Sounds like 20 years after making a fantasy with a subversive edge, Verhoeven has decided it was a satire.
No, he made it as a satire. He lived under German occupation, remember?
He was seven when it ended, so possibly not yet a sophisticated understanding.
His other films, particularly the American ones, do have significant satirical themes, Robo-Cop and Showgirls in particular
Certainly no sophisticated understanding at the time it happened (ended), but that unfortunate episode in German-Dutch relations has been deeply ingrained in the Dutch collective psyche, still is today.
Every individual Dutchman will have taken away different lessons from it. Verhoeven has made statements at the time of the making of the movie that clearly indicated that the satirical intent was just as prevalent in this movie as in his other ones.
Can we please have an election so the people of the UK can choose a party to implement Brexit or have a referendum or whatever.
Having a government that is in office but not in power is a disaster for everyone.
Another few weeks will not matter. Once we are past 31st October...
Passing the 31st October does not stop no deal. Any extension provides both the chance to stop brexit but also leave with no deal. It depends on the result of a GE and a new HOC
It still remains the fact that the only thing that guarantee No Deal for the next 25-30 years is a DEAL!
Even REVOKE could be usurped by a Brexit Party government within a decade.
At the risk of repeating myself a 2nd referendum: No Deal v Deal v Remain, decided via STV would settle the issue for a generation.
Nope.
Remain lost the referendum and in this country (unlike what they do elsewhere) we don't "revisit" demorcratic decisions until the first one has been implemented.
Nope
In this country, an advisory referendum is advisory. And the Benn Act is law
Tick tock
We had another member who used to say tick tock a lot during the Indyref campaign.
I thought it was a disgraced convicted Labour MP?
EX MP N Palmer used to say it - to be clear I am sure that is not who you are referring to.
Regardless of the precise legalities here, and understanding that this is about proving Boris's Brexity credentials to the Tory party faithful, does he really believe that it is a good idea to try to remain as PM despite having lost a vote of no confidence and someone else having been indicated by the Commons as having its confidence?
It sure as hell does not pass the sniff test of 'Would Party A possibly say this is ok if Party B suggested it?'
You never know how much of this is genuine and how much is just to keep Jolyon busy preparing lawsuits
It may not be a genuine plan. I have little doubt the same source who said it is also drafting lines for Boris to say it's a nonsense and the stupid mainstream media are just angry at Boris for wanting to deliver Brexit, in case there is a fuss, but either there's a chance it is a genuine idea, in which case it is a terrible plan, or it's a lie put out to manipulate people who will believe it is a genuine idea, in which case it is also a terrible plan. (terrible in this sense does not necessarily speak to effectiveness of the idea).
Omg that’s so funny . Apparently he’ll tell the Queen that he has to stay in place otherwise there will be chaos and a danger to the economy . When the reason he doesn’t want to stand down is so he can push through a no deal Brexit which could cause chaos and economic problems .
This doesn’t make sense. If there’s an alternative figure who commands a majority in the Commons of course she can sack Boris.
Wiki says... maybe not?
"In August 2019, it has been suggested the principles could still have relevance if a PM lost a vote of no confidence and then wanting to seek an election rather than allow someone else to form a government, argued a right to such an election as reason for not resigning and running down the clock."
Thank you but I do not share your opinion on Boris v Corbyn's policies.
They are as directly opposite as you can get
That's true. One wishes to emulate the worst excesses of 1970's Labour by operating an unbalanced budget and drastically increasing spending (hence beggaring the currency), whilst getting wildly-overinvolved in the Israel/Palestine conflict and practicing a ludicrously unrealistic foreign policy whilst maintaining power by operating a culture war...
It is also inaccurate. The UK did not win two world wars. It was on the winning side twice.
The UK had help both times. (Also just reinforcing the fact that it was not England wot won it)
Good heavens - we clearly had little help from the republic of Ireland but yes we had many allies from former colonies. The ad is very unpleasant - it's a symptom of the polarised nation we are. However, your take is pretty pathetic.
Your post is pathetic I would say. England has gone crazy, it is a cesspit.
Regardless of the precise legalities here, and understanding that this is about proving Boris's Brexity credentials to the Tory party faithful, does he really believe that it is a good idea to try to remain as PM despite having lost a vote of no confidence and someone else having been indicated by the Commons as having its confidence?
It sure as hell does not pass the sniff test of 'Would Party A possibly say this is ok if Party B suggested it?'
