SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47547887:
Theresa May's EU withdrawal deal has been rejected by MPs[*] by an overwhelming majority for a second time, with just 17 days to go to Brexit.
MPs voted down the prime minister's deal by 149 - a smaller margin than when they rejected it in January.
Mrs May said MPs will now get a vote on whether the UK should leave the EU without a deal and, if that fails, on whether Brexit should be delayed.
She said Tory MPs will get a free vote on a no-deal Brexit.
That means they can vote with their conscience rather than following the orders of party managers - an unusual move for a vote on a major policy, with Labour saying it showed she had "given up any pretence of leading the country".
The PM had made a last minute plea to MPs to back her deal after she had secured legal assurances on the Irish backstop from the EU.
But although she managed to convince about 40 Tory MPs to change their mind, it was not nearly enough to overturn the historic 230 vote defeat she suffered in January, throwing her Brexit strategy into fresh disarray.
[*] MP: Member of Parliament; PM: Prime Minister
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:58AM (15 children)
You got to expect that there'd be more scapegoats where Emmanuel Goldstein came from.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:14AM (14 children)
The dilution of hate is not recommended. Proof: look how well the novichok story played in, almost too conveniently so.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:26AM (13 children)
It's classic tragedy of the commons. Lot of people want to get in on the racket and invent their own bogeymen. You almost need the world of 1984 to keep the brand stable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:38AM (7 children)
With Brexit in the brambles, 1984 is a must.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:09AM (6 children)
1605 would be better, if you ask me.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:51AM (5 children)
You mean.... the very first landing of Europeans in Australia [wikipedia.org]? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:31AM (4 children)
Yeah, but he thought it was just another bit of New Guinea. It was up to Abel Tasman to do the real discovery a few decades later. You could tell even without the name that it was discovered by a Dutchman, i.e. someone from a country where weed is legal, because while discovering Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) right down the bottom he managed to miss Australia.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:57AM (3 children)
This doesn't make him less then the first European to step onto Australian soil, even if he didn't know what he was doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:08PM (2 children)
Yeah, more evidence that taking your provisions in the form of spacecakes isn't conducive to effective exploration.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:14PM (1 child)
To his defends, seems the indigenous population hated those cakes so much that their level of aggression didn't allow a... peaceful exploration and forced a premature retreat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by driverless on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:30PM
They were already living in the Dreamtime, they didn't need dodgy Dutch weed any more.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:36PM (4 children)
Hate as a shared but limited value of a community. That's... an interesting take.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:44PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:22PM (2 children)
Care to explain that to our sitting president and the GOP? I've lost track of how many times US citizens are called "the enemy".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:34PM (1 child)
That's a pretty vague statement. I doubt there's a politician out there dumb enough to make that mistake at least with the collective US citizen. So... methinks you lost count at zero.
But if you're speaking of particular US citizens? What of it? Lots of people have lots of enemies, real and imagined. We wouldn't be helping the situation if we made it illegal to talk about it (except of course by the parties able to break said law with near impunity).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @01:44AM
These things always depend on point of view. One of the problems with it is that some will consider it precise enough even if only one citizen is called "enemy" without a solid base to do so.
They'll argue that, if the mechanism of the executive sidestepping the judiciary/legislative when naming enemies exists and is allowed , who is to say it won't be used and abused in the future by your side too?