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.

@ DINLT

I've exalted your post because it's exactly how I feel about the whole thing.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DINLT

I've exalted your post because it's exactly how I feel about the whole thing.

If only there were 40,000 more people like you, I'd be able to get into Parliament and take on that nest of vipers

Stranger83 wrote:


Or does it just show that the getting out of the EU is more important to them?

If my house was on fire and I could save the Kids or the wedding album I'd chose the kids - it doesn't mean I don't like the wedding album, I just value the kids more.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand what the Italy referendum was all about, or that I understand the political arena over there, but from what I have gathered is that apparently people did attempt to change this to a referendum on the EU as opposed to what it was actually meant to be (much like the recent Heathrow election). Clearly the people of Italy want a say in that much more than a say in some government reforms, so let 'em have a say.

Fortunately I have neither kids or a wedding album to worry about! Long may that last!

Except the Italy vote wasn't about Europe or the Eurozone. It was about changing constitutionally how the country works. It neither removed or took away powers from the EU. However a few populists twisted and railroaded the whole process into being about the Eurozone. It became a populist anti-establishment vote. Yet by doing so they are empowering a few people that have no real vested interest in the people, but rather only installing themselves in a position of power, whilst pointing a finger and blaming a depersonalised democratic construct and using anti-immigration rhetoric to rally enough people that are a few steps removed and generally ignorant (as in not aware) of the whole process.

Give people a simple answer to a complex problem and many people get suckered into believing it. It's the same as the Climate Change argument - because scientific theory precludes ever having a perfect theory it allows deniers to exploit this with the populace because of ignorance over how the process works. The same goes with the EU, it can never be perfect because there is no such thing, that allows EU deniers to exploit peoples views on the issue.

It's the same as what Trump, Farage, Boris the Clown, Gove the expert hater and now Empress May are doing. Rely on peoples lack of understanding to railroad changes through to ensure they maintain their own power and position and not worry about the fallout when people wake up in 10-15 years that what they voted for was never what the people in power had any intention of implementing. That then breeds even more anger and frustration at the process and opens the door to ever more extreme populist movements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DINLT

I've exalted your post because it's exactly how I feel about the whole thing.

If only there were 40,000 more people like you, I'd be able to get into Parliament and take on that nest of vipers

I thought Scotland and SNP was pro-EU though; that's going to be a tough sell...

 Whirlwind wrote:
and now Empress May are doing. Rely on peoples lack of understanding to railroad changes through to ensure they maintain their own power and position

I highly, highly doubt May is sitting there twiddling her fingers Monty Burns style, plotting to use a specific form of Brexit to maintain her own wealth, and career as a politician. Daft caricaturing like that kind of just detracts from what you're saying.

As someone who very comfortably squats in the centre ground politically, I can't for the life of me understand the amount of general vitriol directed at May that I see all over. The woman's barely done anything to like or disapprove of yet, and certainly nothing particularly controversial! Whilst I'm sure her opinion on what's best differs substantially from many people's, I'm reasonably confident that she only wants what's best for her country. Certainly, she hardly has the reputation for self-aggrandisement and promotion that the likes of Bojo, and Blair have.

Yet the number of comparisons to Thatcher, Hitler, and so on is just....well, it makes you feel like a lot of people would hate Jesus Christ himself with a cabinet of Mother Theresa, Oskar Schindler, and Florence Nightingale if they happened to rock up in blue rosettes.

Its just basic partisan politics. The British left has always been better at demonizing their opponents. I.e. the "Nasty Party" narrative.

 Ketara wrote:
I can't for the life of me understand the amount of general vitriol directed at May that I see all over. The woman's barely done anything to like or disapprove of yet, and certainly nothing particularly controversial! Whilst I'm sure her opinion on what's best differs substantially from many people's, I'm reasonably confident that she only wants what's best for her country. Certainly, she hardly has the reputation for self-aggrandisement and promotion that the likes of Bojo, and Blair have.

Yet the number of comparisons to Thatcher, Hitler, and so on is just....well, it makes you feel like a lot of people would hate Jesus Christ himself with a cabinet of Mother Theresa, Oskar Schindler, and Florence Nightingale if they happened to rock up in blue rosettes.

