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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

Tariffs will also be imposed back, which will then impact our trading partners. Many countries, including the world's largest economy, have signalled they want to do a trade deal with Britain provided they can and we're no longer bound by European law.

And as for setting the tariffs themselves, well the amazing thing is that once we've left the European Union and Parliament actually matters again, then it can stop debating free tampons and start debating things that matter - like what our agricultural tariffs should be. What our industrial policy should be. How our fisheries should be managed. I'll win some and i'll lose some - that's democracy.

Happy to have debates up and down the town halls of the land over these issues, as we should be doing.

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

It isn't that I think you personally are well off, although you could be, but that your attitude is that of being well off. That you mentioned holiday homes abroad as some sort of pressing matter seems rather bizzare to most normal people who struggle to afford one home let alone one in Malaga. All this goes back to why Remain's campaign just sounded so hollow and didn't resonate outside the M25.

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)

I read other statistics on private rent, so assuming not including council properties. But whatever.

Immigration of course causes an impact just internal immigration *clearly* has an affect on local prices in an area, the same is true on a national level. Why is rent in London so high? Because jobs draw people to live there meaning shortage of housing = rent rises. The same can be said for Liverpool and Manchester in the last decade where the draw of students and young professionals in revitalised urban centres has pushed prices up, although both have been able to cope given the sheer amount of brown land surrounding the city core.

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 argument I have read before and which I think has merit is that because of our constitutional flexibility as compared with a written, European style constitution, has meant that our constitutional order has been able to survive events like the Glorious Revolution, the rise of socialism, universal suffrage and so on. Contrast this with say France or Spain where the constitutions were (naturally) a product of their conservative/liberal time which then led to civil wars and revolution.

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

England has always been a unitary state and the English wouldn't stand for it. It was attempted under New Labour in the north-east, and voters roundly rejected it in a referendum by 78% to 22% meaning it is dead in the water. Added to that, it still wouldn't solve the issue anyway as the English 'regions' would still be that - English. You'd then have say 10 English regions vs 3 non-English regions.

To prove how much I would object, I am as Unionist as you can possibly be given I don't believe in devolution and would have Ulster brought under direct rule on a permanent basis, but the moment England needs to be carved up to protect the Union would signal to me the actual end of the Union. It is a Union, not a disembowelment of a nation of the Union.

what is it you dont understand exactly

I don't really understand their political systems well nor their political culture. French conservatism for example has completely different philosophical routes to Anglosphere conservatism which is why France has never had a Margaret Thatcher or John Howard, for instance.

Funnily enough I understand Spain's a bit more, but only because its political culture is a lot younger and is easier to digest with the civil war period. It's more black and white. Germany's is a right mish mash - you've got Bavarian conservatism with its Catholic roots hence a different party in Bavaria, and Prussian protestant conservatism that dominated the German Imperial period. It's left is a strange mix of social democracy from the Weimar period and hard socialism from the Eastern bloc. I don't pretend to understand it.

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

I think my distinctions though between the civil wars we've seen on the continent and those here, ring very true. There's never been a revolution or civil war here that was within society, and wished to overthrow the old order. Like I said, the most violent/closest thing to a civil war we've had - actually called a Civil War - the victors actually retained virtually the entire ancien regime, minus the Crown - and Cromwell as Lord Protector de facto assumed the powers of the Crown, he was simply an uncrowned monarch in many respects.

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

Legally and in treaty, yes. But institutionally, politically and culturally? No.

none of this really proves or disproves stability of a nation

Can you name a similar European country that still has offices and laws in existence from hundreds of years ago? The only examples I can think of from the top of my head would possibly be the Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden? Britain (and its predecessor states) has had a remarkably smooth ride, and it is remarkable that our ancient institutions survived the 20th century when the 2,000+ year Chinese, Persian and Ethiopian imperial regimes did not. On an anecdotal, I once read that King-Emperor Edward VII was so concerned with the rise of socialism that he used to introduce his son, the future George V, as "the last King of England" - it turned out that the British throne weathered the coming storm better than he thought it would.

It is why many on the radical left hate the symbols of the Monarchy, House of Lords and Church of England despite them causing no harm and being universally liked. Other countries have their romantic (and often bloody) revolutions that they fetishise over, and here they have nothing - because we've changed but kept the golden frills and baubles, without spilling much blood. It annoys them that they never got their chance to tear it all down and start anew.

