We have a constitution based on convention and precedent, and the decision of Parliament in 2015 went against all convention, to hold a public vote on an issue that the government had no policy was without precedent. All previous examples in the UK (and, most examples elsewhere in the world) of the use of a referendum was to ask the people to confirm their approval of a government policy. The 2016 vote did not do that, therefore it's basically unconstitutional.
In 2015 Parliament voted to hold that vote in the stupid and unprecedented form, and to "respect the result". In doing so, they voted to put EU membership front and centre of British politics for the next couple of decades. Over four years so far, many many more to come. The only way that EU membership wouldn't be the only issue of British politics for the rest of my life was if the vote in 2016 gave a big majority in favour of Remain.
So, thanks a lot Mr Cameron for fucking everything, not just a pig. We have 10 years to radically change our society and economy, and for the rest of the world to join us, to avert climate disaster. We've had a decade of austerity that we need to repair. The world will need to unite to address the crises of refugees from war and climate. Instead we've spent our time discussing the most stupid idea ever devised, Leaving the EU, pandering to a bunch of fascists and racists. Bollocks.
You don't agree with the process mainly because you are unhappy with the result. 'Austerity' was necessary because the previous government had messed up the economy.
@Alan Cresswell thought the process was flawed before the result came out. Searching the old Ship is hard work, but here’s an example (about a third of the way down the psge of what Alan was saying during the referendum campaign
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on 19 June, 2016 18:57 :
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What question in your considered opinion should have been posed, if not a simple yes/no one?
I think there is a place for a simple yes/no question. But, the time for that is after a national discussion on the issues in hand. Probably to ratify (or reject) an Act of Parliament, with the government wanting a specific constitutional change.
At this stage the nation is just starting the debate (in the context of a non-specific and ill-timed question). We need a Parliament that has debated the issues in an intelligent and serious manner (yeah, I can dream), and that probably means we need some MPs specifically elected on an "out-of-EU" ticket (even if that means UKIP).
Double-posting to add that austerity was a mistaken policy which was driven by a particular ideology and which has been widely discredited as a response to the economic situation at the time.
And finally, it is an error to regard the difficulties facing the coalition government and its successors as being
because the previous government had messed up the economy
But then if a government is going to implement a harmful and wrong-headed policy, misdirection and blaming are understandable defence mechanisms.
The original result was very close so to respect it the government should have carefully thought and should have taken us with them. Instead they listened to hard leavers. That is the reason for the mess. That and an unprecedented referendum for which there was no policy. The general election came back with a strong result. OK. As far as I am concerned those who lent their vote to Boris and are members of the Labour Party or members of a Labour club should have their membership card shredded and be banned.
As I have posted in voting for Brexit they did not bother about their fellow Brits, those in need, and those who will need medical help. Thanks.
We have a constitution based on convention and precedent, and the decision of Parliament in 2015 went against all convention, to hold a public vote on an issue that the government had no policy was without precedent. All previous examples in the UK (and, most examples elsewhere in the world) of the use of a referendum was to ask the people to confirm their approval of a government policy. The 2016 vote did not do that, therefore it's basically unconstitutional.
In 2015 Parliament voted to hold that vote in the stupid and unprecedented form, and to "respect the result". In doing so, they voted to put EU membership front and centre of British politics for the next couple of decades. Over four years so far, many many more to come. The only way that EU membership wouldn't be the only issue of British politics for the rest of my life was if the vote in 2016 gave a big majority in favour of Remain.
So, thanks a lot Mr Cameron for fucking everything, not just a pig. We have 10 years to radically change our society and economy, and for the rest of the world to join us, to avert climate disaster. We've had a decade of austerity that we need to repair. The world will need to unite to address the crises of refugees from war and climate. Instead we've spent our time discussing the most stupid idea ever devised, Leaving the EU, pandering to a bunch of fascists and racists. Bollocks.