Stance on human rights:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum?client=safari
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/c1fc44c4-8985-11e6-8cb7-e7ada1d123b1?client=safari

Investigatory powers bill
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/11/29/investigatory-powers-bill-does-mean-privacy/

She has very little belief in the rights of people. I'm no left wing loon, very much centerist, and will happily say that Thatcher did some good in among some bad, even thought I grew up in the middle of mining land. May is not evil incarnate, but there is some very worrying disregard for basic freedoms.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The British left has always been better at demonizing their opponents. I.e. the "Nasty Party" narrative.

The left doesn't need to do anything, the Tories show their true colours soon enough. It certainly didn't take May long.

The Tories didn't get the reputation of being "the nasty party" from only left-wing propaganda.

IDK if you lived through the 1980s, but a hard rain fell on many industrial communities throughout the UK, while the Tories exhorted the people to "get on their bikes" and cycle to wherever there was a decent job as a vice-president executive of a merchant bank paying a bonus of half a mil a year, and vilified the people who didn't.

By some strange coincidence, these deprived areas of the 1980s are the same ones in the 2010s with low education attainment, multi-generation unemployment, and a strong anti-establishment vote.

But enough of my no-doubt completely unfounded cynicism.

(Ignore the post, I'm not in the right frame for it)

Steve steveson wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I can't for the life of me understand the amount of general vitriol directed at May that I see all over. The woman's barely done anything to like or disapprove of yet, and certainly nothing particularly controversial! Whilst I'm sure her opinion on what's best differs substantially from many people's, I'm reasonably confident that she only wants what's best for her country. Certainly, she hardly has the reputation for self-aggrandisement and promotion that the likes of Bojo, and Blair have.

Yet the number of comparisons to Thatcher, Hitler, and so on is just....well, it makes you feel like a lot of people would hate Jesus Christ himself with a cabinet of Mother Theresa, Oskar Schindler, and Florence Nightingale if they happened to rock up in blue rosettes.

Stance on human rights:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum?client=safari
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/c1fc44c4-8985-11e6-8cb7-e7ada1d123b1?client=safari

Investigatory powers bill
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/11/29/investigatory-powers-bill-does-mean-privacy/

She has very little belief in the rights of people. I'm no left wing loon, very much centerist, and will happily say that Thatcher did some good in among some bad, even thought I grew up in the middle of mining land. May is not evil incarnate, but there is some very worrying disregard for basic freedoms.

Sure. I'd agree that she has a troubling tendency to believe the state should have more investigatory and surveillance powers for various anti-terrorist reasons. I thoroughly disagree with her. That doesn't make her a bad person though, just a person with a different opinion to me, and I'm aware that as Home sec/PM, she has access to data I do not. If I took her position and discovered such powers saved thousands of lives a year, I might even change my mind to agree with her. Then again, maybe not.

Either way, it hardly makes her into an evil person.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Tories didn't get the reputation of being "the nasty party" from only left-wing propaganda.

IDK if you lived through the 1980s, but a hard rain fell on many industrial communities throughout the UK, while the Tories exhorted the people to "get on their bikes" and cycle to wherever there was a decent job as a vice-president executive of a merchant bank paying a bonus of half a mil a year, and vilified the people who didn't.

By some strange coincidence, these deprived areas of the 1980s are the same ones in the 2010s with low education attainment, multi-generation unemployment, and a strong anti-establishment vote.

But enough of my no-doubt completely unfounded cynicism.

May is hardly responsible for the policies of the eighties, any more than she is the occupation of Suez under Anthony Eden. I grew to dislike Cameron for a variety of reasons, and I'm not mad keen on the Tories for a variety of reasons. But neither of those things are sufficient justification, in my mind, for the constant devolving to insulting nicknames, automatic hatred, and writing off of anything a Tory government ever does. When May starts doing genuinely distasteful things, ala Blair/Cameron towards the end of his tenure, I'll happily join in. But at this stage? It feels premature and intellectually lazy.

 Ketara wrote:
When May starts doing genuinely distasteful things,

If the snoopers charter isn't genuinely distasteful I'm not sure what is.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
When May starts doing genuinely distasteful things,

If the snoopers charter isn't genuinely distasteful I'm not sure what is.

