Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on February 24, 2017, 09:38:17 AM
-
The by elections last night gave showed a couple of things. 1 Labour will lose the next election, even without the boundary rejig. With it they will be decimated many times over.
2. There isn't really a point to UKIP any more. If they couldn't win Stoke, where will they win, but more importantly why will they win? Their raison d'etre has gone, subsumed by May and events. They have little other than a ragbag of constantly changing policies with no coherence.
I, for one, am unsure of our new Tory leaders.
-
Unsure. Unsure?
I'm quite sure that they haven't got a clue as they sit protected by their wealth pretending concern for ordinary people all the while selling them down the river of expediency.
No good will come of this situation.
-
I was using the phrase to echo hollowly the famous one from the Simpsons. It looks certain currently that it will be a Tory govt now for the next 15 years at least. I know that a week is a onf time on politics but....
-
Labour needs to take a long look at itself and ask how the fuck the Tories appear to be more plausibly in favour of the working people in some of their northern heartlands.
-
Indeed, but one of the ways is the newly elected MP opposing Tory policy on the local NHS issues. I suspect that the current opposition is the SNP and parts of the Tory party. Not sure currently if there is a point to Labour
-
Spot on from the Mash. Quite extraordinary that one of the four most successful politicians in the UK in the last 40 years, IMO, has list 7 attempts to be elected an MP
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/who-needs-mps-says-ukip-20170224122753
-
Unsure. Unsure?
I'm quite sure that they haven't got a clue as they sit protected by their wealth pretending concern for ordinary people all the while selling them down the river of expediency.
No good will come of this situation.
Ditto Labour
-
Ditto Labour
That's an irrelevant tu quoque and just as irrelevant as the Labour party currently
-
Labour supporters (of which I am a luke-warm version), will just have to wait now, to see what ensues. It seems unpredictable to me, except losing the next election. I went through the despair thing when the right-wing rebelled against Corbyn, but I've got through that. Mrs May is on a roll, but I doubt if it will last.
-
It doesn't really need to last. It could all go horribly wrong for May but no one is in a position in the UK to puck up enough support and if the boundary changes happen the next Tory majority could be colossal. That said the one chance of the changes not happening is if there is rebellion in the Tory party from MPs who will lose their seat and have to enter the fox run with the reduction in seats.
-
A lot depends on Brexit. I think Mrs May will be able to use smoke and mirrors for quite a period, but then it depends on whether the customs regulations can be squared up, quite a feat really, once we are a 'third country'. I know the right wing are talking about importing EU regulations (hence, convergence), but what happens when we start to diverge? Will our mythical truck, driving from Slovakia to Manchester, continue to pass borders 'frictionlessly'? Somebody told me the queue over the Russian border is about 3 days. Nobody knows.
-
But the problem with the idea of Brexit going tits up is who gets thed votesd. The Labour Party's position supporting Brexit is problematic, UKIP won't get it, and the Lid Dems start from too low a position.
-
But the problem with the idea of Brexit going tits up is who gets thed votesd. The Labour Party's position supporting Brexit is problematic, UKIP won't get it, and the Lid Dems start from too low a position.
Yes, it's unpredictable. I notice that Starmer has been sounding competent, but oh so dull, and Labour have quite a problem with the next leader. I think they will start to backtrack if there are 3 days queues in Dover and elsewhere, and the veg are rotting in the fields. But then that won't happen, as immigration is going to continue! I suspect that May will have a soft Brexit, but describe it in hard terms.
-
I was using the phrase to echo hollowly the famous one from the Simpsons. It looks certain currently that it will be a Tory govt now for the next 15 years at least. I know that a week is a onf time on politics but....
Ah I see. Not being a devotee of The Simpsons I failed to pick up on that.
-
Ah I see. Not being a devotee of The Simpsons I failed to pick up on that.
See here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcUHQYhPTE
-
I think this is good on why getting rid of Corbyn is not a magic bullet. I think the writer is naive about what will work but they are right that currently the Labour Party appears to be pointless
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-copeland-defeat-by-election-stoke-ukip-tory-conservative-victory-problem-a7597141.html
-
I think this is good on why getting rid of Corbyn is not a magic bullet. I think the writer is naive about what will work but they are right that currently the Labour Party appears to be pointless
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-copeland-defeat-by-election-stoke-ukip-tory-conservative-victory-problem-a7597141.html
Hmmm....in effect the article seems to be arguing for something that is being discussed elsewhere on R & E - namely more certainty. More strident certainty.
Who will save us from all this certainty?
Steve Bannon maybe ?
We are all well and truly stuffed.
-
I don't think it is more certainty just an expression of aims.
-
I think this is good on why getting rid of Corbyn is not a magic bullet. I think the writer is naive about what will work but they are right that currently the Labour Party appears to be pointless
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-copeland-defeat-by-election-stoke-ukip-tory-conservative-victory-problem-a7597141.html
Not a bad article. I agree that Corbyn is not really the problem. Well, obviously Labour has lost its way, but it did that under Blair, who triangulated successfully, but left the Labour rank and file as a pointless addendum. Getting over Blair is proving very tough then. Their best hope is the electoral cycle, during which both main parties are periodically written off as unelectable. But Brexit complicates everything, and will presumably be a mess for at least ten years.
-
Not a bad article. I agree that Corbyn is not really the problem. Well, obviously Labour has lost its way, but it did that under Blair, who triangulated successfully, but left the Labour rank and file as a pointless addendum. Getting over Blair is proving very tough then. Their best hope is the electoral cycle, during which both main parties are periodically written off as unelectable. But Brexit complicates everything, and will presumably be a mess for at least ten years.
