POLITICS Theresa May out as PM.

UK has a lot going for it and will be reasonably fine. But they will feel pain. Possibly a lot of it.

 

I should say I don’t think it will actually collapse (by which I mean Scottish and/or Northern Irish Independence).

 

The Brexit party smashed the other parties in the EU parliamentary elections in the UK. The Brexit contingent from the UK is now the co-largest block in the EU parliament, which is pretty funny.

Pro-remain liberal democrats came in second. Conservatives got smashed, with Brexit, lib dems, labor, and Green Party all receiving more votes.

Overall the results suggest that Brexit remains a very close call. Most liberal dems support remain. Polling suggests 88% of labor would vote remain if given another referendum. These totals would match the Brexit party vote. Green Party votes outnumbered Conservatibe party votes, which likely means more pro-Remain. But these EU elections aren’t a good barometer.

Interestingly, the pro-Brexit labor and greens want to leave because it will allow them to carry out their plan to nationalize certain industries that are prevented by EU competition laws.

 

Perfect.

What was the outcome of that election?

And as a follow up, what material change has occurred, since, and which necessitates a new election, other than you don’t prefer the outcome?

 

They shouldn’t have put May in charge, or missed their first deadline.

What do you mean by, “poorly”?

I don’t think I’ve ever advocated for over-turning the will of voters, even when I think they’ve chosen poorly.

 

Some people think cucumbers taste better as pickles.

 

well, much of the specifics at the time turned out to be not true, objectively.

 

If it's the "will of the people", then wouldn't it be reflected in the vote here, too, if it were to take place again?

 

Perfect.

How about the last one? How about 5 more?

Best 27 out of 52?

 

So, one vote forever on everything? If they have more info and experience living in the conditions of Brexit and the majority want to reverse it, why is that bad?

 

Who says it’s bad? Who said one vote forever on everything?

But they did vote, exactly on this very thing, and the majority voted to leave the EU.
Was that vote illegitimate for some reason, or has there been some material change which has occurred since it was tallied?

If so, tell me what that is, please - and with carefully noting my very specific wording of “materially change”, and which nothing thus far mentioned in this thread has come close to approaching (e.g. people didn’t know something, the voters didn’t fully consider something, the process of implementing the People’s will has been more convoluted, difficult and arduous than some may have imagined, etc.).

But this is entirely semantics, really, and worse, it’s completely unnecessary, because you aren’t calling for a new election because it’s right, much less “necessary” (as some have goofily suggested), but because you don’t like the outcome and don’t wish to see Britain leave the EU. And so, this is your only way to prevent it - which is really nothing more than your preferred conclusion and singular aim.

Ostensibly, because you and those like-minded amongst you, know better or see more clearly than the majority. And perhaps you do. But that’s not how a democratic system operates, nor should it. In fact, a democracy protects against just this thing.

You’re calling for a new election because you didn’t like the results of the last one, as it clearly compels Britain to leave the EU, and again, simply because you do not personally prefer / think its best. You argue and advocate for a new election as your preferred conclusion, simply because it’s the only means of preventing Brexit, and hence, these current intellectual contortions, as you try to line up a narrative that can now and retroactively (magically?) require and compel it.

I wish you’d just argue that, instead, and save us all a lot of time and energy. And to be perfectly honest, simply admitting that you don’t like the outcome of the last election and now wish to overturn it with a new one so as to prevent Britain from leaving the EU is not only a much more intellectually honest position to take (despite the terrible optics - but who cares about those?*) but it’s an infinitely better and more readily defended position, as well. How could I argue against what you personally wish and prefer, really? I could more easily argue why someone should not prefer chocolate over vanilla, than that.

Just be honest about what it is you want, wish for, think and hope to accomplish - and why - and let’s discuss that, warts and all. It’s ok to simply say you don’t like something, even with mixed and less-than-pristine motives, which we all have, and without a singular exception.


*That you’re so completely and overtly unconcerned that another vote would require a sweeping away of the very election and will of a majority of voters which decided this exact thing, is so obviously telling as to be both self-evident and unavoidable, at least to any intellectually honest and reasonable person. Simply, all of these “reasons” for a second vote are transparently terrible, aren’t working to provide any cover to your true motivations, and you’re better off without them. Much better off, even.

 

Why? I’ve never understood why people think it’s that bad? What’s going to happen?

 

If you’re so concerned with seeing Brexit cross the finish line, run for office in the UK, and push it across. It’s really that simple.

 

And, let's be completely honest, you don't like the new election because it may change the outcome you desire. You spent all that energy writing so many redundancies for something I actually care very little about.

My point was your silliness in saying they were trying to subvert the will of the people.....by having a vote. You were so consumed with your outrage, or whatever sort of interest in your part which results in an 8 paragraph splurge, the obvious flaw in your argument went unnoticed.

There are all kinds of mechanisms and precedents for this sort of stuff. Prohibition, as mentioned. There are recall elections. There are impeachment proceedings and so on. You are just in a tizzy because it may not result in the outcome you desire, but there's nothing illegitimate or whatever about it. And it certainly isn't subverting the will of the people. If the will of the people is to continue Brexit, they'll vote to continue it.

 

Brexit won’t require my intervention, although Germany and others in the EU wouldn’t be so welcoming of our saving them this time.

Again.

 

What were the results of the last vote?

What material change has occurred, since, and that would necessitate a new vote, now?

Of course, you realize that it’s good for the United States for Britain to exit the EU, right? Or, wish upon a star, for the entire EU to collapse, correct? What further motivation do you honestly believe that I need, beyond that? Come on, surely you know me better than this.

 

So we are not talking about something different, can you define what exactly you mean by "material change"?

How would this be good for the USA? Serious question.

 

Material change:
Important, essential, relevant information which could not have been known, foreseen, considered beforehand, and which would be more likely than not to lead to a different result now, than before.

Single markets are much more difficult to negotiate with than individual nations. The heart of the formation of the EU was to enjoin European nations into a single market so as to have any hope of better competing with global super powers - like the United States, the United States of America, America, USA, The United States of America, God Bless the USA,

U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!

Getting me fired up in herrr, NA.

 

Whether the EU crashes or not is immaterial to me. Well, let me rephrase to say I don't really see it as some zero sum football game where the USA "wins" some global economic hegemony contest.

Otherwise, what has materially changed? I suppose a lot if things, considering how much of a mess the whole prices had been. Regardless, it's their deal. But, again, it's not a subversion of the will of the majority our people, if they have a vote to reverse it. You'd have an argument were it changed unilaterally by the PM or even Parliament. But, a vote? No, that's not a subversion.

 

The material change is the mess it’s been...from those who wish to remain...making a mess of leaving....and then using the mess of their own creation...to argue against leaving...and to argue for holding another vote...in hopes to remain?

Do you see the cyclical nature of this, Un? Do you want me to ask NYY to come down and show you what a circle jerk is?

The vote was to leave. So, leave.

If they want to later vote to (again) surrender some national sovereignty by re-joining the EU, and after having left, so be it.