Theresa May Loses Overall Majority In UK Parliament (cnn.com)

Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain has lost her overall majority in Parliament on Thursday, plunging Britain into a period of renewed political chaos less than two weeks before it is scheduled to begin negotiations over withdrawing from the European Union. While May's Conservative party won the most seats, the party didn't win enough to govern without the support of minority parties. CNN reports: It was devastating result for May, who had called the election three years earlier than required by law, convinced by opinion polls that placed her far ahead of opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. The result also plunges Britain into a period of renewed political chaos, with Brexit talks likely to be delayed and May's personal authority shredded. There was already talk in Conservative circles that she might have to resign, less than a year after taking over from David Cameron, who resigned following the Brexit referendum. The pound fell on currency markets in the wake of the results. After the result was declared in her constituency of Maidenhead, May gave a faltering speech. "At this time more than anything else, this country needs a period of stability," she said, suggesting she would attempt to form a government even if her party loses its majority. Corbyn said the early results showed May had lost her mandate and called for her to resign. Further reading: New York Times

Comments

Bye Theresa

[bestweasel]

Weak and wobbly.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Newly arrived sand n1ggers and goat fucking towelheaded masters will take over from here. Brits, wake up, idiots

Re:Bye Theresa

[serviscope_minor]

Screw you, May! Your cheapass manipulations of the voting public didn't work.

I still don't get why people are still in a huff with the lib dems though.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still LOLing at the Europeans who are STILL mourning Brexit. Even as the UK is too inept to figure out if it really wants to leave the EU, the rest of the EU is mourning and threatening to part ways. There's growing support for far right leaders like Marine Le Pen in France, who would surely lead France out of the EU if given the chance. Germany would surely follow France out the door, leaving behind a collection of failed states like Greece to wallow in their debt. Any claims that the EU has the largest economy in the world should be qualified by noting that it's not hard to have a big economy when you combine together over 15 nations. The EU is in rapid decline, collapsing due to pure incompetence, excessive regulation, spying on its own citizens, and the ever expanding debt.

Soon the EU will collapse under the weight of its debt as countries scramble to leave. The US is right on the heels of the EU, racking up its own debt while spiraling into idiocracy. Neither the EU nor the US will have significant international influence in the near future.

It is inevitable that Canada will rise to be the next dominant superpower, politically, economically, and militarily. Even if the UK can temporarily rescue itself from the disaster that is Theresa May, the damage is done both to the UK and to the EU. It's a matter of time before Scotland and Northern Ireland part ways leaving behind England and Wales. The rest of the EU is competing to grow its debt and racing to see which nation can become the next Greece. Tired of propping up failed states, it's a matter of time before Germany exits and leaves the rest of the EU in ineptitude. Trump and the Republicans have made the US a joke and a puppet for the Kremlin. Canada will inevitably be the next dominant superpower, and will not make the mistakes of the US and EU.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly was ditching thousands of police officers and banning Internet porn going to help with the "sand n1gger" problem?

Do tell, Ms. May.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

They dont have any international influence now. Thats why they go around threatening other countries - the last desperate act of a failed bully - going around starting up wars and shit. Failures for eecades if not longer. Failed at the core

Re:Bye Theresa

[locofungus]

I still don't get why people are still in a huff with the lib dems though.

Because they betrayed their core support. They promised an end to tuition fees and then ditched it to get 15 minutes of fame.

They'd have done the same on their demand for a second Europe referendum if they'd held 30 or so now labour seats (and claim that they at least could influence the brexit negotiations)

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Theresa May, Donald Does.

Re:Bye Theresa

[AmiMoJo]

Is is between a weak and a wobbly place now.

If she stays, she is too weak to be effective and forever tainted. Won't be an effective leader, and her own party will be forever trying to force her out. The DUP might not want to be associated with her failure.

If she goes, there will need to be a leadership contest and it is unlikely that the Tories could form a government. The DUP would need to support them, and that will be a hard sell if it isn't known who the leader is.

The Tories are pretty slippery though, so I'm not getting my hopes up just yet.

Re:Bye Theresa

[dave420]

You seem to be claiming to see into the future. That can't be right...

Re:Bye Theresa

[Hognoxious]

And whoever replaces her faces the same lack of credibility - not having won a General Election as party leader.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Opportunist]

Don't rejoice yet. The Tories are still the largest party and judging by her (lack of) character she sees this as an endorsement of her politics.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Opportunist]

What problem? The terrorist attacks aren't a bug, they're a feature, how else do you convince a population that you can take away their rights if you don't terrorize them first?

Why do you think she cut police force left and right while she was responsible for it? A sizable police force could easily have squashed any fledgling terror groups before they could be useful for her.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Opportunist]

Nobody in their right mind would want to tango with her now. It's like begging to be dragged down into the abyss with her.

Re:Bye Theresa

[AmiMoJo]

Good point, although it doesn't seem to stop politicians. Whoever takes over will also be taking on the poison chalice...

I didn't think May would survive Brexit, but I really didn't expect her end to come by her own hand.

Re: Bye Theresa

[stealth_finger]

What problem? The terrorist attacks aren't a bug, they're a feature, how else do you convince a population that you can take away their rights if you don't terrorize them first?

Why do you think she cut police force left and right while she was responsible for it? A sizable police force could easily have squashed any fledgling terror groups before they could be useful for her.

The problem is you need to do it in a way that people can't point back at you and say this was your fucking fault to begin with.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Hognoxious]

That's sooooo unfair! It was the bigger boys that made them do it. [storms out and goes to his room, slamming the door behind him]

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Theresa May, Le Pen, and other fascists doesn't really have a plan for stopping that.
They have sound bites that sound good to the alt-right crowd but that typically only makes matters worse.
One of the most obvious things is that they want to treat every immigrant as a criminal, regardless of if they are guilty or not.
The problem with that approach is that there is very little incentive for someone who is already treated as a criminal to not become one.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Hhahaha, you think she will resign?
May is a control-freak. She will do ANYTHING to remain in power. ANYTHING.
She is a dictator in the making.
I can see this country, 100% seriously, leading toward V for Vendetta every 6 months more and more. Especially the last 6 months.

I can expect major riots when she forms a minority government soon.
Nobody fucking wants her. Not even the Tories.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Mosquito Bites]

Weak and wobbly.

It's worse than that She neglected her responsibility as the home minister to protect the hundreds of underage girls from sexual abuses, and in fact, she is criminally negligence !

Re:Bye Theresa

[Z80a]

Given the plans of both sides, the less they can actually do something the better.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Opportunist]

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure they already forgot who crippled the internal security in the first place to make all of this possible.

Re:Bye Theresa

[coastwalker]

Actually most Lib Dems voted Labour for this election because it was more important to stop the right wing conservatives "hard brexit" and austerity. Also the current Lib Dem leader is not very appealing as a person being a bit of a religious fanatic in a party that does not believe religion should be in politics. The tuition fees thing is something they had no choice about as the cost of what they were able to achieve as part of the last coalition.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

How much does being a Russian propagandist pay? Seems to be a booming business.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Bongo]

Quite so.

Re:Bye Theresa

[serviscope_minor]

And that's why their supporters are idiots.

Labor gave us fees and barely stood in the way of brexit
The Tories gave us huge fees and brexit
The lib dems didn't stand in the way of fees and did stand against brexit

But apparently they're the worst?

No party ever sticks to all it's promises because reality. The lib dems were a small part of a coalition. This continual hate is just barking mad especially given the competition.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Coisiche]

You'd think the fate of the Lib Dems might make any prospective coalition partners think twice but the political map is slightly different in Northern Ireland. The DUP are unlikely to lose their unionist support if they prop up the Tories; even if they assist in seeing through policies that are detrimental to that unionist support.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Cederic]

I think it's because Timmy Fallon is a whinging child and not a credible leader.

The lack of trust following their brief stint in government will be a factor but in the past two years they've been terrible at demonstrating any ability to work towards improving the country.

Their stance on Brexit utterly fails to respect the British people, their communication of policies has managed to pass me completely by and their position on any national issue is "those evil Tories/racists/nasty people want to take away our toys".

Re:Bye Theresa

[Cederic]

Nobody fucking wants her. Not even the Tories.

Which is why she can go as control freak as she wants, she wont be able to dictate to anybody.

The party whips are going to have a very very busy few years.

Re: Bye Theresa

[MrL0G1C]

"Canada will rise to be a superpower"
Lol, thx, that made me laugh.

Re: Bye Theresa

[oobayly]

Forward thinking was never her strong point.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Barsteward]

when a coalition happens, BOTH manifestos are basically null and void because they have to create a new one for the term of government, a large swathe of the UK voting public is just too dim to understand things like a coalition and this naivety about politics has been highlighted after the last 3 voting opportunities.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid things...

Re:Bye Theresa

[DrXym]

Not necessarily. A couple of years ago Ireland was in the same place. The government called an election, the leader (Enda Kenny) made some serious gaffs and they failed to get a majority. Instead of resigning he stayed on, they formed a coalition / minority government and it's still operating.

Kenny has only recently resigned as party leader and Taoseach (PM), so it might only be a temporary stay of execution. But May could dig in, form a coalition, or a memorandum of understanding and still lead at least for a while.

I expect for the most part Conservatives will have sufficient majority to push whatever they want. The DUP tends to vote the same way anyway whether they were in coalition or not. So for most things they have an effective majority. The biggest issue is obviously Brexit. The DUP wants a soft Brexit (i.e. customs union, common travel area etc.) with soft borders with the republic of Ireland. The other parties would be in favour of that too. I expect many Conservatives would too. So the prospect of a hard Brexit has definitely diminished.

Re:Bye Theresa

[locofungus]

Indeed. But the LibDems also had the option to walk away and let the Tories form a minority government. The LibDems could have continued to support the Tories on an adhoc basis without agreeing to support them on tuition fees. The LibDems chose to sacrifice their headline policy to get a few cabinet ministers (and a PR referendum that the Tories were free to campaign against)

Re:Bye Theresa

[Applehu Akbar]

Weak and wobbly.

That was the argument against May, but in what way is Jeremy Corbin seen as tougher on terror? Or did the young vote Labour because they now accept a certain level of beheadings in British streets as being the new normal?

Re:Bye Theresa

[Hognoxious]

Their stance on Brexit utterly fails to respect the British people

ANY stance on Brexit fails to respect 50+/-2% of the British people.

Re:Bye Theresa

[AmiMoJo]

Even Tim Farron was telling people to vote tactically. I guess he figured it would help the Lib Dems as much as anyone else.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

First it was brexit. Now it is mayexit.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

If you lurk 4chan, you'll find that support for May ended the second she started talking about internet censorship and regulation. May instantly went from being the alt-right's "Mummy" to being a rejected politician whom even the cesspit of the internet could not love. May fucked up big-time when she tried to capitalize on terror. The right wing of the native youth does not want its own freedom threatened: it wants security through ending immigration.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Going_Digital]

Most people aren't in a huff with the Lib dems, they are just irrelevant as none of their policies align with the general public's concerns.

Re:Bye Theresa

[shilly]

They absolutely did have a choice over the fees. It was clear that demanding the LibDems ditch their fees pledge was a successful move by the Tories to break LibDem will. The LibDems ought to have been able to recognise that a huge chunk of their support at that time came from students.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Malc]

This is just so unfair and unreasonable. What do people expect from a coalition government? Theresa May has also been promising to cut immigration to tens of thousands since coming to power in 2010, which was the red hot Brexit issue. As home secretary and now PM, she hasn't even made a dent in the non-EU immigration, which runs to the hundreds of thousands and continues to exceed EU immigration.

Get over the tuition thing and move on and look at the rest of their policies and the good they've done like doubling the income tax exemption and free school meals.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not remotely true. At the extremes you've got hard Brexit and increased integration with Europe. There's a vast swathe of middle ground, including a soft Brexit and the position taken by most Remain campaigners (remaining in, but fighting tightening integration and securing opt-outs). Taking the tiniest of majorities for one side and claiming it's a mandate for the most extreme version of that side is failing to respect half of the British people. Seeking a compromise position closer to the middle ground isn't.

The idea that Fallon promising *the British people* a vote on the final Brexit terms is somehow ignoring their will is a transparent lie. If the Leave camp actually believed their own lies they'd be happy to see a second referendum. Because I'm constantly told that the majority of British people knew they were voting for a hard Brexit (not true), wanted one (not true) and didn't vote based on outright lies told by the Leave campaign (also not true). If that were all true, then a second referendum would simply confirm the results of the first, and slide through swimmingly. We could even fund it with three days worth of the contributions we make to the EU (another not true).

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling people to vote tactically is exactly how Farron got his seat in the first place. His entire campaign literature in 2001 and 2005 was basically 'Labour can not win here. Vote Lib Dem to get the Tories out.' Barely a sniff of actual policy in his leaflets. To his credit, though - He did vehemently oppose the 2010 alliance.

Re:Bye Theresa

[nospam007]

"This is just so unfair and unreasonable. What do people expect from a coalition government? "

I guess the same thing that every other modern country besides the US and GB has been doing for decades.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Programmer jokes in politics? Awesome. She's either that diabolical, or she is that terrified of her own citizens and is at a point of no return. She needs a psychiatrist.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Xest]

How does their stance fail to respect the British people? Their stance is that people be allowed a second referendum once the terms of the deal is clear.

The only way you could think that is if you're pro-Brexit and worried about losing a second referendum because the majority decide that no, they don't want Brexit after all.

So what you're saying is that they're failing to respect the British people by denying the British people a further say on the issue. You realise how astoundingly stupid that argument is right?

The fact you're making it implies that you know deep down there's a real chance people could reject Brexit if given a second chance to decide the issue, and because of that what you're really saying is that YOU don't respect the British people, that you want to impose your will regardless of what everyone else thinks. That's not giving respect to people, that's being an anti-democratic authoritarian shit head.

Re:Bye Theresa

[vittal]

The irony of course is that the DUP (who the Tories will tempt into bed with them) have a long history of religious lunacy that makes Tim Farron (Lib Dem leader) look like Richard Dawkins in comparison.

They have recent history of appointing young earth creationists, being vehemently anti-gay and climate change deniers (why worry when God'll sort it out).

Ho-hum :(

Re:Bye Theresa

[Cederic]

Hmm. I think it's possible to articulate a Brexit policy that respects the views and desires of everybody.

It might not make them happy but it can at least acknowledge the legitimacy of their views, the validity of their concerns and the challenges of finding optimal outcomes for everybody.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Freischutz]

Their stance on Brexit utterly fails to respect the British people

ANY stance on Brexit fails to respect 50+/-2% of the British people.

That's not remotely true. At the extremes you've got hard Brexit and increased integration with Europe. There's a vast swathe of middle ground, including a soft Brexit and the position taken by most Remain campaigners (remaining in, but fighting tightening integration and securing opt-outs). Taking the tiniest of majorities for one side and claiming it's a mandate for the most extreme version of that side is failing to respect half of the British people. Seeking a compromise position closer to the middle ground isn't.

The idea that Fallon promising *the British people* a vote on the final Brexit terms is somehow ignoring their will is a transparent lie. If the Leave camp actually believed their own lies they'd be happy to see a second referendum. Because I'm constantly told that the majority of British people knew they were voting for a hard Brexit (not true), wanted one (not true) and didn't vote based on outright lies told by the Leave campaign (also not true). If that were all true, then a second referendum would simply confirm the results of the first, and slide through swimmingly. We could even fund it with three days worth of the contributions we make to the EU (another not true).

That's why there should have been a supermajority of two thirds on that referendum. Brexit was and is a monumental decision and you need to require there to be a clear mandate for whoever gets stiffed with implementing such a decision. Otherwise that person cannot be expected do their job effectively. What AC describes, however, is the kind of lukewarm one foot through the door, I want full access to the club facilities but making me pay a membership fee is an assault on my human rights, attitude that brought us Farage, Wilders, Le Pen in the first place. Ironically the clusterfuck that Brexit and British politics has become is actually helping the EU along whit the fact that Farage, Wilders, Le Pen and their ilk held Donald Trump up as an example to follow and now that he has turned out to be a human shitsandwich European voters, who seem to generally be a bit quicker spot a turd than some American voters seem to be, are not having any of it. People in the rest of the EU27 take one look at the UK and think 'Wat? Do I want a slice of shit cake? Ummm... no thanks'. From now on people are just going to have to make up their minds whether they want to *exit or stay in the EU and fight for reforms. There are no other choices.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Cederic]

Their stance is that people be allowed a second referendum once the terms of the deal is clear.

A stance guaranteed to prevent any deal at all, as the EU would immediately refuse anything that might be acceptable as a deal.

They will try anyway, which is why the ability to leave without a deal is essential; without that the UK has no negotiating position.

implies that you know deep down there's a real chance people could reject Brexit if given a second chance to decide the issue

Allow me to clarify: I think a second referendum on leaving the EU would be a bigger vote out now than the one last year.

I think a referendum on the terms of a deal with the EU is a blatant and unsubtle attempt to prevent us leaving at all, and disrespectful to the views of both remain and leave voters.

that's being an anti-democratic authoritarian shit head

I think you'll find that she just got humiliated in a general election.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you're one of those who does not learn from history, and is doomed to repeat it?

Re:Bye Theresa

[Barsteward]

yes but the coalition agreement made for a more stable government and it put the country before party for a change. And it helped keep the right wing tory nut jobs off camerons back, look what happened since the end of the coalition. ad hoc agreements will make the government look unstable especially to governments/businesses outside the UK.

Re:Bye Theresa

[ranton]

That's why there should have been a supermajority of two thirds on that referendum.

The reason it should have been a super majority was much simpler than what you laid out. The UK gave their leaders a super majority in 1975 to join the common market, and it should have required another super majority to leave. The vote which took place in 2016 was a very clear signal there was not a strong mandate for any particular method of leaving the EU. It essentially broke down to roughly 48% stay, 25% hard Brexit, 15% soft Brexit, 12% I'm just grumpy. How that was misconstrued to a clear desire of the populace to leave the EU baffles me.

The icing on the cake was the complete absence of leadership from those who championed the idea of Brexit. The mere fact they were exposed as snake oil salesmen within days of the vote should have been enough to hold off on Brexit proceedings.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

You speak as if the political spectrum is 1-dimensional, but it is not: https://www.politicalcompass.o...

The interesting thing is that authoritarianism and nativism typically go hand-in-hand. The alt-right are a confusing mix of "nativists", protectionists and liberterians - A perversely slanted anarchism, some may say.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Canadian, and that made me laugh too. We missed the boat for being a superpower somewhere around the end of the 50s. Don't fool yourself into thinking we couldn't have done it. We surely could have, but we bought into the whole "US big brother will protect us at home and we can peacekeep abroad".

Clearly we should have been illegally stockpiling nuclear weapons and then just declared us into being a super power. It worked for Israel.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right in general but since I've just had a long conversation with an (elaborate European) libertarian, I'd like to add for the sake of correctness that they main difference between anarchism and libertarianism is that libertarians believe in property rights and their enforcement, in fact property rights are a key ingredient of their ideology, whereas anarchists reject them as a source of oppression/lack of freedom. Historically, early anarchists rejected communism, because it acknowledged parties and some form of transitory state (e.g. for planned economy or worker's committees), and classical liberalism, because it endorses property rights.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

"bit of a religious fanatic"

You mean he admits to being Christian. Although by modern "liberal" standards that's good enough to write him off as a fundamentalist.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I get what you are saying, but blaming anyone other than the Muslims who perpetrated the violence is dishonest.

Ultimately it is the fault of Radical Islam, the terrorists who do it, and their religious leaders who encourage it.

You can certainly blame the government for not doing enough, but this wouldn't be happening if not for toxic Muslims.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why Poland has so many Muslim terrorist, despite that same fascism.

Oh. Wait... They don't, because they actually implemented what you call sound bites. It works.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> a Brexit policy that respects the views and desires of everybody

When the electorate's interpretation of Brexit runs the gamut of "I don't want a Brexit of any sort as I think it'll ruin the economy" to "I don't care if it ruins the economy as long as we're not in the EU any more", I think you'll find that a tall order.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

> support for May ended the second she started talking about internet censorship and regulation
So you mean years ago when she was still Home Secretary?

Re: Bye Theresa

[thegarbz]

May fucked up big-time when she tried to capitalize on terror

According to the polls she fucked up long before that. But it certainly didn't make it any better.

Re:Bye Theresa

[thegarbz]

Also the current Lib Dem leader is not very appealing

And that's the problem with the system. The leader should be completely irrelevant to the topic as the leader is not their representative.

