|
FAUXTON posted:So Britain's retort to the US electing Trump is going to be parliament taking the ruling about having to vote on Art. 50, and instead of just voting that poo poo down good and proper, just voting to invoke anyway isn't it? Parliament was always going to vote to invoke it. Corbyn said he wouldn't block it from the outset and even if he threatened to do so, there's enough Labour MPs who've decided we need to go all in on Brexit and hate Corbyn to the point that voting against his wishes would sweeten the deal if he tried to block it.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:Parliament was always going to vote to invoke it. Corbyn said he wouldn't block it from the outset and even if he threatened to do so, there's enough Labour MPs who've decided we need to go all in on Brexit and hate Corbyn to the point that voting against his wishes would sweeten the deal if he tried to block it. Lib Dems, SNP plus London Con/Lab may well vote against. However the parties as a whole are too terrified of losing seats to a UKIP insurgency to be seen voting against.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:Parliament was always going to vote to invoke it. Corbyn said he wouldn't block it from the outset and even if he threatened to do so, there's enough Labour MPs who've decided we need to go all in on Brexit and hate Corbyn to the point that voting against his wishes would sweeten the deal if he tried to block it. Yea. This is all the dastardly Labour party's fault
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Yea. This is all the dastardly Labour party's fault Cooooooorbyn! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
DoctorTristan posted:Lib Dems, SNP plus London Con/Lab may well vote against. However the parties as a whole are too terrified of losing seats to a UKIP insurgency to be seen voting against. I genuinely think that the more MPs look like they will block the vote, which is deep down, what most will want to do, they risk large scale UKIP wins in the next GE so either way were kinda double hosed. MPs blocking the vote will give them the perfect message to pull voters over to their side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Yea. This is all the dastardly Labour party's fault Indeed
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
McDonnel and Corbyn are both committed to Brexit. The Labour leadership are not interested in opposing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
hitchensgoespop posted:I genuinely think that the more MPs look like they will block the vote, which is deep down, what most will want to do, they risk large scale UKIP wins in the next GE so either way were kinda double hosed. So they'd rather stay mp's but let brexit happen?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:So they'd rather stay mp's but let brexit happen? Does that surprise you? E: unless something changes I doubt labour will be able to do much. I'd be very surprised if, when all's said and done, the government isn't able to secure a majority from tory mps alone Gum fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Oh yeah. Our government is useless. They're operating on the level of children. Worse in some cases. The only hope is for outside forces to make Brexit look increasingly suicidal for the country. The worst case scenario is for things to be slightly but progressively bad so that we can sleep walk to destruction. Everything goes to poo poo = Brexit cancelled, we're saved! Nothing goes to poo poo = Brexit not so bad I guess, shame about the racism. Things promise to get worse but nothing terrible happening right at this moment = Brexit happens, 10 years time the country is a economic and cultural wreck. We're on the "Trump becomes president" timeline so expect the worst option to happen. Buckle up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Is there any way to reboot from an earlier save state? Or is it not worth it because we didn't collect the right things before the last save?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Is there any way to reboot from an earlier save state? Or is it not worth it because we didn't collect the right things before the last save? Looks like people are quite eager to try and load that "England-Empire-Postwar_1950.sav" file, but it must have gotten corrupted somewhere along the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Hollow Talk posted:Looks like people are quite eager to try and load that "England-Empire-Postwar_1950.sav" file, but it must have gotten corrupted somewhere along the way. god damnit churchill
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Hollow Talk posted:Looks like people are quite eager to try and load that "England-Empire-Postwar_1950.sav" file, but it must have gotten corrupted somewhere along the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Have to go back to an earlier save file. Time to try renegade on that whole Magna Carta businesses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Please don't savescum 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
if you keep going the way you are now... you're gonna have a bad time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
so according to spiegel online the Buckingham palace will be rennovated for 370 million. Are these the NHS millions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
ineptmule posted:Maybe, in a way, that is best - ends this fannying around with the issue that we've had for a hundred or so years. It would make my/my wife's immigration status a lot easier and cheaper!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Yeah but democracy always has limits. If UKIP somehow pressured David Cameron into holding a referendum where 50%+1 of voters (with, let's say, a 50% turnout) said yes to the question "Should the United Kingdom strip citizenship from and subsequently enslave all non-white people?" that still doesn't mean it should happen and Parliament would be well within their rights to shut it down as unconstitutional. I have bad news for you about our constitution, or lack of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