You never know how much of this is genuine and how much is just to keep Jolyon busy preparing lawsuits
It may not be a genuine plan. I have little doubt the same source who said it is also drafting lines for Boris to say it's a nonsense and the stupid mainstream media are just angry at Boris for wanting to deliver Brexit, in case there is a fuss, but either there's a chance it is a genuine idea, in which case it is a terrible plan, or it's a lie put out to manipulate people who will believe it is a genuine idea, in which case it is also a terrible plan. (terrible in this sense does not necessarily speak to effectiveness of the idea).
Can we please have an election so the people of the UK can choose a party to implement Brexit or have a referendum or whatever.
Having a government that is in office but not in power is a disaster for everyone.
Another few weeks will not matter. Once we are past 31st October...
Passing the 31st October does not stop no deal. Any extension provides both the chance to stop brexit but also leave with no deal. It depends on the result of a GE and a new HOC
It still remains the fact that the only thing that guarantee No Deal for the next 25-30 years is a DEAL!
Even REVOKE could be usurped by a Brexit Party government within a decade.
At the risk of repeating myself a 2nd referendum: No Deal v Deal v Remain, decided via STV would settle the issue for a generation.
Nope.
Remain lost the referendum and in this country (unlike what they do elsewhere) we don't "revisit" demorcratic decisions until the first one has been implemented.
"We don't "revisit" democratic decisions until the first one has been implemented."
Where did that come from? It's a made up recent creation by individuals who deny people the right to change to change their mind. It is profoundly undemocratic.
We had a referendum in Wales on an assembly- the losers accepted the result.
That was different to the Scottish and EU referendums where the politicians representing the losers refused to accept the democratic vote.
That's not true. Conservatives continued to fight against the Welsh Assembly.
Can we please have an election so the people of the UK can choose a party to implement Brexit or have a referendum or whatever.
Having a government that is in office but not in power is a disaster for everyone.
Another few weeks will not matter. Once we are past 31st October...
Passing the 31st October does not stop no deal. Any extension provides both the chance to stop brexit but also leave with no deal. It depends on the result of a GE and a new HOC
It still remains the fact that the only thing that guarantee No Deal for the next 25-30 years is a DEAL!
Even REVOKE could be usurped by a Brexit Party government within a decade.
At the risk of repeating myself a 2nd referendum: No Deal v Deal v Remain, decided via STV would settle the issue for a generation.
Nope.
Remain lost the referendum and in this country (unlike what they do elsewhere) we don't "revisit" demorcratic decisions until the first one has been implemented.
Nope
In this country, an advisory referendum is advisory. And the Benn Act is law
Tick tock
We had another member who used to say tick tock a lot during the Indyref campaign.
I thought it was a disgraced convicted Labour MP?
EX MP N Palmer used to say it - to be clear I am sure that is not who you are referring to.
No, he wasn't convicted. Nor for clarity did he ever stand trial!
I haven't expressed my opinion on holding a referendum on this issue, but my question to you is, what would your plan be if the electorate of Northern Ireland rejected a customs union with the Republic? I suspect you don't have one, because you don't actually want the people to make the decision, you want the people to give democratic legitimacy to your preferred option. You regard the outcome as a foregone conclusion. That's the same deeply flawed thinking that lead Cameron to hold the EU ref in the first place (Thank the Lord).
Should the proposition of staying in the Customs Union be rejected, the result would be a hard border in Ireland, no way around that. But they would have themselves decided so, that would still be more fair than anything else.
"We don't "revisit" democratic decisions until the first one has been implemented."
Where did that come from? It's a made up recent creation by individuals who deny people the right to change to change their mind. It is profoundly undemocratic.
We have had this one before. The UK did not have a history of holding referendums until 1975, and still doesn't really do them very often. We've only had 3 UK wide ones, and a few more at the 'sub-national'(?) level (Scotland, Wales etc) and a few more at the sub-sub-national level.
In all those previous cases, the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum excepted, the winning option was implemented. The 1979 Scottish devolution set a minimum turnout, which was not met, in order for it to be implemented. This condition was known about in advance.
If the United Kingdom either does not leave the EU, or holds a second referendum to overturn the result of the 2016 one, it will be first time in its history the result of a referendum was not implemented.
Whether you agree with Brexit or not, I would like to hope you are slightly concerned about this possibility.
I posted a future hypothetical. Let's say in 2036 the UK elects a government determined to reintroduce the death penalty for certain crimes. However, it feels pressured to hold an 'advisory' referendum on this change before it does so. In 2038, the people of the UK, in their wisdom, decide that this change is too much and refuse to back it, with 52% opposing the death penalty.