American politics combined with the media placing the prime minister on a pedestal has disconnected how the system was designed from how the voters expect it to work.

Re:Bye Theresa

[cayenne8]

Not British here....

But I'm wondering why any Brits would NOT want the Brexit?

From what I can read, the EU had been constantly taking away sovereignty from GB, and dictating how this country was run and how it did business in many ways....

I know there are some positives, but from what I saw the EU was becoming more onerous and overreaching....

Re:Bye Theresa

[jeff4747]

So the prospect of a hard Brexit has definitely diminished.

This kinda leaves out the EU on the other side of the negotiating table. From what I'm reading, they're not all that interested in a soft Brexit.

Re:Bye Theresa

[jareth-0205]

I still don't get why people are still in a huff with the lib dems though.

Because they betrayed their core support. They promised an end to tuition fees and then ditched it to get 15 minutes of fame.

They'd have done the same on their demand for a second Europe referendum if they'd held 30 or so now labour seats (and claim that they at least could influence the brexit negotiations)

The bigger problem I think is that the UK is not used to coalitions. So any dropping of 'campaign promises' is seen as betrayal, whereas in reality those promises are dependent on getting a majority and being able to push you agenda through unchanged. When you're the minor part of a coalition, obviously you can't have everything you want.

But politics here usually produces majorities, so we don't give any quarter for compromise. In reality in 2010 they didn't have a huge amount of option other than to go into some sort of deal, if they had declined there would have been a weak minority government for maybe 6 months, and then another election that would have expected to give the Tories atleast a small majority, given their bigger campaign funding ability.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Zemran]

But still the strongest option. So the weaker option calls for her to resign as it would be his only chance. Sturgeon still chanting the same chant even though the Tories took seats from the SNP which shows that she should resign. Ulster overwhelmingly pro Brexit still so even though she did badly, she remains in the lead.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a prediction. Often they can be made very accurately.

Re: Bye Theresa

[eheldreth]

I get really irritated with 2 dimensional party line thinking and the political compass is a good tool for helping folks understand why. Your falling back in to that old 2 party way of looking at things though. Anarchist are the extreme left wing opposite of authoritarians (the extreme right). Traditionally Libertarians fall some where center left. The reason people often confuse them with right wingers is they are tend to not be progressive. Progressive/Conservative politics fall on a separate spectrum from Right/Left politics. I'm not certain how the UK parties fall but in the US the Democrats are a largely right leaning socially and economically progressive party. The Republicans are a largely right leaning morally progressive and economically conservative (although this is a split in the party) party with strong corporatist tendencies. And yes they are morally progressive regardless of how we view their definition of progress. US Libertarians tend to be left leaning, economic and socially conservatives.

You can think of it like this. An extreme Democrat will want a law mandating that all institutions must provide marriage services to same sex couples. An extreme Republican will want a law forbidding the same. Both right wing solutions intended to use the force of law to farther their respective agendas. An extreme Libertarian will want all laws allowing the government to exercise power over marriage revoked. A left wing solution intended to provide everyone freedom of choice and individual liberty. Obviously reality lies somewhere between the extremes.

Re: Bye Theresa

[sound vision]

A line is actually one-dimensional. The "political compass" chart expands that to 2 dimensions. Unfortunately, our world operates in at least 4 dimensions.

Re:Bye Theresa

[angel'o'sphere]

If you think that, you are an idiot.
The EU is the best thing that ever happened to Europe after the Marchal Aid plan.
Leaving the EU is the most idiotic thing anyone could do.
That is why most people better the UK would not vote for leaving.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

The leader should be completely irrelevant to the topic as the leader is not their representative.

What? You do understand it's a parliamentary system, right? With almost-unique levels of party discipline?

Your comment is like arguing that the Presidential candidate in the US is "completely irrelevant to the topic." US voters aren't voting for the President, they're voting for the electors that will choose the President. Sure, the system wasn't "designed" for us to ignore the electors in between, but paying attention to the electors at the expense of the candidate would be completely divorced from reality and the way US politics actually works.

Re:Bye Theresa

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Had they asked for supermajority and had it turned out that half the people wanted out, as they did, it would have been just as bad. The point of the referendum was to prove that the clear majority of people wanted to stay so the government could get the mandate to continue.

And why were they asking for that approval in the first place, why not just carry on since there was no obligation whatsoever to have any referendum? Because they sensed things were not good and people were unhappy. Angry, even. But they hoped a clear majority in favor of staying on course would help those angry ones see the light.

Re:Bye Theresa

[TechyImmigrant]

>But I'm wondering why any Brits would NOT want the Brexit?

Hmm. Let's see.
A) The personal right to live and work in any of the EU countries.
B) The UK government being held to a decent set of human right laws.
C) The Schengen agreement. Crossing borders unimpeded with passport controls.
D) Being part of something bigger and better than petty isolation.

But really it's the first one. If you were thinking of retiring in Italy, eating pasta and drinking grappa, you're now fucked by the little Englanders. Thanks a lot.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just that, it's that British like to use their brains when voting. UKIP swung more to Labour than Tory in many districts causing Labour wins, *because Corbyn is a nationalist.* This whole left-center-right bullshit is manufactured to keep Americans in line behind the Democrats.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Not British here....

But I'm wondering why any Brits would NOT want the Brexit?

1) EU actually good for business owners - (a) cheap foreign labor, (b) No export tariffs to other countries (c) no import tariffs, (d) good for service industries [tourists require no visa]
2) EU actually good for people (a) able to live and work in any EU country (b) able to travel to any EU Country.
It's not actually that simple, but there are a few reasons.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Sique]

The DUP can an will not support anything that limits the free movement between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This forces Theresa May to soften her stance on immigration.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Faggot

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, like Brexit and Trump.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

PMs destroying themselves is a worrying trend.

Re:Bye Theresa

[bugs2squash]

Ironic indeed that the country voted toward the left and, if May can pull it together, will get leadership far to the right of what they just had in the form of an empowered group of christian supremacists. Irony too that they call themselves unionists but are flat out against any form of European union. Britain truly seems to have voted itself to oblivion recently.

Presumably May's new brexit plans include marching through Brussels dressed in orange, banging a drum and baiting the Belgians to a fight

Re:Bye Theresa

[oldmac31310]

you don't know much, do you?

Re: Bye Theresa

[KGIII]

I am afraid the US Libertarian Party has been taken over by right wing people. I tend to call them embarrassed Republicans. So, I'm not sure that most of those who use the title would actually suggest as you indicated.

That said, I want the government out of marriages. Make them civil unions and treat them like the contracts they are. The ceremony can be performed by willing parties, but the contract is all the government should concern themselves with.

Additionally, it solves the stupid debate about allowing gay people the same rights. I also think it shouldn't be restricted to two parties.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

You had your chance

Re:Bye Theresa

[Hognoxious]

The idea that Fallon promising *the British people* a vote on the final Brexit terms is somehow ignoring their will is a transparent lie.

If you buy a toaster and it's shite, you can take it back for refund within X days.

This is slightly more important than a toaster IMHO.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Hognoxious]

That's not remotely true.

Totally is.

At the extremes you've got hard Brexit and increased integration with Europe.

Which were the things on the ballot.

There's a vast swathe of middle ground, including a soft Brexit and the position taken by most Remain campaigners (remaining in, but fighting tightening integration and securing opt-outs).

Which weren't on the ballot.

Re:Bye Theresa

[PCM2]

Fuckin A. I'm a naturalized UK citizen, but I assure you that choice had precious little to do with a desire to move to England. Now I need a Plan B, I guess...

Re:Bye Theresa

[david_thornley]

They didn't get a clear majority, in the sense of anything reliable. They got a narrow majority, so that another vote could easily have reversed the result. That's not much of a mandate..

Re:Bye Theresa

[Hognoxious]

Indeed. It's only recently that I became aware of his predilection for testament tapping.

Maggie II isn't exactly an atheist either.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Hognoxious]

Would it make sense for Ohio and Michigan to go off on their own, as opposed to remaining in the US?

Re:Bye Theresa

[Hognoxious]

E) Stronger negotiating position in a club of 500 million people than when you're just 60 million.

Re:Bye Theresa

[GameboyRMH]

That's not remotely true. At the extremes you've got hard Brexit and increased integration with Europe. There's a vast swathe of middle ground, including a soft Brexit and the position taken by most Remain campaigners (remaining in, but fighting tightening integration and securing opt-outs).

Not really. Soft Brexit doesn't really exist. It's a term for the mistaken belief that the UK can have its cake and eat it too with the EU. It's paradoxical to the EU's rules. So the only option meaningfully different from "hard Brexit" involves remaining in the EU.

Re: Bye Theresa

[GameboyRMH]

Hey, people would've laughed at the idea of Trump being President a year ago...but yeah, Canada will have to get in line behind Russia, China, Germany, France...

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Are Poland waging war in Syria?

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, I want the government out of marriages. Make them civil unions and treat them like the contracts they are. The ceremony can be performed by willing parties, but the contract is all the government should concern themselves with.

So in other words, you don't know what you're talking about, but are just blathering. You see, Shelley v. Kraemer already exemplifies how there is nothing about it being considered a "contract" that makes it any different because everything the government did in Obergefeld v. Hodges is built on the same principles. Well, ok, not everything, but that's because nobody slapped any sense into Kennedy enough to keep him on track.

Besides, the real issue is with the religious fanatics who wanted ownership of the concept of marriage, they wouldn't and aren't stopping there either. They are still pursuing their agenda of a theocracy.

Re:Bye Theresa

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Of course, what I mean is what happened (vote "leave") is something other than the outcome the government hoped for and that was getting a clear confirmation it had people's support. And anything other than that clear confirmation had to result in a bit of chaos, which is what we have both in the UK and the US now.

Such are the times. In my view what was decades of prosperity turned into something closer to detachment and even abuse and the previous consensus about how the society should be run eventually disintegrated, and societies are now painfully searching for the new consensus. If I knew more history I'd dare say it's probably a standard cycle.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

White non-muslims commit all sorts of terrorism. Saying this one instance wouldn't have happened with Islam is the same as saying nearly all acts of terrorism wouldn't happen without ideology or religion.

You seem like a bigot who can't see past the bag over your head. The world is complicated because of idiots like you.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Hognoxious]

I wasn't aware the negotiations had started, let alone concluded. On top of that, Tusk's opinions are hardly a statement of fact.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Hognoxious]

The party leader can't remove an MP. Even if he's expelled from his party he can join another or be independent but he continues to be the MP for wherever-on-the-whatever.

Party leaders, however, can be removed and often are.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Xest]

"A stance guaranteed to prevent any deal at all, as the EU would immediately refuse anything that might be acceptable as a deal."

So effectively you're saying that you dislike the idea of more democracy, because you don't have faith in Theresa May's ability to act as an effective negotiator? Your argument here is based entirely on the idea that whoever negotiates Brexit is entirely incapable of doing it in an amicable and competent manner. It's not an argument for denying further democracy though, it's an argument against our incompetent leader's abysmal way of handling things.

"They will try anyway, which is why the ability to leave without a deal is essential; without that the UK has no negotiating position."

What happened to they need us more than we need them? I thought the far right hard Brexiteers told us that was sufficient, are you backtracking now?

"Allow me to clarify: I think a second referendum on leaving the EU would be a bigger vote out now than the one last year."

Sure, and at least that would mean there was a clear mandate for hard Brexit. Right now there's NO mandate for hard Brexit, because the mandate for Brexit was only 52% to 48%, and of the 52% that wanted out, a sizeable proportion only wanted soft Brexit. There's no majority mandate for hard Brexit and never has been.

"I think a referendum on the terms of a deal with the EU is a blatant and unsubtle attempt to prevent us leaving at all, and disrespectful to the views of both remain and leave voters."

Nonsense, you just said you believe it'd result in an even large vote for Brexit, that massively bolsters the argument and view of the majority. The only reason not to do it is if there is concern voters would change their mind, and the hard Brexiteers on the far right want to stop it. If you think it gives an even bigger mandate, what are you so scared of?

"I think you'll find that she just got humiliated in a general election."

Yet here she is, willing to side with the political wing of a terrorist organisation that is wholly anti gay rights, after spending an entire election trying to paint Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser, and Farron as a raving homophobe. However humiliated she is from this, she's still being an anti-democratic authoritarian shit head. No one voted for a party that's anti-gay rights, denies global warming, against women's rights, and was born of and associated directly with terrorists - the closest thing to that was UKIP (minus the terrorists), and they got 1.8% of the vote, yet here we are with them being pulled into the centre of power. Where's the democracy or respect for voters in this? The whole reason she lost her majority is precisely because she's been going about things like Brexit in a way that DOESN'T respect the electorate, just as she's continuing to do now.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Cederic]

So effectively you're saying that you dislike the idea of more democracy, because you don't have faith in Theresa May's ability to act as an effective negotiator

No I am not. It doesn't matter how good a negotiator you are, if the other side knows that they get everything they want (including humiliating you) by not negotiating then it's not a negotiation anyway.

That has fuck all to do with democracy. Telling the EU "avoid agreeing a deal and we will have a referendum on whether to accept your imposed terms" gives them carte blanche to impose whatever the fuck they want.

That is why it's not a democratic approach. It's denying the British public a chance of a deal that's good for Britain and removes the option of just walking away and accepting wto terms.

Shit, 85% of the general election votes went to parties promising a robust negotiation and no second referendum, is that democratic enough for you?

I'd guess not, apparently democracy means you getting what you want and fuck the rest of us.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd check your numbers on that. Right now, at this point in time, radical Islam is a global problem. Eventually, it will simmer down...tomorrow, it'll be some other group with the problem.

Re: Bye Theresa

[KGIII]

> Besides, the real issue is with the religious fanatics who wanted ownership of the concept of marriage

Let them keep it. And, yes, you'll need to actually write some laws. This isn't difficult, they do so frequently.

Let them keep the term. Make them civil unions, contracts. If the legal scholars are to be believed, they can even make them retroactively contracts. The fundies can keep the term "marriage" and the legal concept can be that of a contract. If they want a ceremony, they can get one from any provider who is willing. The ceremony would be irrelevant, just like it is today. The rest would be just a contract, granting the rights that'd be currently granted - but to any gender and to any number of willing partners.

Yes, it does require legislation. No, past findings would be irrelevant. The only thing the government should concern themselves with is the rights afforded by the marriage - for that, a contract works just fine. The fundies can quit whining and the gay people can have equal rights, as can trans and those who identify as attack helicopters.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Their stance on Brexit utterly fails to respect the British people

ANY stance on Brexit fails to respect 50+/-2% of the British people.

also there was NOT a 100% turn out for the EU referendum so it is nowhere near approx 50% of people, 50 - 2 of remain voters you mean NOT "British people". Irks me people keep forgeting that and make out half the British when really a 3rd were apathetic lazy bastards who couldn't be arsed voting either way.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

Not British here....

But I'm wondering why any Brits would NOT want the Brexit?

Not wanting to ruin their economy is a strong argument, as is unrestricted travel and having any political influence in the world.

From what I can read, the EU had been constantly taking away sovereignty from GB, and dictating how this country was run and how it did business in many ways....

You either only read populist drivel or you suck at reading.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

god damn you are a fucking idiot

Re:Bye Theresa

[Xest]

"No I am not. It doesn't matter how good a negotiator you are, if the other side knows that they get everything they want (including humiliating you) by not negotiating then it's not a negotiation anyway."

But again, all you're doing here is highlighting your complete lack of understanding of effective negotiating - you've been fed one view by May, and that now forms your entire knowledge of the topic, so you're pretending that's all the knowledge there is on the topic.

It's patently false of course, there's no inherent reason the other side knowing what you want puts you at a disadvantage, because you can just as well have amicable discussions - an entirely novel concept for far right hardliners like Peter Bone and the rest of the EU xenophobia crew that have fed May her lines I know, but it is what it is. Not all negotiations have to be hostile, the EU has been quite clear in that it would like friendly succesful negotiations, but May has instead constantly tried to go to war with them, and has now failed.

"That has fuck all to do with democracy. Telling the EU "avoid agreeing a deal and we will have a referendum on whether to accept your imposed terms" gives them carte blanche to impose whatever the fuck they want."

But wait, once again you seem to be agreeing that the Brexiteers were lying their arses off, they need us more than we need them I thought, so how are they in a stronger position?

"That is why it's not a democratic approach. It's denying the British public a chance of a deal that's good for Britain and removes the option of just walking away and accepting wto terms."

Erm no, there's a wide gulf between an approach you don't like and a democratic approach. Giving the people a say is always more democratic than not giving the people a say whether you like it or not. Again, you're projecting your fears that Brexit might not happen into some twisted nonsensical argument that makes no sense. You need to accept that you're anti-democratic, if that's what you want, and you think you have good reasons for it (i.e. your view on negotiations) then fine, but don't be dishonest and claim it's something it's not.

"Shit, 85% of the general election votes went to parties promising a robust negotiation and no second referendum, is that democratic enough for you?"

Right, and in 2015 a similar amount went for pro-EU parties, does that mean the referendum should never have happened and Brexit shouldn't even be a thing? This is the point - people's views change, and by bringing up the current election you're shooting yourself in the foot, because with the current election 56% of the UK voted against hard Brexit, yet May is still trying to push it.

"I'd guess not, apparently democracy means you getting what you want and fuck the rest of us."

Er no, as I pointed out - I'm the one calling for more democracy. You're the one saying we shouldn't have it because you're scared shitless that you're now in a minority. Don't try and project your will to deny democracy onto me - the fact you're now firmly on the losing side of the argument is your problem, not mine - don't blame me if you can't accept that democracy has turned against you, and don't blame me because you want to block democracy because you can't accept that fact.

You're on the losing side of the argument, and the losing side of history, get the fuck over it and stop trying to use your unpopular view as an excuse to deny democracy. There's no longer a mandate for hard Brexit, and there's no democracy in denying the people a say, or refusing to listen to their view.

It's likely there never was a mandate for hard Brexit, ever. You're just parroting Theresa May's argument, but if you hadn't noticed, that argument has now well and truly failed in the eyes of the public, and that's democracy as much as you apparently detest it.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Cederic]

Fuck me it's like arguing with a child. You're failing to comprehend basic concepts and projecting your own interpretations onto me.

As a basic example, you keep telling me what May says and that I believe it. I don't give a fuck what May says and I don't agree with much of her approach or policy. Your entire base is a swamp of misunderstanding, false assumption and crackpot analysis.

I can't be arsed trying to educate you, you don't want to listen and you lack the basic intelligence to comprehend.

So to close this off: a referendum on the proposed deal would be fucking insane because it would prevent us negotiating a good deal. Just fucking accept it or find an adult with the patience to teach you.

Re: Bye Theresa

[Anonymous Coward]

You're using the wrong word, it's not a matter of keeping, as the churches? They don't own marriage. What you're suggesting is that they be allowed to take something that is not theirs. That's a mistake of yours. You think it is their possession. No, it is not. They've tried to claim it for centuries, and to some extent succeeded, but like with schooling, inheritances, and even burials, we've been shrugging them off. I think we can thank Henry VIII for that, at least in the Anglic tradition, the Scots, the Germans, the French, the Russians, and others, have their own reasons and history.

You seem to think the "fundies" would quit whining, a mistaken concept if I've ever heard one, and you think it would be equal rights for homosexuals? No, it would make things less equal, by taking the concept of marriage away from the people who want it to remain a civil matter, not a religiously controlled

That's why your idea won't work, because "contracts" still need enforcement. That's where the government is inseparably involved. Especially marriages which are enforceable against people who aren't parties to it. The "fundies" today who want to intervene in people's medical choices, would have the same protests over having to respect "contracts" for people they didn't like, so renaming the process would serve no purpose EXCEPT to de-legitimatize people who wanted to have a marriage that was treated the same as any other.

And do spare me the useless babbling about identification. That only makes you look bad, as you manufacture pointless hyperbole to throw your arms up and whine about.

Re:Bye Theresa

[Xest]

"As a basic example, you keep telling me what May says and that I believe it. I don't give a fuck what May says and I don't agree with much of her approach or policy. Your entire base is a swamp of misunderstanding, false assumption and crackpot analysis."

And yet your entire argument is identical to her own, trivially disproved, fallacious argument. Funny that.

"So to close this off: a referendum on the proposed deal would be fucking insane because it would prevent us negotiating a good deal. Just fucking accept it or find an adult with the patience to teach you.
Reply to This"

Except that's still not true, that's still just Theresa May's line, and you're still just parroting it without engaging in even basic thought processes that would allow you to trivially see it's complete nonsense.

