Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TD1]

And if you're seriously pulling the "The ends justify the means (or the intended means)" card, you've lost the argument. That can be used for anything, and God knows how many atrocities have been perpetuated under that banner. In fact, it gets worse when you go into intent justifies the means. If that's the case then Mao is a veritable hero for starving China since he intended well by accidentally inducing a major famine then covering it up.

Oh, certainly. I hate consequentialism and favour intent over it. But I also don't judge morality by intent alone. I think that in the end it is a balance which the individual must strike him-or-her self.

The EU pulls everything towards their level. In Sweden that might have made it worse, but the UK's politicians are about as trustworthy as a starved dog being told not to eat a sausage that's been left on the floor so they've, as I said, stopped our worst deprivations. Now we've got little dictator wannabes like Johnson in power actively going against democracy because it's only good when you can steamroll over other views.

I think you're being somewhat harsh. The political class is largely the same everywhere, though admittedly with slight variations depending on culture. Also, I doubt Johnson wants to be a dictator. I get the impression he's being politically expedient and sees it as a way to buy himself two weeks' breathing room. It's a break in which he can develop and propose his own, rather than Mays', legislative plans to parliament.

And yes, the EU isn't flawless Dwarfy, but I'd rather take that over what we have. We're in the midst of what's best described as anti-democratic lunacy and the best response is "Yeah well the EU isn't really that good"?

Yes, the EU isn't flawless - and neither is Westminster. I just feel like you've given up on our local democratic process (one which you can help tailor to the nation) before it's had a chance to properly exist after 50 odd years.

[Great Order]

Breathing room would be suspending parliament but letting them come into session again before we leave. This isn't breathing room. This is him choking parliament. They can either kick him to get him off, or not and black out, by which point it's all over.


And maybe I am being harsh, but can you blame me? We've got Farage, who lies and dogwhistles constantly. Boris, who's positions seem to be based on "What can get me power?". Jeremy, who has all the political nouse of a doorknob. Lib Dems, who the fuck even knows at this point, all I know is they're a tainted brand because during the coalition the Tories managed to get everything blamed on them. ChUK wasn't killed, it was a fucking miscarriage. Conservatives are pretty much the party of "Fuck yours, got mine", Labour's currently the party of unworkable solutions and negligent harm. UKIP's the BNP part II: Racism boogaloo. Brexit party is "UKIP became a tainted brand so we bailed but we're actually the same". Basically everyone else is unelectable.


We've been given politicians that are at best morons, and at worst actively malicious. Of course I've got no fucking faith.


I'm also feeling very, very pissed off at Boris's seeming hatred of democracy. As I said in the other thread, he seems to be of the opinion that steamrolling the opposition is the point of it, and if you can't do that then clearly it's failing.

EDIT: Also, Johnson just handed Scotland a veritable fucking arsenal in the independence debate, so the Conservatives have no fucking right to claim they're unionist at this point.

[Great Order]

So the best option is to say "Right, democracy's useless!" and guarantee economic and political issues well into the future, and quite probably move the UK to being just the K?

It also sets a very, VERY dangerous precedent. Unless this ability is removed by law, it's basically saying that the PM can, whenever they want to, suspend parliament to get their own way. And believe it or not, I'm actively opposed to that.

[TD1]

Breathing room would be suspending parliament but letting them come into session again before we leave. This isn't breathing room. This is him choking parliament. They can either kick him to get him off, or not and black out, by which point it's all over.

And maybe I am being harsh, but can you blame me? We've got Farage, who lies and dogwhistles constantly. Boris, who's positions seem to be based on "What can get me power?". Jeremy, who has all the political nouse of a doorknob. Lib Dems, who the fuck even knows at this point, all I know is they're a tainted brand because during the coalition the Tories managed to get everything blamed on them. ChUK wasn't killed, it was a fucking miscarriage. Conservatives are pretty much the party of "Fuck yours, got mine", Labour's currently the party of unworkable solutions and negligent harm. UKIP's the BNP part II: Racism boogaloo. Brexit party is "UKIP became a tainted brand so we bailed but we're actually the same". Basically everyone else is unelectable.

We've been given politicians that are at best morons, and at worst actively malicious. Of course I've got no fucking faith.

I'm also feeling very, very pissed off at Boris's seeming hatred of democracy. As I said in the other thread, he seems to be of the opinion that steamrolling the opposition is the point of it, and if you can't do that then clearly it's failing.

We leave on the 31st October. Prorogation lasts until the 14th. It's not a case of "Kick him out or blackout." I have no doubt the opposition will use the time to coalesce and think through their tactics just as he is.

As for calling various non-racist parties racist, I can't even be bothered arguing. I'm guessing I won't change your mind.

As for moronic or malicious politicians, I don't quite agree. But I will say that however good or bad the politicians are, they are no better or worse than those in Europe. They're just the ones we can hold to account.

