No, hold them accountable at the next ballot box. It's called democracy, it's a concept we've had for hundreds of years to which you might want to familiarise yourself with.
Printable View
No, hold them accountable at the next ballot box. It's called democracy, it's a concept we've had for hundreds of years to which you might want to familiarise yourself with.
Won't change a fait accompli, though :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Again, BS. Parliament can't promise to give up its sovereignty. It can't make any referendum binding because only it has the right to pass laws. I'm not aware of any changes to your unwritten constitution where parliament gives up this right.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You're mistaken; the constitution of the UK is whatever is claimed during a political campaign. And Parliament is just a crumbling building filled to the rafters with potential traitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Hence the difference between legally and politically binding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
BS. Parliament is sovereign, if it wants to pass a binding referendum it can do so. Like the AV Referendum, which was binding. The Supreme Court made a bit of a dig at Parliament for not sorting out the Article 50 issue in the original referendum Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Oooooh, I had forgotten all about The Poodle.
And they mistook May for a pornstar :D
Your characterization of the AV referendum is inaccurate. It was not "binding" because parliament had made political promises. It was "binding" because it was a post-legislative referendum and parliament would've had to pass an amendment to the law in question if it'd wished to ignore the outcome.
No it is not inaccurate as I never said it was binding because of "political promises". In fact I said that Parliament could have dealt with "the Article 50 issue in the original Referendum Act" so I clearly meant by legislation. All Referendums only happen after legislation.
Of course even there after "binding legislation" Parliament could always choose to pass a new law reversing that as you say. However politically that would be implausible, just as politically this one was binding if not legally so. As David Cameron and countless others said when he passed the legislation.
You can't make this shit up; Theresa Maybe is going to get a Daily Fail editor as her spokesperson. Rand must be relieved.
Predicting right now govt working party to be set up to finally identify, definitively, which inanimate objects cause and which prevent cancer.
I couldn't care less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I'd almost be tempted to frame that an 'alternative fact'.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Using online polls of England's brightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I'm sure all of the cancer risks are EU related.
"Scientists raise alarm: bananas can cause EU"
Communications role filled by media man is a 'dog bites man' story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Yeah, alternative facts already.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No, just fact facts. Name a holder of that office that wasn't a media man/woman?
My new sig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
:)
Parliament has voted 498 to 114 to invoke Article 50. Presumably this isn't enough yet to cause the immediate recession that would be followed immediately after a Leave vote.
You keep trying to move the goal posts; Brexit is Brext. And we are going to have fun with it.
Good we all will. Then we can have Swexit.
I don't know what kind of alt-right buttholes you've been sniffing but it's astonishing that you don't realize that Swexit would only come about if Swedish politics were taken over by actual nazis and people who want to shoot n*ggers, Muslims, "gypsies" and journalists (those that remain after the press has been "taken care of"). The party is full of protectionist populists. There is little that would be more damaging to Swedish society and the fact that you're glibly joking about it shows either how clueless you are or how abominable your views on immigrants have become.
I'm happy about the vote in London last night. To bad for the Scots though.
Or that I don't think that is the "only" way it could come about. The UK didn't leave because UKIP became a majority in Parliament. Swexit will happen if it happens because a mainstream party is willing to consider Swexit because it is popular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The only major party that wants that is indeed the Swedish equivalent--and worse--of UKIP, and in their desperation to retain power our equivalent of the Tories have made overtures towards cooperating with those shitheads in the hopes that appeasement will save them from irrelevance. Their faustian bargain, like that of the Tories, risks turning Sweden into a racist dump like the UK. hardly something to strive for. It's really tragic how you've managed to lie to yourself so persuasively that you now actively want everyone to pursue the agendas of Trump, Le Pen and Putin. It's almost as if you don't care about immigrants, which, I guess, is not particularly surprising. But it is truly sad.
Just like for a long-time the only party that wanted Brexit was UKIP. In fact Brexit wasn't even a term until a couple of years ago. The EU is driven forward with an insane idea of "more Europe" being the solution to anything and without the UK as a counterweight within Sweden is going to be in the unpleasant situation of being completely dominated within the EU by the Eurozone members. If the Eurozone nation states are going to stop being nation states and just subsets of the EU then it makes sense for Sweden to either exit or join the euro.
I think there's a 50/50 chance that there will be a Swedish European referendum by 2030 (roughly a decade after Brexit finally happens). Either a join the Euro referendum, or an exit the EU one. I'd currently look at Swexit being more likely than Euro membership.
The way to reject racists is not to reject any popular stances they may have no matter how legitimate, it is to do the reasonable and popular politics yourself and leave them with just the lunatic positions. I find all of Trump, Le Pen and Putin to be "deplorables".
How big is that telescope you use exactly?
I would like to point out that Cameron led the Tories in opposing Brexit. All three major parties in Britain were against it. I don't know what your population and politics are like but purely on structural terms your counterargument here does not seem compelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Exactly. All it takes is for the question to be put, then the voters can have a mind of their own.