Brexit Party surges in polls to 27% - just days after launch

[-:Undertaker:-]

which is exactly proving my point in that they don't actually support it (as a whole)

The party hierarchies and the people who vote for them are entirely different things.

But equally, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...talian-voters/

This from the man who lectured us that there's "a special place in Hell for Brexiteers"

which, if true, there has to be agreement to - it's not an automatically qualifying right and tariffs will go up on day 1 in the event of no deal
https://fullfact.org/europe/article-24/

it doesn't take make of a google to see all the **** surrounding the claim

Well, whatever. If GATT or a mini-agreement are possible, then do. If not then hey ho.

I could care less now about deals or agreements, I want to leave right this minute.

[dbgtz]

The party hierarchies and the people who vote for them are entirely different things.

right but then if brexiteers have been hoovered up by the brexit party (as mentioned in a tweet you posted) then by that logic those who still support the conservatives and labour are remain or neutral

This from the man who lectured us that there's "a special place in Hell for Brexiteers"

that's not even what he said (also a tweet isnt lecturing...)

I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted #Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely.

— Charles Michel (@eucopresident) February 6, 2019

arguably a lot of remainers fall in that category
it's not even showing a distate for brexit or those who voted for it, just for the fact there was 0 planning by those who actively campaigned and enacted it

anyway arent you always complaining about people being snowflakes

Well, whatever. If GATT or a mini-agreement are possible, then do. If not then hey ho.

I could care less now about deals or agreements, I want to leave right this minute.

i dont really care what you want, im just not going to read your lies and let you off. its like youre just obsessed with the idea of leaving youll say anything which makes it sound good, but in reality nothing supports that idea (though do tell me all the good stuff that will happen)
quite frankly this entire thing has been a giant farce and the sooner this whole thing is cancelled the better

[-:Undertaker:-]

More polling out this afternoon.

I am SO proud that the British people will not simply roll over for the most putrid and two-faced politicians we've ever had. They WILL respect our vote and enact what we told them to do, or pay the price. Do we still not know what we're voting for? Big red **** bus!?

Reading continuity-Remainers heads exploding under these polls is such a delight.

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 33% (-3)
CON: 26% (-3)
BREX: 17% (+17)
LDEM: 6% (-2)
CHUK: 4% (+4)
GRN: 4% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-7)

via @OpiniumResearch, 21 - 23 Apr
Chgs. w/ 12 Apr

— Britain Elects (@BritainElects) April 27, 2019

European Parliament voting intention:

BREX: 28% (+16)
LAB: 28% (-1)
CON: 14% (-3)
LDEM: 7% (-3)
CHUK: 7% (+3)
GRN: 6% (-)
UKIP: 3% (-10)

via @OpiniumResearch
Chgs. w/ 12 Apr

— Britain Elects (@BritainElects) April 27, 2019

European parliament voting intention:

BREX: 27% (+27)
LAB: 27% (+2)
CON: 16% (-7)
LDEM: 8% (+1)
UKIP: 7% (-20)
CHUK: 4% (+4)
GRN: 4% (-4)

via @Survation, 17 - 25 Apr
Chgs. w/ 2014

— Britain Elects (@BritainElects) April 27, 2019

right but then if brexiteers have been hoovered up by the brexit party (as mentioned in a tweet you posted) then by that logic those who still support the conservatives and labour are remain or neutral

Obviously not as that assumes the only motivating factor for every voter is Brexit, and ignores party loyalty.

that's not even what he said (also a tweet isnt lecturing...)