Again, what you're saying is that you don't want a democratic vote, because you know Theresa May will fuck up the negotiations and get a terrible deal that everyone will vote down, cancelling Brexit. That's still about you being undemocratic in suggesting whatever fuckup May gives us we should swallow it unquestioningly.

Having a referendum on a final deal has absolutely no relevance to the quality of the deal. The quality of the deal is entirely about the competence of the negotiator, whether people accept that depends on how well they do - you're saying you know May will come back with such a shit deal that no one would support it, fine, but that's not an excuse to evade democracy.

Re:Bye Theresa

[cayenne8]

Would it make sense for Ohio and Michigan to go off on their own, as opposed to remaining in the US?

That's a bit different....comparing states vs sovereign countries....

Weak and wobbly indeed

[pele]

Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.

But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[hcs_$reboot]

But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?

Maybe /. has more UK than US readers

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.

But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?

/.'s mods are overwhelmingly liberal, and any excuse to shit on conservatives is a good one.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Brett Buck]

Slahsdot is a hotbed of extreme leftists, and the defeat of a middle-of-the-road conservative makes them want to gloat in a venue they know will be kept as a blissful monoculture by moderation.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.

But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?

About as much as US politics has... Just because _you_ aren't in the UK, it doesn't mean that it doesn't matter to millions of other people.
Furthermore, the UK is one of the USA's closest allies, not that Agent Orange really gives two fucks about that.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[lucm]

Furthermore, the UK is one of the USA's closest allies, not that Agent Orange really gives two fucks about that.

Maybe he has a point. What is the strategic value of the UK? If Europe still mattered, Germany would be the country to consider for a strategic alliance. But now the whole continent is at best a quaint and pricey tourist destination for Arizona retirees bored with Cabo and San Miguel.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[serviscope_minor]

Oh crikey look at the whiny little snowflake.

The right wing nutjobs are convinced slashdot is dominated by evil commie leftist progressive SJW mangina race traitors or whatever.

The loony left think that slashdot is dominated by the gun totin' racist,sexist, transphobic denialist rightwing nutjobs.

Has it possibly occurred to you that slashdot actually has a better spread than most places which makes it less of an echo chamber and more of a yelling chamber?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[serviscope_minor]

If Europe still mattered,

Only an American could think the largest trading bloc in the world somehow doesn't matter. Europe as a bloc is economically more powerful than your country.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[BESTouff]

Mod parent up.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Slahsdot is a hotbed of extreme leftists, and the defeat of a middle-of-the-road conservative makes them want to gloat in a venue they know will be kept as a blissful monoculture by moderation.

You're wrong mate, /. is full of retarded conservatives a.k.a Trump-dumpsters.

Re: Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe slashdot has more UK-supporting owners and influencers that US ones.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Kiuas]

But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot

Well I'd say it goes under the 'stuff that matters' part of the slogan. As a European one of the reasons I like political stories on Slashdot, especially political stories from outisde the US is that it's interesting to read american commentary on these matters. I mean, I often do not agree but it doesn't matter, it gives me a perspective on the matters that I feel I do not get from simply reading something like CNN or other american news sources.

In case there are others who feel the same and for what it's worth here's my take on this topic: The British right has effectively sunk their own ship. The Brexit campaign was never meant to succeed, but rather it was meant to be used as a PR-campaign for Farage and his ilk in preparation for the next eelctions. Pretty much everyone, on the right and the left, assumed people would vote remain. This lead to 2 things that started this cascade of clusterfucks:
1. The Brexit side felt they could make pretty much any claims they wanted. After all, they weren't actually going to win, so while they're at it might as well take it over the top for maximal visibility. Hence the absurd claims that by resigning they'd be able to pour hundreds of millions more into health care, or maintain complete control of their borders while still being free to trade with the Union like before, and so on.
2. The Remain side, equally convinced that they'd win easily - after all, who'd be stupid enough to fall for the extravagant hyperbole of the Brexit camp - did not do a solid campaign at all. Granted, I'm, not a Brit but I was left with the impression that they were totally unable to craft a message of their own, other than essentially trying to signal "leaving the Union would be bad for reasons X, Y and Z". This is when I knew they were screwed. You're essentially up against a populists wet dream: an popular vote where the other side gets to wrap themselves in a flag and talk about 'freedom'. That's really hard to counter, because the nuanced arguments about the benefits of a trade union are trumped by the idealistic talk.

These two effects combined were enough to tilt the scales and now they're left in a situation that no-one really wanted. The Brexit camp has mostly ran to the hills and scattered, realizing well ahead of time that they've scored a massive pyrrhic victory and that by the time the effects of a brexit hit they don't want to be anywhere near responsibilities. This leaves the political establishment in a weird spot, where the resignation process has to be overseen by people who didn't really want to resign in the first place. May, herself a remainer, looked at all of this and probably figured that since she lost to raging populist she might as well do a full u-turn and attempt to go 'full populist' to solidify support for the conservatives. So she adopted a hardline stance on Brexit where they're trying to strongarm the Union into giving them everything they want even though from a purely realpolitik/game theory point of view the UK is at a massive disadvantage in these negotiations, so trying to play hardball is an insanely stupid move. She also called the elections in an attempt to gather support for her newly found stance of 'brexit means brexit' and 'no deal is better than a bad deal' -stance.

However by this time most of Brittain seems to have realized how much they were in fact duped by the Brexit campaign. That indeed, the majority of the claims made by the campaign about the benefits of resigning are outright lies. Many are feeling remorseful, and indeed it seems based on the polls if the vote was held today Remain would win

What can we learn from this? Well, the number one issue to be learned is that putting decisions of this scale to a binding popular vote with a simple majority is a suicidal move because people aren't really that well informed on complex matters like the role of the Union, which allows populists (from both sides) to essentially ma

Re: Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Its owned and controlled by tranny bed time reading commis.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[tehcyder]

Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.

But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?

Theresa May is (was?) one of the leading figures in attempts to censor the internet in the UK, and this is entirely relevant to Your Rights Online.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[GeekWithAKnife]

Well, you suggest a better spread but this readership is like Marmite.

Re: Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, neither the US nor the EU will matter much longer. Neither has the ability to keep its debt under control, which is why Canada will inevitably become the next dominant superpower politically, economically, and militarily. I'm still LOLing at the Europeans who are STILL mourning Brexit while deluding themselves into believing that their massive debt won't crush their economy. There are two types of countries in the EU: those like Greece that have already collapsed in massive debt and those that will suffer debt-related economic collapses in the near future.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[dbIII]

especially political stories from outisde the US is that it's interesting to read american commentary on these matters.

Maybe, but it typically just leads to smug and superior feelings IMHO because the people with more than half a clue are aware of their shortcomings - leaving an unrepresentive bunch of the politically naive spouting bullshit.
The relativism of thinking that everyone's opinion is equally informed has really soaked in there for some strange reason.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[pele]

So what you're saying is that I've been reading slashdot for the past 20-odd years under the wrong impression that it has something to do with computers and things? Ok, sorry.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[pele]

Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.

But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?

About as much as US politics has... Just because _you_ aren't in the UK, it doesn't mean that it doesn't matter to millions of other people.
Furthermore, the UK is one of the USA's closest allies, not that Agent Orange really gives two fucks about that.

TW10 here mate...

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[pele]

Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.

But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?

Theresa May is (was?) one of the leading figures in attempts to censor the internet in the UK, and this is entirely relevant to Your Rights Online.

Is she now? Tony did that 19 years ago actually...and did it quite good, so no point in repeating the exercise.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[91degrees]

She's not that middle of the road. And really very authoritarian.

Slashdot really is not extreme leftist. Certainly there's a strong sense of liberalism and libertarianism, but politically, users are fairly centrist, at least by European standards.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[hcs_$reboot]

No, but Th. May had some impact on IT, mainly her will to add backdoors and decryption stuff (supposedly due to "terrorism")

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[EzInKy]

Nah, the vast majority of Slashdotters are libertarian. Leave us alone and we well leave you alone.

Re: Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still LOLing at the Europeans who are STILL mourning Brexit

Sorry to pop your bubble. We're not mourning that. The UK was the reason that the EU didn't work well (damn feet-draggers) and debt ? The EU's debt sits at about 84%, which isn't that much higher than that of the US, and lower than that of the UK.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I still come to Slashdot.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Opportunist]

When a country like the UK is led by a bitch saying that she'll simply remove human rights and civil liberties like they mean nothing if they stand in her way to more terror legislation, I'd say that yes, this does affect us at some point.

Especially because one of her primary targets would be "teh intarnets". And as you know, such oppression, if unopposed, quickly spreads to other countries.

Let's face it, the internet is a threat to any politician that wants total control over his subjects. I.e. to every politician. The ones that think they can get away with it will censor it or even shut it down when it gets inconvenient. If you want to defend your liberties, forget your guns. Your first concern should be that you can still talk with each other and communicate your situation to the outside world.

Re: Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

TW8 mate. Corbyn territory, red flags on every building.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Opportunist]

May is middle-of-the-road?

Holy fuck, that last earthquake really displaced a few things...

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Opportunist]

So, from a US perspective, it's marxist-leninist-socialist-anarchist-... and then some.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Opportunist]

This. Stay out of my business, I'll keep my nose out of yours, limited to where your business is to meddle with the business of someone else who doesn't want you to.

That's probably not the entire legal code, but a good start.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Opportunist]

The strategic value of the UK to the US is twofold. First, it's pretty much the only country in Europe that isn't on the verge of giving the US the finger as soon as they can possibly get away with it, maybe with the exception of Poland. And second, if push comes to shove, it's fairly hard to invade England. Hasn't been done successfully for over a millennium now, and counting. It's fairly easy to defend an island.

Re: Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the US gets to have as much debt as it pleases whilst everyone trades oil in USD. The same cannot be said of the EU.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Hognoxious]

You mean thick?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is the troll moderation on Slashdot. Obviously as one of the loony left I have no idea if other loonies are doing it to conservatives, but I'm certain that left leaning posts attract a lot of bad moderation designed to silence dissenting views.

I'll say it again - if the system was changed so that -1 mods counted for less when there also +1 mods, it would really help.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]decisions of this scale to a binding popular vote with a simple majority is a suicidal move [/quote]

It's not legally binding though. They could have decided, based on the near split to put a stop to it there and then. Basically the Conservatives have been shitting themselves over UKIP for so long they lost perspective.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Read your own response. You are a classic SJW crybaby. Normal people can write sane responses without screaming and casting aspersions and creating an army of strawmen on the basis of a couple of random posts on a site frequented by thousands.

Boo fucking hoo, crybaby. Don't wet yourself. whwhwhahahahahaha.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

the number one issue to be learned is that putting decisions of this scale to a binding popular vote with a simple majority is a suicidal move

The brexit poll wasn't even binding. Which makes the current situation even more absurd.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[AmiMoJo]

Some on the remain side took it seriously, like Corbyn. The problem was that his own party were too busy trying to sabotage him and so the press largely just ignored him and in fact the whole party.

The Leave side was made up of people with a vested interest in leaving (mostly those in business who wanted a bonfire of rights and regulations that affected their profits), and those who were just in it for themselves (Boris, Gove) and those who just wanted to watch the world burn for ideological reasons (Farage). The referendum just happened to come along at the right time to go full post-truth fake news. Remember the money birds?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Two comments:

1) The decision for the referendum wasn't so much a PR-campaign for Farage, as Cameron seeking to be able to say to the Brexit supporting faction in his own party that country had no stomach for Brexit. The intent was to stop defections from the Conservatives to UKIP (by MPs and voters) from losing the Conservative party it's majority.

2) The likelihood of Scottish independence took a nose-dive overnight with the poor result for the SNP.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Hognoxious]

I'll say it again - if the system was changed so that -1 mods counted for less when there also +1 mods, it would really help.

Typical leftist, wanting to give out prizes for participating. And who will pay for these +mods? The taxpayer, that's who.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Kiuas]

The brexit poll wasn't even binding. Which makes the current situation even more absurd.

I'm aware it wasn't legally binding, but that's in essence irrelevant. The poll was hyped up to such a height, and 'the will of the people' brought up so many times that the vote was de facto binding. That is, the conservatives themselves had made it clear prior to the election that the result would be followed, so a failure to do so would have (in their minds) destroyed the party.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Maritz]

Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.

But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?

Theresa May is (was?) one of the leading figures in attempts to censor the internet in the UK, and this is entirely relevant to Your Rights Online.

Is she now? Tony did that 19 years ago actually...and did it quite good, so no point in repeating the exercise.

Did what?

Did he pass legislation allowing 40 agencies unfettered access to all citizens' browsing history? No, that was Tresemmé.

Not to defend Tony, hateful lying little prick, but what are you actually talking about?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

The Referendum was never a "binding vote". That was the biggest lie of all. Read the Act that set up the Referendum ... it was a vote to inform negotiations to reform the EU.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[AmiMoJo]

Mod point are a human right.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

and this is exactly why I didn't vote for Chancellor Palpatine .... errr .... Theresa May (or her representative in my constituency). Nothing to do with Brexit, I simply could not bring myself to help keep in power someone who rode so hard over my rights.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Hognoxious]

The referendum wasn't binding. As I understand it they can't be - parliament is sovereign.

United Ireland? Not very likely. Here's the maths:
650 MPs. 7 Shit Fails never turn up so that makes 643.
Thus a working majority is 322, rounding up. Tories have 318. The DUP's 10 can keep Maggie II on the throne for a couple of years, assuming typical attrition rates.

Re: Weak and wobbly indeed

[jeremyp]

No, the UK really isn't the reason why the EU didn't work well (except actually, I think it does work quite well). The Greece crisis , for example, was caused by putting idealism ahead of practicality. The Greeks were allowed to lie about their fiscal position because France wanted the "mother of democracy" in the Euro.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[jandersen]

As a British citizen, I have to agree with much of what you say, but let me offer a slightly different perspective, perhaps.

I think one of the main problems in British politics over the last several decades has been the way Labour deserted its natural core voters: the working class, in a wider sense - not just the traditional factory workers, but everybody in a simillar position in society; all us that are destined to be employees, basically, rather than business owners. Blair tried to widen the scope, but lost sight of the working class and became enamoured with what one can call 'neo-capitalism' (well, I'm trying to be kind - not sure if he really deserves it); that is not to say that it is impossible for Labour to appeal to those who don't traditionally feel they are 'working class' - I think it is very possible, but you have to persuade people to rethink their position in society and realise that it isn't somehow embarrassing to be working class. Corbyn's jaw-dropping, explosive rise shows us that a lot of people felt that so-called New Labour was a mistake, and that they do in fact want them to remember the old values and bring them in to the modern reality; I think Corbyn at least has the intellectual span to envision this, and if the party can unite behind him, they could pull it off.

The Tories gambled and lost; they misread the situation, but I am not convinced that this is Theresa May's fault - she is in many ways one of the few good Conservatives, and I like her, but she is surrounded by the old-style 'nasty tories', as she once called them; the kind satirised in 'The New Statesman' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Statesman). The Tories, under David Cameron tried to re-invent themselves as 'nice, and in favour of social justice, but I think it never rang true, and you kept seeing the jeering, private-school raised bully through the varnish on a regular basis. They will form the next government, I'm sure, and they deserve it; if anybody deserves struggling with the mess of Brexit and the inevitable failures that will come off it, it is the Tories.

So here we are - fatefully moving towards Brexit, as if it was just unavoidable now; a very British kind of fatalism, I think. The truth is, of course, that we can halt this process at any time; we may have to eat humble pie and come back hat in hand, but of course we can. Just turn the idea around: if the remain side had won by such a slim majority, we would immediately have had the leavers shouting about how unfair it all was, and they would have been campaigning on and on now; so why should we just accept what is increasingly looking like a very bad idea with a heavy sigh? That simply does not make sense.

I have little doubt that we will come back - but next time, I hope the EU is a more ambitious union, not just a glorified market place with a few extra curls, but a full political union - a federal state or something like that.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[jeremyp]

Interesting analysis, but mostly wrong. I agree with this bit:

putting decisions of this scale to a binding popular vote with a simple majority is a suicidal move because people aren't really that well informed on complex matters like the role of the Union

However, support for Brexit really hasn't softened that much. If it was the reason why people voted against the Tories, the Lib Dems who campaigned on a platform of stopping Brexit would have done much better.

Going into this election, the Conservatives had a 25 point lead in the opinion polls. It vanished entirely because Theresa May ran such a terrible campaign. She didn't turn up to the leadership debate. She advocated lifting the ban on fox hunting. She campaigned for "strong and stable" but was caught off guard when people pointed out that, as Home Secretary, she presided over a reduction in police numbers. Basically, in this campaign, she came across as a horrible person who doesn't care about ordinary British people.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

What can we learn from this? Well, the number one issue to be learned is that putting decisions of this scale to a binding popular vote with a simple majority is a suicidal move because people aren't really that well informed on complex matters like the role of the Union, which allows populists (from both sides) to essentially manipulate the debate so that what the people think they're voting on and what they're actually voting on don't have much to do with each other at all.

IOW "the people are unfit to vote" (s/unfit/{stupid,ignorant,populist,...}/g to taste).

The logical conclusion is to do away with this "democracy" thing. Power to the king or the nomenklatura or what-have-you.

Democracy only works as a process if the voterbase is informed on whatever it is they're voting, so unless one is willing to provide objective, factual information on the options on the vote, then pulling stunts like this is essentially handing the power onto populists and professional spinners of truth on a silver platter.

You keep on blaming "populists and professional spinners" for the things all politicians do.

The funniest (in the "makes you cry" sense) thing is that it tends to be "progressive", "leftist", "labour", "of-the-people" kind of politicians that complain the loudest about "populism". It basically says that they know what's best for the people only as long as the people happen to agree with them, and therefore disagreeing with them must be disallowed.

Much like you're arguing that the people cannot be trusted to vote for the right thing. Or, you know, cannot be trusted to see through the murky bullshit politicians spout. Again, it's an argument to do away with democracy because it doesn't work, moreover, implied in your argument, cannot work.

The future does not look bright for Britain. The Scots are seriously considering becoming independent because they overwhelmingly wanted to stay, and there's even talk of the unification of Ireland now.

The Scots already voted on independence because they were fed up with the English, but didn't vote out because they wanted to be part of a bigger whole. So now they're stuck with leaving the EU because they're still part of the UK. This vote didn't change much for that, it was already pretty FUBAR.

Anyway, it's what you get for failing to sort out the fundamental issues, preferring to muddle on. Goes for all parties in this, really.

I hope this will be a lesson to populists everywhere: be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.

For all their railing against "populists", every politician everywhere is one, including the railers.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Eloking]

While I agree about politics on /. (I too like to read the /. community opinion on politics), a news about the UK conservative loosing the majority?

UK isn't that big of a country.
Losing the majority isn't that big of an event.

I'm sure one of you will quickly remind me about the importance of both, but I'm taking a Worldwide perspective here. If we're to have a news on this, then to be fair with the rest of the world we should also have a news about every major political event in the G20.

And, just to be clear, I do love politics on /. and I do like the discussion about this news. But it fell a little unfair as we haven't discussed about other more important political event in other more important countries.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gonna drain the river under the troll bridge.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Maritz]

Slahsdot is a hotbed of extreme leftists, and the defeat of a middle-of-the-road conservative makes them want to gloat in a venue they know will be kept as a blissful monoculture by moderation.

lol. Much triggered.

The dark hand of 'extreme leftism' at work here, folks.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Bongo]

I think an issue is that we now have something like 5 levels of society in the sense of, social conditions, life conditions, environments, and they each have their own sense of judgement and values. The Labour Party should actually be something like three different parties. The Tories should be at least two parties. And so for a while we flirted with these other versions, like Lib Dems, and Greens, and UKIP, and so on, but now we've sprung back to two main parties.

The five levels or social conditions, with their own values, judgements, politics and aspirations, are just a consequence of the increasingly complex globalised world we live in. Maybe someone in their heart wants to be socialist, or socially conscious, but there's three versions of that, and Corbyn most naturally fits one of those, whist Blair fitted another version, and the traditional base was the third version.

The fact is, these five levels or forms of society, are realities, not ideologies, as they are just how the world has come to be and function. They are all present for a reason. And most of our systems are intermixed and linked. For example, the NHS is a state thing, but it still buys MRI machines from private companies. Another example, people in poor rural areas have different sets of needs to people in urban areas, even though they may both vote "socially".

