June Election UK. Which Party do you think should win the election

[Derec]

Many Jews believe in peace and so do many Arabs. I believe most do, even if that is the only way.

Think again.
Poll: 2/3 of Palestinians back stabbing attacks, armed uprising

I believe if not for Zionist extremists and Palestinian extremists, peace talks could restart on an unconditional basis.

One nonnegotiable condition should be full renunciation of terrorism, including payments to dead or captured terrorists.

- - - Updated - - -

While the Zionist occupiers have the abject backing of the USA,

There are many more countries that are backing Palestinian side much more fully.
Why is it considered such a problem that one country partially supports Israel?

why should they be interested in a peace process other than death camps?

What "death camps", other than those that exist in your sick anti-semitic imagination?

- - - Updated - - -

I think Corbyn could use his influence with Palestinian groups to reach out to Israel to try again the peace process. This could happen if he was later elected as Prime Minister.

The Palestinian groups he considers "friends" are extremist terrorists like Hamas, not moderates.

 

[Derec]

Crawl back up your own arse, Nazi.

Your side is comparable to Nazis here.

You mention an article no-one has heard of that alleges someone has been charged somewhere. No marks. People are only guilty of murder when found guilty in their own courts.

"Their own courts"? What kind of bullshit is that?
And while the terrorist hasn't been convicted yet, there isn't much doubt as to his guilt. But you would not even condemn his actions if he was on tape doing it.
For example, what do you think of the actions of this woman?

Luckily, the guard was not badly injured and was able to pull out his gun and shoot the assailant (who will be no doubt richly compensated by PA)

You clearly support the nearest modern equivalents of the Nazi courts:

BS.

we fought hard enough to squash those racist shits - we don't need you goosesteppers too.

Here are real fascist goosesteppers for you.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Think again.
Poll: 2/3 of Palestinians back stabbing attacks, armed uprising

I believe if not for Zionist extremists and Palestinian extremists, peace talks could restart on an unconditional basis.

One nonnegotiable condition should be full renunciation of terrorism, including payments to dead or captured terrorists.

- - - Updated - - -

While the Zionist occupiers have the abject backing of the USA,

There are many more countries that are backing Palestinian side much more fully.
Why is it considered such a problem that one country partially supports Israel?

why should they be interested in a peace process other than death camps?

What "death camps", other than those that exist in your sick anti-semitic imagination?

- - - Updated - - -

I think Corbyn could use his influence with Palestinian groups to reach out to Israel to try again the peace process. This could happen if he was later elected as Prime Minister.

The Palestinian groups he considers "friends" are extremist terrorists like Hamas, not moderates.

Hamas has not committed international acts of terrorism in the USA or other countries as far as I recall when I last checked. Hamas may well have links to the Council of Islamic American Relations (CAIR).

Israeli jets have also killed more Palestinians than Hamas have, even if this is because Hamas cannot match the technology.

Hamas seems to have moved toward recognising Israel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders

Hamas presents new charter accepting a Palestine based on 1967 borders
Document aims to heal divisions within Palestinian movement and ease peace process but Netanhayu says: ‘Hamas is attempting to fool the world’

Hamas has unveiled a new political programme softening its stance on Israel by accepting the idea of a Palestinian state in territories occupied by Israel in the six-day war of 1967.

And

The new document states the Islamist movement it is not seeking war with the Jewish people – only with Zionism that drives the occupation of Palestine.

The new document also insists that Hamas is a not a revolutionary force that seeks to intervene in other countries, a commitment that is likely to be welcomed by other states such as Egypt.

It's only a slight step but as Chau En Lai said, 'Diplomacy is a continuation of War by other means.'

- - - Updated - - -

Your side is comparable to Nazis here.

You mention an article no-one has heard of that alleges someone has been charged somewhere. No marks. People are only guilty of murder when found guilty in their own courts.

"Their own courts"? What kind of bullshit is that?
And while the terrorist hasn't been convicted yet, there isn't much doubt as to his guilt. But you would not even condemn his actions if he was on tape doing it.
For example, what do you think of the actions of this woman?

Luckily, the guard was not badly injured and was able to pull out his gun and shoot the assailant (who will be no doubt richly compensated by PA)

You clearly support the nearest modern equivalents of the Nazi courts:

BS.

we fought hard enough to squash those racist shits - we don't need you goosesteppers too.

Here are real fascist goosesteppers for you.

Hamas has its forces on parade, so does Israel because they are not exactly on good terms with each other.

 

[Derec]

Hamas has not committed international acts of terrorism in the USA or other countries as far as I recall when I last checked.

So what? Does that make them any less extremist? Any less terroristic? Any more worthy for shadow prime ministers to consider them "friends"?

Are terrorist attacks ok as long as they only kill Israelis and those who visit Israel?
Hath not an Israeli eyes? Hath not an Israeli hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Brit or an American is? If you prick them, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die? And if you wrong them, shall they not revenge?

Hamas may well have links to the Council of Islamic American Relations (CAIR).

