General Election 2019 - AND IT’S LIVE!

[D Angelo Barksdale]

I'm sorry sir, Aaron Banks invented democracy in 2016 and I am duty bound to defend it vigorously online.

[Ross.]

14 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Some people voted Leave on the basis that we would have a relationship with the EU along the lines of Norway or Switzerland.

I see the Switzerland deal/relationship mentioned a lot in this context. The UK has a far better setup with the EU than Switzerland. Switzerland is not in the EU and has little say in what the EU does but has to take on just about everything in order to remain sweet with them, all the while paying the EU significant sums of money for that.

Brexit was about immigration for many. Switzerland has to accept freedom of movement and settlement from EU citizens. That's probably the most basic and obvious issue in promoting the "Swiss deal".

[Baxter Parp]

I’m not highly happy or highly unhappy we’re leaving. I wanted to remain, but we had a vote and we voted leave. That’s democracy.

Scotland did get the outcome it voted for, because it’s part of the UK, which it chose to be, and the UK voted to leave. It definitely strengthens the case for indyref2, however.

The ‘hate being Scottish’ stuff is just pathetic, I’m proud to be Scottish and wanting democracy to stand doesn’t change that. A bit of a crybaby comment that.

What is it you're proud of?

[jamamafegan]

Scotland did get the outcome it voted for, because it’s part of the UK, which it chose to be, and the UK voted to leave. It definitely strengthens the case for indyref2, however.

How does it strengthen the case for indyref2?

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

How does it strengthen the case for indyref2?

Largely irrelevant to my actual point, but if ever there was a time for indyref2 it would be when Scottish votes disagree almost entirely with the UK vote on a huge issue like Brexit. However, Scotland chose to remain part of the UK so it has to accept that it votes with the UK.

[Londonwell]

1 hour ago, dorlomin said:

The Conservatives are led by a politician who was literally a clown on TV, a but of jokes while the grown ups got on with running the country. 

 

Every attempt to show why the loonies currently running the Labour Party are so repellent to large parts of the electorate, including life long Labour voters, is met with deflection, dishonesty and strawman counter arguments. 

Their manifesto is not a prospectus of a serious group of heavy weight thinkers ready to convince marginal seats across the country they will be a safe choice to run our country, it is self indulgent bollox from fringe activists. 

Boris fucking Johnson is running rings round the Labour Party, as much of a blatantly dishonest, amateur hour shitshow that clown is, he is able to appeal to voters that no Tory has in decades in preference to the McDonnell\Abbott\Corbyn circus. 

The voters are the people who matter. 

Convincing them that you are a party that takes national security, the economy, the justice system and all the other issues that voters take into subconscious account when choosing who to vote for.  Blubbering how unfair criticism of the Dear Leader in social media sites that mostly agree with you may indulge your need for emotional validation: But in 8 days, those voters are going to cast their votes. And barring an upset we will get Brexit, austerity and NHS sell off up the arse for the next 5 years because selfish wankers could not bear to hear criticisms of the current Labour leadership and build a prospectus for government that appealed to the voters. 

Tbh I can see where you are coming from and if the Tories get a majority I will come back and agree with you on this. The one thing I have learned over the last 5 or so years in politics though is to steer well clear of making any predictions, so I’ll shite out of it just now on that basis.

[jamamafegan]

Largely irrelevant to my actual point, but if ever there was a time for indyref2 it would be when Scottish votes disagree almost entirely with the UK vote on a huge issue like Brexit. However, Scotland chose to remain part of the UK so it has to accept that it votes with the UK.

What you’re saying is that because we voted for the Union the Brexit vote is democratic.

Then you’re saying that it strengthens the case for independence. Because...why? Perhaps because it’s a tad undemocratic to ignore the vote of a nation?

Think you need to make your mind up on this one m8.

[hearthammer]

1 hour ago, Tarmo Kink said:

 

I have never doubted that Scotland’s huge remain vote brings a strong case for indyref2 as there are clear political differences between Scotland and England. In indyref2, people may now vote based on that rather than shitting it because of Westminster scaremongering. However, none of that means Brexit should be cancelled and none of that means we should have another Brexit referendum as it’s simply anti-democratic and is a very dangerous precedent to set for the future. If Scotland votes Yes on indyref2, how would you feel if Westminster said ‘best of 3 lads?’.

We may have been promised to remain one of the ‘four equal partners’ but it’s blatantly obvious that was never going to be the case. Politicians lie all the time, I don’t know one who hasn’t, so if you voted to stay in the UK based on that then you’re a bit silly. The UK has voted to leave, so we must respect democracy and leave the EU. It does however, as I said, strengthen the case for indyref2.

