Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hrothbern, Mar 22, 2019.
^If only there was an actual vote just on Leave or Remain, right?
My cynical version as answer ?
For too many MPs this whole Remain-Leave issue is an disturbing inconvenience... they are interested in getting elected again in the next elections, starting with the next election.
And for too many ambituous MPs it is just an opportunity for their career.
We have already on the menu:
* the Tory infighting for a new PM on the short term (the Tory 1922 committee seeking a way to change their rules)
* the local elections on May 2
* the EU elections on May 23-26 as cliff edge ingredient (for the Tories)
That's for sure enough to get a better assessment for what next
I do wonder BTW what happens if those EU elections do not take place in the UK ?
If nothing else happens in time like that Corbyn-May talks leading to a possible compromise, or a Revoking of Art 50 (emergency brake)... I understand the UK is out per June 1 in a no-deal fashion.
That means that the no-deal Tory faction could aim to obstruct holding those EU elections.
AFAIK May only made the necessary steps to be able to hold them, but I cannot remember a motion being passed in Parliament, that the government is forced to hold them (if there is not a May deal or a May-Corbyn deal in time).
If that is so...
the no-deal Brexiteers only need to get their PM in power (with that 1922 action) and simply do not hold EU elections.
and the soft-Brexiteers and Remainers need to eliminate that possibility with a motion in Parliament.
Am I wrong here ?
Back to your question Kyr... I guess the situation will for everybody be more clear after May 23 and June 1
Speak for yourself, I know who my local FPTP representative is: Clive Lewis for Norwich South
The UK's FPTP is fine for electing a local representative. Although it is arguable that STV is better.
The current problem of FPTP is that central party structures control the nomination process, de facto preventing local democracy.
What FPTP it is not good at is representing opinions that are widely dispersed throughout the country.
I never heard this version before! Thank you!
In a multiparty PR system it is easy to discouple local democracy from the final top layer of Parliament.
Most of the elections I vote on different parties between local and national elections (we have a dozen parties and I swap between 2 sometimes 3).
Why force the total party and election structure into one system for both needs ?
I don't believe that it is so valuable that your local representative sits on the big table of Parliament.
And it stiffles and surpresses opinons of the voters, that do not flow easily to the future direction of the party.
If your central party structure (with all the member meetings) allows a list that is much bigger than the likely number of seats to win, you offer the voter the choice who is going to sit on those seats !
If I want to vote for party C, I have still the choice between the Nr1 on the list, or the highest woman on the list, or someone younger than the stiffled elite, or an eurosceptic in an europhile party (!!!), or someone from my province /city, or someone in an Climate sceptic party that is absolutely pushing renewables, etc, et.
I do not need to be a member of the political party and engage in time consuming struggles... I can make my own choices in my own time in what direction my party should go. Much more democratic imo.
That nomination process is no longer owned by the party tigers, but a hybrid. In those nomination meetings it does count who got last election many "preferential" votes.
And if someone with many preferential votes, does not get the weight in the party for the direction, he can set up his own party without tresholds. Enough of a threat to have party bosses want to prevent that and adapt their doctrines.
Much more practical choice than voting all the time on that same, meanwhile ageing MP, that loses connection with the mood. Whether that is climate or eurosceptic, or whatever. I have more choices.
It is their break through hit in the US. They picked it because it was already a popular song in the US.
They were still experimenting with their style including how much testosteron there should be in their music (especially in the US at that time )
I like in this version the guitar riff at the start and the, for me, more dreamlike effect.
Note how they end "time is on my side".. with "side" going up in pitch... more uncertain-question like. Later they keep it flat or go down in pitch, and leave it almost away. More dominant macho.
That no-deal scenario for June 1 is then eliminated.
I guess we are then back in the "nothing really happens" waiting game... the stew brewing
That seems the most likely outcome.
The question is what will the majority Remainer UK Parliament strategy be:
(a) Revoke the invocation of Article 50
(b) Organise another UK referendum
(c) Seek further delay until confident of getting away with (a) or winning (b).
That's possible. The question will then need to be why ?
We have for now a period of an imploding Tory party as visible manifestation that Brexit is not as easy as it was sold.
I guess revoking Art 50 as emergency brake to prevent an accidental no-deal cliff edge cannot be excluded, but not as outcome of an orderly parliamentary process.
The Tories are in government, have the PM... Labour the outlook on winning the next national elections... the Remainers going for that confirmatory referendum in an as much as possible orderly way.
Can the Tories prevent new elections this year ?
The Remainers are thinking about the new campaign strategy for that new referendum. They do not want to put too much focus on the disadvantages of Leaving, but more focus on the benefits of staying. Flower power approach.
Will not be simple I guess. Many opinions are entrenched. Here a couple of those from an Ipsos poll of October 2018, more than two years after the referendum:
You guys plan to post here non-stop till June? :/
Imo it would be a better idea to let the thread die until there is any actual development. This show is more boring than even Eastenders or HIGNFY after it became full garbage.
Game of Thrones has started
Ever wonder why they did not stress the benefits of staying last time round?
That's why I used "flower power" as words.
The good intentions of wanting to have a non-polarising campaign and no fear-mongering.
If you have as country benefits and do not want to have them anymore because of societal-cultural reasons, how can someone campaign against that without summing up the benefits that you are going to lose ?
Neither of you have answered my question.
@Hrothbern: I would expect the Leave campaign to campaign on the benefits of Leaving;
it being for the Remain campaign to try to summarise the so called benefits of staying.
@Silurian: Expert opinion was divided and is very often biased by the current interests of the expert concerned.
For example: when the Daily Mail's editorial policy was to regularly bash the EU in a way that even I found discouraging me from reading it; their experts;
e.g. Peter Oborne was hostile to EU but when the editorial line changes, firstly in favour of 'May's deal' and then Remain; their published views change to match.
Such Vicar of Bray behaviour, where the output is seemingly chosen to meet the purchaser' preferences, does not encourage faith in the "experts".
Lots of self-absorbed characters, unnecesary slaughter, something about foreign enemies, court struggles… the battle for Westminsteros begins NOW!
Do I read that well ?... to try...the so called... ???
As I said Leaving means losing a lot of existing benefits. Benefits the UK, still in the single market and customs union, still enjoys every day.
The Remain can list those up easily... just as it can easily demonstrate that the claims made in the Leave campaign are mostly rubbish
(except ofc that the color of the passport becomes again blue, and the other self-evident lines)
Here their main message:
And Silurian made already a post on some of the lies and unicorn expectations stated by the prominent campaigners. Boris Johnson ofc the hero in lying and misleading. The power hungry joker.
Yes you did.
Only 67% of people heard the infamous £350m lie? I'm distinctly surprised.
Yet you keep posting here. As Gandhi (didn't) say, "be the change you want to see in the world."
I don't recollect having seen that particular poster before. Frankly it is not very good.
It fails to properly address the point about democratic self determination for the UK.
What may be proven benefits for smaller countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands that are
joined to larger countries such as France and Germany are merely claimed benefits for the UK.
Leave voters tended to be older than Remain voters and developed their views over decades;
many being able to compare life before and after EEC/EC/EU, and formed their own opinion.
The idea that their empty minds were filled by the Leave campaign, is a Remainer delusion.
Separate names with a comma.