Jump to content

Brexit shenanigans


bernorange

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Red Jeremy v. May is SIMILAR to our Trump v. Hillary conundrum (our degree of shittiness was, sadly, worse).  But if you're in a position of "yeah, May sucks.....so let's go with Corbyn..."...well, that sucks.

And yes, the EU has issues.  Picking up your ball and going home, and shooting your own dick off in the process, is a TERRIBLE solution to those issues.

If anyone was playing their gotdamn cards right, they would use this process and impulse among the voters of one of the major nation parties to the EU to parlay into some meaningful changes to the EU.  But nobody is looking farther than 1/4 inch in front of their own nose.  Bunch of goddamned children having tantrums.  I'd lecture them, but....we're already awkwardly seated in one of the tiny chairs at the kid's table.

 

31 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

God, he is.  But the Government just lost a vote on a critical national issue by 230 votes.  Even if the Government survived a no-confidence motion, I don't know how May can remain in office.

Jeremy Corbyn is the British equivalent of Trump.  He should scare the shit out of anyone with a modicum of intelligence.  

And Brisket, I am 100% in agreement with you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just want to note that the UK, a country of 66M people, have 650 MPs in the commons, and 785 in the lords. 
meanwhile, the united states, a country of more than 325M people, have 435 representatives in the house, and 100 senators.
carry on.
That's what we need. More pigs feeding at the trough.
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DaysOff said:
1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:
just want to note that the UK, a country of 66M people, have 650 MPs in the commons, and 785 in the lords. 
meanwhile, the united states, a country of more than 325M people, have 435 representatives in the house, and 100 senators.
carry on.

That's what we need. More pigs feeding at the trough.

right now, on average, our reps represent 750,000 people. The MPs are around 100,000 people.

that's the best way to hold representatives accountable. they need to be more local. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

right now, on average, our reps represent 750,000 people. The MPs are around 100,000 people.

that's the best way to hold representatives accountable. they need to be more local. 

So - what's the right number? To me, it seems we are basically close to the size of a somewhat manageable meeting. You can go up, but it gets more and more unwieldy, the members know each other less and less and you just run into physical plant restraints.

If we did 1 per 100,000 - that would be 3250 representatives. That sounds a bit strange.

 

Found some data.

In number of people to representative, we are currently third behind India and the EU.  Following us are Bangladesh, China, Pakistan and it just keeps dropping slowly.

We have the 26th largest representative body (just looking at the house), and the house is the 19th largest of the bicameral bodies.

 

So - based on just what other countries are doing, I could see us doubling the number of representatives, but I stated my reasons above for not going too big.

Edited by relapse98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

So - what's the right number? To me, it seems we are basically close to the size of a somewhat manageable meeting. You can go up, but it gets more and more unwieldy, the members know each other less and less and you just run into physical plant restraints.

If we did 1 per 100,000 - that would be 3250 representatives. That sounds a bit strange.

i don't know, but it's worth discussing. we have been capped at 435 for more than a century. given the population growth in that time, it seems rather arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but whatever elementary-school teacher taught you (and millions of kids like you) this stupid thing needs to be slapped.  It's not that it's unnecessarily pedantic.  It's just wrong.
Whether we're a "democracy" or a "republic" simply depends on whether you favor Ancient Greek or Latin.
The word "democracy" derives from the Greek terms "demos," meaning "people" and "kratia," meaning "power" or "governance."  So a "demokratia" is literally a "government by the people."
The word "republic" comes from the Latin "res," meaning "thing" and "publicus" meaning "of the people" or "public."  So the Respublica was the "thing of the people."
In other words, the two terms--democracy and republic--mean exactly the same thing in two different languages.
Somewhere people got confused, because Athens was a direct democracy and Rome was a representative democracy.  And since Rome gave rise to the term "republic," they erroneously concluded that a "republic" only meant a representative democracy.  And if a republic is a representative democracy, then for some reason a "democracy" can only be a direct democracy.
But that makes no sense, either linguistically, historically, or logically.  
We are a republic.  We are also a representative democracy.  It's the same fucking thing.

You misspelled “shitshow.” We’re a “shitshow.” Pretty sure that’s Aramaic or something.
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm sorry, but whatever elementary-school teacher taught you (and millions of kids like you) this stupid thing needs to be slapped.  It's not that it's unnecessarily pedantic.  It's just wrong.

Whether we're a "democracy" or a "republic" simply depends on whether you favor Ancient Greek or Latin.

The word "democracy" derives from the Greek terms "demos," meaning "people" and "kratia," meaning "power" or "governance."  So a "demokratia" is literally a "government by the people."

The word "republic" comes from the Latin "res," meaning "thing" and "publicus" meaning "of the people" or "public."  So the Respublica was the "thing of the people."

In other words, the two terms--democracy and republic--mean exactly the same thing in two different languages.

Somewhere people got confused, because Athens was a direct democracy and Rome was a representative democracy.  And since Rome gave rise to the term "republic," they erroneously concluded that a "republic" only meant a representative democracy.  And if a republic is a representative democracy, then for some reason a "democracy" can only be a direct democracy.

But that makes no sense, either linguistically, historically, or logically.  

We are a republic.  We are also a representative democracy.  It's the same fucking thing.