In 2039, the same government decide to do it anyway, ram it through using the Parliament Act and start hanging criminals and Derek Bentley. When a lady called Mina Giller challenges them in court, they point to 2016 and say, "But that referendum was only advisory, and wasn't implemented. There is precident for our actions."
Before people come on and pick holes in my, no doubt daft hypothetical, I ask you to look at my underlying argument. Referendum results have been implemented. THEN they might ask a similar question later (1975 to 2016, Scotland 1979 to 1997) but we've always done the answer FIRST, before asking again.
EEA all the way, probably with customs union. Delivers on the question of the referendum. Solves the NI problem. If, at a later point we can also leave the CU because of technology advances, that option remains open.
But we're far to deep down the rabbit hole for any sensible options now.
You say "it will be first time in its history the result of a referendum was not implemented." As you say, there have only been three UK wide referenda.
You say " it will be first time in its history the result of a referendum was not implemented. Whether you agree with Brexit or not, I would like to hope you are slightly concerned about this possibility."
I'm not in the slightest concerned. Why would I be?
There must be other examples of political dog whistling from the last 20 years.
I reckon that's worse than anything "Vote Leave" have put out. It's the creepy child like hand writing that's the worst of it. Like the inscription of a steptoe wife's child. Hideous.
Can we please have an election so the people of the UK can choose a party to implement Brexit or have a referendum or whatever.
Having a government that is in office but not in power is a disaster for everyone.
Another few weeks will not matter. Once we are past 31st October...
Passing the 31st October does not stop no deal. Any extension provides both the chance to stop brexit but also leave with no deal. It depends on the result of a GE and a new HOC
It still remains the fact that the only thing that guarantee No Deal for the next 25-30 years is a DEAL!
Even REVOKE could be usurped by a Brexit Party government within a decade.
At the risk of repeating myself a 2nd referendum: No Deal v Deal v Remain, decided via STV would settle the issue for a generation.
Nope.
Remain lost the referendum and in this country (unlike what they do elsewhere) we don't "revisit" demorcratic decisions until the first one has been implemented.
Nope
In this country, an advisory referendum is advisory. And the Benn Act is law
Tick tock
We had another member who used to say tick tock a lot during the Indyref campaign.
I thought it was a disgraced convicted Labour MP?
EX MP N Palmer used to say it - to be clear I am sure that is not who you are referring to.
No, he wasn't convicted. Nor for clarity did he ever stand trial!
I prefer to say, "Ah, Nick Palmer... the former MP who was, and I want to make this absolutely clear, not convicted by a Jury of his peers."
This doesn’t make sense. If there’s an alternative figure who commands a majority in the Commons of course she can sack Boris.
Wiki says... maybe not?
"In August 2019, it has been suggested the principles could still have relevance if a PM lost a vote of no confidence and then wanting to seek an election rather than allow someone else to form a government, argued a right to such an election as reason for not resigning and running down the clock."
This looks like more desperate briefings from Cummings and co. And it’s largely irrelevant as the court will already have acted to make sure the Benn Act has been enacted .
There must be other examples of political dog whistling from the last 20 years.
I reckon that's worse than anything "Vote Leave" have put out. It's the creepy child like hand writing that's the worst of it. Like the inscription of a steptoe wife's child. Hideous.
You say "it will be first time in its history the result of a referendum was not implemented." As you say, there have only been three UK wide referenda.
You say " it will be first time in its history the result of a referendum was not implemented. Whether you agree with Brexit or not, I would like to hope you are slightly concerned about this possibility."
I'm not in the slightest concerned. Why would I be?
I suppose I have no good answer to that one. I just expect a slight twinge for the precedent that could be set here. But maybe I'm expecting too much.
You can have any colour car you like, as long as its black.
He was seven when it ended, so possibly not yet a sophisticated understanding.
His other films, particularly the American ones, do have significant satirical themes, Robo-Cop and Showgirls in particular
"Starship Troopers was originally a hugely popular 1959 novel by Robert A Heinlein. Heinlein was well known for advocating hardline, gung-ho foreign policy, and the story, about human soldiers fighting an interstellar war with giant arachnids, was often accused of glorifying war. The liberal Verhoeven, unsurprisingly, wasn't interested in a movie adaptation that took Heinlein's politics at face value. What he and his RoboCop co-screenwriter Neumeier aimed for instead was to inflate Heinlein's overblown ideals to the max, flaunt their pomposity and then explode them like confetti.
Verhoeven is a class act, although I loathe Troopers for the same reasons others love it. It’s kind of unbearable viewing.
