|
How does this affect british cringe comedy production?
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
incoherent posted:How does this affect british cringe comedy production? Its moved onto the news channels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Elevator Screamer posted:No gay stuff either, unless the information protected by the UK's last remaining super-injunctions is true. Well now what's this about?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
May just said in a press conference there will be talks tomorrow and implied Corbyn hasnt offered to take part, lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Captain Splendid posted:gently caress the DUP some wise soul scrawled this up in my rickety rear end office elevator a few weeks ago
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
CactusWeasle posted:May just said in a press conference there will be talks tomorrow and implied Corbyn hasnt offered to take part, lmao she'll talk, poorly
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
incoherent posted:How does this affect british cringe comedy production? Mitchell and Webb are prophets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
I think the most prophetic of Mitchell and Webb sketches so far has been https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg Though the one above is great
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
Pity that Webb turned out to be a massive oval office 'ey
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
y'all are hosed, lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Pity that Webb turned out to be a massive oval office 'ey Some people just really, really hate trans people I guess. It's a weird hill to die on when they claim to be a femnist and hate misogyny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:Some people just really, really hate trans people I guess. It's a weird hill to die on when they claim to be a femnist and hate misogyny. G E N D E R C R I T I C A L
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Preston Waters posted:That's how it's always been. If you don't have a majority, you can't pass anything! just in case I'm not picking up on sarcasm, yeah, I know this would paralyse day to day activities. but how about just selectively requiring super-majorities for the really really big questions like "how about we commit political suicide" or "letting foreign agents destabilise us is totally good and cool, y/n"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
i'm all the comments yelling about how sinister villain corbyn is forcing poor theresa may into no deal
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SteveJHucker/status/1085629907701583877 you have no fuckin leverage on the eu aaaaaaaaaa
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
HiHo ChiRho posted:I'm from the land of MAGA, so i'm kinda confused. It seems like the Tories are hosed, with May holding a poo poo deal no one wants and the EU unwilling to negotiate for whatever crazy demands they wanted. Why wouldn't the Tories go and pass off a poo poo situation to Labour, so that they can them blame anything that happens on Corbyn? The UK is basically neofeudal, and Corbyn straight up says he will hold the aristocracy accountable for rape and will take the grain so the poor don't starve in winter. The superstructure of the UK can withstand almost anything, we could have natural disaster, recession, domestic war, foreign war, disease epidemic, absolute protectionism etc it doesn't matter, the rich of the UK would remain rich. The only threat to the rich of the UK is an explicit manifesto promise that they won't be able to take the piss any more. The UK establishment would literally sacrifice half the population to the goat gods and burn every willow tree in England before they allowed Corbyn/lefty people close to government. The economic hit of brexit is an absolute irrelevance to them in comparison to the threat of weakening the superstructure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Where did this demented "you cant have another referendum we already had one" argument come from anyway. It comes from the idea that if a referendum happens then the result of that referendum should be carried out, not dismissed. Having a second referendum before the first has been carried out dismisses the result of the first referendum. This is basic stuff guys gotta be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:It comes from the idea that if a referendum happens then the result of that referendum should be carried out, not dismissed. Having a second referendum before the first has been carried out dismisses the result of the first referendum. But the second referendum overrides the first one. MPs don't get to refuse to stand for reelection because they didnt do everything they wanted to do already. How can any argument against a second referendum not be self defeating? It seems like all such arguments are self defeating because they rely on the will of the people being expressed by a referendum. hakimashou has issued a correction as of 01:52 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Well now what's this about? Nobody knows for certain because  super-injunctions, which were phased out in the rest of the UK years ago but still exist in Northern Ireland. An FOI request a few years back revealed that NI still has 6 of them in place - allegedly 5 for DUP members and 1 for a portly Northern Irish BBC television host. Weirdly, this is another one of those areas where the DUP absolutely insist that NI is a special place and *must* be subject to different rules than the rest of the UK.  post incoming that really doesn't belong ITT. But since these fuckers are propping up the Tories right now I guess maybe it might.Below is all hearsay and speculation: Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, MP for Lagan Valley): professional Daniel O'Donnell lookalike and former junior advisor