Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Got a question for the brits that I'm not sure needed it's own thread. What does Elizabeth do. Every time I see a decision being made its cameron or someone else. I haven't seen anything about Elizabeth making decisions. Is she just a figure head now.

She just rubber stamps things. In theory she could refuse to sign a bill but that would cause a crisis, the monarch hasn't refused a bill from parliament in hundreds of years.


Latest bit of propaganda is aimed at the middle classes - your house prices will fall if we leave! One of the things everyone is obsessed by in the UK, the value of their home regardless of whether they have any intention to sell or not. Successive governments have caused house prices to raise out of control, and well above increases in wages. Labour and Tory alike have failed to build enough houses or done enough to control profiteering landlords. Most people of my generation can't afford to save up a deposit for a house due to rental prices let alone buy a house without serious input from family, without that you're stuffed. It's about time house prices were driven down by some margin.

National Sovereignty > Economics.

Our Government, and especially EU bureaucrats loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Most people of my generation can't afford to save up a deposit for a house due to rental prices let alone buy a house without serious input from family, without that you're stuffed. It's about time house prices were driven down by some margin.

Same! I don't think they thought this one through, saying that my generation might be able to afford a house in our own country is pretty good encouragement to me!

Next weeks scare story will be that House prices are going to soar.

Going to vote "out" because I received a letter from David Cameron in the post ordering me to vote "in", and I don't appreciate being told how to think.

Even if we do vote out, it won't stick. It'll be messy, but we're staying in regardless. Referendum results are not legally binding, and there are precedents among other EU countries that have voted out in a referendum but remained in anyway.

Politcally, an "in" vote is best for the current government as the act of the referendum appeases UKIP voters and gets them ticking conservative again in 2020.

An out vote that then goes to "further negotiations" and eventually gets overturned and we stay in is a disaster for them, as the 2020 election then becomes a mirror of the 2015 election, only instead of SNP voters resulting in a conservative victory, it'll be UKIP voters resulting in a Labour victory.

Whilst I agree that the EU does have a history of telling referendums to go take a hike, us voting to leave and then not being able to is going to cause major riots. Like seriously major riots. There might even end up being British terrorists attacking EU targets.

Well, maybe not. But it would be bad on a scale never seen before.

 Ketara wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Most people of my generation can't afford to save up a deposit for a house due to rental prices let alone buy a house without serious input from family, without that you're stuffed. It's about time house prices were driven down by some margin.

Same! I don't think they thought this one through, saying that my generation might be able to afford a house in our own country is pretty good encouragement to me!

It is a good thing although lenders will adjust their criteria in order to control the housing market, just as they do now. Interest rates will be adjusted and home builders and councils will drip feed property onto the market in order to exert control.

Lower house prices may also mean that many fall into negative equity. There is not much to be dons about that but older home owners (those more likely to vote) may find themselves sticking with the devil they know.

yellowfever wrote:
Got a question for the brits that I'm not sure needed it's own thread. What does Elizabeth do. Every time I see a decision being made its cameron or someone else. I haven't seen anything about Elizabeth making decisions. Is she just a figure head now.

We've been stripping power from the unelected parasites for years. Magna Cart and John was the initial event that kicked it all off. Henry VIII tried to exercise his divine right and ended up denouncing Catholicism, which caused about half the population to question whether the monarch was divinely inspired or not (ironic as the title of defender of the faith held by all English monarchs is a Catholic honorific). Elizabeth I had to tread a fine line with her succession as she could have easily been removed. Charles I lost his head trying to excersise divine right and James II was told to bugger off or the same would happen to him. The last monarch who held any real influence was Anne, then we invited the Germans in and have successfully turned the monarchy into an ornamental curiosity. Kind of like one of those knitted dolls that your Nan uses to hide the loo rolls in the toilet.

Most monarchies in Europe are the same. Theoretically they do have the power to override parliament, but were they ever to be that stupid you can bet heads would roll again. That's why, again theoretically, you don't hear from them as they're supposed to be politically neutral. There was a big stink when the Queen's opinon was outed in the Scottish referendum.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Whilst I agree that the EU does have a history of telling referendums to go take a hike, us voting to leave and then not being able to is going to cause major riots. Like seriously major riots. There might even end up being British terrorists attacking EU targets.

