tjagain – Member

The sketch shows two things.

1. A dignified PM May.

2. The act of a lesser man/person raiding another handbag.

Take you pick. 😆

Edukator – Reformed Troll

Another sketch with double meanings.

1. The British PM trying to compete with one hand.

2. The bully thinking he has upper hand. He thinks he won hand down.

Take you pick. 😆

Context perdy: the government offered the people (they represent) the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to remain members of the EU and promised to respect the result of the vote whatever the outcome. This was in writing and definitive. So

Right 1: to be able to participate freely in the democratic process offered to them *

Right 2: to have their decision respected and acted on as promised in writing

Right 3: to be respected as individuals – their vote counts as much as anyone’s – not derided generally as thickos and racists

*Remember the Indy debate? One side were lied to on a constant basis, they had no plan re basics of how a country works including what currency to use and how this would work, lied about their obligations and were about to cause economic self harm all in the name of faking control. Many years of lies about how their problems were caused by others.

Did we deprive them of the opportunity?

Did we say that they were too thick (despite evidence that they were accepting the deceitful lies willIngly)?

Did we threaten to ignore their rights?

No we didn’t. Because democracy doesn’t work like that. But note how some of the same people now want to deny others the rights that they were granted. That says a lot.

Chewkw – and one person with a pair of balls (the sober one) 😉 !!

Good interpretation – especially re the bully. Didn’t someone mention that you can judge a man by the company he keeps!! ;-)!

teamhurtmore – Member
Chewkw – and one person with a pair of balls (the sober one) !!

True, true. 😀

Edukator – Reformed Troll

All Nos (the sketch with No signs) mean a yes for being happy with our identity. 😀

Happy with your identity as a Brexiter:

The second cartoon portrays Europe as being without foundation and emphasises litlle beyond superficial “attractions”. Why would they want to stress that??

Perditus – based on the above you can see how some remoaners view

Right 3: to be respected as individuals – their vote counts as much as anyone’s – not derided generally as thickos and racists

You chose whose approach you wish to be associated with.

Edukator – Reformed Troll
Happy with your identity as a Brexiter:

The sketch in the pub actually shows people have their own unique identity who may not be acceptable to all (except their own). They may not like everyone but that’s who they are.

To me that’s their identity(s) and I ain’t going to change them nor them changing me. That’s the nature of life.

Chewkw – you did notice how the cartoon was intended to sneer and look down on people who had different views!?! Why would anyone want to post a copy?

teamhurtmore – Member
Chewkw – you did notice how the cartoon was intended to sneer and look down on people who had different views!?! Why would anyone want to post a copy?

Yes, that’s the nature of news/media/social media/social engineering nowadays. They need to do that to ensure their own existence. 😛

Democracy requires an informed electorate. When th majority of the media has run a 20+ year campaign against the EU for there non UK owners own political ends then we do not have a functioning democracy.

I bet a fiver you wouldn’t be arguing to ignore the outcome of the referendum on the basis of an ill-informed electorate if you had won

(Same goes for Scotchland referendum too, of course)

Only a fiver? The hypocrisy is breathtaking and informative to read and note.

I’ve found something to explain your recent travels:

Interesting that you also choose to post racist cartoons. Again very informative. True colours….

Ninfan no because it would have been despite the bias press. BTW – stop with the petty racism about Scotland. You are better than that. Scotchland is a racist term.

Should we ban Racist food too?

But mostly it’s:

Two sides to every story and the one you’re hearing probably isn’t the one the electorate of 27 heads of state is hearing.

(Same goes for Scotchland referendum too, of course)

650 page white paper vs the side of a bus.

We win.

Scotchland is a racist term.

Why wife is a scotch. Can I brag I’m in a mixed race marriage now?

Ninfan – you know the difference. Scotch is the produce, scots are the people. To do as you did is racist. and you know it. Windups are fine so long as they do not descend into cheap petty racism. Don’t lower yourself to THM levels

We were then taken in to the EC, by the politicians, without asking us first, and remained bound by that until the EC no longer existed

We were then taken into the EU, by the politicians, without asking us first

The thing you’re missing here, probably wilfully, is that they don’t need to ask us. How many other things has parliament done over the years without asking us first? How many times have we had a people’s vote about individual policies? Not many.

