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.
On April 02 2019 20:29 maybenexttime wrote: If there is one positive aspect of Brexit it's the fact that it exposed just how disfunctional FPTP is.
Not like it matters since the majority of voters dont really understand the differences between and the implications of different voting systems, even if you explain it.
Moreover reform is basically impossible since both parties in an FPTP systen want to maintain the status quo, requiring a majority of the electorate to vote for a third party. Not to mention there might not even be any precedent for major overhauls like this in british (or american) history.
Showing why FPTP is extremly flawed is really easy. You could probably make an 8 year old realising that its unfair if you explain it to him with a few graphs.
On April 02 2019 22:50 Velr wrote: Showing why FPTP is extremly flawed is really easy. You could probably make an 8 year old realising that its unfair if you explain it to him with a few graphs.
so apparently May is asking for a longer delay past the 12th of April. With the stated wish that the withdrawal agreement should be passed during that extension period but not later than the 22nd of may, which is a day before EU elections, to make sure they don't have to hold EU elections in the UK.
Considering that the EU already shortened the extension down to the 12th of April exactly because they need to know the "result" ahead of time and not just 24hours before elections are supposed to be held (or not, depending on UK parliament) I can't see how the EU would agree to that without further assurances.
On April 03 2019 03:15 Toadesstern wrote: so apparently May is asking for a longer delay past the 12th of April. With the stated wish that the withdrawal agreement should be passed during that extension period but not later than the 22nd of may, which is a day before EU elections, to make sure they don't have to hold EU elections in the UK.
Considering that the EU already shortened the extension down to the 12th of April exactly because they need to know the "result" ahead of time and not just 24hours before elections are supposed to be held (or not, depending on UK parliament) I can't see how the EU would agree to that without further assurances.
I'm guessing the EU has to agree that the UK is allowed to hold elections (because it'd be an extension of the article 50 period, and thus every nation needs to agree)? Also, May wanting an extension past April 12th means she's committing to at least organizing EU elections in the UK, even if they do end up leaving before May 22 and end up not holding them? That isn't going to go down well with her own party either insofar as I know. Or does she somehow want to stay in the EU without EU elections or something? It sounds very strange.
E: watched the video. No elections, yet no decision either. I guess that means it is at least a decisive move FOR brexit. They just need more time to sort out the deal vs bombing out with no deal, but would be taking "revoke article 50" off the table completely, and by May 22 they will be out no matter what?
On April 03 2019 03:15 Toadesstern wrote: so apparently May is asking for a longer delay past the 12th of April. With the stated wish that the withdrawal agreement should be passed during that extension period but not later than the 22nd of may, which is a day before EU elections, to make sure they don't have to hold EU elections in the UK.
Considering that the EU already shortened the extension down to the 12th of April exactly because they need to know the "result" ahead of time and not just 24hours before elections are supposed to be held (or not, depending on UK parliament) I can't see how the EU would agree to that without further assurances.
I'm guessing the EU has to agree that the UK is allowed to hold elections (because it'd be an extension of the article 50 period, and thus every nation needs to agree)? Also, May wanting an extension past April 12th means she's committing to at least organizing EU elections in the UK, even if they do end up leaving before May 22 and end up not holding them? That isn't going to go down well with her own party either insofar as I know. Or does she somehow want to stay in the EU without EU elections or something? It sounds very strange.
yeah agree. The way I understand what she said (edited sources up in there, sry) it sounds like she really wants a very short extension up to the 22th of may and not longer than that to make sure no EU elections will be held in the UK. That would obviously be entirely based on parliament passing something.
Idk, confusing. The most likely outcome to me is a longer extension that at the very least prepares for EU elections in the UK. At least if we're talking about what the EU would be willing to okay. Giving an extension up to the 22th, parliament then decides nothing, May cancels Art50 and they have to hold EU elections the next day with nothing prepared seems like worst case that EU def won't be having.
Regardless of how realistic etc Mays idea is, i want to make one thing very clear.
Anyone looking at the reactions of Tory MPs and still arguing that they're fighting "what they're believing in" rather than their party should simply stay away from politics.
This should've happened right after Mays snap election already. This indeed was the fucking only way this would ever work. Tories didn't get a powerful mandate to do whatever they want, regardless of how desperate Tories are trying to claim that.
This approach to government is an unsuccessful one and it also lacks democratic legitimacy. People did not vote for a Corbyn-May coalition government – they voted for a Conservative government, which became a confidence and supply with the DUP.
No, indeed that's exactly what they fucking voted for by removing the Tories' majority in parliament. A Tory telling you that compromise/cooperation in the biggest crisis this country has faced since World War 2 "lacks democracy" (even though that's literally the fucking definition of it), that should really, really tell you where the priorities are. And no, it's not just Mogg.