Wars in Iraq as a result of lying to Parliament, lobbing expensive missiles at Libya whilst forcing through disgusting disabled benefits cuts with rigged re-evaluation interviews, revolving directorship deals with companies shortly after leaving a job where you granted them a massive tax amnesty, and so on.

As mentioned though, I am aware that I don't have all the facts necessarily on this one. I will also potentially take it into account when my voting choices are made next GE. I don't feel it's severe enough to warrant that visceral feeling of disgust though, at least not yet. If stories come out about policemen stalking ex-girlfriends using it, I may well change my mind, but we'll see how that one pans out.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
and now Empress May are doing. Rely on peoples lack of understanding to railroad changes through to ensure they maintain their own power and position

I highly, highly doubt May is sitting there twiddling her fingers Monty Burns style, plotting to use a specific form of Brexit to maintain her own wealth, and career as a politician. Daft caricaturing like that kind of just detracts from what you're saying.

As someone who very comfortably squats in the centre ground politically, I can't for the life of me understand the amount of general vitriol directed at May that I see all over. The woman's barely done anything to like or disapprove of yet, and certainly nothing particularly controversial! Whilst I'm sure her opinion on what's best differs substantially from many people's, I'm reasonably confident that she only wants what's best for her country. Certainly, she hardly has the reputation for self-aggrandisement and promotion that the likes of Bojo, and Blair have.

Yet the number of comparisons to Thatcher, Hitler, and so on is just....well, it makes you feel like a lot of people would hate Jesus Christ himself with a cabinet of Mother Theresa, Oskar Schindler, and Florence Nightingale if they happened to rock up in blue rosettes.

I disagree I think empress May has done more than enough to get her reputation:-

The deloittes memo stating her only main priority is the Tory party and keeping them in power
Ploughing on with changes to the electoral boundaries that favour the tories (no referendum here strangely!)
The Autumn statement designed to penalise those just about managing (it's in their own report) whilst benefitting middle 'England'
Continuing on with grammar schools despite everyone and their dog telling her that it only favours the better off
Planning to make children of illegal immigrants be given the bottom of the pile schooling
Sending a van out on to the streets with go home or we'll arrest you signage
Illegal house arrest without trial of people
The snoopers charter
Legally Requiring schools, universities, and so on to report anyone they suspect might have extreme views
Removing without oversight webpages from the Internet.
Giving of ofcom powers to remove content from broadcast that might be considered too extreme
Allowing politicians at the Tory conference to spout bigoted nonsense with regards getting rid of foreign doctors/getting companies to report how many foreign workers they have
Not supporting the judicial system and not condemning the daily mail for inflammatory articles
Requiring non Euro citizens to always have a job that earns more than £35k otherwise they can get deported immediately
Keeping all eu legislation apart from the ECJ as part of Brexit

Individually they might not seem too bad but combined it shows someone that she is hell bent on reducing people's rights that have been gained slowly over time and having an authoritarian style of do as we say or else approach. So yeah I think my views are justified in my mind at least.

Don't forget banning the sale of all substances that are "psychoactive" (with some exceptions such as the incredibly safe alcohol and tobacco, whilst poor old laughing gas gets banned despite there being only 17 deaths total due to it from 2006 to 2012), even those which do not yet exist.

Because that's such a brilliant way to tackle complicated issues, ban everything now and into the future.

And she did it despite the police telling her it was unenforceable and scientists telling her that it was plain dumb.

 Whirlwind wrote:

The deloittes memo stating her only main priority is the Tory party and keeping them in power

Source? Not to mention I'm not sure a memo written by someone else qualifies as a reason, but I'll withhold judgment until I see it.

Ploughing on with changes to the electoral boundaries that favour the tories (no referendum here strangely!)

I agree with those boundary changs. Needed to happen because

a) too many MP's,
b)Labour was obscenely advantaged already within the current layout, it's why they managed to lose the popular vote but still win a GE,
c) the boundary commission isn't exactly a Tory institution, they're independent specialists who devise the next most suitable layout, and
d) it happens every so many years routinely, as opposed to being some sort of initiative she created.

If you hold that as a black mark against her, you should look into it more.

The Autumn statement designed to penalise those just about managing (it's in their own report) whilst benefitting middle 'England'

Economics. Highly debatable, and doubtless many people would hold whatever you'd rather she do against her just as strongly.

