Brexit Party surges in polls to 27% - just days after launch

[-:Undertaker:-]

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-and-the-tiggers-need-to-get-real-11695821

Brexit Party surging

As Farage launches his new party, it now tops a YouGov Poll for the European Elections


https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/139/590x/brexit-1113961.jpg?r=1555233640808


I spent Saturday with Nigel Farage. I suspect it's not a prospect some of you might relish.

But for those who can think of little else more fun, I can alas confirm it wasn't a night on the tiles, puffing, supping and fulminating away, but instead a chance to hear him speak to thousands, in my home city of Birmingham, without so much as half an ale in sight.

Only the second event of his new Brexit Party in the second city.

He was electric.

But this was a bit different, and some of the people were different: couples, families, younger voters too. An odd coalition of the curious and the angry, those who rightly or wrongly deeply feel that democracy has been subverted. They all took a Brexit Party placard home. I watched them each take one and leave enthused, clear what they are fighting for.

Initially I had thought that shorn of UKIP and its organisational spine, Farage might struggle. Instead, I came to see it as his biggest advantage yet.

UKIP, to some, to many, always had unsavoury connotations. This new party is a blanker slate - a potentially better vehicle for his ambition. It explains why Farage barely mentioned immigration and didn't talk about Europe as much as you'd think. Instead, his message was one of political transformation. Of fulfilling the true potential of the 2016 revolt. Of draining the swamp; that the failure to implement the referendum proves why it was necessary in the first place.

His is now a simpler and broader message - that Britain has been humiliated, that Westminster is rotten, that the system is rigged, that parliament doesn't represent you and it is only he who can do something about it and make us proud again. For Nigel Farage - this Dulwich school boy, denizen of the political scene for decades - is doing something.

Under his opponents' noses, he is seizing the change mantle, even from those with the word in their name. As a result, in many Euro polls he has already overtaken his old party UKIP and is snapping at the heels of the Tories. If the cards fall right, the simplicity and power of his vision, his branding and operation could mean he ends up in a position with the Leave vote much to himself.

And as I sat there, watching Farage play old tunes and new, I kept asking myself, where is the Remain equivalent of this?

For months it has been obvious that these EU elections would come - it is why Farage registered his new party months ago - yet there seems to have been little action from the other side. Where are the rallies? Where is the cross party agreement on a joint remain ticket? Where are the posters? The agreed messaging? The corralling of the newly empowered pro-European demos in this country? The targeting of EU citizens with a vote?

All seems sleepy and quiet. It is almost as if these elections have taken them by surprise.

I suspect that is because the People's Vote campaign has absorbed the creative and political energies of the Remain cause. That enterprise has not been without profit; it has gone from pipe dream to realistic prospect in little to no time at all. But its success, whilst impressive, has come at a cost. Remainers, so obsessed with the project to legitimise the idea of another referendum, have ignored a landmine which could scuttle all their hopes.

Consider for a moment if Nigel Farage's Brexit party wins the European elections.

It will matter not if it's by half a hair, on half an eyebrow; it will not matter if Remain parties outnumber him in the total vote. Should he take a party which existed not a few months ago called "the Brexit party" to victory in a national election - a feat Farage will have achieved twice - then the prospect of another plebiscite will be zero. It will terrify any Tories thinking of committing and potentially scare Labour into finally making a deal. All the momentum the People's Vote campaign has generated will be neutralised. If he comes second to Labour, it could have much the same effect.

Remainers point me to the march, to the petition, but the truth is, marches don't change anything and nor do names on a page - it is elections which have consequences. Farage understands this only too well.

When I asked him why he thinks he will be successful and his opponents will fail, he replied, with a smile: "Because I know how to butter my own bread. I've done this before." And while Farage marches, the Remainers' great hope - the Tiggers or Change UK - might lead their cause to burn.

They have ambitions beyond what they can possibly be expected to achieve. For if they are anything, if there is any purpose, they should be the Remain party - and that is what they should have been called. It would have been clear and it could have persuaded those who usually vote for another party to lend them their votes this time. That they weren't speaks to the loftiness of their objectives; they see themselves not solely through the prism of Brexit but with a vaguer desire to change politics more broadly.

It is why they also - despite I'm told, entreaties from Vince Cable and the Liberal Democrats - have refused to stand on a joint Remain ticket with other parties. Their sole aim is not just opposing Brexit but to establish themselves as an electoral force for the future. But they need to get real; they are not going to displace the Labour Party nor the Conservatives.

1118480874893381632

1118486724072615938

We're being forced to take part in European Parliamentary elections over 3 years after we voted to Leave. Like in 2014 when Ukip won the European Elections (first party since 1901 other than the main two to win a national election) forced the Conservatives to hold a EU referendum, it is now time to show we are going nowhere and give the political elite who are ignoring our vote another hiding.

He's back. And like him or not, he knows how to campaign and effect change.

Thoughts?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Continuity-remainers have now handed us another opportunity to prove what a European Election, General Election and a referendum have already proven - that Britain wants to Leave the EU. How many more times do they want us to vote on it until they get it into their arrogant, thick skulls and fucking listen to what the public instructed them to do?

Do we still not know what we're voting for, or have you now provoked a hornets nest?

1118485156808019968

1118486842528206848

[scottish]

Why not rejoin UKIP

[dbgtz]

the first part you posted seems to be some wank over farage disguising as fact

to the poll part, if the tweet you posted by Matthew Goodwin is correct in that its hoovered up basically all the brexiteers (bar ukip) would that not mean only 34% of voters support brexit
worth also noting that, assuming the percentage directly matches # seats, brex+ukip is the same as it was for ukip in the previous election.

also just going to point out the irony in you applauding ukip for being the "first party since 1901" etc. to win a "national election", something only enabled by PR which in turn was only because of the EU (not saying we couldnt do it, just no government ever had a reason to) - both of which you are against!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_YUtWMlMMA

are you going to admit you were wrong or lying yet

[FlyingJesus]

Ugh polls are the worst why are we still using them as though they matter

1855 people is not the UK. It's not even one village. If I ask 10 of my mates whether they'd eat my shit for a fiver and one says yes, that doesn't mean that 6 million Brits would do so

[-:Undertaker:-]

Great cartoon in Telegraph!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3-FpRHW0AAgjbC.jpg

Wow. Tories collapsing in polls - 23% is lowest recorded for them in a poll since 1997.

1118859485848772608

1118591674832310272

1115959265292898305

1116021677631131652

1116022234684981249

1116028858006949895


the first part you posted seems to be some wank over farage disguising as fact

It's just an analysis by Sky's political reporter. *shrugs*


to the poll part, if the tweet you posted by Matthew Goodwin is correct in that its hoovered up basically all the brexiteers (bar ukip) would that not mean only 34% of voters support brexit

Labour and the Conservatives also support Brexit.


also just going to point out the irony in you applauding ukip for being the "first party since 1901" etc. to win a "national election", something only enabled by PR which in turn was only because of the EU (not saying we couldnt do it, just no government ever had a reason to) - both of which you are against!

Indeed, and I have no issue with using the EU's system against it. It's like when people said in the 1990s that eurosceptics should boycott European Elections, you don't get anywhere doing that. It's campaigning and standing in elections which got us where we are with the referendum and all that. Hundreds of eurosceptics are going to be returned to the EU Parliament this year!


are you going to admit you were wrong or lying yet

No idea what you keep going on about, I checked the thread a while back and ???