Agreed. The meltdown in Scotland has also affected them in a way that it will be difficult to get back from. Yes, they did win in England as well when in govt, mostly, but it looks so much harder now. The loss in Copeland might be put down to the nuclear power issue, though I think that underlines the confusion people have, and to the Tory candidate opposing Tory policy on the NHS locally, but it's been Labour for 80 years.
To expand on my reply to Trent, I think the whole nuclear issue shows why policy isn't clear rather than pragmatic and admitting of uncertainty. It's not that JC is saying, let's look at nuclear power. He is opposed to it but the party isn't. That's not about looking at the issue and saying 'let's do a full investigation of safety of nuclear plants and formulate policy on the badius of that and fit it into an overall energy policy'. It's just confusion
-
How many times has labour lost its way. Devaluing the pound in the sixties, IMF loan in the seventies, mass immigration and quadrupling of house prices in the noughties.
Corbyn isn't the problem, Labour is.
-
Agreed. The meltdown in Scotland has also affected them in a way that it will be difficult to get back from. Yes, they did win in England as well when in govt, mostly, but it looks so much harder now. The loss in Copeland might be put down to the nuclear power issue, though I think that underlines the confusion people have, and to the Tory candidate opposing Tory policy on the NHS locally, but it's been Labour for 80 years.
To expand on my reply to Trent, I think the whole nuclear issue shows why policy isn't clear rather than pragmatic and admitting of uncertainty. It's not that JC is saying, let's look at nuclear power. He is opposed to it but the party isn't. That's not about looking at the issue and saying 'let's do a full investigation of safety of nuclear plants and formulate policy on the badius of that and fit it into an overall energy policy'. It's just confusion
Yes, massive confusion. I think the historical ambiguity in Labour - founded by the unions to protect the 'working man' - but attracting middle class votes, periodically helps them (as with Blair who was able to get votes from both), and wrecks them, as one wing or the other gets fed up.
At the moment, it looks as if everybody is fed up! And Brexit is confusing things even more. But as I said, I think the electoral cycle may come to their aid in the end. Mrs May is sweeping all before her, but will it last?
-
How many times has labour lost its way. Devaluing the pound in the sixties, IMF loan in the seventies, mass immigration and quadrupling of house prices in the noughties.
Corbyn isn't the problem, Labour is.
The common perception that Labour was rubbish at managing the economy is just that.
http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/taq30tk04ljnvpyfos059pp0w7gnpe
As to mass immigration, why I believe a certain David Davies thinks it will continue even after Brexit. Those promises of take back control, £350milllion for the NHS, all to come to nothing.
http://newsthump.com/2017/02/24/last-person-who-still-believed-350m-eu-nhs-claim-finally-realises/
-
Surely, we will be taking back control, as instead of accepting customs regulations from the EU, we will be importing them into British law, and then, well, following EU regulations, because we want to.
-
How many times has labour lost its way. Devaluing the pound in the sixties, IMF loan in the seventies, mass immigration and quadrupling of house prices in the noughties.
Corbyn isn't the problem, Labour is.
what policy of Labour's specifically, I.e. not one that other parties supported, led to the quadrupling of house prices?
-
Surely, we will be taking back control, as instead of accepting customs regulations from the EU, we will be importing them into British law, and then, well, following EU regulations, because we want to.
Cue Billie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_XI_290cfw
-
Oh my goodness. I wasn't aware of BP's foray into pop music. I now have you to thank NS.
I will find a way to repay this extraordinary gesture of sharing.
-
Prof John Curtice, psephologist to the stats
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/stoke-copeland-labour-remain-richmond-copeland-ukip
-
Prof John Curtice, psephologist to the stats
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/stoke-copeland-labour-remain-richmond-copeland-ukip
He is quite right that Labour should focus very clearly on remain voters - their attempt to court leavers is bonkers.
Firstly overwhelmingly Labour voters voted remain so they are effectively turning their back on their own support but suddenly becoming Brexiteers. Secondly the Brexit space and battle for votes is already crowded and Labour will lose out. We have Tories, UKIP and Labour all now fishing for the 52%, but Labour aren't credibly - they will always lose out to UKIP, who have been campaigning for Brexit for ever, and the Tories, who were always more genuinely sceptical and are now in charge of the actual process. Labour come a poor third in that company.
But there is wide open space for the 48% of voters (disproportionately of whom were already Labour). That is where the electoral gains lie.
-
He is quite right that Labour should focus very clearly on remain voters - their attempt to court leavers is bonkers.
Firstly overwhelmingly Labour voters voted remain so they are effectively turning their back on their own support but suddenly becoming Brexiteers. Secondly the Brexit space and battle for votes is already crowded and Labour will lose out. We have Tories, UKIP and Labour all now fishing for the 52%, but Labour aren't credibly - they will always lose out to UKIP, who have been campaigning for Brexit for ever, and the Tories, who were always more genuinely sceptical and are now in charge of the actual process. Labour come a poor third in that company.
But there is wide open space for the 48% of voters (disproportionately of whom were already Labour). That is where the electoral gains lie.
I pretty much agree but surely Labour should do the thing it thinks is right, not the thing that is simply about getting some votes?
-
I pretty much agree but surely Labour should do the thing it thinks is right, not the thing that is simply about getting some votes?