Continuing on with grammar schools despite everyone and their dog telling her that it only favours the better off

Yes and no. There's two issues on that, streaming and entry places.

With regards to streaming the issue is that it makes less intelligent kids do worse, but the more intelligent ones do better, whereas when you mix them you achieve a more level overall grade (there's been a fair bit of sociological research done to produce that conclusion). So which you prefer is debatable, I personally think it probably doesn't make much difference at the macro level, it's an ideological/personal decision either way. The left wing hate it because it encourages elitism and goes against the mantra of everyone being equal, the right wing love it because it encourages bootstrapping and meritocracy. Both are right. YMMV.

With regards to places, at the moment, the issue is that grammar school places tend to be filled up by the middle classes making it very difficult for kids from genuinely disadvantaged backgrounds to get in. Not to mention that their parents can't afford the tuition required to help them pass the entrance tests.That all being said, you can help to reduce these effects by a) opening lots of grammar schools, thus reducing the strain on existing places, b) reserving a certain percentage for kids on school meals or benefits, and c) making it so that you can join in any given year instead of one big exam at 11. All of which have been mooted as possibilities in the latest proposals, I believe.

So yes, any intrinsic recoiling from that one is more ideological on your part, than serious flaws with the concept, I think. It's fine to have a preference, but I don't see that it's a black mark to hold against anyone.

Planning to make children of illegal immigrants be given the bottom of the pile schooling

I dislike this. Deport them if you have to, that's right and fair, but depriving them whilst still in the country is inhumane. I'll acknowledge that one as a black mark.

Sending a van out on to the streets with go home or we'll arrest you signage

I suspect that this one was dreamed up by an underling, I don't believe it was ever attributed to her. In her department? Yes. Stupid bloody thing? Yes. But most likely not her personally anymore than the passport fiasco was.

Illegal house arrest without trial of people

Illegal? So she broke the law, snatched people off the street under no existing law, and detained them? Please source.

The snoopers charter

Went into this one above.

Legally Requiring schools, universities, and so on to report anyone they suspect might have extreme views

Stupid knee jerk reaction to terrorism. Compared to what Blair pulled off, it's pretty minimal. Also more of a cabinet thing than her alone at the time. I'll acknowledge it as something bloody stupid, something I wouldn't vote for, but I'll also hold in mind the context.

Removing without oversight webpages from the Internet.

Link?

Giving of ofcom powers to remove content from broadcast that might be considered too extreme

Allowing politicians at the Tory conference to spout bigoted nonsense with regards getting rid of foreign doctors/getting companies to report how many foreign workers they have

I doubt anyone can stop some Tory politicians in full flow.

Not supporting the judicial system and not condemning the daily mail for inflammatory articles

Neither has my younger brother. I'll be honest, this one is reaching slightly.

Requiring non Euro citizens to always have a job that earns more than £35k otherwise they can get deported immediately

I disagree with that legislation. But the pressure to reduce immigration has been overwhelming, and again, this has to be seen in context of that. You may not like the fact that she's trying to keep more foreigners out, but you're quite possibly not even in the majority of population here on that score. From that regard, she's actually doing what the people want, which isn't really a black card.

Keeping all eu legislation apart from the ECJ as part of Brexit

Makes sense for reasons outlined by other a page back (I think).

I'll be honest, most of your list is pretty arbitrary and opinionated. It seems to rely on ignoring context and sticking responsibility for a lot of things personally (I mean, she needs to publicly denounce a newspaper or get a black mark? Hardly press freedom...) There's one or two in there I'd agree with, but it's far from being the sort of list one could compile on Osborne or Blair or Thatcher or indeed, being worth even half of the vitriol she attracts.

[Snip] conversation has moved on since.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


Or does it just show that the getting out of the EU is more important to them?

If my house was on fire and I could save the Kids or the wedding album I'd chose the kids - it doesn't mean I don't like the wedding album, I just value the kids more.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand what the Italy referendum was all about, or that I understand the political arena over there, but from what I have gathered is that apparently people did attempt to change this to a referendum on the EU as opposed to what it was actually meant to be (much like the recent Heathrow election). Clearly the people of Italy want a say in that much more than a say in some government reforms, so let 'em have a say.

