Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
This is magnificent logic. Banks should make profits as private industry but shouldn’t be liable for their bad lending and investment decisions (the Government should cover that).
Reminds me of people saying they shouldn’t have to sell their homes to cover the costs of living in a care home. Capitalist in life and socialist in death.
I am enjoying the distraction from actual Brexit chat though.
|
This cartoon-like Capitalist "Good", Socialist "Bad" banter is just a smokescreen to cover up the cracks in where are today in the UK (and elsewhere). So many people have grown up conditioned to believe that other people are other people's responsibility, not theirs.
They are also content (right word?) to watch themselves being manipulated by those to seek to exploit them and to say nothing.
Brexit brilliantly illustrates this. The Hard Brexit players are gleefully waiting for March 29. If they get hands on the reigns of power, here is the future that awaits us, courtesy of Dominic Raab.
In 2011, Raab said in a policy paper for the right-wing think-tank the Centre for Policy Studies that holiday pay, the minimum wage, maternity leave and pension contributions for British workers are all ‘strait jackets’ for British businesses and should all be scrapped in certain scenarios:
https://tompride.files.wordpress.com...raitjacket.pdf
Not surprised these people want to leave the EU, where all of the above would be illegal.
---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 14:07 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
"Arguably" is what this thread is about. In Parliament, a 1 vote majority for a trivial law has the same weight as one of major significance.
The MPs are our representatives. Therefore, when we vote in a referendum, we are acting in a peer capacity - they voted in the Referendum as well.
There needs to be consistency of margin treatment - unless you are a Remainer struggling for a valid argument.
|
In Parliament, agreed but we assume that the said vote is made on a bill that has been planned, defined and debated.
The same for the Referendum is a false equivalence. There was no plan, no details, no written process, the opposite in fact.
There is no "struggle" here for a valid argument. I already have one and have (tried to) articulate why it is so. You just don't agree.
History is littered with nations making, in hindsight, bad decisions via plebiscite. This just adds another to the list ..