[dbgtz]

Labour and the Conservatives also support Brexit.

evidentally not much otherwise it would have happened already and the "brexit party" need not exist
you cant both paint them as stopping brexit but equally being brexit supporters


Indeed, and I have no issue with using the EU's system against it. It's like when people said in the 1990s that eurosceptics should boycott European Elections, you don't get anywhere doing that. It's campaigning and standing in elections which got us where we are with the referendum and all that. Hundreds of eurosceptics are going to be returned to the EU Parliament this year!

you say that as if electing eurosceptics annoys them
from what I can see, they tend to welcome the balance of opinion (when the eurosceptics actually turn up anyway)


No idea what you keep going on about, I checked the thread a while back and ???

https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=843277

claiming there was an agreement to not enforce customs check for 9 months
was actually a proposal by the eu about something else and customs checks would be enforced day 1

instead of admitting you were wrong about it you just tried to flip the argument and then continue to ignore me
you will probably ignore this also because i dont think you could ever admit being wrong about anything

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Brexit Party is off to a flying start. I am shocked Ann Widdecombe, as loyal Tory (for 55 years) as you can be, has defected.

The candidates are great, the message simple, supporters energised. Contrast to the Remain Change UK party.

1120937255248584706

1120978697857785856

1120652475776806914

1120652476859015169

1120645483188379648

1120641396657070081


evidentally not much otherwise it would have happened already and the "brexit party" need not exist
you cant both paint them as stopping brexit but equally being brexit supporters

Not at all, if you remember the three major parties constantly promised referendums on aspects of the European issue, and were elected on manifestos to do so which they later then binned. The same is happening yet again, where people have been promised one thing and the political class fail to deliver or outright go out of their way to try and overturn a vote they do not like.


you say that as if electing eurosceptics annoys them
from what I can see, they tend to welcome the balance of opinion (when the eurosceptics actually turn up anyway)

I think the European Union fears the ballot box, absolutely.

1121041339460747266


https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=843277

claiming there was an agreement to not enforce customs check for 9 months
was actually a proposal by the eu about something else and customs checks would be enforced day 1

instead of admitting you were wrong about it you just tried to flip the argument and then continue to ignore me
you will probably ignore this also because i dont think you could ever admit being wrong about anything

I can't even remember but if there's no mini-agreement in place then okay, I was wrong.

I do know there's something similar under GATT though whereby two separating states continue trade under pre-existing conditions.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Tories plunge tonight again with another pollster.

1121125189406941184


https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/24/11/12422372-6953187-A_new_YouGov_survey_the_third_in_a_week_for_the_Ti mes_today_agai-a-66_1556102623557.jpg

[dbgtz]

Not at all, if you remember the three major parties constantly promised referendums on aspects of the European issue, and were elected on manifestos to do so which they later then binned. The same is happening yet again, where people have been promised one thing and the political class fail to deliver or outright go out of their way to try and overturn a vote they do not like.

which is exactly proving my point in that they don't actually support it (as a whole)


I think the European Union fears the ballot box, absolutely.

1121041339460747266

But equally, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/29/donald-tusk-tells-eu-officials-stop-lecturing-italian-voters/


I can't even remember but if there's no mini-agreement in place then okay, I was wrong.

I do know there's something similar under GATT though whereby two separating states continue trade under pre-existing conditions.

which, if true, there has to be agreement to - it's not an automatically qualifying right and tariffs will go up on day 1 in the event of no deal
https://fullfact.org/europe/article-24/

it doesn't take make of a google to see all the bollocks surrounding the claim

[-:Undertaker:-]

which is exactly proving my point in that they don't actually support it (as a whole)

The party hierarchies and the people who vote for them are entirely different things.


But equally, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/29/donald-tusk-tells-eu-officials-stop-lecturing-italian-voters/

This from the man who lectured us that there's "a special place in Hell for Brexiteers"


which, if true, there has to be agreement to - it's not an automatically qualifying right and tariffs will go up on day 1 in the event of no deal
https://fullfact.org/europe/article-24/

it doesn't take make of a google to see all the bollocks surrounding the claim

Well, whatever. If GATT or a mini-agreement are possible, then do. If not then hey ho.

I could care less now about deals or agreements, I want to leave right this minute.

[dbgtz]

The party hierarchies and the people who vote for them are entirely different things.

right but then if brexiteers have been hoovered up by the brexit party (as mentioned in a tweet you posted) then by that logic those who still support the conservatives and labour are remain or neutral


This from the man who lectured us that there's "a special place in Hell for Brexiteers"

that's not even what he said (also a tweet isnt lecturing...)
1093112742293266435
arguably a lot of remainers fall in that category
it's not even showing a distate for brexit or those who voted for it, just for the fact there was 0 planning by those who actively campaigned and enacted it

anyway arent you always complaining about people being snowflakes


Well, whatever. If GATT or a mini-agreement are possible, then do. If not then hey ho.

I could care less now about deals or agreements, I want to leave right this minute.

i dont really care what you want, im just not going to read your lies and let you off. its like youre just obsessed with the idea of leaving youll say anything which makes it sound good, but in reality nothing supports that idea (though do tell me all the good stuff that will happen)
quite frankly this entire thing has been a giant farce and the sooner this whole thing is cancelled the better

[-:Undertaker:-]

More polling out this afternoon.

I am SO proud that the British people will not simply roll over for the most putrid and two-faced politicians we've ever had. They WILL respect our vote and enact what we told them to do, or pay the price. Do we still not know what we're voting for? Big red fucking bus!?

Reading continuity-Remainers heads exploding under these polls is such a delight.

1122177498568122370

1122177790701445121

1122168861481164800

1122182949733044226


right but then if brexiteers have been hoovered up by the brexit party (as mentioned in a tweet you posted) then by that logic those who still support the conservatives and labour are remain or neutral

Obviously not as that assumes the only motivating factor for every voter is Brexit, and ignores party loyalty.


that's not even what he said (also a tweet isnt lecturing...)

You're right. A better word would be hectoring.


arguably a lot of remainers fall in that category
it's not even showing a distate for brexit or those who voted for it, just for the fact there was 0 planning by those who actively campaigned and enacted it

Not sure where this comes from, as the entire process and deal we've arrived at has been by a Remainer PM and a Remainer Civil Service, hence why virtually all originally Leave-supporting ministers have now resigned from the government.


i dont really care what you want, im just not going to read your lies and let you off. its like youre just obsessed with the idea of leaving youll say anything which makes it sound good, but in reality nothing supports that idea (though do tell me all the good stuff that will happen)
quite frankly this entire thing has been a giant farce and the sooner this whole thing is cancelled the better

So you don't care what I want, and I don't care what you want - well fancy that, luckily there's this thing called democracy where we can settle this argument with a process of 1 man, 1 vote which is what we did back in 2016 in a massive fucking vote if you've forgotten about it. And your side, promoting your "good stuff" about the EU, pissed it up the wall and lost despite having a cash and establishment advantage.

The whinging ever since has been embarrassing and the sooner you come to terms with losing votes the better.

[dbgtz]

More polling out this afternoon.

I am SO proud that the British people will not simply roll over for the most putrid and two-faced politicians we've ever had. They WILL respect our vote and enact what we told them to do, or pay the price. Do we still not know what we're voting for? Big red fucking bus!?

Reading continuity-Remainers heads exploding under these polls is such a delight.

1122177498568122370

1122177790701445121

1122168861481164800

1122182949733044226


and yet, you ignore all the polling which has shifted to people wanting to remain
do those people not matter?


Obviously not as that assumes the only motivating factor for every voter is Brexit, and ignores party loyalty.

then how can you say they support brexit



You're right. A better word would be hectoring.


i can also point to a lot of brexiters do basically the same so not really sure if youre criticising him at this point


Not sure where this comes from, as the entire process and deal we've arrived at has been by a Remainer PM and a Remainer Civil Service, hence why virtually all originally Leave-supporting ministers have now resigned from the government.

a heavily eurosceptic pm who endorsed remain probably at camerons request
david davis, eurosceptic brexit minister, negotiated a bloody deal and then resigned months later for not liking the deal he bloody negotiated
raab resigned because he was woefully inept, in his own words not understanding how important the dover-calais crossing is
bojo (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson as you like to use full names) resigned because hes ultimately a chancer

quite frankly these are just people shirking responsibility because they havent a fucking clue
these will be the same people who will just say "use technology" to solve the border & custom problems, yet the most IT theyve done in their life is open a word document

where it comes from is this and the fact the whole leave campaign was based on bollocks from the start
lets not even talk about the many years where we were told we weren't going to leave the single market and we will be like Norway


So you don't care what I want, and I don't care what you want - well fancy that, luckily there's this thing called democracy where we can settle this argument with a process of 1 man, 1 vote which is what we did back in 2016 in a massive fucking vote if you've forgotten about it. And your side, promoting your "good stuff" about the EU, pissed it up the wall and lost despite having a cash and establishment advantage.

democracy isn't just about ticking a paper, it realised on accountability of both the media and politicians, and the general populace being educated

16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people, can be described as having 'very poor literacy skills.' They can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause problems.
https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/

and ignoring that whole bit there, the fact is people don't have the time to actually go and read into significant depth on things like this (the whole irish border being completely omitted pre-ref comes to mind) so what do they do? hear/read soundbites or "quick info"

to demonstrate my problem, here is a rees-mogg sharing a page from the sun:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BEUBuJNsxhc/WpgvtHjydgI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/SzZyk6GVsR8mD9wF9T74TiUAN36_rMacwCLcBGAs/s1600/ReesMogg1.PNG

hopefully you can see whats wrong with the page just from the top part you can see (if you do or dont see, please do let me know)
the issue is by the time its properly scrutinised, it's already spread around. some people will see the issue, some will not

another issue lies in the fact rees mogg never apologised for this issue, and the sun only did it a month later and definitely did not get any widespread attention
https://www.thesun.co.uk/uncategorized/5897269/clarification-vote-for-bargains/

another issue also lies in the political and economic consequences of just universally slashing tarrifs like this, but hopefully you are also aware of what that is

you mention the cash advantage but the point was that the leave campaign had overspent which wasnt documented, which brings into question how much more they overspent as well. pretty sure they also used peoples data irresponsibly and had hidden call centres about, but i cant be bothered to look that up again right now
just to be clear as well, the establishment isnt politicians and thats it. if aaron banks is able to make the largest donation in history, its fair to say hes part of the establishment

i could go on into greater depth but i feel it will go it wont even go in one ear


The whinging ever since has been embarrassing and the sooner you come to terms with losing votes the better.

so you cant tell me anything good about brexit then, so instead you basically just insult me

[-:Undertaker:-]

Your entire post is just a continuation of what you said before the referendum, and lost the argument. Don't you understand? We don't believe predictions that we'll be worse off. We don't believe X% more GDP predictions over a 10-year period are worth the price of national sovereignty. We don't believe an emergency brake over our own immigration policy is good enough. We don't believe Britain's trade policy should be set by Luxembourg. We don't believe Britain's huge fishing grounds should be sold to Spanish fishermen. We don't believe Customs checks on the Irish border are the end of the world. We don't believe our Commonwealth should be subjected to EU tariffs in order to protect the French agricultural industry. I am not European. We don't believe in ever-closer-union and a federal European superstate.

You ask for me to name good things about Brexit, so here is where I stand. I now want No Deal. That means Britain will be able to lower tariffs from the 170 countries outside the EU. That means Britain will have complete control over who comes and works/settles here. That means Britain will preserve its English and Scots common law from French-style EU law. That means when we go to vote at an election, our government will be 100% accountable for the laws of the land, and not some foreign and unaccountable organisation. I am British. That means Britain will be an independent country just like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.


And as for the predictable response...


If achieving this means a border with the Irish Republic, another country - so be it.

If achieving this means a slight loss of GDP and George Osborne's greedy friends take a hit - so be it.

If achieving this means tariffs on European goods going up because of their spite and arrogance - so be it.


There is nothing, and I mean nothing, I would trade my country in for. From my summary above, you can see that I believe the benefits far outweigh the negatives when it comes to economics. Even if they did not - I cannot place a price on sovereignty and democracy. If you told me that placing my X next to Leave would have me drop dead on the spot, I would do it. There's no extent that I will not go to over this.

1122141793796145155

1122185975709536258

[dbgtz]

Your entire post is just a continuation of what you said before the referendum, and lost the argument. Don't you understand? We don't believe predictions that we'll be worse off. We don't believe X% more GDP predictions over a 10-year period are worth the price of national sovereignty. We don't believe an emergency brake over our own immigration policy is good enough. We don't believe Britain's trade policy should be set by Luxembourg. We don't believe Britain's huge fishing grounds should be sold to Spanish fishermen. We don't believe Customs checks on the Irish border are the end of the world. We don't believe our Commonwealth should be subjected to EU tariffs in order to protect the French agricultural industry. I am not European. We don't believe in ever-closer-union and a federal European superstate.


nothing i posted has anything to do with why i think brexit itself is a bad idea, so maybe you fall into that 16.4%


You ask for me to name good things about Brexit, so here is where I stand. I now want No Deal. That means Britain will be able to lower tariffs from the 170 countries outside the EU.

so you think we should just lower tariffs without any deal with these countries? (also the USA has stated no deal without a solution to the border)


That means Britain will have complete control over who comes and works/settles here.

as a country, sure, but your average joe will see no difference


That means Britain will preserve its English and Scots common law from French-style EU law.

how is the style of law better or worse in any way?


That means when we go to vote at an election, our government will be 100% accountable for the laws of the land, and not some foreign and unaccountable organisation. I am British.

the EU is accountable by MEPs and those the government appoint to represent us


[B]That means Britain will be an independent country just like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

theyre all very different countries from each other and from us, but fine



There is nothing, and I mean nothing, I would trade my country in for. From my summary above, you can see that I believe the benefits far outweigh the negatives when it comes to economics. Even if they did not - I cannot place a price on sovereignty and democracy. If you told me that placing my X next to Leave would have me drop dead on the spot, I would do it. There's no extent that I will not go to over this.

except ive just pointed out the flaw in "democracy" in this country yet you ignored it all

and the flaw in your response is the only thing you actually responded to was the last sentence i said

anyway unless you start saying some outright lies again or actually reply to a point i make, i probably wont reply to this any further as you seem to have the behaviour of a cult member

[-:Undertaker:-]

Another poll this morning.

1122453312618549249


so you think we should just lower tariffs without any deal with these countries? (also the USA has stated no deal without a solution to the border)

We should set out tariffs how we see fit. I mean, duh?


as a country, sure, but your average joe will see no difference

The average Joe who has to buy a house in one of the most crowded countries in Europe?


how is the style of law better or worse in any way?

Common law is flexible and derives largely from case law, civil law the opposite.


the EU is accountable by MEPs and those the government appoint to represent us

The political reality for the thing to work is that most stuff is nodded through. How else could it function realistically?


theyre all very different countries from each other and from us, but fine

Wait, what? So here you are, arguing we should adopt drastically different law from our own and have countries we have very little history with or even speak the same language rule over us, yet you dismiss Australia/Canada and New Zealand who all have the same language, legal system and political culture as we do? Worth remembering also that these countries only became legally independent in the 1980s too. Are you out of your mind?


except ive just pointed out the flaw in "democracy" in this country yet you ignored it all

If our democracy is so flawed and Europe is so great, could you explain to me how we're still using the same constitution that we've had for the last 1,000 years and the fact we've only had one Civil War? Compare to almost any European nation - the French are on their FIFTH republic in less than 200 years - and we're a beacon of democracy and stability. It was in Europe that fascists were goosestepping about, not here.

[dbgtz]

We should set out tariffs how we see fit. I mean, duh?

which is what exactly?


The average Joe who has to buy a house in one of the most crowded countries in Europe?

the average joe who could go buy a house in another european country if they really wanted
(also immigration isnt really the issue when it comes to housing, more people buying houses in bulk as investments)


Common law is flexible and derives largely from case law, civil law the opposite.

but equally it makes it quite unpredictable sometimes


The political reality for the thing to work is that most stuff is nodded through. How else could it function realistically?

youve just made a baseless assumption
i could say the same about uk gov/parl


Wait, what? So here you are, arguing we should adopt drastically different law from our own and have countries we have very little history with or even speak the same language rule over us, yet you dismiss Australia/Canada and New Zealand who all have the same language, legal system and political culture as we do? Worth remembering also that these countries only became legally independent in the 1980s too. Are you out of your mind?

well i was talking more that they have their own rather distinct issues which is probably most down to geography


If our democracy is so flawed and Europe is so great, could you explain to me how we're still using the same constitution that we've had for the last 1,000 years and the fact we've only had one Civil War? Compare to almost any European nation - the French are on their FIFTH republic in less than 200 years - and we're a beacon of democracy and stability. It was in Europe that fascists were goosestepping about, not here.

eh firstly i never said it was good in europe
secondly the constitution is always changing the flip you on about lmao you make it sound like someone wrote a document 1000 years ago and weve just stuck to it
the french are on their 5th republic by name, but england 1000 years ago has changed also - its not just been static (also how can we also be using the same constitution when the uk didnt even exist 1000 years ago)
also by saying that youve implied france have had 4 civil wars (at least) which is false as far as i can see, it seems to actually be 3 between ~1600-1800. also we've (England) had a lot more than 1 civil war, a quick google can tell you that, or none if you say the UK but then there also was that irish independence, which if the UK had "won" would technically have been a civil war

theres also plenty of cases of facism in the uk and lets not forget we almost sided with the nazis
also lets not forget mr. farage with his fascist resembling imagery
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/indy100/WkTYUB18EW/10727-1a0i9s8.jpg
actually just looking at a list of suggested key identifiers of fascism, the key brexiteers seem to tick a lot of the boxes

perhaps the biggest thing to suggest as well is to not confuse apathy with a well functioning democracy

[-:Undertaker:-]

which is what exactly?

Well, it is obvious is it not?

If it benefits us to raise a tariff, then raise it. If it benefits us to lower a tariff, then lower it.


the average joe who could go buy a house in another european country if they really wanted
(also immigration isnt really the issue when it comes to housing, more people buying houses in bulk as investments)

I have no idea how middle class you are but from where I am from, the average Joe does not even outright own his own house and in many cases has to rent, let alone owns a house abroad in Malaga. It is not normal or average to own a house abroad. This again goes back to the London-centric Remain campaign which was seemingly oblivious to what life is like for most people outside the M25.

And I have no idea where you get it from that landlords are the problem when it is only 1 in 10 houses privately rented. What you should be doing, and our politicians should be doing - is really easy. Grab a pen and a piece of paper. Find out the net influx of immigrants per year into the UK. Write it down. Now, find out the number of houses built every year. Write that down. And there's your problem.


but equally it makes it quite unpredictable sometimes

Indeed, but crime is also unpredictable and not linear. Much like our constitutional arrangements are also flexible, which there is a strong case for arguing has helped us avoid the numerous and often violent/bloody revolutions that have occurred on the continent.


youve just made a baseless assumption
i could say the same about uk gov/parl

The House of Commons and House of Lords do not have to contend with vetoes and national considerations. This is why the United Kingdom cannot be a federal model, despite talk of it by moronic politicians like Clegg, because of the sheer size of England. Our system works precisely because it retains its unitary and centralised nature, so is able to function. Imagine Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales all having separate veto powers over legislation - it would fall apart. And the EU is that, but on a larger scale and vastly more culturally/politically different.


well i was talking more that they have their own rather distinct issues which is probably most down to geography

I don't see how - follow Australian, Canadian and New Zealander politics and the issues are much more alike than we are with France, Spain or Poland. And they're incredibly easy to follow too, given our their institutions are essentially carbon copies of our own (and in the case of the Crown, exactly the same). I avidly follow politics, and still I do not fully understand French or German politics.


eh firstly i never said it was good in europe
secondly the constitution is always changing the flip you on about lmao you make it sound like someone wrote a document 1000 years ago and weve just stuck to it

Our constitution changes organically, not through violence like on the continent. Indeed, the one major time we did actually have a violent Civil War, the Parliamentarians basically kept the old system anyway and after 11 or so years decided they'd like the rest of it (the Crown) back, and invited Charles II back to become King. That one time we changed, we actually regretted it lol.


the french are on their 5th republic by name, but england 1000 years ago has changed also - its not just been static (also how can we also be using the same constitution when the uk didnt even exist 1000 years ago)

Because the Acts of Union were not the creation of a completely new state, but the Union of two existing Kingdoms. English law from pre-Union is still in application, and that is why Scots Law continues to exist today as it was preserved through the Acts of Union.

If you look at most of our offices, especially those surrounding the monarchy, they go back to the Kingdom of England and remain the same offices as they were then. There was no great re-organisation, or new institutions created as in the case when Soviet Union or Yugoslavia were created - English institutions were simply renamed (and in some cases they didn't even bother renaming, as in the survival of the name of Bank of England rather than Bank of Britain) as were some Scottish institutions such as the Court of the Lord Lyon or Court of Session which both pre-date even the Union of the Crowns by about 200 years. It wasn't a treaty of annexation, or a blank sheet to create a new state. It was a Union.

Even right down to titles. The Prince of Wales for example isn't called that in Scotland - he's the Duke of Rothesay.


also by saying that youve implied france have had 4 civil wars (at least) which is false as far as i can see, it seems to actually be 3 between ~1600-1800. also we've (England) had a lot more than 1 civil war, a quick google can tell you that, or none if you say the UK but then there also was that irish independence, which if the UK had "won" would technically have been a civil war

France has had five republics, and a few revolutions yes.

If you look at the English 'civil wars' other than the one we all know, you'll see they were mostly dynastic/barony battles and not civil wars as in the true sense as the one where King Charles I lost his head. Indeed, even that Civil War was nothing as compared with say the first French Revolution that deposed the Bourbon monarchy or the Russian Revolution and overthrow of the Romanov's and complete Tsarist system.


theres also plenty of cases of facism in the uk and lets not forget we almost sided with the nazis
also lets not forget mr. farage with his fascist resembling imagery

Britain did not almost side with the Nazis. Are you referring to the conspiracies surrounding King-Emperor Edward VIII?

There was never danger of Britain siding with the Nazi regime in terms of an alliance, indeed if you look at the period in question from the 1920s to the 1930s there were great (and ultimately self-harmful) efforts between the British Empire, America and Germany to limit one another as all three feared (and mistrusted) another arms race and eventual war. The stupid but well-intended Washington Naval Treaty is an example of this.


actually just looking at a list of suggested key identifiers of fascism, the key brexiteers seem to tick a lot of the boxes

perhaps the biggest thing to suggest as well is to not confuse apathy with a well functioning democracy

If democracy is denied then you'll find a real fascist will one day come to power.

[dbgtz]

Well, it is obvious is it not?

If it benefits us to raise a tariff, then raise it. If it benefits us to lower a tariff, then lower it.


not really
youve voted to cut all of our existing trade deals which will mean tariffs imposed, which means people will be poorer
unless you want to remove any potential bargaining power for a trade deal, lower our standards and potentially cause job losses then feel free to advocate lower tariffs

so its basically a case of finding the magic number, which of course you wouldnt do and is up to the experts you choose to always ignore


I have no idea how middle class you are but from where I am from, the average Joe does not even outright own his own house and in many cases has to rent, let alone owns a house abroad in Malaga. It is not normal or average to own a house abroad. This again goes back to the London-centric Remain campaign which was seemingly oblivious to what life is like for most people outside the M25.

And I have no idea where you get it from that landlords are the problem when it is only 1 in 10 houses privately rented. What you should be doing, and our politicians should be doing - is really easy. Grab a pen and a piece of paper. Find out the net influx of immigrants per year into the UK. Write it down. Now, find out the number of houses built every year. Write that down. And there's your problem.

when did i tell them to buy a second home - you misread that completely
i dont really get your argument here, i live in the south but i do not live or work in london, so i pretty much earn the same money i would get up north but if i were to stay here i would have to spend twice as much buying a house - anecdotally speaking ive seen people from the south move up north to buy a house because it really is just cheaper. it seems like youre trying to dismiss my point of view because you think im personally well off

youve kind of proved my point buy saying "has to rent" - there is no immigrant coming in and taking the space if the space is already there
a bit of a correction as well, 1 in 5 houses are privately rented https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/692771/family-resources-survey-2016-17.pdf
you've also just made a fatal error in assuming correlation implies causation which makes you look a bit silly - that's not to say immigration doesnt have an impact (I have nothing conclusive either way)

but here's a pretty good analysis of why the housing situation is as bad as it is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G965AHsVK8


Indeed, but crime is also unpredictable and not linear. Much like our constitutional arrangements are also flexible, which there is a strong case for arguing has helped us avoid the numerous and often violent/bloody revolutions that have occurred on the continent.

the flexibility can be good and bad, and i think you only have to look at the more controversial cases to see that

what is this strong case


The House of Commons and House of Lords do not have to contend with vetoes and national considerations. This is why the United Kingdom cannot be a federal model, despite talk of it by moronic politicians like Clegg, because of the sheer size of England. Our system works precisely because it retains its unitary and centralised nature, so is able to function. Imagine Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales all having separate veto powers over legislation - it would fall apart. And the EU is that, but on a larger scale and vastly more culturally/politically different.

easy solution to balance the power is to split england into different constituencies for this hypothetical scenario - a perfectly functional solution


I don't see how - follow Australian, Canadian and New Zealander politics and the issues are much more alike than we are with France, Spain or Poland. And they're incredibly easy to follow too, given our their institutions are essentially carbon copies of our own (and in the case of the Crown, exactly the same). I avidly follow politics, and still I do not fully understand French or German politics.

what is it you dont understand exactly


Our constitution changes organically, not through violence like on the continent. Indeed, the one major time we did actually have a violent Civil War, the Parliamentarians basically kept the old system anyway and after 11 or so years decided they'd like the rest of it (the Crown) back, and invited Charles II back to become King. That one time we changed, we actually regretted it lol.

you cant just pick and choose which civil wars were actually civil wars
i also just want to say theres more to a stability of a state than civil war, weve had plenty of violence that has shaped the country


Because the Acts of Union were not the creation of a completely new state, but the Union of two existing Kingdoms. English law from pre-Union is still in application, and that is why Scots Law continues to exist today as it was preserved through the Acts of Union.

the acts of union were literally the creation of a new state


If you look at most of our offices, especially those surrounding the monarchy, they go back to the Kingdom of England and remain the same offices as they were then. There was no great re-organisation, or new institutions created as in the case when Soviet Union or Yugoslavia were created - English institutions were simply renamed (and in some cases they didn't even bother renaming, as in the survival of the name of Bank of England rather than Bank of Britain) as were some Scottish institutions such as the Court of the Lord Lyon or Court of Session which both pre-date even the Union of the Crowns by about 200 years. It wasn't a treaty of annexation, or a blank sheet to create a new state. It was a Union.

Even right down to titles. The Prince of Wales for example isn't called that in Scotland - he's the Duke of Rothesay.

none of this really proves or disproves stability of a nation


France has had five republics, and a few revolutions yes.

If you look at the English 'civil wars' other than the one we all know, you'll see they were mostly dynastic/barony battles and not civil wars as in the true sense as the one where King Charles I lost his head. Indeed, even that Civil War was nothing as compared with say the first French Revolution that deposed the Bourbon monarchy or the Russian Revolution and overthrow of the Romanov's and complete Tsarist system.


as said above you dont exactly have the authority to pick and choose what is and isnt a civil war


Britain did not almost side with the Nazis. Are you referring to the conspiracies surrounding King-Emperor Edward VIII?

There was never danger of Britain siding with the Nazi regime in terms of an alliance, indeed if you look at the period in question from the 1920s to the 1930s there were great (and ultimately self-harmful) efforts between the British Empire, America and Germany to limit one another as all three feared (and mistrusted) another arms race and eventual war. The stupid but well-intended Washington Naval Treaty is an example of this.


"almost sided with" may have been a bit extreme, but we certainly had nazi sympathisers and appeasers
fascism was pretty big in europe in general at the time to be fair and seems to be taking off a bit again


If democracy is denied then you'll find a real fascist will one day come to power.

farage is literally going around saying democracy has been betrayed to try and get into power, so are you saying you support a fascist?

[-:Undertaker:-]

not really
youve voted to cut all of our existing trade deals which will mean tariffs imposed, which means people will be poorer
unless you want to remove any potential bargaining power for a trade deal, lower our standards and potentially cause job losses then feel free to advocate lower tariffs

so its basically a case of finding the magic number, which of course you wouldnt do and is up to the experts you choose to always ignore

Tariffs will also be imposed back, which will then impact our trading partners. Many countries, including the world's largest economy, have signalled they want to do a trade deal with Britain provided they can and we're no longer bound by European law.

And as for setting the tariffs themselves, well the amazing thing is that once we've left the European Union and Parliament actually matters again, then it can stop debating free tampons and start debating things that matter - like what our agricultural tariffs should be. What our industrial policy should be. How our fisheries should be managed. I'll win some and i'll lose some - that's democracy.

Happy to have debates up and down the town halls of the land over these issues, as we should be doing.


when did i tell them to buy a second home - you misread that completely
i dont really get your argument here, i live in the south but i do not live or work in london, so i pretty much earn the same money i would get up north but if i were to stay here i would have to spend twice as much buying a house - anecdotally speaking ive seen people from the south move up north to buy a house because it really is just cheaper. it seems like youre trying to dismiss my point of view because you think im personally well off

It isn't that I think you personally are well off, although you could be, but that your attitude is that of being well off. That you mentioned holiday homes abroad as some sort of pressing matter seems rather bizzare to most normal people who struggle to afford one home let alone one in Malaga. All this goes back to why Remain's campaign just sounded so hollow and didn't resonate outside the M25.


youve kind of proved my point buy saying "has to rent" - there is no immigrant coming in and taking the space if the space is already there
a bit of a correction as well, 1 in 5 houses are privately rented https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/692771/family-resources-survey-2016-17.pdf
you've also just made a fatal error in assuming correlation implies causation which makes you look a bit silly - that's not to say immigration doesnt have an impact (I have nothing conclusive either way)

I read other statistics on private rent, so assuming not including council properties. But whatever.

Immigration of course causes an impact just internal immigration *clearly* has an affect on local prices in an area, the same is true on a national level. Why is rent in London so high? Because jobs draw people to live there meaning shortage of housing = rent rises. The same can be said for Liverpool and Manchester in the last decade where the draw of students and young professionals in revitalised urban centres has pushed prices up, although both have been able to cope given the sheer amount of brown land surrounding the city core.


the flexibility can be good and bad, and i think you only have to look at the more controversial cases to see that

what is this strong case

The argument I have read before and which I think has merit is that because of our constitutional flexibility as compared with a written, European style constitution, has meant that our constitutional order has been able to survive events like the Glorious Revolution, the rise of socialism, universal suffrage and so on. Contrast this with say France or Spain where the constitutions were (naturally) a product of their conservative/liberal time which then led to civil wars and revolution.


easy solution to balance the power is to split england into different constituencies for this hypothetical scenario - a perfectly functional solution

England has always been a unitary state and the English wouldn't stand for it. It was attempted under New Labour in the north-east, and voters roundly rejected it in a referendum by 78% to 22% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_North_East_England_devolution_referendum) meaning it is dead in the water. Added to that, it still wouldn't solve the issue anyway as the English 'regions' would still be that - English. You'd then have say 10 English regions vs 3 non-English regions.

To prove how much I would object, I am as Unionist as you can possibly be given I don't believe in devolution and would have Ulster brought under direct rule on a permanent basis, but the moment England needs to be carved up to protect the Union would signal to me the actual end of the Union. It is a Union, not a disembowelment of a nation of the Union.


what is it you dont understand exactly

I don't really understand their political systems well nor their political culture. French conservatism for example has completely different philosophical routes to Anglosphere conservatism which is why France has never had a Margaret Thatcher or John Howard, for instance.

Funnily enough I understand Spain's a bit more, but only because its political culture is a lot younger and is easier to digest with the civil war period. It's more black and white. Germany's is a right mish mash - you've got Bavarian conservatism with its Catholic roots hence a different party in Bavaria, and Prussian protestant conservatism that dominated the German Imperial period. It's left is a strange mix of social democracy from the Weimar period and hard socialism from the Eastern bloc. I don't pretend to understand it.


you cant just pick and choose which civil wars were actually civil wars
i also just want to say theres more to a stability of a state than civil war, weve had plenty of violence that has shaped the country

I think my distinctions though between the civil wars we've seen on the continent and those here, ring very true. There's never been a revolution or civil war here that was within society, and wished to overthrow the old order. Like I said, the most violent/closest thing to a civil war we've had - actually called a Civil War - the victors actually retained virtually the entire ancien regime, minus the Crown - and Cromwell as Lord Protector de facto assumed the powers of the Crown, he was simply an uncrowned monarch in many respects.


the acts of union were literally the creation of a new state

Legally and in treaty, yes. But institutionally, politically and culturally? No.


none of this really proves or disproves stability of a nation

Can you name a similar European country that still has offices and laws in existence from hundreds of years ago? The only examples I can think of from the top of my head would possibly be the Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden? Britain (and its predecessor states) has had a remarkably smooth ride, and it is remarkable that our ancient institutions survived the 20th century when the 2,000+ year Chinese, Persian and Ethiopian imperial regimes did not. On an anecdotal, I once read that King-Emperor Edward VII was so concerned with the rise of socialism that he used to introduce his son, the future George V, as "the last King of England" - it turned out that the British throne weathered the coming storm better than he thought it would.

It is why many on the radical left hate the symbols of the Monarchy, House of Lords and Church of England despite them causing no harm and being universally liked. Other countries have their romantic (and often bloody) revolutions that they fetishise over, and here they have nothing - because we've changed but kept the golden frills and baubles, without spilling much blood. It annoys them that they never got their chance to tear it all down and start anew.


as said above you dont exactly have the authority to pick and choose what is and isnt a civil war

My distinction between them is pretty accurate which is why you haven't rebutted it. Our "civil wars" overturned dynasties, on the continent their "civil wars" and "revolutions" overturned society, religion, political systems and even borders (Germany).


"almost sided with" may have been a bit extreme, but we certainly had nazi sympathisers and appeasers
fascism was pretty big in europe in general at the time to be fair and seems to be taking off a bit again

It never took off here because of the different political culture. The same can be said for Dominions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Rhodesia who inherited our political culture as part of the British Empire. One huge bulwark against it, which ironically many on the left secretly loathe, is the monarchy as George Orwell (himself on the left) one wrote. The little goosestepping and bowing that we do, is to our apolitical Sovereign. This was lacking in Germany, Russia, France, Austria and across Europe where the monarchy was either relatively newly established, was political or did not exist.

In fact, the two nations which really stand out as being similar to us as in not falling to fascism voluntarily would be the Kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. And what do they have in common with us? A monarchy that is as old as the land itself, and constitutional systems with continuity.


farage is literally going around saying democracy has been betrayed to try and get into power, so are you saying you support a fascist?

Calling Farage, a mild anglosphere conservative, a fascist will only deafen your alarm bells when a real fascist comes along.

Don't do it.

[dbgtz]

Tariffs will also be imposed back, which will then impact our trading partners. Many countries, including the world's largest economy, have signalled they want to do a trade deal with Britain provided they can and we're no longer bound by European law.

And as for setting the tariffs themselves, well the amazing thing is that once we've left the European Union and Parliament actually matters again, then it can stop debating free tampons and start debating things that matter - like what our agricultural tariffs should be. What our industrial policy should be. How our fisheries should be managed. I'll win some and i'll lose some - that's democracy.

Happy to have debates up and down the town halls of the land over these issues, as we should be doing.


are you referring to the US? because their current policy is no trade deal unless the border issue is resolved


It isn't that I think you personally are well off, although you could be, but that your attitude is that of being well off. That you mentioned holiday homes abroad as some sort of pressing matter seems rather bizzare to most normal people who struggle to afford one home let alone one in Malaga. All this goes back to why Remain's campaign just sounded so hollow and didn't resonate outside the M25.

i never even mentioned holiday homes, where did you ever get that impression from
what i was saying is they could, if they chose to, move to any other country in the EU (provided they could support themselves adequately) if they didnt want to be here


I read other statistics on private rent, so assuming not including council properties. But whatever.

not really private renting if its including council properties, total renting is 37%
id love to know where you get your stats from


Immigration of course causes an impact just internal immigration *clearly* has an affect on local prices in an area, the same is true on a national level. Why is rent in London so high? Because jobs draw people to live there meaning shortage of housing = rent rises. The same can be said for Liverpool and Manchester in the last decade where the draw of students and young professionals in revitalised urban centres has pushed prices up, although both have been able to cope given the sheer amount of brown land surrounding the city core.

i literally said immigration most likely has an impact
the difference is that to you, its the only reason when there are a lot more factors at play


The argument I have read before and which I think has merit is that because of our constitutional flexibility as compared with a written, European style constitution, has meant that our constitutional order has been able to survive events like the Glorious Revolution, the rise of socialism, universal suffrage and so on. Contrast this with say France or Spain where the constitutions were (naturally) a product of their conservative/liberal time which then led to civil wars and revolution.

from what i can see, and feel free to correct me if im wrong, but im basically looking through french history at a glance and aside from the change to the first republic, the reason for france changing their system is in part because of how they expanded
the uk treated colonies as their own external thing, and still does for any existing overseas territories - they are their own thing in their own right, with the main UK "controlling" certain aspects
france, however, seems to basically absorb at least some colonies into basically becoming a part of france (also that one time the germans invaded and split france up), with also mainland france changing over time

what it really seems like is that our system is so inherently undefined and malleable, it can become whatever it wants to be


England has always been a unitary state and the English wouldn't stand for it. It was attempted under New Labour in the north-east, and voters roundly rejected it in a referendum by 78% to 22% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_North_East_England_devolution_referendum) meaning it is dead in the water. Added to that, it still wouldn't solve the issue anyway as the English 'regions' would still be that - English. You'd then have say 10 English regions vs 3 non-English regions.

To prove how much I would object, I am as Unionist as you can possibly be given I don't believe in devolution and would have Ulster brought under direct rule on a permanent basis, but the moment England needs to be carved up to protect the Union would signal to me the actual end of the Union. It is a Union, not a disembowelment of a nation of the Union.[/QUOTE]

i wasnt even suggesting devolution, in reality it would be no different to how you elect your mp but the constituency is bigger
from an outsiders perspective, i agree that people would see 10 english vs 3 others and it wouldnt be easily achievable in that respect unless it was balanced out however just from a purely hypothetical point of view, say that it was just the UK so theres no wales/england/scotland/ni, its pretty fair to say the needs of the north east differ to the south west which differ to london


I don't really understand their political systems well nor their political culture. French conservatism for example has completely different philosophical routes to Anglosphere conservatism which is why France has never had a Margaret Thatcher or John Howard, for instance.

Funnily enough I understand Spain's a bit more, but only because its political culture is a lot younger and is easier to digest with the civil war period. It's more black and white. Germany's is a right mish mash - you've got Bavarian conservatism with its Catholic roots hence a different party in Bavaria, and Prussian protestant conservatism that dominated the German Imperial period. It's left is a strange mix of social democracy from the Weimar period and hard socialism from the Eastern bloc. I don't pretend to understand it.

i mean i cant say ive really looked into the differences to be honest, maybe ill look one day but not understanding the ideology of shall we call it "French conservatism" isnt really the same as saying you dont understand the french institutions


I think my distinctions though between the civil wars we've seen on the continent and those here, ring very true. There's never been a revolution or civil war here that was within society, and wished to overthrow the old order. Like I said, the most violent/closest thing to a civil war we've had - actually called a Civil War - the victors actually retained virtually the entire ancien regime, minus the Crown - and Cromwell as Lord Protector de facto assumed the powers of the Crown, he was simply an uncrowned monarch in many respects.

im literally not going to follow this further if your entire basis for something being a civil war is that it has to has civil war in the name


Legally and in treaty, yes. But institutionally, politically and culturally? No.

if it didnt merge us institutionally, politically and culturally then you wouldnt be against devolution/independence movements in these areas since the acts of union effectively centralised everything


Can you name a similar European country that still has offices and laws in existence from hundreds of years ago? The only examples I can think of from the top of my head would possibly be the Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden? Britain (and its predecessor states) has had a remarkably smooth ride, and it is remarkable that our ancient institutions survived the 20th century when the 2,000+ year Chinese, Persian and Ethiopian imperial regimes did not. On an anecdotal, I once read that King-Emperor Edward VII was so concerned with the rise of socialism that he used to introduce his son, the future George V, as "the last King of England" - it turned out that the British throne weathered the coming storm better than he thought it would.

It is why many on the radical left hate the symbols of the Monarchy, House of Lords and Church of England despite them causing no harm and being universally liked. Other countries have their romantic (and often bloody) revolutions that they fetishise over, and here they have nothing - because we've changed but kept the golden frills and baubles, without spilling much blood. It annoys them that they never got their chance to tear it all down and start anew.


cant really say theyre universally liked when the left dont like them
ignoring the pedantry, its a bit of a stretch for 2/3 of those youve mentioned
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2018-07-04/Proud%20of%20institutions-01.png

i think what actually annoys those on the left is the imbalance those things represent, not because they want to go on a murder spree

just as a side point, you mentioned other countries "fetishising" over revolutions, can i just point out that a lot of people do that about WW2 in this country which probably includes yourself to a degree
also youre the one constantly calling for mps to be shot


My distinction between them is pretty accurate which is why you haven't rebutted it. Our "civil wars" overturned dynasties, on the continent their "civil wars" and "revolutions" overturned society, religion, political systems and even borders (Germany).

i rebutted it by saying you dont get to decide what is and isnt a civil war
you also ignored my entire point about irish independence, which you could argue was even more destablising than a civil war


It never took off here because of the different political culture. The same can be said for Dominions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Rhodesia who inherited our political culture as part of the British Empire. One huge bulwark against it, which ironically many on the left secretly loathe, is the monarchy as George Orwell (himself on the left) one wrote. The little goosestepping and bowing that we do, is to our apolitical Sovereign. This was lacking in Germany, Russia, France, Austria and across Europe where the monarchy was either relatively newly established, was political or did not exist.

In fact, the two nations which really stand out as being similar to us as in not falling to fascism voluntarily would be the Kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. And what do they have in common with us? A monarchy that is as old as the land itself, and constitutional systems with continuity.

they also have the letter "n" in their country name


Calling Farage, a mild anglosphere conservative, a fascist will only deafen your alarm bells when a real fascist comes along.

Don't do it.

using https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html as a base source of ideas

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
debatable on how powerful but certainlly continuing

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
316907842605039616
518002908651323392

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Started with the EU and other countries (romania, turkey) but more recently has become a thing against "the establishment", but often will call the media biased

Supremacy of the Military
no real source on this but im sure back in the day the UKIP manifesto was very much on the line of increased military spending

Rampant Sexism
ukip itself being very sexist
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-s-women-problem-nigel-farage-manages-to-come-across-as-sexist-even-while-admitting-his-party-9781885.html
basically defending donnys sexism
https://www.businessinsider.com/nigel-farage-defends-donald-trumps-sexist-comments-this-is-alpha-male-boasting-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

Controlled Mass Media
hes not exactly in government so nothing i can really comment on here

Obsession with National Security
often a secondary point when mentioning immigration/open borders
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36167329

Religion and Government are Intertwined
defends christianity, so it could end up being so
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10422169/Nigel-Farage-We-must-defend-Christian-heritage.html

Corporate Power is Protected
https://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-times-ukip-has-called-for-nhs-privatisation-nigel-farage-paul-nuttall-2017-2?r=US&IR=T
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/12/film-nigel-farage-insurance-based-nhs-private-companies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8oMjswB8gw
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/03/rupert-murdoch-nigel-farage-and-dr-liam-fox-meet-at-a-garden-par/

Labor Power is Suppressed
not in power so cant comment

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
the whole brexit campaign has been about ignoring experts
however i will also be fair and say he did publically advocate for scrapping tuition fees for STEM subjects, though personally speaking i do not trust him on that

Obsession with Crime and Punishment
obsession with brexit so no

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
looking a bit like it

Fraudulent Elections
fairly obviously not

got a bit bored looking for sources
so using the list from that url provided which obviously isnt gospel, he seems to tick a fair few of the boxes (also lets not ignore the image from before) but some cant really be ticked unless he was in power

[-:Undertaker:-]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5absCOXsAEobeJ.jpg

1123472776764035072

1123300637456961539


are you referring to the US? because their current policy is no trade deal unless the border issue is resolved

That is not the policy of the American government. You're referring to comments by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who isn't in the administration.


i never even mentioned holiday homes, where did you ever get that impression from
what i was saying is they could, if they chose to, move to any other country in the EU (provided they could support themselves adequately) if they didnt want to be here

And my point was that virtually only the middle classes do that, as most Britons don't have the disposable income or means to do that, so bringing it up as an issue to worry about may concern Sasha in Chipping Norton who is looking to buy her third house abroad, but not the average fella in Grimsby.

In addition to that, they can and already do choose to move to non-EU countries pretty easily aswell. There's 1.3 million Britons living in Australia alone, compared with 1.2 million for the whole of the EU combined. I live in Spain and am not one bit concerned about having to apply for residency.


not really private renting if its including council properties, total renting is 37%
id love to know where you get your stats from

Came up on Google.


i literally said immigration most likely has an impact
the difference is that to you, its the only reason when there are a lot more factors at play

No, there are other reasons which should be followed such as land decontamination in the inner city areas (which is why developers often avoid due to the high costs of cleaning the land first before building) but immigration is the main factor by a country mile simply by sheer scale.


from what i can see, and feel free to correct me if im wrong, but im basically looking through french history at a glance and aside from the change to the first republic, the reason for france changing their system is in part because of how they expanded
the uk treated colonies as their own external thing, and still does for any existing overseas territories - they are their own thing in their own right, with the main UK "controlling" certain aspects
france, however, seems to basically absorb at least some colonies into basically becoming a part of france (also that one time the germans invaded and split france up), with also mainland france changing over time

You're right on the constitutional set up but that's not the reason the constitutions are as they are. France's constitution, like America which copied, is built heavily on ideology and philosophy. As is ours of course and any constitutional arrangement, but not purposely.


what it really seems like is that our system is so inherently undefined and malleable, it can become whatever it wants to be

Indeed, and that is the beauty of it. But changes *must* be organic.


i wasnt even suggesting devolution, in reality it would be no different to how you elect your mp but the constituency is bigger
from an outsiders perspective, i agree that people would see 10 english vs 3 others and it wouldnt be easily achievable in that respect unless it was balanced out however just from a purely hypothetical point of view, say that it was just the UK so theres no wales/england/scotland/ni, its pretty fair to say the needs of the north east differ to the south west which differ to london

The needs of the north do differ, but remember that nationalism triumphs over other concerns. The working classes of Glasgow and Liverpool have more "in common" in terms of money with the average Pole or Spaniard, but culturally they have more in common with their fellow countrymen of higher social classes. It is the working classes who had very little who (mainly) died for their countries in both great wars, not the upper classes.


i mean i cant say ive really looked into the differences to be honest, maybe ill look one day but not understanding the ideology of shall we call it "French conservatism" isnt really the same as saying you dont understand the french institutions

I don't think you can understand the institutions without understanding the political culture. How can one fully understand the House of Lords and the Monarchy without understanding the philosophy of the Conservative and Unionist Party? And the Labour Party? You can't.


im literally not going to follow this further if your entire basis for something being a civil war is that it has to has civil war in the name


Not arguing based on the names, arguing based on what actually took place and the extent of each incident/event.


if it didnt merge us institutionally, politically and culturally then you wouldnt be against devolution/independence movements in these areas since the acts of union effectively centralised everything

It did, but it was a totally different era. Firstly, the people did not have a say and in some places it was not initially popular. Secondly, it was done mainly because of Scotland's failure to establish viable colonies in the Americas. Thirdly, England desired it because Scotland had historically been favourable to France which posed a security risk for the English kingdom. And fourthly, the Union of the Crowns had already taken place a century earlier so in many ways was a natural constitutional step in the same way the Prussian Royal House was given the Crown of Germany when unification took place.

As it happened, that Union would go on to produce the most successful country in world history. So I am very in favour of retaining it.


cant really say theyre universally liked when the left dont like them
ignoring the pedantry, its a bit of a stretch for 2/3 of those youve mentioned

Barring the monarchy, they've been severely weakened - sure. For example, the Blair Ministry removing in 1999 most of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords and replacing them with political pawns in the form of life peers has undermined the Lords and the role it plays. That said, it is still preferable to any of the other silly "reform" ideas which usually don't solve anything and just ruin a reasonably good thing


i think what actually annoys those on the left is the imbalance those things represent, not because they want to go on a murder spree

But that's my point, what it represents. They'll go on about feudalism, oppression, wealth, theology and so on with these institutions, but is anyone seriously comparing the meek Church of England to the Ayatollahs of Iran? I have literally seen people arguing for the disestablishment of the CoE make that comparison before that we have a state church and so does Iran. Does anyone really believe that our democracy would somehow be enhanced by replacing the Lords with more political puppets in the form of a Senate? Are we really saying that Prince Charles' letters to ministers over endangered newts have some sinister grip on government policy?


just as a side point, you mentioned other countries "fetishising" over revolutions, can i just point out that a lot of people do that about WW2 in this country which probably includes yourself to a degree
also youre the one constantly calling for mps to be shot

Naturally countries will fetishise revolutions. The French revolution arguably caused a lot more damage than it actually solved anything, but will the French ever admit such a thing? Of course not. In the same way the British will not admit that World War II was a mistake (at least in 1939) and cost us our Empire thans to our American 'friends'. The same goes for World War I, which certainly was unnecessary. In both wars, we declared war over borders in central and eastern Europe that we had no interest in or ability to change.


i rebutted it by saying you dont get to decide what is and isnt a civil war
you also ignored my entire point about irish independence, which you could argue was even more destablising than a civil war

Ireland was a civil war sure, but only effected a small part of the kingdom. The actual Civil War effected all parts.


using https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html as a base source of ideas

got a bit bored looking for sources
so using the list from that url provided which obviously isnt gospel, he seems to tick a fair few of the boxes (also lets not ignore the image from before) but some cant really be ticked unless he was in power

You believe someone can only believe in human rights if they subscribe to belonging to the European Court of Human Rights? So by that logic, are you arguing human rights do not exist in Australia, Canada, America, New Zealand, Taiwan and Hong Kong? Don't be silly.