You don't agree with the process mainly because you are unhappy with the result. 'Austerity' was necessary because the previous government had messed up the economy.
No; mainly (as an American), the whole process seemed to be screwed up.
It's as though the world went mad: The Brits voted, against their own interests, for Brexit, and the Americans voted, against the interests of anyone not keen on narcissistic sociopaths, for Trump. Kyrie eleison.
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
I believe in democracy. Before the referendum I decided that I would respect the result, no matter what it was.
Yes but you pig headed moron, voting for something fucking stupid doesn't stop it from being fucking stupid, or from fucking people's lives up. Those who voted for it are accountable for the fact that this shit is happening.
I believe in democracy. Before the referendum I decided that I would respect the result, no matter what it was.
Yes but you pig headed moron, voting for something fucking stupid doesn't stop it from being fucking stupid, or from fucking people's lives up. Those who voted for it are accountable for the fact that this shit is happening.
Thanks for your kind comments but I never said how I voted in 2016.
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That's a story you can tell yourself. It's simple enough, I suppose. Says more about you than the political situation in the UK, though.
It says that I am able to state the bare facts of the matter. Do you have another reason why Labour lost in 2010? It was nothing to do with ' Brexit'
In 2010 the impact of the 2008 world financial crisis was being felt significantly in the U.K., and the Conservative party was successful in spinning that as mismanagement of the economy by Labour. (In addition, boundary changes meant that even on the same voting figures as 2005 Labour would have had 9 fewer seats.)
True, but, alas, there are some diehards (or fuckwits, if you prefer, as this is Hell) who will NEVER accept the plain truth that any other factors - other than Labour's perceived incompetence - affected the country in 2010.
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That's a story you can tell yourself. It's simple enough, I suppose. Says more about you than the political situation in the UK, though.
It says that I am able to state the bare facts of the matter. Do you have another reason why Labour lost in 2010? It was nothing to do with ' Brexit'
In 2010 the impact of the 2008 world financial crisis was being felt significantly in the U.K., and the Conservative party was successful in spinning that as mismanagement of the economy by Labour. (In addition, boundary changes meant that even on the same voting figures as 2005 Labour would have had 9 fewer seats.)
Add into the mix that Labour had been in power for a long time and there's always a "time to give the other lot a try" faction in British society at that point.
David Cameron was seen by many as a fresh face, a dynamic and progressive leader.
The Tories had enjoyed a lead in the polls for over three years before the election, ie: they were leading in the polls before the 2008 crash, so even before then when the UK economy was growing Labour were losing out in the polls.
The Tories had enjoyed a lead in the polls for over three years before the election, ie: they were leading in the polls before the 2008 crash, so even before then when the UK economy was growing Labour were losing out in the polls.
Blair had screwed the pooch over Iraq, and Gordon Brown lacks charisma.
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That's a story you can tell yourself. It's simple enough, I suppose. Says more about you than the political situation in the UK, though.
It says that I am able to state the bare facts of the matter. Do you have another reason why Labour lost in 2010? It was nothing to do with ' Brexit'
In 2010 the impact of the 2008 world financial crisis was being felt significantly in the U.K., and the Conservative party was successful in spinning that as mismanagement of the economy by Labour. (In addition, boundary changes meant that even on the same voting figures as 2005 Labour would have had 9 fewer seats.)
In 2015 there had been 5 years of this 'austerity' 7 years in 2017 and nearly 10 years in 2019.
One could argue that the electorate did not disprove of the policy
The electorate would not disapprove of a policy to force everyone to live on a cardboard box under a flyover with only rat-on-a-stick to eat, just as long as the people over there they didn't like were also denied the rats-on-sticks.
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That's a story you can tell yourself. It's simple enough, I suppose. Says more about you than the political situation in the UK, though.