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

My distinction between them is pretty accurate which is why you haven't rebutted it. Our "civil wars" overturned dynasties, on the continent their "civil wars" and "revolutions" overturned society, religion, political systems and even borders (Germany).

"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

It never took off here because of the different political culture. The same can be said for Dominions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Rhodesia who inherited our political culture as part of the British Empire. One huge bulwark against it, which ironically many on the left secretly loathe, is the monarchy as George Orwell (himself on the left) one wrote. The little goosestepping and bowing that we do, is to our apolitical Sovereign. This was lacking in Germany, Russia, France, Austria and across Europe where the monarchy was either relatively newly established, was political or did not exist.

In fact, the two nations which really stand out as being similar to us as in not falling to fascism voluntarily would be the Kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. And what do they have in common with us? A monarchy that is as old as the land itself, and constitutional systems with continuity.

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

Calling Farage, a mild anglosphere conservative, a fascist will only deafen your alarm bells when a real fascist comes along.

Don't do it.

[dbgtz]

Tariffs will also be imposed back, which will then impact our trading partners. Many countries, including the world's largest economy, have signalled they want to do a trade deal with Britain provided they can and we're no longer bound by European law.

And as for setting the tariffs themselves, well the amazing thing is that once we've left the European Union and Parliament actually matters again, then it can stop debating free tampons and start debating things that matter - like what our agricultural tariffs should be. What our industrial policy should be. How our fisheries should be managed. I'll win some and i'll lose some - that's democracy.

Happy to have debates up and down the town halls of the land over these issues, as we should be doing.

are you referring to the US? because their current policy is no trade deal unless the border issue is resolved

It isn't that I think you personally are well off, although you could be, but that your attitude is that of being well off. That you mentioned holiday homes abroad as some sort of pressing matter seems rather bizzare to most normal people who struggle to afford one home let alone one in Malaga. All this goes back to why Remain's campaign just sounded so hollow and didn't resonate outside the M25.

i never even mentioned holiday homes, where did you ever get that impression from
what i was saying is they could, if they chose to, move to any other country in the EU (provided they could support themselves adequately) if they didnt want to be here

I read other statistics on private rent, so assuming not including council properties. But whatever.

not really private renting if its including council properties, total renting is 37%
id love to know where you get your stats from

Immigration of course causes an impact just internal immigration *clearly* has an affect on local prices in an area, the same is true on a national level. Why is rent in London so high? Because jobs draw people to live there meaning shortage of housing = rent rises. The same can be said for Liverpool and Manchester in the last decade where the draw of students and young professionals in revitalised urban centres has pushed prices up, although both have been able to cope given the sheer amount of brown land surrounding the city core.

i literally said immigration most likely has an impact
the difference is that to you, its the only reason when there are a lot more factors at play

The argument I have read before and which I think has merit is that because of our constitutional flexibility as compared with a written, European style constitution, has meant that our constitutional order has been able to survive events like the Glorious Revolution, the rise of socialism, universal suffrage and so on. Contrast this with say France or Spain where the constitutions were (naturally) a product of their conservative/liberal time which then led to civil wars and revolution.

from what i can see, and feel free to correct me if im wrong, but im basically looking through french history at a glance and aside from the change to the first republic, the reason for france changing their system is in part because of how they expanded
the uk treated colonies as their own external thing, and still does for any existing overseas territories - they are their own thing in their own right, with the main UK "controlling" certain aspects
france, however, seems to basically absorb at least some colonies into basically becoming a part of france (also that one time the germans invaded and split france up), with also mainland france changing over time

what it really seems like is that our system is so inherently undefined and malleable, it can become whatever it wants to be

England has always been a unitary state and the English wouldn't stand for it. It was attempted under New Labour in the north-east, and voters roundly rejected it in a referendum by 78% to 22% meaning it is dead in the water. Added to that, it still wouldn't solve the issue anyway as the English 'regions' would still be that - English. You'd then have say 10 English regions vs 3 non-English regions.