You're right. A better word would be hectoring.

arguably a lot of remainers fall in that category
it's not even showing a distate for brexit or those who voted for it, just for the fact there was 0 planning by those who actively campaigned and enacted it

Not sure where this comes from, as the entire process and deal we've arrived at has been by a Remainer PM and a Remainer Civil Service, hence why virtually all originally Leave-supporting ministers have now resigned from the government.

i dont really care what you want, im just not going to read your lies and let you off. its like youre just obsessed with the idea of leaving youll say anything which makes it sound good, but in reality nothing supports that idea (though do tell me all the good stuff that will happen)
quite frankly this entire thing has been a giant farce and the sooner this whole thing is cancelled the better

So you don't care what I want, and I don't care what you want - well fancy that, luckily there's this thing called democracy where we can settle this argument with a process of 1 man, 1 vote which is what we did back in 2016 in a massive **** vote if you've forgotten about it. And your side, promoting your "good stuff" about the EU, pissed it up the wall and lost despite having a cash and establishment advantage.

The whinging ever since has been embarrassing and the sooner you come to terms with losing votes the better.

[dbgtz]

More polling out this afternoon.

I am SO proud that the British people will not simply roll over for the most putrid and two-faced politicians we've ever had. They WILL respect our vote and enact what we told them to do, or pay the price. Do we still not know what we're voting for? Big red **** bus!?

Reading continuity-Remainers heads exploding under these polls is such a delight.

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 33% (-3)
CON: 26% (-3)
BREX: 17% (+17)
LDEM: 6% (-2)
CHUK: 4% (+4)
GRN: 4% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-7)

via @OpiniumResearch, 21 - 23 Apr
Chgs. w/ 12 Apr

— Britain Elects (@BritainElects) April 27, 2019

European Parliament voting intention:

BREX: 28% (+16)
LAB: 28% (-1)
CON: 14% (-3)
LDEM: 7% (-3)
CHUK: 7% (+3)
GRN: 6% (-)
UKIP: 3% (-10)

via @OpiniumResearch
Chgs. w/ 12 Apr

— Britain Elects (@BritainElects) April 27, 2019

European parliament voting intention:

BREX: 27% (+27)
LAB: 27% (+2)
CON: 16% (-7)
LDEM: 8% (+1)
UKIP: 7% (-20)
CHUK: 4% (+4)
GRN: 4% (-4)

via @Survation, 17 - 25 Apr
Chgs. w/ 2014

— Britain Elects (@BritainElects) April 27, 2019

and yet, you ignore all the polling which has shifted to people wanting to remain
do those people not matter?

Obviously not as that assumes the only motivating factor for every voter is Brexit, and ignores party loyalty.

then how can you say they support brexit

You're right. A better word would be hectoring.

i can also point to a lot of brexiters do basically the same so not really sure if youre criticising him at this point

Not sure where this comes from, as the entire process and deal we've arrived at has been by a Remainer PM and a Remainer Civil Service, hence why virtually all originally Leave-supporting ministers have now resigned from the government.

a heavily eurosceptic pm who endorsed remain probably at camerons request
david davis, eurosceptic brexit minister, negotiated a bloody deal and then resigned months later for not liking the deal he bloody negotiated
raab resigned because he was woefully inept, in his own words not understanding how important the dover-calais crossing is
bojo (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson as you like to use full names) resigned because hes ultimately a chancer

quite frankly these are just people shirking responsibility because they havent a **** clue
these will be the same people who will just say "use technology" to solve the border & custom problems, yet the most IT theyve done in their life is open a word document

where it comes from is this and the fact the whole leave campaign was based on **** from the start
lets not even talk about the many years where we were told we weren't going to leave the single market and we will be like Norway

So you don't care what I want, and I don't care what you want - well fancy that, luckily there's this thing called democracy where we can settle this argument with a process of 1 man, 1 vote which is what we did back in 2016 in a massive **** vote if you've forgotten about it. And your side, promoting your "good stuff" about the EU, pissed it up the wall and lost despite having a cash and establishment advantage.

democracy isn't just about ticking a paper, it realised on accountability of both the media and politicians, and the general populace being educated

