British politics

Page 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Netserk said:
Hitch, may I ask what you voted and why?
Remain.

Because as someone who lives and works in London it would most likely be to my financial benefit for the UK to stay in the EU.
Thanks.

Are you of the opinion that the European Union should focus more (solely) on trade and less on joint policies regarding immigration, climate and foreign policy (like the sanctions against Russia). It is my impression that many from the UK wants as little as possible, where there isn't a clear financial benefit.
 
Re:

Miburo said:
Hitch, EU and by matter of fact all EU countries aren't a democracy.

EU has for example the council and the european council. And some of these decision have to be taken unanimous. So one country can control them all. Very much a democracy...Same with the united nations.

And doesn't the UK have the system where if you win a part of a region, the one with the most votes gets all the seat in that region ignoring the other voters. Much of a democracy. France has a system like that,

And the people have not much of a say in the government.

Democracy? It's all one big joke
Of course the EU is a democracy. The Council is as democratic as our national government. Just because we didn't have a direct vote on it, does not make it undemocratic.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
You think unanimity should be part of a democracy Netserk? Council (sometimes) and European counci (always) have that.

And that wasn't my point, besides the national government is far from a democracy aswell. That depends though on the fact if you trust politicans and the leaders of the party to make the decision for the people and not for their selfinterest xD

But being able to become a minister without having to be elected by the people is questionable, wouldn't you agree? Not that i think it's a bad thing, if the leaders of the party would be capable in getting the right man for the job and not be motivated by ulterior motives
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
Maybe that doesn't happen in Denmark or the government has been runned properly. Belgium on the other hand.

At least it's not as bad as the USA
 
"But being able to become a minister without having to be elected by the people is questionable, wouldn't you agree?"

Not at all. The people decide who sits in the parliament, and through them decide what government we have and as such also our members of the European Council. If they are unhappy, they can either vote for someone else or create their own party and try to convince others that things should change. As long as we have a strong democratic founded parliament (as in Denmark where a turn-out is considered low when it is 85%), I really don't think we need much more direct democracy.
 
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
The Hitch said:
Netserk said:
Hitch, may I ask what you voted and why?
Remain.

Because as someone who lives and works in London it would most likely be to my financial benefit for the UK to stay in the EU.
Thanks.

Are you of the opinion that the European Union should focus more (solely) on trade and less on joint policies regarding immigration, climate and foreign policy (like the sanctions against Russia). It is my impression that many from the UK wants as little as possible, where there isn't a clear financial benefit.
No, I'm for joint policies. I'm a humanitarian and think that EU's biggest failure was not doing anything when ethnic genocide was happening on its doorstep.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....stumbled onto the following a few moments ago....seems like a reasonable article....any thoughts ?...

Who Should We Blame for Brexit -- and Where Do We Go From Here?
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36582-who-should-we-blame-for-brexit

How was anyone supposed to take pro-EU Conservative David Cameron or the Blairites seriously as opponents of nationalism, anti-immigrant sentiment and nostalgia for British imperialism? They had gone back to that well far too often to credibly claim it was poisoned. The US parallels are clear: How are US voters supposed to take it seriously when Democrats decry Trump's Islamophobia and anti-immigrant values as "not American values," when the Democrats have been so willing to support policies steeped in xenophobia and fear mongering?

The prospects for both US and European politics were already looking bleak before Brexit, but the urgency is now undeniable. Those who would oppose white supremacist nativism, imperialistic nationalism and violent xenophobia on both sides of the Atlantic will need to move quickly, boldly and resolutely to protect the people vilified by these resurgent right-wing forces and avert a truly grim future.
Cheers
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
You didn't answer my first question Netserk.

And for me it's fine that non-elected people become minister but the thing is that the leader of the party decide who is where and all the voted members in parliament just have to follow directions of that leader. They're just puppets, i don't like the way it's done. It's all decided by the party and members in parliament have no real say in it.

And the decision-making for the ministers is often flawed, at least in my country.
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
Politically, that was one hell of a gamble from Boris, when it seemed near certain remain would win. Seems to have paid off big time.
I've read some commentaries saying BJ actually would have preferred a narrow 'remain' vote. It would've made him stand out as principal, it would have given the UK more leverage in the EU, and it wouldn't have caused any (short-term) economic issues.
 
gooner said:
Fair enough whatever their reasons for voting Leave but on social media today in the reaction by some Remain voters to the result, it has been made out that older people voting for Leave who won't live long with the decision while the intelligent youth have to live with it for decades to come.

