UK election result 'blew away' argument for second Brexit vote: Labour's Starmer

[sandyf]

13 minutes ago, vogie said:

The SNP wanted out even before the Brexit referendum and I have no doubt that if the EU referendum had been reversed, the SNP would still have hankered after another referendum and another and another. So in that respect it made no difference, it just gave the SNP an even bigger stick to beat the rest of the UK with.

But a generation is not long to wait for your indy2, 25/30 years is neither here nor there in the respect of referendums.

Like many brexiteers you push the view that the SNP speaks for Scotland, that is the role of the Scottish parliament, there appears to be some difficulty in differentiating between party and parliament.

Fortunately it is irrelevant what view you take, it will be the view of the Scottish parliament that will decide the way forward.

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Like many brexiteers you push the view that the SNP speaks for Scotland, that is the role of the Scottish parliament, there appears to be some difficulty in differentiating between party and parliament.

Fortunately it is irrelevant what view you take, it will be the view of the Scottish parliament that will decide the way forward.

Of course the SNP speaks for the majority of Scotland even though the majority of Scotland voted to remain within the UK, and it's not a very democratic way of running an area of the UK.

 

But if that gives you some solace Sandy you keep believing that.

[evadgib]

On 1/16/2020 at 10:57 PM, Rookiescot said:

Can't actually come up with a rebuttal is what you meant to say.

Quote

<Still can't be bothered>

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by evadgib

[TheDark]

Quite interesting news today. 

 

Brexit: 'No alignment' with EU on regulation, Javid tells business

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51157933

 

This means, UK is about to exit the EU without a comprehensive trade deal. No alignment, no deal. Quite like the case with USA has been. 

 

There might be some minor deals, but as of 1st of January, UK is really outside. 

[bannork]

3 minutes ago, TheDark said:

Quite interesting news today. 

 

Brexit: 'No alignment' with EU on regulation, Javid tells business

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51157933

 

This means, UK is about to exit the EU without a comprehensive trade deal. No alignment, no deal. Quite like the case with USA has been. 

 

There might be some minor deals, but as of 1st of January, UK is really outside. 

There are still 11 months to go. Plenty of time for Boris to drop dead in a ditch when he realises the impact on British jobs. Of course, he might sell British fishing rights down the river in exchange for UK financial services being allowed to continue in the EU without change.

[TheDark]

6 minutes ago, bannork said:

There are still 11 months to go. Plenty of time for Boris to drop dead in a ditch when he realises the impact on British jobs. Of course, he might sell British fishing rights down the river in exchange for UK financial services being allowed to continue in the EU without change.

The way he is leading UK and the negotiations, he will break the transition period agreement that EU is likely to end it before November. 

 

At that point Boris is going to, with the full force of UK's print media, to blame EU for the last time for screwing the UK workers. 

 

That's how the game is now rigged. 

[billd766]

On 1/16/2020 at 5:46 PM, melvinmelvin said:

 

re BJ's refusal,

how long is a generation in Westminster speak? Or D10 speak for that matter?

 

 

https://oupacademic.tumblr.com/post/66321507640/misquotation-a-week-is-a-long-time-in

 

 

Misquotation: ‘A week is a long time in politics’

Attributed to Harold Wilson, and probably first said at a lobby briefing for journalists at the time of the sterling crisis in 1964. Interestingly, as Nigel Rees in Brewer’s Quotations (1994) records, Wilson himself, when asked just after his retirement as Prime Minister in 1977, could not pinpoint the precise occasion on which he first used the words. The Liberal politician Joseph Chamberlain is recorded in 1886 as having said: ‘In politics, there is no use in looking beyond the next fortnight.’

From the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. For other previous common misquotations, take a look at our Misquotation of the Week feature.

 

 

[TheDark]

While unity of the nations is very good thing to have, it's perfectly ok to let go of that unity, when people want to find their futures in different directions. 

 

There is no reason for England force Scotland to stay as part of the United Kingdom union. Like there was no reason for EU to force UK to be part of the European Union. 

 

EU didn't want the separation to happen, but it was up to the English people to vote so. This separation is now happening. 

 

Likewise it's up to the Scottish people to decide their own future. The future they wish to go forward. 

 

England trying to drag Scotland to be part of the so called Union of nations, is simply just going to make things worse. If Scotland is not 'given' opportunity to decide her own destiny, the hatred between these two countries in going to increase. 