The UK no longer has a functioning government of executive control. The PM has handed the future decisions over Brexit to the Labour party. It will now be for Corbyn, Diane Abbott and John Mcdonnell to decide if the Conservative party implements its manifesto. It is a very bleak day.
Again, mimimi Tories manifesto, that didn't get a majority in parliament no less, mimi "they" get to say something too.
The list goes on, there are more, just can't be bothered to cite any more of these self/partyserving worms. I think i made it clear before, i'm absolutely not a fan of Labour, but this is the only way this would've ever happened - anyone with half a brain having seen how political processes in other countries work said it, too. That's why the UK is usually met with incomprehension, this is not rocket science. What it is, is party politics. Every single day since the referendum, by both the vast majority of Tories (again, notable exceptions like Letwin, Clarke, Boles not included) and the Labour leadership.
I'm pretty sure that this is way too late, so i don't expect much of it, but nobody deserves praise for something that should've happened a year and a half ago already.
The date of 12th April was chosen because that is the week that the UK has to decide if they partake in EU elections or not.
An extension beyond 12th of April without agreeing to hold EU elections means Remain is utterly dead and buried and can not extend past 22nd May. And the EU isn't going to accept the UK holding EU elections unless they remain for a considerable amount of time.
There is no other option because of the legal workings of the EU elections.
(ps. asking for yet another extension is taking the piss. This deadlock has been going since February with no sign of resolving. There is no hope the Withdraw agreement will past on a 4th, 5th or whatever vote.)
Hope the EU finally puts its foot down and tell the UK they are out in 10 days.
On April 03 2019 05:13 Gorsameth wrote: The date of 12th April was chosen because that is the week that the UK has to decide if they partake in EU elections or not.
An extension beyond 12th of April without agreeing to hold EU elections means Remain is utterly dead and buried and can not extend past 22nd May. And the EU isn't going to accept the UK holding EU elections unless they remain for a considerable amount of time.
There is no other option because of the legal workings of the EU elections.
(ps. asking for yet another extension is taking the piss. This deadlock has been going since February with no sign of resolving. There is no hope the Withdraw agreement will past on a 4th, 5th or whatever vote.)
Hope the EU finally puts its foot down and tell the UK they are out in 10 days.
Yeah, I agree, they just need to come out and say: As we already told you... so yeha, still no change, make up ur mind or gtfo already.
I mean, this attempt by May, i think she knows what we all know, that no way in hell EU budges on this (like seirously, can she actually believe this would work?), she just kinda wants to shift the blame over to the continent, she wants to claim she tried to negotiate and cooperate with the EU, but these eurocrats just forced the UK out
The problem is that nobody has a plan for the millions of jobs that will end overnight with the chaos of a sudden hard Brexit. The entire situation of a non negotiated leave is unthinkable. Timing out is a disaster, and not just for Britain, for the whole EU. Tearing an arm off a body is worse for the arm than for the body, but it’s not great for the body either.
May’s strategy has been to use the threat of leaving overnight to force Parliament to take her lifeboat. And at this point they should. Or cancel. Or anything but just letting it time out. May and the MPs are playing chicken with a freight train, it’s better for the MPs to lose and be called chicken than to try and beat her because the best they can do is all get hit by the freight train forever.
But people cheering for them all to just get hit by the train as punishment for their hubris are also on the same tracks and will get hit by the same train.
The PM and Corbyn are both saying that there needs to be compromise, they're both accusing the other one of not compromising and neither of them are actually willing to compromise at all so what's the point in everyone pretending?
On April 03 2019 05:45 Jockmcplop wrote: The PM and Corbyn are both saying that there needs to be compromise, they're both accusing the other one of not compromising and neither of them are actually willing to compromise at all so what's the point in everyone pretending?
Its a show for their respective voters, so both sides can claim "I tried but the other one didn't". Its the same with Leavers voting down every solution while claiming they don't want a hard brexit.
On April 03 2019 05:28 KwarK wrote: The problem is that nobody has a plan for the millions of jobs that will end overnight with the chaos of a sudden hard Brexit. The entire situation of a non negotiated leave is unthinkable. Timing out is a disaster, and not just for Britain, for the whole EU. Tearing an arm off a body is worse for the arm than for the body, but it’s not great for the body either.
May’s strategy has been to use the threat of leaving overnight to force Parliament to take her lifeboat. And at this point they should. Or cancel. Or anything but just letting it time out. May and the MPs are playing chicken with a freight train, it’s better for the MPs to lose and be called chicken than to try and beat her because the best they can do is all get hit by the freight train forever.
But people cheering for them all to just get hit by the train as punishment for their hubris are also on the same tracks and will get hit by the same train.
