caze

No, if there's a vote of no confidence in the government, then the leader of the opposition is given a chance to form a government, or anyone else after that if they can't. they have two weeks to sort it out so that a majority of parliament will vote for someone, if not then there's a general election. so in theory there could be a temporary government of national unity type deal, e.g. with the sole purpose of legislating for a new referendum, after which there'd be a GE. all quite unlikely, but it's one of the few remaining ways out of this mess.

he was elected PM by around 0.001% of the population

surprised nobody mentioned Joao Gilberto, was a few days ago

Pecan pie, wine

also had a pizza, was nice

erdinger and peanuts

Dr John, 77, heart attack

you're right that doesn't mean shit, the lib dems, greens, plaid and snp all got more voters motivated to vote for them than in past elections too. all based on solely campaigning for remain. brexit party did well, but UKIP topped the european elections the last time, so that was no surprise. they barely increased their vote at all (taking a few more pissed off tories and probably a handful of labour voters, but the majority who changed switched to the parties who were solely campaigning on one issue). it was a big win for remain parties and as expected for people who always wanted out. you're right that doesn't mean shit, the lib dems, greens, plaid and snp all got more voters motivated to vote for them than in past elections too. all based on solely campaigning for remain. brexit party did well, but UKIP topped the european elections the last time, so that was no surprise. they barely increased their vote at all (taking a few more pissed off tories and probably a handful of labour voters, but the majority who changed switched to the parties who were solely campaigning on one issue). it was a big win for remain parties and as expected for people who always wanted out. and again, the only actual real world change from all this has been to change official labour policy to supporting a 2nd referendum.

loser? lol. you do realise that a party getting the largest share of the european election results (and nowhere close to a majority I might remind you) doesn't win them anything. the brexit party will send some MEPs to europe to sit with a bunch of other swivel eyed loons, where they will have zero impact on anything, they're a minority grouping who everyone else hates. back in the UK the massive swing to the pro-remain parties has forced labour to finally publicly back a 2nd referendum. that's been the only 'win' so far for anyone.

No it doesn't. The graph shows more than a doubling of the total methane level, and a 35% increase in the CO2 level, over a hundred years, that is the significant feature of the data that you should take away from the graph, and that would remain so even if you added in a bunch of empty space below all the data points. A 35% increase of a small amount wouldn't be a big deal, but we know from the effect of CO2 on the climate throughout the earth's history that this represents a significant increase. Your own link proves my point btw (did you even read it?), there are cases when cutting the y-axis can distort the picture (where you actually have a relatively small difference between the data points); this isn't one of them, the relative difference between the data is huge in terms of their effects. Always starting axes at zero would be an entirely arbitrary decision, what matters is what the numbers, and differences between them, mean in the real world. In many charts starting at zero would be meaningless, a zero quantity may be physically impossible for example, so including it in your graph as the baseline imparts no useful information. There is a window of acceptable CO2 concentration (in terms of allowing humans to live comfortably, or at all, in all the various places in which they currently live), this window probably extends below the bottom of that graph, it does not extend much past the top. The medieval warm period and little ice age are also pretty well understood btw, the former wasn't even that warm (at a global level it was below current average temps, there just happened to be higher temps in northern latitudes, it was probably caused by changes in sea currents or upper atmospheric changes). The latter was caused by increased volcanic activity and low solar activity. Somewhat similarly is the possibility that continued global warming could cause lower temperatures in many parts of the northern hemisphere, again due to changes in the gulf stream and ocean currents, while still raising global average temperatures and causing rising sea levels. You're still missing the point re the other graph too, the important feature is that there is evidence for long-scale, slow moving, fluctuations (due to various orbital shit), there is no evidence for orbital differences causing short-scale fluctuations of the same amount (as seen in the hockey stick). There were certainly many incidents which caused short scale fluctuations in the distant past, due to volcanic activity and meteor impacts and such, but not orbital mechanics; the only thing we have any evidence for wrt to recent warming is manmade CO2, and it's very strong evidence. And even if Milankovitch cycles were playing a part in the climate now, then the climate should actually be cooling, not warming (this was why there was a global cooling scare before we understood the climate was actually warming); because our current orbit sees upper latitudes receive less sunlight.

The problem is that Britain is a parliamentary democracy with no written constitution, and referendums have no special place in the law (unlike Ireland for example where any changes in law that would affect the constitutional order require legally binding referendums to settle the matter), the brexit referendum wasn't legally binding in any way, it just provided an abstract mandate for the government, with the consent of parliament, to try and bring about some form of leaving the EU. The referendum didn't specify what form that would take, and parliament is completely divided on that question (as are those who voted for brexit in the first place). It doesn't require any more votes to go through as things stand, the UK will leave on the 31st October if nothing else happens. The current parliament is unlikely to let that happen though, the Tory party are likely to appoint a no-deal brexit supporting leader (e.g. Boris Johnson) in the coming month or so, if that happens and the EU refuse to negotiate any further (which is likely), then Tories who want to prevent a no-deal brexit will bring down the government. After that there will be a few weeks where parliament is given a chance to vote in a new prime minister, ideally this would happen and a 2nd referendum would be called to try and sort the mess out once and for all, if not then there would be a general election, after which a new parliament would have a chance to either prevent it from happening (with a referendum or just cancelling the whole thing), accepting the currently agreed deal with the EU, or doing nothing and crashing out and turning the UK into a basket case of a country.