It says that I am able to state the bare facts of the matter. Do you have another reason why Labour lost in 2010? It was nothing to do with ' Brexit'
In 2010 the impact of the 2008 world financial crisis was being felt significantly in the U.K., and the Conservative party was successful in spinning that as mismanagement of the economy by Labour. (In addition, boundary changes meant that even on the same voting figures as 2005 Labour would have had 9 fewer seats.)
In 2015 there had been 5 years of this 'austerity' 7 years in 2017 and nearly 10 years in 2019.
One could argue that the electorate did not disprove of the policy
It's probably true that Labour lost because people believe they stuffed up the economy. What you said, though, was that Labour actually did stuff up the economy, which is simply false.
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That's a story you can tell yourself. It's simple enough, I suppose. Says more about you than the political situation in the UK, though.
It says that I am able to state the bare facts of the matter. Do you have another reason why Labour lost in 2010? It was nothing to do with ' Brexit'
In 2010 the impact of the 2008 world financial crisis was being felt significantly in the U.K., and the Conservative party was successful in spinning that as mismanagement of the economy by Labour. (In addition, boundary changes meant that even on the same voting figures as 2005 Labour would have had 9 fewer seats.)
In 2015 there had been 5 years of this 'austerity' 7 years in 2017 and nearly 10 years in 2019.
One could argue that the electorate did not disprove of the policy
It's probably true that Labour lost because people believe they stuffed up the economy. What you said, though, was that Labour actually did stuff up the economy, which is simply false.
There's this strange conjecture, that I've heard myself on the doorstep, that the Conservative Party are the party for the economy, that they (and only they) are safe hands for business and general prosperity. It's a mantra that has been repeated ad infinitum for decades, but there's no evidence at all to support it. The UK (post war) economy has mostly simply responded to the global economy - boom when the global economy booms, crashes when it crashes. UK government policy, regardless of party, has had very little influence on the economy. But, during Thatcher and Major governments as the world pulled out of the oil crisis the UK government gutted many British industries and sold off our property at bargain prices removing what could have been the foundation of more sustained growth, and introducing deregulation of financial markets that took even more power over the economy from government putting it into the hands of the markets and international financiers (and laying the ground work for the 2008 crash). From 2008 the Brown government was bringing the country out of the crash steadily, recovery that stalled almost immediately as the Conservative fanatics starved the economy through the policy of austerity in a mad bid to cut the modest national debt, which along with xenophobic immigration policy that cut the flow of labour and the associated economic benefits stalled the economy and made very little difference to the level of debt. Of course, economically, there's little that could be more disastrous than leaving the EU, a "party for the economy" would never even consider Brexit.
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That's a story you can tell yourself. It's simple enough, I suppose. Says more about you than the political situation in the UK, though.
It says that I am able to state the bare facts of the matter. Do you have another reason why Labour lost in 2010? It was nothing to do with ' Brexit'
In 2010 the impact of the 2008 world financial crisis was being felt significantly in the U.K., and the Conservative party was successful in spinning that as mismanagement of the economy by Labour. (In addition, boundary changes meant that even on the same voting figures as 2005 Labour would have had 9 fewer seats.)
In 2015 there had been 5 years of this 'austerity' 7 years in 2017 and nearly 10 years in 2019.
One could argue that the electorate did not disprove of the policy
It's probably true that Labour lost because people believe they stuffed up the economy. What you said, though, was that Labour actually did stuff up the economy, which is simply false.
It's not false. It all happened on their watch. The Conservatives failed to get a majority in 2010 but did so in 2015 after 5 years of this 'austerity' How do you explain that ?
How to explain how you neglecting all the previous explanation and clinging to your oversimplified fingers-in-ears-while-shouting methodology? I'm going to go with: "You are really stupid".
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That's a story you can tell yourself. It's simple enough, I suppose. Says more about you than the political situation in the UK, though.
