[Politics] Brexit

[Lincoln Imp]

Your theory is correct in identifying the different tactics used by undemocratic loons/extremists across the globe but ignoring the similarities would be dishonest.

See..

Expecting democratic results to be fully enacted if their side prevails.

Trying to delegitimise results they don't like.

Insisting on voting again if the result doesn't go their way.

Using any legislative or parliamentary pathway no matter how arcane or spurious to try and thwart the democratic result they previously agreed should be enacted.

Constantly belittling and talking down to those who don't share their world view.

Having experienced much of the above (along with 17.4 million fellow citizens) I can assure you it doesn't make too much difference how someone tries to ignore your vote it's the fact they are trying it at all that is the shameful act. Fortunately, founding democratic principles prevailed here and will in the US.

Democracy 2 Undemocratic loons 0

In April 1964, Peter Allen killed a man. Four months later Robert Stewart killed Peter Allen. The results were the same. The methods weren’t vastly different. But one was a criminal act and the other was a man doing his lawful job. There are no similarities of consequence between the two - to suggest there are is a libel on the law-abider.

Another parallel, closer to home and with an hypothesis.

Imagine thousands of rioting Brexiteers being incited by Mark Francois and the rest of the ERG cream to rock up at Westminster and batter down the doors to the Commons, rampage round the chamber, terrify the fleeing occupants and pile on to the Speaker’s chair. Guns fire. People die. And all this because they didn’t like the views of the people’s representatives and wanted different opinions to surface.

Now let’s move on to to another situation. Imagine that a powerful and ambitious politician also decided that they didn’t like the views of the people’s representatives and wanted different opinions to surface. But instead of knocking seven bells out of selected honourable members they went back to those who put them there, told them that their views were wrong and that they should think again. And consign the troublesome representatives to the dustbin of history.

Two events. Both aiming to get the same outcome. Nothing in common. One used the time-honoured avenues of our parliamentary democracy and broke no law. The other involved base violence and intimidation and broke a dozen laws.

And you say that they have similarities? That Theresa May’s forlorn attempt to ‘crush the saboteurs” (courtesy Daily Mail) was arcane and spurious, the last throw of an undemocratic loon?

Actually, you’re not saying that. Not in this case. Of course you’re not. You only say that politicians applying the basic and fundemental principles of a representative democracy can be compared to weapon-wielding thugs when it suits your case.

You're not debating. You're simply trotting out nuance-free absolutism.



PS Do I think that May’s attempt to use democratic means to overturn the results of the 2015 general election were spurious, arcane and anti-democratic? No I don’t. They were entirely legal and complied with the rules of our constitution.

 

[nicko31]

My fishermen friends the West Country are having a nice time. Their glittering Brexit prize is , to quote, a “brick wall of bureaucracy” which is costing them money and leaving huge amounts of fish rotting on the quay side.

Idiots.

Used as pawns by the Tories and their right wing offshore billionaires in the press, they got groomed.

I can't engage in schadenfreude...

 

[Lever]

In April 1964, Peter Allen killed a man. Four months later Robert Stewart killed Peter Allen. The results were the same. The methods weren’t vastly different. But one was a criminal act and the other was a man doing his lawful job. There are no similarities of consequence between the two - to suggest there are is a libel on the law-abider.

Another parallel, closer to home and with an hypothesis.

Imagine thousands of rioting Brexiteers being incited by Mark Francois and the rest of the ERG cream to rock up at Westminster and batter down the doors to the Commons, rampage round the chamber, terrify the fleeing occupants and pile on to the Speaker’s chair. Guns fire. People die. And all this because they didn’t like the views of the people’s representatives and wanted different opinions to surface.

Now let’s move on to to another situation. Imagine that a powerful and ambitious politician also decided that they didn’t like the views of the people’s representatives and wanted different opinions to surface. But instead of knocking seven bells out of selected honourable members they went back to those who put them there, told them that their views were wrong and that they should think again. And consign the troublesome representatives to the dustbin of history.

Two events. Both aiming to get the same outcome. Nothing in common. One used the time-honoured avenues of our parliamentary democracy and broke no law. The other involved base violence and intimidation and broke a dozen laws.

And you say that they have similarities? That Theresa May’s forlorn attempt to ‘crush the saboteurs” (courtesy Daily Mail) was arcane and spurious, the last throw of an undemocratic loon?

Actually, you’re not saying that. Not in this case. Of course you’re not. You only say that politicians applying the basic and fundemental principles of a representative democracy can be compared to weapon-wielding thugs when it suits your case.

You're not debating. You're simply trotting out nuance-free absolutism.



PS Do I think that May’s attempt to use democratic means to overturn the results of the 2015 general election were spurious, arcane and anti-democratic? No I don’t. They were entirely legal and complied with the rules of our constitution.

I genuinely admire the sustained effort you put in to make a strong case to sceptics, without resorting to derogatory/personal/rude language. You address the issues, rather than simply deriding the opposing personalities. Although it may make absolutely no difference to their mindset, it might, just might, begin to raise the rhetoric out of the gutter of pointless foul insults. Then again it might not.....

 

[Chicken Run]

I need to check in with my trucker friends as well to see how they are getting on.