To prove how much I would object, I am as Unionist as you can possibly be given I don't believe in devolution and would have Ulster brought under direct rule on a permanent basis, but the moment England needs to be carved up to protect the Union would signal to me the actual end of the Union. It is a Union, not a disembowelment of a nation of the Union.[/QUOTE]

i wasnt even suggesting devolution, in reality it would be no different to how you elect your mp but the constituency is bigger
from an outsiders perspective, i agree that people would see 10 english vs 3 others and it wouldnt be easily achievable in that respect unless it was balanced out however just from a purely hypothetical point of view, say that it was just the UK so theres no wales/england/scotland/ni, its pretty fair to say the needs of the north east differ to the south west which differ to london

I don't really understand their political systems well nor their political culture. French conservatism for example has completely different philosophical routes to Anglosphere conservatism which is why France has never had a Margaret Thatcher or John Howard, for instance.

Funnily enough I understand Spain's a bit more, but only because its political culture is a lot younger and is easier to digest with the civil war period. It's more black and white. Germany's is a right mish mash - you've got Bavarian conservatism with its Catholic roots hence a different party in Bavaria, and Prussian protestant conservatism that dominated the German Imperial period. It's left is a strange mix of social democracy from the Weimar period and hard socialism from the Eastern bloc. I don't pretend to understand it.

i mean i cant say ive really looked into the differences to be honest, maybe ill look one day but not understanding the ideology of shall we call it "French conservatism" isnt really the same as saying you dont understand the french institutions

I think my distinctions though between the civil wars we've seen on the continent and those here, ring very true. There's never been a revolution or civil war here that was within society, and wished to overthrow the old order. Like I said, the most violent/closest thing to a civil war we've had - actually called a Civil War - the victors actually retained virtually the entire ancien regime, minus the Crown - and Cromwell as Lord Protector de facto assumed the powers of the Crown, he was simply an uncrowned monarch in many respects.

im literally not going to follow this further if your entire basis for something being a civil war is that it has to has civil war in the name

Legally and in treaty, yes. But institutionally, politically and culturally? No.

if it didnt merge us institutionally, politically and culturally then you wouldnt be against devolution/independence movements in these areas since the acts of union effectively centralised everything

Can you name a similar European country that still has offices and laws in existence from hundreds of years ago? The only examples I can think of from the top of my head would possibly be the Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden? Britain (and its predecessor states) has had a remarkably smooth ride, and it is remarkable that our ancient institutions survived the 20th century when the 2,000+ year Chinese, Persian and Ethiopian imperial regimes did not. On an anecdotal, I once read that King-Emperor Edward VII was so concerned with the rise of socialism that he used to introduce his son, the future George V, as "the last King of England" - it turned out that the British throne weathered the coming storm better than he thought it would.

It is why many on the radical left hate the symbols of the Monarchy, House of Lords and Church of England despite them causing no harm and being universally liked. Other countries have their romantic (and often bloody) revolutions that they fetishise over, and here they have nothing - because we've changed but kept the golden frills and baubles, without spilling much blood. It annoys them that they never got their chance to tear it all down and start anew.

cant really say theyre universally liked when the left dont like them
ignoring the pedantry, its a bit of a stretch for 2/3 of those youve mentioned


i think what actually annoys those on the left is the imbalance those things represent, not because they want to go on a murder spree

just as a side point, you mentioned other countries "fetishising" over revolutions, can i just point out that a lot of people do that about WW2 in this country which probably includes yourself to a degree
also youre the one constantly calling for mps to be shot

My distinction between them is pretty accurate which is why you haven't rebutted it. Our "civil wars" overturned dynasties, on the continent their "civil wars" and "revolutions" overturned society, religion, political systems and even borders (Germany).

i rebutted it by saying you dont get to decide what is and isnt a civil war
you also ignored my entire point about irish independence, which you could argue was even more destablising than a civil war

It never took off here because of the different political culture. The same can be said for Dominions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Rhodesia who inherited our political culture as part of the British Empire. One huge bulwark against it, which ironically many on the left secretly loathe, is the monarchy as George Orwell (himself on the left) one wrote. The little goosestepping and bowing that we do, is to our apolitical Sovereign. This was lacking in Germany, Russia, France, Austria and across Europe where the monarchy was either relatively newly established, was political or did not exist.

In fact, the two nations which really stand out as being similar to us as in not falling to fascism voluntarily would be the Kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. And what do they have in common with us? A monarchy that is as old as the land itself, and constitutional systems with continuity.

they also have the letter "n" in their country name

Calling Farage, a mild anglosphere conservative, a fascist will only deafen your alarm bells when a real fascist comes along.

