Actual Police State

[vanillaface]

It's not your fault you're not a believer, you're just not awake yet.

Lol dude, you sound like that religious chap in the other thread.

"You will find this out, but your children and grandchildren will really, really find this out."

That's true though. Very wise of you to say.
Sort of like if a million people started smoking, even though they ought to have known they'd get cancer but they didn't want to believe it because of feelings, and then they got cancer.

 

[Hotwired]

There is no such thing as "how" to leave, because there is only one way to leave, which is to leave.
The referendum was an exercise in direct democracy, in which the government and Parliament is given a direct order to carry out.
Parliament is treating it as if it falls under representative democracy, in which MPs make choices on the behalf of their constituents.
The traitors have been travelling to, leaking information to, consulting with, and taking orders from Brussels in order to keep us in the EU.
EU lawyers were used to draw up documents supposedly created by Parliament.
More than 3/4 of Parliament has been working for the EU all along.
EU law trumps UK law. Court cases showed that is has done so since the 60s, at least.
We haven't had democracy for a long time. We have the illusion of democracy.
Our Parliament is not the only one used as a veil to hide the real system of governance; the EU has one too: "look, we have a parliament, so we cannot be a dictatorship, lol!".

Yeah. No.

Try explaining why two leave factions are fighting each other right now. Farage and Boris getting bunged cash by the EU to split the "one way to leave"?

Since it's obvious to you, what is the "one way to leave" and why are obvious leavers not in agreement.

 

[vanillaface]

Yeah. No.

Try explaining why two leave factions are fighting each other right now. Farage and Boris getting bunged cash by the EU to split the "one way to leave"?

Since it's obvious to you, what is the "one way to leave" and why are obvious leavers not in agreement.

Two leave factions are not fighting each other right now.
There aren't two leave factions.
One remain faction is calling something called BRINO, leave, in order to fool people. Can you think of anyone it might have fooled, haha?
Leave is what it is; it's not something which alters itself because of opinion, or lies.
If someone is holding up an apple and says, "I am holding up an elephant", the apple does not turn into an elephant.

There is only one type of leave, which involves leaving, and many types of remain. BRINO is one type of remain.

Here I sit in front of my computer. If I were to say, "I am standing outside my house", I would still be sat here, in my house.

It's really important not to let the politicians lie to you.

 

[vanillaface]

It's really important not to let the politicians lie to you.

What I mean by this is that you should not believe them when they lie to you.
Of course, you cannot stop them from lying to you, as that would involve electing non-liars, which we Brits are really bad at doing, because we tend, when it comes to representative democracy, to vote for promises of free money, rather than selecting for honesty.

 

[Hotwired]

Two leave factions are not fighting each other right now.
There aren't two leave factions.
One remain faction is calling something called BRINO, leave, in order to fool people. Can you think of anyone it might have fooled, haha?
Leave is what it is; it's not something which alters itself because of opinion, or lies.
If someone is holding up an apple and says, "I am holding up an elephant", the apple does not turn into an elephant.

There is only one type of leave, which involves leaving, and many types of remain. BRINO is one type of remain.

Here I sit in front of my computer. If I were to say, "I am standing outside my house", I would still be sat here, in my house.

It's really important not to let the politicians lie to you.

Lets hear it then. Who's actually "leave" then if there are not two leave factions refusing to acknowlege the other.

I asked you and you obfuscate the answer with analogies.

There is no majority for any specific "leave" by the very fact that all varieties of people lumped together barely made a majority. This is no basis to claim the EU is the reason for disagreement.

 

[vanillaface]

Lets hear it then. Who's actually "leave" then if there are not two leave factions refusing to acknowlege the other.

I asked you and you obfuscate the answer with analogies.

Well, if there is only one leave party (assuming on the mainland), then who do you think it is?
Why on earth would you need to ask someone who it is?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

If you work on the assumption that the courts are free of political interference it's not at all.

The courts are free of political influence and the courts deciding the police have acted unlawfully is the antithesis of a police state.

 

[Dis86]

The courts are free of political influence and the courts deciding the police have acted unlawfully is the antithesis of a police state.

I suggest you look up the definition.