But we have a first past the post system, and nobody much appreciates these distinct societal stages/worlds, which can lead to these sort of bizarre results where people try to fit square pegs into round holes.
 

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[coastwalker]

Seconded. I can always be guaranteed a good debate on Slashdot compared to most other media. It is the very fact that people with completely opposing views battle it out here that makes it worth the visit.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[gweihir]

The fascinating thing is that apparently "terrorism" originally means a government that keeps its population in fear. I guess May wants back to that.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Zocalo]

I have little doubt that we will come back - but next time, I hope the EU is a more ambitious union, not just a glorified market place with a few extra curls, but a full political union - a federal state or something like that.

Possibly, but once we're out (and that does seem to be the way things are headed, for whatever form of "out" we end up with - fatalism or not), we're not going to be coming back in any time soon because of the required concessions, at least some of which will probably be needed with the "cap in hand, abort Article 50" approach too for that matter. When the UK joined the EU, we got a whole bunch of concessions because our economy was fucked and we needed them, although the EU also wanted us because they thought the likely UK recovery would ultimately benefit the EU and saying "no" to anyone would scupper the "One Federal Europe" vision they were starting to aim for.

Since then membership requirements have changed - things like adoption of the Euro, Schengen, and other things we are currently exempt from have been mandatory for many of the countries of the current EU, and there's no way ALL of those countries - and membership requires it to be "all" - are going to let the UK back in without the same commitments. Not to mention anything else they might add once they UK's repeated vetoing of anything that moves them closer to a Federal State gets cut loose. 48% might have voted Remain in the referendum, but that was on the assumption of maintaining the status quo; I can't see anything like that percentage of the current population agreeing to adopting the Euro and Schengen to get back in, no matter how screwed the economy/Sterling might be and how secure the EU might become from Islamic fundamentalism, which obviously isn't happening soon. We're currently just too sentimental about Sterling (even as we march towards a cashless economy and it becomes mostly moot), and too fearful over the relatively miniscule risk of being a victim of terrorism for that to happen.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Brit I don't think it had much to do with with folks voting against Brexit, rather the result was much more about three things things.

0) May's campaign was quite hopeless, it had no coherent vision to counteract Corbyn's strong utopia socialist message.

1) It shouldn't have been a surprise, but many of those who shocked everyone when they voted for Brexit, and most expected to head to the Tories, didn't. Instead, they went back to the way they've always voted. NB: Corbyn was not vocally pro-remain during Brexit, is not now a remainer and has ruled out a second Brexit referendum.

2) It's cyclical, the youngsters who turned out this time do not remember the last time we had old school socialists in charge back in the 70s.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

A Millenium? what about the damned Normans in 1066 then?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Any definition of centre, left, right etc depends on a collection of personal perspectives. People generally see May as more right leaning the Cameron was but look at various elements of their manifesto: Linking the minimum wage to median earnings (and increasing it considerably by doing so), increased control over executive pay, controlling energy prices... Whether you liked what was on offer or not, and certainly she has a strong authoritarian streak, I don't think she was far from centre in a British context especially relative to the Labour manifesto.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

you have a remarkably clear point, but seriously
people, can we stop talking about fucking
snowflakes already?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Kiuas]

The funniest (in the "makes you cry" sense) thing is that it tends to be "progressive", "leftist", "labour", "of-the-people" kind of politicians that complain the loudest about "populism". It basically says that they know what's best for the people only as long as the people happen to agree with them, and therefore disagreeing with them must be disallowed.

You're correct that the left these days in Europe (and I say this as a Finnish leftist myself) is more worried about populism because right wing populism is on the rise. However, you're wrong if you think this means I - or the left in general - think disagreement or in fact populism itself should be disallowed. There's nothing wrong with being a populist. I mean, the point of a politician after all is to try and enact the will of the people who elected him, so populism in a sense is central to western politics.

The problem with populism is that the more complicated a topic, the easier it is for populists to oversimplify the issue and paint an entirely skewed picture to the voters. And this is not a partisan issue, the same faults and problems are entirely possible on the left itself, it's just that right now the right has embraced this kind of populism more.

Much like you're arguing that the people cannot be trusted to vote for the right thing. Or, you know, cannot be trusted to see through the murky bullshit politicians spout. Again, it's an argument to do away with democracy because it doesn't work

No. I'm saying that if you're having a vote on an important and complex issue there should be impartial information handed out to the voters about the outcomes. In Switzerland (arguably the nation curently furthest in implementing direct democracy) whenever they have these votes on matters of policy, they get beforehand an information package that contains the pros and cons of both sides. Look at the amount of information and material that the Swiss get before they head to the polls on any issue:

National referendum government information booklet National referendum ballot (5 issues) Cantonal referendum government information booklet Cantonal referendum ballot (2 issues) Municipal referendum government information booklet Municipal referendum ballot (4 issues) Municipal election ballot for the city government (5 seats including the mayor) Municipal election ballot for the mayor of Berne Municipal election government information booklet Municipal election ballots for the city parliament (80 seats). Preprinted ballots for all party lists and one empty ballot are provided. Voters may cast only one ballot. Return envelope for postal voting. To vote by mail, voters must insert the sealed ballot envelope (13) and the signed voter identification card (12) into the return envelope and mail it to the city chancellery for counting. Voter identification card. It must be signed in order for a mail vote to be valid. It is discarded after validation and before the ballot envelope (13) is opened, so as to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Ballot envelope. Mail voters must insert their ballots and seal the envelope. Election advertising material produced by the parties. Each party is restricted to one brochure of a prescribed format to be delivered to voters this way.

So yes, they get marketing material in retsricted amounts by the parties, but they also get booklets constructed by the government about the pros and cons of the issue. This way, the parties cannot easly make wild assertions in their marketing of the issue because the opposing side can easily say: "check the numbers from the booklet, their claim is false." and you will lose the vote.

If the information about the vote is left for the campaigns of both sides and no facts whatsoever are established in the mind of the populace, then certainly the people cannot be trusted to vote correctly because they might

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[oobayly]

Funnily enough (not really), that was a major selling point for some of my colleagues. To paraphrase one - "we need to get rid of the stupid human rights so we can lock up these terrorists". You know those rights that I don't think I've never needed, nobody else should have them either...

Interestingly enough, one of those people filed for bankruptcy (as well as having a large amount of debt written of by my employer) - I wonder how he'd feel about a return to Debtor's Prison too?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

At certain times of day I agree

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[The_Noid]

So here we are - fatefully moving towards Brexit, as if it was just unavoidable now; a very British kind of fatalism, I think. The truth is, of course, that we can halt this process at any time; we may have to eat humble pie and come back hat in hand, but of course we can.

You can't halt the Brexit, afaik.
Once article 50 is invoked there is no way back. Brexit will happen, two years after the invocation. Deal or no deal. And any deal will have to be approved by all EU member states, so it's quite possible it'll be no deal.

The UK could negotiate about an immediate re-entry, but the conditions required for that by the EU are not going to be pretty...

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling is part of the fun of posting, but I'd like to see also a self-mod option, where if the troller proclaims the post is trolling, the -1 counts "less negative" than a -1 determined by others.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Hognoxious]

We're currently just too sentimental about Sterling (even as we march towards a cashless economy and it becomes mostly moot)

WTF are you on about? Cashless doesn't mean unitless. Do you know anything about economics?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[drinkypoo]

Nah, the vast majority of Slashdotters are libertarian. Leave us alone and we well leave you alone.

Why do libertartians who are not anarchists imagine that the political system they create won't wind up just the same as the typical pattern we have now? Why do libertarians who are anarchists imagine that a power vacuum won't lead to another power structure?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Opportunist]

Or how about the good old tradition of paying your debt off with your last possession: Yourself.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct that the left these days in Europe (and I say this as a Finnish leftist myself) is more worried about populism because right wing populism is on the rise. However, you're wrong if you think this means I - or the left in general - think disagreement or in fact populism itself should be disallowed.

Pointed out that lamenting "populism" was a shitty thing to do for a labour functionary to the local (labour-flavoured) mayor. He visibly blanched and fumbled, mumbling something about "yes but the wrong sort of populism", which I thought, and still think, was rather arrogant. Not so much of him but of him and his party. Who are they to decide what is the correct kind of populism for the people?

This is the fundamental problem with modern labour: No longer championing the needs of the downtrodden, they've taken to assuming what they know the downtrodden are to think and like. And woe betide the population if they dare think the wrong thing!

It stands to reason: The swing to the right is a reaction on the utter failure of those in power, quite often of "progressive" slant, to deal with a variety of problems. In fact, problems that aren't even being recognised as problems, and again woe betide you if you dare point them out as problems. Then you get buried in a deluge of accusations of being "phobic" of this or that or the other, and other badness.

That is the fundamental problem with "the left": It's morally bankrupt and can but resort to platitudes and character assassination. Or possibly flat out assassination, as happened here a while ago.

In that sense, complaints of "populism" are, have become to my ears, indicators of idealistic failure and refusals to admit it.

The problem with populism is that the more complicated a topic, the easier it is for populists to oversimplify the issue and paint an entirely skewed picture to the voters. And this is not a partisan issue, the same faults and problems are entirely possible on the left itself, it's just that right now the right has embraced this kind of populism more.

This is more condeming the voters for being unable to think for themselves. If you know so much better then why do you fail to communicate that time and again?

I'm saying that if you're having a vote on an important and complex issue there should be impartial information handed out to the voters about the outcomes. [...Switzerland as an example...]

So yes, they get marketing material in retsricted amounts by the parties, but they also get booklets constructed by the government about the pros and cons of the issue. This way, the parties cannot easly make wild assertions in their marketing of the issue because the opposing side can easily say: "check the numbers from the booklet, their claim is false." and you will lose the vote.

That only works properly when the government is actually impartial. Over here, the mass media and in particular the (overpaid, publicly funded) public broadcasters have a very noticeable leftist and statist bias while they'll swear up and down they're impartial and objective. Oh and something like 80% of bureaucrats tend to vote labour and are evidently unable to keep their preferences out of policy (by result and by their own inadvertent admission, actually).

If the information about the vote is left for the campaigns of both sides and no facts whatsoever are established in the mind of the populace, then certainly the people cannot be trusted to vote correctly because they might not have the correct information to begin with.

And who controls this access to "correct" information and isn't afraid to use it? Right ho, there we go.

It should not be possible for campaigns on either side to make claims which are blatantly false and get away with it. Because that's not just 'murky bullshit' that's outright deception which goes against the whole idea of informed vote

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Freischutz]

The right wing nutjobs are convinced slashdot is dominated by evil commie leftist progressive SJW mangina race traitors ...

... who have no girlfriend, live in their parent's basement with a robotic dog and a PC running Linux. Next to the PC there sits a mountain of used tissues and a bottle of lube while a video clip of a porn actress that bears a striking resemblance to Natalie Portman covering herself in hot grits is running full screen on the 42" UltraHD monitor. ... aaaand I think that pretty much covers the stereotype of the Slashdot reading leftist.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[nine-times]

I kind of disagree. I get accused of being a part of the loony left more often than I get accused of being a right-wing nutjob, but I have been accused of both. I've also been accused of being a Mac fanboy, a Microsoft shill, and an open source militant. My general Slashdot experience is, some percentage of any viewpoint gets modded down. It doesn't really matter what position you take, there's going to be someone who doesn't like it, and if that person has mod points, you're going to get modded down.

However, at least in my experience, if your post is reasonable, getting modded down won't be the norm. You might have one post modded down to 0 or -1 for every 10 posts that get modded +5. Meanwhile, you'll have 100 posts that are practically ignored by the mods. I actually think the mod system works pretty well, and it's not too entirely biased one way or another.

I mean, I just looked at some of the scores for your recent post history, and it seems to match a similar pattern. Mostly 2's, a couple 3's, a couple 4's, and a couple 5's, and then one thing modded down to 1. It doesn't seem like the mods are preventing your voice from being heard.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I can always be guaranteed a good debate on Slashdot compared to most other media.

No you are not!

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't halt the Brexit, afaik.
Once article 50 is invoked there is no way back

Actually this is a point of contention, some lawyers say there is nothing to stop a country withdrawing its invocation of a50. Other say it can't be done. The truth is that no-one can be certain - the European court would probably have to rule on this ultimately if it became an issue.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[alexhs]

The Guardian compiled a list of interesting facts from books written by parties insiders.

You're right that the Brexit campaign was never meant to succeed, however your deductions are IMHO incorrect :

1. Populists break promises at breakfast (1,2). The boldest the lie, the better. Do you believe Donald Trump campaigned to lose ?
2. The remain side campaigns were sabotaged from the inside: the issue was highly divisive for both Conservative and Labour.

About May, she was a remainer in name only: from past behaviour, it's obvious that she prioritize (lack of) immigration to trade, as she was personally responsible for stalling talks on an EU free trade deal with India.

(1) They didn't lie. You misunderstood. Probably dishonest media pretended they promised what they didn't (come on, it was obvious hyperbole!), or failing media are pretending they broke promises that they didn't (better, alternative facts show differently). Anyway, on that topic, they have Better Lies (r) now.
(2) While regular politicians just figure out they were too optimistic: now that they've been elected, they find out it costs too much, it is more complicated than they expected, it would require a majority that they don't have, and they're really sorry about it (3). And who would vote for a boring, down-to-earth administrator anyway?
(3) The amount of genuine sincerity in that statement is not guaranteed.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

The fascinating thing is that "liberalism" originally referred to an ideology based on defending individual liberties.

Unfortunately, there is no indication that "liberals" want to go back to that.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[thegarbz]

Tony did that 19 years ago actually...and did it quite good, so no point in repeating the exercise.

It's like saying you got a spanking one day so there's really no difference to someone breaking your arm now.

What Blair did that 19 years ago was pale in comparison to the psychotic approach May is trying to take and repeated exercises should be resisted at every opportunity.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen.
Anyone who thinks May was 'middle of the road' is deluded. She's an authoritarian, desperately trying to crack down on all dissent to stop her (possibly her party, but Tories aren't exactly loyal) ever losing power. This charming lady encompasses greed, hubris, self-interest and incompetence in one unappealing package. The Clownservatives are on the ropes and their tag-team partners are the DUP, religious loonies (not quite Westboro level, but approaching it) and former terrorists (coalition of chaos, terrorist sympathiser, sound familar?). Someone talked of as a replacement for May is the Scottish Tory leader, Ruth Davidson...who is a gay woman, married to an Irishwoman. The cost of the DUP's support might rip the Tories further apart.
Funniest election result I've seen in my 50+ years.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[jareth-0205]

This is one of the most astute summaries of the shitshow we've been in over the last year I've seen.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Your pathetic argument falls flat when we look at a story that was posted a couple weeks ago where the comments were universally in support of Trump and the article did NOT appear on the front page with anything else.

You fucking faggot.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already being invaded and your authorities are not doing a very good job of defending it.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Hang on, Americans can read???

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Do NOT tell americans that or we will be getting invaded within the year.

Re: Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is folk keep disagreeing with you. They definitely shouldn't be allowed to do that....

Re: Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol I bet you'd laugh yourself to death if Labour actually, y'know, won or something.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously since I moderated the above post.

Mod points aren't a human right, they are granted via divine grace from our lord and savior server code.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG that's funny, good job.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

AmiMoJo is SO TRIGGERED right now you guys...

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't been done successfully for over a millennium now, and counting.

A couple of things you need to remember. England is well... not an island. It's a country that historically occupies an island with two other countries Wales and Scotland.

1066 - Norman conquest
1069-1070 - Danish invasion
1216 - King Louis of France invaded and took over London and was proclaimed King of England
1322, 1346, 1385, 1513 - Scottish invasions of England
1688 - Invasion by the Dutch

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[angel'o'sphere]

If there are other important international events, you are free to post a story yourself.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Hognoxious]

I looked up binding in the dictionary. It didn't say "adj - bloody inconvenient & embarrassing for us if we don't do it".

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever US politics gets a story, someone asks (legitimately, I would say) what this has to do with what is supposed to be a tech site. UK residents, calm down. He wasn't slighting your country, he meant why do pure political stories deserves space here, when there are tons of political sites elsewhere, and this should be tech only.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[thesupraman]

No amimojo, the problem is that unlike your favorite mutual ego masturbation groups, here you actually have to deal with alternate views of things, and soon learn that the world does not often agree with the highly biased black and white world view of the extremist.

As was correctly said above, most extremists claim the other side is in control of moderation, because extremists breed in groups who support their unusual worldviews.

Sorry that the normal world doesn't want to bow to your personal biases. Deal with it.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[david_thornley]

Who's interested in invading any powerful country nowadays?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Sir Holo]

But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot

Well I'd say it goes under the 'stuff that matters' part of the slogan. As a European one of the reasons I like political stories on Slashdot, especially political stories from outisde the US is that it's interesting to read american commentary on these matters.

Agreed.

People read /. for the Comments section, where a diverse array of people, with various perspectives, or specific knowledge, will chime in if they have something worth saying.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Sir Holo]

Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.

But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?

Theresa May is (was?) one of the leading figures in attempts to censor the internet in the UK, and this is entirely relevant to Your Rights Online.

Yeah. It was really bizarre to hear May's response to the most recent terror incident, which was basically, "The internet is to blame. They are using the internet to communicate, and we need to spy on everyone in order to prevent attacks like this." ... Some other bits were mixed in.

Hearing her make that connection was a real eye-popper – especially since it was an attempt to score political points while some of the victims were still in the ICU. Totally insensitive on top of being relevant to Your Rights Online.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[david_thornley]

There's a lot more libertarians on Slashdot than in real life, which at least gives us greater diversity of opinion. They aren't the vast majority.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

That's really hard to counter, because the nuanced arguments about the benefits of a trade union are trumped by the idealistic talk.

I see what you did there! :)

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree that May is a "good Conservative" - she's an authoritarian clown prone to magical thinking (see her thoughts on internet regulation, if nothing else) and has little grasp of objective reality; Kenneth Clarke is the only reasonable Conservative to my mind (damning with faint praise, obviously) and look how he's been sidelined for his entire career. May and her silo - David Davis, Hammond, Rudd, et al - believed the right wing press, a colossal mistake that has cost the party dearly. While they have returned as a government, the likelihood that even a weak confidence and supply agreement with the - quite frankly loony - DUP will last more than six months without a shattering schism is very slim indeed.

Speaking of the right wing press and their associated commentariat, it's hilarious to see them attempting to spin this as a win for May and the Conservatives, along with their usual risible baiting of the more left-leaning amongst us to try and get a response. May thought she was invincible and was guaranteed a huge majority, such that she didn't bother with trivial stuff like the televised leaders' debates, felt able to patronise the working poor (and a nurse at that, FFS), then wasted a huge amount of taxpayers' money on an unnecessary election that actually destroyed her own working majority. And this was despite our scummy tabloid press and their bottom-feeding bloggers - take a bow, Paul Staines - heaping scorn on both Labour and specific Labour front bench MPs (Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott[1]). Thirteen pages in the Daily Heil dedicated to smearing those three as enemies of Britain and friends to terrorists. Now the Conservatives have cosied-up to the DUP - look up their history for yourselves - while May pretends the past week hasn't happened; think we'll get thirteen pages of terrorist-appeasing smears tomorrow? I wouldn't put money on it.

Left-leaning folks: the dogmatic right and related professional trolls will, of course, try to provoke a response. Block, ignore, and move on. The only winning move is not to play. Your blood pressure will be lower too!

If May lasts a month I'll be genuinely astonished as she appears to have lost all grasp of reality. Rumour has it she basically ran split-arse to Buckingham Palace to say she'd be carrying on as PM before a) knowing if the DUP would agree to affiliate with them and b) the Conservative overlords could sack her.

The result did upset Rupert Murdoch though, another pleasing outcome. I do wish Jerry Hall would get on with fucking him to death though.

[1] I dislike Abbott; I find her hectoring, overbearing and quite abrasive. That said, the press treatment of her was a bloody disgrace, with Staines being particularly vile; he and certain sections of the Conservative party seem to be stuck in the 1920s with regard to women and anyone who isn't white. But she still won by a huge majority in her constituency despite all this, which I hope has given them all heartburn.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[lucm]

Europe as a bloc is economically more powerful than your country.

That is not even close to be true. The sum of the GDP of Germany, UK, France and Italy is less than half that of the USA; California alone has a bigger GDP than the UK. As for "Europe as a bloc", I assume you're talking about the EU, and the EU has a lower GDP than the USA.

