Appropriate seeing as our future prospects have been shafted
fuck fuck fuckety fucking Brexit.
The UK Independence Party is flogging multi-packs of rubber johnnies bearing the mug of former leader Nigel Farage. It is also unloading single packs for those more realistic about their chances of bedding someone this weekend or beyond. The prophylactics, being peddled by UKIP’s youth wing - Young Independence – from their …
"Sex and Farage in the same sentence does not compute!"
The value of Farage on a prophylactic is that not only will no sperm pass but also that both parties are put off completely by his visage.
I take back what I said about him being a complete waste of space, even here he fails to live up to expectations.
Farage's face puts a lot of people off thought, full stop.... because they seem to stop thinking and believe everything that comes out of his mouth.
What I can't comprehend is what they then think when, after the event, he denies having said what he said, even when presented with the video evidence of him saying what he said. I mean... you can't be capable of independent thought, and also square away that kind of behaviour.
Sorry darling, thinking about Farage has given me a headache.
What I can't comprehend is what they then think when, after the event, he denies having said what he said, even when presented with the video evidence of him saying what he said. I mean... you can't be capable of independent thought, and also square away that kind of behavior'
So he's just like every other politician in the world including the "leader" here in the States?
France was one of the founding members of the EEC, which only 26 years later morphed into the EU.
It was actually a founding member of the European coal & steel community which became the EEC 16 years later. 25 years after that they had a referendum on signing Maastricht, to turn the EEC into the EU. They passed that by less than 51% on a 71.1% turnout, so a closer shave than Brexit, yet no-one complains that it should have been rerun the year after just in case the result would change.
51.89% vs 48.11% is not a resounding victory
Actually, it's not really 48%, in actual fact only 34.7% of eligible voters voted to remain, with about 27.8% not voting and who have to be assumed to be happy with "whatever the outcome is". So there's an argument that around 65% were happy to leave - 65-35 is a somewhat higher margin !
But, the remoaners say, "that's not valid". When you can argue that, but if someone really did want to stay, they should have cast their vote - if they didn't then they should be assumed to be happy with the outcome of the vote by those that did actually vote. I think we can be sure that had the vote been similarly tight the other way, remoaners would be quick to point out that less than 35% of voters actually voted to leave.
'What was that with the "not a binding referendum"?'
The referendum was supposed to be non binding in that it was supposed to be advisory only - which (oversimplified) means the result would be looked upon as the advice or suggestion of the people. On that basis, the result should have led the government to start looking at the possibility of leaving the EU, all the possible methods and degrees of doing so, before deciding whether to go ahead (or returning to the public to say "these are our options... what do you think?")
Perhaps more importantly, because it was supposed to be only advisory, it was argued in Parliament that there doesn't need to be a super majority result. The point of a super majority is to ensure there is absolutely no doubt - including a greatly reduced margin for error when taking into account the number of people who didn't bother to vote. A win for either side that is as marginal as that of our EU referendum, when 28% of the people didn't vote, is one that shouldn't be considered a clear win either way - and certainly not one that will change this country in such a fundamental way.
""The referendum was supposed to be non binding"
NOT TRUE."
I'm perfectly well aware that David Cameron did a stupid by saying it would be honoured, and quite a big one knowing that there are an awful lot of people out there that don't understand the due process behind which such things are brought about. But I was talking about that due process, and the legal status of the referendum as debated in and brought into being through an act of parliament, to answer the question that was asked about what the term meant.
The bottom line is that the referendum was legally only advisory. The government did not have to act upon it, but chose to do so - with too much haste and too little planning.
"Cameron changed that with his big mouth."
Don't forget how the law is made in this country. The PM doesn't make or change laws by opening his (or her) big mouth. If they could, we'd probably all be in an even worse situation than we are now.
With the amount of vitriol swirling round since the vote leave campaign, if the government tried to back-pedal now there would be civil unrest..
But then again, when we actually leave, there will still be civil unrest because we won't be able to buy enough gas to keep the power on, and the price of food will have doubled because we fundamentally don't have enough land to grow our own, and we can't import spanish grain to make our supposedly 'british' meat & dairy..
In a country so precariously balanced that it risks societal collapse if the Internet went off for a few weeks (in my humble opinion), this is a truly horrifying prospect!
At which point, thanks to the wonderful way global finance now works, the pound could go the way of the zimbabwean dollar.
The only answer is to build yourself a fortress, buy up all the property at rock-bottom prices with your off-shore assets, and then wait it out while the proles murder their neighbours for the last tin of baked beans. But that only works if you're rich like rees-mogg.
As you say, there's a good chance we'll see civil unrest in the two main opposing scenarios: If the government just turns around and says "No, we've decided we're not leaving after all" or if they end up taking us out and people become worse off and unable to afford basic necessities due to job losses and rising prices. (And ironically, I think the people most likely to be involved would largely be in the intersection of a Venn diagram of both).
That's why I honestly believe that the so-called "People's Vote" option is probably the best way forward now. It isn't back-pedalling to say to the voting public "Look, we've listened to you, and we're going to listen to you again - this is what's on the table, so what do you think?"
There's still a possibility of civil unrest in that scenario, but it's the least likely to lead to it, and if it does it would probably be the least amount.
But since our PM is more interested in trying to keep her party healthy, rather than the country she and it serves, I might have to learn about gardening, and growing my own veg.
I'm all for that. The only problem is what the choices will be?
If that is designed by committee we may end up EITHER with a ballot paper with too many choices that will dilute the impact of the final result, or even yield a misleading result OR the wording on the possibilities may not be balanced enough to swing it in the direction that the electorate collectively wish for (being careful of my wording here - bias on the choices is counter productive).
One way or another the Polling Stations will have to start sharpening their pencils. As I see it, the only way there won't be any need for them is if May gets her way and she gets lauded as "the negotiator that brought the EU to its knees." She's not going to be allowed to do that due to the fact that this current uncertainty cannot be allowed to continue without having dire economic consequences.
"I'm all for that. The only problem is what the choices will be?"
That is the question. (Or was it "to be or not to be?" I forget.)
But being serious, you are quite right - do it wrong, and it's likely to get us in an even bigger mess. It has to be thought out carefully, and worded correctly, with no bias and in such a way that it is fair. No hint of "based on what we now know" or any reference to the 2016 outcome and whether it was "overwhelming" or "marginal", etc.
The problem is, the longer things go on as now, the less time there is to prepare for such a vote - and (should it happen) the more rushed that vote becomes. And I think we're more likely to see another snap election first (which there are now murmurings about) - and that'll just mess things up further.
I think what I'm saying here is: Bottom line, we're fucked.
doubled because we fundamentally don't have enough land to grow our own,
Urban myth. We don't currently grow all we eat, in part because we like eating out-of-season food like asparagus at Christmas, and in part because the Common Agricultural Policy distorts production in EU countries. We're perfectly capable of growing the food we need, even if remoaners nonsensical FUD about being unable to buy from elsewhere were true.
Too many gullible people really seem to believe that Europe only exists because of the EU, but like Americans who think "the world" = "the USA" you need to open your eyes and stop believing the propaganda.
You could not even muster enough people to pick strawberries this season and you are blocking the Poles from coming in as of March, who is gonna come and work on the farm, now, you or your idle kids ?
That's a Europe-wide problem unrelated to Brexit. French winegrowers are complaining that no-one wants to pick grapes (50,000-worker shortfall this month, according to the press), with similar problems in Portugal.
Too many snowflakes that are unwilling to put in a decent day's hard work. When they find that they can't eat their smartphones they may learn to feel differently.
remoaners
What is it with the cretins continually using this word? Don't they have any original, creative insults to use?
Or are they, as their attitude would seem to suggest, stuck as eternal 10-year-olds who have just read about the British Empire for the first time?
"
Urban myth. We don't currently grow all we eat, in part because we like eating out-of-season food like asparagus at Christmas, and in part because the Common Agricultural Policy distorts production in EU countries. We're perfectly capable of growing the food we need, even if remoaners nonsensical FUD about being unable to buy from elsewhere were true.
"
Even if that were true, all that food will not do us much good when it is rotting in the fields because there's insufficient seasonal immigrant labour available to harvest it.
Joe W,
A referendum is non-binding usually BUT Cameron stated the result would be binding and that is the problem that the remainers cannot fix or apparently accept as reality.
If Cameron had not been so arrogant and kept his mouth shut he could have wriggled out of applying the result. [It would have caused some moaning from the leave voters but Brits do not riot in the streets over such things.]
The tories are at fault BUT blaming the 'vote leave' voters satisfies the remainers more.