 

Nobody wants a new Northern Ireland border within Britain. Let people decide, what they want for their own future.

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

https://oupacademic.tumblr.com/post/66321507640/misquotation-a-week-is-a-long-time-in

 

 

Misquotation: ‘A week is a long time in politics’

Attributed to Harold Wilson, and probably first said at a lobby briefing for journalists at the time of the sterling crisis in 1964. Interestingly, as Nigel Rees in Brewer’s Quotations (1994) records, Wilson himself, when asked just after his retirement as Prime Minister in 1977, could not pinpoint the precise occasion on which he first used the words. The Liberal politician Joseph Chamberlain is recorded in 1886 as having said: ‘In politics, there is no use in looking beyond the next fortnight.’

From the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. For other previous common misquotations, take a look at our Misquotation of the Week feature.

 

 

 

funny that Chamberlain should have said that,

(same chap that secured peace for the foreseeable future?)

 

[jayboy]

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

funny that Chamberlain should have said that,

(same chap that secured peace for the foreseeable future?)

 

No, his father.

[Tom59]

It did no such thing, in fact quite the opposite! 60% of those who voted, voted for parties that favored a confirmatory vote with remain being an option. The Tories got in with only 45% of the vote. That is not a working democracy. What Labour's loss highlighted was not a will "to get Brexit done" but the pointless in-fighting in the Labour party and a lack of clear direction on it's part. Jeremy Corbyn's policies were actually the best ones for the country as a whole. His mistake was to think that promoting them instead of meeting the Brexit challenge head on was going to win. He over-estimated the intelligence of the demographic he had to convince. Labour still haven't learned the lesson. They will get nowhere, whoever is the leader, until the party as a whole stops playing with itself and decides that it is going to be a serious party of opposition. It should ask the SNP to give it some lessons (or even the traitor Farage for that matter!). 

Edited January 19, 2020 by Tom59
Duplicated word.

[Tom59]

16 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

funny that Chamberlain should have said that,

(same chap that secured peace for the foreseeable future?)

 

No! That was  

Neville Chamberlain

Arthur Neville Chamberlain was a British Conservative statesman who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 1937 to May 1940. Chamberlain is best known for his foreign policy of appeasement, and in particular for his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the German-speaking Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany

[sandyf]

On 1/18/2020 at 1:57 PM, vogie said:

Of course the SNP speaks for the majority of Scotland even though the majority of Scotland voted to remain within the UK, and it's not a very democratic way of running an area of the UK.

You conveniently omitted that the majority of Scotland voted to remain in the EU, of course that lies outside the brexiteers version of democracy.

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You conveniently omitted that the majority of Scotland voted to remain in the EU, of course that lies outside the brexiteers version of democracy.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the EU referendum wasn't a Scottish vote but involved the entire United Kingdom, and the Scots voted to remain a part of our Union.

Edited January 20, 2020 by vogie

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, vogie said:

You conveniently forgot to mention that the EU referendum wasn't a Scottish vote but involved the entire United Kingdom, and the Scots voted to remain a part of our Union.

The bottom line here is that brexiteers are inherently hypocritical. They championed the right to self determination and then try and deny that same right to Scotland.

Human nature being what it is they will continue to try and justify the hypocrisy.

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The bottom line here is that brexiteers are inherently hypocritical. They championed the right to self determination and then try and deny that same right to Scotland.

Human nature being what it is they will continue to try and justify the hypocrisy.

The reality is that we are all Brexiteers now and all your condemnation of all the democratic result of the EU referendum is in itself is hypocritical. 

Nobody is denying anything to Scotland, when Scotland voted to remain in the UK they elected to take on board everything that goes with that choice, including voting for the future of the UK as a member of our Union. Cherry picking or what?

[JonnyF]

24 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The bottom line here is that brexiteers are inherently hypocritical. They championed the right to self determination and then try and deny that same right to Scotland.

Human nature being what it is they will continue to try and justify the hypocrisy.

You had your vote in 2014 and voted to stay in 55 to 45. 

 

It's not Brexiteers' fault you lost the vote.

[sandyf]

7 hours ago, vogie said:

The reality is that we are all Brexiteers now and all your condemnation of all the democratic result of the EU referendum is in itself is hypocritical. 

Nobody is denying anything to Scotland, when Scotland voted to remain in the UK they elected to take on board everything that goes with that choice, including voting for the future of the UK as a member of our Union. Cherry picking or what?