That is not an argument for exoneration of Hamas. It's an argument for prosecuting CAIR and that rat Ibrahim Hooper Holy Land Foundation style!

Israeli jets have also killed more Palestinians than Hamas have, even if this is because Hamas cannot match the technology.

Again, so what? Who is right in a conflict is not determined by the inverse of their success in fighting.
And why is Hamas killing Palestinians anyway?

Hamas seems to have moved toward recognising Israel

Emphasis on seems.

Netanhayu says: ‘Hamas is attempting to fool the world’

They are. Luckily for them, world is full of gullible people.

Hamas has unveiled a new political programme softening its stance on Israel by accepting the idea of a Palestinian state in territories occupied by Israel in the six-day war of 1967.

No, they have not. They have softened some of the language but their goal of destroying Israel remains. It's a smokescreen.

The new document would accept borders of the territory captured by Israel in the 1967 war as the basis for a Palestinian state. It would not recognize Israel, however, nor would it give up future claims to all of what Hamas considers Palestinian lands.
[..]
Even if it did, he said, the document would not change Hamas’s policy of violent resistance against Israel, nor weaken the grip of its new hard-line leader in Gaza, Yehya Sinwar. “They are trying to use the sort of language that will be more accepted by the international community,” Mr. Michael said of Hamas. “They will not change their methods — the use of terror and the use of violence against Israeli citizens.”

New Hamas Charter Would Name ‘Occupiers,’ Not ‘Jews,’ as the Enemy
Also read this:
Hamas: The New Charter That Isn't

See also this video. It is actually rather supportive of Hamas. It neither has any Israeli voices nor does it really go into facts of Hamas being a terrorist organization. But it includes interviews with two high-ranking Hamas officials, Mahmoud al-Zahar (a Planet of the Apes extra who is also the only surviving founder of Hamas, and that not for lack of trying - his houses got bombed by Israel twice, oy vey!) and Khaled Mashal (who looks a little like Syriana-era George Clooney and who sensibly hightailed it to Qatar for his health)

Both make it pretty clear that the change is only to the language, and not a break with neither goals nor methods.
The former is also pretty clear as reported by this article:
Hamas leader: We want Palestine in its entirety

Senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahar recently declared that "removing the Jews from the land they occupied in 1948 is an immutable principle" in the Koran.
Speaking to Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV on March 8, Al-Zahar also made clear, "Our position is: Palestine in its entirety, and not a grain of soil less."

When your enemy is this clear, you should take them by their word.

The new document states the Islamist movement it is not seeking war with the Jewish people – only with Zionism that drives the occupation of Palestine.

Remember, their definition of "Palestine" includes all of Israel. Zionism, after all, is the idea to establish a Jewish homeland in its ancestral homeland. Opposing Zionism means opposing the very existence of Israel.

The new document also insists that Hamas is a not a revolutionary force that seeks to intervene in other countries, a commitment that is likely to be welcomed by other states such as Egypt.

Surely, the only reason it was included. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that group is on the shit-list of the current Egyptian regime. On the other hand, the only border of Gaza that is not controlled by Israel is the bit with Egypt.
With Morsi (a Muslim Brotherhood man) getting deposed in 2013, Hamas became stuck between a rock and a hard place.

It's only a slight step

A step worthy of Zeno himself, given how infinitesimal the stride is.

but as Chau En Lai said, 'Diplomacy is a continuation of War by other means.'

But as Montgomery Scott said, "The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank!"
"Phaser bank" can be replaced with more realistic weapons systems like the F16s or the Iron Dome.
If you believe that Hamas has changed for the better you are going to have a bad time.

Hamas has its forces on parade, so does Israel because they are not exactly on good terms with each other.

But only one side in this conflict deliberately targets civilians. Only one side of the conflict deliberately uses its own civilians as human shields (to manipulate useful idiots abroad). Only one side is a theocratic regime that oppresses its own people.
Yes, Gaza is indeed occupied. But it is not occupied by Israel. It is occupied by Hamas. To the detriment of Gazans.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So what? Does that make them any less extremist? Any less terroristic? Any more worthy for shadow prime ministers to consider them "friends"?

Are terrorist attacks ok as long as they only kill Israelis and those who visit Israel?
Hath not an Israeli eyes? Hath not an Israeli hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Brit or an American is? If you prick them, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die? And if you wrong them, shall they not revenge?

Hamas may well have links to the Council of Islamic American Relations (CAIR).

That is not an argument for exoneration of Hamas. It's an argument for prosecuting CAIR and that rat Ibrahim Hooper Holy Land Foundation style!

Israeli jets have also killed more Palestinians than Hamas have, even if this is because Hamas cannot match the technology.

Again, so what? Who is right in a conflict is not determined by the inverse of their success in fighting.
And why is Hamas killing Palestinians anyway?

Hamas seems to have moved toward recognising Israel

Emphasis on seems.

Netanhayu says: ‘Hamas is attempting to fool the world’

They are. Luckily for them, world is full of gullible people.