That is plain wrong. This is just one example I seen today of it.

https://twitter.com/DanielEspinosaR/status/746421578393591808

All voters have an equal right to have a vote irrespective of age and older people's vote carries the same weight as that of the youth.
Brexit: The wrinklies have well and truly stitched us up

Giles Coren
The Times

I had lunch with my mother on Wednesday and as our starters were being cleared away she turned to me and said, “So, Giles, how are you going to vote tomorrow?”

And I replied, “why?” because I sniffed a trap. I’m not saying my mother loves a lunchtime broigus, it’s just that she doesn’t usually ask a question unless she already has a strong opinion of her own fired up and ready to go.

On this, I was guessing she was for Brexit. My mother was (and remains) a great admirer of Margaret Thatcher, almost always votes Conservative, has an abhorrence of bureaucracy and red tape thanks to 40 years working in the NHS (and owning a house in France) and voted to leave the EEC in 1975.

And so her answer astonished me.

“I’m asking because whatever you vote, I’ll vote,” she said. “After all, I’m going to be dead soon so it doesn’t matter what I think. I won’t be affected.”

If only every older person in Britain had had the humility to think the same way this week and pass on their vote to a generation more likely to be affected by the result. We’d still be in Europe this morning. We’d be laughing at how ridiculous it was to have had a referendum in the first place and just getting on with our lives.

For make no mistake, it is the old people who did this to us. I assume you have seen the voting breakdown by age? In the 18-24 group it was 64 per cent to Remain and 24 per cent to Leave. In the 25-49 age group it was 45 per cent to 39. Only in the 50-64 bracket does the balance shift, going over to 49 per cent for Leave, as against 35 for Remain. And then among the over-65s it was an astonishing 58 per cent for Leave, against 33 per cent for Remain.

The less time a person had left on earth to live and face up to their decision, in other words, the more likely they were to vote to leave the European Union.

The wrinkly bastards stitched us young ’uns up good and proper on Thursday. From their stair lifts and their Zimmer frames, their electric recliner beds and their walk-in baths, they reached out with their wizened old writing hands to make their wobbly crosses and screwed their children and their children’s children for a thousand generations. (Except my mother — who wants it made clear that she was for Leave anyway.)

I always knew it would turn out this way. From the moment the referendum was called, the polls showed a massive majority for Leave in the over-65 group — bigger than any differential in wage, education, geographical location or political leaning. And it was how I formed my eventual decision to vote Remain. I just knew that I could not vote with the old people. Because old people are always wrong. About everything.

Take global warming, for example. In all opinion surveys that I have seen, belief in anthropogenic global warming declines every year after the age of 25. In other words, the likelihood of a person accepting the truth of global warming is inversely proportional to the likelihood of their being alive to see its disastrous effects. Is it because people become more stupid with age? I wouldn’t presume to say so. Although obviously Nigel Lawson has. But mainly it’s just that they give less and less of a damn what happens to the rest of us as time goes on.

The older people get, the more they think they have earned the right to do and think whatever they damn well please. And this leads to their being wrong. About everything. Not just about elasticated waistbands, brightly coloured outerwear, fluffy little pale blue hairdos, big chunky spectacles, beige trousers, Countdown and young people today. About everything.

Older people care less and less what happens to the rest of us

Take recycling. Old people never recycle anything. They think it’s all mumbo jumbo. And why should they bother? After all, by the time that bottle of milk stout is crushed, melted and made into another bottle of milk stout, they’ll be far too dead to enjoy it. They can’t work the TV, they can’t hear their mobile phone or answer it if they do hear it, they don’t understand the self-checkout at the supermarket or why there aren’t price tags on things anymore ...

And then of course there is immigration. A report for the World Bank in 2012 found that, “It is old people everywhere who oppose immigration the most, across the board. In every country for which we have data (except Sweden) older natives disproportionately oppose immigration, regardless of income, education and employment status.”