Honestly, from an outsider's point of view... what else could he do? There is no deal that the current Parliament will agree to. Not a single one. Anything other than the current deal on the table won't be agreed to by the EU, and Parliament already turned that one down. So the options are... what, exactly? No deal? They turned that one down too. Backpedal? That was also turned down.

Literally every option whatsoever was turned down.

Hence why it's an interesting moral question! Consequentialism, man. *Drags on weed-cigarette* (Fairly certain there's a better word for that....)

Edit: Oh! Oh! Joint!

[smjjames]

So the best option is to say "Right, democracy's useless!" and guarantee economic and political issues well into the future, and quite probably move the UK to being just the K?

It also sets a very, VERY dangerous precedent. Unless this ability is removed by law, it's basically saying that the PM can, whenever they want to, suspend parliament to get their own way. And believe it or not, I'm actively opposed to that.

Wouldn't that involve removing the prorogue ability from the Queen? The problem is that I read somewhere (BBC I think) that the Queen can't be challenged legally for the proroguing and I don't think the PM can prorogue the government themselves without the King/Queens say. Or rather, they can, it'd just be a hell of a coup to do that action.

[Great Order]

If you let it run on for a bit longer, the idea of a second referendum would become more palatable to both MPs and the public. And honestly, a second referendum would be the only thing that can get us out of this mess without devolving into a complete shitstorm and/or constitutional crisis. Allow an STV, place down the options of no deal, an already worked upon and proposed deal (sticking it on a referendum's more likely to get the MPs to agree to it, failing that, a generic "leave with a deal" option), and remain (And if anyone here is about to complain about how that gives remain an unfair advantage because it's split the leave vote, that's why I'd recommend an STV. It stops vote splitting being an issue). That way things can go three ways:
1) We get a majority for no deal. We crash out. The economy and union are both fucked, but at least we avoid the political nightmare. Some people are upset, but at least the majority are content (unless things go really sideways for the economy).
2) We get a majority for a deal. If it's a specific deal, great, it's answered. If it's not, then the remain and no deal MPs are more likely to fall in line with the idea of agreeing to at least something. Again, some people are upset but this is going to probably have the fewest upset people. No-dealers are more likely to see this as at least *a* brexit, and remainers are going to be happy it's at least not a no-deal
3) We get a majority for remain. We remain, some people are upset, there are cries of "Oh so you were just going to do a referendum until you got the result you want?" but ultimately nothing comes of it.

In essence, a second referendum will give us a true mandate. 52% was a very shaky mandate in the first place, turning it from "We're definitely getting a deal!" into "Look you all voted for no deal" basically completely delegitimised the mandate because the referendum never specified that, and 90% of the leave campaigning was saying that we'd get a deal.

Obviously it won't work out this perfectly, but really all the other alternatives involve utterly alienating half of the electorate and potentially slamming one of the first nails into parliamentary sovereignty's coffin.

[Great Order]

As for calling various non-racist parties racist, I can't even be bothered arguing. I'm guessing I won't change your mind.

Ah gee, I forgot that current UKIP MEPs calling asian people "chinks" isn't, in fact, racist. He claimed it was a joke, so that's all 100% OK. Also the bongo-bongo land comment back in 2013. And that thing where a council candidate said that all Asian people are sexual groomers and bombers. They did distance themselves from that, but that was only after it was brought to light, apparently they don't vet their candidates that well.

Like it or not, it's a racist party. It might not say it is, but in much the same way American law enforcement doesn't racially profile people, it actually fucking is. When people at all kinds of levels of the organisation are routinely making racist comments, it's. Fucking. Racist.

The last two examples were from BEFORE Farage distanced himself from UKIP.

And while it's not actually racism, there's also one major fucking streak of islamophobia in it which is its own form of bigotry.

[smjjames]

Even if Parliament somehow managed to set up a second referendum, they'd still have to convince the EU to move the Brexit deadline further and there's no guarantee that they would.

[Great Order]

That and voting on a thing, waiting 5 years, and voting again reminds me a lot of double jeopardy in law- where you can’t keep trying someone for the same crime over and over until you get the result you want.

Which is why, as I said, it can be used to deliver a clear mandate. The last vote's given a not-very-clear (as in 2%) mandate to leave, and that was for every kind of leave available. Nothing was set out in that, most especially not no-deal. There's nothing wrong with going "OK, so we've actually got some options for you..." and asking. Hell, there's a fair chance leave would get more of the vote share because some remainers will have been convinced to go along with brexit since that was decided last time.

At the very least a "no deal or deal" referendum, if the idea of sticking remain on is unpalatable. A referendum got us into this complete mess by delivering a very uncertain mandate. At this point the only thing that can give some real political breathing room is going back to the people to get a proper mandate on bloody something. God knows that the government deciding what goes down isn't going sew anything together.