But isn't that exactly what it is currently doing in a wrong-headed manner - being a sudden convert to Brexit when the vast majority of its MPs, activists etc were fervently remain. I don't believe they have changed their minds at all on whether brexit is right - I think they have been lead to believe that continuing to fight for an alternative view will lose them votes. That is non-sense - there are 16 million voters looking for a party that believes what they believe and could (with a different leader) actually deliver change.
-
But isn't that exactly what it is currently doing in a wrong-headed manner - being a sudden convert to Brexit when the vast majority of its MPs, activists etc were fervently remain. I don't believe they have changed their minds at all on whether brexit is right - I think they have been lead to believe that continuing to fight for an alternative view will lose them votes. That is non-sense - there are 16 million voters looking for a party that believes what they believe and could (with a different leader) actually deliver change.
Is it! And how is any of the above an answer to what I asked? Are you honestly saying that what you think a party should do is lie about what it thinks is right?
-
I was using the phrase to echo hollowly the famous one from the Simpsons. It looks certain currently that it will be a Tory govt now for the next 15 years at least. I know that a week is a onf time on politics but....
Sadly many of the voters, including traditional Labour voters, think that May is doing a good job with the Brexit issue. They forget that the Tories don't bother with the north and tend to focus on big business not communities.
As for UKIP they pretty much had an open goal, or at least very few defenders to deal with and they missed - a bit like Leicester this season.
Labour? Pretty much fucked, especially if that Corbyn fellow stays as leader.
-
Sadly many of the voters, including traditional Labour voters, think that May is doing a good job with the Brexit issue. They forget that the Tories don't bother with the north and tend to focus on big business not communities.
As for UKIP they pretty much had an open goal, or at least very few defenders to deal with and they missed - a bit like Leicester this season.
Labour? Pretty much fucked, especially if that Corbyn fellow stays as leader.
Other than not being sure what a good job on Brexit is, especially for Labour voters who were 2 to 1 against Brexit, I agree
-
With Corbyn as leader Labour is not likely to do well, he seems to lack what it takes to enthuse people.
-
Is it! And how is any of the above an answer to what I asked? Are you honestly saying that what you think a party should do is lie about what it thinks is right?
Quite the reverse - I think that is what they currently are doing. I simply don't believe that most Labour MPs believe that Brexit is the right thing to do. They didn't before the referendum, and I don't believe they do now. And the electorate aren't dumb - they can spot a fake a mile off - and that includes MPs who appear to have a road to Damascus about turn in their views on the EU, when it is quite apparent that they haven't, and that they still believe that remaining in the EU is the right thing to do.
-
But isn't that exactly what it is currently doing in a wrong-headed manner - being a sudden convert to Brexit when the vast majority of its MPs, activists etc were fervently remain. I don't believe they have changed their minds at all on whether brexit is right - I think they have been lead to believe that continuing to fight for an alternative view will lose them votes. That is non-sense - there are 16 million voters looking for a party that believes what they believe and could (with a different leader) actually deliver change.
But trying to turn back the clock on Brexit would be suicide. It would indicate that you didn't respect democracy or the peoples views.
-
But trying to turn back the clock on Brexit would be suicide. It would indicate that you didn't respect democracy or the peoples views.
I think we should turn back the clock on Brexit so as to avert the on coming disaster: that said, if Brexit is unavoidable it should secure the independence of Scotland.
-
Other than not being sure what a good job on Brexit is, especially for Labour voters who were 2 to 1 against Brexit, I agree
Yes, but now the country has spoken on the issue many are saying get on with it, and find those who are trying to frustrate the whole process just pedantic and annoying. Plus there are other issues that people are concerned about which Labour seem to be totally lost on in terms of giving a clear unanimous voice to.
-
Quite the reverse - I think that is what they currently are doing. I simply don't believe that most Labour MPs believe that Brexit is the right thing to do. They didn't before the referendum, and I don't believe they do now. And the electorate aren't dumb - they can spot a fake a mile off - and that includes MPs who appear to have a road to Damascus about turn in their views on the EU, when it is quite apparent that they haven't, and that they still believe that remaining in the EU is the right thing to do.
that is a different thing, if you want to say they should say what they believe great but you appeared to be suggesting that they should choose the position because it might win.
-
Yes, but now the country has spoken on the issue many are saying get on with it, and find those who are trying to frustrate the whole process just pedantic and annoying. Plus there are other issues that people are concerned about which Labour seem to be totally lost on in terms of giving a clear unanimous voice to.
first sentence is an assertion. Second is irrelevant to the first sentence.
-
that is a different thing, if you want to say they should say what they believe great but you appeared to be suggesting that they should choose the position because it might win.
But if saying what they think also is a smart strategy to win votes then why not.
Currently I think they are on a hiding to nothing - the worst of all worlds - unconvincingly trying to portray a position they don't (or most MPs don't) believe in, which isn't actually attractive to those voters who might be persuaded to vote for them.
-
I think we should turn back the clock on Brexit so as to avert the on coming disaster: that said, if Brexit is unavoidable it should secure the independence of Scotland.
What disaster? Who's crystal ball are you looking at. ;D
This is the problem with all those crying over Brexit. They assume it will cause a disaster and take that to mean it will and then work from there to give out their apoplectic version of throwing their toys out of their pram.
-
Yes, but now the country has spoken on the issue many are saying get on with it, and find those who are trying to frustrate the whole process just pedantic and annoying.
Tough - those who continue to think that Brexit is bad for the UK have every right to say so, regardless of whether you think them pedantic and annoying.
And whatever your basic views it is much more important to get any Brexit settlement right, rather than to do it quickly. And if that means scrutiny and people asking awkward questions and expecting answers, so be it.
