|
What happened to Northern Ireland?
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:Keep in mind, this is not some extraordinary reach of power or tyranny by the EU. I hate to use patronizing metaphors, but it's like some teenager is fed-up and wants to move out. Like, yeah, they could leave, but the family might still vote to let them leave or not. It's still written in the law and our general social ethics, though, that the parents are legal guardians of that teenager and have the final say in whether they are allowed to leave. This is not unusual or the case of a (using the metaphor) violent parent physically restraining or ejecting the child. it is an extraordinary reach though, in a way. the EU has been trying to build itself up bit by bit as some sort of backdoor integration program. except thats not how empires are ever formed, throughout all of history. the people of the UK never had a moment when they where given the choice to consent to an extra-national neo-roman empire. it started off as some simple trade agreements and just sort of snowballed. also i am pretty sure the UK unique history resists the kind of paternalism and psudo-colonization that the EU represents
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
i don't think you know what you're talking about probs because you're a moron 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
oops
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:the people of the UK never had a moment when they where given the choice to consent to an extra-national neo-roman empire. it started off as some simple trade agreements and just sort of snowballed. also i am pretty sure the UK unique history resists the kind of paternalism and psudo-colonization that the EU represents Lmao, this is literally the second sentence of the Treaty of Rome(written twenty years before the UK even voted to join the EEC) quote:Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, There was never any misunderstanding about what the EEC and the EU are. The people of the UK knew very well what they were getting into when they voted to join.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Lmao, this is literally the second sentence of the Treaty of Rome(written twenty years before the UK even voted to join the EEC) and they knew exactly what they were getting out of when they voted to leave
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:and they knew exactly what they were getting out of when they voted to leave
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:and they knew exactly what they were getting out of when they voted to leave Getting rid of the foreigns and 350 million quid
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:and they knew exactly what they were getting out of when they voted to leave lmao, no they didn't. They banged on about 'sovereignty' endlessly, but now that our legal system is actually taking effect they're up in arms about it. Because they were actually voting to get rid of all the forrins and non-whites and used 'sovereignty' as an idiotic word that they didn't understand the meaning of to cover their racism lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
And the best bit is now the sovereignty of parliament is being upheld they're all angry again
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Didn't they do a post brexit poll, and many of the people who voted didn't know what it meant. And a majority of the people who didn't vote would have voted to stay in the EU, but didn't vote because they thought brexit would be shut down? I'm sure that's an apt analogy for another upcoming election but I can't put my finger on it. Rutibex posted:and they knew exactly what they were getting out of when they voted to leave If 216 has taught me anything, it's that the clamoring masses know jack poo poo about what they actually want. Best case scenario what they want, but how they want to get it doesn't work. Outrail fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:and they knew exactly what they were getting out of when they voted to leave Lmao, this actually reminds me that Cameron managed to get an explicit exception for Britain before the referendum, freeing it from any further integration and guaranteeing its reduced membership fees. He had it in loving writing that Britain will never have to delegate any further rights to the EU, can keep its reduced membership fees and never will have to join any European military project in the future. He had it in writing. Thanks for reminding me, this makes it even more hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
well which is it? are the people of the UK a bunch of responsible adults that can vote to join the EU, or a bunch of child babies that can not be trusted to vote to leave it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:well which is it? are the people of the UK a bunch of responsible adults that can vote to join the EU, or a bunch of child babies that can not be trusted to vote to leave it? And idiot is a person who consistently makes bad decisions. If that person stops making bad decisions they are no longer an idiot. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:and they knew exactly what they were getting out of when they voted to leave It's one thing to know what you're freeing yourself from, an entirely different thing altogether to know what you're freeing yourself to. The people who voted to leave were clearly not aware of the latter (who could be?) and questionably aware of the former. LBJ said it best: "better to be inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:well which is it? are the people of the UK a bunch of responsible adults that can vote to join the EU, or a bunch of child babies that can not be trusted to vote to leave it? Um... yes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
*Joins European Union* wait wtf do you mean we're supposed to be a "unified Europe" gently caress that get us outta this bullshit lol still give us free stuff though thanks chaps euro solidarity
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:well which is it? are the people of the UK a bunch of responsible adults that can vote to join the EU, or a bunch of child babies that can not be trusted to vote to leave it? You're threatening judges and pointing out their sexual preference in order to mob them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Skarsnik posted:And the best bit is now the sovereignty of parliament is being upheld they're all angry again people keep saying lol sovereignty but anyone who actually claimed thats what they wanted meant sovereignty of the people of the uk. so having laws coming from a foreign bureaucracy is not what they want and shockingly, having a bunch of rich lords ignore the democratic will of the country is also not what they want. there is no hypocrisy here, it's not that hard to understand
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
CountryMatters posted:people keep saying lol sovereignty but anyone who actually claimed thats what they wanted meant sovereignty of the people of the uk. so having laws coming from a foreign bureaucracy is not what they want and shockingly, having a bunch of rich lords ignore the democratic will of the country is also not what they want. there is no hypocrisy here, it's not that hard to understand
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Lunchmeat Larry posted:nobody has ignored the democratic will of the country in any way. britain voted in a political party that promised to accept the results of the referendum, and then a democratic vote was taken in which people voted for brexit. now they're trying to say oh actually we didn't mean it. if you think the country were dumb for voting for that, fair enough and almost definitely correct, but I don't see how that's anything other than anti-democracy
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