Hamas has unveiled a new political programme softening its stance on Israel by accepting the idea of a Palestinian state in territories occupied by Israel in the six-day war of 1967.

No, they have not. They have softened some of the language but their goal of destroying Israel remains. It's a smokescreen.

The new document would accept borders of the territory captured by Israel in the 1967 war as the basis for a Palestinian state. It would not recognize Israel, however, nor would it give up future claims to all of what Hamas considers Palestinian lands.
[..]
Even if it did, he said, the document would not change Hamas’s policy of violent resistance against Israel, nor weaken the grip of its new hard-line leader in Gaza, Yehya Sinwar. “They are trying to use the sort of language that will be more accepted by the international community,” Mr. Michael said of Hamas. “They will not change their methods — the use of terror and the use of violence against Israeli citizens.”

New Hamas Charter Would Name ‘Occupiers,’ Not ‘Jews,’ as the Enemy
Also read this:
Hamas: The New Charter That Isn't

See also this video. It is actually rather supportive of Hamas. It neither has any Israeli voices nor does it really go into facts of Hamas being a terrorist organization. But it includes interviews with two high-ranking Hamas officials, Mahmoud al-Zahar (a Planet of the Apes extra who is also the only surviving founder of Hamas, and that not for lack of trying - his houses got bombed by Israel twice, oy vey!) and Khaled Mashal (who looks a little like Syriana-era George Clooney and who sensibly hightailed it to Qatar for his health)

Both make it pretty clear that the change is only to the language, and not a break with neither goals nor methods.
The former is also pretty clear as reported by this article:
Hamas leader: We want Palestine in its entirety

Senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahar recently declared that "removing the Jews from the land they occupied in 1948 is an immutable principle" in the Koran.
Speaking to Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV on March 8, Al-Zahar also made clear, "Our position is: Palestine in its entirety, and not a grain of soil less."

When your enemy is this clear, you should take them by their word.

The new document states the Islamist movement it is not seeking war with the Jewish people – only with Zionism that drives the occupation of Palestine.

Remember, their definition of "Palestine" includes all of Israel. Zionism, after all, is the idea to establish a Jewish homeland in its ancestral homeland. Opposing Zionism means opposing the very existence of Israel.

The new document also insists that Hamas is a not a revolutionary force that seeks to intervene in other countries, a commitment that is likely to be welcomed by other states such as Egypt.

Surely, the only reason it was included. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that group is on the shit-list of the current Egyptian regime. On the other hand, the only border of Gaza that is not controlled by Israel is the bit with Egypt.
With Morsi (a Muslim Brotherhood man) getting deposed in 2013, Hamas became stuck between a rock and a hard place.

It's only a slight step

A step worthy of Zeno himself, given how infinitesimal the stride is.

but as Chau En Lai said, 'Diplomacy is a continuation of War by other means.'

But as Montgomery Scott said, "The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank!"
"Phaser bank" can be replaced with more realistic weapons systems like the F16s or the Iron Dome.
If you believe that Hamas has changed for the better you are going to have a bad time.

Hamas has its forces on parade, so does Israel because they are not exactly on good terms with each other.

But only one side in this conflict deliberately targets civilians. Only one side of the conflict deliberately uses its own civilians as human shields (to manipulate useful idiots abroad). Only one side is a theocratic regime that oppresses its own people.
Yes, Gaza is indeed occupied. But it is not occupied by Israel. It is occupied by Hamas. To the detriment of Gazans.

I'm not sure the Israelis are deliberately targeting civilians but I have seen youtube footage a few years ago of Israeli soldiers checking houses pointing a gun to a man's head and using him as a shield.

Hamas has never been appointed for a Nobel Peace Prize, but with its faults, it is the party we should talk to even if this is in a neutral country like Norway or Sweden.

We managed to get peace in Northern Ireland after years of warfare (longer than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict).

 

[Canard DuJour]

Best analysis I've seen :

To understand the sensational outcome of the British election, one must ask a basic question. What happens when phony populism collides with the real thing?

Last year’s triumph for Brexit has often been paired with the rise of Donald Trump as evidence of a populist surge. But most of those joining in with the ecstasies of English nationalist self-assertion were imposters. Brexit is an elite project dressed up in rough attire. When its Oxbridge-educated champions coined the appealing slogan “Take back control,” they cleverly neglected to add that they really meant control by and for the elite. The problem is that, as the elections showed, too many voters thought the control should belong to themselves.

(...)

Because May doesn’t actually believe in Brexit, she’s improvising a way forward very roughly sketched out by other people. She’s a terrible actor mouthing a script in which there is no plot and no credible ending that is not an anti-climax. Brexit is a back-of-the-envelope proposition. Strip away the post-imperial make-believe and the Little England nostalgia, and there’s almost nothing there, no clear sense of how a middling European country with little native industry can hope to thrive by cutting itself off from its biggest trading partner and most important political alliance.