 

When Rip, Rig and Panic rushed up to Glasgow a few days before the Independence vote in 2014 with their "Vow", that persuaded and scared many people who were either unsure or uncertain into voting "No".  They swanned off back to londonshire with their job done and reverted back into their master/servant roles with Scotland.  Nothing will change unless we grasp whatever opportunity WE decide upon - not westminster !!!!!!!

We are treated with disdain by westminster, yet, when the Independence question arises, they are so desperate to keep us as part of their "four equal partners", that they sell the "stronger together" bullshit which is the new "vow".

Scotland has its diehard "Indy" supporters who will not see any other option.  However, we also have the "born under a union flag" brigade who, irrespective of the further downtrodden existence under westminster, will not and could not vote either SNP or for Independence.  It's the majority who exist in neither of these camps that hold the key for me.  It's about evaluating the future and where they see themselves and their children being in 10, 20 or 30 years down the line - living in a self-serving, self-determining country, or continuing to get handouts from the westminster purse, despite the fact that we contribute handsomely to our detriment. 

[mizfit]

Anyone else cringe when Labour decide to attack the SNP during the elections?

Both parties should be able to work together with their similar idealism, but they disagree so much on independence that labour seem more intent on attacking the SNP than the tories.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

What you’re saying is that because we voted for the Union the Brexit vote is democratic.

Then you’re saying that it strengthens the case for independence. Because...why? Perhaps because it’s a tad undemocratic to ignore the vote of a nation?

Think you need to make your mind up on this one m8.

Nope, not what I’m saying at all.

We voted for Brexit, fact. Brexit has to happen otherwise that would be undemocratic.

‘We’ are the UK, not Scotland, as we voted to stay in the UK therefore we vote as the UK, not Scotland.

It would only be undemocratic to ‘ignore the vote of a nation’ if that ‘nation’ hadn’t had the chance to vote for its own independence already. We chose to remain in the union, over independence, so crying about Scotland being ignored now is rather silly when we democratically voted for it to be that way.

However, it obviously does strengthen a case for indyref2, as Scottish voters clearly heavily disagree with English voters on a huge issue that will affect Scotland, positively or negatively. That doesn’t make Brexit undemocratic, and it doesn’t mandate indyref2, but of course it strengthens the case for it. Think you’ve made a bit of a mess of trying to look smart here.

[The OP]

2 hours ago, dorlomin said:

The Conservatives are led by a politician who was literally a clown on TV, a but of jokes while the grown ups got on with running the country. 

 

Every attempt to show why the loonies currently running the Labour Party are so repellent to large parts of the electorate, including life long Labour voters, is met with deflection, dishonesty and strawman counter arguments. 

Their manifesto is not a prospectus of a serious group of heavy weight thinkers ready to convince marginal seats across the country they will be a safe choice to run our country, it is self indulgent bollox from fringe activists. 

Boris fucking Johnson is running rings round the Labour Party, as much of a blatantly dishonest, amateur hour shitshow that clown is, he is able to appeal to voters that no Tory has in decades in preference to the McDonnell\Abbott\Corbyn circus. 

The voters are the people who matter. 

Convincing them that you are a party that takes national security, the economy, the justice system and all the other issues that voters take into subconscious account when choosing who to vote for.  Blubbering how unfair criticism of the Dear Leader in social media sites that mostly agree with you may indulge your need for emotional validation: But in 8 days, those voters are going to cast their votes. And barring an upset we will get Brexit, austerity and NHS sell off up the arse for the next 5 years because selfish wankers could not bear to hear criticisms of the current Labour leadership and build a prospectus for government that appealed to the voters. 

The difficulty I have with 'He can't even lay a glove on a clown like Boris FFS' is that Theresa May was a much more normal human being (lack of a heart aside) and Corbyn did better against her than he is forecast to for this election. Rory Stewart was far more normal and couldn't make any dent on the Tory rank and file's Boris love-in. The obvious conclusion is that large swathes of English people like Boris' "say what you want" floppy, poshboy image.  They couldn't care less that he is an amoral, lying, bigoted clown.

Furthermore, Ed Miliband was far less controversial and far more middle of the road and was trounced by David Cameron. 

If you want a centre left government being tied to England and Wales seems futile, no matter who the Labour leader is. I feel sorry for the moderately left wing people in England who have no escape route. 

[jamamafegan]

However, it obviously does strengthen a case for indyref2, as Scottish voters clearly heavily disagree with English voters on a huge issue that will affect Scotland, positively or negatively. That doesn’t make Brexit undemocratic, and it doesn’t mandate indyref2, but of course it strengthens the case for it. Think you’ve made a bit of a mess of trying to look smart here.

Strengthens the case for indyref2 but doesn’t mandate indyref2. lolwut. Twisting yourself up in a knot here, chief.

You need to decide whether or not there is a case for indyref2 as a result of the Brexit vote. You’re saying there isn’t because we voted as part of the UK but you’re also saying that there is a case for it.