CountryMatters posted:britain voted in a political party that promised to accept the results of the referendum, and then a democratic vote was taken in which people voted for brexit. now they're trying to say oh actually we didn't mean it. if you think the country were dumb for voting for that, fair enough and almost definitely correct, but I don't see how that's anything other than anti-democracy The results of the referendum have to be ratified by Parliament like any other legislative change or process. That is Parliament's job. The Government cannot simply declare a new law and have it set in stone. The court's judgement simply upholds that extremely basic feature of our legislature. Essentially, the court made a 100% non-political ruling. They upheld the basic functioning of Parliament and declared that the referendum was not extraordinary enough to bypass the normal legislative process. A ruling to the contrary would be an unprecedented ruling that the Government has the dictatorial power to circumstantially bypass Parliament and declare or dissolve any piece of legislation they please. Of course, it goes without saying that the Bill should fly through Parliament unobstructed given that it simply confirms the referendum result. Any attempt to block it would be wrong and fundamentally undemocratic. This has not happened. The current fuss is for absolutely no reason. source: am UK lawyer Lunchmeat Larry fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Lunchmeat Larry: So if they held a referendum to make it legal to hunt down those of Scottish descent like the subhuman dogs they are (or something dumb like that) and it got 51% of the vote, what would happen from there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Lunchmeat Larry: So if they held a referendum to make it legal to hunt down those of Scottish descent like the subhuman dogs they are (or something dumb like that) and it got 51% of the vote, what would happen from there? this already happened in 1304
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Lunchmeat Larry: So if they held a referendum to make it legal to hunt down those of Scottish descent like the subhuman dogs they are (or something dumb like that) and it got 51% of the vote, what would happen from there? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Is it actually the case that parliament should always rubber stamp an advisory referendum? What's the point of it having the advisory status if so?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
So what are the benefits of doing a brexit? I feel like I need more information before I decide if this is good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Seashell Salesman posted:Is it actually the case that parliament should always rubber stamp an advisory referendum? What's the point of it having the advisory status if so? Referendums only happen if an Act of Parliament is passed enabling them in the first place, so that comes with the tacit understanding that Parliament will respect the result. It could be argued that this makes the need for an Act accepting the result redundant, which I wouldn't disagree with, but as things stand, it... well, doesn't. It's not a particularly well thought out system but it's worked until the last couple of years because British people are polite and obedient enough that constitutional convention was actually enough to keep people in line. Now, well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Lunchmeat Larry posted:well, that's why it's *technically* advisory in the first place - for anything to become law, it needs Parliamentary approval (other than legal case law/precedent, which is only law in so far as it doesn't contradict statute). It would be legally inaccurate to call it anything but advisory since it's not constitutionally binding - on the understanding that Parliament will pass any clear majority referendum unless there's very good reason to the contrary. I don't particularly like the "advisory" wording because it makes it sound less authoritative than it is, and has probably contributed to the confusion in this current case. Well, that does make a lot of sense actually. Imagine parliament calls a referendum on whether to name a newly discovered mollusc species after the queen, but shortly after the referendum the plot of the movie King Ralph happens and some American white trash chick named Britley-Kal33si Razikovsky becomes queen of the UK. The public would never want to go through with the referendum results after that and luckily parliament doesn't have to, because it's non-binding!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Well, that does make a lot of sense actually. Imagine parliament calls a referendum on whether to name a newly discovered mollusc species after the queen, but shortly after the referendum the plot of the movie King Ralph happens and some American white trash chick named Britley-Kal33si Razikovsky becomes queen of the UK. The public would never want to go through with the referendum results after that and luckily parliament doesn't have to, because it's non-binding! i think the people of the UK would be more concerned with the entire royal family (and presumably house of lords too) being killed all in one fell swoop
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:i think the people of the UK would be more concerned with the entire royal family (and presumably house of lords too) being killed all in one fell swoop
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
I can't believe any party, for any reason would put an issue this important up for an even implicitly binding general vote. The republican model of democracy via elected representatives is designed to prevent exactly this kind of populist tyranny trainwreck, good job shooting your government in the foot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:I can't believe any party, for any reason would put an issue this important up for an even implicitly binding general vote. The republican model of democracy via elected representatives is designed to prevent exactly this kind of populist tyranny trainwreck, good job shooting your government in the foot. The guy who pushed for this referendum had sex with a dead pig. These type people are playing a totally different game from everyone else, maaaan. It's all about money, power and swine poon for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:The guy who pushed for this referendum had sex with a dead pig. These type people are playing a totally different game from everyone else, maaaan. It's all about money, power and swine poon for them. I thought both sides were sure it'd be shot down. Isn't that why all the pro brexit politicians quit when it came through?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:I can't believe any party, for any reason would put an issue this important up for an even implicitly binding general vote. The republican model of democracy via elected representatives is designed to prevent exactly this kind of populist tyranny trainwreck, good job shooting your government in the foot. The referendum was designed to shut up the pro-exit UKIP fucks because it was obviously going to fail since both major parties are against it and nobody except UKIP voters are dumb enough to vote for it. Except apparently the British people are dumber than anyone reckoned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
I just hope Scotland leaves and rejoins the EU. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
i hope Wales declares itself a independent republic
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:I just hope Scotland leaves and rejoins the EU. Rutibex posted:i hope Wales declares itself a independent republic And I hope Northern Ireland realizes even being Irish is better than being associated with that other island and joins their southern bretheren. If Ireland, Wales and Scotland (and Cornwell, they're okay I guess) ditched England and formed a Commonwealth, could they borrow some inbred chucklefucks from France and call themselves the United Kingdom and Leave England in the dust?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:I just hope Scotland leaves and rejoins the EU. We loving better I swear to god
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 05:03
|
|