Well, maybe not. But it would be bad on a scale never seen before.

How would we not be able to? We literally just have to say, 'Sorry Guys, we're not playing anymore.'

If the Government kept us in against the will of the electorate, that cart would be quickly upset at the next election, as they suffered a massive landslide defeat in favour of whoever pledged to adhere to the result.

 Ketara wrote:

If the Government kept us in against the will of the electorate, that cart would be quickly upset at the next election, as they suffered a massive landslide defeat in favour of whoever pledged to adhere to the result.

I wouldn't see it lasting even that long. Half the tories want out and labour are in such a shocking state at the moment that they would be daft to not leap on the opportunity to call for a vote of no confidence.

Today's scare story: NHS will suffer if Britain votes to leave. That would be the same NHS that predates the EU by a fair number of years!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

If the Government kept us in against the will of the electorate, that cart would be quickly upset at the next election, as they suffered a massive landslide defeat in favour of whoever pledged to adhere to the result.

I wouldn't see it lasting even that long. Half the tories want out and labour are in such a shocking state at the moment that they would be daft to not leap on the opportunity to call for a vote of no confidence.

If that nightmare scenario came to pass (Britain voting to leave and Westminster refusing to honour the result) then the SNP could rightly say that Westminster is a dictatorship and declare UDI for Scotland!

 Henry wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

If the Government kept us in against the will of the electorate, that cart would be quickly upset at the next election, as they suffered a massive landslide defeat in favour of whoever pledged to adhere to the result.

I wouldn't see it lasting even that long. Half the tories want out and labour are in such a shocking state at the moment that they would be daft to not leap on the opportunity to call for a vote of no confidence.

But that's not a thing anymore is it? We have fixed term parliaments now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


But that's not a thing anymore is it? We have fixed term parliaments now.

Fixed term only relates to the duration of a parliament before it must be disolved. A general election can still be called with a vote of no confidence as parliament has effectively ceased to work.

From the remain side we have been told that house prices will fall and wages will raise if we leave. They said that these are not good (even that second one) but those sound pretty good to me!

For houses and jobs it's simple supply and demand. More people moving into the country means that more houses (and school and hospital spaces) are needed, which drives the prices of the existing ones out of control. And an oversupply of labor means that wages will stay low because there will always be someone somewhere willing to do it for cheap. The EU's suggestion is to just build more houses, but this is a small island with limited space. Were do you draw the line?

They say that if we leave the Eu and put a break on things we'll destroy the economy. It really makes you wonder how countries outside of the EU even survive doesn't it?

And if there is a resounding Out vote, and the EU starts messing around and tries to keep us in, I genuinely believe we would then have the right to start getting violent with them, because that is the official definition of tyranny. And sickeningly, they would probably say that the violence is our fault.

Remainers say that is wrong, yet they also tend to be those 'Unite Against Fascism' Fascists who think that they have the right to get violent against people who hold different opinions to them. The difference is, we would be getting violent because a democratic decision was being undemocratically suppressed. They get violent because the other side have different opinions. They get violent because their minority opinion is being democratically ignored. That's the key difference.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the BNP, EDL etc. But in a free society they have the right to get their opinions across. Just like the Jihadists the UAF type share platforms with. It's when they start physically attacking Tories and Kippers, who do represent the opinions of a sizable part of the electorate as their election victories demonstrate, that they show themselves up.

Thanks for the response henry

 Henry wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
Got a question for the brits that I'm not sure needed it's own thread. What does Elizabeth do. Every time I see a decision being made its cameron or someone else. I haven't seen anything about Elizabeth making decisions. Is she just a figure head now.