It says that I am able to state the bare facts of the matter. Do you have another reason why Labour lost in 2010? It was nothing to do with ' Brexit'
In 2010 the impact of the 2008 world financial crisis was being felt significantly in the U.K., and the Conservative party was successful in spinning that as mismanagement of the economy by Labour. (In addition, boundary changes meant that even on the same voting figures as 2005 Labour would have had 9 fewer seats.)
In 2015 there had been 5 years of this 'austerity' 7 years in 2017 and nearly 10 years in 2019.
One could argue that the electorate did not disprove of the policy
It's probably true that Labour lost because people believe they stuffed up the economy. What you said, though, was that Labour actually did stuff up the economy, which is simply false.
Yes, because the banking sector wasn't sufficiently regulated. Not a point in favour of the Tories, though, because they spent all that time saying 'Gordon Brown's over-regulation is stifling innovation in the City'.
The Conservatives failed to get a majority in 2010 but did so in 2015 after 5 years of this 'austerity' How do you explain that ?
Because people believed Labour had stuffed up the economy. Like I said in the first sentence of the post you are quoting.
You don't agree with the process mainly because you are unhappy with the result. 'Austerity' was necessary because the previous government had messed up the economy.
No; mainly (as an American), the whole process seemed to be screwed up.
It's as though the world went mad: The Brits voted, against their own interests, for Brexit, and the Americans voted, against the interests of anyone not keen on narcissistic sociopaths, for Trump. Kyrie eleison.
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That whole argument is a layer cake of bullshit. The supposed mismanagement of the economy was otherwise known as the Finance Crisis of 2008 and a response to that which treated the markets with a degree of respect that the Tories would if anything have succeeded, followed by a persecutory fantasy known as austerity which goes to prove that the British public remains as anacephalic as ever. Idiots will idiot, especially if told to by people they decide are harmless.
Votes are no guarantee of democracy, and democracy is no guarantee of sense.
"Souls of men, why will you follow
Like a flock of frightened sheep?"
Is the slightly altered hymn lyric that springs to mind.
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That's a story you can tell yourself. It's simple enough, I suppose. Says more about you than the political situation in the UK, though.
It says that I am able to state the bare facts of the matter. Do you have another reason why Labour lost in 2010? It was nothing to do with ' Brexit'
In 2010 the impact of the 2008 world financial crisis was being felt significantly in the U.K., and the Conservative party was successful in spinning that as mismanagement of the economy by Labour. (In addition, boundary changes meant that even on the same voting figures as 2005 Labour would have had 9 fewer seats.)
In 2015 there had been 5 years of this 'austerity' 7 years in 2017 and nearly 10 years in 2019.
One could argue that the electorate did not disprove of the policy
It's probably true that Labour lost because people believe they stuffed up the economy. What you said, though, was that Labour actually did stuff up the economy, which is simply false.
It's not false. It all happened on their watch. The Conservatives failed to get a majority in 2010 but did so in 2015 after 5 years of this 'austerity' How do you explain that ?
Because the lib dems fell apart and most of the tory gains were from them. Are you really this pig-ignorant or are you engaged in some sort of trollish variant on the Socratic method?
He has a nerve, saying business have known about Brexit since 2016, and should be prepared. But Mrs May was always talking of frictionless alignment, which Boris has abandoned. How can a company make sense of this?
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That's a story you can tell yourself. It's simple enough, I suppose. Says more about you than the political situation in the UK, though.
It says that I am able to state the bare facts of the matter. Do you have another reason why Labour lost in 2010? It was nothing to do with ' Brexit'
In 2010 the impact of the 2008 world financial crisis was being felt significantly in the U.K., and the Conservative party was successful in spinning that as mismanagement of the economy by Labour. (In addition, boundary changes meant that even on the same voting figures as 2005 Labour would have had 9 fewer seats.)
In 2015 there had been 5 years of this 'austerity' 7 years in 2017 and nearly 10 years in 2019.
One could argue that the electorate did not disprove of the policy
It's probably true that Labour lost because people believe they stuffed up the economy. What you said, though, was that Labour actually did stuff up the economy, which is simply false.