16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people, can be described as having 'very poor literacy skills.' They can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause problems.
https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents...dult-literacy/

and ignoring that whole bit there, the fact is people don't have the time to actually go and read into significant depth on things like this (the whole irish border being completely omitted pre-ref comes to mind) so what do they do? hear/read soundbites or "quick info"

to demonstrate my problem, here is a rees-mogg sharing a page from the sun:


hopefully you can see whats wrong with the page just from the top part you can see (if you do or dont see, please do let me know)
the issue is by the time its properly scrutinised, it's already spread around. some people will see the issue, some will not

another issue lies in the fact rees mogg never apologised for this issue, and the sun only did it a month later and definitely did not get any widespread attention
https://www.thesun.co.uk/uncategoriz...-for-bargains/

another issue also lies in the political and economic consequences of just universally slashing tarrifs like this, but hopefully you are also aware of what that is

you mention the cash advantage but the point was that the leave campaign had overspent which wasnt documented, which brings into question how much more they overspent as well. pretty sure they also used peoples data irresponsibly and had hidden call centres about, but i cant be bothered to look that up again right now
just to be clear as well, the establishment isnt politicians and thats it. if aaron banks is able to make the largest donation in history, its fair to say hes part of the establishment

i could go on into greater depth but i feel it will go it wont even go in one ear

The whinging ever since has been embarrassing and the sooner you come to terms with losing votes the better.

so you cant tell me anything good about brexit then, so instead you basically just insult me

[-:Undertaker:-]

Your entire post is just a continuation of what you said before the referendum, and lost the argument. Don't you understand? We don't believe predictions that we'll be worse off. We don't believe X% more GDP predictions over a 10-year period are worth the price of national sovereignty. We don't believe an emergency brake over our own immigration policy is good enough. We don't believe Britain's trade policy should be set by Luxembourg. We don't believe Britain's huge fishing grounds should be sold to Spanish fishermen. We don't believe Customs checks on the Irish border are the end of the world. We don't believe our Commonwealth should be subjected to EU tariffs in order to protect the French agricultural industry. I am not European. We don't believe in ever-closer-union and a federal European superstate.

You ask for me to name good things about Brexit, so here is where I stand. I now want No Deal. That means Britain will be able to lower tariffs from the 170 countries outside the EU. That means Britain will have complete control over who comes and works/settles here. That means Britain will preserve its English and Scots common law from French-style EU law. That means when we go to vote at an election, our government will be 100% accountable for the laws of the land, and not some foreign and unaccountable organisation. I am British. That means Britain will be an independent country just like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.


And as for the predictable response...


If achieving this means a border with the Irish Republic, another country - so be it.

If achieving this means a slight loss of GDP and George Osborne's greedy friends take a hit - so be it.

If achieving this means tariffs on European goods going up because of their spite and arrogance - so be it.


There is nothing, and I mean nothing, I would trade my country in for. From my summary above, you can see that I believe the benefits far outweigh the negatives when it comes to economics. Even if they did not - I cannot place a price on sovereignty and democracy. If you told me that placing my X next to Leave would have me drop dead on the spot, I would do it. There's no extent that I will not go to over this.

Leave parties 45%, Remain parties 24% (assuming Nats 4%), Labour 28% https://t.co/nvBLJm0K1D

— John Rentoul (@JohnRentoul) April 27, 2019

[dbgtz]

Your entire post is just a continuation of what you said before the referendum, and lost the argument. Don't you understand? We don't believe predictions that we'll be worse off. We don't believe X% more GDP predictions over a 10-year period are worth the price of national sovereignty. We don't believe an emergency brake over our own immigration policy is good enough. We don't believe Britain's trade policy should be set by Luxembourg. We don't believe Britain's huge fishing grounds should be sold to Spanish fishermen. We don't believe Customs checks on the Irish border are the end of the world. We don't believe our Commonwealth should be subjected to EU tariffs in order to protect the French agricultural industry. I am not European. We don't believe in ever-closer-union and a federal European superstate.

nothing i posted has anything to do with why i think brexit itself is a bad idea, so maybe you fall into that 16.4%

You ask for me to name good things about Brexit, so here is where I stand. I now want No Deal. That means Britain will be able to lower tariffs from the 170 countries outside the EU.

so you think we should just lower tariffs without any deal with these countries? (also the USA has stated no deal without a solution to the border)

That means Britain will have complete control over who comes and works/settles here.

as a country, sure, but your average joe will see no difference

That means Britain will preserve its English and Scots common law from French-style EU law.

how is the style of law better or worse in any way?