Dude, Mexico has a bigger GDP than Sweden and the Netherlands combined. Get real.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[lucm]

Invade the UK? For what purpose? Get cheap ugly extras to play zombies in the Walking Dead? What else could anyone possibly want to get from the UK?

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[serviscope_minor]

That is not even close to be true. The sum of the GDP of Germany, UK, France and Italy is less than half that of the USA; California alone has a bigger GDP than the UK. As for "Europe as a bloc", I assume you're talking about the EU, and the EU has a lower GDP than the USA.

I see you're a believe in "alternative facts". Seems I was mistaken about the EU being larger than the US, but "not even close to true" is wronger than I was. It's possibly slightly smaller but within the margin of error.

So let's see: The germany/france/UK statement is not even wrong. It's technically correct, but meaningless and you're drawing the wrong conclusions from it. The EU consists of 27 countries. It's as meaningless to cherry pick a few from the bloc as it is to cherrypick a few states from the US. If you add up the top 3 US states by GDP, you actually get a somewhat smaller number than the top 3 of the EU-27.

California alone has a bigger GDP than the UK.

You really don't get the concept of a bloc do you? And you're also mistaken. They're similar sizes with the UK usually coming out a few percent larger in most estimates.

Dude, Mexico has a bigger GDP than Sweden and the Netherlands combined. Get real.

And Belgium has a bigger GDP than Arkansas.

But basically you really REALLLY don't understand what a bloc is.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Opportunist]

Whoopsie, almost a millennium. I'm ahead of my time, it seems. :)

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[callahan2211]

The 1st and 2nd Amendments you speak of.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[mjwx]

The Tories gambled and lost; they misread the situation, but I am not convinced that this is Theresa May's fault - she is in many ways one of the few good Conservatives, and I like her, but she is surrounded by the old-style 'nasty tories', as she once called them; the kind satirised in 'The New Statesman' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Statesman).

I agree with you about May but that was the May before she became PM. After that she became one of the nasty 'old style Tories'. The same thing happened to Malcolm Turnbull in Australia, he was a forward thinking "progressive" conservative until he gained power. Ultimately the party powerbrokers who were old school conservative broke him and he became a shadow of his former self. The same thing is happening to T-May, after the fall of Cameron the nasty old-style Tories saw an opportunity to take back the Conservative party, succeeded and set to work destroying any type of progressive attitude. If T-May cant take the Tory party in hand by the next election, Corbyn may very well be the next PM.

Also, supporting fox hunting during an election is just plain stupid. Sure it's the kind of stupidity you can get away with when an election is 2 years away, but not when you've just called a snap election to try to increase your majority.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[ebvwfbw]

Don't eat that humble pie. You guys need to exit. You lost your rights as a country, you're being ruled from Brussels. That's why you have entire sections of London being take over by Muslims that have absolutely no desire to become a Britain, they have every desire to take your country over and kill you. It's in the Koran if you read it. Killing Infidels is ok, they teach that to their kids from the age of 3. It's not too late, your country could get rid of the invasion force. That's what they are by the way, invaders, not refugees. Refugees cannot return to their country or they'll be killed. We know muslims go back all the time. Here the left is bringing in invaders under the guise of refugees illegally - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . They end up in GB too.

Abolishing war by becoming a unified state was a good idea, didn't work out though. Leftists got in the way, just as they are getting in the way in the US.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Opportunist]

It's funny how many people consider the second their defense against an oppressive regime, but the first is far more powerful. The second allows you to have a gun. The first enables you to raise an army.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

faggot

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[lucm]

But basically you really REALLLY don't understand what a bloc is.

Oh I understand it clearly. The "bloc" is why you hypocrites stand behind all those agreements to fight greenhouse gas emissions; it's because you bundle your shit together, and spread the pollution numbers of your industrialized countries over all the EU weak links that barely have indoor plumbing.

I don't understand how you can be so proud to be part of such a chicken shit union, especially since your people can't even fight their own wars, but if you feel more secure in your "bloc", enjoy it; nobody will ever try to take it from you because nobody else cares about it.

Re:Weak and wobbly indeed

[serviscope_minor]

weak links that barely have indoor plumbing.

We're talking about the EU, mate, not the deep south.

I don't understand how you can be so proud to be part of such a chicken shit union, especially since your people can't even fight their own wars,

You, er, don't know much European history, do you?

What happened next?

[StickyKeys]

SNP and Lib Dems have already said they're not going to form a coalition government which means the only option left is for Conservative to form a minority government which would effectively means the government loses its authority to pass laws without support from other parties which would be a disaster when managing Brexit given how divided the nation is on the topic.

Re:What happened next?

[serviscope_minor]

effectively means the government loses its authority to pass laws without support from other parties which

Yep which means they can't just plough ahead with their regularly scheduled strategy of hating everyone. I mean christ, cross party support! That's just awful, they'll have to consider what people in non Tory seats want. In other words they are going to have to learn to run the country for the voters not the tory party.

which would be a disaster when managing Brexit given how divided the nation is on the topic.

Whereas having one party simply riide roughshod over about half the population is a fine idea.

The Tories have proven they are not grown up enough to run the country. First by holding the referendum in the first place, then the farcical leadership contest and finally the election. No way in hell I want them to have yet another crack at fucking things up.

Re:What happened next?

[locofungus]

It's all a May (the PM) plot to trigger a hard brexit.

Trigger article 50. Wait a bit.

Call an election - May says cannot negotiate until after the election.

TM waits for a bit and only when it's obvious she cannot govern the Tory party, let alone the country (or possibly at 10am BST today)...

Call another tory leadership context - cannot negotiate until after the new prime minister is selected

Boris fails to negotiate for a couple of months. Then calls an election for a couple of months hence - says cannot negotiate until after the election.

Hey presto, the two years for negotiation has disappeared and we fall back onto WTO rules - which is what May wanted all along.

Genius - but evil.

The only real question is whether the Conservatives will be able to blame Labour for "forcing" Boris to call an election.

The only real risk I can see to TM's plan is that Boris might, against all expectations, turn out to be a unifying influence on the Tory party and actually be able to negotiate with Europe. (I don't think there's anyone other than Boris who has a chance of being able to do both and I think Boris is a clown!)

Re:What happened next?

[Yeechang Lee]

SNP and Lib Dems have already said they're not going to form a coalition government which means the only option left is for Conservative to form a minority government

The likeliest outcome is a coalition with the DUP (ten seats), which will seek a "seamless and frictionless" Irish border. That will get the Conservatives a slim majority.

Re:What happened next?

[GeekWithAKnife]

48% do NOT want Brexit. the other 52% want Brexit but cannot agree on how and what sort of Brexit they want.

This is the crap the UK gets without a plan, without a vision and without agreement.

Re: What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem with even considering that a plan in reality is that it relies on voters voting in a certain way. Cameron relied on that, too and look what happened.

Re:What happened next?

[dbIII]

Nice little theory, but a far far simpler one is that May got greedy when the opinion polls made it look like she could vastly increase her majority by calling an election early. Boring slimy politics as usual.

Re:What happened next?

[locofungus]

Conservatives plus DUP will have a working majority for most things. DUP will want some kickbacks.

But I think DUP is soft brexit (or no brexit) so for the single most important issue facing the UK the prime minister won't be able to play the "no deal" card (hence my other post about the Tories trying to play out the clock to get a hard brexit)

Re:What happened next?

[AmiMoJo]

What about the option for Labour to form a minority government? That seems more workable, with Corbyn being someone who can find common ground and bring people together. In fact, just having a clear idea of who the leader will be is a big advantage - the Tories can't say if it will be May or if there will be a leadership contest.

Re:What happened next?

[locofungus]

Oh, I agree that May expected a better majority. But that doesn't mean that she was going to be able to govern her own party. She called this election because she couldn't manage the party and hoped that with a few more Tory MPs she might have enough support of her own party to utter more tautologies: "brexit means brexit", "enough is enough".

When the election was called I expected her to get a bigger majority and it to be six months of failed negotiations and backstabbing from her backbenchers before she went.

May standing down at 10am. Boris being unopposed, and there's a microscopic chance that he may come up trumps and be able to negotiate a reasonable deal before the final whistle.

Re:What happened next?

[dbIII]

Fair enough, but I have difficulty in seeing anything near the planning ability required for such a plan anywhere near them.
"The Thick of It" with a string of fuckups over trivia was starting to look a lot like a documentary.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

The glaring flaw in your analysis is that May doesn't want Brexit. She was firmly in the remain camp during the referendum campaigning. The only reason she feigns support for Brexit and triggered Article 50 is that she had no choice given the result of said referendum. And that's one of the main reasons she lost support in this election. There was a lot of working class Labour voters who instead voted for the Tories in 2015 on the back of Cameron's promise of a referendum on EU membership. These people wanted hard Brexit, and didn't trust May was going to deliver this. So back to Labour they went in lieu of there being no credible party openly supporting hard Brexit left to vote for.

Re:What happened next?

[locofungus]

Absolutely no chance.

Apart from the fact that Tory+DUP have 326 seats now which three seats still to declare.

Even if DUP refuses to support Tory, they'd never support Lab either so Labs best chance would be to win a no confidence vote and trigger yet another election (but that might not do what they want if their support is pro-europe and they see it as yet more delaying with no sight of anything other than a hard brexit looming)

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also remember that given Sinn Féin (Who abstain from taking their seats in Parliament) have 7 seats, Which means that effectively only 322 seats are required for a majority.

Re:What happened next?

[AmiMoJo]

If the DUP doesn't support the Tories then all they can do is obstruct the entire parliament, which won't look good for them either. Plus, maybe Sinn Fein can be convinced to support the progressive alliance if it means they get a border poll a few years down the line.

The DUP might support the Tories, but they want a soft Brexit with single market access and a soft border so something drastic will have to be worked out. Hopefully they won't fall for the same bullshit that the Lib Dems did in 2010.

Re:What happened next?

[3247]

This game is called passing the hot potato.

Music stops 2019-03-29. Whoever holds the office of PM on that day loses.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, don't rule out another pact with the Lib Dems on the promise of a second EU referendum. Tim Farron almost lost his seat and won't exactly relish the prospect of yet another GE.

Re: What happened next?

[bestweasel]

Wouldn't they consider joining a coalition as a special favour to their long-time pal, Jeremy Corbyn, specially as they have even more interest than the Unionists in a seamless border? Also, it would drive the Daily Mail crazy.

Re:What happened next?

[Opportunist]

I'm not so sure about this. What I can see here is that people were promised wonders over wonders if Brexit happens, that their health insurance gets better, that jobs come back, that foreigners leave, basically that unicorns come and shit rainbows all across the sky.

Guess what. Didn't happen. People are pissed.

Because people neither want Brexit nor staying. They don't give a fuck either way. They want whatever gives them more handouts, and they now want to get what they were promised. And of course that's not going to happen.

May, in her infinite wisdom, jumped full-bore onto the Brexit train once it was running and did what we have seen as the success story of German chancellor Merkel: She has no idea where things are going to go, so she waits for the masses to move, and as soon as they move in a direction, she runs past them and yells "follow me!".

That works if the masses still want what they thought they wanted when you yell "follow me!". Unfortunately for May (and fortunately for the rest of the world), by the time May yelled "follow me!" people already noticed that they were given empty promises and are now pissed. Especially at a PM that claims she doesn't want a Brexit while they want it, and now that they are no longer so fond of the idea tries hard to push it with all her might.

She tried to copy Merkel. She failed miserably.

Re:What happened next?

[Opportunist]

Well, the plan was that the Brexit vote fails. Like the US had no plan for when Trump becomes president, they had no plan for a Brexit vote success.

You don't plan for the impossible, do you?

Re:What happened next?

[AmiMoJo]

Tory back benchers have a lot to answer for. Screwed up Major's government over Europe, forced Cameron into that disastrous, career-ending referendum and have now done the same to May. Not to mention the effect on the country.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

A Labour government signed the Maastricht Treaty without asking the people of the nation. They rode roughshod over 60,000,000 without one single survey, let alone debate. That is where so-called Brexit problems started. The nation had no problem with a single market, and joining their European cousins. But that doesn't extend to giving free housing and benefits and health care and education to people leaving former Eastern Bloc economies, neither did it extend to Africa nations getting pity visas from the form French and Spanish colonies.

All the young that fell for Labour's infinite money tree will still not afford their own homes, and with the millions more arriving for state handouts, they never will. Most people in their 20s are living with their parents. How sad is that. They cannot get meaningful jobs, the cannot slob in Uni once their trivial courses are done, and they cannot and will not ever have their own home. But they'll still be dweebing on FB, twatter in their iPhone +=1 every single year.

Facts eh? When you don't like the mess you "team" created you just pretend they don't exist.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no evidence to support your assertion that the public has changed it's views on Brexit. If fact, most opinion polls on the matter suggest that opinion has not changed since the referendum.

Re: What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

May would love it if they did that - she could simply call another GE and campaign on the fact Labour was in bed with an anti-union political entity with historical links to terrorism.

Re:What happened next?

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Tories + DUP is a majority. And with SF not even gonna bother to send MPs to take the few seats they got its a workable solution.
DUP is the "english-irish" and SF is the "irish-irish" from Northem ireland.

Yes, its gonna be wobbly since MPs does not have to vote for their own party. So the whip is gonna need to work overtime to make sure all votes goes the right way.

On the other hand May said if she loses 6 MPs she gonna resign. Now she lost 12 and gonna stay anyway.

Re:What happened next?

[Zocalo]

That's not what a minority government is. A minority government would be when a party that didn't get the most seats (Labour in this case) successfully manages to form some kind of coalition that provides a combined total that *is* a majority, so even though they have less seats in the Commons than the Convservatives they would still get to select Corbyn as the Prime Minister.

Anyway, the chances of that happening are awfully slim. There are 650 seats, so the line is 326 for majority. With one seat left to declare, the Conservatives have 318 and the DUP in Northern Ireland have 10, which gives a combined total of 328, which is enough. The DUP has worked with the Conservatives in the past and has said that they are willing to do so again, so there's not a great deal of doubt over which party the next PM is going to come from. What might be in doubt is whether Theresa May is going to be able to hold on, and if not how that section of the electorate that doesn't understand they vote for a party to lead, not a person, will react to five whole years under someone they didn't vote for, or how those that do understand that might feel if it turns out to be Boris Johnson...

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think the buck clearly stops with May herself this time. This was a shameless attempt at an opportunistic power grab by a PM no-one voted for. It was presented deceptively as a matter of strengthening her hand in the Brexit negotiations, yet the Tory manifesto sneaked in numerous "nasty party" policy changes relative to the previous one, some of which were barely even picked up by the media before the election. And of course the Tory campaign was all about her.

I wonder how long she'll last running a minority government, or indeed how long any minority government itself will last. The odds on a second general election later this year were already shortening during the night as the likelihood of a hung parliament became a certainty.

Re:What happened next?

[Cederic]

It may be an informal coalition; DUP agree to vote with the Conservatives on key legislation but don't help form the government.

I think that'd be excellent. I think a Conservative government was necessary for a clean Brexit, but a weak one that can't push through its obnoxious authoritarian puritan policies is bloody excellent news.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, maybe Sinn Fein can be convinced to support the progressive alliance if it means they get a border poll a few years down the line.

Not a chance. Labour would not risk losing support by siding with them. Remember, all this talk of a 'progressive alliance' has been from the minor parties that would be involved and not from Labour themselves. By all accounts, it's highly unlikely they would even side with the SNP/Plaid Cymru due to the damaging potential of such anti-unionist sentiment. Even if Sinn Féin were willing, they would not be asked.

The DUP might support the Tories, but they want a soft Brexit with single market access and a soft border so something drastic will have to be worked out.

Let's face it - so do the Tories - and an alliance with the DUP would give them precisely the justification they've been looking for to dismiss any possibility of hard Brexit.

Re:What happened next?

[Zocalo]

Actually, my bad. I thought the term was more specific than that, but a minority government is indeed *any* party that forms a government having won less than 50% of the seats, even if they have the most seats. Looks like May is off to the Queen at 12:30 based on support from the DUP though, so at least we appear to know the answer to that part of the question - so now we wait and see whether or not she'll be leading it.

Re:What happened next?

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

The Brexit has been started. And the clock is ticking.
UK can delay the starting of the talks but the deadline cannot be moved...

Re:What happened next?

[fellip_nectar]

Sinn Féin's abstinence from Parliament effectively reduces the number of seats required for a majority to 322, so that would give a CON/DUP alliance a 6-7 seat majority. But that's still too slim in my opinion. Very much like the Major government of '92-'97 - a couple defections here, a couple bi-elections there - and the majority is gone. Certainly not a suitable state of affairs going into the most important negotiations in a generation.

Re:What happened next?

[gweihir]

You don't plan for the impossible, do you?

Well no, but actually competent people do not mess up the evaluation what is impossible and what is not.

Re:What happened next?

[locofungus]

Let's face it - so do the Tories [want soft brexit]

No! That's the entire source of the utter mess we find ourselves in from DC agreeing to a referendum if he was elected PM right through to TM calling this general election.

The Tory party is split through the middle with hard brexiteers and remainers. All of this kerfuffle is down to the PM of the day trying to get some authority over one side or another.

If TM agrees to a "Norwegian" brexit for the DUP then she will be overthrown by the hard brexit corner of her party.

I really cannot see how we can get anything other than "no deal, WTO rules" or "please sir, can we stay in the game" come May 2019 - possibly we'll get to choose via a second referendum - because I don't see how any Tory PM can get any deal agreed with the EU accepted by the parliamentary Tory party.

Re:What happened next?

[prefect42]

48% *did* not want to leave the EU, when the terms of leaving weren't defined.
52% *did* want to leave when the terms of leaving weren't defined.

It's not for the electorate to agree on the terms, because they voted (in a non-binding referendum) to leave the EU. We've no idea what the public wanted or wants now. There is no need for public agreement, we have the House of Commons to sort that out.

It's for the politicians to negotiate the terms of what leaving the EU means, given they have a (weak) mandate to do so, given the guidance the public have provided the politicians on their views. The public guided the politicians, and then it was they who invoked article 50 to begin the formal process. Until article 50 had been triggered, nothing of legal relevance had happened.

It's also for the politicians to choose say that the deal they've negotiated is terrible, and it's in the UK's best interests to stay within the EU. They have no requirement to put that to a second referendum.
"No deal is better than a bad deal" unreasonably removes from the table the option of staying within the EU.

Re:What happened next?

[locofungus]

TM doesn't need the DUP support to form a minority government.

What she does need is enough MPs who won't cause her to lose a no confidence vote (or something like failing to get the budget through parliament which would probably trigger another general election)

Re:What happened next?

[Zocalo]

Plus you've got a risk of MPs voting against the party over key issues, especially things like May's comments on human rights vs. combatting terrorism should that now proceed into some form of proposed legislation. CON/DUP might have a majority, but it's not enough to provide the kind of mandate that Theresa May was hoping for and it certainly doesn't provide the cast iron guarantee that a given vote will go her way, even with a three line whip. I'm also wondering what kind of concessions the DUP might be after, given that perhaps the most obvious one is the border with Eire. No one on either side wants the checkpoints to come back and that's something the EU team has indicated might be a tactic they'll use, so at a stroke that might kill of any chance of a hard exit, or at the very least force some major concessions on freedom of movement in the deal. That's not going to mean Schengen - at best/worst depending on your perspective it'll be the status quo with retention of the EU/UK border arrangements - but even with a compromise, it's still likely to be the death knell for May's immigration targets and a failure to deliver one of the primary reasons many people wanted Brexit in the first place.

Re:What happened next?

[AmiMoJo]

People thought Brexit was the answer to all their problems. It's the EU's fault, immigrant's fault, all of it. Corbyn made the case that those were not the important issues, and that there were better ways to fix them. So Brexit became largely irrelevant for many people, once reassured that Labour would also go through with it.

Re:What happened next?

[serviscope_minor]

No that's Cameron's fault. He gambled the future of the country because he's hated sharing power worth the lib dems and didn't want a weaker party by giving up seats to ukip. It then turned into a front bench Eton power struggle.

I man the back benders benched share the blame, but he had the power to simply not engage.

Re:What happened next?

[dave420]

Seeing as Britain is a representative democracy, you are not guaranteed a direct say. That's the whole point.

So yeah - facts, eh?

Re:What happened next?

[dave420]

Which shows just how little the British public knows about Britain's relationship with the EU and what's happening to Britain as a result of Brexit.

Re:What happened next?

[dave420]

They didn't guide the politicians - they made a demand without reason to do so, based on claims we now know are nonsense, purely for party political reasons, not because of some pressing need.