Another attempt at justification.

[vogie]

5 hours ago, sandyf said:

Another attempt at justification.

I really don't think that by saying the Scots have had a referendum on independence and also that the UK has had a referendum on leaving the EU is justifying anything, it is fact. 

[TheDark]

41 minutes ago, vogie said:

I really don't think that by saying the Scots have had a referendum on independence and also that the UK has had a referendum on leaving the EU is justifying anything, it is fact. 

1) Scots had referendum of staying or leaving UK and therefore staying or leaving EU, which resulted Scotland staying with UK (England actually) and EU.

 

2) UK had referendum for saying or leaving EU. England and Wales said yes to leave the EU. Scotland and Northern Ireland said yes for staying with EU. 

 

3) Now that UK (England) is leaving the EU it's time for the Scots to say wether they wish to either stay with UK (England) or stay with EU (the community of other 27 members). 

 

Scots can say if they wish to stay as submissive partner with vastly larger entity of England or if they wish to get together with other, more like minded group of independent countries and co-operate with them.

 

England is the weak part of this equation. 

[melvinmelvin]

5 hours ago, TheDark said:

1) Scots had referendum of staying or leaving UK and therefore staying or leaving EU, which resulted Scotland staying with UK (England actually) and EU.

 

2) UK had referendum for saying or leaving EU. England and Wales said yes to leave the EU. Scotland and Northern Ireland said yes for staying with EU. 

 

3) Now that UK (England) is leaving the EU it's time for the Scots to say wether they wish to either stay with UK (England) or stay with EU (the community of other 27 members). 

 

Scots can say if they wish to stay as submissive partner with vastly larger entity of England or if they wish to get together with other, more like minded group of independent countries and co-operate with them.

 

England is the weak part of this equation. 

 

maybe so,

but you remember and perceive recent history somewhat differently from me . . .

 

[vogie]

6 hours ago, TheDark said:

1) Scots had referendum of staying or leaving UK and therefore staying or leaving EU, which resulted Scotland staying with UK (England actually) and EU.

 

2) UK had referendum for saying or leaving EU. England and Wales said yes to leave the EU. Scotland and Northern Ireland said yes for staying with EU. 

 

3) Now that UK (England) is leaving the EU it's time for the Scots to say wether they wish to either stay with UK (England) or stay with EU (the community of other 27 members). 

 

Scots can say if they wish to stay as submissive partner with vastly larger entity of England or if they wish to get together with other, more like minded group of independent countries and co-operate with them.

 

England is the weak part of this equation. 

1) Scots had referendum of staying or leaving UK and therefore staying or leaving EU, which resulted Scotland staying with UK (England actually) and EU.

The Scots had a referendum whether to split or remain within the UK.

 

2) UK had referendum for saying or leaving EU. England and Wales said yes to leave the EU. Scotland and Northern Ireland said yes for staying with EU. 

Wrong, the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, end of.

 

3) Now that UK (England) is leaving the EU it's time for the Scots to say wether they wish to either stay with UK (England) or stay with EU (the community of other 27 members). 

Does that also include Newcastle who also voted to remain, thought not.

 

Scots can say if they wish to stay as submissive partner with vastly larger entity of England or if they wish to get together with other, more like minded group of independent countries and co-operate with them.

Scots have said!

 

England is the weak part of this equation. 

Only in your mind.

 

Keep on trucking.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, vogie said:

I really don't think that by saying the Scots have had a referendum on independence and also that the UK has had a referendum on leaving the EU is justifying anything, it is fact. 

We are all well aware that the bluster and rhetoric is nothing more than a damage limitation exercise.

The warnings were made and ignored and that is what will be reflected in the history books.

If a change of circumstances was no basis for a change in direction then there would be no need for the divorce courts.

[sandyf]

On 1/21/2020 at 9:24 AM, vogie said:

The reality is that we are all Brexiteers now and all your condemnation of all the democratic result of the EU referendum is in itself is hypocritical. 

Nobody is denying anything to Scotland, when Scotland voted to remain in the UK they elected to take on board everything that goes with that choice, including voting for the future of the UK as a member of our Union. Cherry picking or what?

There are those that do not see it the same way.

 

The Sewel Convention has been a fundamental underpinning of the relationship between the four legislatures of the UK since 1999, but it has been broken by Brexit. As well as managing the immediate political backlash that will follow the passing of the WAB, the UK government must now seriously engage with the case for reforming the convention if it wants to ensure the sustainability of the union in the long term.