May demanded a mandate to negotiate—but negotiate what exactly? She literally could not say. All she could articulate were two slogans: “Brexit means Brexit” and “No deal is better than a bad deal.” The first collapses ideology into tautology. The second is a patent absurdity: with “no deal” there is no trade, the planes won’t fly and all the supply chains snap. To win an election, you need a convincing narrative but May herself doesn’t know what the Brexit story is.

(...)

But to be fair to May, her wavering embodied a much deeper set of contradictions. Those words she repeated so robotically, “strong and stable,” would ring just as hollow in the mouth of any other Conservative politician. This is a party that has plunged its country into an existential crisis because it was too weak to stand up to a minority of nationalist zealots and tabloid press barons. It is as strong as a jellyfish and as stable as a flea.

Thirdly, the idea of a single British people united by the Brexit vote is ludicrous. Not only do Scotland, Northern Ireland, and London have large anti-Brexit majorities, but many of those who did vote for Brexit are deeply unhappy about the effects of the Conservative government’s austerity policies on healthcare, education, and other public services. (One of these services is policing, and May’s direct responsibility for a reduction in police numbers neutralized any potential swing toward the Conservatives as a result of the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London.)

This unrest found a voice in Corbyn’s unabashedly left-wing Labour manifesto, with its clear promises to end austerity and fund better public services by taxing corporations and the very wealthy. May’s appeal to “the people” as a mystic entity came up against Corbyn’s appeal to real people in their daily lives, longing not for a date with national destiny but for a good school, a functioning National Health Service, and decent public transport. Phony populism came up against a more genuine brand of anti-establishment radicalism that convinced the young and the marginalized that they had something to come out and vote for.

(...)

(Full article here)

 

[iolo]

Incidentally, back to the Election, a recent poll here showed that the old and ignorant vote tory, the young and educated Labour.

Says a lot about the education system in UK I guess. How anybody with even a smattering of elementary economics (or history for that matter) can vote to make Comrade Jezza prime minister is a mystery.

Probably, unlike you, they were allowed to think outside your one-party state and its brainwashed bullshit.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Best analysis I've seen :

To understand the sensational outcome of the British election, one must ask a basic question. What happens when phony populism collides with the real thing?

Last year’s triumph for Brexit has often been paired with the rise of Donald Trump as evidence of a populist surge. But most of those joining in with the ecstasies of English nationalist self-assertion were imposters. Brexit is an elite project dressed up in rough attire. When its Oxbridge-educated champions coined the appealing slogan “Take back control,” they cleverly neglected to add that they really meant control by and for the elite. The problem is that, as the elections showed, too many voters thought the control should belong to themselves.

(...)

Because May doesn’t actually believe in Brexit, she’s improvising a way forward very roughly sketched out by other people. She’s a terrible actor mouthing a script in which there is no plot and no credible ending that is not an anti-climax. Brexit is a back-of-the-envelope proposition. Strip away the post-imperial make-believe and the Little England nostalgia, and there’s almost nothing there, no clear sense of how a middling European country with little native industry can hope to thrive by cutting itself off from its biggest trading partner and most important political alliance.

May demanded a mandate to negotiate—but negotiate what exactly? She literally could not say. All she could articulate were two slogans: “Brexit means Brexit” and “No deal is better than a bad deal.” The first collapses ideology into tautology. The second is a patent absurdity: with “no deal” there is no trade, the planes won’t fly and all the supply chains snap. To win an election, you need a convincing narrative but May herself doesn’t know what the Brexit story is.

(...)

But to be fair to May, her wavering embodied a much deeper set of contradictions. Those words she repeated so robotically, “strong and stable,” would ring just as hollow in the mouth of any other Conservative politician. This is a party that has plunged its country into an existential crisis because it was too weak to stand up to a minority of nationalist zealots and tabloid press barons. It is as strong as a jellyfish and as stable as a flea.

Thirdly, the idea of a single British people united by the Brexit vote is ludicrous. Not only do Scotland, Northern Ireland, and London have large anti-Brexit majorities, but many of those who did vote for Brexit are deeply unhappy about the effects of the Conservative government’s austerity policies on healthcare, education, and other public services. (One of these services is policing, and May’s direct responsibility for a reduction in police numbers neutralized any potential swing toward the Conservatives as a result of the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London.)

This unrest found a voice in Corbyn’s unabashedly left-wing Labour manifesto, with its clear promises to end austerity and fund better public services by taxing corporations and the very wealthy. May’s appeal to “the people” as a mystic entity came up against Corbyn’s appeal to real people in their daily lives, longing not for a date with national destiny but for a good school, a functioning National Health Service, and decent public transport. Phony populism came up against a more genuine brand of anti-establishment radicalism that convinced the young and the marginalized that they had something to come out and vote for.

(...)

(Full article here)

No one can tell the BREXIT story in advance of it happening. No knows the exact terms for leaving, hence this would have been done before triggering of article 50.

