4 ms·

The UK had 3 different votes on this (the original referendum + 2 elections after), the UK government promised to follow the referendum again and again, and hav

by yyyk 3y ago

The UK had 3 different votes on this (the original referendum + 2 elections after), the UK government promised to follow the referendum again and again, and having a poor policy is hardly 'killing everyone'. When push comes to shove, British Remainers simply lost the vote, and Corbyn screwed them over and over afterwards.

jodrellblank 3y ago
See? You have nothing better to say about it than "you simply lost, ha ha". You aren't even trying to argue that anything has improved. (Even Nigel Farage has given up trying to argue that anything has improved!) You don’t think it’s weird that a majority were in favour of “a democratic vote” and a majority were in favour of the coronation of a new unelected monarch? Or the difference between a Democratic vote and having rules “pushed on us” by Europe’s votes? Or how people in London are closer to Calais than they are to Glasgow and do more trade to Europe but some how see it as us/them?) (And you are even agreeing that we all got screwed over - but you are somehow blaming a guy from 7 years ago who didn't get elected, rather than the Conservative government in power whose demonstrated behaviour is screwing the ordinary people over and over, decade after decade).
- yyyk 3y ago
  >See? You have nothing better to say about it than "you simply lost, ha ha" Why would I argue about that? I'm not British. I don't make their decisions, and UK being/not-being in EU has zero effect on me. Devaluing the democratic process will have an effect on me. I kinda want my vote to not be entirely ignored if there's ever a popular referendum in my country (a non-zero possibility due to.. reasons, but the likely issues aren't related to the EU). >You don’t think it’s weird that a majority were in favour of “a democratic vote” and a majority were in favour of the coronation of a new unelected monarch The monarch has zero power. >you are somehow blaming a guy from 7 years ago I did follow the news. There was an option for the parliament to declare a new government without elections 4 years ago, which could have dramatically shifted from Brexit. This required Corbyn to vote for a compromise candidate to PM since Tory rebels would have never voted for him personally. Guess what happened? He said me or stay with Boris, and the UK ended with the 2020 elections and Boris.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    > "Why would I argue about that? I'm not British" You're happy to join in trying to close down the thread by dumping on the losers, why would you stop at arguing about it? > "Devaluing the democratic process will have an effect on me." Unless it involves the monarchy? Or all the other non-democratically run things like the civil service, companies, charities, the courts, etc. which are organised with a single CEO/leader/judge/hierarchy giving orders top down instead of democratically voting. And why would it be "devaluing the democratic process" if the vote had been arranged to require a supermajority instead of a simple majority, for example? > "The monarch has zero power." The monarch has power in a self-fulfilling way because they are famous and people listen to what they say; the monarch is Head of the Church of England and has power that way. The Monarch controls enormous wealth - estimated close to half a billion for the monarch and 88 billion for the combined UK royal family and has power and influence that way. They have power through networking with powerful people and organisations such as heading up the Commonwealth of Nations or weekly secret and private meetings with the Prime Minister. Even on a day to day basis the monarch is outside the law when it comes to not needing a passport or driving license and "civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person" - are these things not devaluing what it means to live in a democracy, for you? That some people by birth have sovereign immunity to criminal procedings? > "There was an option for the parliament to declare a new government without elections 4 years ago, which could have dramatically shifted from Brexit. This required Corbyn to vote for a compromise candidate to PM since Tory rebels would have never voted for him personally. Guess what happened? He said me or stay with Boris, and the UK ended with the 2020 elections and Boris." Hang on, why aren't you blaming the "Tory rebels" for not voting for Corbyn, instead of blaming Corbyn? Why aren't you blaming the Tory government for not stepping down, instead of blaming Corbyn for not stepping down? Why aren't you blaming the Tory government for fucking things up, instead of blaming Corbyn for not saving the day?
    - yyyk 3y ago
      >You're happy to join in trying to close down the thread by dumping on the losers, why would you stop at arguing about it? Because a few of the arguments basically devolve to things that would affect me as explained above? I did get carried away... >are these things not devaluing what it means to live in a democracy, for you? Ultimately a democracy can contain single persons having a lot of unearned wealth and occasional meetings with the PM. If not, there are way bigger fish to fry (in the UK case: Murdoch for example). It would have been fine if the UK wanted a supermajority, but I wonder if membership was a politically survivable possibility if vote went the same way. >Hang on, why aren't you blaming the... I was describing the sequence of events. The Tories locked themselves into supporting Brexit once Cameron resigned, so the only possible alternative path came from the opposition. There were several opportunities to change course, but the opposition bungled it up over and over even when the had the votes. In my country, it's obvious that when parliament has the votes for an alternative coalition, your duty is to compromise to get the government out, not hold on for PM post.