 

But this approach requires trust, compromise and good and open communication, all of which have been in increasingly short supply since the 2016 EU referendum. Brexit has exposed the vulnerability of the devolution settlements against a UK parliamentary majority. The devolved administrations have accused the UK government of taking major Brexit decisions on a unilateral basis and failing to take account the majority remain vote in Scotland and Northern Ireland – and their objections have fallen on deaf ears.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/sewel-convention-has-been-broken-brexit-reform-now-urgent

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

We are all well aware that the bluster and rhetoric is nothing more than a damage limitation exercise.

The warnings were made and ignored and that is what will be reflected in the history books.

If a change of circumstances was no basis for a change in direction then there would be no need for the divorce courts.

The change of circumstances didn't make a slight bit of difference to what the SNP wanted, they wanted to break up our Union before the EU referendum and they would have wanted to break up our Union even if the result had gone the other way. Mrs Sturgeon was less than honest when she told the Scots that this would be a generation and indeed a lifetime opportunity.

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

17 minutes ago, vogie said:

The change of circumstances didn't make a slight bit of difference to what the SNP wanted, they wanted to break up our Union before the EU referendum and they would have wanted to break up our Union even if the result had gone the other way. Mrs Sturgeon was less than honest when she told the Scots that this would be a generation and indeed a lifetime opportunity.

 

My political perspective is no more defined by the words of Sturgeon than yours is by Farage or Johnson. The fact that the SNP repeatedly outperforms the combined opposition shows that their doctrine appeals to the electorate.  One in a lifetime or once in a generation is a desperate ploy because Westminster knows that there have absolutely nothing positive in their armory - they cannot convince us that staying in the UK is a good thing so all they can do is say that there was an agreement not to re-seek a referendum. I think it is becoming clearer by the day - Scotland will soon slip the yoke it has been burdened by for 300 years.

[melvinmelvin]

31 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

My political perspective is no more defined by the words of Sturgeon than yours is by Farage or Johnson. The fact that the SNP repeatedly outperforms the combined opposition shows that their doctrine appeals to the electorate.  One in a lifetime or once in a generation is a desperate ploy because Westminster knows that there have absolutely nothing positive in their armory - they cannot convince us that staying in the UK is a good thing so all they can do is say that there was an agreement not to re-seek a referendum. I think it is becoming clearer by the day - Scotland will soon slip the yoke it has been burdened by for 300 years.

 

fair enough,

but how does the view above compare with the results of the relatively recent ref. on indep.?

 

(I sympath. with those who observe that with Brexit, if it comes to fruitition, the game/UK has changed

 sufficiently to warrant another ref. on indep.)

 

[TheDark]

17 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

fair enough,

but how does the view above compare with the results of the relatively recent ref. on indep.?

 

(I sympath. with those who observe that with Brexit, if it comes to fruitition, the game/UK has changed

 sufficiently to warrant another ref. on indep.)

 

Scots fear at the time was that after exit from UK, rejoining to EU could take a long time. 

 

I don't think that's the case anymore. Scotland has proven that it's more European than England is. Furthermore exiting UK is currently the only way for Scotland to get back to EU. 

[sandyf]

17 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

fair enough,

but how does the view above compare with the results of the relatively recent ref. on indep.?

 

Do people really think that in the recent GE a vote for the conservative meant they were voting for brexit. Obviously no one could have been be voting AGAINST something else, such as JC.

In the same way a percentage of the population have convinced themselves that every vote in the Scottish referendum was a vote that actually meant remaining in the UK forever. No chance whatsoever it could be a vote AGAINST Alex Salmond and his version of independence.

 

Different leader, different circumstances, different proposal could mean a different opinion, of course there are those that maintain there is no right to change your opinion.

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, vogie said:

The change of circumstances didn't make a slight bit of difference to what the SNP wanted, they wanted to break up our Union before the EU referendum and they would have wanted to break up our Union even if the result had gone the other way. Mrs Sturgeon was less than honest when she told the Scots that this would be a generation and indeed a lifetime opportunity.

Brexit has broken Britain and the brexiteers are looking for every excuse under the sun to deny responsibility.

It is a documented fact that the majority of Scotland voted to remain in the EU, to some an irrelevant fact, but one that will dictate the way forward.