-
first sentence is an assertion. Second is irrelevant to the first sentence.
All of that is an assertion, and most of your posts are as well. What's your point?
-
But if saying what they think also is a smart strategy to win votes then why not.
Currently I think they are on a hiding to nothing - the worst of all worlds - unconvincingly trying to portray a position they don't (or most MPs don't) believe in, which isn't actually attractive to those voters who might be persuaded to vote for them.
what do they think?
-
But if saying what they think also is a smart strategy to win votes then why not.
Currently I think they are on a hiding to nothing - the worst of all worlds - unconvincingly trying to portray a position they don't (or most MPs don't) believe in, which isn't actually attractive to those voters who might be persuaded to vote for them.
But that is what Blair did. That's one thing Corbyn didn't like about New Labour. This is also what the people are fed up with. What Corbyn has found out is that being at the top of a political party is different to being someone on the side lines promoting a movements agenda.
-
All of that is an assertion, and most of your posts are as well. What's your point?
Made my point. Love your evasion, my yellow buttercup!
-
Tough - those who continue to think that Brexit is bad for the UK have every right to say so, regardless of whether you think them pedantic and annoying.
And whatever your basic views it is much more important to get any Brexit settlement right, rather than to do it quickly. And if that means scrutiny and people asking awkward questions and expecting answers, so be it.
They can say what they like but what they can't do is try to reverse it. Which is what their version of right is.
-
Made my point. Love your evasion, my yellow buttercup!
Try writing English and making sense some time?
-
Try writing English and making sense some time?
Yes, you should
-
They can say what they like but what they can't do is try to reverse it. Which is what their version of right is.
Of course people can try to reverse it - they have every right to do that.
For ordinary members of the public the only way to do that is to persuade sufficient people to use democratic means to reverse it - either through persuasion that a second referendum is a good idea or through a general election which returns a government with a mandate to reverse it.
For the current parliament they have every right to reverse the decision - as parliament is sovereign (remember that's what you brexiteers were fighting for) and can chose to ignore a advisory referendum.
In reality the most likely route is if the deal eventually struck turns out to be a dogs dinner (as is likely) and clearly not in the best interests of the UK, resulting in a clamour to revoke article 50, with or without a further referendum.
However the major point remains - we have every right to try to reverse the referendum decision. Otherwise we'd never be able to change our minds in a democratic system, i.e. we could never kick out a government that we'd previously voted in.
-
I think we should turn back the clock on Brexit so as to avert the on coming disaster: that said, if Brexit is unavoidable it should secure the independence of Scotland.
-
No argument from me!
Labour in Scotland is in a similar disasterous state, with a lamentable leader (even her dad tweets against her) and few policies of any note.
The latest offering is a new 'Act of Union' which would create a completely federal britain.....and it's about as daft as most of the other 'vow' related stuff SLAB have scrambled togeether since 2014.
Coupled with a glaring lack of policies, many dissillusioned Labour members will not forgive them for getting into bed with the Tories in 2014, and supporting Tory policies in both Westminster and Holyrood.
They have lost their way.
Still, on the bright side, the only numpty from UKIP who represents Scotland is David Coburn, who redefines imbecility every time he speaks.
-
Unsure. Unsure?
I'm quite sure that they haven't got a clue as they sit protected by their wealth pretending concern for ordinary people all the while selling them down the river of expediency.
No good will come of this situation.
There is a legitimate school of thought that less government that focuses on creating the right environment for people to get on is better than mostly virtue signalling left. We get the politicians we deserve and if this is the standard of debate no surprise that May is coasting along almost unopposed.
Brexit the biggest issue facing the nation and only two parties have a credible coherent position on it, LibDems and Tories, suggest people end tribal loyalties (which give politicians a free pass) and vote accordingly.
-
There is a legitimate school of thought that less government that focuses on creating the right environment for people to get on is better than mostly virtue signalling left. We get the politicians we deserve and if this is the standard of debate no surprise that May is coasting along almost unopposed.
Brexit the biggest issue facing the nation and only two parties have a credible coherent position on it, LibDems and Tories, suggest people end tribal loyalties (which give politicians a free pass) and vote accordingly.
Oh don't worry, my tribal loyalties have gone. How about you?
-
two parties have a credible coherent position on it, LibDems and Tories, suggest people end tribal loyalties (which give politicians a free pass) and vote accordingly.
I'd say UKIP also have a coherent albeit simplistic position on it.
What they don't have is a position on any other policy
-
I'd say UKIP also have a coherent albeit simplistic position on it.
What they don't have is a position on any other policy
I'd agree - actually the parties with coherent position on Brexit are The LibDems, UKIP, the SNP and the Greens. Those without a coherent position are Labour and the Tories.
-
For the current parliament they have every right to reverse the decision - as parliament is sovereign (remember that's what you brexiteers were fighting for) and can chose to ignore a advisory referendum.
No they don't. They are there because of the people but the people have directly votes on this issue and so trump parliament.
Of course people can try to reverse it - they have every right to do that.
So therefore no one has that right.
However the major point remains - we have every right to try to reverse the referendum decision. Otherwise we'd never be able to change our minds in a democratic system, i.e. we could never kick out a government that we'd previously voted in.
But people tried to get it reversed before article 50 had been triggered let alone that the negotiations haven't even started and so that the format of the future offer and outcome is known. When have people cried out to rerun the general election days afterwards just because their party didn't win. No, they have to wait until the term of office has run its course and the Remoaners and other sore losers should shut up and wait for how things pan out.