Re:What happened next?

[oobayly]

I didn't see anything that firm about it. She was fairly quiet as remain supporters go. A she's shown she's willing to flip to whatever opinion increases her tenure. Leave won the referendum so she became a Brexit supporter. She unequivocally said there'd be no early general election, but the moment the polls gave her a sure win she changed he mind that "it was needed".

Re:What happened next?

[dave420]

It didn't help that civil servants were instructed before the referendum not to plan for a brexit.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tories have proven they are not grown up enough to run the country

Judging by the thousands of years of war, injustice, corruption, theft, and inequality brought about by coercive authority, I can only conclude that NO human being is suited to hold coercive authority over other human beings.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you forgot about the DUPs, dumbass.

Re: What happened next?

[oobayly]

No. The reason Sinn Fein don't take their seats is because they refuse to sit an institution they don't see as legitimate.

Re:What happened next?

[Opportunist]

Actually competent people go into business instead of politics and actually get shit done.

Re:What happened next?

[Zocalo]

No, she doesn't *need* the DUP support - in theory the Queen gets to accept whichever proposal to form a government she wishes regardless of how many seats they have, and her strict non-political stance pretty much means that whoever has the largest number of seats and gets to make the request first isn't likely to get rebuffed. Still, having some form of coalition, or whatever the relationship with the DUP is going to be, that pushes them over the 326 seat line (or 322 if we exclude Sinn Fein's seven seats on the assumption they will continue not to take them) is an easier sell to the electorate and a small sop to her own party that they still, kinda, have a majority. It's also the least risky option on the numbers - Theresa May's proposed government may well be at risk of losing a no confidence vote or other major proposal with her slim minority, but the risk is surely vastly greater for a Corbyn led minority government who would need to find board cross party support for every single motion.

Still, at least we can be thankful that we don't yet have the levels of willful obstructionism between the major parties that current US politics does; the train wreck that would result from five years of that during Brexit and everything else doesn't even bear thinking about.

Re: What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fascist colonists in the DUP have gone into coalition with the Tories.

We're all doomed.

Re:What happened next?

[MightyMartian]

This is the crap you get when you hold referendums where one side feels at liberty to simply lie to win.

Re:What happened next?

[MightyMartian]

The entire source of the problem is the 1922 Committee and other hard right Tory factions who have been the bane of Tory leaders since the 1970s. Sooner or later they were going to force a Tory leaders to make an EU referendum a part of their manifesto.

Re:What happened next?

[argStyopa]

At least as far as how the BBC presented it this morning, she could form with DUP and be basically fine. Doesn't sound like DUP is that far from May's base anyway.

I'm from the US, but I think it's a bigger story that SNP got their asses kicked - it turns out that Ms Sturgeon being an arrogant prick (her actual gender notwithstanding) is *not* a successful strategy.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whereas having one party simply riide roughshod over about half the population is a fine idea.

It's the American way!

Re:What happened next?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Tory back benchers have a lot to answer for. Screwed up Major's government over Europe, forced Cameron into that disastrous, career-ending referendum and have now done the same to May. Not to mention the effect on the country.

I'm an American and I don't claim to be an expert on British politics, but I do in general try to keep up with the goings on in Europe so let's just call me a smart layman and definitely more knowledgeable on Europe in general than most Americans.

I see it differently from you as I'm an outside observer. I think Cameron's problem was pure hubris. After barely dodging a failure on the Scottish independence vote, I think he became convinced that he could put anything up to a vote and he would never lose. Rationally he should have concluded from the Scottish independence vote that he barely dodged a bullet there and it would be in his best interests to not put himself in that kind of situation again, but instead he bet everything he owned on a Brexit referendum that he believed he couldn't lose because he was invincible. Perhaps the "Troy back benchers" as you called them were pretty happy with things that have happened, but I think Cameron was the master of his own fate here a lot more than him giving in to what they wanted.

Re:What happened next?

[Xest]

Yes, I think the moral of the story is that you can't win an election by trying to build a personality cult around someone with no personality.

I mean, the most naughty thing she's ever done, run through a corn field as a kid, really? How do you even begin to try and win an election around an individual so devoid of any relationship to the real world in which the rest of the population lives in?

Their biggest mistake was making it about her, that's why in 4 weeks they went from a 24% lead, to a 2% lead and lost MPs as a result.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Labour government signed the Maastricht Treaty without asking the people of the nation.

Yeah,you can stop right there. This treaty was signed in 1992 when the *Tories* were in power. No point in reading further
, though this made me laugh:
Facts eh? When you don't like the mess you "team" created you just pretend they don't exist

You really need hitting very hard with a 'fact stick'.

Re:What happened next?

[AHuxley]

The conservatives won. With the UDP the math is really simple.
Conservative parties know how to look after the people who voted for them and the UK conservatives have a long history of looking after voters.
"May to form 'government of certainty' with DUP backing"
http://www.bbc.com/news/electi...
"... join with her DUP "friends" to "get to work" on Brexit."
"... strong relationship" she had with the DUP"
"Our two parties have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years .." "confidence and supply"

Re:What happened next?

[squiggleslash]

Both sides can choose to indefinitely postpone the process, but they must both agree to this. At this point, the EU side (rightly) isn't budging, but there are realistic ways to undo the damage if Britain and the British people are willing to - namely, a second referendum.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

>They want whatever gives them more handouts
wow, get stuffed

people want opportunities for good work and to contribute to their communities

how dare you spit on the human spirit like this

what the RICH want are handouts. They are the lazy scum.

bastard

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really need hitting very hard

Seems like you really need Englishing very hard.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Approved Phrase was *magic* money tree, you bell-end. It's no wonder your lot did so badly. Whatever happened to message discipline?

(Obvs, magic money tree was always one of those super-twatty phrases that mean three-fifths of fuck-all, and is particularly ridiculous coming from a party that couldn't even cost a school breakfast policy correctly.

Re:What happened next?

[shilly]

"Clean Brexit" in the sense that a guillotine will cleanly separate a head from a body, right?

And the idea that the DUP, of all parties, will prevent a Conservative-led government from pursuing puritan policies!!

Re:What happened next?

[shilly]

I always thought "no deal is better than a bad deal" is a helpfully ambiguous phrase that could be re-interpreted in the future to mean "leaving things as they are [ie, no deal] is better than a bad deal [to exit]"

Re: What happened next?

[shilly]

Much as they might like Corbyn, they're not going to promise loyalty to the Queen, which is a requirement for taking office...

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the results are the same? Or do you mean changing the rules to require a super majority? In which case the existing majority is going to be pissed for showing favoritism to the minority and international interests?

There sometimes is no solution. Except maybe for the UK to break up.

Captca: Shocker

Re:What happened next?

[thegarbz]

which would be a disaster when managing Brexit given how divided the nation is on the topic.
Whereas having one party simply riide roughshod over about half the population is a fine idea.

Normally you'd be right on the money. A government can do the least amount of damage when they are unable to move forward. However in this case there is a deadline. A squabbling side of a negotiation is really really weak. This WILL be more of a disaster for Brexit than simply riding roughshod over half the population.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.
48% want to remain part of the EU. That's different than just not wanting Brexit. They love being free to travel, live and work where they want.
30% want those dirty immigrants out of GB at any cost (and still don't really believe this whole Brexit thing will happen)
10% wanted to stick it to the powers that be (har har har) and don't care as long as their next paycheck clears and those dirty immigrants leave
18% wanted Brexit because they hate all things not of England, especially those dirty immigrants.

Do you see a trend here?

Re:What happened next?

[angel'o'sphere]

Most people don't know about Murphies Law.

Re:What happened next?

[TechyImmigrant]

>that their health insurance gets better,

This is Britain. Health insurance is a burden Americans have to deal with. In the UK and most of the rest of the world there is a health service.
Offering better health insurance to a Brit is like offering better chastity belts to monks.

Re:What happened next?

[serviscope_minor]

What about the option for Labour to form a minority government?

That would require cooperation from the SNP and Lib Dems, which I don't see happening. The Lib Dems have learned the hard way that as a minor party in a coalition, their powers will punish them if the government behaves as anything less than a lib dem hegemony.

That seems more workable, with Corbyn being someone who can find common ground and bring people together.

Can he though? He refused to share a platform with Cameron on Remain. Is Cameron odious? Yep, but Brexit is worse and more permanent. IOW Corbyn is also guilty of putting party politics above country. Those aren't really the actions of someone willing to compromise for the greater good.

Anyhow it's now going to be a massive clusterfuck, though I can't help feeling that having a strong conservative majority would have been an even bigger clusterfuck. So yay for the lesser of two evils. :(

Re:What happened next?

[Sir Holo]

Nice little theory, but a far far simpler one is that May got greedy when the opinion polls made it look like she could vastly increase her majority by calling an election early. Boring slimy politics as usual.

Yes. Bang-on. Political greed.

Re:What happened next?

[Sir Holo]

I'm not so sure about this. What I can see here is that people were promised wonders over wonders if Brexit happens, ... basically that unicorns come and shit rainbows all across the sky.

You completely ignore history here.

It was a Flying Spaghetti Monster, not Rainbow Unicorn Poop, that created the universe, and that his return is what people bandy about when trying to sell something odious.

R'Amen

Re:What happened next?

[david_thornley]

The election of Trump was due to Republicans (in the primaries, and in the general election). It might be fair to say the Republicans didn't know what to do with President Trump, but the US doesn't really have plans to elect specific people, or to handle particular people winning an election.

The Brexit vote was not part of the UK constitution. It was a deliberate political action. Not planning for an unexpected result is stupid.

Re:What happened next?

[CanadianMacFan]

This is what you get in systems when there is no penalty when someone lies to try to get elected or to win a referendum. Toss the main leaders of the Leave side of the referendum into jail for 25 years for their lies and you will see it stop pretty quick. Toss May in there too for holding a snap election when she promised not to hold one when there wasn't a need for one. Toss Trump in for what he said he would do during his first 100 days but didn't do. Trudeau in Canada has broken some promises that could earn jail time. They get a trail to try to defend their actions but since some of the Leave side have admitted their lies it would be hard for them to get out of it.

Of course the big problem with this is that it requires the politicians to set it up and they aren't going to do something that would see them go to jail so easily.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what. Didn't happen. People are pissed.

We haven't left yet!

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason my comment was deleted, here it is again:

Guess what. Didn't happen. People are pissed.

We haven't left yet!

Not sure why as it is a valid point. May I also point out we don't have health insurance in the UK!

Teresa May did what I think any other party would have done in the same situation as until two weeks ago it seemed like she couldn't lose. In hindsight it obviously wasn't a good decision for her party!

Re:What happened next?

[tendrousbeastie]

Partly yes, but that's only one interpretation.

May had no mandate - she inherited the job after Cameron resigned. She was entering the Brexit negotiations with no mandate and only the slimmest of majorities. This would mean that she was at the mercy of the outliers in her party, in particular the right wing who wanted (and have always wanted) a complete withdrawl from Europe. They knew and she knew that they could make life hell for the government unless she went for a full on hard Brexit policy.

At least in part her hope was that by winning a larger majority she would have more flexibility in the negotiations. She would be able to make concessions without being threatened by a small minority of her party.

Of course it is in part political greed. But there were also perfectly reasonable political explanations for why calling an election was a good idea for May the Conservatives.

Now, as it happens the trouble with calling an election is that you have to actual win it, and she has barely scraped through. So, her problem is worse than it was before. Going into the Brexit negotiations she will be at the mercy of every special interest in her party and in others. Especially given the power she has had to give to the DUP.

Changing leaders wont change this situation. Given the way British government works, a different leader will still face the same situation in parliament and the country.

The only thing that could change this is the one thing that cannot happen: a new election - either a new general election (which wont work, people are fed up with elections and will vote out of anger) or a new EU referendum (which would break the country apart).

Re: What happened next?

[shilly]

May's ability to argue these points is just a *teensy* bit compromised by the fact her new shiny government is now propped up by the political wing of the UDA. And I don't think May will be allowed to call a GE ever again. The Tories are furious at her

Re:What happened next?

[Opportunist]

Sorry, sorry, my fault. What I meant is that they hope their health service improves back to the levels it was before. It seems that some blame immigrants for (ab)using the health system beyond its supposed usage level and thus the service quality has deteriorated.

Re:What happened next?

[dywolf]

DUP is for hard brexit, cutting all ties to europe.

Re:What happened next?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Most people who voted for Brexit simply wanted to be a country outside of the EU, like any other. The idea that there was confusion over different types of Brexit is largely an invention of the Remainers, as is the idea that this election was about Brexit. It was hardly mentioned.

Re:What happened next?

[locofungus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/elec...

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)
The DUP is in favour of Northern Ireland leaving the EU but says that Brexit does not mean "leaving Europe".
It adds that it will prioritise maintaining the CTA between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
Aims:
frictionless border with the Irish Republic; assisting those working or travelling in the other jurisdiction
Northern Ireland established as a hub for trade from the Irish Republic into the broader UK market
comprehensive free trade and customs agreement with the EU
arrangements to facilitate ease of movement of people, goods and services

Comprehensive free trade and customs agreement, ease of movement of people, goods and services doesn't sound hard brexit to me.

Re:What happened next?

[TechyImmigrant]

> It seems that some blame immigrants for (ab)using the health system beyond its supposed usage level and thus the service quality has deteriorated.

But of course that's not true. Immigrants are economically productive, more than the existing citizens due to demographics. So they bear more of the cost of health care than the average and only increase the tax revenue.

Re:What happened next?

[Opportunist]

A few more like this and you have a standup routine.

Re:What happened next?

[TechyImmigrant]

You should hang out with more economists.

Re:What happened next?

[Opportunist]

I do frequently. Afterwards I feel like I need a long shower.

Re: What happened next?

[dywolf]

Theres what they say while they cut a deal for power and influence, and what theyve said before and behind closed doors.

Theyre for hard brexit.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/...

Best result

[Anonymous Coward]

hopefully a hampered coalition takes charge this would be by far the best outcome.

Seeing into the abyss?

[Gravis Zero]

I'm just wondering if much of electorate that placed these people in power have gazed into the abyss of populism and seen that darkness ahead. I certainly hope so because there is still time to set things right in the world.

Re:Seeing into the abyss?

[lucm]

Maybe UK people just vote "against" rather than "for" like they do in many parts of the world. Case in point, the USA.

Re:Seeing into the abyss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really,

Nothing is more populist than promising the electorate a bunch of free money gleaned from the rich, yet political opinion has swayed toward the party offering just that. The electorate have simply moved toward even more populism.

Re:Seeing into the abyss?

[oobayly]

I think that's very much the case in this election. My constituency - which would elect a sex-offender if you put a blue* rosette - normally has the Lib Dems as runners up with Labour in 3rd. This time it was Tory, Labour, LD (60%, 20%, 15%). For the first time I saw a good few "Vote Labour" posters in Windows in my town, so I think they played the "Vote Tactically" game well.

* Blue = Tory, Red = Labour

Re:Seeing into the abyss?

[AHuxley]

Re "populism and seen that darkness ahead"?
An election was held, people voted, the count will see a conservative and DUP government.
If another party presents some good ideas next election they might win.
If a political party wants to win, find a politician who can win and get the full support of a political party.
Voters usually like a good leader who can speak well and who has good ideas.
If a party is split and a leader has issues they often don't win.

Re:Seeing into the abyss?

[Gravis Zero]

Voters usually like a good leader who can speak well and who has good ideas.

That's true but they prefer charismatic figures that validate their biases.

Should couldn't even ...

[Malc]

... be bothered to participate in the multi-party televised election debates. In the debate the Tories did turn up, she sent the Home Secretary, whose father had died days beforehand.

Weak leadership.

Re:Should couldn't even ...

[Chrisq]

... be bothered to participate in the multi-party televised election debates. In the debate the Tories did turn up, she sent the Home Secretary, whose father had died days beforehand.

Weak leadership.

What's worse is that having been the one who called the election in the first place she gave the excuse that "there wasn't time for her to participate with the election because of the brexit business". She only just fell short of saying "What idiot called an election at this time?".

or maybe encryption

[johnjones]

Theresa May wanted to have "back doors" in encryption schemes to allow government access and everyone with a clue laughed at her

she stood by the claims and this is what happens....

maybe next time a politician dreams of this we can remind them of how this turned out...

John Jones

Re:or maybe encryption

[AmiMoJo]

Sadly I doubt this had much impact. It was all down to May being completely useless, demonstrating bad judgement and almost unbelievable weakness. She announced policies, and then days later was bullied into changing them.

That and Corbyn being actually really, really good.

Re:or maybe encryption

[Opportunist]

I think this result has more to do with her pretty much saying that civil liberties go out the window if they stand in her way in her quest for total surveillance of her subjects. I mean, her struggle against the terror.

I think she mistakes the idea of a "state power monopoly" for "we must be the only ones allowed to terrorize the population".

Re:or maybe encryption

[Opportunist]

It's easy to be really, really good if you're up against something like that. Compared to her, even Trump looks competent.

Re:or maybe encryption

[thegarbz]

she stood by the claims and this is what happens....

Correlation ... causation... Sorry but her opinion on back doors or tearing up human rights have nothing to do with this result. She had demonstrated a spectacular slide in the polls long before these items of interest to a small minority even hit the news.

This is about Britain realising that May's attitude would not only deliver Brexit, but would do so in the worst possible way. Austerity, weakness, screw the local economy, fuck the EU, and hope that the UK somehow survives.

I'm just waiting for sex toy manufacturers to produce an anal toy named "hard brexit".

Re:or maybe encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been going on since the 1990s. Not handing over your password or keys for encrypted files means you can be charged and found guilty for whatever the law agencies are investigating you for. It was finally passed by a Labour government with Tony Blair at the helm.

The "security" agencies all over the world have been dragneting for years, and they have been passing that data to associated governments. Wakey wakey. You've been around long enough to know this, and should certainly know $existing_thing + internet is not something new.

Re:or maybe encryption

[Zocalo]

I'd disagree with Corbyn being good. Despite a few missteps, like fumbling for figures on his iPad during a live interview, he talked the talk on the campaign trail which was a big surprise for many, but his proposed policies for the UK are no less of a disaster area than those of the Conservatives. Given how the redistribution of the UKIP vote was split between the two parties, my take is that this was the equivalent of Trump vs. Clinton, with many people voting for their least worst choice rather than an clear preferred choice.

In my view, that split in UKIP is the real takeaway here, and is what the next government (in whatever form it eventually takes, although a Conversatives + DUP alliance looks most likely) really needs to take note of. Other policies aside, the Conversatives were promising a hard exit, Labour were promising a softer one, and the former UKIP voters (and many others) seem to have picked accordingly. Looking at the figures now it seems that on top of the 48% of the electorate that didn't want Brexit in the first place, about half of those who might be said to be the hardliners for it don't want a hard Brexit either - swinging from the political right of UKIP to the political left of Labour to do so. That's a clear rejection of the hard-Brexit strategy that Theresa May was working for, and absoutely demands that the next government take the softer stance that the ~50:50 referendum split should have made them take in the first place, and in doing so hopefully salvage a workable arrangement.

Re:or maybe encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... actually the encryption and human rights issues were some of the deciding factors for me... but then, I read slashdot.

Re:or maybe encryption

[Maritz]

Compared to her, even Trump looks competent.

Nah. lol.

Trump makes Bush look erudite and wise, and that takes some fucking doing.

Re:or maybe encryption

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Theresa May wanted to have "back doors" in encryption schemes to allow government access and everyone with a clue laughed at her

she stood by the claims and this is what happens....

I betcha she regularly drank water, too.

Re:or maybe encryption

[thegarbz]

I'm not saying it didn't sway individuals. I'm just saying it isn't what contributed to an incredibly huge slide in her support.

There's a saying...

[dasunt]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Tories have played stupid games in the last two elections they called for. They've won stupid prizes as a result.

Re:There's a saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stupid is, as stupid does." - Describes the Mayfly quite well.

Well at least she didn't lose her Maidenhead

[Anonymous Coward]

Or so we are told... That's what she gets for dissing the Trumpster.

"Tear up" human rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't we just have an article where Theresa May vowed to "tear up" human rights to combat terrorism?

Hung government notwithstanding, getting rid of her is a good thing, right?

Re:"Tear up" human rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe but we could end up with a Theresa clone ruling.

Re:"Tear up" human rights?

[dgatwood]

That was precisely my first thought when I saw this story. Apparently the UK does value human rights after all.

Re:"Tear up" human rights?