His best film is Black Book, which isn’t well known over here because it’s Dutch language. But it’s a beautifully made WWII picture about a couple of Jewish girls who go undercover and infiltrate the Reich through a mixture of sexual and intellectual cunning. Verhoeven ramps up the tension gamely.
One of the best 'bad' movies of all time. I won't post the musical number from the direct to dvd third movie again, but its worth seeing it every time.
Can we please have an election so the people of the UK can choose a party to implement Brexit or have a referendum or whatever.
Having a government that is in office but not in power is a disaster for everyone.
Yeah but Labour think they might get an electoral advantage out of it so it's all good.
The one clear lesson out of this is that virtually ALL politicians care more about personal interests rather than national ones. They are collectively a disgrace of politicians.
The UK did not have a history of holding referendums until 1975, and still doesn't really do them very often. We've only had 3 UK wide ones, and a few more at the 'sub-national'(?) level (Scotland, Wales etc) and a few more at the sub-sub-national level.
In all those previous cases, the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum excepted, the winning option was implemented. The 1979 Scottish devolution set a minimum turnout, which was not met, in order for it to be implemented. This condition was known about in advance.
If the UK either does not leave the EU, or holds a second referendum to overturn the result of the 2016 one, it will be first time in its history the result of a referendum was not implemented (...)
I posted a future hypothetical. Let's say in 2036 the UK elects a government determined to reintroduce the death penalty for certain crimes. However, it feels pressured to hold an 'advisory' referendum on this change before it does so. In 2038, the people of the UK, in their wisdom, decide that this change is too much and refuse to back it, with 52% opposing the death penalty.
In 2039, the same government decide to do it anyway, ram it through using the Parliament Act and start hanging criminals and Derek Bentley. When a lady called Mina Giller challenges them in court, they point to 2016 and say, "But that referendum was only advisory, and wasn't implemented. There is precident for our actions."
Before people come on and pick holes in my, no doubt daft hypothetical, I ask you to look at my underlying argument. Referendum results have been implemented. THEN they might ask a similar question later (1975 to 2016, Scotland 1979 to 1997) but we've always done the answer FIRST, before asking again.
You're missing the fact that only one Britain-wide referendum has ever decided in favour of a change. People know what they're voting for when they back the status quo. (The 1975 referendum may have come only 2.5 years after entry into the EEC, but Britain had still belonged to the EEC for that time and therefore remaining was the status quo.) When the result is pro-change but the form the change will take isn't clear at the time of the referendum, it's legitimate for a government to hold another vote, saying "Here's the form we've worked out for the change you said you wanted. Do you still want it?" Those who do want it should get off their butts and vote "Hell Yeah, Sure We Do" and quit whingeing that that makes them feel as though they're living under Vichy. As in the US, those who like to accuse others of being whingey snowflakes can be a right bunch of whingey snowflakes themselves.
If a referendum with an ugly "Shove It, Kraut-Face!" (SIKF) option is held before an election (I doubt it will be), then given the crazy waters the country is now in the population might say "No" and then give a huge parliamentary majority to a raving SIKF party shortly afterwards.
These Boris planning to [insert arcane/outrageous practice here] stories are weirdly forgettable. I’ve lost track of the last few cunning plans, can anyone recall them without looking them up?
Sounds like 20 years after making a fantasy with a subversive edge, Verhoeven has decided it was a satire.
THINGS I HATE ABOUT THE 21ST CENTURY, PART 761 ================================= * People who don't realise that Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow" is a love-letter to Hammer films[1] * People who don't get that "Starship Troopers" is a obvious Nazi allegory, despite the fact that Verhoeven said so at the time, dressed Doogie Howser in a black leather cap and overcoat, ripped off Leni Riefenstahl, and considered getting the actors to make Nazi salutes.
[1] Seriously. There's a whole Nostalgia Critic video where he's honestly surprised.
These Boris planning to [insert arcane/outrageous practice here] stories are weirdly forgettable. I’ve lost track of the last few cunning plans, can anyone recall them without looking them up?
These Boris planning to [insert arcane/outrageous practice here] stories are weirdly forgettable. I’ve lost track of the last few cunning plans, can anyone recall them without looking them up?
Peter Lilley looks frothing and monomaniacal. The Labour woman looks furtive, perverse, and conflicted. Boles simply looks insane: a weird tanned tortoise electrified via his anus. Hilary Benn look like yer basic traitor.
What does the average uninvolved voter make of such a shower? My lord.