The New York Times article itself is really nonsensical in opinionated article that sublimes to asininity in expecting an outcome to be known before it is decided when the EU and UK have broad outlines and questions.

For instance we may request some of our fishing territories back. We may provide some concession on allowing certain European imports with low tariffs instead. The exact terms cannot be known until they are agreed as in any other agreement.

Then I suspect for both the EU and the UK two years would not be practical considering the few months of dithering since the trigger was pulled.

There are also issues such as mass immigration vs. insufficient housing construction which are irrelevant to BREXIT. However it would be beneficial to provide employment to European workers to assist in the construction of some 2 million or so homes just to catch up with the housing shortage.

We have to consider Europeans living in the UK and the far fewer UK citizens who work in Europe.

Of course at this stage there will be posturing by the EU and UK but they need to move their butts as there is very little time.

 

[iolo]

Best analysis I've seen :

No one can tell the BREXIT story in advance of it happening. No knows the exact terms for leaving, hence this would have been done before triggering of article 50.

The New York Times article itself is really nonsensical in opinionated article that sublimes to asininity in expecting an outcome to be known before it is decided when the EU and UK have broad outlines and questions.

For instance we may request some of our fishing territories back. We may provide some concession on allowing certain European imports with low tariffs instead. The exact terms cannot be known until they are agreed as in any other agreement.

Then I suspect for both the EU and the UK two years would not be practical considering the few months of dithering since the trigger was pulled.

There are also issues such as mass immigration vs. insufficient housing construction which are irrelevant to BREXIT. However it would be beneficial to provide employment to European workers to assist in the construction of some 2 million or so homes just to catch up with the housing shortage.

We have to consider Europeans living in the UK and the far fewer UK citizens who work in Europe.

Of course at this stage there will be posturing by the EU and UK but they need to move their butts as there is very little time.

Why should the EU be bothered: they can just watch these idiots posturing and laugh, surely? Do we seriously suppose they are going to give us special presents for trying to destroy the organisation they belong to?

 

[whichphilosophy]

No one can tell the BREXIT story in advance of it happening. No knows the exact terms for leaving, hence this would have been done before triggering of article 50.

The New York Times article itself is really nonsensical in opinionated article that sublimes to asininity in expecting an outcome to be known before it is decided when the EU and UK have broad outlines and questions.

For instance we may request some of our fishing territories back. We may provide some concession on allowing certain European imports with low tariffs instead. The exact terms cannot be known until they are agreed as in any other agreement.

Then I suspect for both the EU and the UK two years would not be practical considering the few months of dithering since the trigger was pulled.



There are also issues such as mass immigration vs. insufficient housing construction which are irrelevant to BREXIT. However it would be beneficial to provide employment to European workers to assist in the construction of some 2 million or so homes just to catch up with the housing shortage.

We have to consider Europeans living in the UK and the far fewer UK citizens who work in Europe.

Of course at this stage there will be posturing by the EU and UK but they need to move their butts as there is very little time.

Why should the EU be bothered: they can just watch these idiots posturing and laugh, surely? Do we seriously suppose they are going to give us special presents for trying to destroy the organisation they belong to?

The UK will find other markets if there is a problem with some in the EU. In fact it is talking to other markets. However it buys a considerable amount of goods from the EU, less than it exports so it will be beneficial for the EU leadership to be practical about it.

The UK doesn't need anymore banks going under and getting baled out as happened in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Eire and Cyprus.

Unemployment in Greece and Spain are around 27%

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

he crisis had significant adverse economic effects and labour market effects, with unemployment rates in Greece and Spain reaching 27%,[9] and was blamed for subdued economic growth, not only for the entire eurozone, but for the entire European Union. As such, it can be argued to have had a major political impact on the ruling governments in 10 out of 19 eurozone countries, contributing to power shifts in Greece, Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as outside of the eurozone, in the United Kingdom.

 

[bilby]

Best analysis I've seen :

No one can tell the BREXIT story in advance of it happening. No knows the exact terms for leaving, hence this would have been done before triggering of article 50.

The New York Times article itself is really nonsensical in opinionated article that sublimes to asininity in expecting an outcome to be known before it is decided when the EU and UK have broad outlines and questions.

For instance we may request some of our fishing territories back. We may provide some concession on allowing certain European imports with low tariffs instead. The exact terms cannot be known until they are agreed as in any other agreement.

Then I suspect for both the EU and the UK two years would not be practical considering the few months of dithering since the trigger was pulled.

There are also issues such as mass immigration vs. insufficient housing construction which are irrelevant to BREXIT. However it would be beneficial to provide employment to European workers to assist in the construction of some 2 million or so homes just to catch up with the housing shortage.

We have to consider Europeans living in the UK and the far fewer UK citizens who work in Europe.

Of course at this stage there will be posturing by the EU and UK but they need to move their butts as there is very little time.

Sane people determine what a proposed course of action entails, and then ask the people, the parliament, or both, to vote on whether or not to take that course.