That means when we go to vote at an election, our government will be 100% accountable for the laws of the land, and not some foreign and unaccountable organisation. I am British.

the EU is accountable by MEPs and those the government appoint to represent us

[B]That means Britain will be an independent country just like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

theyre all very different countries from each other and from us, but fine

There is nothing, and I mean nothing, I would trade my country in for. From my summary above, you can see that I believe the benefits far outweigh the negatives when it comes to economics. Even if they did not - I cannot place a price on sovereignty and democracy. If you told me that placing my X next to Leave would have me drop dead on the spot, I would do it. There's no extent that I will not go to over this.

except ive just pointed out the flaw in "democracy" in this country yet you ignored it all

and the flaw in your response is the only thing you actually responded to was the last sentence i said

anyway unless you start saying some outright lies again or actually reply to a point i make, i probably wont reply to this any further as you seem to have the behaviour of a cult member

[-:Undertaker:-]

Another poll this morning.

Latest European Parliament voting intention (23-26 April)
Brexit Party - 28%
Lab - 22%
Con - 13%
Green - 10%
Change UK - 10%
Lib Dem - 7%
UKIP - 5%
Other - 6%https://t.co/mH1jYT91dG pic.twitter.com/m9TfNpx5iQ

— YouGov (@YouGov) April 28, 2019

so you think we should just lower tariffs without any deal with these countries? (also the USA has stated no deal without a solution to the border)

We should set out tariffs how we see fit. I mean, duh?

as a country, sure, but your average joe will see no difference

The average Joe who has to buy a house in one of the most crowded countries in Europe?

how is the style of law better or worse in any way?

Common law is flexible and derives largely from case law, civil law the opposite.

the EU is accountable by MEPs and those the government appoint to represent us

The political reality for the thing to work is that most stuff is nodded through. How else could it function realistically?

theyre all very different countries from each other and from us, but fine

Wait, what? So here you are, arguing we should adopt drastically different law from our own and have countries we have very little history with or even speak the same language rule over us, yet you dismiss Australia/Canada and New Zealand who all have the same language, legal system and political culture as we do? Worth remembering also that these countries only became legally independent in the 1980s too. Are you out of your mind?

except ive just pointed out the flaw in "democracy" in this country yet you ignored it all

If our democracy is so flawed and Europe is so great, could you explain to me how we're still using the same constitution that we've had for the last 1,000 years and the fact we've only had one Civil War? Compare to almost any European nation - the French are on their FIFTH republic in less than 200 years - and we're a beacon of democracy and stability. It was in Europe that fascists were goosestepping about, not here.

[dbgtz]

We should set out tariffs how we see fit. I mean, duh?

which is what exactly?

The average Joe who has to buy a house in one of the most crowded countries in Europe?

the average joe who could go buy a house in another european country if they really wanted
(also immigration isnt really the issue when it comes to housing, more people buying houses in bulk as investments)

Common law is flexible and derives largely from case law, civil law the opposite.

but equally it makes it quite unpredictable sometimes

The political reality for the thing to work is that most stuff is nodded through. How else could it function realistically?

youve just made a baseless assumption
i could say the same about uk gov/parl

Wait, what? So here you are, arguing we should adopt drastically different law from our own and have countries we have very little history with or even speak the same language rule over us, yet you dismiss Australia/Canada and New Zealand who all have the same language, legal system and political culture as we do? Worth remembering also that these countries only became legally independent in the 1980s too. Are you out of your mind?

well i was talking more that they have their own rather distinct issues which is probably most down to geography