These Boris planning to [insert arcane/outrageous practice here] stories are weirdly forgettable. I’ve lost track of the last few cunning plans, can anyone recall them without looking them up?
Can we please have an election so the people of the UK can choose a party to implement Brexit or have a referendum or whatever.
Having a government that is in office but not in power is a disaster for everyone.
Another few weeks will not matter. Once we are past 31st October...
Passing the 31st October does not stop no deal. Any extension provides both the chance to stop brexit but also leave with no deal. It depends on the result of a GE and a new HOC
It still remains the fact that the only thing that guarantee No Deal for the next 25-30 years is a DEAL!
Even REVOKE could be usurped by a Brexit Party government within a decade.
At the risk of repeating myself a 2nd referendum: No Deal v Deal v Remain, decided via STV would settle the issue for a generation.
Nope.
Remain lost the referendum and in this country (unlike what they do elsewhere) we don't "revisit" demorcratic decisions until the first one has been implemented.
"We don't "revisit" democratic decisions until the first one has been implemented."
Where did that come from? It's a made up recent creation by individuals who deny people the right to change to change their mind. It is profoundly undemocratic.
You know full well this is nonsense. If this principle is not upheld, any verdict delivered by the people but unpopular with those who hold power can simply be delayed until the political weather changes, or (worse) until the people who were against it in the first place have used every tactic available to them to prove the 'impossibility' of the task.
Isn't that the very basis of the power of the House of Lords to delay? Is that not generally regarded as a necessary brake on contentious reforms, to encourage people to compromise to get them through more readily, or to ensure that it is important enough to spend the political time on?
Democracy does not start and end at the ballot box.
You're missing the fact that only one Britain-wide referendum has ever decided in favour of a change. People know what they're voting for when they back the status quo. (The 1975 referendum may have come only 2.5 years after entry into the EEC, but Britain had still belonged to the EEC for that time and therefore remaining was the status quo.) When the result is pro-change but the form the change will take isn't clear at the time of the referendum, it's legitimate for a government to hold another vote, saying "Here's the form we've worked out for the change you said you wanted. Do you still want it?"
I don't personally see why status quo should be 'implemented' (for want of a better word) but a change needs to be confirmed. I also notice that you and Barnsian have both ignored my point about sub-national referendum. Do they not count, because they DID vote for change but aren't UK wide? Or do they not count because they invalidate your point?
I said earlier, elsewhere, a 2nd referendum was probably the 'least worst option', but what would be wrong with saying, "We've took on board your desire to leave the EU. We've worked out several possibilities which are: EEA+CU EEA only Bespoke deal No Deal exit
[Note - options 3 and 4 defintely breach the UK's commitment to the Belfast agreement; option 2 is going to need further work to keep it together but we might be able to do it with a good FTA given a temporary CU period]"
Remain doesn't need, indeed perhaps shouldn't, be on the ballot at all. That one has been decided.
But I suspect remainers don't like my proposed solution because it means, shock horror, implementing a referendum and leaving the EU. And if you think four choices is too many, just offer options 1 and 2. Don't bother with 3 and 4 and state why (breach of the Belfast agreement).
I really do not see why we could not, at the time, have done something sensible like this. But we're well down the rabbit hole now, and something like the above would just be met with fury from both sides, as either not allowing a second go for Remain, or not being a PROPER BREXIT.
It might advocate dependence on London, which is what we have currently, although many of those dependent on it resent it deeply.
I have long liked a comment by (I think) Andrew Marr many years ago. Sure, the rest of the UK is dependent on London, but London is dependent on the rest of the UK.
On Topic I think whoever posts as @LeaveEUofficial should be ashamed of the above and whether we stay or leave "we" will continue to be pushed around by neo liberal politicians from the EU and the POTUS as well.
Some critics hated it: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/joker-is-a-viewing-experience-of-rare-numbing-emptiness Yes, “Joker” takes place in a fictitious city, a comic-book world of fantasy—but it draws its incidents and its affect parasitically from real-world events that were both the product and the cause of racist discourse and attitudes and gave rise to real-world racist outcomes of enduring, even historic, gravity. The central events of “Joker” (and I’ll try to allude to them sidelong, to avoid spoilers) are suggested by other real-world events, but here, too, Phillips voids them of their discourse and their substance. What results is more than the strenuous effort to contrive a story with resonant incidents and alluring details; “Joker” reflects political cowardice on the part of a filmmaker, and perhaps of a studio, in emptying out the specifics of the city’s modern history and current American politics so that the movie can be released as mere entertainment to viewers who are exasperated with the idea of movies being discussed in political terms—i.e., to Republicans.
