British politics

Page 28 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re:

Jagartrott said:
It's an important deterent to any nation because you can kill millions with those warheads, random millions, that is
Deterrents: you cannot fire them first because that would be mad; and if you fire them in retaliatiation then, well, it isn't really a very successful deterrent.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
surprised no one commented on the big news today, that is, that brexit requires a UK parliament approval to become a brexit according to the highest judicial body in the uk land.

i don't really know what to think...otoh, the plebiscite being the balance democratic opinion of the nation has to be respected automatically and w/o the pre-conditions. on the other, the highest court has to have a say about what a COMPLETE democratic process including all its stages should be :rolleyes: and they said, 'debate more, even block if needs be'

to me it looks like another clusterfork rather than a genuine democratic process...

and if anyone is using the clusterfork to achieve the goals opposite of the mass vote, it points, imo, to the dysfunctional contemporary western democracy.

one of the oldest, unique and quite functional not all that long ago.
 
Re:

python said:
surprised no one commented on the big news today, that is, that brexit requires a UK parliament approval to become a brexit according to the highest judicial body in the uk land.

i don't really know what to think...otoh, the plebiscite being the balance democratic opinion of the nation has to be respected automatically and w/o the pre-conditions. on the other, the highest court has to have a say about what a COMPLETE democratic process including all its stages should be :rolleyes: and they said, 'debate more, even block if needs be'

to me it looks like another clusterfork rather than a genuine democratic process...

and if anyone is using the clusterfork to achieve the goals opposite of the mass vote, it points, imo, to the dysfunctional contemporary western democracy.

one of the oldest, unique and quite functional not all that long ago.
It wasn't that important to me personally because it was very much expected and Theresa May herself had said last week that parliament would vote on it.

The referendum was advisory, and not to government but to parliament. In the U.K., Downing Street doesn't have much executive power, as it's a paliamentary democracy, so all the power is in Parliament. It is not possible, as we have just found out, to pass this without parliamentary approval. This is completely right, and in my opinion, undiscussable. How the MPs vote is another matter, but I think the right way to do this would be to represent the feelings of your own constituency, as constitutionally that is how the U.K. works (people elected to represent and vote in the interests and on behalf of an area) and Leave would still win. Nobody should be particularly upset by this, and at least in my mind make sense. Parliament will vote for it, no doubt. They may not approve May's deal, but that's for the future.
 
Re:

python said:
surprised no one commented on the big news today, that is, that brexit requires a UK parliament approval to become a brexit according to the highest judicial body in the uk land.

i don't really know what to think...otoh, the plebiscite being the balance democratic opinion of the nation has to be respected automatically and w/o the pre-conditions. on the other, the highest court has to have a say about what a COMPLETE democratic process including all its stages should be :rolleyes: and they said, 'debate more, even block if needs be'

to me it looks like another clusterfork rather than a genuine democratic process...

and if anyone is using the clusterfork to achieve the goals opposite of the mass vote, it points, imo, to the dysfunctional contemporary western democracy.

one of the oldest, unique and quite functional not all that long ago.
This is nonsense. The Supreme Court has not said more debate is needed or to consider blocking it. They have said that Royal Prerogative powers cannot be used by the government to remove rights given by Parliament or cause constitutional change.

As for goals of the mass vote, the referendum was advisory. They could have made it binding but didn't bother because they never really expected this to happen, because they're a bunch of idiots who are more involved in their own petty party political in-fighting than they are in doing their jobs and actually running the country.

What happens after the result of an advisory referendum is entirely up to Parliament, that's exactly how it's meant to work.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
python said:
surprised no one commented on the big news today, that is, that brexit requires a UK parliament approval to become a brexit according to the highest judicial body in the uk land.

i don't really know what to think...otoh, the plebiscite being the balance democratic opinion of the nation has to be respected automatically and w/o the pre-conditions. on the other, the highest court has to have a say about what a COMPLETE democratic process including all its stages should be :rolleyes: and they said, 'debate more, even block if needs be'

to me it looks like another clusterfork rather than a genuine democratic process...

and if anyone is using the clusterfork to achieve the goals opposite of the mass vote, it points, imo, to the dysfunctional contemporary western democracy.

one of the oldest, unique and quite functional not all that long ago.
This is nonsense. The Supreme Court has not said more debate is needed or to consider blocking it. They have said that Royal Prerogative powers cannot be used by the government to remove rights given by Parliament or cause constitutional change.

As for goals of the mass vote, the referendum was advisory. They could have made it binding but didn't bother because they never really expected this to happen, because they're a bunch of idiots who are more involved in their own petty party political in-fighting than they are in doing their jobs and actually running the country.