to Enoch Powell. He claimed expenses on several hundred pounds worth of "other" hotel movie rentals while staying in London on parliamentary business. He was also visited in said hotels by several hot young twinks who had serious concerns about the peace process that could only be placated in person. Rev. William McCrea (DUP, MP for Mid Ulster): Reverend in the Free Presbyterian Church. He was a frequent visitor to and supporter of the Kincora Boys Home, a state care home for disadvantaged teenage boys in Belfast. For purely philanthropic reasons, many Tory politicians took a special interest in the plight of these young adolescents and travelled there at great personal risk throughout the 1970s when the Troubles were at their height. McCrea's unflinching support and continued silence on the issue resulted him being bestowed the title Baron McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, despite being a fairly low-key member of a party that has traditionally been a thorn in the side of the UK government. Ian Paisley Jr (DUP, MP for North Antrim): He's been in a spot of bother over accepting paid holidays in luxury foreign climes recently. He's the son of the party's founding father, a devout Christian and devoted husband/father. He's also been loving Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, MP for Belfast South) on the side. Little-Pengelly is a surprise rising star within the DUP. Her father was a Loyalist terrorist who got caught in a sting operation, trying to import large shipments of arms in partnership with 2 senior DUP members. He took the fall and the DUP were let off the hook. This likely has no connection to her rise within the party. Peter Robinson (former First Minister, former DUP party leader): Husband of Iris Robinson (DUP, former MP for Strangford). Helped procure £50K in loans to an enterprising young 19-year old man who wanted to open up a local restaurant. Iris was banging that teenage cock seven ways to Sunday. After she was forced to resign her MLA position she was replaced by Jonathan Bell (DUP MLA, Strangford), another rising star in the DUP promoted by her husband. He was so aggressively threatening towards women in the party that at least 2 made formal complaints, and in one case the threats were considered so credible that the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) provided a personal protection team to prevent him approaching her residence. tl;dr: The DUP are a sound bunch of lads and totally deserve their role as Brexit kingmakers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:But the second referendum overrides the first one. Which will be overridden by the second, which is overridden by the third, which is overridden by the fourth etc. Democracy is absolutist, of course every system will have structural flaws but the underlying ideal expressed through the particular framework is non-negotiable, that's the point, that's why the first thing fascists and theocrats do is remove democracy. If you dismiss a democratic referendum then you are dismissing the expression of the people living within that democratic framework and that makes you a right nasty little oval office that needs a slap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Which will be overridden by the second, which is overridden by the third, which is overridden by the fourth etc. The first referendum was a non-binding resolution based on information that has since radically changed the scenario. But yeah it's undemocratic to check with the people a couple years later better just grit your teeth and bear whatever comes right. I was talking to someone that told me "but if they had to have votes and referendums every 2-4 years there would be chaos!" But uh that's what democracy is lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
The underlying ideal being what exactly because it was sold on a bunch of malarkey that is turning out to be total stinking bullshit and being managed by a totally inept and catastrophically disconnected government leadership.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Which will be overridden by the second, which is overridden by the third, which is overridden by the fourth etc. If democracy was absolutist in the way you claim to believe you think it is, then all elections would be for permanent offices that the winners held for life. It isnt. Instead, periodic elections override the previous ones in a long chain going on forever, with the aim being to make the government reflect the will of the people it governs. Dismissing calls for a second referendum is "dismissing the expression of people living within that democratic framework." Its self defeating. If referendums matter so much, then you are obliged to have another referendum, since they are really important. "Democracy is all-important, so we must under no circumstances let the people vote on this" is gibberish. All these inane objections to a second referendum are gibberish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
look Britain voted to pull the trigger on the gun held to its temple 2 years ago so by god that trigger must be pulled
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:look Britain voted to pull the trigger on the gun held to its temple 2 years ago so by god that trigger must be pulled Yinlock posted:you have no fuckin leverage on the eu aaaaaaaaaa My take away from brexit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