We've been stripping power from the unelected parasites for years. Magna Cart and John was the initial event that kicked it all off. Henry VIII tried to exercise his divine right and ended up denouncing Catholicism, which caused about half the population to question whether the monarch was divinely inspired or not (ironic as the title of defender of the faith held by all English monarchs is a Catholic honorific). Elizabeth I had to tread a fine line with her succession as she could have easily been removed. Charles I lost his head trying to excersise divine right and James II was told to bugger off or the same would happen to him. The last monarch who held any real influence was Anne, then we invited the Germans in and have successfully turned the monarchy into an ornamental curiosity. Kind of like one of those knitted dolls that your Nan uses to hide the loo rolls in the toilet.

Most monarchies in Europe are the same. Theoretically they do have the power to override parliament, but were they ever to be that stupid you can bet heads would roll again. That's why, again theoretically, you don't hear from them as they're supposed to be politically neutral. There was a big stink when the Queen's opinon was outed in the Scottish referendum.

And yet should the Government ignore the referendum result, the following upheaval might cause such a crisis that the Monarch would enforce the will of the people by disolving said Governement and selecting other individuals to form a new government and enforce the result.

 notprop wrote:

 Henry wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
Got a question for the brits that I'm not sure needed it's own thread. What does Elizabeth do. Every time I see a decision being made its cameron or someone else. I haven't seen anything about Elizabeth making decisions. Is she just a figure head now.

We've been stripping power from the unelected parasites for years. Magna Cart and John was the initial event that kicked it all off. Henry VIII tried to exercise his divine right and ended up denouncing Catholicism, which caused about half the population to question whether the monarch was divinely inspired or not (ironic as the title of defender of the faith held by all English monarchs is a Catholic honorific). Elizabeth I had to tread a fine line with her succession as she could have easily been removed. Charles I lost his head trying to excersise divine right and James II was told to bugger off or the same would happen to him. The last monarch who held any real influence was Anne, then we invited the Germans in and have successfully turned the monarchy into an ornamental curiosity. Kind of like one of those knitted dolls that your Nan uses to hide the loo rolls in the toilet.

Most monarchies in Europe are the same. Theoretically they do have the power to override parliament, but were they ever to be that stupid you can bet heads would roll again. That's why, again theoretically, you don't hear from them as they're supposed to be politically neutral. There was a big stink when the Queen's opinon was outed in the Scottish referendum.

And yet should the Government ignore the referendum result, the following upheaval might cause such a crisis that the Monarch would enforce the will of the people by disolving said Governement and selecting other individuals to form a new government and enforce the result.

Eh. I doubt her madge would risk the monarchy for anything less than a political party trying to seize permanent power.

Rubbish old chap; what could be more important than a Government ignoring a clear vote by the citizens of the country. And I don't imagine that Her Majesty would do so arbitrarily by herself but in response to a concerted protest by the people and a clear opposition to hand the reigns to.

I'll knock on her door and ask myself if needs be.

 notprop wrote:
Rubbish old chap; what could be more important than a Government ignoring a clear vote by the citizens of the country. And I don't imagine that Her Majesty would do so arbitrarily by herself but in response to a concerted protest by the people and a clear opposition to hand the reigns to.

I'll knock on her door and ask myself if needs be.

Oh dear God, I can see the BBC headlines now. 'Aggrieved Construction Manager arrested in Buckingham Palace Garden: Asked Queen if she'd Like a Pint and Discussion on Politics'.

Hm. So you really think that if the answer is "No, we should leave" in the referendum, UK will instantly get out of EU?

It's true there are a lot of scare stories right now, but I feel like the people for the Brexit are overestimating a bit too much the real power of this referendum.

After all, if it becomes a 51% in favor of the Brexit and 49% in favor of remain, I think your politicians will be able to find a way to say "actually, the difference is too low so we should rather stay for now and negotiate better terms for us" and get away with this excuse or another.

If it worked for others countries, honestly, there is no reason UK would escape that as well. It's not like you're really known for huge riots or strikes - unless it's football, of course. Just kidding for this last one.

Quite laughed a bit at the idea of UK terrorists against EU, I must say. I don't think someone would be stupid enough to sacrifice his life for that.

Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.

The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.

Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!

 Ketara wrote:
Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.

The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.

Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!

