Snap UK General Election

[Arakhor]

Which is not mutually exclusive with being the EU by a long way, of course.

 

[Borachio]

Well the way I see it. Hatred is an emotional state, not really an argument and certainly not a coherent argument.

Fair enough.

But it's possible to express the same idea without referring to hatred.

"The reason I'm not in favour of uncontrolled immigration is that immigrants place a strain on the infrastructure, devalue labour, and don't integrate well", for instance.

But in the end, it may just be more honest and less mealy-mouthed to say "I hate immigrants".

 

[Traitorfish]

The primary argument for me for Leaving is:

"democratic national self determination".

I mean, UKIP campaigned to abolish the national assemblies, so you're not really speaking for the team on that one.

 

[Colon]

This week:

 

[Lillefix]

This week:

A couple of seconds I thought the Economist predicted a Muslim invasion if Britain left the EU.

 

[Arakhor]

More like an exodus if the current rise in racially-motivated hate crimes isn't soon checked.

 

[Kyriakos]

May seems to be the most buried.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I mean, UKIP campaigned to abolish the national assemblies, so you're not really speaking for the team on that one.

I am not a member of UKIP so there is no reason why I should speak for their team.

For the last general election; the UKIP manifesto to be found at

http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2017

included:

A FAIR DEAL FOR
ALL FOUR NATIONS
The public widely regards the United Kingdom’s current devolutionary system as fundamentally unfair,
particularly to the English. UKIP will put England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the same footing
by instituting a new English Parliament. It will sit in the chamber vacated by the House of Lords, have
its own First Minister, and its 375 members will be elected under the Additional Member system
of proportional representation, one or more from each traditional county or large city and 125
top-up seats. All four nations will have broadly similar devolved powers and none will have power over matters
affecting the whole of the UK, such as foreign policy, defence of the realm, or constitutional matters.

which reads to me as being more about extending the concept of national assemblies to England not abolishing them.

I have no idea what UKIP members were campaigning for in Scotland, perhaps their Scottish campaign was independent.

 

[Arakhor]

Whilst also apparently abolishing the House of Lords and creating a whole new array of politicians to waste taxpayers' money upon. UKIP are just full of good ideas.

 

[Ajidica]

I wouldn't have written you down as a Monarchist Arakhor. I thought you were in favor of abolition of the House of Lords.

 

[Traitorfish]

So it turns out that UKIP has at various times proposed both abolish the national assemblies and creating an English parliament. I suppose that's my mistake for trying to identify them with any consistent or sincere policy position.

 

[Arakhor]

I wouldn't have written you down as a Monarchist Arakhor. I thought you were in favor of abolition of the House of Lords.

The House of Lords could certainly do with being reformed, but axing it entirely with no replacement just to create an English white elephant is a much worse idea, especially as the Lords form part of our bicameral system and the absolute geniuses behind the UKIP platform clearly have no idea why that's important.

It's also worth noting that "English Votes for English Laws" proponents never seem to point out that any 'English' assembly would have a baked-in majority for Tories, even whilst they're busy complaining about the sizeable numbers of (unelected, naturally!) Labour & Liberal members in the Lords.

I'm also definitely in favour of the continuation of the monarchy. It's great for tourism, spares us from the potential horrors of a presidential system and allows us to continue roundly hating the Prime Minister without needing to criticise the Queen.

 

[Kyriakos]

The House of Lords could certainly do with being reformed, but axing it entirely with no replacement just to create an English white elephant is a much worse idea, especially as the Lords form part of our bicameral system and the absolute geniuses behind the UKIP platform clearly have no idea why that's important.

It's also worth noting that "English Votes for English Laws" proponents never seem to point out that any 'English' assembly would have a baked-in majority for Tories, even whilst they're busy complaining about the sizeable numbers of (unelected, naturally!) Labour & Liberal members in the Lords.

I'm also definitely in favour of the continuation of the monarchy. It's great for tourism, spares us from the potential horrors of a presidential system and allows us to continue roundly hating the Prime Minister without needing to criticise the Queen.

There is the issue of having a very clear-cut case of some people being born in the purple (or red, cause english don't have purple die aspirations). Which can be significant, even for symbolic reasons. Moreso to young people and children, who are met with the icon of a royal family that has massive palaces due to being born in the house of Windsor Saxe-Gotha-Coburg.
The royal line isn't even "english" since Charles II, iirc.

 

[Borachio]

It certainly wasn't English with Charles II. He, you will recall, was a Stuart. And the Stuarts are Scots.

In fact, it's quite hard to find any English monarchs at all. They've nearly all been Danish, Norman French, Welsh, Scots, Dutch or German.

 

[Arakhor]

Because of course members of royalty retain their distant ancestors' nationality, no matter where they were born or brought up.

 

[Borachio]

Well, yes. Why wouldn't they?

The whole idea behind monarchy is that of inheritance, isn't it?

Blood will out. Or so they'd have me believe.

 

[Kyriakos]

Because of course members of royalty retain their distant ancestors' nationality, no matter where they were born or brought up.

Spoken like a loyal subject of the Saxe-Gothas.

 

[Arakhor]

Spoken like a loyal subject of the Saxe-Gothas.

I am neither Belgian nor Bulgarian.

 

[Leoreth]

You're completely ignoring the point. On purpose or not is the question.
If you live in Athens, you have zero influence on how someone in Knossos will vote. Yet it's democratic.
If you live in Greece you have zero influence on how someone in Germany will vote. Why is it suddendly undemocratic ?

Not to mention that meantime in Germany, many voters are opposed to the idea to give money to Greece because they have no democratic control over how it will be spent. It's not a position I share but if you really want to make that sort of argument it easily cuts both ways.

 

[Kyriakos]

Not to mention that meantime in Germany, many voters are opposed to the idea to give money to Greece because they have no democratic control over how it will be spent. It's not a position I share but if you really want to make that sort of argument it easily cuts both ways.

Does it, now? Germany has earned a pretty penny/billion euro from being a pawn-broker, so it didn't hurt it at all. That people read Bild is not something to be proud of either. It is also the country standing to lose half its GDP if the euro is dissolved.

And, pls, heed the words of Arakh /alpacino theypullmebackin.gif