And that is despite the fact that it is old people who benefit most from immigration, seeing as they no longer compete in the labour market and require, or will soon require, the sort of care that is made cheaper by immigrant labour. But, oh no, old people are against immigration because, well, because they are wrong about everything.

Should they have been allowed to vote in this referendum? I’m not sure that they should have been. A general election, yes. Everyone should get a say on what happens over the next five years. But over the next 50? I don’t think so. Not if you’re not going to be there to face it.

And don’t go telling me that we owe at least a debt of respect to the elderly. Respect for what? Don’t confuse the elderly of today with the elderly of the recent past. This lot did not fight a war (not many of them). They didn’t free us from the yoke of tyranny. They didn’t live in modesty and hardship and hunger so that future generations might thrive. They just enjoyed high employment, good pay, fat benefits, enormous pension privileges, international travel, the birth of pop music and lashings of free sex. We don’t owe them a thing. We should cut them off. Rewrite the franchise to start at 16 and end at 60 and do this thing all over again.

We won’t, of course. So we will be compelled to make our strength of feeling felt in smaller, subtler ways. In fact it is already happening. As early as lunchtime on Friday, Twitter was showing 15,000 retweets of what may come to be the standout mantra for Brexit 2016:

“I’m never giving up my seat on the train for an old person again.”
 
Re:

blutto said:
....stumbled onto the following a few moments ago....seems like a reasonable article....any thoughts ?...

Who Should We Blame for Brexit -- and Where Do We Go From Here?
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36582-who-should-we-blame-for-brexit

How was anyone supposed to take pro-EU Conservative David Cameron or the Blairites seriously as opponents of nationalism, anti-immigrant sentiment and nostalgia for British imperialism? They had gone back to that well far too often to credibly claim it was poisoned. The US parallels are clear: How are US voters supposed to take it seriously when Democrats decry Trump's Islamophobia and anti-immigrant values as "not American values," when the Democrats have been so willing to support policies steeped in xenophobia and fear mongering?

The prospects for both US and European politics were already looking bleak before Brexit, but the urgency is now undeniable. Those who would oppose white supremacist nativism, imperialistic nationalism and violent xenophobia on both sides of the Atlantic will need to move quickly, boldly and resolutely to protect the people vilified by these resurgent right-wing forces and avert a truly grim future.
Cheers
Quite different from your pro Derr Fuhrer posts in the US politics section.
 
Re:

Miburo said:
You didn't answer my first question Netserk.

And for me it's fine that non-elected people become minister but the thing is that the leader of the party decide who is where and all the voted members in parliament just have to follow directions of that leader. They're just puppets, i don't like the way it's done. It's all decided by the party and members in parliament have no real say in it.

And the decision-making for the ministers is often flawed, at least in my country.
I think unanimity makes sense when it's a collaboration of several sovereign member states. It would be a federation if there wasn't required any unanimity at any time.
 
Jagartrott said:
gooner said:
Fair enough whatever their reasons for voting Leave but on social media today in the reaction by some Remain voters to the result, it has been made out that older people voting for Leave who won't live long with the decision while the intelligent youth have to live with it for decades to come.

That is plain wrong. This is just one example I seen today of it.

https://twitter.com/DanielEspinosaR/status/746421578393591808

All voters have an equal right to have a vote irrespective of age and older people's vote carries the same weight as that of the youth.
Brexit: The wrinklies have well and truly stitched us up

Giles Coren
The Times

I had lunch with my mother on Wednesday and as our starters were being cleared away she turned to me and said, “So, Giles, how are you going to vote tomorrow?”

And I replied, “why?” because I sniffed a trap. I’m not saying my mother loves a lunchtime broigus, it’s just that she doesn’t usually ask a question unless she already has a strong opinion of her own fired up and ready to go.

On this, I was guessing she was for Brexit. My mother was (and remains) a great admirer of Margaret Thatcher, almost always votes Conservative, has an abhorrence of bureaucracy and red tape thanks to 40 years working in the NHS (and owning a house in France) and voted to leave the EEC in 1975.

And so her answer astonished me.

“I’m asking because whatever you vote, I’ll vote,” she said. “After all, I’m going to be dead soon so it doesn’t matter what I think. I won’t be affected.”