It's only getting more hysterical and ridiculous. Undecideds ask for sensible debate as well as straight information and get clobbered with Sterling Crash/recession/jobloss/hourse price crash/WW3/plague of locusts/death of firstborn.

All this noise from the treasury who couldn't even predict that 2008 banking crash but expect us to trust them on their "judgement" that they'll know what happens in 20+ years...

 Sarouan wrote:
Hm. So you really think that if the answer is "No, we should leave" in the referendum, UK will instantly get out of EU?

It's true there are a lot of scare stories right now, but I feel like the people for the Brexit are overestimating a bit too much the real power of this referendum.

After all, if it becomes a 51% in favor of the Brexit and 49% in favor of remain, I think your politicians will be able to find a way to say "actually, the difference is too low so we should rather stay for now and negotiate better terms for us" and get away with this excuse or another.

If it worked for others countries, honestly, there is no reason UK would escape that as well. It's not like you're really known for huge riots or strikes - unless it's football, of course. Just kidding for this last one.

Quite laughed a bit at the idea of UK terrorists against EU, I must say. I don't think someone would be stupid enough to sacrifice his life for that.

By that logic if we vote 51%-49% to remain then we should leave right?

A victory for leave is just that, the percentage doesn't matter. I've actually said all along that it would be interesting if the UK does vote to leave, the EU has a history of telling its members who vote against it that they didn't understand the question and that they need to vote again, I can see them at least trying this in an out vote.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
National Sovereignty > Economics.

Our Government, and especially EU bureaucrats loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state.

Or, y'know, you could make points without needless hyperbole.

 Ketara wrote:
Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.

The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.

Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!

Whilst being in the EU, and under Osborne's stewardship, we've had economic woes, so his claim, as always, is frankly silly!

 Goliath wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
National Sovereignty > Economics.

Our Government, and especially EU bureaucrats loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state.

Or, y'know, you could make points without needless hyperbole.

Thats not hyperbole...diminishing national sovereignty to create a federal European superstate is the core aim of the European union. Its hardly a secret.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.

The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.

Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!

Whilst being in the EU, and under Osborne's stewardship, we've had economic woes, so his claim, as always, is frankly silly!

Eh. He started off reasonably well, but fell apart when his predictions and plans for growth didn't quite pan out, and that meant he had to choose between doing what was best for the country, and what was best for the Conservative party. Naturally, he chose the latter, and resurrected the demons of PFI, slashing support from those who really needed it, and figure juggling to hide it.

Having said that, his economic stewardship is still better than Broon's was, but I'm really not sure how much of a ringing endorsement that is. Osborne's a mediocre chancellor at best, he has an alright grasp of the issues involved, but little imagination (or desire to express it) when things don't go according to plan.

Certainly, I wouldn't trust any of his predictions here, he seems to have enough trouble predicting three years into the future when he's already Chancellor and there are few bumps. That doesn't imply much skill at determining the economic consequences of ...well anything, really.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
From the remain side we have been told that house prices will fall and wages will raise if we leave. They said that these are not good (even that second one) but those sound pretty good to me!

I mean, sure, your opposition will clearly support your side if you misrepresent their arguments, that's Mildly-Dishonest Internet Argumentation 101.

Remainers say that is wrong, yet they also tend to be those 'Unite Against Fascism' Fascists who think that they have the right to get violent against people who hold different opinions to them.

Do they? Do they really? Are you 100% sure about that statement? Or is this yet another incident in this cesspool of a thread of stupid fething insults being just thrown at the remain side? "If we make up enough ridiculous allegations that they murder grandmothers for sport, I'm sure someone will believe us!.


Make. Better. Arguments.

Going "We'll get violent, but not that violence that that group they're all in do (even though they're not all in the group), ours is a better kind of violence because its ours! There aren't any gaping logical inconsistencies in this argument!" Is not a good point to make.

 Goliath wrote:

Make. Better. Arguments.

I could point at the Five President's Report again, but considering you called the issue of sovereignty 'hyperbole' despite that, you don't seem to even believe it straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.

Unless of course, you were just addressing the comment about the government, in which case, fair play.