To have the vote first, and to only then, once fully committed, to seek to establish WTF it was you voted for is totally fucking nuts. David Cameron should be shot for treason for even having suggested holding a referendum without first providing a detailed outline of exactly what a 'Leave' vote would entail; His insanity has done the UK more harm than any other act since the end of WWII.

Swiss newspaper Der Bund has an interesting article on this: http://www.derbund.ch/ausland/standard/lachnummer-europas/story/29320034 (in German)

An English Translation:

The Laughingstock of Europe

If the situation in the UK were not so serious, it would be hilarious. The country is governed by a speech robot, Maybot, who was unable to talk with survivors or volunteers when visiting the burnt-out high-rise in West London. On Monday, negotiations on the withdrawal from the EU are to start, but no one has even the beginnings of a plan. The government is dependent on a small party that offers climate change deniers and creationists a comfortable home. Boris Johnson is Foreign Minister. What on Earth happened to this country?

Two years ago David Cameron emerged as a dazzling winner from the parliamentary election. He had won an absolute majority, an astonishing accomplishment in the career of this quiet light weight. The economy was growing faster than any other industrialized country in the world. Scottish independence and the disintegration of the United Kingdom had been averted. For the first time since 1992 there was again a conservative majority in the Lower House. Great Britain saw herself as a universally respected actor on the international stage. That was the starting point.

Cameron's fatal decision

To transition so rapidly from this comfortable position into the chaos of the present, two things occured: On the one hand the obsessive hatred of the conservative right for the EU; and on the other the irresponsibility of Cameron, who risked the future of the country with the EU referendum, to pacify a few fanatics in his party. It is becoming increasingly clear what an exceptionally bad decision this was. The fact that Great Britain has become Europe's laughing stock is directly linked to the vote for Brexit.

The British citizens, who were lied to by the Brexit camp during the referendum campaign, and betrayed by parts of their press, sold themselves out. The shamelessness still has no limits. The "Daily Express" asked in all seriousness whether the high-rise fire might be related to the fact that the building cladding was replaced in accordance with EU regulations. It is easy to find out that the answer to this question is no, but by asking it without checking, the suspicion is implied: the EU is probably to blame. By the way, a country with a press which is so lacking in morality, is a real problem. It is a disaster like the fire in the Grenfell Tower.

In the end, Great Britain will be weakened in every way.

Already prices are rising in the shops, inflation is increasing. Investors hold back. The economy grows more slowly. The negotiations on Brexit have not yet begun. Prime Minister Theresa May has already wasted an eighth of the available time with her unnecessarily scheduled election. How, in the remaining time, a complex undertaking like Brexit is to be negotiated, is a mystery.

In the end, Great Britain will leave its most important trading partner and be weakened in every respect. To remain in the Common Market and Customs Union would probably be economically reasonable, but it would have to be subject to regulations over which the UK could no longer have influence. It would have been better to stay in the EU. The government will now have to develop a plan which is politically mediocre and has as little economic disadvantage as possible. It is only a matter of damage limitation, and yet in Westminster politicians full of complacency trumpet that the EU will suffer most if no deal is reached.

The EU is facing a government that does not know what it wants Brexit to be, and which is led by a politician whose international days are numbered. She rules over a party in which old confilcts are breaking out: the more moderate Tories are just hoping to make the exit more gentle. But the hardliners among the conservatives, including a few ideologically driven blockheads, have already threatened a rebellion. This is an epic dispute that will paralyze the government.

Position clearer

The EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said that he expects the British to state their position clearly, and that he can not negotiate with himself. The point is that it would be best for the British if Barnier did exactly that. Then they would have a representative on their side, who can see the extent of the task, and is able to find a deal that is fair for both sides. They do not have a negotiator of this calibre in their ranks. Quite apart from the mechanism of withdrawal, debate and voting on Brexit have proved to be a poison, the effect of which is now felt.

The division in society is as deep as it has been since the English Civil War in the seventeenth century. This is reflected in the parliamentary elections, in which 80% of the votes were cast for the major parties. Neither of these parties offered a centrist platform, the choice consisted of hard right and hard left. The political center is being abandoned, which is never a good sign. In a country like Great Britain, so long considered pragmatic and rational, this is a major cause for concern.

After the loss of their Empire, the United Kingdom had begun to search for a new place in the world. It finally found one as a strong, awkward, but influential part of a larger bloc: as part of the EU. This place it has given up needlessly. The consequence, as now becomes apparent, is a veritable identity crisis, from which the country will not recover for a long time.

 

[bilby]

Why should the EU be bothered: they can just watch these idiots posturing and laugh, surely? Do we seriously suppose they are going to give us special presents for trying to destroy the organisation they belong to?

The UK will find other markets if there is a problem with some in the EU. In fact it is talking to other markets. However it buys a considerable amount of goods from the EU, less than it exports so it will be beneficial for the EU leadership to be practical about it.