Needs to be less than 240 characters or emblazoned in a cartoon with a stupid ass frog.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, the Brits have Trumpkins too, going by that clip.

The pro-Brexit guy was the perfect example of an emotional, scared old guy. Who doesn’t like the progress of his count, is seeing his way of life die off, and won’t listen to anything that doesn’t support his opinions.

A bunch of bollocks, that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Damn, the Brits have Trumpkins too, going by that clip.

The pro-Brexit guy was the perfect example of an emotional, scared old guy. Who doesn’t like the progress of his count, is seeing his way of life die off, and won’t listen to anything that doesn’t support his opinions.

A bunch of bollocks, that.

He's proper fucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mish opines that a no deal brexit is the most likely outcome looking ahead:

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/no-deal-brexit-is-the-most-likely-outcome-2nd-referendum-the-least-likely-DwMKHEPCVkuCgXdCddKx0Q/

I don't know that he's right on public or MP sentiment, but unless the EU agrees to a deadline extension (not likely), a new election doesn't appear to be possible within the required time frame to stop the ball that is already rolling.  Also, the logistics of finding someone to replace May and keep a coalition together with enough clout to negotiate a new deal with the EU doesn't seem very likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Damn, the Brits have Trumpkins too, going by that clip.

The pro-Brexit guy was the perfect example of an emotional, scared old guy. Who doesn’t like the progress of his count, is seeing his way of life die off, and won’t listen to anything that doesn’t support his opinions.

A bunch of bollocks, that.

Yeah, it’s remarkable.  He thinks Britain alone was responsible for winning WW2 and anyone that disagrees with his position is consuming fake news.  

Just goes to show Trumpism isn’t an American phenomenon.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Mish opines that a no deal brexit is the most likely outcome looking ahead:

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/no-deal-brexit-is-the-most-likely-outcome-2nd-referendum-the-least-likely-DwMKHEPCVkuCgXdCddKx0Q/

I don't know that he's right on public or MP sentiment, but unless the EU agrees to a deadline extension (not likely), a new election doesn't appear to be possible within the required time frame to stop the ball that is already rolling.  Also, the logistics of finding someone to replace May and keep a coalition together with enough clout to negotiate a new deal with the EU doesn't seem very likely.

Wouldn't it be in the EU's interest to give them an extension for a re-vote?  I can't imagine the EU wants Britain to spiral into chaos, purely because of the economic consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Homercles said:

I’d say just vote again but since our own senate can’t even manage that I feel like a hypocrite.

Personally, I wouldn't have had a non binding referendum to begin with. What a fucking shit show. Ask the (admit it we mostly are) uneducated populace if they want to do A or B and not give them all the details of A (leaving) because those details weren't developed at that time. I think Brisket said it, it's like asking kids if they want recess every period. Of course they fucking do, because they are stupid.

But now that they've gone down this road, I would ask the EU for more time, which I believe the EU has said they could have, and call another referendum. Or just call the whole fucking thing off, which the EU has said they can, because it was retarded to do a non binding referendum to start with.

 

Don't get me started on referendums and initiatives, they are for the most part a very bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, relapse98 said:

Personally, I wouldn't have had a non binding referendum to begin with. What a fucking shit show. Ask the (admit it we mostly are) uneducated populace if they want to do A or B and not give them all the details of A (leaving) because those details weren't developed at that time.

This.

It's like when the kid running for student body president offers free ice cream every Friday.  There's no explanation of who will pay for it, when it will be distributed, what flavors, etc. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Js1 said:

This.

It's like when the kid running for student body president offers free ice cream every Friday.  There's no explanation of who will pay for it, when it will be distributed, what flavors, etc. 

Or the jackass that runs for president and says Mexico is going to pay for his wall.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, bernorange said:

This bit from Sunday seems to indicate that the EU would be willing to extend the deadlines:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/13/eu-preparing-to-delay-brexit-until-at-least-july

Are we past the playing hardball bit of negotiating?

(I will note in post 335 you said an extension was unlikely)

Quote

A “technical” extension until July is a probable first step to give May extra time to revise and ratify the current deal once Downing Street has a clear idea as to what will command a majority in the Commons.

Haha. Yeah. She isn't going to revise shit. It will end up being a no exit. No way parliament does a no deal exit. That would be the worst option imaginable.

Edited by relapse98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@relapse98 - Yeah, my earlier comment was based upon what I knew at the time.  New (to me) shit has come to light.  It does seem (at least from the article referenced) that the EU may have some unrealistic expectations underpinning the willingness to extend the time.  It doesn't appear that the UK will build any Brexit deal consensus within the parameters that the EU has demanded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally believe the EU will give Britain the time they need to come to staying, if it appears they continue moving in that direction. No deal exit is the worst of all ideas, for everyone involved. Its just a BOOM out of it, band aid ripped off and a whole lotta uncertainty and businesses LOVE uncertainty (which we are obviously at right now with Brexit but ripping that bandaid off in 1 day, that's worse).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, the Brits have Trumpkins too, going by that clip.

The pro-Brexit guy was the perfect example of an emotional, scared old guy. Who doesn’t like the progress of his count, is seeing his way of life die off, and won’t listen to anything that doesn’t support his opinions.

A bunch of bollocks, that.
They owned 30 percent of the planet a hundred years ago. Now it's a tiny island with bad dental. Hard pill to swallow for some.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...