If only every older person in Britain had had the humility to think the same way this week and pass on their vote to a generation more likely to be affected by the result. We’d still be in Europe this morning. We’d be laughing at how ridiculous it was to have had a referendum in the first place and just getting on with our lives.

For make no mistake, it is the old people who did this to us. I assume you have seen the voting breakdown by age? In the 18-24 group it was 64 per cent to Remain and 24 per cent to Leave. In the 25-49 age group it was 45 per cent to 39. Only in the 50-64 bracket does the balance shift, going over to 49 per cent for Leave, as against 35 for Remain. And then among the over-65s it was an astonishing 58 per cent for Leave, against 33 per cent for Remain.

The less time a person had left on earth to live and face up to their decision, in other words, the more likely they were to vote to leave the European Union.

The wrinkly bastards stitched us young ’uns up good and proper on Thursday. From their stair lifts and their Zimmer frames, their electric recliner beds and their walk-in baths, they reached out with their wizened old writing hands to make their wobbly crosses and screwed their children and their children’s children for a thousand generations. (Except my mother — who wants it made clear that she was for Leave anyway.)

I always knew it would turn out this way. From the moment the referendum was called, the polls showed a massive majority for Leave in the over-65 group — bigger than any differential in wage, education, geographical location or political leaning. And it was how I formed my eventual decision to vote Remain. I just knew that I could not vote with the old people. Because old people are always wrong. About everything.

Take global warming, for example. In all opinion surveys that I have seen, belief in anthropogenic global warming declines every year after the age of 25. In other words, the likelihood of a person accepting the truth of global warming is inversely proportional to the likelihood of their being alive to see its disastrous effects. Is it because people become more stupid with age? I wouldn’t presume to say so. Although obviously Nigel Lawson has. But mainly it’s just that they give less and less of a damn what happens to the rest of us as time goes on.

The older people get, the more they think they have earned the right to do and think whatever they damn well please. And this leads to their being wrong. About everything. Not just about elasticated waistbands, brightly coloured outerwear, fluffy little pale blue hairdos, big chunky spectacles, beige trousers, Countdown and young people today. About everything.

Older people care less and less what happens to the rest of us

Take recycling. Old people never recycle anything. They think it’s all mumbo jumbo. And why should they bother? After all, by the time that bottle of milk stout is crushed, melted and made into another bottle of milk stout, they’ll be far too dead to enjoy it. They can’t work the TV, they can’t hear their mobile phone or answer it if they do hear it, they don’t understand the self-checkout at the supermarket or why there aren’t price tags on things anymore ...

And then of course there is immigration. A report for the World Bank in 2012 found that, “It is old people everywhere who oppose immigration the most, across the board. In every country for which we have data (except Sweden) older natives disproportionately oppose immigration, regardless of income, education and employment status.”

And that is despite the fact that it is old people who benefit most from immigration, seeing as they no longer compete in the labour market and require, or will soon require, the sort of care that is made cheaper by immigrant labour. But, oh no, old people are against immigration because, well, because they are wrong about everything.

Should they have been allowed to vote in this referendum? I’m not sure that they should have been. A general election, yes. Everyone should get a say on what happens over the next five years. But over the next 50? I don’t think so. Not if you’re not going to be there to face it.

And don’t go telling me that we owe at least a debt of respect to the elderly. Respect for what? Don’t confuse the elderly of today with the elderly of the recent past. This lot did not fight a war (not many of them). They didn’t free us from the yoke of tyranny. They didn’t live in modesty and hardship and hunger so that future generations might thrive. They just enjoyed high employment, good pay, fat benefits, enormous pension privileges, international travel, the birth of pop music and lashings of free sex. We don’t owe them a thing. We should cut them off. Rewrite the franchise to start at 16 and end at 60 and do this thing all over again.

We won’t, of course. So we will be compelled to make our strength of feeling felt in smaller, subtler ways. In fact it is already happening. As early as lunchtime on Friday, Twitter was showing 15,000 retweets of what may come to be the standout mantra for Brexit 2016:

“I’m never giving up my seat on the train for an old person again.”
This is a parody?
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Re: Re:

Bustedknuckle said:
Quite different from your pro Derr Fuhrer posts in the US politics section.
Eh? I think you're confusing our friend from Soviet Canuckistan with someone else. Eh?
 