 

[vanillaface]

The courts are free of political influence

That's the theory, but it's not strictly true.
Every institution in the UK has been corrupted to some degree, including the courts.

 

[Hotwired]

Well, if there is only one leave party (assuming on the mainland), then who do you think it is?
Why on earth would you need to ask someone who it is?

I ask for a name because you're being evasive I ask the same question but harder and you give me two questions as your considered reply.

The "will of the people" will surely reveal the meaningful majority this "one leave party" commands in this General Election.

After all, the people do want that leave don't they and only "one leave party" exists.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I suggest you look up the definition.

I know the definition, I have two published academic papers on the subject. To elaborate, the UK state is not totalitarian, the police do not influence or have control of the judiciary (the important one) and neither do the police have an overbearing influence on citizens private lives through means such as secret or unaccountable surveillance.

What part of the definition do you think applies to the UK?

 

[vanillaface]

I ask for a name because you're being evasive I ask the same question but harder and you give me two questions as your considered reply.

The "will of the people" will surely reveal the meaningful majority this "one leave party" commands in this General Election.

After all, the people do want that leave don't they and only "one leave party" exists.

I don't understand why you are asking which is the leave party. It's only one degree less confusing than asking someone what the capital city is.

The "will of the people" will not necessarily decide, because this is an exercise in representative democracy (many criteria), as opposed to the referendum, which was a binary choice in direct democracy.

Leave is not something the definition of which is decided upon by a person, as it is something which exists by itself.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

That's the theory, but it's not strictly true.
Every institution in the UK has been corrupted to some degree, including the courts.

Nonsense. Your tinfoil hat is distorting your rationality and perspective.

 

[vanillaface]

I know the definition, I have two published academic papers on the subject. To elaborate, we the state is not totalitarian, the police do not influence or have control of the judiciary (the important one) and neither do the police have an overbearing influence on citizens private lives through means such as secret or unaccountable surveillance.

What part of the definition do you think applies to the UK?

"Police state" is not a case of a one or a zero; it is a sliding scale.
The UK is a police state to a degree, but not in totality.

 

[Dis86]

I know the definition, I have two published academic papers on the subject. To elaborate, we the state is not totalitarian, the police do not influence or have control of the judiciary (the important one) and neither do the police have an overbearing influence on citizens private lives through means such as secret or unaccountable surveillance.

What part of the definition do you think applies to the UK?

I'll state the definition since somehow you don't seem to know it (despite writing two papers apparently)

From the Collins English dictionary, British English definition:

a state or country in which a repressive government maintains control through the police

So, firstly, no mention of the courts there. Secondly the police oppressed a section of the population (unlawfully) due to highly probable government instruction.

What doesn't fit there?

 

[vanillaface]

Nonsense. Your tinfoil hat is distorting your rationality and perspective.

Every single institution has been corrupted to some degree.
Both Houses are corrupted to a high degree, the civil service to a high degree, the police to a high degree, the courts (depending on the type) to various degrees, the NHS to some degree, the army is undergoing rapid corruption right now.......
It's no use coming out with the "tinfoil hat" crap.
In the 1930s, some Jews in Germany said, "this Hitler chap is going to kill us", and other Jews didn't believe it. The former group, with their conspiracy theory tinfoil hats, were correct.
When the British were given suffrage, some people at the time, wearing their tinfoil hats, said that representative democracy was a way to get the Big State in by the back door, by bribing the electorate with their own money. They were right.

If it feels uncomfortable to you that the "thing which surely cannot happen here", is happening here, then that isn't sufficient to make it not happen.
This country has been corrupted, bit by bit, so that people will not notice until it is too late to reverse it.

 

[Hotwired]

I don't understand why you are asking which is the leave party. It's only one degree less confusing than asking someone what the capital city is.

The "will of the people" will not necessarily decide, because this is an exercise in representative democracy (many criteria), as opposed to the referendum, which was a binary choice in direct democracy.

Leave is not something the definition of which is decided upon by a person, as it is something which exists by itself.

That's pathetic. A chain of evasion and escalation as if it's incredibly shameful for you to associate yourself with the party you avoided naming for the third time. It's absolutely worth saying because you're making such a massive deal out of it.