Fortunately I have neither kids or a wedding album to worry about! Long may that last!

Except the Italy vote wasn't about Europe or the Eurozone. It was about changing constitutionally how the country works. It neither removed or took away powers from the EU. However a few populists twisted and railroaded the whole process into being about the Eurozone. It became a populist anti-establishment vote. Yet by doing so they are empowering a few people that have no real vested interest in the people, but rather only installing themselves in a position of power, whilst pointing a finger and blaming a depersonalised democratic construct and using anti-immigration rhetoric to rally enough people that are a few steps removed and generally ignorant (as in not aware) of the whole process.

Which is actually my point - the people are so desperate for a say on the EU that they'll jump at an chance to make their voices heard, even if it has nothing really to do with the EU. You have to ask yourself why the EU is so desperate to prevent the little people from having the choice if they want to stay in or not.

As I already said, I know the Italy referendum had nothing to do with the EU officially, but that is what it became - and people voted accordingly, much like the people of Heathrow did in the recent by-election. You can pretend that if you don't let people have a choice the matter will just go away, but I'm afraid the real world doesn't work that way, History is full of instances of the little people demanding that their voice be heard.

Stranger83 wrote:
You have to ask yourself why the EU is so desperate to prevent the little people from having the choice if they want to stay in or not.

How is the EU doing that?

Perhaps more people should've voted or taken any interest in the euro/ elections.


https://twitter.com/Sean__Clare/status/806132017242972161

.. check the face of the guy behind her

.. so.. drones are a subspecies of cat presumably then ?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I should have expanded on my earlier point, but my point was this: political parties in future General Elections, free from EU rules, will have more freedom to act like political parties.

For example, party X can say, vote for us, and we'll nationalize railways, and increase immigration to whatever. Party Y can say say the opposite.

This kind of thing used to happen in GEs of yesteryear - proper national debates ensued on what the country wanted, free from foreign interference.

Nobody was looking over their shoulders worrying about EU laws or court cases in Europe slowing things down.

I don't undestand why being the EU prevents politicians promising (and then backpedalling on) reform?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
You have to ask yourself why the EU is so desperate to prevent the little people from having the choice if they want to stay in or not.

How is the EU doing that?

Well, Junker would rather that were there no more in out referendums because there's a good chance the result will be out.

So, all the people of Europe who no longer want to remain in the EU will probably be denied their chance to even say so because it's not convenient for the EU.

Is Junker in charge of the EU?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
You have to ask yourself why the EU is so desperate to prevent the little people from having the choice if they want to stay in or not.

How is the EU doing that?

Well, Junker would rather that were there no more in out referendums because there's a good chance the result will be out.

So, all the people of Europe who no longer want to remain in the EU will probably be denied their chance to even say so because it's not convenient for the EU.

Yeah, Junker's just a figurehead at the moment. Not a huge amount of actual power, although he's desperate to change that.

Okay, so Junker isn't stopping individual national governments from having referendums on the EU.

A bit like what we had in the summer here.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
You have to ask yourself why the EU is so desperate to prevent the little people from having the choice if they want to stay in or not.

How is the EU doing that?

Directly, it isn’t – but it is VERY clear to any government that the EU does NOT want the people to have a say, sadly the people do want a say and the more governments that refuse to allow that, the more we are going to see of these ‘not a referendum on the EU’ actually be turned into one as the people try to sow our elected leaders what they really want.

Hell, the French General Election is essentially down to the ‘Not the EU’ National Front and ‘Anyone who is for the EU’. You could come out with a policy of clubbing baby seals to death and people there will still vote for you if you fit on the right side of their EU stance.

True, Junker is just a figurehead and doesn't have that much say on the matter, but I think that his statement highlights two major problems with the EU; it's completely fethed everything up ("huge number (of controversies) already present at the heart of the EU"), and it doesn't like people having too much of a say on it's future because there isn't that much support for it ("concerned about the final result").

In better news, I've managed to reconcile with my brother! He's stopped hating me for my stance on the EU. And it's all thanks to Jermony Corbyn. My brother is finally starting to realise how much of a berk he is and that's given us some common ground. He's still a fan of the EU but now he respects the fact that I'm not. So, all's well!