If our democracy is so flawed and Europe is so great, could you explain to me how we're still using the same constitution that we've had for the last 1,000 years and the fact we've only had one Civil War? Compare to almost any European nation - the French are on their FIFTH republic in less than 200 years - and we're a beacon of democracy and stability. It was in Europe that fascists were goosestepping about, not here.

eh firstly i never said it was good in europe
secondly the constitution is always changing the flip you on about lmao you make it sound like someone wrote a document 1000 years ago and weve just stuck to it
the french are on their 5th republic by name, but england 1000 years ago has changed also - its not just been static (also how can we also be using the same constitution when the uk didnt even exist 1000 years ago)
also by saying that youve implied france have had 4 civil wars (at least) which is false as far as i can see, it seems to actually be 3 between ~1600-1800. also we've (England) had a lot more than 1 civil war, a quick google can tell you that, or none if you say the UK but then there also was that irish independence, which if the UK had "won" would technically have been a civil war

theres also plenty of cases of facism in the uk and lets not forget we almost sided with the nazis
also lets not forget mr. farage with his fascist resembling imagery

actually just looking at a list of suggested key identifiers of fascism, the key brexiteers seem to tick a lot of the boxes

perhaps the biggest thing to suggest as well is to not confuse apathy with a well functioning democracy

[-:Undertaker:-]

which is what exactly?

Well, it is obvious is it not?

If it benefits us to raise a tariff, then raise it. If it benefits us to lower a tariff, then lower it.

the average joe who could go buy a house in another european country if they really wanted
(also immigration isnt really the issue when it comes to housing, more people buying houses in bulk as investments)

I have no idea how middle class you are but from where I am from, the average Joe does not even outright own his own house and in many cases has to rent, let alone owns a house abroad in Malaga. It is not normal or average to own a house abroad. This again goes back to the London-centric Remain campaign which was seemingly oblivious to what life is like for most people outside the M25.

And I have no idea where you get it from that landlords are the problem when it is only 1 in 10 houses privately rented. What you should be doing, and our politicians should be doing - is really easy. Grab a pen and a piece of paper. Find out the net influx of immigrants per year into the UK. Write it down. Now, find out the number of houses built every year. Write that down. And there's your problem.

but equally it makes it quite unpredictable sometimes

Indeed, but crime is also unpredictable and not linear. Much like our constitutional arrangements are also flexible, which there is a strong case for arguing has helped us avoid the numerous and often violent/bloody revolutions that have occurred on the continent.

youve just made a baseless assumption
i could say the same about uk gov/parl

The House of Commons and House of Lords do not have to contend with vetoes and national considerations. This is why the United Kingdom cannot be a federal model, despite talk of it by moronic politicians like Clegg, because of the sheer size of England. Our system works precisely because it retains its unitary and centralised nature, so is able to function. Imagine Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales all having separate veto powers over legislation - it would fall apart. And the EU is that, but on a larger scale and vastly more culturally/politically different.

well i was talking more that they have their own rather distinct issues which is probably most down to geography

I don't see how - follow Australian, Canadian and New Zealander politics and the issues are much more alike than we are with France, Spain or Poland. And they're incredibly easy to follow too, given our their institutions are essentially carbon copies of our own (and in the case of the Crown, exactly the same). I avidly follow politics, and still I do not fully understand French or German politics.

eh firstly i never said it was good in europe
secondly the constitution is always changing the flip you on about lmao you make it sound like someone wrote a document 1000 years ago and weve just stuck to it

Our constitution changes organically, not through violence like on the continent. Indeed, the one major time we did actually have a violent Civil War, the Parliamentarians basically kept the old system anyway and after 11 or so years decided they'd like the rest of it (the Crown) back, and invited Charles II back to become King. That one time we changed, we actually regretted it lol.

the french are on their 5th republic by name, but england 1000 years ago has changed also - its not just been static (also how can we also be using the same constitution when the uk didnt even exist 1000 years ago)

Because the Acts of Union were not the creation of a completely new state, but the Union of two existing Kingdoms. English law from pre-Union is still in application, and that is why Scots Law continues to exist today as it was preserved through the Acts of Union.