On Topic I think whoever posts as @LeaveEUofficial should be ashamed of the above and whether we stay or leave "we" will continue to be pushed around by neo liberal politicians from the EU and the POTUS as well.
On Topic I think whoever posts as @LeaveEUofficial should be ashamed of the above and whether we stay or leave "we" will continue to be pushed around by neo liberal politicians from the EU and the POTUS as well.
[engage pedantry]
Trump isn't neoliberal.
[disengage]
To be equally pedantic, bigjohnowls didn’t say he is.
I think the assumption that if we leave with a deal our relationship with the EU won't be considered again for a generation, seems to depend on the idea that Corbyn's successor will be as Eurosceptic as he is. Instead it's much more likely you'll end up with a Europhile like Starmer or Thornberry. Even if Momentum retain control of the leadership, their favoured candidate will have to promise the membership a new rejoin referendum on our membership to win. Anybody running for the leadership on a remotely Eurosceptic platform will probably go down even more badly amongst the activists than Liz Kendall's campaign did. There's also the fact there's probably about 20-25% of the electorate are irreconcilable remainers, and Labour needs at least a chunk of those votes to get into power. No promise of a referendum, and Labour would just be gifting them to the Liberal Democrats.
You're missing the fact that only one Britain-wide referendum has ever decided in favour of a change. People know what they're voting for when they back the status quo. (The 1975 referendum may have come only 2.5 years after entry into the EEC, but Britain had still belonged to the EEC for that time and therefore remaining was the status quo.) When the result is pro-change but the form the change will take isn't clear at the time of the referendum, it's legitimate for a government to hold another vote, saying "Here's the form we've worked out for the change you said you wanted. Do you still want it?"
I don't personally see why status quo should be 'implemented' (for want of a better word) but a change needs to be confirmed. I also notice that you and Barnsian have both ignored my point about sub-national referendum. Do they not count, because they DID vote for change but aren't UK wide? Or do they not count because they invalidate your point?
I'm not saying the government should always hold a second vote, but that it's legitimate for them to do so especially when there are big divisions among Changers over the form the change should take and when a large number of Status Quoers feel even more strongly opposed to the form it looks as though it will take than they were to Change as a general principle when the form it would take wasn't clear. In the Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums, neither of those conditions was present. There is also the consideration that when a result is close then only a few people need to change their minds in light of the new information for a second vote to go the other way - a condition that was present in Wales. Had the government decided to hold a second vote in Scotland, although I think it would have been legitimate it would have been taking the mickey to some extent. In Wales, I don't recall there was much clamouring for a second vote, or resounding disagreement over the form that devolution should take, but the closeness of the result in itself might have constituted grounds for holding a second vote. I don't think there was much call for that at the time. Clearly if 70% of people don't want a rerun then one shouldn't be held.
'In August 2019, David Herdson of politicalbetting.com suggested the principles could still have relevance if a PM lost a vote of no confidence and then wanting to seek an election rather than allow someone else to form a government, argued a right to such an election as reason for not resigning and running down the clock.[5]'
Which is in effect to argue that while in office the president is beyond the law. I’m not entirely confident that the current Supreme Court won’t enable this nonsense.
I thought they didn't want to play a stupid blame game? What a curious way of doing so.
In fairness to Juncker he's not really the one that's stopped any sort of deal on the EU side.
And in fairness to Mr Juncker, he made a statement in French which has been inaccurately translated to English. And in fairness to Mr Neil, he has conceded that fact in a subsequent tweet of his.
The really important battle will come on 19 October, when I am told Johnson will endeavour to sow maximum confusion at home and in the EU, by allowing a letter to be sent to EU leaders requesting a Brexit delay - signed either by him or a proxy - and then sending a second letter in effect saying he is a prisoner of MPs and he does not personally want a Brexit postponement.
Downing Street tells me yesterday’s Scottish court judgement does not prevent Johnson putting EU leaders in this hideous position of having to decide whether the British PM does or does not speak for the UK.
The stakes could hardly be higher for the UK and EU. And if you thought that Johnson and his chief aide Dominic Cummings are set at the last to adopt a more consensual approach, they beg to differ.
With regards to the Greek Bailout Referendum, that is just bullshit.
Because the rest of the EU (and the IMF) was negotiating with the Greeks. This wasn't a constutional amendemtn: the Greeks wanted debt forgiveness, and the EU/IMF had terms for that.
If the Greeks refused those terms, they could always do without the money.