It's not false. It all happened on their watch. The Conservatives failed to get a majority in 2010 but did so in 2015 after 5 years of this 'austerity' How do you explain that ?
Because the lib dems fell apart and most of the tory gains were from them. Are you really this pig-ignorant or are you engaged in some sort of trollish variant on the Socratic method?
Why do you feel the need to insult other posters ?
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That's a story you can tell yourself. It's simple enough, I suppose. Says more about you than the political situation in the UK, though.
It says that I am able to state the bare facts of the matter. Do you have another reason why Labour lost in 2010? It was nothing to do with ' Brexit'
In 2010 the impact of the 2008 world financial crisis was being felt significantly in the U.K., and the Conservative party was successful in spinning that as mismanagement of the economy by Labour. (In addition, boundary changes meant that even on the same voting figures as 2005 Labour would have had 9 fewer seats.)
In 2015 there had been 5 years of this 'austerity' 7 years in 2017 and nearly 10 years in 2019.
One could argue that the electorate did not disprove of the policy
It's probably true that Labour lost because people believe they stuffed up the economy. What you said, though, was that Labour actually did stuff up the economy, which is simply false.
It's not false. It all happened on their watch. The Conservatives failed to get a majority in 2010 but did so in 2015 after 5 years of this 'austerity' How do you explain that ?
Because the lib dems fell apart and most of the tory gains were from them. Are you really this pig-ignorant or are you engaged in some sort of trollish variant on the Socratic method?
Why do you feel the need to insult other posters ?
Why do you feel the need to ignore the sign over the door on your way in?
Labour inherited the boom and bust culture from the Thatcher/Major government. They steadied the economy. Brought prosperity. They left the country in better shape than they found it, even with the crash.
It's always also been lastminute.com with confirming arrangements on all the previous potential exit dates.
Even more interesting is that Javid was on the board of Deutsche Bank, during the crash. They have had more fines, than I've had hot dinners, including $7 billion to the US over the financial crash, and toxic financial securities. But remember, it's Labour's fault.
In fact, it was Labour's fault that Javid was at Deutsche Bank. He wanted to be a train driver, but several Labour ministers recommended him to the bank. (I made this up).
It's always also been lastminute.com with confirming arrangements on all the previous potential exit dates.
Even more interesting is that Javid was on the board of Deutsche Bank, during the crash. They have had more fines, than I've had hot dinners, including $7 billion to the US over the financial crash, and toxic financial securities. But remember, it's Labour's fault.
Deutsche Bank is also up to their eyeballs into whatever "interesting" financial arrangements the Great Orange One has, being the only bank still willing to lend him money after the previous bankruptcies. This may or may not be related to allegations of their involvement in Russian money laundering. Nonetheless I'm sure Javid wouldn't have been involved in anything like that.
Comments
@Alan Cresswell thought the process was flawed before the result came out. Searching the old Ship is hard work, but here’s an example (about a third of the way down the psge of what Alan was saying during the referendum campaign
And finally, it is an error to regard the difficulties facing the coalition government and its successors as being But then if a government is going to implement a harmful and wrong-headed policy, misdirection and blaming are understandable defence mechanisms.
As I have posted in voting for Brexit they did not bother about their fellow Brits, those in need, and those who will need medical help. Thanks.
Thanks to their handling of the economy Labour lost power in 2010 and after another 3 elections they are in an even worse position.
That's a story you can tell yourself. It's simple enough, I suppose. Says more about you than the political situation in the UK, though.
Yes but you pig headed moron, voting for something fucking stupid doesn't stop it from being fucking stupid, or from fucking people's lives up. Those who voted for it are accountable for the fact that this shit is happening.
(Fixed coding - Rossweisse)
The difficulties facing any government are always attributable to the actions/inaction of any previous government by an opposing party.
