EPTMaybe you need a history lesson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 386
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
Maybe you need a history lesson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28677 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9661 Posts
Even if every single policy he ever devised for domestic governance was an utter evil failure, the good achieved by fighting off the German's was a lasting, tangible, permanent good. I fail to see much that he did that was a lasting, tangible, permanent evil. This isn't revisionist, there were plenty of negative aspects to Churchill, but nothing could possibly outweigh the fact that Germany lost WWII and he led our country through that victory. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 16 2017 09:36 Jockmcplop wrote: Honestly I think the good he did far outweighed the bad. Even if every single policy he ever devised for domestic governance was an utter evil failure, the good achieved by fighting off the German's was a lasting, tangible, permanent good. I fail to see much that he did that was a lasting, tangible, permanent evil. This isn't revisionist, there were plenty of negative aspects to Churchill, but nothing could possibly outweigh the fact that Germany lost WWII and he led our country through that victory. And then you all immediately removed him from office like intelligent people. I am still in awe of your country for doing that and getting caught up in the post war hero worship. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13964 Posts
On September 16 2017 09:39 Plansix wrote: And then you all immediately removed him from office like intelligent people. I am still in awe of your country for doing that and getting caught up in the post war hero worship. Yeah but they elected him again 6 years later. Yes I only know that beacuse of the netflix show. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On September 16 2017 09:39 Plansix wrote: And then you all immediately removed him from office like intelligent people. I am still in awe of your country for doing that and getting caught up in the post war hero worship. It didn't turn out that bad from what I've read. The UK got NHS when they didn't elect him. Then, he got re-elected. Win-win. On September 16 2017 09:18 Plansix wrote: Including the whole imperialism thing and repressing workers rights. Yep, sounds awfully like the US if you ask me. 60-70 hours long week, no guaranteed paid annual leave, no paternity and maternity leave, etc. All of these benefits are subject to employer's decision which is pure luck. Imperialism - well, US bases everywhere in the world. Enforcing agenda in the Middle East, etc. That said, I'm not anti-US; I'm just stating irony resulting from your post. | ||
zatic
Zurich15345 Posts
| ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On September 16 2017 08:46 sc-darkness wrote: Right, because it makes sense to reject a person complete after one mistake. Weigh up the good and the bad Cameron achieved. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On September 17 2017 03:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Good or bad, I would have a difficult time to call Cameron incompetent. He let the country choose and resigned when it was expected that he would remain at his position. Certainly not at the level of the power hungry fools currently meeting in Number 10. Agreed. He also fought to remain in the EU. None of the current idiots do that. Instead, all they propose is hard Brexit which is damaging to economy as we can see. If you really want hard Brexit, I think it's a separate referendum. Let democracy decide. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21734 Posts
On September 18 2017 08:14 sc-darkness wrote: Agreed. He also fought to remain in the EU. None of the current idiots do that. Instead, all they propose is hard Brexit which is damaging to economy as we can see. If you really want hard Brexit, I think it's a separate referendum. Let democracy decide. To play devils advocate. Democracy has already decided to Brexit. Both in the referendum and the subsequent election. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On September 18 2017 08:16 Gorsameth wrote: To play devils advocate. Democracy has already decided to Brexit. Both in the referendum and the subsequent election. Ehhh I don't know if you can say it did in the subsequent election. Given neither party really set out a vision of Brexit, I don't think you can say the result was an endorsement of hard Brexit. An endorsement of Brexit, probably, but neither the referendum nor election point to specifically a hard Brexit. I still don't understand resistance to a second referendum on the terms which goes something like: are the terms offered in the deal acceptable? If not, either ANOTHER referendum on whether we leave with no deal or remain, or a general election which would presumably be along those lines. It's all a massive pain in the arse, but Brexit was always going to be that. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21734 Posts
On September 18 2017 08:57 kollin wrote: Ehhh I don't know if you can say it did in the subsequent election. Given neither party really set out a vision of Brexit, I don't think you can say the result was an endorsement of hard Brexit. An endorsement of Brexit, probably, but neither the referendum nor election point to specifically a hard Brexit. I still don't understand resistance to a second referendum on the terms which goes something like: are the terms offered in the deal acceptable? If not, either ANOTHER referendum on whether we leave with no deal or remain, or a general election which would presumably be along those lines. It's all a massive pain in the arse, but Brexit was always going to be that. If your going to leave its a hard Brexit. Soft just means you have to comply with all rules and pay in but have no say in said rules. I don't see the point of your second referendum terms either since remain is no longer an option. Article 50 has been triggered. In 2 years the UK is out, deal or no deal. (unless the EU decides to break their own rules, which ofc they can do) Plus parliament has to pass any deal that is made anyway. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On September 18 2017 09:31 Gorsameth wrote: If your going to leave its a hard Brexit. Soft just means you have to comply with all rules and pay in but have no say in said rules. I don't see the point of your second referendum terms either since remain is no longer an option. Article 50 has been triggered. In 2 years the UK is out, deal or no deal. (unless the EU decides to break their own rules, which ofc they can do) Plus parliament has to pass any deal that is made anyway. Parliament doesn't have to pass any deal that is made, but the alternative is no deal. In the referendum campaign, almost every major voice for Leave argued for essentially a soft Brexit, and I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that's what the British public thought they were voting for. I think both Juncker and Barnier have both said that Britain can change its mind at any point, I'm not sure what their ability is to actually make that the case but I'd presume they are not just saying it for notbing. | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
I know from a personal contact that there is a very acute difference between the attitude of any and all of the Brexit community in Brussels compared to the nonsense they spew back in the UK. These people are not that stupid, I mean they aren't mentally challenged- they are aware of the reprecrussions. After all this time my nemesis and the only real advocate of brexit has been banned... seems like I have no one to banter with now xd. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
| ||