With regards to the Greek Bailout Referendum, that is just bullshit.
Because the rest of the EU (and the IMF) was negotiating with the Greeks. This wasn't a constutional amendemtn: the Greeks wanted debt forgiveness, and the EU/IMF had terms for that.
If the Greeks refused those terms, they could always do without the money.
The other claims of "subverting democracy" are just as insubstantial. The constitution referenda prevented the constitution, the other referenda lead to new votes on amended propositions.
Is the London Independence Party going to fire up before noon ?
London visas for European workers would be a neat move.
It would also be a clever way of co-opting people in the capital to accept Brexit.
The visa doesn't allow you to live or work outside the M25, but of course you can visit.
So Kent, Surry etc have a border within the county, which doesn't follow any local council borders. I'm sure the above idea is a non-starter, but if it were to be taken seriously, it would probably need to be within Greater London, not with in the M25.
The really important battle will come on 19 October, when I am told Johnson will endeavour to sow maximum confusion at home and in the EU, by allowing a letter to be sent to EU leaders requesting a Brexit delay - signed either by him or a proxy - and then sending a second letter in effect saying he is a prisoner of MPs and he does not personally want a Brexit postponement.
Downing Street tells me yesterday’s Scottish court judgement does not prevent Johnson putting EU leaders in this hideous position of having to decide whether the British PM does or does not speak for the UK.
The stakes could hardly be higher for the UK and EU. And if you thought that Johnson and his chief aide Dominic Cummings are set at the last to adopt a more consensual approach, they beg to differ.
If Johnson sends a second letter saying that his personal opinion is against an extension, will probably get through the Benn Law, but he still has to properly attempt to get an extension. It is not as if anyone involved in Brexit does not know Johnson's personal opinion. There are times when the Prime Minister has to represent the views of the rest of the cabinet or parliament even if it goes against his/her personal preference otherwise we are one small step away from a dictatorship.
Comments
Sounds like 20 years after making a fantasy with a subversive edge, Verhoeven has decided it was a satire.
No, he made it as a satire. He lived under German occupation, remember?
He was seven when it ended, so possibly not yet a sophisticated understanding.
His other films, particularly the American ones, do have significant satirical themes, Robo-Cop and Showgirls in particular
Certainly no sophisticated understanding at the time it happened (ended), but that unfortunate episode in German-Dutch relations has been deeply ingrained in the Dutch collective psyche, still is today.
Every individual Dutchman will have taken away different lessons from it. Verhoeven has made statements at the time of the making of the movie that clearly indicated that the satirical intent was just as prevalent in this movie as in his other ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
Wiki says... maybe not?
"In August 2019, it has been suggested the principles could still have relevance if a PM lost a vote of no confidence and then wanting to seek an election rather than allow someone else to form a government, argued a right to such an election as reason for not resigning and running down the clock."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
...and the other is Jeremy Corbyn
(Welcome back by the way)
Luckyguy1983:
I haven't expressed my opinion on holding a referendum on this issue, but my question to you is, what would your plan be if the electorate of Northern Ireland rejected a customs union with the Republic? I suspect you don't have one, because you don't actually want the people to make the decision, you want the people to give democratic legitimacy to your preferred option. You regard the outcome as a foregone conclusion. That's the same deeply flawed thinking that lead Cameron to hold the EU ref in the first place (Thank the Lord).
Should the proposition of staying in the Customs Union be rejected, the result would be a hard border in Ireland, no way around that.
But they would have themselves decided so, that would still be more fair than anything else.
You say " it will be first time in its history the result of a referendum was not implemented. Whether you agree with Brexit or not, I would like to hope you are slightly concerned about this possibility."
I'm not in the slightest concerned. Why would I be?
You can have any colour car you like, as long as its black.
His best film is Black Book, which isn’t well known over here because it’s Dutch language. But it’s a beautifully made WWII picture about a couple of Jewish girls who go undercover and infiltrate the Reich through a mixture of sexual and intellectual cunning. Verhoeven ramps up the tension gamely.
Not quite as demented as Trump’s latest letter, which denies Congress the right to impeach him .... because he says so:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-100819/
If a referendum with an ugly "Shove It, Kraut-Face!" (SIKF) option is held before an election (I doubt it will be), then given the crazy waters the country is now in the population might say "No" and then give a huge parliamentary majority to a raving SIKF party shortly afterwards.
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP9095.
At least, I assume the 'Londependence' party believes in independence for London.
Though who could argue with the 'Universal Good Party'?
