Originally Posted by The Wengerbabies
Surely that would only work if it worked both ways. A super majority for change but a basic majority for the status quo hardly seems fair
Surely that would only work if it worked both ways. A super majority for change but a basic majority for the status quo hardly seems fair
That's a bit of a stretch. You can't sensibly compare a referendum on a single issue with an election where multiple issues are at hand. Of course the referendum, or the aftermath of it, dominated the discussions in 2019. But all Boris said in 2019 was that he'd "get Brexit done". By that point pretty much everyone was sick of it and I don't think anyone would have voted for a party who were saying they'd disregard the referendum result. Only extreme pro-Europe parties who had no chance of getting in and thus could say what they liked were promising that.
Labour promised a second referendum, whichever way that would have worked out would have disregarded the original referendum result. 2017 and 2019 were explicitly Brexit elections, May held the election in 2017 to get the majority she wanted in order to get her Brexit deal through. 2019 as I stated was a de-facto referendum on the withdrawal agreement, by which the choice to the country was either a Tory majority under Johnson or a coalition under Corbyn. Both choices were totally unpalatable to me so I chose not to vote. And whether the voters motivation for giving the Tories a majority to pass the withdrawal bill…that’s what they did…three years after being offered a chance to change their mind.
It was also a Tory tactic to deal with the Euro sceptics in their own party, that backfired badly because the remainers (most of all Cameron) were criminally complacent about what they all assumed would be a forgone conclusion in favour of staying in the EU. As usual there was no seeming awareness that Brexit was an empty promise of better days for the UK that unrelated grievances would coalesce around. Western democracy is increasingly moribund as an effective way of governing countries in the best interests of their populations because there is a wholesale lack of either understanding as to how to solve the problems facing us or willingness to take (or even explain) necessary decisions for long term benefit. Instead government policy is shaped almost entirely by what politicians think will keep themselves in power - following rather than directing an uninformed voting public...
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
Corbyn was basically unelectable. "The people" rejecting him is not an endorsement of Johnson or his Brexit plans.
No a super-majority to undertake a huge change is reasonable, maintaining the status quo shouldn't require overwhelming consent.
Cameron was definitly part of the problem. For a lot of people it was just a protest vote against the government, they really had no idea what they were voting for just to "give the Tories a bloody nose"
Pro-2nd ref parties actually got more votes then Johnson, it was just split. I'd also wager a lot of remain voting blue wall constituencies would have voted LD had they not been more fearful of Corbyn than Brexit. Johnson was lucky Corbyn was so bad.
They'll be dancing in the streets of The Wengerbabies' house tonight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68378818
I was originally of the view that it was irresponsible to revoke her citizenship, not out of any concern for her but because I think Britain shouldn’t be making other people responsible for its garbage.
The problem is though if she was brought back here it would be impossible to prosecute her because the crimes were extra territorial and because there’s almost no one alive left who could testify as to what she did or didn’t do.
It’s far from ideal but those who predictably cry racism also conveniently forget that the same treatment was meted out to Jack Letts. Basically because Begum is a dual national we can do what we’ve done, unfortunately for her Bangladesh takes a very dim view on terrorism and almost certainly would indict her and pass down a death sentence.
Andrew Drury, a journalist who has met her on several occasions in the refugee camp in Syria has stated that the contrition she shows on air is completely feigned. Let her rot in one of Assad’s jails for all I care.
To be honest she’s come across as very insincere from the start. She can do one. Frankly she should count herself lucky anyway because it would be near enough impossible for her to reintegrate into society here. I’d give it a week tops before someone recognised her and took matters into their own hands.
got to say i agree with every word of that
Reply With Quote
