes in his brogues!
I think England should have a vote to become a part of the USA, then Britannia can finally be one once again. The center of power will just have shifted.You think the Brexiters should have bloody guns???
If Boris were packing he'd blow holes in his brogues!
Brexiters having guns sounds like the funniest thing ever!
I think England should have a vote to become a part of the USA, then Britannia can finally be one once again. The center of power will just have shifted.You think the Brexiters should have bloody guns???
If Boris were packing he'd blow holes in his brogues!
Brexiters having guns sounds like the funniest thing ever!
You mean just over half of the electorate?
Not quite sure why that's particularly funny, but i'd suggest at least a few of them have firearms already.
Besides, they'd have to take back India and the Congo and all their other former territories, not just the ones where the settlers revolted.Congo was Belgium.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.htmlWelp if their appointment of Boris "picanninies"Johnson as Foreign Secretary hasn't convinced everybody that the Tories have their heads firmly stuck in the mud then this certainly will.
I'm not saying that it is certain that the next government of Britain will make a horrible mess but it does start to look like that.
Scotland, Best-Ireland and Gibraltar better get out sooner than later.
Scotland, Best-Ireland and Gibraltar better get out sooner than later.
Those "bitter celts" might be better off looking to an arrangement with Ireland. We could even finally have true British federalism with England as a neighboring pariah state.Scotland, Best-Ireland and Gibraltar better get out sooner than later.
Bittercelts can leave whenever they like. Good riddance tbh.
But Gibraltar? They are overwhelmingly in favour of basically not being annexed by the Spanish. Not a chance in hell they'll leave. However shite you think our government is going to get, at least we aren't Spain.
Hey, it would be interesting if the Scots gained independence and made a serious attempt to join the Nordic council. If they got accepted as one of us the Estonians' reaction would be another source of amusement.