That always throws me off. The court there determines if a UK law is constitutional but there's no formal constitution so it's done entirely based on case law and the relevant laws with no formal set of principles about what is and isn't important. It's obviously not impossible but it's just so clunky.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:That always throws me off. The court there determines if a UK law is constitutional but there's no formal constitution so it's done entirely based on case law and the relevant laws with no formal set of principles about what is and isn't important. It's obviously not impossible but it's just so clunky. Also silly and anachronistic, i.e. very British.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 09:49
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
caps on caps on caps posted:so according to spiegel online the Buckingham palace will be rennovated for 370 million. Are these the NHS millions? It's OK, it's just one week of the NHS millions from leaving the dastardly EU. Next up, 10 weeks of NHS money will be spent on refurbishing & repairing the Palace of Westminster because that poo poo is falling down & leaky as gently caress. Soon because of the NHS millions we'll be the most well off country in the world, huzzah for Brexit! RandomPauI posted:That always throws me off. The court there determines if a UK law is constitutional but there's no formal constitution so it's done entirely based on case law and the relevant laws with no formal set of principles about what is and isn't important. It's obviously not impossible but it's just so clunky. What's great is how precious British conservatives get when you point out how loving stupid our "unwritten constitution" is. Tradition is a really powerful drug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:so according to spiegel online the Buckingham palace will be rennovated for 370 million. Are these the NHS millions? I bet that money could feed a loooot of poor people
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:I bet that money could feed a loooot of poor people A lot less than pre-brexit though
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:I bet that money could feed a loooot of poor people Perhaps, but as it only represents 0.16% of the UK's £230 billion annual benefits bill I'm not sure how much impact it would have nationally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
Letting national monuments decay into dust also seems a less than ideal solution to feeding the poor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Why? Seriously, if it was, hypothetically, enough to make a meaningful difference, why not let it crumble? Can't feed people with palaces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
I think we're rich enough to feed our poor people and preserve our national monuments. We don't have to choose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
That's why it was a hypothetical. Try harder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Why? Because the ideal solution is to feed the poor and maintain our monuments at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Bates posted:Because the ideal solution is to feed the poor and maintain our monuments at the same time. you can't feed the poor without burning a few palaces and the ideal solution is to feed the poor and wipe the scourge of monarchy from the earth forever
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:you can't feed the poor without burning a few palaces and the ideal solution is to feed the poor and wipe the scourge of monarchy from the earth forever Dismantling our cultural heritage should be the last way to find money in the budget and Buckingham is still going to be there after you guillotine the queen and abolish monarchy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Bates posted:Dismantling our cultural heritage should be the last way to find money in the budget and Buckingham is still going to be there after you guillotine the queen and abolish monarchy. We've not exactly got a paucity of castles. If they want to repair their home, why can't the bastards sell off a couple of those? How many do you need anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Why? You couldn't feed people with the biggest tourist attraction in the country? I mean I guess that is true in a literal sense but uuuuuuuuuh. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Yeah it's the Royal family that needs to go. The country then gets all the money generated by idiots who think palaces are interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
You say that, but the Royals are a net benefit to the Treasury, to the tune of something like a hundred million pounds or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:You say that, but the Royals are a net benefit to the Treasury, to the tune of something like a hundred million pounds or so. Please show your workings to support this statement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
I'm assuming it's the tourism argument? Or about how the crown estate is technically private property that they graciously let the government keep the profits from, like any scenario involving the abolition of the monarchy will let them keep things that are essentially state assets
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
Isn't the biggest recipient of EU farm subsidies the English Crown? Guess that's one gravy train that's over
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 22:31
|
|