Think of it as an acrylic cover for a 'you better know what you're doing' button.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:The first referendum was a non-binding resolution based on information that has since radically changed the scenario. The information hasn't changed since the 'scenario', and even if it meaningfully had that has no bearing on democracy. The guardian had an interesting article about that same point today actually https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/second-brexit-referendum-mps-democracy-peoples-vote hakimashou posted:If democracy was absolutist in the way you claim to believe you think it is, then all elections would be for permanent offices that the winners held for life. It isnt. Responding to your sentences in order, democratic expression is absolute. The framework is obviously temporal though and so election cycles are a thing. Yeah no poo poo. Yeah no poo poo sucks to be them. Nope. You earlier and implied here conflated systemic periodic elections with discrete referendums. Dumb thing to do as they are clearly not the same thing but if you want me to talk you through it I will but will probs be a right patronising oval office about it. "Democracy is all-important, so we must under no circumstances let the people vote on this" Dunno where you got that quote from, it's a very stupid statement. Obviously democracy is important, and democracy means that a popular vote which is ordered must be carried out. I assume you are doing some FBPE bullshit here but I don't even see the angle you're going for. Vitamin P has issued a correction as of 03:42 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:The information hasn't changed since the 'scenario', and even if it meaningfully had that has no bearing on democracy. The guardian had an interesting article about that same point today actually https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/second-brexit-referendum-mps-democracy-peoples-vote That's actually a dumb article, and the idea that "the information hasn't changed" is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:The information hasn't changed since the 'scenario', and even if it meaningfully had that has no bearing on democracy. Well, it obviously has and obviously it does so you're just dumb I guess; good luck with your country!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
luv 2 see this hot take on freedom being the primacy of prior decisions in any other context of ongoing consent (no i wouldnt)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Norton the First posted:That's actually a dumb article, and the idea that "the information hasn't changed" is laughable. Moridin920 posted:Well, it obviously has and obviously it does so you're just dumb I guess; good luck with your country! The article is actually very sound and you've both misunderstood the term information in the context of a discrete past event.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
I don't think this is a big deal, it's not like any western power could be completely deadlocked and non-functional over the dumbest loving poo poo for like over a month. That's absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:The article is actually very sound and you've both misunderstood the term information in the context of a discrete past event.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:look Britain voted to pull the trigger on the gun held to its temple 2 years ago so by god that trigger must be pulled stiff upper lipping themselves into oblivion for no reason is like the british dream
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
Hot take: democracy is not that important. Don't destroy your country to protect its sanctity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
It's weird as gently caress that a country that still lusts after its monarchy suddenly cares this much about democracy that they're willing to shoot themselves in the face over it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
Judakel posted:It's weird as gently caress that a country that still lusts after its monarchy suddenly cares this much about democracy that they're willing to shoot themselves in the face over it. Watch this, it's very good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2W7P3wGBI8 It's a rather good thesis about how all British people want to gently caress the Queen and that's why we lust after monarchy. From my life experience, it's probably true and tells you everything about Brexit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:The information hasn't changed since the 'scenario', and even if it meaningfully had that has no bearing on democracy. The guardian had an interesting article about that same point today actually https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/second-brexit-referendum-mps-democracy-peoples-vote You can have one referendum and then another one later just like any other kind of vote. The main point is that it is inane to claim that because a referendum is very important and matters a lot, that you must not have a referendum. If referendums matter a lot and are very important, then that gives you a reason to have another one. In context of the UK's particular system of democracy, these ideas are even more asinine. If yesterday's parliament cannot vote to bind tomorrow's parliament, then why should yesterday's referendum vote to bind tomorrow's? It should not. In fact this is just a fig leaf, and a meagre and transparent one at that. It's not difficult to see that these people's real motive is a desire not to see the outcome of the first referendum changed. Their motive is not to ensure that what happens is what the people want to happen. If that was their motive, they would support holding a second referendum. Having fooled people once, it is less likely that they'd be able to fool them again, and they know it. hakimashou has issued a correction as of 05:39 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
Judakel posted:It's weird as gently caress that a country that still lusts after its monarchy suddenly cares this much about democracy that they're willing to shoot themselves in the face over it. If they cared about democracy they'd want another referendum. They care about leaving the EU more than they care about democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
is Corbyn calling for people to hit the streets yet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 05:55
|
|