by yyyk 3y ago

jodrellblank 3y ago

See? You have nothing better to say about it than "you simply lost, ha ha". You aren't even trying to argue that anything has improved. (Even Nigel Farage has given up trying to argue that anything has improved!) You don’t think it’s weird that a majority were in favour of “a democratic vote” and a majority were in favour of the coronation of a new unelected monarch? Or the difference between a Democratic vote and having rules “pushed on us” by Europe’s votes? Or how people in London are closer to Calais than they are to Glasgow and do more trade to Europe but some how see it as us/them?) (And you are even agreeing that we all got screwed over - but you are somehow blaming a guy from 7 years ago who didn't get elected, rather than the Conservative government in power whose demonstrated behaviour is screwing the ordinary people over and over, decade after decade).

yyyk 3y ago
>See? You have nothing better to say about it than "you simply lost, ha ha" Why would I argue about that? I'm not British. I don't make their decisions, and UK being/not-being in EU has zero effect on me. Devaluing the democratic process will have an effect on me. I kinda want my vote to not be entirely ignored if there's ever a popular referendum in my country (a non-zero possibility due to.. reasons, but the likely issues aren't related to the EU). >You don’t think it’s weird that a majority were in favour of “a democratic vote” and a majority were in favour of the coronation of a new unelected monarch The monarch has zero power. >you are somehow blaming a guy from 7 years ago I did follow the news. There was an option for the parliament to declare a new government without elections 4 years ago, which could have dramatically shifted from Brexit. This required Corbyn to vote for a compromise candidate to PM since Tory rebels would have never voted for him personally. Guess what happened? He said me or stay with Boris, and the UK ended with the 2020 elections and Boris.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  > "Why would I argue about that? I'm not British" You're happy to join in trying to close down the thread by dumping on the losers, why would you stop at arguing about it? > "Devaluing the democratic process will have an effect on me." Unless it involves the monarchy? Or all the other non-democratically run things like the civil service, companies, charities, the courts, etc. which are organised with a single CEO/leader/judge/hierarchy giving orders top down instead of democratically voting. And why would it be "devaluing the democratic process" if the vote had been arranged to require a supermajority instead of a simple majority, for example? > "The monarch has zero power." The monarch has power in a self-fulfilling way because they are famous and people listen to what they say; the monarch is Head of the Church of England and has power that way. The Monarch controls enormous wealth - estimated close to half a billion for the monarch and 88 billion for the combined UK royal family and has power and influence that way. They have power through networking with powerful people and organisations such as heading up the Commonwealth of Nations or weekly secret and private meetings with the Prime Minister. Even on a day to day basis the monarch is outside the law when it comes to not needing a passport or driving license and "civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person" - are these things not devaluing what it means to live in a democracy, for you? That some people by birth have sovereign immunity to criminal procedings? > "There was an option for the parliament to declare a new government without elections 4 years ago, which could have dramatically shifted from Brexit. This required Corbyn to vote for a compromise candidate to PM since Tory rebels would have never voted for him personally. Guess what happened? He said me or stay with Boris, and the UK ended with the 2020 elections and Boris." Hang on, why aren't you blaming the "Tory rebels" for not voting for Corbyn, instead of blaming Corbyn? Why aren't you blaming the Tory government for not stepping down, instead of blaming Corbyn for not stepping down? Why aren't you blaming the Tory government for fucking things up, instead of blaming Corbyn for not saving the day?
  - yyyk 3y ago
    >You're happy to join in trying to close down the thread by dumping on the losers, why would you stop at arguing about it? Because a few of the arguments basically devolve to things that would affect me as explained above? I did get carried away... >are these things not devaluing what it means to live in a democracy, for you? Ultimately a democracy can contain single persons having a lot of unearned wealth and occasional meetings with the PM. If not, there are way bigger fish to fry (in the UK case: Murdoch for example). It would have been fine if the UK wanted a supermajority, but I wonder if membership was a politically survivable possibility if vote went the same way. >Hang on, why aren't you blaming the... I was describing the sequence of events. The Tories locked themselves into supporting Brexit once Cameron resigned, so the only possible alternative path came from the opposition. There were several opportunities to change course, but the opposition bungled it up over and over even when the had the votes. In my country, it's obvious that when parliament has the votes for an alternative coalition, your duty is to compromise to get the government out, not hold on for PM post.