What happens after the result of an advisory referendum is entirely up to Parliament, that's exactly how it's meant to work.
your interpretation is plain idiotic ...

when something, anything is referred to parliament it is debated there before approval or disapproval. advisory or not, the referendum, any referendum by definition is widely understood as the will of the people all over the world. a potential parliament disapproval of the brexit - which many say wont happen - is a theoretical possibility. and if, as in the case of the polls that predicted 'no brexit', the parliament votes against brexit, the political mess and confusion cant be called anything but grand clusterfork. ignoring that such a mess would be anything but harmful is rather idiotic in my book.
 
Re: Re:

python said:
King Boonen said:
python said:
surprised no one commented on the big news today, that is, that brexit requires a UK parliament approval to become a brexit according to the highest judicial body in the uk land.

i don't really know what to think...otoh, the plebiscite being the balance democratic opinion of the nation has to be respected automatically and w/o the pre-conditions. on the other, the highest court has to have a say about what a COMPLETE democratic process including all its stages should be :rolleyes: and they said, 'debate more, even block if needs be'

to me it looks like another clusterfork rather than a genuine democratic process...

and if anyone is using the clusterfork to achieve the goals opposite of the mass vote, it points, imo, to the dysfunctional contemporary western democracy.

one of the oldest, unique and quite functional not all that long ago.
This is nonsense. The Supreme Court has not said more debate is needed or to consider blocking it. They have said that Royal Prerogative powers cannot be used by the government to remove rights given by Parliament or cause constitutional change.

As for goals of the mass vote, the referendum was advisory. They could have made it binding but didn't bother because they never really expected this to happen, because they're a bunch of idiots who are more involved in their own petty party political in-fighting than they are in doing their jobs and actually running the country.

What happens after the result of an advisory referendum is entirely up to Parliament, that's exactly how it's meant to work.
your interpretation is plain idiotic ...

when something, anything is referred to parliament it is debated there before approval or disapproval. advisory or not, the referendum, any referendum by definition is widely understood as the will of the people all over the world. a potential parliament disapproval of the brexit - which many say wont happen - is a theoretical possibility. and if, as in the case of the polls that predicted 'no brexit', the parliament votes against brexit, the political mess and confusion cant be called anything but grand clusterfork. ignoring that such a mess would be anything but harmful is rather idiotic in my book.
I have not interpreted anything. What the Government and Parliament do after this verdict is up to them. The judges have not told them to do anything, they have simply said that they cannot use Prerogative Powers in that way and it must come via an act of Parliament. How that happens, if it does, is up to the Government and Parliament. This is extremely simple and fundamental to any conversation.

As for the referendum, you can look up the difference between advisory and binding yourself. Again, it's really not hard.
 
Re:

Netserk said:
Speaking of which, do you think UK will stay in the Emission Trading System? It really is the smarter way to reduce emission.
I don't know if we will have a choice to be honest. It's an EU thing so we may be told to get bent, especially if we start trying to game by selling quotas and then ignoring the cap etc. which I wouldn't bet against based on this. I'm pretty sure the Government knows we are going to come out of all this a lot worse off economically than we were before. They'll do anything they can to try and offset that. Taxing green energy probably doesn't bother most people, they no doubt see people with solar panels as the do gooding middle class.

Alpe d'Huez said:
King Boonen said:
Jagartrott said:
I really don't know how to express how I feel about this without by-passing the swear filter...
Wow. I didn't think you Brits had the potential to be as politically stupid as our leaders here in the US.

I stand corrected.
We do, we're very, very good at it! The current Government is pretty much opposition-less in the eyes of the masses and the media. Watch Prime Ministers Question Time and it's basically a posh version of a "your mom" joke battle. Add to that the forthcoming Brexit and they can basically get away with whatever they want.
 
Two very important by-elections yesterday, caused by right-wing Labour MPs resigning and moving on to higher paying jobs, for Labour's future. In Stoke, Labour was up against UKIP leader Paul Nuttall, in an area which was very, very heavily Brexit supporting. Trying to pitch a new UKIP (one to replace Labour), his campaign ended up capitulating and lost fairly convincingly, although still obtaining a 4% swing in the vote. Decent enough performance by Labour, especially considering leaders of parties tend to do better than the average candidate (usually, not always) and the fact that Labour's share of the vote has steadily decreased over the years. Helped, of course, by Nuttall lying about everything. But still, not amazing but not bad either.

Copeland on the other hand was a disaster. Labour lost 5% of their vote share of 2015, and the Tories gained 8.5% (almost all at UKIP's expense, who lost 9% themselves). This is the first time a governing party has won a byelection in over 30 years. This wasn't a particularly high brexit area, either, just one which depended on Nuclear power to survive, which Corbyn is an opponent of. Nonetheless, that doesn't excuse losing Copeland when the majority in 2010 was almost 9%.