Because of course, we all remember the referendum about poll tax, and the one about the snooper’s charter, and… oh.

What you can see is an entirely consistent trait, we remain bound by decisions of the people, but not necessarily bound by decisions of the politicians. Surely that’s how a democracy should work?

No, it’s entirely the opposite of how a parliamentary democracy works. What you’re describing here is an ochlocracy, it’s mob rule.

Politicians make decisions, at least in theory, based on what they believe to be in the best interests of the country and its people. The democratic bit is that we have a free vote to determine which people are making those decisions on our behalf. What some of us “want” or think we want is an irrelevance. I want a free Ferrari for everyone, shall we have a referendum? I reckon it’ll be a landslide. Lets get rid of those pesky taxes whilst we’re at it too.

Parliament has a duty of care to look after its citizens. It has failed in that duty.

I bet a fiver you wouldn’t be arguing to ignore the outcome of the referendum on the basis of an ill-informed electorate if you had won

I’d be thankful that we’d won but I’d still be arguing that it was a bloody stupid idea in the first place for exactly that reason. The electorate – whether ill-informed or not, I’m sure some were well informed but they’re surely a minority – should never have been put in a position where they had to bear that responsibility.

I said all this back on like page 2 or something. It’s good to see we’ve progressed in the last thousand pages.

The thing you’re missing here, probably wilfully, is that they don’t need to ask us.

Who said they did?

they didn’t need to ask us

The thing is that on each of those occasions they promised to ask us in an election manifesto, and were voted into power on that basis.

That’s democracy surely?

Sure. It’s a well-documented fact that throughout all time political parties have always stuck to the very letter of their manifesto pledges after being elected, that’s clearly an anomaly.

This doesn’t seem to be flying off the shelves:

53% off at The Book Depository.

Sure. It’s a well-documented fact that throughout all time political parties have always stuck to the very letter of their manifesto pledges after being elected, that’s clearly an anomaly.

So, your defence against Brexit is that parliamentary democracy only works if the politicians lie to the people 😆

Enigmatic= emotionless? Lol

No, try again.

tjagain – Member
Scotchland … .

Slight hijack.

If you did not quote that term I wouldn’t have known it. But now that you have I just want to let you know that I am NOT going to use that term. Bet that description must be copy righted by someone.

But let me tell you this that’s a very creative term which is also very funny too. Make me laugh for a while this afternoon. 😆

Poopscoop – Member
Enigmatic= emotionless? Lol

You want animated emotion? Have you seen one of sketch (can’t remember who posted now) on the bloke using very emotional tone on reporting football results? Is that where we are heading with emotional passionate animated expression? 😆

There doesn’t appear to be a German cartoon portraying a British banker as anything other than a (white) toff, so I suppose you could consider it racist. Likewise all the people depicted in the British pub are (white) ignorant pub-going trash so you could consider that racist too. But most reasonable people wouldn’t consider the cartoons intentionally or even casually racist as the humour is not at the expense of a white racial stereotype but ignorant pub-going trash and toff bankers.

You have an odd idea of democracy ninfan I would say in a democracy the people get to chose what they want and the British voters of 2018 should be free to chose what ever they want EU membership hard brexit or brexit fudge. It ain’t democracy to say you are stuck with a choice made by a different pool of voters 2 years ago.

As even a lot of Brexiteers are likely to be unhappy with the final EU deal how about this. A three way vote come the end of negotiations?

1) Leave the EU in its entirety trading on wto rules with no ECJ oversight or £40 billion payment.

2) Accept the deal as agreed by parliament/ EU. ***

3) Remain in the EU.

*** Whatever the final deal is.

Wording is a little primitive but you get the idea.

Not looking to create an argument, just wondering what people think.

Not having some sort of say on the final deal seems a bit mad to me whether you voted Leave or remain?

Parliament has a duty of care to look after its citizens. It has failed in that duty.

Parliament voted overwhelmingly to file the Article 50 notice. Parliament has had a say too.

Enigmatic= emotionless? Lol

I was wondering what the enigma is.

I would say in a democracy the people get to chose what they want and the British voters of 2018 should be free to chose what ever they want EU membership hard brexit or brexit fudge.

Well, You’re welcome to form a political party and campaign for election on the manifesto of giving them that choice.

I was wondering what the enigma is.