Stranger83 wrote:


As I already said, I know the Italy referendum had nothing to do with the EU officially, but that is what it became - and people voted accordingly, much like the people of Heathrow did in the recent by-election. You can pretend that if you don't let people have a choice the matter will just go away, but I'm afraid the real world doesn't work that way, History is full of instances of the little people demanding that their voice be heard.

The italy referendum was about a proposed change on the constitution and some other stuff. It became a popularity vote on Renzi by his own fault.

There are many issues here, I'll try to be brief:

- Renzi was a "new guy", former mayor of Florence, who wanted to get rid of the old guard of the main left party(PD - Partito Democratico - Democratic Party), and was just elected Secretary of the PD.
His nickname was "Il rottamatore" "the disposer/scrapper" due to the fact that he wanted to make away with the old traditions(mainly people) of the center-left party
- The left won the last election with too few votes, and their candidate (Bersani) could not form a self-sustained government
- Another PD politician (Letta) became Prime Minister and trucked along for some 10 months. Meanwhile the Renzi faction started gaining a lot of following
- The PD pulled the plug on Letta and Renzi got his mandate due to the fact that he was now the most influent guy around who wanted to step up to the plate
- Renzi secured the help of a center-right party who splintered from the Berlusconi Egemony after his leader, Alfano, finally got the memo that the old scoundrel wasn't going to retire soon leaving everything to him (the writing was on the wall on neon paint, but then... politician)
- Berlusconi, wearing his best troll-face yet, met with Renzi to agree on a number of reforms to present as joint work (Nazareno's Pact, nothing to do with Jesus, is the address of the PD HQ in rome) both making himself look like the better man and making Alfano's support redundant
- Meanwhile, the PD got furiously pissed off that they now were in bed with the guy they have been painting as satan for the last 20 years.
- Things go along for a while
- Grumbling inside the PD start to worsen and Renzi starts to lose people (a few guys in the party, here and there)
- Has to pull the plug on the alliance with Berlusconi or face the music inside his own party
- The guys Renzi wanted to scrap, remember those? Fat chance. They are the guys that predate Tangentopoli, the fall of the Berlin Wall and all that jazz. Some have been in Parliament even longer.
Anyway, they've been waiting for the perfect moment to send the young upstart home with a ruined career (cue maniacal laughter)
- In the Italian parliament you can push a proposal linking it to the vote of confidence, to bypass the usual parliament BS
- Renzi had to push his constitutional reform, but couldn't go with a vote of confidence (too much backstabbing in his own party) and had to propose a referendum
- He got cocky/suicidal/mad and:
x Said that if the referendum didn't pass he would get his ball and go home. Cue cheers from everyone opposed to him (even some of his own party)
x Did not split each question on the referendum so that it was a binary outcome. I for one did not vote because otherwise I'd have to vote NO
x Let his camp run with one thing from the US Election debacle and the PR/Press started with the "If you don't agree with this you're an idiot/etc"
- Ooops

I was lying when I said that i'd be brief, since politics it's worse than cheap south-american soap opera

TL;DR: it had gak to do with EU&Friends
100% local showdown years in the making between centre-left / left, in which the left (government) sent the center-left (government) packing. All these people belong to the same party.
They basically caused a government crisis on themselves. Yeah, happened other 2 times (both Prodi governments).
They love to cut their nose just to spite their face (and fething the populace in the process, but then they're politicians, so...)

Sorry for the gakky english

Stranger83 wrote:
but it is VERY clear to any government that the EU does NOT want the people to have a say,

Is it?

What a wonderful future that we will have!

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the gift that keeps on giving.

Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards.

Interestingly, Private Eye has highlighted some areas of law where the government is already planning to stay within the EU legal system because otherwise big chunks of business would be seriously screwed.

Been following the Commons debate these past 2 days, and there is one shocking piece of news, and another piece of news that goes something like grass is green!

Oliver Letwin is a knight of the realm!!!!! WTF!!!!

When the gak did he get a knighthood?

And the in the I' bet you didn't know grass is green news'

The Tories are running rings around Labour, Labour have no plan, and Labour bought a business class ticket for a flight into a Tory trap that was so obvious, it had TRAP lit up with flashing neon signs

No wonder May is swanning around the globe - she has nothing to fear from Labour.