-
I'd say UKIP also have a coherent albeit simplistic position on it.
What they don't have is a position on any other policy
Oh they do, it's in their 2015 manifesto. They just aren't asked about them by the media who only rant on about their EU position.
-
No they don't. They are there because of the people but the people have directly votes on this issue and so trump parliament.
Your mate Nigel doesn't agree...
Nigel Farage forced to admit that the EU referendum was only 'advisory' (The Independent) (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html)
-
No they don't. They are there because of the people but the people have directly votes on this issue and so trump parliament.
Not in this case. The referendum was not legally binding. Our constitution gives our parliament the ultimate authority in this case.
Parliament has decided to go with the will of 25% of the People for political reasons. As soon as politics dictates, they will change their minds, especially given that most of them are against Brexit. What is needed is a convincing demonstration that most British people do not want Brexit. Another referendum that gores the other way or a General Election in which Remainers do very well or even overwhelming opinion polls would do that. Unfortunately, I do not think any of those are likely to happen before it is too late.
-
The by elections last night gave showed a couple of things. 1 Labour will lose the next election, even without the boundary rejig. With it they will be decimated many times over.
2. There isn't really a point to UKIP any more. If they couldn't win Stoke, where will they win, but more importantly why will they win? Their raison d'etre has gone, subsumed by May and events. They have little other than a ragbag of constantly changing policies with no coherence.
I, for one, am unsure of our new Tory leaders.
Your analysis of point 2 is flawed. An important factor in UKIP's Stoke result was that their candidate was shown to be a liar, in fact, not just a liar, but a liar about Hillsborough. Perhaps a better candidate might have won.
-
No they don't. They are there because of the people but the people have directly votes on this issue and so trump parliament.
So therefore no one has that right.
Wrong - the referendum was advisory and therefore parliament trumps the referendum result with parliament completely free to ignore the result.
Parliament could have enacted a binding referendum (as was the case for the FPTP v AV referendum) but it chose not to - instead it enacted an advisory referendum instead.
And this point has been settled in the Supreme Court - who ruled that only parliament can trigger article 50 and that parliament is sovereign in that decision and is not beholden to the referendum result.
-
Your mate Nigel doesn't agree...
Nigel Farage forced to admit that the EU referendum was only 'advisory' (The Independent) (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html)
You're answering a different question.
-
Wrong - the referendum was advisory and therefore parliament trumps the referendum result with parliament completely free to ignore the result.
Parliament could have enacted a binding referendum (as was the case for the FPTP v AV referendum) but it chose not to - instead it enacted an advisory referendum instead.
And this point has been settled in the Supreme Court - who ruled that only parliament can trigger article 50 and that parliament is sovereign in that decision and is not beholden to the referendum result.
The advisory part was beside the point. It is like advising a mad, crazed pit bull dog to be good. It has teeth and so you better not tease it. And this is basically what has happened, most of the MPs have acted as if the referendum was binding. To have a real sovereign parliament we need a general election soon.
The supreme court was wrong for the reasons I have stated that the people votes count more than parliaments.
-
The advisory part was beside the point. It is like advising a mad, crazed pit bull dog to be good. It has teeth and so you better not tease it. And this is basically what has happened, most of the MPs have acted as if the referendum was binding. To have a real sovereign parliament we need a general election soon.
Nope the advisory part was absolutely crucial - parliament voted for an advisory referendum and that is what we had. Therefore they are entirely within their rights to accept or reject or amend the referendum result. There wold be no constitutional crisis either way. However there would be a constitutional crisis if there were an attempt to turn an advisory referendum, after the event, into a binding one. And by 'the event' I don't just mean the referendum itself but crucially the act that allowed it to happen (as an advisory referendum).
The supreme court was wrong for the reasons ...
So little Jack Knave knows more about points of law that the highest court in the land.
I have stated that the people votes count more than parliaments.
State away, but you are wrong. The people's voice only trumps parliament (and never trumps the law) in 2 circumstances. In a general election where they determine the make up of parliament (well actually the commons) and in a binding referendum - but the latter is only because parliament has specifically allowed itself to be trumped in a very tightly defined situation. And in a general election the people only determine the make up of the MPs they may not dictate how those MPs act during that term in parliament, albeit they can kick them out if they don't like how they acted at the next general election.
-
Nope the advisory part was absolutely crucial - parliament voted for an advisory referendum and that is what we had. Therefore they are entirely within their rights to accept or reject or amend the referendum result. There wold be no constitutional crisis either way. However there would be a constitutional crisis if there were an attempt to turn an advisory referendum, after the event, into a binding one. And by 'the event' I don't just mean the referendum itself but crucially the act that allowed it to happen (as an advisory referendum).
But get real here Davey, what do you think would happen if parliament went against the will of the people? They can say that it was advisory all they like but the fact is reality trumps everything.
So little Jack Knave knows more about points of law that the highest court in the land.
They were wrong because they are sycophantic EU turds, as is many politicians and civil servants - i.e. bias. None of this was required to start the negotiations for Maastricht etc.
State away, but you are wrong. The people's voice only trumps parliament (and never trumps the law) in 2 circumstances. In a general election where they determine the make up of parliament (well actually the commons) and in a binding referendum - but the latter is only because parliament has specifically allowed itself to be trumped in a very tightly defined situation. And in a general election the people only determine the make up of the MPs they may not dictate how those MPs act during that term in parliament, albeit they can kick them out if they don't like how they acted at the next general election.