EDIT: On less "I'm angry" and a more "Dark humour" levels, anyone else being reminded of David's old "Stability with me or chaos with Ed Milliband" soundbite?

[TD1]

3) We get a majority for remain. We remain, some people are upset, there are cries of "Oh so you were just going to do a referendum until you got the result you want?" but ultimately nothing comes of it.

"Some people" will be more than merely upset, I assure you.

Assuming a second referendum were to take place (though why we would want to tear our nation apart with yet more rabid political campaigns I don't know...) the only conscionable options would concern the flavour of leave - either a predetermined deal or no deal. We could throw in varieties of deal just to add spice.

The question of whether to leave has already been voted on, we have already burned our bridges with the EU to get it done, it's been passed into law, and going "nope" is literally the only thing I can think of which is worse than the May Day Deal. I understand you wish the result had been different and that you think the people were misled and we should therefore retake the vote, but that's just not how democracy works.

[Great Order]

We haven't burned all of our bridges. If we stayed in, I can damn near guarantee (Tell you what, I'll eat 3 sheets of paper after writing "I'm a moron" repeatedly on all of them in non-toxic ink if this happens and I'm wrong) that we'd keep our opt-outs for the EU. And while it'll take a bit for anyone to trust us again, give it a decade or two and assuming that we're not in complete turmoil the entire time things will almost be back to normal.

Obviously leave and rejoin would be a different kettle of fish.


And while remain winning ref. 2 would make some people "more than upset", so will no deal brexit. Hell, there were large (though not long lasting) protests against leaving. That's not going to simmer down any time, and if there's even a whiff of economic issues as a result of it their righteous indignation at saying that bad things would happen won't even be the tip of the iceberg.

[smjjames]

That and voting on a thing, waiting 5 years, and voting again reminds me a lot of double jeopardy in law- where you can’t keep trying someone for the same crime over and over until you get the result you want.

The first referendum wasn't legally binding, but you'd definetly get the double-jeopardy feeling from some voters. I was thinking more that the EU 28 27 would just be exhausted due to the way Brexit as a whole has been conducted plus the fact that Parliament can't decide what they even want to do in the first place and just want this whole thing to be over with.

Besides, if Parliament reflects the electorate and if THEY can't decide, what guarantee is there that a second referendum will make things any clearer? That's what Parliament would have to convince the EU about.

We haven't burned all of our bridges. If we stayed in, I can damn near guarantee (Tell you what, I'll eat 3 sheets of paper after writing "I'm a moron" repeatedly on all of them in non-toxic ink if this happens and I'm wrong) that we'd keep our opt-outs for the EU. And while it'll take a bit for anyone to trust us again, give it a decade or two and assuming that we're not in complete turmoil the entire time things will almost be back to normal.

Obviously leave and rejoin would be a different kettle of fish.


And while remain winning ref. 2 would make some people "more than upset", so will no deal brexit. Hell, there were large (though not long lasting) protests against leaving. That's not going to simmer down any time, and if there's even a whiff of economic issues as a result of it their righteous indignation at saying that bad things would happen won't even be the tip of the iceberg.

I forget if it was the leave and rejoin option or if it was the cancel article 50 option, but didn't the EU say that if the UK went back in, they'd be on a tighter leash so to speak? Pretty sure that was the leave and rejoin option. Though if article 50 were cancelled at this point, they'd probably just make the UK work harder for it's perks or something rather than any real punishment since the whole debacle is enough to give potential exitees second thoughts about it.

[ChairmanPoo]

Warning: shitty google translate LINK
Sooo... in a small town in Andalusia they had problems finding a GP for a rural clinic, and they had the bright idea of actually holding against her will the doctor who had been there for 24 hours.

I'm sure that will encourage other GPs to accept a posting there. Yep.

[Great Order]

Warning: shitty google translate LINK
Sooo... in a small town in Andalusia they had problems finding a GP for a rural clinic, and they had the bright idea of actually holding against her will the doctor who had been there for 24 hours.

I'm sure that will encourage other GPs to accept a posting there. Yep.

Jesus mercy.

If I was that doctor I'd move, half out of fear for my own safety, and half out of sheer spite for those morons. That or agree to see them, then tell every last one of them they need to see a specialist somewhere else.

[ChairmanPoo]

This is a lost town, in Andalusia, and the doctor is a GP. Odds are 9/10 she's from out of town being forced to go there because of the godawful working conditions for doctors in Andalusia, specially GPs. 


See, the Spanish healthcare systems (or systems, because it's devolved to the Autonomous Communities) have relied on years on having a pool of unemployed doctors to keep them desperate enough to accept shitty working conditions (not so much about the money as about being really shitty about things like contract lenght and holidays), and this went TRIPLE for GPs because they were dime a dozen, but that was in the 80s... now they dont have that pool anymore and they struggle to cover posts, specially remote ones, and this goes TRIPLE for effing Andalusia.