The "we haven't left yet" EU election thread.

EU election straw poll

  • UKIP

    Votes: 119 62.6%
  • Labour

    Votes: 6 3.2%
  • Conservative

    Votes: 9 4.7%
  • Green

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • SNP

    Votes: 5 2.6%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 10 5.3%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • DUP

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • Spoil Ballot paper

    Votes: 17 8.9%
  • Can't be ARRSED to vote

    Votes: 15 7.9%

  • Total voters
    190
Well have fun.
I'll have the popcorn and beers ready fro the UK's election count. I have a feeling there may be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
you may well be right, but it remains to be seen who will be doing the wailing and gnashing, current polls show the tories will be trashed, labour not so much. This I think is due to the fact that dyed in the wool labour voters will never vote against their party even if in their hearts they know the party to be wrong , dyed in the wool tories on the other hand can make the mental leap to transfer their vote to another party.
 
[QUOTE="bob_the_bomb, post: 9213218, member:

If you don't like what they're doing, don't vote for them next time.

That's how our representative, parliamentary, democracy works.[/QUOTE]

I quite agree insofar as that is how it should work, the problem arises because parliament abrogated the traditional method of being a representative and gave the choice to the people.
Therefore the option of being a representative is now gone, they all agreed to it, they all stated publicly that the decision would be honoured. So now we are in the unusual process of having to do things in a different way.
After stating throughout the whole referendum process, and the manifestos for the general election and the enactment of the withdrawal act, that the outcome of the referendum would be honoured., we come to the part where they all realise that its gone a bit off message and that the people have got it wrong and they want to deny it.

That to me is not democracy in any way or form
 
[QUOTE="bob_the_bomb, post: 9213218, member:

If you don't like what they're doing, don't vote for them next time.

That's how our representative, parliamentary, democracy works.
I quite agree insofar as that is how it should work, the problem arises because parliament abrogated the traditional method of being a representative and gave the choice to the people.
Therefore the option of being a representative is now gone, they all agreed to it, they all stated publicly that the decision would be honoured. So now we are in the unusual process of having to do things in a different way.
After stating throughout the whole referendum process, and the manifestos for the general election and the enactment of the withdrawal act, that the outcome of the referendum would be honoured., we come to the part where they all realise that its gone a bit off message and that the people have got it wrong and they want to deny it.

That to me is not democracy in any way or form[/QUOTE]

I agree 100%. Once they let the direct democracy genie out of the bottle, anything they do afterwards is going to be viewed in that context.

Nevertheless, although the referendum gave them a direction, it didn't give them a methodology nor did it define the appropriate final end state. That's what most of the argument has been about.

I'd also suggest now that, after this time, we've been able to deconstruct most of the slogans banded around both sides. It's now clearer that there are three main choices:

1. Full-on hard Brexit (and, as discussed above, that wasn't being pushed by many politicos at the time) and the likely difficult effects that will have.

2. Some sort of 'Brexit-lite', like the WA, with all the attendant advantages and disadvantages. Less damage but no real control.

3. Binning the whole business as all too difficult. Embarrassing.

Personally I'd be very annoyed if our MPs go back to normal jogging given the extension is only six months.
 
I quite agree insofar as that is how it should work, the problem arises because parliament abrogated the traditional method of being a representative and gave the choice to the people.
Therefore the option of being a representative is now gone, they all agreed to it, they all stated publicly that the decision would be honoured. So now we are in the unusual process of having to do things in a different way.
After stating throughout the whole referendum process, and the manifestos for the general election and the enactment of the withdrawal act, that the outcome of the referendum would be honoured., we come to the part where they all realise that its gone a bit off message and that the people have got it wrong and they want to deny it.

That to me is not democracy in any way or form
I agree 100%. Once they let the direct democracy genie out of the bottle, anything they do afterwards is going to be viewed in that context.

Nevertheless, although the referendum gave them a direction, it didn't give them a methodology nor did it define the appropriate final end state. That's what most of the argument has been about.

I'd also suggest now that, after this time, we've been able to deconstruct most of the slogans banded around both sides. It's now clearer that there are three main choices:

1. Full-on hard Brexit (and, as discussed above, that wasn't being pushed by many politicos at the time) and the likely difficult effects that will have.

2. Some sort of 'Brexit-lite', like the WA, with all the attendant advantages and disadvantages. Less damage but no real control.

3. Binning the whole business as all too difficult. Embarrassing.

Personally I'd be very annoyed if our MPs go back to normal jogging given the extension is only six months.[/QUOTE]
I agree that full on hard Brexit wasn't being pushed at the time, certainly by the brexiteers, however the other side never let up in banging on about how brexit would be hard, so although many people may just have heard the message they wanted to hear, for a lot of us a complete disentanglement from the EU was what we wanted and were prepared to accept the price.
So I'm for no1
 
I agree 100%. Once they let the direct democracy genie out of the bottle, anything they do afterwards is going to be viewed in that context.

Nevertheless, although the referendum gave them a direction, it didn't give them a methodology nor did it define the appropriate final end state. That's what most of the argument has been about.

I'd also suggest now that, after this time, we've been able to deconstruct most of the slogans banded around both sides. It's now clearer that there are three main choices:

1. Full-on hard Brexit (and, as discussed above, that wasn't being pushed by many politicos at the time) and the likely difficult effects that will have.

2. Some sort of 'Brexit-lite', like the WA, with all the attendant advantages and disadvantages. Less damage but no real control.

3. Binning the whole business as all too difficult. Embarrassing.

Personally I'd be very annoyed if our MPs go back to normal jogging given the extension is only six months.
I agree that full on hard Brexit wasn't being pushed at the time, certainly by the brexiteers, however the other side never let up in banging on about how brexit would be hard, so although many people may just have heard the message they wanted to hear, for a lot of us a complete disentanglement from the EU was what we wanted and were prepared to accept the price.
So I'm for no1[/QUOTE]

Fair enough :)
 
Well worth a listen, even for the first 5 minutes. Interesting take on the Cons, the impact of brexit on politics generally PC intolerance of dissenting views and the marxist background of New Labour leadership.

Listened to it all this morning.
What a rude, pompous, arrogant, conceited and - ultimately - unimpressive man
 
Who in their right mind would resign from their current position to fight a seat in the Europe Parliament only to be out on their arrse again almost immediately, possibly without ever taking their seat?
Will they be compensated for their entire contract like a football manager?
Probably. After all, it's taxpayers' money.
 
Listened to it all this morning.
What a rude, pompous, arrogant, conceited and - ultimately - unimpressive man

If you disregard his style of delivery, which involves his customary hauteur and the rather irritating, finicky punctiliousness of an impatient Oxbridge don, much of the content of what he says is really very sound. But I expect that this impression is really dependant on what is your own standpoint at the outset.

I do disagree with his observation that the EU referendum was completely ill-conceived. It was certainly ill-prepared and the process since has been appallingly and incompetently executed, but he conveniently forgets that it represented the only opportunity for the British voter to properly signal their attitude to continued membership of the EU. There was never going to be another opportunity.

It was a tiny window that appeared for a limited time in an otherwise unyielding Establishment monolith. That it was not properly thought out beforehand was hardly the fault of voters. It was entirely the fault of the Tories, who had regarded it as a slightly inconvenient but ultimately inconsequential process necessary to save Tory parliamentary seats.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
It was entirely the fault of the Establishment who had regarded it as a slightly inconvenient but ultimately inconsequential process necessary to save Tory parliamentary seats.
For which they wll pay in spades!
 
If you disregard his style of delivery, which involves his customary hauteur and the rather irritating, finicky punctiliousness of an impatient Oxbridge don, much of the content of what he says is really very sound. But I expect that this impression is really dependant on what is your own standpoint at the outset.

I do disagree with his observation that the EU referendum was completely ill-conceived. It was certainly ill-prepared and the process since has been appallingly and incompetently executed, but he conveniently forgets that it represented the only opportunity for the British voter to properly signal their attitude to continued membership of the EU. There was never going to be another opportunity.

It was a tiny window that appeared for a limited time in an otherwise unyielding Establishment monolith. That it was not properly thought out beforehand was hardly the fault of voters. It was entirely the fault of the Tories, who had regarded it as a slightly inconvenient but ultimately inconsequential process necessary to save Tory parliamentary seats.
It was when he - crudely and rudlely - insisted, with characteristic certitute that Britain is finished (hell in a handcart crap) that his annoying face, enhanced by his even more annoying voice, merited punching.
He gets into our national debt - blithely ignoring that of other First World/Euro countries
i.e a bogus debater, with an unhealthy ego
 
It was when he - crudely and rudlely - insisted, with characteristic certitute that Britain is finished (hell in a handcart crap) that his annoying face, enhanced by his even more annoying voice, merited punching.
He gets into our national debt - blithely ignoring that of other First World/Euro countries
i.e a bogus debater, with an unhealthy ego
His niche is that of a pompous, higher browed, Richard Littlejohn i.e. everything is going to shit but I haven't got the answer for it. It's developed into a brand which sees him endlessly engage trolls and liberals on twitter to further said brand, with copious peddling of his books which he claims don't benefit him financially.

All that being said, I think he is bang on the money re the perpetual liberal outrage about everything they deem offensive, which in fairness he does a very job of debunking and dismantling, as well as soundly schooling James O'Brien.
 
Last edited:
His niche is that of a pompous, higher browed, Richard Littlejohn i.e. everything is going to shit but I haven't got the answer for it. It's developed into a brand which sees him endlessly engage trolls and liberals on twitter to further said brand, with copious peddling of his books which he claims don't benefit him financially. He'd never, ever admit it, but I strongly suspect he has borrowed heavily from the late right-wing speaker and academic Jonathan Bowden.

All that being said, I think he is bang on the money re the perpetual liberal outrage about everything they deem offensive, which in fairness he does a very job of debunking and dismantling, as well as soundly schooling James O'Brien.
I would welcome a link to the O'Brien one
 
I would welcome a link to the O'Brien one
Unfortunately, as opposed to a youtube link it was a twitter exchange which resulted in JO'B blocking him. In summary, PH tore asunder O'B's working knowledge of the customs union and single market, amongst other things.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top