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP10240
=================================
* People who don't realise that Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow" is a love-letter to Hammer films[1]
* People who don't get that "Starship Troopers" is a obvious Nazi allegory, despite the fact that Verhoeven said so at the time, dressed Doogie Howser in a black leather cap and overcoat, ripped off Leni Riefenstahl, and considered getting the actors to make Nazi salutes.
[1] Seriously. There's a whole Nostalgia Critic video where he's honestly surprised.
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP6712 (Save Us Now)
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP6680 (The Sensible Party)
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP5299 (Uplands) (Unknown if they are sunlit uplands or not)
Loved it.
Democracy does not start and end at the ballot box.
I said earlier, elsewhere, a 2nd referendum was probably the 'least worst option', but what would be wrong with saying, "We've took on board your desire to leave the EU. We've worked out several possibilities which are:
EEA+CU
EEA only
Bespoke deal
No Deal exit
[Note - options 3 and 4 defintely breach the UK's commitment to the Belfast agreement; option 2 is going to need further work to keep it together but we might be able to do it with a good FTA given a temporary CU period]"
Remain doesn't need, indeed perhaps shouldn't, be on the ballot at all. That one has been decided.
But I suspect remainers don't like my proposed solution because it means, shock horror, implementing a referendum and leaving the EU.
And if you think four choices is too many, just offer options 1 and 2. Don't bother with 3 and 4 and state why (breach of the Belfast agreement).
I really do not see why we could not, at the time, have done something sensible like this.
But we're well down the rabbit hole now, and something like the above would just be met with fury from both sides, as either not allowing a second go for Remain, or not being a PROPER BREXIT.
https://crooksandliars.com/2019/10/we-need-talk-about-picture-donald-trump
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/joker-is-a-viewing-experience-of-rare-numbing-emptiness
Yes, “Joker” takes place in a fictitious city, a comic-book world of fantasy—but it draws its incidents and its affect parasitically from real-world events that were both the product and the cause of racist discourse and attitudes and gave rise to real-world racist outcomes of enduring, even historic, gravity. The central events of “Joker” (and I’ll try to allude to them sidelong, to avoid spoilers) are suggested by other real-world events, but here, too, Phillips voids them of their discourse and their substance. What results is more than the strenuous effort to contrive a story with resonant incidents and alluring details; “Joker” reflects political cowardice on the part of a filmmaker, and perhaps of a studio, in emptying out the specifics of the city’s modern history and current American politics so that the movie can be released as mere entertainment to viewers who are exasperated with the idea of movies being discussed in political terms—i.e., to Republicans.
Trump isn't neoliberal.
[disengage]
There's also the fact there's probably about 20-25% of the electorate are irreconcilable remainers, and Labour needs at least a chunk of those votes to get into power. No promise of a referendum, and Labour would just be gifting them to the Liberal Democrats.
He loved it too.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/doj-blocks-watergate-impeachment-evidence-congress.html
Which is in effect to argue that while in office the president is beyond the law. I’m not entirely confident that the current Supreme Court won’t enable this nonsense.
And in fairness to Mr Neil, he has conceded that fact in a subsequent tweet of his.
The visa doesn't allow you to live or work outside the M25, but of course you can visit.
The really important battle will come on 19 October, when I am told Johnson will endeavour to sow maximum confusion at home and in the EU, by allowing a letter to be sent to EU leaders requesting a Brexit delay - signed either by him or a proxy - and then sending a second letter in effect saying he is a prisoner of MPs and he does not personally want a Brexit postponement.
Downing Street tells me yesterday’s Scottish court judgement does not prevent Johnson putting EU leaders in this hideous position of having to decide whether the British PM does or does not speak for the UK.
The stakes could hardly be higher for the UK and EU. And if you thought that Johnson and his chief aide Dominic Cummings are set at the last to adopt a more consensual approach, they beg to differ.
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-10-08/varadkar-tries-to-keep-a-brexit-deal-alive-but-will-probably-fail-robert-peston-writes/
Because the rest of the EU (and the IMF) was negotiating with the Greeks. This wasn't a constutional amendemtn: the Greeks wanted debt forgiveness, and the EU/IMF had terms for that.
If the Greeks refused those terms, they could always do without the money.
The constitution referenda prevented the constitution, the other referenda lead to new votes on amended propositions.
Which will be a sad day for anyone crossing the Atlantic by plane, and can only end in higher prices and less competition.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/restaurants/pizza-express-british-institution-will-leave-many-magical-memories/
Surely it should be "pushed about by a Kraut"?