I dont think it's that simple for the EU. Losing one of its largest member states obviously sucks, but it would suck way way way more if the UK just has a very easy, very smooth exit, after which they'd be like "kiss our independent asses", empowering the dissident voices inside the EU.
Do not forget that the UK was never really integrated to the EU in the first place, they had lots of special terms, chiefly among them keeping their own currency. I cannot emphasize how big deal that is. They were literally the only one who could actually do that. Sweden and Denmark still have their own currency, but in name only, those are linked to the euro. Some newer member states dindt adopt it yet, but they're contractually obligated to do so in the near future.
Before we derail this thread, and start claiming that Italy/Hungary/Checz Republic or whoever else is also anti EU and want to get out. No. They arent and they dont, some irresponsible politicians started to use anti-Bruxelles propaganda to drum up support in national elections or take the wind out of far right (further right anyways) party's sails. And that's how it kinda started in the UK as well. So this would be a very scary example what ends up happening if you commit to that course of action...
Main point is, losing the UK sucks, but it's not so bad, comparing to caving to them and letting this very weakened UK political elite to play rough shoulders with the entirety of the Union. I stated repeatedly, i dont want the EU to get all aggressive and hostile towards the UK over this, but they cannot afford to go back on their word. UK crashing and burning a little but would be overall beneficial (though costly) for the EU, i think, it would strengthen the integration process and the identity. Obviously if it crashes and burns for real, then it could take the whole continent with it, assuring in a new global recession through ripple effects. Edit: spelling, clarifications
On April 03 2019 05:28 KwarK wrote: The problem is that nobody has a plan for the millions of jobs that will end overnight with the chaos of a sudden hard Brexit. The entire situation of a non negotiated leave is unthinkable. Timing out is a disaster, and not just for Britain, for the whole EU. Tearing an arm off a body is worse for the arm than for the body, but it’s not great for the body either.
May’s strategy has been to use the threat of leaving overnight to force Parliament to take her lifeboat. And at this point they should. Or cancel. Or anything but just letting it time out. May and the MPs are playing chicken with a freight train, it’s better for the MPs to lose and be called chicken than to try and beat her because the best they can do is all get hit by the freight train forever.
But people cheering for them all to just get hit by the train as punishment for their hubris are also on the same tracks and will get hit by the same train.
I dont think it's that simple for the EU. Losing one of its largest member states obviously sucks, but it would suck way way way more if the UK just has a very easy, very smooth exit, after which they'd be like "kiss our independent asses", empowering the dissident voices inside the EU.
Do not forget that the UK was never really integrated to the EU in the first place, they had lots of special terms, chiefly among them keeping their own currency. I cannot emphasize how big deal that is. They were literally the only one who could actually do that. Sweden and Denmark still have their own currency, but in name only, those are linked to the euro. Some newer member states dindt adopt it yet, but they're contractually obligated to do so in the near future.
Before we derail this thread, and start claiming that Italy/Hungary/Checz Republic or whoever else is also anti EU and want to get out. No. They arent and they dont, some irresponsible politicians started to use anti-Bruxelles propaganda to drum up support in national elections or take the wind out of far right (further right anyways) party's sails. And that's how it kinda started in the UK as well. So this would be a very scary example what ends up happening if you commit to that course of action...
Main point is, losing the UK sucks, but it's not so bad, comparing to caving to them and letting this very weakened UK political elite to play rough shoulders with the entirety of the Union. I stated repeatedly, i dont want the EU to get all aggressive and hostile towards the UK over this, but they cannot afford to go back on their word. UK crashing and burning a little but would be overall beneficial (though costly) for the EU, i think, it would strengthen the integration process and the identity. Obviously if it crashes and burns for real, then it could take the whole continent with it, assuring in a new global recession through ripple effects. Edit: spelling, clarifications
I absolutely agree that it’s not the job of the EU to save Britain from itself, I just don’t think people grasp the impact it’ll have across the EU if things just stop overnight. It will most likely negatively impact every EU citizen in a tangible way because of the degree of integration.
At some point the UK and EU have to collectively touch the stove and find out who was right about how hot it is. The political fantasy has to end at some point.
On April 03 2019 05:28 KwarK wrote: The problem is that nobody has a plan for the millions of jobs that will end overnight with the chaos of a sudden hard Brexit. The entire situation of a non negotiated leave is unthinkable. Timing out is a disaster, and not just for Britain, for the whole EU. Tearing an arm off a body is worse for the arm than for the body, but it’s not great for the body either.
May’s strategy has been to use the threat of leaving overnight to force Parliament to take her lifeboat. And at this point they should. Or cancel. Or anything but just letting it time out. May and the MPs are playing chicken with a freight train, it’s better for the MPs to lose and be called chicken than to try and beat her because the best they can do is all get hit by the freight train forever.
But people cheering for them all to just get hit by the train as punishment for their hubris are also on the same tracks and will get hit by the same train.