I'm not holding my breath...as, sadly, this country (well, Little England, at any rate) has Lost The Plot.
It says that I am able to state the bare facts of the matter. Do you have another reason why Labour lost in 2010? It was nothing to do with ' Brexit'
Thanks for your kind comments but I never said how I voted in 2016.
In 2010 the impact of the 2008 world financial crisis was being felt significantly in the U.K., and the Conservative party was successful in spinning that as mismanagement of the economy by Labour. (In addition, boundary changes meant that even on the same voting figures as 2005 Labour would have had 9 fewer seats.)
David Cameron was seen by many as a fresh face, a dynamic and progressive leader.
The Tories had enjoyed a lead in the polls for over three years before the election, ie: they were leading in the polls before the 2008 crash, so even before then when the UK economy was growing Labour were losing out in the polls.
Blair had screwed the pooch over Iraq, and Gordon Brown lacks charisma.
Oh sorry you are not quoting the song
In 2015 there had been 5 years of this 'austerity' 7 years in 2017 and nearly 10 years in 2019.
One could argue that the electorate did not disprove of the policy
It's probably true that Labour lost because people believe they stuffed up the economy. What you said, though, was that Labour actually did stuff up the economy, which is simply false.
A cardboard box?
Aye!
LUXURY!
It's not false. It all happened on their watch. The Conservatives failed to get a majority in 2010 but did so in 2015 after 5 years of this 'austerity' How do you explain that ?
How to explain how you neglecting all the previous explanation and clinging to your oversimplified fingers-in-ears-while-shouting methodology? I'm going to go with: "You are really stupid".
Yey, cast into the outer darkness.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51157933
Here are some pretty graphs.
Yes, because the banking sector wasn't sufficiently regulated. Not a point in favour of the Tories, though, because they spent all that time saying 'Gordon Brown's over-regulation is stifling innovation in the City'.
Because people believed Labour had stuffed up the economy. Like I said in the first sentence of the post you are quoting.
(P.S. Silly question, but why do you need to SHOUT your username? I'm not being snarky - really! - but that's how it comes across, IMHO, anyway).
It's as though the world went mad: The Brits voted, against their own interests, for Brexit, and the Americans voted, against the interests of anyone not keen on narcissistic sociopaths, for Trump. Kyrie eleison.
[/quote]
That whole argument is a layer cake of bullshit. The supposed mismanagement of the economy was otherwise known as the Finance Crisis of 2008 and a response to that which treated the markets with a degree of respect that the Tories would if anything have succeeded, followed by a persecutory fantasy known as austerity which goes to prove that the British public remains as anacephalic as ever. Idiots will idiot, especially if told to by people they decide are harmless.
Votes are no guarantee of democracy, and democracy is no guarantee of sense.
"Souls of men, why will you follow
Like a flock of frightened sheep?"
Is the slightly altered hymn lyric that springs to mind.
I don't need to. I just choose to.
Because the lib dems fell apart and most of the tory gains were from them. Are you really this pig-ignorant or are you engaged in some sort of trollish variant on the Socratic method?
He has a nerve, saying business have known about Brexit since 2016, and should be prepared. But Mrs May was always talking of frictionless alignment, which Boris has abandoned. How can a company make sense of this?
Why do you feel the need to insult other posters ?
Why do you say such things ?
Why this is Hell nor are we out of it.
Why do you feel the need to ignore the sign over the door on your way in?
Even more interesting is that Javid was on the board of Deutsche Bank, during the crash. They have had more fines, than I've had hot dinners, including $7 billion to the US over the financial crash, and toxic financial securities. But remember, it's Labour's fault.
Deutsche Bank is also up to their eyeballs into whatever "interesting" financial arrangements the Great Orange One has, being the only bank still willing to lend him money after the previous bankruptcies. This may or may not be related to allegations of their involvement in Russian money laundering. Nonetheless I'm sure Javid wouldn't have been involved in anything like that.