Because of this, I have decided to relinquish my support for Jeremy Corbyn. Up to summer last year he was doing a fairly good job, and sometimes ahead of the Tories in the polls. Since Brexit, however he has been a disaster. At first this was the fault of the Labour MPs who were doing everything to oust him, and in a time when they should and could have been capitalising on the Tory problems, they had enormous ones themselves. Owen Smith was unlikeable, uncharismatic, untrustworthy and a fantastically hopeless candidate, so it was no surprise Corbyn trounced him. But since then, despite many rebels quieting down, he has been unable to gain any footing at all. May, somehow, still has positive approval ratings. She has been an absolute trainwreck, but her adoring fans also have about 5 million readers, compared to about 1.5 million dectracters (among the press' readership). However, Corbyn has had opportunity after oppurtunity to dsimantle her and failed at every turn. I know that I could do a better job, and it's depressing to see that the PLP has nobody else to offer who can, apart from Angela Eagle and Owen Smith.

His politics are not the problem, though; he is. He is useless. Not clever, and thoroughly useless. He isn't a leader and cannot unite a party to save his life, and it is impossible to win without a united front. I thought this back in July too, but it was my opinion that he should be given another chance to learn and put into practice what he has learnt. He's had it, and he has been much worse than before. 2020, unless Brexit is a disaster which it very well could be, is lost. Even if Brexit is a disaster, Corbyn isn't the right man to exploit that. I think someone like Sir Keir Starmer should become leader. He is a Miliband-style Social Democrat, but he can be persuaded to more left-wing ideas if the membership so wishes. Most importantly, though, he appears to be extremely capable and intelligent, and is a good orator. He is also a 'Sir' which usually commands some respect, and had a job before becoming an MP. As Shadow Brexit Secretary, he has done a good job in parliament against May's complete lack of transparency, and I feel that the next election will be won and lost on this issue, and he, unlike Corbyn, could exploit it. He can win over Lib Dems and moderate Tories, and the threat of UKIP seems to have been held off after Stoke, which I hope will be the biggest challenge in that regard.

Clive Lewis could be another option, but apparently he isn't particularly intelligent. But this is from one person on twitter and one person only, so could be very untrue. He is more left-wing than Starmer, and seems more capable than Corbyn. Against the fallacy that is Trident, too.

The Momentum people need to acknowledge this and get over their delusional fanaticism over Corbyn. All this, as I said, is coming from someone who has defended Corbyn in the past, but now accepts he is done for.
 
The Lords have voted for two amendents to the Brexit bill over the past couple of weeks, one which guarantees the rights of EU citizens living in the Uk which is really a no-brainer. The main complaint is that it will 'weaken the UK's negotiating power' which is complete nonsense, as it will have to force the EU's hand to do the same for British pensioners living in Spain --- sorry, British citizens working in the EU.

The second one is more touchy, and allows the (unelected) Lords to have a veto on the final Brexit deal. It makes sense on a theoretical basis: the UK is a parliamentary democracy with two houses, and it seems weird to not allow both houses to have a say on such an important matter. However, the idea of having an unelected chamber decide so much doesn't sit well - although admittedly the Tories who are complaining about this have never had a problem with the House of Lords before.

David Davis Davis David has said that he wants to repeal these two amendments which strikes me as slightly, wait for it, undemocratic? A violation of UK parliamentary laws? Like the Brexiteers said the EU did? I thought that we were meant to be leaving the autocratic leaders intent on changing what the political system in a country decides - I guess they have just been moved from Brussels to Westminster, then.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

Brullnux said:
The Lords have voted for two amendents to the Brexit bill over the past couple of weeks, one which guarantees the rights of EU citizens living in the Uk which is really a no-brainer. The main complaint is that it will 'weaken the UK's negotiating power' which is complete nonsense, as it will have to force the EU's hand to do the same for British pensioners living in Spain --- sorry, British citizens working in the EU.

The second one is more touchy, and allows the (unelected) Lords to have a veto on the final Brexit deal. It makes sense on a theoretical basis: the UK is a parliamentary democracy with two houses, and it seems weird to not allow both houses to have a say on such an important matter. However, the idea of having an unelected chamber decide so much doesn't sit well - although admittedly the Tories who are complaining about this have never had a problem with the House of Lords before.