Sadness? A return to innocence maybe?

crankboy – Member
You have an odd idea of democracy ninfan I would say in a democracy the people get to chose what they want and the British voters of 2018 should be free to chose what ever they want EU membership hard brexit or brexit fudge. It ain’t democracy to say you are stuck with a choice made by a different pool of voters 2 years ago.

Essentially what you saying is that we need to change things every 2 to 3 years in a massive ways. 😛

Remember, you need two sides (or many) to play the game. 😀 Like I said in my many older postings the only constant is change, but it sounds like you want change to move even faster. You just proof me right (go search my views on this). Also if what you say is right then you are opening the gateway to winner(s) take all concept. Think about it … 😆

Right 1: to be able to participate freely in the democratic process offered to them *

Right 2: to have their decision respected and acted on as promised in writing

Right 3: to be respected as individuals – their vote counts as much as anyone’s – not derided generally as thickos and racists

Well, 1 and 3 are correct though no one has the ‘right’ not to be called thick or otherwise derided unless that itself constitutes some breach of the law. In fact, I have more of a right to call brexiteers thick than they have of any expectation that the results of the referendum should be carried through.

2. cannot possibly be a ‘right’. Political parties make all sorts of pledges in their GE manifestos for instance. These confer no ‘rights’ on me because there is no correlative ‘duty’ on the party making those pledges to deliver them – they are not legally enforceable.

I couldn’t pitch up at the High Court seeking an order of mandamus requiring the gov’t to honour their pledge to electrify the railway to Swansea. No one could have sought such and order requiring Art 50 to be triggered otherwise there would have been a queue of head-bangers a mile long down the Strand on the 24th June. This might have been different if the referendum had been expressed to be binding but it wasn’t.

The decision to actually leave the EU was an act of pure political expediency/self-interest and nothing more. What it wasn’t was compliance with anyone’s ‘right’ pursuant to an enforceable duty.

When you say the brexiteers have a ‘right’ to expect there decision to be acted upon because it was promised in writing then that is nonsense because there is no such ‘right’ – It does not exist. They may have an expectation but nothing more and given all of the lies and misinformation put about before the referendum whether that expectation is legitimate is dubious.

Even if it were legitimate then that expectation can be outweighed by something like, for instance, hmm I don’t know, a competent decision maker undertaking something like impact assessments and coming to the conclusion that the greater harm would be caused by following through on that expectation (as a public law exercise you would wonder whether the decision to trigger Art 50 would pass the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness being a decion ‘so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.)

A ‘right’ is a legal concept so what is happening now is not as the result of any legal obligation but just what a bunch of political chancers have chosen to do pushed along by a mob – ‘the will of the people’.

See Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld’s analysis for further details on the concept of rights if you’re interested.

Not looking to create an argument, just wondering what people think.

I’d come to pretty much the same conclusion. But 2) is essentially to remain in the EU in all but name for all practical purposes, but relinquish our right to have any say in or control over the EU’s decisions. Which surely is an option that pleases absolutely no-one on either side of the debate? We’re “taking back control” by actually having less control, which is insane.

So really we’re left with “crash out with the square root of geoff all” or “remain and reform our policies from within.” Remind me again why we’re doing this?

is an option that pleases absolutely no-one on either side of the debate?

It pleases my French me no end. No more trouble from the Brits but they carry on paying and have to abide by the rules. The british me comes to the same conclusion as you, Cougar.

Britain has become so inward looking that it can’t see what is about to happen as trade talks start. I’ve posted a few cartoons to demostrate how French and German cartoonists see things and portray them humourously. If you take the trouble to read papers from around Europe you’ll find that initial dismay that Britain is leaving the union is being replaced with how to avoid being dragged into Britain’s race to the bottom and how to further each nation’s own agenda. Each of these countries has objectives and a veto to use if they aren’t reached.

2. cannot possibly be a ‘right’. Political parties make all sorts of pledges in their GE manifestos for instance. These confer no ‘rights’ on me because there is no correlative ‘duty’ on the party making those pledges to deliver them – they are not legally enforceable.

Of course they’re not legally enforceable

But that’s not to say that failure to honour a manifesto pledge does not have political implications at the ballot box that, in and of themselves make the honouring of manifesto pledges an unavoidable fact. Break the promise and it may be a very, very long time before the public ever trust your party again