Oh get real, you think every five years is fair and is proportionate. I know, on that basis, you lot can have a referendum - advisory only of course - on whether we should join the EU. OK?
But no, you whinging fucks what to change things back to the status quo yesterday!!!!
-
But no, you whinging fucks what to change things back to the status quo yesterday!!!!
You see when the mask slips it falls to the ground and smashes.
I love you to cutie chops.
-
But get real here Davey, what do you think would happen if parliament went against the will of the people?
It has happened before and I don't remember the world falling apart, nor a constitutional crisis. Indeed with almost identical proportions voting as in the EU referendum.
Remember this one JK:
Yes - 51.62%
No - 48.38%
Parliament decided for 'No' against (as you would chose to put it) the 'will of the people'.
Why? Because they gave themselves that option in the Act that allowed the referendum, just as they have done here.
Now I'm not saying there wouldn't be one hell of a row if Parliament decided not to enact Brexit (there undoubtedly would be), but there would be no constitutional crisis, because Parliament is allowed to chose to ignore the result of an advisory referendum.
And although there was a row in 1979 (that's the referendum above) there was no constitutional crisis as Parliament had enacted to allow them to ignore 'the will of the people' - in other words not to be required to enact devolution in the circumstances of a slim majority in favour.
-
But get real here Davey, what do you think would happen if parliament went against the will of the people?
...
They were wrong because they are sycophantic EU turds, as is many politicians and civil servants - i.e. bias.
Astonishing and total hypocrisy.
Two of the most commonly cited arguments for Brexit were to ensure that the UK Parliament was sovereign, and that decisions should be taken in British courts. Yet when the UK Parliaments wishes to demonstrate its sovereignty and decisions are made in British courts you can't accept it.
You can't have it both ways JK - if you want Brexit then you have to accept sovereignty of the UK Parliament and respect decisions of the British courts.
-
I think JK wants to pull down everything - not only the EU but parliament, the financial system, business ... No idea what he expects to emerge from such a state or how.
-
You see when the mask slips it falls to the ground and smashes.
I love you to cutie chops.
You're seeing things, you deluded idiot. There is no mask!
-
It has happened before and I don't remember the world falling apart, nor a constitutional crisis. Indeed with almost identical proportions voting as in the EU referendum.
Remember this one JK:
Yes - 51.62%
No - 48.38%
Parliament decided for 'No' against (as you would chose to put it) the 'will of the people'.
Why? Because they gave themselves that option in the Act that allowed the referendum, just as they have done here.
Now I'm not saying there wouldn't be one hell of a row if Parliament decided not to enact Brexit (there undoubtedly would be), but there would be no constitutional crisis, because Parliament is allowed to chose to ignore the result of an advisory referendum.
And although there was a row in 1979 (that's the referendum above) there was no constitutional crisis as Parliament had enacted to allow them to ignore 'the will of the people' - in other words not to be required to enact devolution in the circumstances of a slim majority in favour.
What are you wittering on about?
-
Astonishing and total hypocrisy.
Two of the most commonly cited arguments for Brexit were to ensure that the UK Parliament was sovereign, and that decisions should be taken in British courts. Yet when the UK Parliaments wishes to demonstrate its sovereignty and decisions are made in British courts you can't accept it.
You can't have it both ways JK - if you want Brexit then you have to accept sovereignty of the UK Parliament and respect decisions of the British courts.
One the people trump parliament and two only when we get British people in our courts, not EU citizens; and that goes for parliament as well. At the moment the UK is working under EU rules/governess and so your points don't apply yet.
-
I think JK wants to pull down everything - not only the EU but parliament, the financial system, business ... No idea what he expects to emerge from such a state or how.
You seem to imply that by you rhetoric that I want to destroy them as existences or items in themselves. No, what I want is to replace them by a fairer systems that honours the nomenclatures you have used.
-
One the people trump parliament
Wrong as ~I keep pointing out - the people only Trump parliament is so far as they are responsible for sending MPs to parliament in the first place. Once there parliament is sovereign and does not need to align its decisions with 'the people' - albeit it would be advised so to do as otherwise the people will kick them out at the next election.
Your notion is so laughably wrong it hurt. If 'the people' trumped parliament then 'the people' could simply ignore any law enacted by parliament that they didn't like 'cos the people trumps parliament'. Try that and see how far it gets you.
and two only when we get British people in our courts, not EU citizens; and that goes for parliament as well. At the moment the UK is working under EU rules/governess and so your points don't apply yet.
Would you like to point out which member of the Supreme Court isn't British please.
And the UK isn't working under EU rules/governance, for the simply reason that our membership (or otherwise) and anything that arises therefrom are dependent on UK legislation.
-
Wrong as ~I keep pointing out - the people only Trump parliament is so far as they are responsible for sending MPs to parliament in the first place. Once there parliament is sovereign and does not need to align its decisions with 'the people' - albeit it would be advised so to do as otherwise the people will kick them out at the next election.
Your notion is so laughably wrong it hurt. If 'the people' trumped parliament then 'the people' could simply ignore any law enacted by parliament that they didn't like 'cos the people trumps parliament'. Try that and see how far it gets you.
You have made my argument for me. If the MPs go against the will of the people there would be protests; and in extreme times violence, on the streets. So all the fluff about parliament being sovereign and not trumped by the people is empty rhetoric, it is the action, the outcome as forced by reality, that counts. You could claim to be bullet proof but if your words are powerless, and do not reflect reality, then the bullet would enter your body against your will - it would trump you!
The term people here are all the subjects of the UK, as a group, not individuals.
Would you like to point out which member of the Supreme Court isn't British please.
You can only have one master and theirs is the EU. Therefore they are not truly British.
And the UK isn't working under EU rules/governance, for the simply reason that our membership (or otherwise) and anything that arises therefrom are dependent on UK legislation.
As if we have a choice! ::) What you think would happen if we rejected an EU Directive?
You silly boy!!!
-
You have made my argument for me. If the MPs go against the will of the people there would be protests; and in extreme times violence, on the streets.
Oh mob rule then - that seems to be what you are supporting.
Actually I don't think there would be - there certainly wasn't in 1979 when a (slim) majority voted in favour of devolution but the government rejected it.
But you are rather missing the point - I don't think there is any likelihood that the government (and Parliament) wont take steps to trigger article 50, so the point about mob rule is moot. I think perhaps in 2-3 years time if the negotiations have turned into a dog's dinner then there might be a very different view both in Westminster and in the country as a whole.
No my point was that parliament is sovereign and that they have every right not to enact brexit regardless of the referendum, and were they to do so there would be no constitutional crisis - note my emphasis. Why not, because there wouldn't have been anything that would have occurred that was unconstitutional.
-
You can only have one master and theirs is the EU. Therefore they are not truly British.
No it isn't - the Supreme Court:
'is the supreme court in all matters under English and Welsh law, Northern Ireland law and Scottish civil law.'
It was formed by and accountable to the UK Parliament - and actually because of the sovereignty of the UK parliament has rather less powers and more under the direction of the UK Parliament than might otherwise have been. In no way whatsoever are they servants of the EU - that is a ridiculous notion.
And I would suspect the 11 members of the Supreme Court would find you completely unsubstantiated notion that 'they are not truly British' rather offensive, except perhaps Lord Kerr, who might point out that he is from Northern Ireland, which isn't actually part of Britain.
-
What you think would happen if we rejected an EU Directive?
Given that most EU directives require all member states to agree before they are enacted, if the UK government rejected a EU directive it wouldn't ever be enacted.
I think you might want to educate yourself on how the EU actually runs, rather than be blinded by your drooling prejudice.
-
If the MPs go against the will of the people there would be protests; and in extreme times violence, on the streets.
I think you are also missing one further crucial point.
Prior to the referendum (which of course forced people to concern themselves with the EU) the EU was a non-issue for the vast majority of people in the UK. Sure there have been a tiny minority of anti-EU fanatics, but they are just that - a tiny minority. Most people, for most of the time, are concerned about the economy, the state of the NHS, schools, terrorism etc.
There is a very longstanding MORI poll on issues of importance to people - it is unprompted, meaning people can mention anything that concerns them. This has been run for decades and guess what, the EU hardly makes a blip on the list of issues.
I think you are projecting your view onto others - just because your are totally obsessed with the EU, it doesn't mean that most people are - they aren't, most people couldn't have given a hoot about the EU, but because of Cameron needing to pander to his frothing cabal of euronutters, he forced everyone to have to take a view. A stupid idea that we will regret for decades.
-
because of Cameron needing to pander to his frothing cabal of euronutters, he forced everyone to have to take a view. A stupid idea that we will regret for decades.
Did he force labour as well, a party you were a member of at the time. Didn't cause you to leave Labour though did it?
-
Did he force labour as well, a party you were a member of at the time. Didn't cause you to leave Labour though did it?
Sorry I don't understand your point.
As far as I am aware Labour never promised an in/out referendum, if that is what you are talking about.
I left Labour because they turned from being a competent and pragmatic left of centre party aiming at gaining power and therefore being able to enact change, to a narrow hard left 'campaigning' group, lead by someone woefully inadequate as a leader and have started to talk only to the 'echo chamber' of their increasingly narrow membership rather than to the country as a whole.
Corbyn's failure to show any leadership in the referendum was about the last straw. And seeing Corbyn trying to get the party to kowtow to May's brexit agenda is (to my mind) both morally bankrupt and also electorally dumb - given that most Labour MPs, members and voters do not think that brexit is the right thing to do.
-
You seem to imply that by you rhetoric that I want to destroy them as existences or items in themselves. No, what I want is to replace them by a fairer systems that honours the nomenclatures you have used.
Fine. But until such time as these replacement systems have been designed and adopted we will have to make do with the existing institutions. These must properly consider the issues and come to decisions that deal fairly with all affected. If this should result in certain deals being rejected or even a second referendum, what is the problem?
-
One the people trump parliament and two only when we get British people in our courts, not EU citizens; and that goes for parliament as well. At the moment the UK is working under EU rules/governess and so your points don't apply yet.
You don't half talk shit sometimes. Nothing about the above is true.
-
Fine. But until such time as these replacement systems have been designed and adopted we will have to make do with the existing institutions. These must properly consider the issues and come to decisions that deal fairly with all affected. If this should result in certain deals being rejected or even a second referendum, what is the problem?
How have you brought up the idea of a second referendum and what is this deal that could be rejected? This dialogue stems from your #70 which has non of this.
-
You don't half talk shit sometimes. Nothing about the above is true.
There may be a slight chance that my stuff is half shit but yours is full blown mega splat shit, Jeremy.
The fact is you didn't understand my post.
-
There may be a slight chance that my stuff is half shit but yours is full blown mega splat shit, Jeremy.
The fact is you didn't understand my post.
I understood your post perfectly, there was nothing in it that was true.
-
I understood your post perfectly, there was nothing in it that was true.
Well said.
-
I understood your post perfectly, there was nothing in it that was true.