Don't do it.

using https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html as a base source of ideas

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
debatable on how powerful but certainlly continuing

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

The Human Rights Act has become an umbrella protecting foreign terrorists and criminal suspects from facing justice in their own countries

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) March 27, 2013

Lets get it straight on human rights. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, we will never be free of the ECHR while we stay in the EU.

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) October 3, 2014

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Started with the EU and other countries (romania, turkey) but more recently has become a thing against "the establishment", but often will call the media biased

Supremacy of the Military
no real source on this but im sure back in the day the UKIP manifesto was very much on the line of increased military spending

Rampant Sexism
ukip itself being very sexist
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...y-9781885.html
basically defending donnys sexism
https://www.businessinsider.com/nige...6-10?r=US&IR=T

Controlled Mass Media
hes not exactly in government so nothing i can really comment on here

Obsession with National Security
often a secondary point when mentioning immigration/open borders
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi...endum-36167329

Religion and Government are Intertwined
defends christianity, so it could end up being so
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-heritage.html

Corporate Power is Protected
https://www.businessinsider.com/all-...17-2?r=US&IR=T
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...vate-companies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8oMjswB8gw
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-a-garden-par/

Labor Power is Suppressed
not in power so cant comment

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
the whole brexit campaign has been about ignoring experts
however i will also be fair and say he did publically advocate for scrapping tuition fees for STEM subjects, though personally speaking i do not trust him on that

Obsession with Crime and Punishment
obsession with brexit so no

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
looking a bit like it

Fraudulent Elections
fairly obviously not

got a bit bored looking for sources
so using the list from that url provided which obviously isnt gospel, he seems to tick a fair few of the boxes (also lets not ignore the image from before) but some cant really be ticked unless he was in power

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Brexit party turned up in Newport, south Wales last night. A true Labour heartland. Usually. https://t.co/NoBovPxNCv

— Paul Embery (@PaulEmbery) May 1, 2019

WATCH 📺 | Ann Widdecombe: "The patronising nincompoops who say we didn't know what we were voting for reveal their own ignorance because by voting Remain they voted for Britain to stay helpless!" 👍

🙋*♂️ Support us at https://t.co/iICfFb8qqg pic.twitter.com/JRd1kF6ICx

— Leave.EU (@LeaveEUOfficial) April 30, 2019

are you referring to the US? because their current policy is no trade deal unless the border issue is resolved

That is not the policy of the American government. You're referring to comments by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who isn't in the administration.

i never even mentioned holiday homes, where did you ever get that impression from
what i was saying is they could, if they chose to, move to any other country in the EU (provided they could support themselves adequately) if they didnt want to be here

And my point was that virtually only the middle classes do that, as most Britons don't have the disposable income or means to do that, so bringing it up as an issue to worry about may concern Sasha in Chipping Norton who is looking to buy her third house abroad, but not the average fella in Grimsby.

In addition to that, they can and already do choose to move to non-EU countries pretty easily aswell. There's 1.3 million Britons living in Australia alone, compared with 1.2 million for the whole of the EU combined. I live in Spain and am not one bit concerned about having to apply for residency.

not really private renting if its including council properties, total renting is 37%
id love to know where you get your stats from

Came up on Google.

i literally said immigration most likely has an impact
the difference is that to you, its the only reason when there are a lot more factors at play

No, there are other reasons which should be followed such as land decontamination in the inner city areas (which is why developers often avoid due to the high costs of cleaning the land first before building) but immigration is the main factor by a country mile simply by sheer scale.

from what i can see, and feel free to correct me if im wrong, but im basically looking through french history at a glance and aside from the change to the first republic, the reason for france changing their system is in part because of how they expanded
the uk treated colonies as their own external thing, and still does for any existing overseas territories - they are their own thing in their own right, with the main UK "controlling" certain aspects
france, however, seems to basically absorb at least some colonies into basically becoming a part of france (also that one time the germans invaded and split france up), with also mainland france changing over time

You're right on the constitutional set up but that's not the reason the constitutions are as they are. France's constitution, like America which copied, is built heavily on ideology and philosophy. As is ours of course and any constitutional arrangement, but not purposely.

what it really seems like is that our system is so inherently undefined and malleable, it can become whatever it wants to be