If you look at most of our offices, especially those surrounding the monarchy, they go back to the Kingdom of England and remain the same offices as they were then. There was no great re-organisation, or new institutions created as in the case when Soviet Union or Yugoslavia were created - English institutions were simply renamed (and in some cases they didn't even bother renaming, as in the survival of the name of Bank of England rather than Bank of Britain) as were some Scottish institutions such as the Court of the Lord Lyon or Court of Session which both pre-date even the Union of the Crowns by about 200 years. It wasn't a treaty of annexation, or a blank sheet to create a new state. It was a Union.

Even right down to titles. The Prince of Wales for example isn't called that in Scotland - he's the Duke of Rothesay.

also by saying that youve implied france have had 4 civil wars (at least) which is false as far as i can see, it seems to actually be 3 between ~1600-1800. also we've (England) had a lot more than 1 civil war, a quick google can tell you that, or none if you say the UK but then there also was that irish independence, which if the UK had "won" would technically have been a civil war

France has had five republics, and a few revolutions yes.

If you look at the English 'civil wars' other than the one we all know, you'll see they were mostly dynastic/barony battles and not civil wars as in the true sense as the one where King Charles I lost his head. Indeed, even that Civil War was nothing as compared with say the first French Revolution that deposed the Bourbon monarchy or the Russian Revolution and overthrow of the Romanov's and complete Tsarist system.

theres also plenty of cases of facism in the uk and lets not forget we almost sided with the nazis
also lets not forget mr. farage with his fascist resembling imagery

Britain did not almost side with the Nazis. Are you referring to the conspiracies surrounding King-Emperor Edward VIII?

There was never danger of Britain siding with the Nazi regime in terms of an alliance, indeed if you look at the period in question from the 1920s to the 1930s there were great (and ultimately self-harmful) efforts between the British Empire, America and Germany to limit one another as all three feared (and mistrusted) another arms race and eventual war. The stupid but well-intended Washington Naval Treaty is an example of this.

actually just looking at a list of suggested key identifiers of fascism, the key brexiteers seem to tick a lot of the boxes

perhaps the biggest thing to suggest as well is to not confuse apathy with a well functioning democracy

If democracy is denied then you'll find a real fascist will one day come to power.

[dbgtz]

Well, it is obvious is it not?

If it benefits us to raise a tariff, then raise it. If it benefits us to lower a tariff, then lower it.

not really
youve voted to cut all of our existing trade deals which will mean tariffs imposed, which means people will be poorer
unless you want to remove any potential bargaining power for a trade deal, lower our standards and potentially cause job losses then feel free to advocate lower tariffs

so its basically a case of finding the magic number, which of course you wouldnt do and is up to the experts you choose to always ignore

I have no idea how middle class you are but from where I am from, the average Joe does not even outright own his own house and in many cases has to rent, let alone owns a house abroad in Malaga. It is not normal or average to own a house abroad. This again goes back to the London-centric Remain campaign which was seemingly oblivious to what life is like for most people outside the M25.

And I have no idea where you get it from that landlords are the problem when it is only 1 in 10 houses privately rented. What you should be doing, and our politicians should be doing - is really easy. Grab a pen and a piece of paper. Find out the net influx of immigrants per year into the UK. Write it down. Now, find out the number of houses built every year. Write that down. And there's your problem.

when did i tell them to buy a second home - you misread that completely
i dont really get your argument here, i live in the south but i do not live or work in london, so i pretty much earn the same money i would get up north but if i were to stay here i would have to spend twice as much buying a house - anecdotally speaking ive seen people from the south move up north to buy a house because it really is just cheaper. it seems like youre trying to dismiss my point of view because you think im personally well off

youve kind of proved my point buy saying "has to rent" - there is no immigrant coming in and taking the space if the space is already there
a bit of a correction as well, 1 in 5 houses are privately rented https://assets.publishing.service.go...ey-2016-17.pdf
you've also just made a fatal error in assuming correlation implies causation which makes you look a bit silly - that's not to say immigration doesnt have an impact (I have nothing conclusive either way)

but here's a pretty good analysis of why the housing situation is as bad as it is