[CanadianMacFan]

Not enough to kick her to the curb though.

Britain Is Sorely Divided

[EzInKy]

I really don't see much left that allows them to be united anymore. It would probably be best to allow the remnants of the formally great Empire to go their separate ways.

Re:Britain Is Sorely Divided

[MightyMartian]

Except the SNP was clobbered in this election, demonstrating that the Scots have no desire for independence. This election is bad news for the Tories, but very good news for the Union . Alex Salmond, the Big Daddy of Scottish independence lost his seat, for goodness sake.

Re:Britain Is Sorely Divided

[swb]

Nobody is talking about the drubbing SNP took. It looked to me like they were down 40-50% of their seats.

In the states I don't have access to data that shows whether the seats the Tories reclaimed in Scotland were traditional Tory constituencies and they just reverted to traditional voting patterns or whether these were contested seats that could have swung either way.

Re:Britain Is Sorely Divided

[MightyMartian]

And yet to me the SNP's beating is probably, in the long-term, one of the most significant parts of this election. It really does mean that the Nats hit the high water mark over the last few years, but Brexit or No Brexit, the Scots have no intention of voting themselves out of the UK.

Politics on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck you post this political crap on /. ???

It's not tech, it's not science.. this shit doesn't belong here.

There's literally million other sites where you can perform your disgusting babble.

Re:Politics on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed!

Splendid!

[schleimkeim]

A woman who states publicly that she is willing to shit on human rights for security loses votes

Good.

May wasn't trusted...

[Anonymous Coward]

By working class Brexit voters. They simply didn't trust that she'd deliver what they voted for in the plebiscite. So those that voted for the Tories (many for the first time in their lives) in 2015 on the promise of the Referendum being held, returned to Labour.

DUP ireland

[aepervius]

Democratic Unionist Party already gave sign they would work with conservative to form a majority - for a "price". So no it does not mean no law will be passed or the gov lose its authority. As for brexit, havign no clear majority means the parties will ahve to negociate. Much better for democracy than May which thought she had a mandate to ram UK citizen whatever she wanted.

Election Cycle

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone have a link explaining why most parliamentary system governments don't have a fixed election cycle?

Re:Election Cycle

[gl4ss]

Anyone have a link explaining why most parliamentary system governments don't have a fixed election cycle?

oh but most have, usually like 4 years.

britain isnt strictly democratic parliamentary system though, with fixed seats and shit.

Re:Election Cycle

[itsdapead]

Actually, since 2010-ish, the UK does have a fixed, 5-year election cycle, designed to stop PMs calling snap elections at their party's convenience whenever they like what they're hearing in the opinion polls.

However, the legislation was drafted by politicians and thus has an "unless you really want to" clause, which is why we've just had a snap election called by the PM at her party's convenience because she liked what she was hearing in the opinion polls.

On the other hand, maybe the resulting debacle will make future leaders learn from history and think twice,,, wait, no what am I saying?

Re:Election Cycle

[Tapewolf]

However, the legislation was drafted by politicians and thus has an "unless you really want to" clause, which is why we've just had a snap election called by the PM at her party's convenience because she liked what she was hearing in the opinion polls.

As I understood it, the key difference is that the PM has get it approved, and the opposition party duly did so. If they had said 'no', it wouldn't have happened.

Re:Election Cycle

[itsdapead]

As I understood it, the key difference is that the PM has get it approved, and the opposition party duly did so. If they had said 'no', it wouldn't have happened.

...and yet approved it even though the prediction at the time was that the Labour party were going to be decimated and the PM returned with a stonking majority - which begs the question "under what circumstances would parliament not approve a snap election"?

actually

[johnjones]

Corbyn can not be described really really good since he did not even manage gordon brown level for labour seats... thats the reality
yes labour seats are up from before but if you start low then going up is easy,

your going to be dealing with the DUP being king/queen makers... good luck with that....

the point stands May made terrible mistakes and one of which was encryption

Re:actually

[AmiMoJo]

Corbyn got more votes for Labour than they have had since 1997. You can slice it any number of ways, but the fact is he took a 25 point deficit and reduced it to near zero.

Hopefully turmoil in the Tory party will prevent any kind of DUP deal, but I'm not optimistic. Like the Lib Dems, they may be unable to resist tasting a little bit of power. Like the Libs Dems, the Tories will screw them.

Re:actually

[Hognoxious]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Do you really think they'll fall for it again?

Re:actually

[jeremyp]

Yes but do you know why Labour had a 25 point deficit? Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is fucking useless. His only positive point was that his opponent in this election turned out to be even more fucking useless.

Re:actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually no, voters (you know, the actual people) love him, it's the media and other Labour MPs that hate him because he's not a good little establishment media whore. I'd suggest the biggest vote loser for the Labour party is Dianne Abbot.

Re:actually

[Bongo]

I always thought he should lead the Green Party. Posh jam and windmills. But now Labour get to be real opposition, his idealism will be shown up as ramblings of the nutter who wanders the streets of Oxford. Still, that's entertainment. The country has bigger problems. Heck the Western world has bigger problems. But the beauty of it is that everyone muddles along, and doesn't complain too much. Muddle muddle muddle. Jam, anyone?

Re:actually

[AmiMoJo]

Corbyn was doing badly because his MPs were not backing him. The membership loved him, but the MPs thought he could not win. They were wrong, he turned out to be popular with the electorate and more than that a great campaigner/speaker.

Re: actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Blair received 40 per cent of the total number of votes in 2005 and won 355 seats giving him a majority of 66.

Corbyn got 40 percent of the vote in 2017 and won 261 seats giving him 53 less seats than the Tories.

Which just goes to show that our "First Past The Post" electoral system is the most stupid system outside of the US Electoral College.

Re:actually

[Anonymous Coward]

GOrdon Brown got 258
Labour have at least 261

So maybe check your facts.

Re:actually

[drinkypoo]

Do you really think they'll fall for it again?

Look at 'em. Do you really think they won't?

Re:actually

[Anonymous Coward]

the point stands May made terrible mistakes and one of which was encryption

And another was calling an election.

Re:actually

[Freischutz]

Corbyn was doing badly because his MPs were not backing him. The membership loved him, but the MPs thought he could not win. They were wrong, he turned out to be popular with the electorate and more than that a great campaigner/speaker.

Corbyn got young people to vote which is a longstanding source of failure for the left and not just in the UK. For that alone he deserves a whole box of Cuban cigars. He also took a few leafs out of Donald Trump's book, held rallies and came up with a set of simple targeted messages about fixing various grievances. Meanwhile there was Theresa May talking about allowing fox hunting again (when 80% of the nation hates the idea because it stinks of aristocracy), being mean to old people, taking meals away from school kids and defunding the NHS so I think Theresa May's ivory tower view on the world didn't hurt Corbyn either.

Re: actually

[Topwiz]

I think it means that much like the US election, the loser had large margins in areas they won while losing others by slim margins.

Re:actually

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet Corbyn just breathed huge life into the left wing of his party, the youth vote and will almost certainly be PM after the next election.

Doesnt sound useless to me at all.

Re:actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Young people CANNOT vote May and her internet police state. The internet is too important to them. It doesn't mean they share the same policies/values.

Re:actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Know why they don't have a 25 point defecit? Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is leftwing, which is why you and the media berate belittle and battle him every chance you get.

Re:actually

[jareth-0205]

Corbyn can not be described really really good since he did not even manage gordon brown level for labour seats... thats the reality
yes labour seats are up from before but if you start low then going up is easy,

your going to be dealing with the DUP being king/queen makers... good luck with that....

the point stands May made terrible mistakes and one of which was encryption

In terms of vote share it's one of the highest ever, but the weirdness of FPTP polling and other parties has skewed things away from them somewhat.

Re: actually

[Anonymous Coward]

May got more votes than the Tories have had since 1992...

Re:actually

[radarskiy]

"simple targeted messages about fixing various grievances"

Never underestimate the Festivus vote.

Re:actually

[mjwx]

Yes but do you know why Labour had a 25 point deficit? Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is fucking useless. His only positive point was that his opponent in this election turned out to be even more fucking useless.

I dont think highly of Corbyn (nor May, but I digress) but like or hate him, he ran a stellar campaign. He managed to turn the labour party from totally unelectable to a serious threat in less than 2 months. Even though he lost, his campaign will be added to the textbooks for how well it was run.

Corbyn, unlike may managed to set, stick to and send out a clear message (For the many, not the few, in case you forgot) where as May floundered, flip-flopped and fannied about. Honestly, she spent too much time trying to sound like Margret Thatcher instead of showing us she was a leader. The discontent with the SNP in Scotland is the only reason he's not PM right now. The Tories rested on their laurels and didn't take Corbyn seriously, now they're paying for it.

Two good things came out of this election.
1. Neither the Tories or Labour get to rule by fiat.
2. UKIP were wiped out.

Don't you think she looks tired?

[Anonymous Coward]

(n/c)

Re:Don't you think she looks tired?

[Opportunist]

I think she looks miserable. Maybe just take her back behind the house and put her out of her misery, she's just torturing herself.

And, more importantly, us.

Re:Don't you think she looks tired?

[magusxxx]

I think he was quoting Dr. Who

Re:Don't you think she looks tired?

[Hognoxious]

She *is* miserable, the puritan cunt.

You can take the girl out of the vicarage...

Re:Don't you think she looks tired?

[Anonymous Coward]

Explains the joke.

Re:Don't you think she looks tired?

[Cederic]

As a friend commented overnight, she looks like a Sith Lord.

Acts like one too...

Re:Don't you think she looks tired?

[Salgak1]

. . .but does she constantly flash ID, saying "Theresa May, Prime Minister" ??

And if Terrorism was such a problem, why didn't she put Torchwood on it ???

Mind you, she is more than a little wibbly-wobbly. No word on if she's timey-wimey. . . .

Russia has all the backdoors

[Anonymous Coward]

Given CIA was backdoored, Russia would quickly get access to those UK backdoors. So she'd undermine UK democracy the way the US was undermine.

She's weak, a solid leader would have pointed to the 6 shot dead in Florida in just ONE incident the same day, or the 9 shot by a drunk angry Russian, and put the deaths into perspective.

A solid leader would calm down the shit, and not do the Fox News scaremongering as excuse to push their own agenda. Instead she did a full on 'tech companies to blame/ Human Rights legislation to blame/ there's no human right she wouldn't undermine or security she wouldn't backdoor to use this even for political gain'.

Tories should eject her.

Re:Russia has all the backdoors

[Maritz]

A solid leader would calm down the shit, and not do the Fox News scaremongering as excuse to push their own agenda. Instead she did a full on 'tech companies to blame/ Human Rights legislation to blame/ there's no human right she wouldn't undermine or security she wouldn't backdoor to use this even for political gain'.

Tories should eject her.

No in terms of authoritarianism she's perfect for the Tories. They are traditionally a party of 'christian' values and the associated shame about sex, porn, children out of wedlock, and the like.

Grabbing power as a response to 'terror' is standard pretty much everywhere nowadays. Nobody cares, they've been successfully cowed.

Sinn Fein is now a coalition lynchpin

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony is epic here...

Re:Sinn Fein is now a coalition lynchpin

[Anonymous Coward]

unless by some slim chance a united Ireland come into play via brexit talks - they will stay out of London politics as has been their tradition.

Re:Sinn Fein is now a coalition lynchpin

[Chrisq]

The irony is epic here...

I think you mean the DUP! They have 10 seats and are more aligned with the Conservatives. Sinn Fein could only just conceivably form an alliance together with Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Cymru if conservatives could not form an alliance

How the Scots can F the Brits

[Portal1]

If the SNP would agree to form a coalition with the conservatives, on the single condition that they can leave the UK and stay in the EU, they can get their independence.
It will give the British and Welsh people what they voted for, and I think soon will regret.
And it will not be their problem anymore.

The Scots voted in 2014 only to stay in the UK, because leaving the UK would have meant leaving the EU.
And in 2016 they voted mainly to remain, as they did not want to leave the EU.

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, that would require another referendum first. And the GE results are a strong indication that such a referendum would return a result against leaving the union.

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[kyrsjo]

> on the single condition that they can leave the UK and stay in the EU, they can get their independence.

That may not only be up to the UK tough - there is no guarantee that a free Scotland would be allowed to stay in the EU while the rest of UK leaves. At least Spain would probably disagree strongly to that.

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[mvdwege]

Yoon bullshit.

Spain has stated that if Scottish independence is gained within a correct constitutional framework they will not oppose it.

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[Cederic]

The Conservatives are strictly committed to the union though, so couldn't countenance allowing Scotland to commit economic suicide like that.

The SNP had better get nowhere near being in the UK government anyway. They act like spiteful racist little shits and I'm glad they lost half their seats.

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's not really called the conservative and unionist party of the united kingdom so it's not like it has any problem with its own articles of association

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot of wishful thinking surrounding Brexit. Scottland is part of the UK and the UK invoked article 50. The UK and Scotland, whether it is still part of the UK or not, are not going to be part of the EU beyond April 2019. To change that would require a unanimous vote by all EU members, which is not going to happen. Scotland could leave the UK and apply for EU membership, but they would not get in as soon as they leave the UK, and the UK would have absolutely no say in it.

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

The polling in Scotland implies that a decision to take them out of the union wouldn't be straightforward to implement at best. However I'm pretty sure that if the British as a nation agreed on it and the wording was clear enough that it wasn't a semi-autonomous region unilaterally leaving and maintaining membership of the EU then Spain would likely go along with it.

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[prefect42]

You really think it's plausible that the Conservative and Unionist Party could take a position to break up the union?

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

The Scots voted in 2014 only to stay in the UK, because leaving the UK would have meant leaving the EU.
And in 2016 they voted mainly to remain, as they did not want to leave the EU.

Then they gambled and lost. They knew a referendum was on the books.

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[fellip_nectar]

Spain has stated that if Scottish independence is gained within a correct constitutional framework they will not oppose it.

They've stated they would not oppose the validity of an independent Scottish state, but they have said nothing of the sort with regards to said state's EU membership.

How again is that bullshit?

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[blind biker]

The SNP lost a record 21 seats in these elections, because they were threatening the independence referendum again. The Scots said enough. I think there is no appetite for independence in today's Scotland.

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[mvdwege]

You missed the news? Spain has stated that Scotland would be treated as any other potential entrant. Period.

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, that would require another referendum first.

Why would it require another referendum? London can kick them out for all the limits on their power.

"There is no Parliament but Parliament."

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

The British and the Welsh? The Welsh are British, as are the Scots. Do you mean the English? The Welsh are the original British.

Re:How the Scots can F the Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the bit where the Conservatives would never entertain that idea for a nanosecond, and the SNP wouldn't back them on those conditions either, because what would be the point? Their own referendum came down the wrong way, and the SNP itself was the biggest single loser in this election.

So...

[denzacar]

May may in May but she can't now it's June?

The DUP

[Epeeist]

Question is whether the DUP will support the Tories, formally or informally and what they will demand for their pound of flesh.

Re:The DUP

[AHuxley]

Confidence and supply should be no issue.

Stability eh?

[harlequinn]

"At this time more than anything else, this country needs a period of stability"

Then she probably shouldn't have called an election... Lol.

But what if...

[denzacar]

...we start arming foxes with machine guns and RPGs and teach them how to set up IEDs?

Re:But what if...

[Opportunist]

Then she'll get the support of the aristocracy by making fox hunting not only a sport but a duty for national safety.

Re:But what if...

[Anonymous Coward]

The support of the aristocracy won't help her much once the most of the aristocrats have been killed by gunfoxes.

Well...

[notequinoxe]

May's gone, it's June now.. Awww yeaaaa!

Said it before

[BlueCoder]

Brexit isn't a foregone conclusion. It's also two years of negotiations. There should also be negotiations to stay. At the end of the negotiations there should be another referendum or maybe even two or three until there is a significant majority.

Chief among issues is immigration. Call it racist all you want but a country does not feel like a country if it can't control it's own borders. Furthermore the richer nations really do need to contribute more for the border protection in the eastern nations.

There is also opportunity to change the current way the EU does business (high handed) specifically in it's regulations and how nations might choose to opt out. The way I see it "most" regulations should take 10 or more years or say three elections so that opposition can be organized to reverse course.

Furthermore banking needs to change. Stop the bailouts that make certain people rich. Just declare bankruptcy already and get good people into Greece and Italy to rebuild something sane. Bankruptcy should always be on the table and almost automatic to insure that the people investing money are doing so on sound business principles rather than just a promise from the EU to guarantee their money.

Re:Said it before

[Chrisq]

Chief among issues is immigration. Call it racist all you want but a country does not feel like a country if it can't control it's own borders. Furthermore the richer nations really do need to contribute more for the border protection in the eastern nations.

.

I have heard a lot of people say that they wanted brexit because of the Muslims. Whereas nobody with sense would want a group dedicated to overthrowing democracy and installing an Islamic theocracy, some seemed to think that EU is the main source of concern. There are no denying that some muzzy scum with EU citizenship to arrive in the UK, but this is insignificant compared to the numbers from non-EU countries.

The worrying thing is that brexit may make this worse. At the moment European migrants have priority. If we go for a points system the Jihadis will be lining up with their false qualifications from terrorist states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Re:Said it before

[Anonymous Coward]

Brexit isn't a foregone conclusion.

It wasn't until the end of March, when Mrs. May invoked article 50. It is a "foregone conclusion" now. The only remaining matter is how, not if.

Re:Said it before

[AmiMoJo]

The EU needs fewer opt-outs, not more. The whole point of the single market, which is essential for truly free trade, is that no member state has an unfair advantage. The only reason people ever want opt-outs is to get an advantage.

That's why the UK is doomed in the Brexit negotiations. The UK seems to think that it can get some kind of special deal where it gives its industries huge advantages over the EU, but clearly the EU is never going to accept that and will offset the advantage with tariffs.

Re:Said it before

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the UK imported more migrants by itself than ever chose to move to the UK for work from inside the EU.

Re:Said it before

[Anonymous Coward]

Brexit isn't a foregone conclusion. It's also two years of negotiations. There should also be negotiations to stay. At the end of the negotiations there should be another referendum or maybe even two or three until there is a significant majority.

Not according to May, if you've noticed.

Call it racist all you want but a country does not feel like a country if it can't control it's own borders.

It is racist. And coming from the British, hypocritical to the extreme.

Not only does it show in their rampant hysteria where they denigrate and attack the character and nature of every component of foreigners, the fact that the British were so imperialistic in their own overweening desire to spread their glorious culture renders them very morally unsound in their complaints.

There is also opportunity to change the current way the EU does business (high handed) specifically in it's regulations and how nations might choose to opt out. The way I see it "most" regulations should take 10 or more years or say three elections so that opposition can be organized to reverse course.

Sorry, but there's been too many breathless complaints and dogged resistance to even the most relevant of regulations for that to fly.

Furthermore banking needs to change. Stop the bailouts that make certain people rich. Just declare bankruptcy already and get good people into Greece and Italy to rebuild something sane. Bankruptcy should always be on the table and almost automatic to insure that the people investing money are doing so on sound business principles rather than just a promise from the EU to guarantee their money.

Good people into Greece and Italy, but not to the financial centers in Germany and England.

Re:Said it before

[ooloorie]

The whole point of the single market, which is essential for truly free trade

Having free trade requires first and foremost actually having free markets, which the EU doesn't.

The UK seems to think that it can get some kind of special deal where it gives its industries huge advantages over the EU, but clearly the EU is never going to accept that and will offset the advantage with tariffs.

Actually, the "huge advantages" the UK might be able to realize would be to actually strike true free trade deals with nations that matter, like the US and China, as opposed to being locked into mercantilist arrangements with the decrepit and troubled nations of continental Europe.

Re:Said it before

[AmiMoJo]

Free trade with the US and China means competing on a level playing field with them. Do you really want to be level with China it Trump's America?

Re:Said it before

[ooloorie]

What does "Trump's America" have to do with UK free trade with China?

Re:Said it before

[AmiMoJo]

I meant "and" not "it", my mistake.

Re:Said it before

[Anonymous Coward]

Chief among issues is immigration. Call it racist all you want but a country does not feel like a country if it can't control it's own borders.

We already have control of our borders, because we're not part of the Schengen agreement (alongside Ireland). Indeed, the government white paper on leaving the EU makes this distinction clear.

Immigration is a different matter to control of borders. We have freedom of movement for EU citizens, but it should be noted that Labour and the Conservatives have failed to exercise any of the immigration controls that are available under EU freedom of movement law. Neither have they bothered to check who is and is not settling in the country from the EU, which they could do like other EU countries.