You can't, but it would be impossible to work out the exact contribution. Because neither party, or it's members and supporters, are clear on what they want exactly. Based on polling you'd expect the majority of Labour voters to be pro-remain and the majority of Tory voters to be pro-leave, but it's impossible to be certain how this would break down in this vote, given that lots of their regular voters definitely voted for other parties instead. It's likely the total would add a few % points to the remain side, but it's impossible to tell for sure, it would definitely add something to the pro-brexit total, but not enough to make up the gap between the other parties with a clear brexit policy.

basic arithmetic isn't your strong suit I take it? Pro-brexit parties: Brexit Party: 31.6% UKIP: 3.3% Total: 34.9% Anti-brexit, pro 2nd referendum parties: Lib Dems: 20.3% Green: 12.09% SNP: 3.6% Change UK: 3.4% Plaid Cymru: 1% Total: 40.39% That leaves Labour with 14.1% (who are a majority remain party, in terms of support if not leadership), and the Tories with 9% (who are a majority leave party), plus a few % scattered about amongst a few others (which together accounts for 2 pro-remain MEPs and 1 leave MEP from NI). Taken together that accounts for a few more % for the remain side, though it would be difficult to apportion it out exactly so I'll leave it out for the sake of fairness. Pro-brexit parties btw increased their vote share by 7.4%, while the anti-brexit parties increased theirs by 22.43%.

The fact that the y-axes don't start at zero is irrelevant, that's only because there are no data points below 250 or 600 on those axes. If you started them at zero you'd just add a bunch of blank space, it wouldn't affect the apparent size of the spike at all, the only way to do that would be to make the axes non-linear (which would actually decrease the apparent size of the spike), but they're both linear. The differing scales on the x-axis of the other graph isn't relevant either, they're clearly labeled and they account for time scales in thousands of years and more, whereas the other graph is for hundreds of years, the difference between the two is obvious. There's nothing in long-scale data that shows those minkowski cycles that can explain the current spike, it's obviously caused by human activity, as corroborated by lots of other data. Dumping a huge amount of extra energy into the climate over such a short time span is going to have a big impact, it's just basic physics. On the general point you're somewhat correct to be sceptical about the predictive ability of current climate models, the more data we get it looks like the uncertainty in these models increases a lot. That's not necessarily a good thing though, while on the one hand it might mean less warming and sea level rise over the next hundred years, but on the other hand it could just as likely lead to far greater problems than currently thought. Either way there's no doubt about the cause of recent warming, and given the risks we need to be sorting this shit out yesterday.

also, Mr Yaxley-Lennon slunk off from the count centre before the vote was even announced, and when his vote tally was announced the entire hall erupted in laughter. which was nice.

not a great result for The Brexit Party at all, clear majority for remain parties. if this had been a 2nd referendum we'd be staying. brexit party just absorbed the UKIP vote and took a big chunk of the tory vote, the lib dems seem to have taken a much larger portion of the tory vote in many areas though. The Lib Dems are the big winners here.

most of the reason for using the BBCode editor before was that the rich text editor was really shit, full of bugs (especially if you were cutting and pasting, and then editing the pasted text, was easy to delete some hidden character and completely mess up the formatting of the whole post). the new editor seems a lot less shit, haven't encountered a problem with it yet.

Will be interesting to see how much backbone the remain supporting Tories have if Boris or someone similar gets in. Dominic Grieve has said he'll vote to collapse the government if there's any chance of no-deal brexit happening (and Boris has said he's fine leaving without a deal), so it might be a short stint as prime minister for whoever's up next.

Well yeah, he's still an MEP, would be weird if they weren't paying him.

Did you mean MEP? He's tried and failed to be elected as an MP on 5 occasions.

austerity didn't lead to brexit anyway, it's been the end result of a very long campaign, started long before austerity, or even before the financial crash happened (under Labour's watch). the reason for brexit is that people are stupid and will fall for any old xenophobic nonsense at the drop of a hat, nothing else. the anger over tuition fees was a joke as well, nothing wrong with them. if you end up with a degree and good paying job you should have to pay for it, it's just a graduate tax. if you can't repay your student loans you don't have to, repayments only kick in after you earn enough.

given the amount of legislation and civil service work that's required to even leave the EU, having only a single policy of 'don't leave the EU' is all that's required at this point really.