Have you checked in with your vaccine procurement friends?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....d-jabs-after-claims-of-bowing-to-anti-vaxxers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Have you checked in with your vaccine procurement friends?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....d-jabs-after-claims-of-bowing-to-anti-vaxxers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

All good here thanks.

 

[Chicken Run]

All good here thanks.

The most itchiest of beards Their Tubthumper [emoji23][emoji23][emoji2357]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[JC Footy Genius]

In April 1964, Peter Allen killed a man. Four months later Robert Stewart killed Peter Allen. The results were the same. The methods weren’t vastly different. But one was a criminal act and the other was a man doing his lawful job. There are no similarities of consequence between the two - to suggest there are is a libel on the law-abider.

Another parallel, closer to home and with an hypothesis.

Imagine thousands of rioting Brexiteers being incited by Mark Francois and the rest of the ERG cream to rock up at Westminster and batter down the doors to the Commons, rampage round the chamber, terrify the fleeing occupants and pile on to the Speaker’s chair. Guns fire. People die. And all this because they didn’t like the views of the people’s representatives and wanted different opinions to surface.

Now let’s move on to to another situation. Imagine that a powerful and ambitious politician also decided that they didn’t like the views of the people’s representatives and wanted different opinions to surface. But instead of knocking seven bells out of selected honourable members they went back to those who put them there, told them that their views were wrong and that they should think again. And consign the troublesome representatives to the dustbin of history.

Two events. Both aiming to get the same outcome. Nothing in common. One used the time-honoured avenues of our parliamentary democracy and broke no law. The other involved base violence and intimidation and broke a dozen laws.

And you say that they have similarities? That Theresa May’s forlorn attempt to ‘crush the saboteurs” (courtesy Daily Mail) was arcane and spurious, the last throw of an undemocratic loon?

Actually, you’re not saying that. Not in this case. Of course you’re not. You only say that politicians applying the basic and fundemental principles of a representative democracy can be compared to weapon-wielding thugs when it suits your case.

You're not debating. You're simply trotting out nuance-free absolutism.



PS Do I think that May’s attempt to use democratic means to overturn the results of the 2015 general election were spurious, arcane and anti-democratic? No I don’t. They were entirely legal and complied with the rules of our constitution.

As I tried to explain it's not about the method or legality it's about the desired outcome (ignoring and undermining democratic results when it suits you), dress it up as much as you want, your goal and the Trump supporters goal were exactly the same, you just took different paths and were both sent packing. Hopefully, Trumpism will go the same way as the Bollox to Brexit party/Lib Dems in future elections.

PS The obvious difference being ... the 2015 result was enacted.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Have you checked in with your vaccine procurement friends?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....d-jabs-after-claims-of-bowing-to-anti-vaxxers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Look over there *runs away*

Classy as ever. (This is the Brexit thread)

 

[Lincoln Imp]

As I tried to explain it's not about the method or legality it's about the desired outcome (ignoring and undermining democratic results when it suits you), dress it up as much as you want, your goal and the Trump supporters goal were exactly the same, you just took different paths and were both sent packing. Hopefully, Trumpism will go the same way as the Bollox to Brexit party/Lib Dems in future elections.

PS The obvious difference being ... the 2015 result was enacted.

I do worry that you talk to yourself because when you come across a part of an argued case you don't like you simply ignore it. It's not a problem.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I do worry that you talk to yourself because when you come across a part of an argued case you don't like you simply ignore it. It's not a problem.

I continually point out your part argued case misses the main point but never mind. No need to worry about me, Brexit enacted, Conservative government for the foreseeable future and the Lib Dems a political irrelevance .. all good my end

 

[A1X]

[TWEET]1347584720390017029[/TWEET]

 

[nicko31]

I continually point out your part argued case misses the main point but never mind. No need to worry about me, Brexit enacted, Conservative government for the foreseeable future and the Lib Dems a political irrelevance .. all good my end

Can I accept "Lib Dems a political irrelevance" as your first submission for benefits of Brexit?

 

[WATFORD zero]

I continually point out your part argued case misses the main point but never mind. No need to worry about me, Brexit enacted, Conservative government for the foreseeable future and the Lib Dems a political irrelevance .. all good my end

And the border in the Irish sea. All your unionist friends will think that's particularly 'all good at your end', I'm sure

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

[TWEET]1347584720390017029[/TWEET]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F83GtW-FVC8
regards
DF

 

[Lever]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...mind-psychology-economy-britain-a7992586.html

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

I need to check in with my trucker friends as well to see how they are getting on.

Watford bloke has a friend you could rely on
regards
DF

 

[JC Footy Genius]

And the border in the Irish sea. All your unionist friends particularly think that's particularly 'all good at your end' [emoji38]ol:

As the delightful Arlene says they have the opportunity to vote to reject the deal in a few years time if they don't like it [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[Lever]

[TWEET]1347584720390017029[/TWEET]

...and Gove is being honest and telling the truth.

New Year's Resolution perhaps?

 

[nicko31]

...and Gove is being honest and telling the truth.

New Year's Resolution perhaps?

So are the Frenchies going to leave their border wide open as well or would they rather "take back control"?

Come on guys, go easy, some of the fish is for you....

 

[Hampster Gull]

This is going well