Sadly, the EU is considered a good scapegoat for UK government incompetence. If we do leave, the government will need a new scapegoat.

Re:Said it before

[angel'o'sphere]

Shows how dumb people are.
Most muslims in the UK come from Parkistan, Bangladesh, India etc. all old british colonies and members of the commonwealth.
They have nothing to do with the EU and get citizenship more or less automatically.

Re:Said it before

[angel'o'sphere]

Having free trade requires first and foremost actually having free markets, which the EU doesn't.
Which definition of free market are you using that you believe the EU has none?

The rest you wrote is basically bollocks.

Re:Said it before

[ooloorie]

Which definition of free market are you using that you believe the EU has none?

The same one as the EU: EU members widely proclaim that they believe in a "social market economy", as distinct from the horrible, icky American "free market" (their distinction, not mine).

The rest you wrote is basically bollocks.

You're basically an idiot, so I take that as a compliment.

Re:Said it before

[angel'o'sphere]

So what is the difference between the USA 'free market' and the EU 'not so free' market?
Care to explain? (Idiot?)

Re:Said it before

[ooloorie]

So what is the difference between the USA 'free market' and the EU 'not so free' market?

There is little difference: they are both social market economies, rather than free markets. Why do you ask?

Re:Said it before

[angel'o'sphere]

Because you claimed one had a free market and the other not ...
Distinguishing between a free maket and a "a social market economy" is bit nitpicking anway, isn't it?

Re:Said it before

[Anonymous Coward]

The same one as the EU: EU members widely proclaim that they believe in a "social market economy", as distinct from the horrible, icky American "free market" (their distinction, not mine).

The US does not have a free market. It is much more restricted than in the EU.

Re:Said it before

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think those "nations that matter" would not coerce a minor nation with little bargaining power into very unfavourable deals? The UK is in a much weaker position than the EU as a whole. Moreover, most of the UK's most important trade partners are in the EU. The UK cannot strike separate deals with EU members; they will have to deal with the EU as a whole (and be in a very weak position).

Re:Said it before

[ooloorie]

Because you claimed one had a free market and the other not ...

No, I didn't. You need to read more carefully.

Distinguishing between a free maket and a "a social market economy" is bit nitpicking anway, isn't it?

I don't think so, and neither do most European politicians, who insist on the distinction (they simply happen to misrepresent the US).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Slashdot Has Lost it's Way.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is politics not tech.

Re:Slashdot Has Lost it's Way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the Liberal Democrats (which are analogous to the Republican Party in the US - go figure) now have significant bargaining power and could possibly finally get their way in the criminalization of digital currencies - something they've been salivating over ever since Silk Road.

Re:Slashdot Has Lost it's Way.

[CanadianMacFan]

You should look at the DUP with which May just partnered with. They are the hard-core Republicans.

Re:Slashdot Has Lost it's Way.

[squiggleslash]

The Liberal Democrats are way to the left of both US Republicans and US Democrats. Generally, if the (US) Democrats were to field candidates in the UK they'd be considered right wing.

PLEASE STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we please stop with the false reporting?

The conservative party won a MAJORITY in parliament. What they did not win was a PLURALITY.

Please understand the difference.

Re:PLEASE STOP

[gman003]

You have that exactly backwards. A plurality is the largest party. A majority is a party with over 50% of the vote. The Tories have a plurality but no single party has a majority now.

Re:PLEASE STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

On behalf of AC's, I apologize for OP's ridiculous post.

-- different AC

Re:PLEASE STOP

[WillAffleckUW]

This false argument was used in BC up in Canada when the Liberal party (a right wing party) lost to the NDP and Green parties.

It didn't work there.

It won't work in the UK.

Parliamentary Democracies don't work the way our failed Democracy in the US does.

Re: PLEASE STOP

[bestweasel]

I've not heard the term plurality in the UK. An absolute majority is where a party gets more than half the total number of seats in the House of Commons and can thus govern by itself. This is what Theresa May had, gave up and has failed to regain. The total share of the vote is not relevant.

Re:PLEASE STOP

[angel'o'sphere]

Are you sure it is defined like that in the UK(aka British English)?
Because if you translate that word by word into German it makes no sense at all.

Re:PLEASE STOP

[gman003]

Typical British usage (according to my sources, at least) is "absolute majority" (>50% vote) versus "relative majority" (largest vote), with "majority" typically but not always referring to "absolute majority" when unspecified.

However, it was the original anonymous poster who chose to use the American terms "plurality" versus "majority". A check of the Oxford dictionary shows they do not have a different definition for "plurality", therefore GGP was either a Brit confused by unfamiliar American terminology, or an American unaware of UK terminology and precisely wrong about American definitions.

Re:PLEASE STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

This. The UK is not a two-party system. There are 650 MPs in parliament, so any party, to execute its policies, needs 326 of those MPs to be members of their party. That is what's called a 'working majority'. However, even this isn't that great since convincing every single MP to vote a single way is like herding cats. Simply having more MPs than the next biggest party isn't enough, especially for the Tories since (almost) every other party hates their guts.

Troll the vote?

[Is Don the new Ron]

Or maybe the voting public has now decided to bring to the ballot booth their online attitude of frivolity above all. Maybe voters who in the past simply stayed away, convinced that Candidate X is gong to be the runaway winner, now voted for somebody other than Candidate X?

Deep state/police state always wins?

[Anonymous Coward]

Deep state/police state always wins?

I would like to know.

Please get a dictionary

[Chrisq]

Can we please stop with the false reporting?

The conservative party won a MAJORITY in parliament. What they did not win was a PLURALITY.

Please understand the difference.

I suggest you look up the meaning of overall majority

Bribing young voters...

[Bruce66423]

My sincere congratulations to the Labour party for working out how to bribe the younger generation in such a way as to get them to turn out for you. Let's be clear what Corbyn was proposing; raising taxes on the few to ensure that the relatively gifted will get a large benefit. Not the NHS. Not schools. But people who are doing well, are going to university, are looking forward to being the relatively well off, were bribed by Labour.

There's a reason why political philosophers oppose democracy from first principles; because it can allow a group in society that happens to be a numerical majority to mug the rest of the community. The Tories were doing with pensioners, but got too honest this time in abandoning the 'triple lock'. Now Labour has mobilised the young... I don't think this will end well!

Social care nailed her.

[Going_Digital]

When she announced that the conservatives would take the value of peoples homes into account when assessing funding for home care she lost a big chunk of their core supporters. The majority of Conservative voters are middle aged, middle class homeowners. They feel that by buying their home they have been responsible and had to cut back on spending for discretionary items to pay for it. They feel it grossly unfair that people who have lived the high life and spent all their money on holidays and recreation get free care where as they get their home taken from them. She gambled that she could push this through because people would still vote conservative because they had no confidence in the labour opposition. But that gamble didn't pay off, people turned to the opposition.

Re:Social care nailed her.

[Anonymous Coward]

The people that end up being retired without owning their home tend to be those too poor to buy one, and haven't been living "the high life". They are much more likely to be living in housing considered substandard

Re:Social care nailed her.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a reader form across the pond, I appreciate your clear & succinct summary of what happened.

Who is the weirdo?

[Topwiz]

I just want to know who was the weirdo in the yellow and black 'clown suit' standing behind Corbyn during one of his news conferences.

Re:Who is the weirdo?

[itsdapead]

I just want to know who was the weirdo in the yellow and black 'clown suit' standing behind Corbyn during one of his news conferences.

Probably the candidate for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Sadly, they weren't standing in my neck of the woods, because if you read their manifesto you'll see its the most consistent and coherent of the lot (E.g. "Atheism will be given charity status, being a non-prophet organization").

The constituencies for the main party leaders always attract half a dozen or so, er... alternative candidates.

Re:Who is the weirdo?

[Topwiz]

You are right, it was Nigel Knapp.

Re:Who is the weirdo?

[CanadianMacFan]

The UK has a proud history of fringe candidates running in elections. In May's riding there was Lord Buckethead who may have been the same person who ran in two other elections. There has been a Lord Buckethead running in those two elections but since they never took their bucket off of their head it's not known if it's the same person.

Re:Who is the weirdo?

[CanadianMacFan]

The June 9, 2017 edition of the No Such Thing as a Fish podcast (from the people that research for the Qi show) talk about the British election and spend a lot of time on the fringe candidates such as Lord Buckethead, Mr. Fishfinger, and Elmo. It's a very good podcast in general too.

as stated

[johnjones]

Labour got less seats under Corbyn than when gordon brown campaigned was my point. Which stands.

The westminster system works like that... ask the SNP or UKIP to tell you all about it...

one of those points again I made previously was about encryption, if any of the leaders came out and actually stated they wont be trying to break into communications. Via techniques such as escrow keys or force Certificate Authorities (CA) to issue a root to "security services" then I would be impressed otherwise jog on...

Get good people into Greece

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that en passant. Note that:

(a) the people now in power in Greece aren't those who were in power when the current mess was set up (so there's some hope)

(b) those profiting from the former corrupt government are mainly Germany (hypocrites!) and France (for example, by selling lots of armament).

Where we need "good people" is in the EU comission (kick out that Juncker already!), in German government (kick out that Schäuble already!) and generally in the other national governments (Hungary? Poland? Seriously?).

Hope dies last. Perhaps there's a sexually transferred disease which kills those disgusting identitaries.

Clearly in Need of Leadership

[Roger W Moore]

Tory back benchers have a lot to answer for.

If the Tories had anyone who could provide decent, nevermind strong and stable, leadership this would not have been an issue. Instead, they have had Cameron who just went with the flow wherever it led and May who stubbornly refuses to bend a millimetre. A real leader knows when to bend and when not to.

However after a result like this I'm not sure how long the government will last. If the DUP force the Tories into looking at a soft Brexit to preserve the open border with Ireland the rabid right-wing, Eurosceptic side of the party could well end up bringing the government down if they felt they might do better in an election.

England is LOST

[p51d007]

Sad, the nation that stood alone, to fend off the Nazi's in WW2, have bent over backwards and become SHEEP, to their new moslem overloards. They have given up and will be a moslem nation within one generation. Sad, but they did it to themselves, in the guise of political correctness, which the moslems took advantage of.

Re:England is LOST

[CanadianMacFan]

I know that the Brits like to push that commentary about standing all alone but they did have lots of help. I certainly don't mean to take away from their courageous stand. But the Commonwealth countries were there helping the UK throughout that time. Many Canadians lost their lives on convoy duty to keep critical supplies moving over from North America. Many of the pilots were from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and trained in Canada before fighting in the Battle of Britain. Soldiers came from all over the Commonwealth long before the US got bloodied.

Now it must have been terrible and a completely different experience for the citizens of the UK (and the rest of Europe, parts of Africa, and parts of Asia) than in North America and the rest of the world. I can certainly see how it would have seemed like being all alone. They were very lucky to have the right person come into leadership. I hate to imagine what someone like May would have done.

You're right about the US!!

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to get America out of this so called "United States" (U.S.) immediately and go it alone. What a disaster that turned out to be!

Re:You're right about the US!!

[R3d M3rcury]

US Out of North America!

Brexit will be walked back

[TheSync]

Mark my words, Brexit will eventually be walked back...EU will be OK with that.

Re:Brexit will be walked back

[fonske]

True, although the more likely scenario looks like UK will land on an axis of Germanic countries after the EU project died.

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did she call the election?
What did she have to gain? Nothing as far as I can tell.
So, she wins and stays the leader, or doesn't call it and stays the leader. Why even take the chance?
Does she think having elections more often makes them more democratic?
I remember not too long ago her predecessor called for a referendum because he was sure that his side would win.
When will these idiots learn.

Re:Stupid

[Godwin O'Hitler]

She called it in order to enjoy five years as Empress of Britain.
She called it when she did because she's an opportunist.
That just about sums up her whole political ideology in fact.

As an outsider this looks like a win for May

[plague911]

Sure it wasn't a blowout, but her party still won the most seats by a fair margin. This indicated strong but not overwhelming support for her hardline policies.

Re:As an outsider this looks like a win for May

[SuiteSisterMary]

She went in with a majority government, came out with a minority. That means that now her party needs votes from other parties to pass legislation. Which means that they now need to make compromises and deals.

So yeah, this isn't a win. It's like saying 'I walked into a casino with a hundred bucks, hoped to walk out with 150, instead walked out with 75. This looks like a win.'

Re:As an outsider this looks like a win for May

[plague911]

No, it is not like that at all.

Votes in government are not like money, thankfully. Her side still received more support and thus has a democratically validated moral authorization to push for a hardline approach.

The pro EU side still lost, by a significant margin. Yes that margin was less, but the time period in which the vote occurred gives her a more current and thus more direct approval of her methods.

Re:As an outsider this looks like a win for May

[SuiteSisterMary]

Dude, she came out of the election with a) fewer seats, and b) having lost her majority. She gambled, and she lost. She is objectively worse off than she was had she not called for the election.

Re:As an outsider this looks like a win for May

[serviscope_minor]

and thus has a democratically validated moral authorization to push for a hardline approach.

Um no they don't. They got way under half the vote and less than half the seats. The country on average is not in any measure in favour of them.

Re:As an outsider this looks like a win for May

[plague911]

Yes they did.

http://www.bbc.com/news/electi...

Add up the seats. The parties aligned with exiting the Euro still won. Due to the multi party system, getting to even 50% is a huge hurdle most akin to the US super majority. They did not reach that level, however, they clearly still have the largest support.

I personally would probably be voting Sinn Fein, but that has nothing to do with just adding up the seats and seeing anti-euro won.

As opposed to bribing and pandering old voters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is what the rightwing do.

What is different about "We will give you free education" and "We will cut your taxes"? They're both "bribes" or both "not bribes".

Re:As opposed to bribing and pandering old voters?

[OhPlz]

Letting people keep their own money is hardly a bribe.

Emulate Hillary?

[hduff]

Perhaps she should take a page from Hillary Clinton's book and blame it on a left-wing conspiracy and Russian meddling . . .

Freedom! Freedom!

[WillAffleckUW]

Unleash the Wild Hunt!

The Royal Corgis are set loose in Parliament and No May Shall Pass!

Then and Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Much has been made of the Brexit vote, and how voters fell for the "lies" that politicians told both for and against Brexit. Little has been said about the lies that enticed us into it in the first place!

Back in 1975, as a young voter, I believed the hogwash that I was spoon-fed about the benefits of EU membership. Over the following years, I became increasingly disillusioned with the undemocratic and bureaucratic nature of the EU - not to mention the continuously moving goal-posts it represented. Not surprisingly, given the opportunity, I and many others the same age as me, voted to rectify my original mistake.

In the intervening years, I have seen many governments come and go, both labour and conservative. One thing that all the labour governments - except perhaps the Blair/Brown one - had in common was that, just like Corbyn, they promised the earth, and to tax the rich to pay for it. Each time it ended in tears. The rich employ accountants far cleverer than the government to ensure that their wealth is protected!

Meanwhile, the conservatives have ensured that the ordinary working man ends up paying far more than his fair share in order to prop up their friends in big business.

I had great hopes when Blair was elected, but he turned out to be a war-mongering lap-dog, willing to do anything George Bush asked of him, regardless of the opinions of his own electorate. Brown was just incompetent.

So like many Brits (and possibly Americans too?) I found myself faced with the quandary when deciding who to vote for, of choosing not the best candidate, but the least worst!

They say we get the leadership we deserve. I look at the candidates presented to us in this election and wonder what on earth we did to deserve this shower......

Re:Then and Now

[Anonymous Coward]

I look at the candidates presented to us in this election and wonder what on earth we did to deserve this shower......

Who would you rather want to be a candidate?

I'd say "why don't you stand yourself", but, eh, I wouldn't. So the other question, then ask them to stand, next time.

No, it was crony capitalism that did it

[Anonymous Coward]

Greece was a bad debt by the banks and they were on the hook for it and would lose it (but still be solvent), however Germany insisted that the banks be bailed out which meant that Greece could be politically forced into paying back. Which ruined Greece and the EU financially and all because the morons bailed out banks who were fucking idiots.

All she needs is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a good dicking. I guarantee she will loosen up after that.

Martian election rules: cheat if I like you

[Anonymous Coward]

But but, just YESTERDAY you said it was fine for Hillary and the DNC to rig their primary, obstruct justice or whatever. Let me help.

According to MightyMartin its fine to obstruct justice, rig elections, lie under oath, and whatever else as long as you lose the election. Of course I added that if you win just have the DOJ sweep it under the rug, why would you do all that to win and get impeached then so its obviously implied.

So NOW its wrong to lie during an election? Oh, you mean its ok to lie and cheat as long as you agree with them. Screw people who think different than you and their vote shouldn't count.

So you are a liar and now you think half the people shouldn't be allowed to vote now. Good to know you are a piece of crap person.

Re:Martian election rules: cheat if I like you

[MightyMartian]

Your link doesn't prove your point. For a stalker, you're pretty fucking shitty.

Go back to your cognitive therapy sessions. You really need the help/

Answer me this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why aren't these immigrants fighting for their own country? If they won't fight for their own country, what makes you think they'll fight for mine?

Britain doesn't know what it wants

[jd]

I blame the lack of User Friendly cartoons and insufficient Beowulf Cluster memes.

"It was 4chan wot won it" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

4chan influential? Who knew?!

Maybe Lord Buckethead should have won...

[Anonymous Coward]

An awesome, unbreatheable outfit. Terrible David Bowie renditions. Generally mild silliness. All valuable qualities of good British folk.

Re: As opposed to bribing and pandering old voters

[Anonymous Coward]

True, it is called blackmail.

ha, ha, ha!

[oldmac31310]

ha, ha, ha, ha!!!

Oops.

[Sir Holo]

The Tories already had a healthy majority in Parliament, and with May (A Tory) they could do pretty much what they wanted.

Oh, but May wanted an even bigger majority, and called for early elections. The Tories lost a bunch of seats, so now they don't have a majority at all. Compromises will have to be made, and it will be messy.

Oops!

Re:Oops.

[ebvwfbw]

Yes. It was a stupid move in the first place. Saying they wanted to increase surveillance was the second stupid move. The left wants it too, they just didn't make it an issue.

We're probably witnessing the fall of civilization. If Western civilization falls, so do all the rest.

Re:Oops.

[Jzanu]

That depends on how you choose to define "western civilization" as either the past achievements in human rights, or "western civilization" as the current consumer-excess culture. The first remains and will influence all following, the second is a lesson in how NOT to run the world. Honestly I expect China to dominate as it liberalizes even more. It has embraced market economics for 60+ years now, and has the most dependable demographics for an industrial society. The one child policy was necessary to grow within the resource limits of the past, but it will either be lifted entirely or fixed by relaxed labor usage. China already de-facto controls all of Siberia more than Moscow, and with some small minor exercise through its companies has access to Sudanese land suitable to even out agrarian development and support even more industry and value-add services in the mainland.

Re:Oops.

[ebvwfbw]

Not that I fault you, however you're thinking too small. I mean total collapse. If the west falls, so will china, so will everything. The dollar is the reserve currency for a lot of countries, it's the main currency for the world. Nothing will move, for years. Billions of people will die worldwide. Hope I'm wrong, however that's probably the reality.

A history guy I know, has a masters in it tells me that free societies usually last about 200 years. Then they get soft, allow outsiders in, just what we're doing now, they're destroyed and disappear.

Re:Oops.

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't western civilization ending but civilization ending, apocalyptic fare. There is no evidence to support that theme.

Super majority to join??

[thesupraman]

So mr know it all...

Perhaps you would like to point out when the super majority to join the EU was given?
Of course you know that there was not even a majority, because there was no vote..

And no, the common market is very very different from the EU, and I am also sure you know.

None of which matters. The brexit vote was a vote of no confidence in politicians and there continual destruction of the middle class in favor of their own wealth and power, in the same way the Trump vote was.

Trying to gloss over that is simply hiding from the reality. What people want is actual change, because the current systems are being actively used to damage the majority or the population.

The problem is there are no viable alternatives given, of course, however even with that people with their eyes open have reached the point of desperation where they must vote for non viable alternatives.

Re: As opposed to bribing and pandering old voters

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have a better argument if the GOP wasn't promising miraculous economic growth, no deficits, and a pony as part of their campaigns.

But you see, they do insist on their own rainbows. Sadly, their rain is actually piss.

If you want to frame taxes that way

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it isn't bribing the youth either, it's letting those people keep their own money too.

But it isn't letting people keep their own money, only retards think that.