I dont think it's that simple for the EU. Losing one of its largest member states obviously sucks, but it would suck way way way more if the UK just has a very easy, very smooth exit, after which they'd be like "kiss our independent asses", empowering the dissident voices inside the EU.
Do not forget that the UK was never really integrated to the EU in the first place, they had lots of special terms, chiefly among them keeping their own currency. I cannot emphasize how big deal that is. They were literally the only one who could actually do that. Sweden and Denmark still have their own currency, but in name only, those are linked to the euro. Some newer member states dindt adopt it yet, but they're contractually obligated to do so in the near future.
Before we derail this thread, and start claiming that Italy/Hungary/Checz Republic or whoever else is also anti EU and want to get out. No. They arent and they dont, some irresponsible politicians started to use anti-Bruxelles propaganda to drum up support in national elections or take the wind out of far right (further right anyways) party's sails. And that's how it kinda started in the UK as well. So this would be a very scary example what ends up happening if you commit to that course of action...
Main point is, losing the UK sucks, but it's not so bad, comparing to caving to them and letting this very weakened UK political elite to play rough shoulders with the entirety of the Union. I stated repeatedly, i dont want the EU to get all aggressive and hostile towards the UK over this, but they cannot afford to go back on their word. UK crashing and burning a little but would be overall beneficial (though costly) for the EU, i think, it would strengthen the integration process and the identity. Obviously if it crashes and burns for real, then it could take the whole continent with it, assuring in a new global recession through ripple effects. Edit: spelling, clarifications
I absolutely agree that it’s not the job of the EU to save Britain from itself, I just don’t think people grasp the impact it’ll have across the EU if things just stop overnight. It will most likely negatively impact every EU citizen in a tangible way because of the degree of integration.
I'm pretty sure most people do, since A: the effects are already felt, B: it runs up and down in every european media outlet, and C: well, it was made pretty clear by the EU itself that this won't be without impact on the EU itself.
What most people are saying, is that it will be considerably worse for an island isolating itself completely from 27 states and dozens of FTAs, than it will be for 27 countries losing one, keeping the FTAs (created by one big trade bloc that everyone is desperate to tap into, compared to single nations). And what most businesses are saying is that they're prepared, would prefer a deal of sorts, but rather have the UK thrown out than drawing out the uncertainty that's currently predominant.
On April 02 2019 20:29 maybenexttime wrote: If there is one positive aspect of Brexit it's the fact that it exposed just how disfunctional FPTP is.
Not like it matters since the majority of voters dont really understand the differences between and the implications of different voting systems, even if you explain it.
Moreover reform is basically impossible since both parties in an FPTP systen want to maintain the status quo, requiring a majority of the electorate to vote for a third party. Not to mention there might not even be any precedent for major overhauls like this in british (or american) history.
Time for a revolution?
Revolution against FPTP when 2/3 voted against reforms to the electoral system in the 2011 referendum? So reform wasn’t impossible, if you have faith in parliament fulfilling the result of a referendum.
Quite the stretch to argue that people are fine with a shitty system because they didn't want to replace it with an equally shitty, but more complicated system. I'd like to point out that question on the Ballot paper wasn't "is FPTP shitty" or "should we get rid of FPTP" but "Should we replace FPTP with AV: Yes/No".
Something all major parties rallied against. So, colour me surprised, both tories and labour campaigned against replacing it, and it indeed wasn't replaced. Gasp.
Well, in a two/party system the two major parties will always be against any change away from a two party-system, as in a two-party system they have about 50% of the power each, while in a multi-party system they would have to accept having less.
And instant runoff is still a lot better than FPTP. Calling it "Alternative Vote" is quite funny though, as there are a lot more other voting systems (most of them solve at least a few of the problems that FPTP has), that implies that there is only FPTP or "alternative vote".
Edit: And i actually think that it is good that the vote was clear on what FPTP would be replaced with, as opposed to having the same shit as the brexit referendum where everyone can imagine what the result would mean.
And hey, if two-thirds of your people voted for keeping your shitty election system, maybe that is what they want. (Things might have changed in the last 8 years though, especially with brexit shining such a bad light onto things.
On April 03 2019 13:48 m4ini wrote: Quite the stretch to argue that people are fine with a shitty system because they didn't want to replace it with an equally shitty, but more complicated system. I'd like to point out that question on the Ballot paper wasn't "is FPTP shitty" or "should we get rid of FPTP" but "Should we replace FPTP with AV: Yes/No".
Something all major parties rallied against. So, colour me surprised, both tories and labour campaigned against replacing it, and it indeed wasn't replaced. Gasp.
Whether it’s equally as shitty is your opinion.I think it’s better.The majors were against it because the current system is more in their interest, any kind of preferential system would cost them seats.
EPT