[They also ignore the young voters who could have changed the result but could not be bothered to vote ...... then complained about the result when it was explained to them.]
TL;DR
Tories then non-voting 'young voters' are to blame but cannot do this so blame 'leave voters' !!!
You can downvote now ....... but you cannot change the truth .... or the vote :) ;)
with about 27.8% not voting and who have to be assumed to be happy with "whatever the outcome is".
That's a pretty huge assumption. You could also make the assumption that all of the non-voters were happy with the status quo and felt their vote wasn't required because no one would be so stupid as to vote leave without a plan in place, or at least a skeleton of a plan. But, of course, that doesn't fit your cosy world-view, does it?
The reality is that no one knows why people didn't vote or what their intentions might have been had they voted.
is not a resounding victory and its certainly not "the Will of the People".
But it is a greater proportion of the electorate than any government who signed the various treaties that got us into Europe ever got.
If you want to halt the decision on that basis you have to also accept that the original treaties were democratically invalid as well - and in fact there is a very clear legal position that the act of taking us in, in the first please was Ultra vires for a UK government, and de facto treason.
.
Literally nothing is ultra vires for Parliament under English law, that's the central concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. If you have no legal training (and you obviously do not) you should probably not attempt to use legal terminology in some kind of cargo cult impression of any understanding at all.
Brexiters - YOU WON. GET ON WITH IT.
Except they haven't, have they? They've spent the 2 years meant to prepare for Brexit on talking about what Brexit means, leaving 0 time to actually prepare.
It's time to recognise that Brexit is impossible at the moment. Blame the EU, blame us remoaners - I don't care, just hit the brakes until the "Will of the People" can be implemented properly.
YOU LOST. LOSERS. GET OVER IT
Why does every brexiteer seem to say this all the time? Are they feeling inadequate?
PS: The last time someone said that to me IRL was when I was about 10 and had just come second in an 800m race. I would have hoped that those who have reached voting age might have grown up a bit more than a 10 year-old but it looks like disappointment springs eternal..
Provide an argument for remain based on real world facts and/or data,
Sure. We retain a stable economy by remaining part of the largest free trade bloc on the planet. We retain the influence we have on the global stage as part of the EU. Given our population size and the size of our economy, we effectively share the leadership and direction of the EU with France and Germany, so we have far greater influence within the EU than nine-tenths of the members. Much of this is determined through the Council of Ministers, where you can see that in the ten years prior to 2016 decisions went our way 87% of the time (a figure which any British government would have been proud of in Westminster over that same period).
i.e. no opinions and no FUD?
Now you provide the argument for leaving, based upon real-world facts and data, without resorting to opinion and FUD.
I personally am not part of any establishment media or otherwise, I generally distrust the mainstream media as they tend to take whatever stance their owners and the Establishment want them to (in my opinion).
Most of the remainers that I know tend to be people who have some understanding of free trade, co-operation with international partners and the fact that Europe as a community is far stronger than the sum of it's parts both strategically and economically. Remainers tend not to be xenophobic eugenicists and understand a concept known as hybrid strength.
Go wave a flag.
"How much risk is there that they’d get their hand pregnant? Coz I can’t see much chance of the young UKIPer being allowed to put it anywhere else…"
I asked the same question twice yesterday in response to seeing comments/pictures - although I was a touch more blunt. I simply asked: "Why do wankers need condoms?"
Corbyn butt plugs?
Doesn't really match the marketing theme of Brexit leadership inspired marital aides.
I've no idea which way the opposition would jump on brexit though too often in the last few years they've not opposed or abstained over the stupider pieces of legislation (new and new old labour).
It's disfunctional and heavily undemocratic
Like Westminster you mean? One house utterly unelected but rather selected from amongst the cronies of the present government and the other filled with people who are commanded not to vote how their voters wish but rather along pre-determined party lines?
Very little about our current system is terribly democratic (probably becuase it doesn't work terribly well with large groups of people - even the ancient Greek Democracies didn't work terribly well and they were only small groups of citizens.)
There was a similar case last year in Germany. A protestant youth group had packets printed with the best known quote of Luther's "Here I stand, I can do nothing else". The bishop wasn't amused, and had the articles impounded.
A report (in German) is to be seen on https://www.zeit.de/news/2017-03/17/kirche-kirche-stoppt-kondome-mit-luther-spruechen-17145406
Jerry