Indeed, and that is the beauty of it. But changes *must* be organic.

i wasnt even suggesting devolution, in reality it would be no different to how you elect your mp but the constituency is bigger
from an outsiders perspective, i agree that people would see 10 english vs 3 others and it wouldnt be easily achievable in that respect unless it was balanced out however just from a purely hypothetical point of view, say that it was just the UK so theres no wales/england/scotland/ni, its pretty fair to say the needs of the north east differ to the south west which differ to london

The needs of the north do differ, but remember that nationalism triumphs over other concerns. The working classes of Glasgow and Liverpool have more "in common" in terms of money with the average Pole or Spaniard, but culturally they have more in common with their fellow countrymen of higher social classes. It is the working classes who had very little who (mainly) died for their countries in both great wars, not the upper classes.

i mean i cant say ive really looked into the differences to be honest, maybe ill look one day but not understanding the ideology of shall we call it "French conservatism" isnt really the same as saying you dont understand the french institutions

I don't think you can understand the institutions without understanding the political culture. How can one fully understand the House of Lords and the Monarchy without understanding the philosophy of the Conservative and Unionist Party? And the Labour Party? You can't.

im literally not going to follow this further if your entire basis for something being a civil war is that it has to has civil war in the name

Not arguing based on the names, arguing based on what actually took place and the extent of each incident/event.

if it didnt merge us institutionally, politically and culturally then you wouldnt be against devolution/independence movements in these areas since the acts of union effectively centralised everything

It did, but it was a totally different era. Firstly, the people did not have a say and in some places it was not initially popular. Secondly, it was done mainly because of Scotland's failure to establish viable colonies in the Americas. Thirdly, England desired it because Scotland had historically been favourable to France which posed a security risk for the English kingdom. And fourthly, the Union of the Crowns had already taken place a century earlier so in many ways was a natural constitutional step in the same way the Prussian Royal House was given the Crown of Germany when unification took place.

As it happened, that Union would go on to produce the most successful country in world history. So I am very in favour of retaining it.

cant really say theyre universally liked when the left dont like them
ignoring the pedantry, its a bit of a stretch for 2/3 of those youve mentioned

Barring the monarchy, they've been severely weakened - sure. For example, the Blair Ministry removing in 1999 most of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords and replacing them with political pawns in the form of life peers has undermined the Lords and the role it plays. That said, it is still preferable to any of the other silly "reform" ideas which usually don't solve anything and just ruin a reasonably good thing

i think what actually annoys those on the left is the imbalance those things represent, not because they want to go on a murder spree

But that's my point, what it represents. They'll go on about feudalism, oppression, wealth, theology and so on with these institutions, but is anyone seriously comparing the meek Church of England to the Ayatollahs of Iran? I have literally seen people arguing for the disestablishment of the CoE make that comparison before that we have a state church and so does Iran. Does anyone really believe that our democracy would somehow be enhanced by replacing the Lords with more political puppets in the form of a Senate? Are we really saying that Prince Charles' letters to ministers over endangered newts have some sinister grip on government policy?

just as a side point, you mentioned other countries "fetishising" over revolutions, can i just point out that a lot of people do that about WW2 in this country which probably includes yourself to a degree
also youre the one constantly calling for mps to be shot

Naturally countries will fetishise revolutions. The French revolution arguably caused a lot more damage than it actually solved anything, but will the French ever admit such a thing? Of course not. In the same way the British will not admit that World War II was a mistake (at least in 1939) and cost us our Empire thans to our American 'friends'. The same goes for World War I, which certainly was unnecessary. In both wars, we declared war over borders in central and eastern Europe that we had no interest in or ability to change.

i rebutted it by saying you dont get to decide what is and isnt a civil war
you also ignored my entire point about irish independence, which you could argue was even more destablising than a civil war

Ireland was a civil war sure, but only effected a small part of the kingdom. The actual Civil War effected all parts.

using https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html as a base source of ideas

got a bit bored looking for sources
so using the list from that url provided which obviously isnt gospel, he seems to tick a fair few of the boxes (also lets not ignore the image from before) but some cant really be ticked unless he was in power

You believe someone can only believe in human rights if they subscribe to belonging to the European Court of Human Rights? So by that logic, are you arguing human rights do not exist in Australia, Canada, America, New Zealand, Taiwan and Hong Kong? Don't be silly.