And no, your vision of leaving is twisted if you call it the only one. The referendum question gathered everyone with a grudge against the EU and so there is no basis to say there was an agreement to do X because the grudges being gathered were not aligned ever.

I didn't want a GE but I did want a referendum on the final outcome on account of the "will of the people" mattering to me when faced with the final, decided, leave direction. As one was NEVER specified the first time, causing various people to claim the result means everyone on the "leave" side supports X or Y depending on how they want it to go.

But you know what, the EU still isn't the reason there's no unity on that. The idea there was ever unity is the lie.

 

[vanillaface]

That's pathetic. A chain of evasion and escalation as if it's incredibly shameful for you to associate yourself with the party you avoided naming for the third time. It's absolutely worth saying because you're making such a massive deal out of it.

And no, your vision of leaving is twisted if you call it the only one. The referendum question gathered everyone with a grudge against the EU and so there is no basis to say there was an agreement to do X because the grudges being gathered were not aligned ever.

I didn't want a GE but I did want a referendum on the final outcome on account of the "will of the people" mattering to me when faced with the final, decided, leave direction. As one was NEVER specified the first time, causing various people to claim the result means everyone on the "leave" side supports X or Y depending on how they want it to go.

But you know what, the EU still isn't the reason there's no unity on that. The idea there was ever unity is the lie.

It's pathetic that you have to ask who the one leave party in the UK is. Could it be the LibDems, who are remainers? Could it be Labour, who are remainers? The Conservative Party, who are remainers? Hmmmm, who could the only leave party possibly be?
The referendum was a binary question: leave or remain.
There is only one type of leave, since remaining in any capacity constitutes a type of remain.
Leaving does not involve a deal (treaty), since the question was whether to leave or remain. Treaties are a separate matter.
There are not different methods of leaving. There is no such thing as "how" to leave.
There is only leave.

Leave the EU > trade with EU and cooperate with the EU > any treaty agreed with the EU after leaving must keep us out of the EU. That's how simple it is.
Simple, of course, if our politicians did their jobs and carried out the instruction given to them.
Gerard Batten wrote a book, before the referendum, about how to leave the EU, and detailed how simple it would be to leave. It's an extremely simple thing to do as long as the people tasked with doing it, want to do it.

 

[Energize]

You suggested that we were living in an "Actual Police State" so I don't think you are right at all, in any way at all.

We are seeing people being arbitrarily detained for offending people, if that's not a police state I don't know what is.

The ECHR is such a woefully written document that governments like the UK simply quash the "qualified rights" with impunity.

 

[Hotwired]

It's pathetic that you have to ask who the one leave party in the UK is. Could it be the LibDems, who are remainers? Could it be Labour, who are remainers? The Conservative Party, who are remainers? Hmmmm, who could the only leave party possibly be?
The referendum was a binary question: leave or remain.
There is only one type of leave, since remaining in any capacity constitutes a type of remain.
Leaving does not involve a deal (treaty), since the question was whether to leave or remain. Treaties are a separate matter.
There are not different methods of leaving. There is no such thing as "how" to leave.
There is only leave.

Leave the EU > trade with EU and cooperate with the EU > any treaty agreed with the EU after leaving must keep us out of the EU. That's how simple it is.
Simple, of course, if our politicians did their jobs and carried out the instruction given to them.
Gerard Batten wrote a book, before the referendum, about how to leave the EU, and detailed how simple it would be to leave. It's an extremely simple thing to do as long as the people tasked with doing it, want to do it.

That's very cute, anyone not on board with you is a remainer and still can't get the words of your party out of your mouth for the 4th time.

As for the rest. WHAT A LOAD OF.

So much talk before the referendum about how easy it would be to get a better deal. That didn't happen in your world.

In your world the referendum was clearly understood as a no deal exit of the EU and everyone fully comprehended that to give a small majority to the "leave" side.

No. There was no public majority aligned for a no deal exit of the EU and there isn't now and there won't be after.

You are as I described, one of the people happy to describe the referendum result as fully supporting your version despite no versions being set forth as the specified direction at the referendum.