What markets? Who wants what the UK is selling? Who cares to sell their exports to some ~65 million poor people, when they could just sell to ~700 million rich ones? The UK's days of being a major player in its own right on the world trading stage are long gone. Australia and New Zealand want to trade with China and India, with their more than 2 billion consumers. India herself wants big markets, to match her big population. Canada focuses on trade with the USA. The British Commonwealth is no longer of any importance, least of all to Britain herself. The only Commonwealth country with fond memories of the empire and a desire to return to those days is Britain herself.

The UK doesn't need anymore banks going under and getting baled out as happened in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Eire and Cyprus.

And leaving the EU will most certainly not help in any way to prevent that.

Unemployment in Greece and Spain are around 27%

No, they are not. They WERE, but things have improved a little - Greece has unemployment of around 23% and Spain 19% at this point in time.

Unemployment in the UK will go through the roof once Brexit occurs, as growth collapses due to the higher costs of trade with the rest of the world. Already major corporations are shifting operations to other EU countries. There may be an offsetting increase in availability of low-paid work, as the hard-working Poles are replaced by sullen Brits who feel that cleaning and making coffee are jobs that are beneath them; But just because the headline rate of unemployment doesn't increase, that doesn't imply that losing high salary white collar jobs and replacing them with low paid menial work is good for the people or for the country.

The EU has a number of problems; But running away rather than staying to help solve these problems is not going to be a good choice for Britain. It's been great for me personally - as a regular visitor to the UK, I find that my money is now worth 20% more than it used to be. But the flip side of this is that every Briton has taken an effective 20% paycut, when it comes to buying imports - and as you point out, Britain imports a lot of stuff.

 

[iolo]

Why should the EU be bothered: they can just watch these idiots posturing and laugh, surely? Do we seriously suppose they are going to give us special presents for trying to destroy the organisation they belong to?

The UK will find other markets if there is a problem with some in the EU. In fact it is talking to other markets. However it buys a considerable amount of goods from the EU, less than it exports so it will be beneficial for the EU leadership to be practical about it.

The UK doesn't need anymore banks going under and getting baled out as happened in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Eire and Cyprus.

Unemployment in Greece and Spain are around 27%

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

he crisis had significant adverse economic effects and labour market effects, with unemployment rates in Greece and Spain reaching 27%,[9] and was blamed for subdued economic growth, not only for the entire eurozone, but for the entire European Union. As such, it can be argued to have had a major political impact on the ruling governments in 10 out of 19 eurozone countries, contributing to power shifts in Greece, Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as outside of the eurozone, in the United Kingdom.

On Mars, doubtless. The UK buys goods from particular EU countries, as you know. What 'can be argued' is immaterial - the EU is not about to commit suicide.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The UK will find other markets if there is a problem with some in the EU. In fact it is talking to other markets. However it buys a considerable amount of goods from the EU, less than it exports so it will be beneficial for the EU leadership to be practical about it.

The UK doesn't need anymore banks going under and getting baled out as happened in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Eire and Cyprus.

Unemployment in Greece and Spain are around 27%

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

he crisis had significant adverse economic effects and labour market effects, with unemployment rates in Greece and Spain reaching 27%,[9] and was blamed for subdued economic growth, not only for the entire eurozone, but for the entire European Union. As such, it can be argued to have had a major political impact on the ruling governments in 10 out of 19 eurozone countries, contributing to power shifts in Greece, Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as outside of the eurozone, in the United Kingdom.

On Mars, doubtless. The UK buys goods from particular EU countries, as you know. What 'can be argued' is immaterial - the EU is not about to commit suicide.

One can purchase goods from other particular countries and perhaps make a few of their own. However it would be sensible if Europe and the UK did retain their trade and border access. Even before the EU and Common Market, the UK and EU allowed a free flow of people with checks on passports but few restrictions.

 

[bilby]

On Mars, doubtless. The UK buys goods from particular EU countries, as you know. What 'can be argued' is immaterial - the EU is not about to commit suicide.

One can purchase goods from other particular countries and perhaps make a few of their own. However it would be sensible if Europe and the UK did retain their trade and border access. Even before the EU and Common Market, the UK and EU allowed a free flow of people with checks on passports but few restrictions.

Look around you. Does the recent behaviour of the UK government really strike you as being driven by what 'would be sensible'?

Why the fuck do you imagine that what 'would be sensible' is of any importance in determining what is likely to actually happen? It's certainly not been a useful measure in the last few years.

What will happen is determined by the law, and by the actions of the UK and EU governments. 'Sensible' doesn't get a look in.

It would have been sensible not to have a referendum in the first place.

It would have been sensible for the people to overwhelmingly back 'remain'.

It would have been sensible for May not to call an election until she was required to - in 2020.

It would have been sensible for the people to have voted May out of office in a landslide.

It would have been sensible for May to keep well away from the DUP.

It would have been sensible for parliament to overturn the advisory referendum, which had such a narrow margin that it could not possibly indicate 'the united will of the people'

It would have been sensible for the public to stop buying tabloid newspapers, and send their owners broke.