Re:

Miburo said:
Several? But 28 (well 27)?
That's why the British were the main driving force of the rapid expansion of the EU. Economically, it would create a larger trading block, but politically, it would make getting things moving in one direction more difficult AND it would weaken the French-German axis. Exactly what they wanted.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

Amsterhammer said:
Bustedknuckle said:
Quite different from your pro Derr Fuhrer posts in the US politics section.
Eh? I think you're confusing our friend from Soviet Canuckistan with someone else. Eh?
....it could be me...note I'm a one-issue supporter of that great and grand wall idea...simply brilliant couldn't go up soon enough or be tall enough...go wall....

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

Bustedknuckle said:
blutto said:
....stumbled onto the following a few moments ago....seems like a reasonable article....any thoughts ?...

Who Should We Blame for Brexit -- and Where Do We Go From Here?
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36582-who-should-we-blame-for-brexit

How was anyone supposed to take pro-EU Conservative David Cameron or the Blairites seriously as opponents of nationalism, anti-immigrant sentiment and nostalgia for British imperialism? They had gone back to that well far too often to credibly claim it was poisoned. The US parallels are clear: How are US voters supposed to take it seriously when Democrats decry Trump's Islamophobia and anti-immigrant values as "not American values," when the Democrats have been so willing to support policies steeped in xenophobia and fear mongering?

The prospects for both US and European politics were already looking bleak before Brexit, but the urgency is now undeniable. Those who would oppose white supremacist nativism, imperialistic nationalism and violent xenophobia on both sides of the Atlantic will need to move quickly, boldly and resolutely to protect the people vilified by these resurgent right-wing forces and avert a truly grim future.
Cheers
Quite different from your pro Derr Fuhrer posts in the US politics section.
...nah in that case just reduced to following the tried and true lesser of two evils protocol...and Il Douche is relatively speaking not as evil, in fact, not even close...despicable and a blowhard and a bunch of other negative things but not as evil as Hillbilly who is just D!kc Cheney in a dress, oh whoops, really didn't mean to say that, what I meant to say was, D!kc Cheney in a pastel potato sack, read, a disaster twofer, poltically and fashionably....

....did I mention pastel potato sack ?....I mean if Hillbilly gets elected women around will be imitating that style and that may end up being much worse for humanity than any possible consequence of Brexit...now think about that for a second...frightening eh !....

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

Amsterhammer said:
PremierAndrew said:
Half of Northern Ireland voted leave, half voted to stay. Everything else on that graphic is accurate though
Serious question as I honestly don't know - are you saying that Republicans voted remain, while Unionists voted leave?
Well, I don't really know either. But the areas closer to the Irish border voted to remain, while those closer to the coast and away from the Irish border voted to leave.

Also, I stand corrected. Previously thought I saw somewhere that 65%ish of 18-24 yos voted.



Maybe remain would have won after all if the younger ones could be bothered to turn up at the polling stations
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Amsterhammer said:
PremierAndrew said:
Half of Northern Ireland voted leave, half voted to stay. Everything else on that graphic is accurate though
Serious question as I honestly don't know - are you saying that Republicans voted remain, while Unionists voted leave?
Well, I don't really know either. But the areas closer to the Irish border voted to remain, while those closer to the coast and away from the Irish border voted to leave.

Also, I stand corrected. Previously thought I saw somewhere that 65%ish of 18-24 yos voted.



Maybe remain would have won after all if the younger ones could be bothered to turn up at the polling stations
....and the "youth of Britain" have the nerve to whine about the results....and the demographic above that ain't any roaring hell either is it...hmmm...and its also interesting how the categories here are different from those that showed preferences...as it stands now "the youth" were really short sighted as they seem to give this vote away to a pretty motley crew that should have never been in the game....

....and odd that the prevailing M$M comments post Brexit were spearheaded by the anguish of "the youth" headlines and backed with lurid numbers of how long they would have to suffer under this horribly oppressive new political situation...wonder if the trouble I had finding those turnout numbers was related to this, after all it would be difficult to sell anguish when the subject of the anguish couldn't be bothered to vote ( read the numbers were buried until the story entered the public consciousness )...

Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY