Democracy in the UK... | Page 41 | Vital Football

Democracy in the UK...

hulloutpost

Vital Football Hero
Last time I checked, England was busy breaking international law and planning to fuck over Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

The England I see has no moral high-ground to occupy.

The Windrush scandal proves that absolutely. A despicable, dishonest state that majors in hypocrisy. And I say that, sadly, as an Englishman.
The first role of a nation is to act in the best interests of the nation. Last time I checked the nation included Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

The UK are sensibly putting in place legislation (should it be needed) to protect internal trade within our own nation. This is having identified a trap set by the EU whereby unlike any other country in the world they would not guarantee third country status. The EU simply have to confirm they will treat the UK like every other sovereign nation they deal with and there will not be any recourse to use the sensible legislation to protect the internal affairs of The UK. Sound and proper safeguards put in place by the government of this country to protect home affairs.

Windrush has been handled exceptionally badly and that needs seriously addressing. Apologies have been issued and remedial action instigated.

Whilst it is right and appropriate to highlight Britain's short comings on this subject (Windrush) it is not the full and fair picture that I referred to. To not provide balance and examples of good practice is both selective and disingenuous.

I would also remind you that nothing is agreed until it is all agreed and if the EU don't like the terms they can walk away with a no deal the same as the UK can.
 

hulloutpost

Vital Football Hero
And we have recently reneged on a binding agreement with the EU thus breaking international law.

We're no better than China. Cease your English exceptionalist bullshit.
I am amazed that a person who professes a high moral stance on democracy and human rights can conflate China with the withdrawal agreement.

One is a gross abuse of human rights, denial of democracy and totalitarian control of a third party state. Aren't you delighted the UK is standing up for the rights of an oppressed state?

The other is an internal matter that is rectifying an own goal whereby The UK stupidly assumed that The EU would exercise fair play and best intentions in negotiations.

Having identified the issue it would be gross neglect not to rectify it by reasonably asserting that The EU recognise third country status for the UK. Otherwise the UK would be guilty of imposing restrictions and hardship on it's own citizens.

There is no comparison between the two instances and a man of your intelligence (PHD pending) shouldn't need a simplistic, deranged, retard like my good self to explain the differences.
 

HoofGrantBrown

Vital Reserves Team
The first role of a nation is to act in the best interests of the nation. Last time I checked the nation included Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

The UK are sensibly putting in place legislation (should it be needed) to protect internal trade within our own nation. This is having identified a trap set by the EU whereby unlike any other country in the world they would not guarantee third country status. The EU simply have to confirm they will treat the UK like every other sovereign nation they deal with and there will not be any recourse to use the sensible legislation to protect the internal affairs of The UK. Sound and proper safeguards put in place by the government of this country to protect home affairs.

Windrush has been handled exceptionally badly and that needs seriously addressing. Apologies have been issued and remedial action instigated.

Whilst it is right and appropriate to highlight Britain's short comings on this subject (Windrush) it is not the full and fair picture that I referred to. To not provide balance and examples of good practice is both selective and disingenuous.

I would also remind you that nothing is agreed until it is all agreed and if the EU don't like the terms they can walk away with a no deal the same as the UK can.
Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland are not part of England. By definition.
 

Chesterimp

Vital 1st Team Regular
And we have recently reneged on a binding agreement with the EU thus breaking international law.

We're no better than China. Cease your English exceptionalist bullshit.
The binding agreement, as yet, has not been reneged on although the threat to do so remains. Agree, totally unacceptable although those who say England/UK are shining lights in upholding the rule of law should read their history rather more carefully.

China is breaking the Basic Law and other treaty obligations towards Hong Kong, consistent with its expansionist and oppressive approach to other neighbours (Taiwan, Vietnam, Phillipines) and oppression of dissent and religion within in borders (Tibet, Uighurs). Its autocratic leader continues the Communist tradition of Mao and Stalin, oppressing dissent and suppressing the very proletariat it purports to represent.

Socialist regimes always end in failure as there's always a Stalin, Mao or Xi to exploit it. Nice concept, but fails to take account of human nature - we're all shits, basically.
 

hulloutpost

Vital Football Hero
The binding agreement, as yet, has not been reneged on although the threat to do so remains. Agree, totally unacceptable although those who say England/UK are shining lights in upholding the rule of law should read their history rather more carefully.

China is breaking the Basic Law and other treaty obligations towards Hong Kong, consistent with its expansionist and oppressive approach to other neighbours (Taiwan, Vietnam, Phillipines) and oppression of dissent and religion within in borders (Tibet, Uighurs). Its autocratic leader continues the Communist tradition of Mao and Stalin, oppressing dissent and suppressing the very proletariat it purports to represent.

Socialist regimes always end in failure as there's always a Stalin, Mao or Xi to exploit it. Nice concept, but fails to take account of human nature - we're all shits, basically.
As a collective your last sentence probably hits the nail on the head!
 

Sincilbanks

Vital 1st Team Regular
I don't follow your irony. The UK has been ostracised by a number of posters for being variously undemocratic, unable to act independently outside of the mighty federal EU, a colonial, endemically racist and self serving nation. That is simply not a fair or full reflection of the UK I recognise (without going off at an extensive tangent).

The examples I have referenced i.e. Belarus and China are clear counter points to those that would seek to constantly denigrate the UK; nothing more nothing less.

A financial relevance connection, is that what you are implying? If it is I'm sorry that you have misunderstood what I am referencing. I'm pleased to provide clarity.
So is breaking international agreements/law a thing we should be doing because everyone does it, or something we should be avoiding because it turns us into a pariah state?
 

Sincilbanks

Vital 1st Team Regular
The binding agreement, as yet, has not been reneged on although the threat to do so remains. Agree, totally unacceptable although those who say England/UK are shining lights in upholding the rule of law should read their history rather more carefully.

China is breaking the Basic Law and other treaty obligations towards Hong Kong, consistent with its expansionist and oppressive approach to other neighbours (Taiwan, Vietnam, Phillipines) and oppression of dissent and religion within in borders (Tibet, Uighurs). Its autocratic leader continues the Communist tradition of Mao and Stalin, oppressing dissent and suppressing the very proletariat it purports to represent.

Socialist regimes always end in failure as there's always a Stalin, Mao or Xi to exploit it. Nice concept, but fails to take account of human nature - we're all shits, basically.
Aren't they all communist regimes?
 

NottyImp

Vital Football Legend
The binding agreement, as yet, has not been reneged on although the threat to do so remains. Agree, totally unacceptable although those who say England/UK are shining lights in upholding the rule of law should read their history rather more carefully.

China is breaking the Basic Law and other treaty obligations towards Hong Kong, consistent with its expansionist and oppressive approach to other neighbours (Taiwan, Vietnam, Phillipines) and oppression of dissent and religion within in borders (Tibet, Uighurs). Its autocratic leader continues the Communist tradition of Mao and Stalin, oppressing dissent and suppressing the very proletariat it purports to represent.

Socialist regimes always end in failure as there's always a Stalin, Mao or Xi to exploit it. Nice concept, but fails to take account of human nature - we're all shits, basically.
So the choices are Stalinist Communism or what we have now? What about the Labour government of 1945, arguably the only socialist democratic government the UK has had? That was pretty successful imo.

I think the possibilities are a bit more nuanced than you make out.
 
Last edited:

hulloutpost

Vital Football Hero
So is breaking international agreements/law a thing we should be doing because everyone does it, or something we should be avoiding because it turns us into a pariah state?
Not something that should be done lightly and should be avoided but it's all relative and not at all cost to hamstring your own nation. I've outlined in a previous post the extreme differences for examples involving China and the WA so I'm not going over the specifics again too much but in reality there is a world of difference and everyone in the international community knows that.

Just as the international community fully realise that the EU are acting in bad faith and this has been brought on by that and The UK stupidly not doing due diligence in the first instance.

Pariah state? I don't think so somehow. The UK didn't kill anyone, invade anywhere or act like imperialists. Incompetent, more likely.

So the proof will be in the good old pudding. The Japanese signed up to a deal and The Australians came out with a strong statement of support for The UK being a trusted international partner within days of the faux outrage over the WA. I believe the appropriate terms are storm in a tea cup and righting the initial mistake of trusting The EU (only a trading block by the way for purposes of international law, not a real country) to do the correct thing in the first place.

Other countries can decide for themselves and it would appear they are, being quite happy to sign up and engage with Britain in spite of this minor blooper caused by aggravating features on the part of The EU.
 

NottyImp

Vital Football Legend
Missing the point.
"United" means a union of more than one nation which it is. Although not for much longer.
Absolutely. One effect of Brexit will be Scottish independence and the distinct possibility of a united Ireland.

Now, nothing intrinsically wrong with either outcome but it makes you wonder if the Conservative and Unionist Party (full name) might need re-branding.

It will, of course, mean that deluded English nationalism will be even more of a force in the rump-UK.
 

NottyImp

Vital Football Legend
Still, when the Brexshit hits the fan and lots of duped leavers start shouting "I didn't vote for this!", I will take great pleasure in posting up a video of my latest song: "16 Million Fuck-offs". 😁
 

Sincilbanks

Vital 1st Team Regular
Not something that should be done lightly and should be avoided but it's all relative and not at all cost to hamstring your own nation. I've outlined in a previous post the extreme differences for examples involving China and the WA so I'm not going over the specifics again too much but in reality there is a world of difference and everyone in the international community knows that.

Just as the international community fully realise that the EU are acting in bad faith and this has been brought on by that and The UK stupidly not doing due diligence in the first instance.

Pariah state? I don't think so somehow. The UK didn't kill anyone, invade anywhere or act like imperialists. Incompetent, more likely.

So the proof will be in the good old pudding. The Japanese signed up to a deal and The Australians came out with a strong statement of support for The UK being a trusted international partner within days of the faux outrage over the WA. I believe the appropriate terms are storm in a tea cup and righting the initial mistake of trusting The EU (only a trading block by the way for purposes of international law, not a real country) to do the correct thing in the first place.

Other countries can decide for themselves and it would appear they are, being quite happy to sign up and engage with Britain in spite of this minor blooper caused by aggravating features on the part of The EU.
So it's ok to break them if the consequences aren't likely to be catastrophic?
 

hulloutpost

Vital Football Hero
What will be will be. You will struggle to find mass swathes of the Brexit electorate that would stand in the way of independence votes for Wales, NI or Scotland. That is the point of democracy right?

In fact I'm a little disappointed that the Scots haven't been granted a second referendum already to be perfectly honest. Part of the Good Friday agreement I believe is that the nationalist parties can trigger an independence referendum once they feel they will win it so over to them. Tbh I have no idea what the position with Wales is.

Their choice as far as I am concerned and should all or any of them choose to be independent they will be welcome to strike their own deals with or without the UK, put up their own borders if they wish and join The EU if that organisation are prepared to take any more net recipients.

If EIRE wish to take on the funding of NI, likewise the Scots or EU replace the Barnett formula and Wales do whatever; that should absolutely be in their remit.

Conversely if any or all parts of The UK wish to remain part of a union by choice then they absolutely should be welcome to do so. It would be highly hypocritical of a post Brexit nation to not heed others calls for sovereignty so I do wish BoJo would get on with Ref2 ASAP for starters.

The federalists will take great delight in seeing the UK diminished whereas most of the plebs that remain in The UK won't give a flying one and I'm not really bothered if it pees off a few unionist politicians or minority that don't want to leave. Like I say democracy.