Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What the fuck!? The thread formally known as "I haven't heard a single compelling reason for Britain to leave the EU."
That's probably, and sadly, true. Politics Home has taken down his "obnoxious bigots" article , he's recently joined twitter, and clearly has been taking PR lessons.

Like watching a slow motion car crash where you're trapped in the backseat and the child locks are on.

FWIW

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexiti...government
Reply
I've been trying to pay more attention to UK politics thanks to all this stuff, (by listening to James O'Brien roast people mostly, which might be a bit one eyed...) but I think my biggest takeaway, the thing I'm tired of the most is Brexit.
Not the UK leaving the EU, but the word Brexit. It's a godawful Sun headline chimera word that has no business being anywhere near a hansard or any official document . And now it's a permanent fixture of the great English language. Just terrible.
Reply
Ha I was thinking that just the other day. I get that it's clunky to have to say "Britain's exit from the EU" every time, but "Brexit" is basically the geopolitical Brangelina.
Reply
(07-20-2018, 07:12 AM)muzman Wrote: I've been trying to pay more attention to UK politics thanks to all this stuff, (by listening to James O'Brien roast people mostly, which might be a bit one eyed...) but I think my biggest takeaway, the thing I'm tired of the most is Brexit.
Not the UK leaving the EU, but the word Brexit.  It's a godawful Sun headline chimera word that has no business being anywhere near a hansard or any official document .  And now it's a permanent fixture of the great English language.  Just terrible.

I don't know. An ugly, tiresome, unnecessary word pretty much epitomises an ugly, tiresome, unnecessary endeavour. 

O'Brien is pretty good. Yes, he's very much part of the bubble, and sometimes he loses a grip on precision for the sake of rhetoric, but the balance of evidence based argument versus simple talking points is good and he will forever be a favourite of mine for being one of the few (maybe the only one) who successfully goaded Farage into showing his true colours.
Reply
Just listened to this NPR/FreshAir interview...
Quote: Reporter Shows The Links Between The Men Behind Brexit And The Trump Campaign
The Guardian's Carole Cadwalladr's investigation into Cambridge Analytica's role in Brexit has led her to Russian connections and the Trump campaign. She says British investigators are now "working very closely with the FBI."


Quote:GROSS: So I want to bring up the name of another British figure who Americans are probably not familiar with but played a key role in the Brexit campaign and may be a link to Russia. And his name is Arron Banks. So tell us first what his role was in Brexit.

CADWALLADR:
So Arron Banks, he's a businessman based in Bristol, in the West Country here, and he's the bankroller of it. So Arron Banks gave more money towards the Brexit campaign than any other person in Britain. And he is this strange and - I wouldn't say strange character, but there's just so many questions. Essentially, we don't know where Arron Banks' money comes from. And that is a source of one other investigation into Britain. He's married to a Russian woman, Katya Banks.

One of the things we found out about Arron Banks, which I've reported on in the last sort of six weeks or so, is this close relationship that we have discovered with the Russian ambassador in London. Now, this is a direct link to the Mueller investigation because the Russian ambassador in London, he's called Ambassador Yakovenko, and he turned up in the Mueller indictments in November last year. So it was when George Papadopoulos got indicted. And all sorts of meetings and connections and relationships were uncovered in that, which ran through London. And one of the key people he met in London was Ambassador Yakovenko. And Ambassador Yakovenko is described by Mueller as a high-level contact between the Trump campaign in the Kremlin.

The one quote that jumped out-

Quote:CADWALLADR: That's right. People in America, I don't think, have realized this fully. And people in Britain certainly haven't realized this fully. But they overlap very, very distinctly. And, you know, one of the points we have in common with America is simply that our laws and our democracy was not prepared for what hit it in 2016. And by that, I mean because all of our laws were around sort of ensuring that our vote was free and fair in terms of a sort of 19th century model of how you run elections and how you control spending. And with the rise of the Internet, that just changed everything.
I used to be with "it", but then they changed what "it" was. Now, what I'm with isn't "it", and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me. -Grandpa Simpson
Reply
I'm just still stunned that an actual country decided 51% on a vote was enough to dictate the most important policy decision of a generation. It's basically using a public opinion vote to enact constitutional changes. That's lunacy.

Maybe require a % high enough that the outcome won't be different based on the previous night's ads?
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
(Yesterday, 02:37 PM)farsight Wrote: I'm just still stunned that an actual country decided 51% on a vote was enough to dictate the most important policy decision of a generation. It's basically using a public opinion vote to enact constitutional changes. That's lunacy.

Maybe require a % high enough that the outcome won't be different based on the previous night's ads?

Oh it was a dumb thing to do to hold the referendum either way. But honestly, if it had come through with a majority wanting to leave the European Union and they didn't do it because it didn't reach a pre-ordained number, it would have just empowered the Brexiteers even more. We'd probably have been in the same situation in two or three years time.
Reply
In the US, states have regular ballot measures for things like laws and taxes that require 51% votes... but anything that would alter the state/federal constitution requires a 67% vote.

So legalize weed? 51%. Pay for some new roads? 51%. But split the state in three parts? 67% because if you're going to do something crazy, you'd better -mean- it. 67% is, "HELL YES'. 51% is, 'Sure, I guess'.

I have to think that the Brexit vote tossed out a sizable number of pre-existing fundamental laws and policies. Punting the future of your country shouldn't be done on a shrug.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
I don't disagree. If Cameron (twat) had put that up front before calling it, things might have been different. Still, you're looking at a huge swathe of the country that suddenly says "We want out of the EU" and then the political party in charge ignoring that. It's unlikely that party would surive the next election either way. And it's possible the opposition would exploit that in turn.
Reply
A lot can change in 2-3 years. You think Brexit would have had the same support after Trump got elected?
Reply
Polls are meaningless, but after the complete shambles of the last two years... and it has been a COMPLETE mess, and with Trump and so forth, the polls still put Brexit support at about 40% with staying only a little bit higher. I dread to think what the state of things would have been if the politicians had just stood up to the result and said "No, it's a bad idea" and then everyone could have harped on about missed opportunities and so on.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)