[champ]

 Maark Abbott, on 28 May 2019 - 07:36 AM, said:

The good:

- Pro-remain parties have the overall majority of UK seats in the EU parliament

I've seen this a lot... Do you not think that this bit of spin is idiotic?

It is plain wrong when you take into account the Tories and Labour's (current) position.

It's like saying Man City never won the Premier League due to the teams below them points total over taking theirs.

For as much as they are a ridiculous party with no set out position apart from LEAVE they did win 9 out of 11/12 regions?

That is more telling than spinning the results.

[Gorefest]

Well, that's partly because the remain vote got split over multiple parties, whereas the vast majority of leave voters went over to the Brexit Party.

But as you say, it doesn't really mean much for a possible second referendum. Because arguably a lot of voters didn't even bother voting, and you'd imagine that anti-EU citizens would not vote for an EU election but will vote in a referendum. So really there are very few conclusions to be drawn from this, apart from everyone hating the Tories and a lot of people feeling that Labour is sitting on the fence.

[Grief]

 Maark Abbott, on 28 May 2019 - 07:36 AM, said:

- Newkip gained 31 seats by themselves, and we all know they're going to be purposefully disruptive.

I wouldn't put much stock by the ability of British MEPs, who are assumed to be leaving, to be particularly disruptive through their positions. They don't exactly pull a ton of political capital in Europe right now.

It's more likely to have an impact domestically. But at the end of the day they've yet to show they can actually produce anything tenable or constructive, and it's far from being a strong enough showing to symbollically seal the issue (nor is it the right kind of election for that). So it remains to be seen what, if anything, will be made from it. I think the more clear impact will be on the other end of the vote wherein the mainstream parties (and particularly the Conservatives) are starting to see the results of their inability to put forward a coherent stance on Brexit. When one issue is dominating the landscape you need to have something to say about it.

Meanwhile the EU centrist consensus will probably stumble on in vague crisis mode - probably while on simultaneously patting themselves on the back about election turnout - in much the same way as it has for the last decade or more. I expect much less to change than some headline writers on this front.

 champ, on 28 May 2019 - 02:53 PM, said:

It's like saying Man City never won the Premier League due to the teams below them points total over taking theirs.

On a given issue it's certainly relevant to look at the total vote for each position though, not just which group has the most seats individually (just look at the SNP...). And nowadays Brexit kind of is the single issue. If you consider that in politics you can give your points to other teams, I don't think the comparison is even bad. The accusations of dodgy financial conduct might even make it excellent .

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'To the shock of the British political establishment, a judge agreed Wednesday that Johnson, the former Conservative mayor of London, should face trial for deliberately lying to the public. [...] For example, Johnson said Britain sent the EU around £10 ($12) billion per year.'


Is it actually illegal for politicians to outright lie in the UK? Or is this the equivalent of a civil suit in the US?...


https://www.thedaily...mpaign?ref=home

The idea of making it illegal for politicians to knowingly and repeatedly lie is so foreign to US politics that it took me a moment's reflection to realize that, at least in unambiguous cases, it is more reasonable... unless you benefit from corrupt and manipulative politicians.

[worry]

Wow, looking it up, apparently "private prosecution" does refer to legitimate criminal prosecution and used to be a much more popular thing even in the US -- though now it's unconstitutional at the federal level and states have individual, sometimes arcane rules about them. I've never heard of this before today, but it seems to be legal (if still relatively rare) in England.

[Mezla PigDog]

I assume he will get off but I just want to hear him or his lawyers have to admit that they deliberately manipulated facts. I loathe the way opposing politicians use the same data to come to 2 contradictory conclusions. And it's not because anyone is lying but because they are over simplifying complex issues. I would like the lid to be lifted on the bullshit.

Edit to add - wilfully over simplifying, of course. It's never an accident.

This post has been edited by Mezla PigDog: 29 May 2019 - 08:45 PM

[Gorefest]

Don't assume that too lightly. Also, the maximum punishment is actually life imprisonment. Hey ho.

[Grief]

I would place the odds of a major politician getting prosecuted for lying in the course of the campaign at 0%.

Few enough were jailed for actual fraud.

And much as I dislike Johnson I also find it a bit horrifying that people are celebrating the idea of the judicial branch deciding to selectively haul in politicians on account of dishonest campaigning.

[Mezla PigDog]

They aren't selectively hauling him in. They have to look at each prosecution that is put in front of them on it's own merit. And the judge has only said there is enough in it to warrant looking at but that decision has no reflection on possible guilt at this stage. The only reason this is in front of them is due to the private prosecution because the Crown Prosecution Service would not get involved in politics so overtly.

Well apart from occasionally pressing spiteful prosecutions of little people at the governments insistence.

[Macros]

Man I would love to see politicians pulled in for lying.

Oh I would love that so much

[Tiste Simeon]

I say, why stop at BJ? Let's bring Farage in. Let's get all the other lying scumbags before the court!

[Maark Abbott]

 Tiste Simeon, on 30 May 2019 - 05:47 AM, said:

I say, why stop at BJ? Let's bring Farage in. Let's get all the other lying scumbags before the court!

And then guillotine! :blobreach:

[Tiste Simeon]

I mean, there are worse ideas... JRM seems determined to take Britain back a couple of hundred years so guillotine would fit with that, and he could lead us forward by being the first person...

[Gorefest]

I'm not sure a guillotine could penetrate his snobshield.

[Maark Abbott]

 Gorefest, on 30 May 2019 - 11:59 AM, said:

I'm not sure a guillotine could penetrate his snobshield.

Suplex of the Proletariat destroys capitalist pig dog.

[worry]

Hello... is it me you're looking for?

[Gorefest]

Ugh, that makes me physically sick. The bloody US better keep their hands off the NHS.

[Mezla PigDog]

Waaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

[Grief]

Tbh I feel like that tweet kind of overdramatizes what was said. Broad ranging trade negotiations are naturally going to be discussing all sorts of issues. Medicinal and pharmaceutical products are amongst the UK's biggest imports from the US. It's not particularly surprising it would be part of the discussions. Indeed I'd rather expect the government to pursue trade deals on them (though naturally here there's a concern that the deals will be worse than what we had under the EU). I thought people didn't like the idea of trading on WTO rules?

The persistent whittling of the NHS is a clear and present threat - and has been for years - with concrete domestic roots. I'd much rather the BBC focus on that, rather than on some clickbait idea that the NHS might suddenly be 'sold off' to the US at some point in the future.

[Illuyankas]

The BBC is now just a mouthpiece for the Tory party and the dissolution and privatisation of the NHS has been a Tory aim for decades, they ain't saying shit