Indeed, but crime is also unpredictable and not linear. Much like our constitutional arrangements are also flexible, which there is a strong case for arguing has helped us avoid the numerous and often violent/bloody revolutions that have occurred on the continent.

the flexibility can be good and bad, and i think you only have to look at the more controversial cases to see that

what is this strong case

The House of Commons and House of Lords do not have to contend with vetoes and national considerations. This is why the United Kingdom cannot be a federal model, despite talk of it by moronic politicians like Clegg, because of the sheer size of England. Our system works precisely because it retains its unitary and centralised nature, so is able to function. Imagine Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales all having separate veto powers over legislation - it would fall apart. And the EU is that, but on a larger scale and vastly more culturally/politically different.

easy solution to balance the power is to split england into different constituencies for this hypothetical scenario - a perfectly functional solution

I don't see how - follow Australian, Canadian and New Zealander politics and the issues are much more alike than we are with France, Spain or Poland. And they're incredibly easy to follow too, given our their institutions are essentially carbon copies of our own (and in the case of the Crown, exactly the same). I avidly follow politics, and still I do not fully understand French or German politics.

what is it you dont understand exactly

Our constitution changes organically, not through violence like on the continent. Indeed, the one major time we did actually have a violent Civil War, the Parliamentarians basically kept the old system anyway and after 11 or so years decided they'd like the rest of it (the Crown) back, and invited Charles II back to become King. That one time we changed, we actually regretted it lol.

you cant just pick and choose which civil wars were actually civil wars
i also just want to say theres more to a stability of a state than civil war, weve had plenty of violence that has shaped the country

Because the Acts of Union were not the creation of a completely new state, but the Union of two existing Kingdoms. English law from pre-Union is still in application, and that is why Scots Law continues to exist today as it was preserved through the Acts of Union.

the acts of union were literally the creation of a new state

If you look at most of our offices, especially those surrounding the monarchy, they go back to the Kingdom of England and remain the same offices as they were then. There was no great re-organisation, or new institutions created as in the case when Soviet Union or Yugoslavia were created - English institutions were simply renamed (and in some cases they didn't even bother renaming, as in the survival of the name of Bank of England rather than Bank of Britain) as were some Scottish institutions such as the Court of the Lord Lyon or Court of Session which both pre-date even the Union of the Crowns by about 200 years. It wasn't a treaty of annexation, or a blank sheet to create a new state. It was a Union.

Even right down to titles. The Prince of Wales for example isn't called that in Scotland - he's the Duke of Rothesay.

none of this really proves or disproves stability of a nation

France has had five republics, and a few revolutions yes.

If you look at the English 'civil wars' other than the one we all know, you'll see they were mostly dynastic/barony battles and not civil wars as in the true sense as the one where King Charles I lost his head. Indeed, even that Civil War was nothing as compared with say the first French Revolution that deposed the Bourbon monarchy or the Russian Revolution and overthrow of the Romanov's and complete Tsarist system.

as said above you dont exactly have the authority to pick and choose what is and isnt a civil war

Britain did not almost side with the Nazis. Are you referring to the conspiracies surrounding King-Emperor Edward VIII?

There was never danger of Britain siding with the Nazi regime in terms of an alliance, indeed if you look at the period in question from the 1920s to the 1930s there were great (and ultimately self-harmful) efforts between the British Empire, America and Germany to limit one another as all three feared (and mistrusted) another arms race and eventual war. The stupid but well-intended Washington Naval Treaty is an example of this.

"almost sided with" may have been a bit extreme, but we certainly had nazi sympathisers and appeasers
fascism was pretty big in europe in general at the time to be fair and seems to be taking off a bit again

If democracy is denied then you'll find a real fascist will one day come to power.

farage is literally going around saying democracy has been betrayed to try and get into power, so are you saying you support a fascist?