UK Election 8th of June

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Could be cross-posted under "Britain aims to ban pornography"

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson...e-the-internet

The leftward creep continues :bored:

---

Left? The word you're looking for is illiberal. Or nationalist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Dude, you wanted to "take control" to kick out the dirty foreigners. That's what it always has been about: The rampant racism and xenophobia.

Don't try to paint the turd with gold and sell it as a piece of art. You voted for Brexit, you own the consequences which include having voted for May. And now you'll vote for May again.

So, tell us again how you're "not nationalist".

---

Bullshit. And yes I'll vote for May again, begrudgingly, as should anyone who doesn't believe Venezuela should be our role model.

Gee, I wonder what lesson May and the rest of the Tories will learn from an overwhelming victory on the back of a nationalist platform. Were I a liberal Tory, I'd want May to win, but by the smallest margin possible. That might even lead to an internal "coup."

Yeah worked out so great when Hillary won by a minor margin, sure taught her a lesson right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I liked Cameron, I voted for Cameron three times (leadership election, two general elections). I also liked most of Cameron's cabinet including Leave leaders Michael Gove (sacked by May when she took over) and Boris Johnson, as well as Remain Chancellor George Osborne (also sacked by May when she took over).

However Cameron was a lame duck. He had already announced his intention to retire before the next General Election. Changing your vote on a constitutional matter the consequences of which will change this nation's trajectory forever based on whether you like or dislike a soon to be retired transient head of government is just plain moronic.

Besides this shows why it was more important to vote for Brexit not less. Brexit wasn't about "hating on foreigners and preventing immigrants from coming into the country", it was about taking "control". If we don't like the way the government is acting then Steely and I and anyone else can vote accordingly. Inside the EU if we didn't like the way the Commission was acting we had no control and our elections changed nothing consequential about the EU.

Steely and I, and all other Brits, now face a very stark choice at the next election like the American's faced last time: like Hillary vote for May's Tories, unpleasant but competent. Or like Trump we have Corbyn's Labour, absolutely insane. Or like Stein/Johnson we can abdicate all responsibility because "they're both bad" and go for a meaningless third party and pass on the decision making to everyone else because its clearly safe to virtue signal like this because the insane choice won't win surely (!)

Not the ideal set of choices but we have a choice at least and next time the choice may be different.

---

Laughing out Loud. Seriously dude. Just admit you made monumental mistake. And no, I am not taking any responsibility for pointing out the obvious to you all those years..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Bullshit. And yes I'll vote for May again, begrudgingly, as should anyone who doesn't believe Venezuela should be our role model.

---

Tories promised to cut immigration to levels that can only be reached by severely restricting immigration from outside the EU through this kind of measure. You can't pin it solely on May. This is what British voters wanted from the Tories and it's what you helped give them.

C'est la vie. David Cameron is indeed the one responsible for making this silly tens of thousands pledge that will now be a manifesto commitment for the third time. Didn't agree with it first or second time around either.

Yeah because Cameron wasn't responding to public opinion :rolleyes:

So your point is that the public are responsible? Yes did I ever disagree with that, why roll your eyes at that?

That's democracy and I believe in democracy.

This is why it's nice to have some constitutional protections for minority rights that can't be taken away by a short-term majority. You know, the kind of thing the EU helped with.

No it's not. If we wanted that kind of bullshit we could have our own constitution thank you very much. Which foreign body does the USA rely upon to guarantee its citizens rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No it's not. If we wanted that kind of bullshit we could have our own constitution thank you very much. Which foreign body does the USA rely upon to guarantee its citizens rights?

---

We have checks and balances, separation of power, and judicial review. You do not.

We do in our own way.

No, you really do not.

"First past the post". Isn't that the same kind of bullshit which brought Trump into power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

"First past the post". Isn't that the same kind of bullshit which brought Trump into power?

---

Not really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

No, you really do not.

---

So we don't have judicial review or a Supreme Court that can overrule the government? Interesting, I wonder who the government lost the case to about invoking Article 50 earlier this year then?

Seriously? A power just granted to the court, and one that could be taken away?

Seriously and absolutely yes. We've got a thousand years of history behind evolving our freedoms, democracy and checks and balances. I'd rather that than some new fangled untested hodgepodge.

This reminds me of the Greeks telling the Romans of their greatness.

The Greeks were great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Seriously and absolutely yes. We've got a thousand years of history behind evolving our freedoms, democracy and checks and balances. I'd rather that than some new fangled untested hodgepodge.

---

I don't know what untested hodgepodge you're referring to but the UK doesn't really have anything resembling the kind of judicial review you see in the US. The case about invoking article 50 is a good example of the limited judicial review you have in English law beyond issues that may arise from conflicts with EU laws: a court may rule on the legality of a decision wrt the procedure by which that decision was made.

The untested hodgepodge is relying upon the EU instead of ourselves when in living memory many of that nations in the EU have been dictatorships and when push comes to shove predecessor organisations like the League of Nations did nothing to prevent conflicts and abuse.

As for our system, yes exactly, it works. :)

Regardless, once you leave the EU there will be no meaningful level of judicial review of primary legislation.

On an unrelated topic, I'm glad the world has progressed to a point where you Brits are no longer able to just go around stealing everyone's stuff :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Seriously and absolutely yes. We've got a thousand years of history behind evolving our freedoms, democracy and checks and balances. I'd rather that than some new fangled untested hodgepodge.

---

Are you going into GGT mode where words magically change their meaning? Parliamentary supremacy is the very antithesis of checks and balances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Are you going into GGT mode where words magically change their meaning? Parliamentary supremacy is the very antithesis of checks and balances.

---

No, Parliament will evolve and maintain our own checks and balances, as we have done for a thousand years. No need to rely upon unreliable third party actors.

Unreliable third party actors like your own courts? :bulb:

No, our courts will be integral. Like other nations or the League of Nations etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, Parliament will evolve and maintain our own checks and balances, as we have done for a thousand years. No need to rely upon unreliable third party actors.

---

Definitely in GGT mode. Apparently checks and balances now means one institution checking its own power. :bored:

Let's say the Tories decide they want to ban women from voting. They pass primary legislation which defines a voter as being male. Tell me where the checks and balances kick in.

The first thing that happens is that House of Lords sends the bill back with alterations which amount to 'omg no', what happens after that depends on the specific situation - the composition of parliament, support for such a move amongst the public.