It would have been sensible for you to ignore what 'would be sensible', as the utterly useless guide to the future that it so clearly is.

 

[whichphilosophy]

One can purchase goods from other particular countries and perhaps make a few of their own. However it would be sensible if Europe and the UK did retain their trade and border access. Even before the EU and Common Market, the UK and EU allowed a free flow of people with checks on passports but few restrictions.

Look around you. Does the recent behaviour of the UK government really strike you as being driven by what 'would be sensible'?

Why the fuck do you imagine that what 'would be sensible' is of any importance in determining what is likely to actually happen? It's certainly not been a useful measure in the last few years.

What will happen is determined by the law, and by the actions of the UK and EU governments. 'Sensible' doesn't get a look in.

It would have been sensible not to have a referendum in the first place.

It would have been sensible for the people to overwhelmingly back 'remain'.

It would have been sensible for May not to call an election until she was required to - in 2020.

It would have been sensible for the people to have voted May out of office in a landslide.

It would have been sensible for May to keep well away from the DUP.

It would have been sensible for parliament to overturn the advisory referendum, which had such a narrow margin that it could not possibly indicate 'the united will of the people'

It would have been sensible for the public to stop buying tabloid newspapers, and send their owners broke.

It would have been sensible for you to ignore what 'would be sensible', as the utterly useless guide to the future that it so clearly is.

I've never suggested anything about the current UK government other than its gross ineptitude. I mean, Teresa couldn't even deliver a newspaper let alone Brexit.

We could have stopped all this by not joining the EU in the first place. One country after another went into insolvency which doesn't say much about the the EU record where banks which are hundreds of years old being baled out for the first time in history.

 

[iolo]

Look around you. Does the recent behaviour of the UK government really strike you as being driven by what 'would be sensible'?

Why the fuck do you imagine that what 'would be sensible' is of any importance in determining what is likely to actually happen? It's certainly not been a useful measure in the last few years.

What will happen is determined by the law, and by the actions of the UK and EU governments. 'Sensible' doesn't get a look in.

It would have been sensible not to have a referendum in the first place.

It would have been sensible for the people to overwhelmingly back 'remain'.

It would have been sensible for May not to call an election until she was required to - in 2020.

It would have been sensible for the people to have voted May out of office in a landslide.

It would have been sensible for May to keep well away from the DUP.

It would have been sensible for parliament to overturn the advisory referendum, which had such a narrow margin that it could not possibly indicate 'the united will of the people'

It would have been sensible for the public to stop buying tabloid newspapers, and send their owners broke.

It would have been sensible for you to ignore what 'would be sensible', as the utterly useless guide to the future that it so clearly is.

I've never suggested anything about the current UK government other than its gross ineptitude. I mean, Teresa couldn't even deliver a newspaper let alone Brexit.

We could have stopped all this by not joining the EU in the first place. One country after another went into insolvency which doesn't say much about the the EU record where banks which are hundreds of years old being baled out for the first time in history.

Capitalism continues to happen whatever the diplomatic arrangements, and its contradictions produce mess. We'd have been hugely worse off, as a capitalist state, not to join the EU, though we might just, at that time, have had a shot at socialism-in-one-country. Now we have a choice between a more-or-less-successful version of the system and swift individual ruin, because the mugs chose to believe the cynics. It is a question, now, of just how far we have to fall before we reach out for a rock or branch.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I've never suggested anything about the current UK government other than its gross ineptitude. I mean, Teresa couldn't even deliver a newspaper let alone Brexit.

We could have stopped all this by not joining the EU in the first place. One country after another went into insolvency which doesn't say much about the the EU record where banks which are hundreds of years old being baled out for the first time in history.

Capitalism continues to happen whatever the diplomatic arrangements, and its contradictions produce mess. We'd have been hugely worse off, as a capitalist state, not to join the EU, though we might just, at that time, have had a shot at socialism-in-one-country. Now we have a choice between a more-or-less-successful version of the system and swift individual ruin, because the mugs chose to believe the cynics. It is a question, now, of just how far we have to fall before we reach out for a rock or branch.

The ultimate EU provides an umbrella for the Banksters and their Capitalist customers to control several countries at once.

 

[fromderinside]

The ultimate EU provides an umbrella for the Banksters and their Capitalist customers to control several countries at once.

Amazing. Here in the USA those same sorts are disenfranchising, defunding, and removing social protections from around those same citizens in their efforts to reinstate state's rights.,

 

[iolo]

Capitalism continues to happen whatever the diplomatic arrangements, and its contradictions produce mess. We'd have been hugely worse off, as a capitalist state, not to join the EU, though we might just, at that time, have had a shot at socialism-in-one-country. Now we have a choice between a more-or-less-successful version of the system and swift individual ruin, because the mugs chose to believe the cynics. It is a question, now, of just how far we have to fall before we reach out for a rock or branch.

The ultimate EU provides an umbrella for the Banksters and their Capitalist customers to control several countries at once.

How unlike the English ones, and Father Xmas's other relatives!