And what makes you think you have the brains and qualifications to make such a judgement? Assuming you can understand and think through that question.
-
Well said.
Ah, the Neanderthals conference! ;D
-
And what makes you think you have the brains and qualifications to make such a judgement? Assuming you can understand and think through that question.
The fact that you keep making unpleasant comments towards other posters shows a lack of mental acuity, imo.
-
Ah, the Neanderthals conference! ;D
Not sure that neanderthals had conferences JK.
But Jeremy P is absolutely correct that your comment was factually wrong on every count.
-
The fact that you keep making unpleasant comments towards other posters shows a lack of mental acuity, imo.
That a massive tu quoque!!!!!!!
-
Not sure that neanderthals had conferences JK.
When Cro-Magnon arrived they upped their schedule.
But Jeremy P is absolutely correct that your comment was factually wrong on every count.
That's a massive assertion. You have no proof of that.
-
That a massive tu quoque!!!!!!!
Not sure about its size but it isn't a tu quoque which would be more something like because you insult people you can't point out that someone has just been insulting.
-
That's a massive assertion. You have no proof of that.
Wrong.
You made 2 major assertions, both of which are demonstrably wrong.
First that 'the people' trump Parliament - that is constitutionally wrong.
Secondly that the Judges in our British courts (notably the Supreme Court) weren't British - that is also demonstrable wrong (with the exception of the one judge you is from Northern Ireland).
-
Wrong.
You made 2 major assertions, both of which are demonstrably wrong.
First that 'the people' trump Parliament - that is constitutionally wrong.
Secondly that the Judges in our British courts (notably the Supreme Court) weren't British - that is also demonstrable wrong (with the exception of the one judge you is from Northern Ireland).
I explained my points and the logic behind my statements and see it as being pointless and superfluous in reiterating them again. If you can't follow them then that is not my fault.
-
Not sure about its size but it isn't a tu quoque which would be more something like because you insult people you can't point out that someone has just been insulting.
You can't condemn someone for doing something you do and not be taking to account for it.
-
I explained my points and the logic behind my statements ...
Clearly you use a different definition of logic than the standard one.
-
Clearly you use a different definition of logic than the standard one.
Didn't you know that there were different types?
-
And what makes you think you have the brains and qualifications to make such a judgement? Assuming you can understand and think through that question.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand your post or to understand that every statement of fact in it was false.
-
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand your post or to understand that every statement of fact in it was false.
No, you need to be more than a rocket scientist to understand my wise insights, which is why you have come up short.
-
I think that one of our wisest and most respected contributors, Jack Knave, has had his computer taken over by a malicious WUMbot. Almost all the posts purporting to come from JK's computer now appear to be produced by some non-human random bullshit generator.
This is very worrying - I hope everyone has sufficient malware protection to ensure that their own computers don't also become infected.
I do hope JK can get to the bottom of this problem and that we can see his authentic contributions appearing again.
-
I think that one of our wisest and most respected contributors, Jack Knave, has had his computer taken over by a malicious WUMbot. Almost all the posts purporting to come from JK's computer now appear to be produced by some non-human random bullshit generator.
This is very worrying - I hope everyone has sufficient malware protection to ensure that their own computers don't also become infected.
I do hope JK can get to the bottom of this problem and that we can see his authentic contributions appearing again.
I suspect you to be nothing but software due to your lack of humour. ;D
-
No, you need to be more than a rocket scientist to understand my wise insights, which is why you have come up short.
You say that like you actually believe that being hard to understand is a good thing.
No wonder you can't piece together a coherent factually correct post.
-
You say that like you actually believe that being hard to understand is a good thing.
No wonder you can't piece together a coherent factually correct post.
What you are implying there is that I'm not being clear and transparent in my posts, but that is not what I mean. What I mean is that I am being clear but some of you lot have a set perspective and attitude in life that blinds you to seeing/understanding things in certain other ways, which would give you a broader outlook on life.
-
What you are implying there is that I'm not being clear and transparent in my posts, but that is not what I mean. What I mean is that I am being clear but some of you lot have a set perspective and attitude in life that blinds you to seeing/understanding things in certain other ways, which would give you a broader outlook on life.
Sriram, is that you?
-
What you are implying there is that I'm not being clear and transparent in my posts, but that is not what I mean. What I mean is that I am being clear but some of you lot have a set perspective and attitude in life that blinds you to seeing/understanding things in certain other ways, which would give you a broader outlook on life.
A claim no doubt every single one of us could make about others. Doesn't make it true.
-
What you are implying there is that I'm not being clear and transparent in my posts,
No, that is what you were implying when you said "No, you need to be more than a rocket scientist to understand my wise insights"
I think your posts are clear and transparent even to us non rocket scientists which is how I know you are wrong so much of the time.
-
No, that is what you were implying when you said "No, you need to be more than a rocket scientist to understand my wise insights"
I think your posts are clear and transparent even to us non rocket scientists which is how I know you are wrong so much of the time.
But you don't understand them, hence this farce of yours above.
-
But you don't understand them, hence this farce of yours above.
I understand them perfectly. If you say "The British people trump parliament" it's perfectly clear and also completely wrong.
-
I understand them perfectly. If you say "The British people trump parliament" it's perfectly clear and also completely wrong.
But I said more than that but because you can't follow it you render it down to some sound bite nonsense.
-
But I said more than that
It was just an example. The other stuff you said in that post was wrong too.
-
It was just an example. The other stuff you said in that post was wrong too.
And that is just your poor opinion and an assertion.