If we should leave the EU without question like you’re saying then there should be no thoughts in your mind that the issue could somehow strengthen the case for an indyref2. In your eyes it shouldn’t strengthen the case at all, but you’ve said that it has - which suggests to me that you know something is amiss here, although you seem unwilling to admit it.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

Strengthens the case for indyref2 but doesn’t mandate indyref2. lolwut. Twisting yourself up in a knot here, chief.

You need to decide whether or not there is a case for indyref2 as a result of the Brexit vote. You’re saying there isn’t because we voted as part of the UK but you’re also saying that there is a case for it.

If we should leave the EU without question like you’re saying then there should be no thoughts in your mind that the issue could somehow strengthen the case for an indyref2. In your eyes it shouldn’t strengthen the case at all, but you’ve said that it has - which suggests to me that you know something is amiss here, although you seem unwilling to admit it.

You’re completely missing the point. My original response was that Brexit has to happen, because we voted for it to happen. There’s no need for a second referendum just because the losers can’t accept Brexit and don’t want to honour the democratic vote. Swinson’s plan of cancelling Brexit is also anti-democracy at its finest.

The UK leaving the EU (like was voted for) does strengthen the case for indyref2, not sure why you seem think it doesn’t. Scotland has to accept Brexit currently because it is part of the UK which voted for Brexit. However, given that Scottish voters mainly voted to Remain, it obviously adds to the campaign for indyref2, pretty simple stuff really. This doesn’t mean that Brexit is undemocratic, as the UK (which includes Scotland) voted for Brexit.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

Thought you were a bam before but you actually have thought about stuff I can see.

 

All I'd say is in both cases the vote was sufficiently tight that more consensus on a way forward should have been made but wasn't, which is a point for the people making a case that you can't just vote on it and then proceed along a very hard line interpretation of the result. There's bags of evidence of prominent leave campaigners saying this that and the other was not at risk only for it to be obviously at risk with serious consequences for ordinary people.

 

Saying the UK voted leave so we just have to accept whatever version of leave is favoured by the very right wing even if it's outrageous to the left and centre because democracy is just storing a problem to burst out in the future.

 

I never said you have to accept whatever version of leave. You can vote for whoever you want in this General Election. Johnson has a deal, Corbyn says he’ll put a deal to the public (not convinced either of these deals are the best possible option), Sturgeon and Swinson have pretty much said they want Brexit cancelled. We do have to leave though, as that’s what people voted for and it would be undemocratic not to do so, basically casting doubt over any future referendum we hold.

 

If the Scottish public are really unconvinced by the Brexit deal put in place by Johnson or Corbyn, and we leave the EU with one of their deals, then it clearly strengthens the campain for indyref2. Scotland would be leaving the EU 100% democratically as part of the UK which it democratically voted to stay part of, but there would obviously be a noticeable difference in opinion between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

[welshbairn]

If, as the polls indicate, most people now think leaving the EU would be a mistake, why would ignoring them be the democratic thing to do?

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

If, as the polls indicate, most people now think leaving the EU would be a mistake, why would ignoring them be the democratic thing to do?

Polls aren’t an accurate representation. Do you suggest using polls over the actual democratic vote we had? Sounds like you just personally don’t want to leave the EU.

[welshbairn]

Just now, Tarmo Kink said:

 

Polls aren’t an accurate representation. Do you suggest using polls over the actual democratic vote we had? Sounds like you just personally don’t want to leave the EU.

 

No, I think we should ask them if they approve the deal on offer. That's the democratic thing to do. If a deal meant we stayed in close alignment with the EU economically with less political involvement I wouldn't necessarily vote against it. Johnson's deal is utter shite and would probably lead to us crashing out, with another 5 years trying to sort out the Irish border problem while trying to negotiate a free trade deal. There is no gain whatsoever. 

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

No, I think we should ask them if they approve the deal on offer. That's the democratic thing to do. If a deal meant we stayed in close alignment with the EU economically with less political involvement I wouldn't necessarily vote against it. Johnson's deal is utter shite and would probably lead to us crashing out, with another 5 years trying to sort out the Irish border problem while trying to negotiate a free trade deal. There is no gain whatsoever. 

A referendum on a deal is different altogether, and I can get behind that. A ‘confirmatory’ referendum on Brexit can get in the bin though, it’s a dangerous precedent to set and only being pushed by sore losers on the Remain side.

Also, the idea that Scotland is somehow being treated ‘undemocratically’ is also complete nonsense.

[Baxter Parp]

Largely irrelevant to my actual point, but if ever there was a time for indyref2 it would be when Scottish votes disagree almost entirely with the UK vote on a huge issue like Brexit. However, Scotland chose to remain part of the UK so it has to accept that it votes with the UK.

Advisory referendum trumps article 1 of the UN charter, apparently.

[Baxter Parp]

Tarmo Kink found.