David Davis Davis David has said that he wants to repeal these two amendments which strikes me as slightly, wait for it, undemocratic? A violation of UK parliamentary laws? Like the Brexiteers said the EU did? I thought that we were meant to be leaving the autocratic leaders intent on changing what the political system in a country decides - I guess they have just been moved from Brussels to Westminster, then.
The whole point of Brexit so the UK(elites/rich) can do as it pleases without having to obey EU rules.
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
IndyRef2 (Slight Return)...
It certainly is going to happen after Nicola sprang that one yesterday. May and the Tories won't block it but will likely try and push the proposed dates back. Will end up in some interesting debates after they, May/Tories that is, officially reply to this move by Nicola. Not sure it's a wise move by Nicola, as I'm not sure that the vote is quite there yet. I was a YES in 2014 and I am a YES voter now and I will be out doing my best to persuade others...but in my best Lowlands Scottish ah hae ma doots:(
 
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
King Boonen said:
IndyRef2 (Slight Return)...
It certainly is going to happen after Nicola sprang that one yesterday. May and the Tories won't block it but will likely try and push the proposed dates back. Will end up in some interesting debates after they, May/Tories that is, officially reply to this move by Nicola. Not sure it's a wise move by Nicola, as I'm not sure that the vote is quite there yet. I was a YES in 2014 and I am a YES voter now and I will be out doing my best to persuade others...but in my best Lowlands Scottish ah hae ma doots:(
I'm even more conflicted this time round. To start with, in terms of the proposal of a second referendum:

The vote was "once in a generation". Unless we're talking mayflies it's been and done and to many this is just going to feel like bitter people on the wrong side trying to reverse the vote. On the other hand, since the first IndyRef we have gone through a Brexit referendum that a significant majority of voters in Scotland found themselves on the wrong side of. A referendum on one of the key points from the IndyRef that had a significant effect on many people's decision. I'm sure that if a newly announced referendum passed to increase immigration to the UK ten-fold because of the Brexit vote, many people would be demanding to reverse their decision and stay in the EU (silly example obviously but you get the idea). While it goes against the previous rhetoric I find it hard to argue against it, Brexit is an enormous change and will certainly impact many people's decision on independence, even if they did know it was a possibility.

It was in the SNP manifesto which returned them to, an albeit minority, government so it's hard to argue against their proposal, but they are now a minority government so they can no longer claim to represent what the majority of voters in Scotland want. The previous IndyRef bill was supported by the whole Parliament I think, this one will likely get just over half I would think which does show it in a different light.

The last IndyRef was incredibly divisive. It was certainly not a nice atmosphere in Glasgow leading up to it or after it and people still publicly identify with their vote. I have felt that the Scottish results in the Brexit referendum have gone some way to improving that, but another IndyRef could be even more dividing. I'm not sure I really want to have to go through all that again.



On the actual question, where to begin...

Many people took EU membership into consideration when voting. Arguments were made for both sides but it was pretty clear that a no vote was the only way to guarantee EU membership at the time. Scotland could have applied, but there was practically zero chance of an independent Scotland remaining in the EU. That has all pretty much reversed now though. The only way I can see Scotland rejoining the EU is as an independent nation (there is a tiny chance it could be negotiated during Brexit but it's very, very unlikely). There are many things Scotland would have to do, but if we remain in the union we are leaving and we are not rejoining (at least not for a long time (mayfly generation again?! ;) )). This will surely change a lot of people's minds. The problem is, that will be a long and difficult process. We would have to make sense of what Brexit does to Scottish law, put in place the Government departments that we currently don't have as they are run by Westminster, begin the process of joining the EU and deal with the splitting of the Union. That's an enormous task with huge amounts of negotiation and resource needed, while we are currently running at a budget deficit of around £1000 a head. Part of me thinks that it's insane to even try, but part of me thinks that it would actually be a good time to get the best deal possible as the UK will have to spread their negotiators thinly to cover all bases. Scotland could just adopt the EU legislation that we currently adhere to.

There is also the issue of what the UK will be after Brexit. No one really has any idea, can we really be expected to make an informed decision on what is best for our nation when we really have no idea what situation we will be in? OR is it best to say "Sod, if we're going through all this crap we might as well deal with it now and get it out the way with"? One of the reasons touted for not letting foreign nationals vote last time was that they would likely back no due to the EU problem, I wonder if this decision will change this time around..?


Honestly, I really don't know what to think or what my opinion is.
 
I'm not sure if the EU will make Scotland join or just let them stay as a member through an 'exceptional circumstances' type agreement. There's also the problem of oil prices, which are much lower than the worst case scenario that the SNP predicted in 2014
 
Re:

Brullnux said:
I'm not sure if the EU will make Scotland join or just let them stay as a member through an 'exceptional circumstances' type agreement. There's also the problem of oil prices, which are much lower than the worst case scenario that the SNP predicted in 2014
Oil does not make a country. And the SNP did not make a play on it in 2014.
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
I thought some of you might find this an interesting discussion. Although it is specifically to do with Brexit it also takes in a wider context. It's quite long but I thought it was good. Unless you want to risk the compulsion to smash your screen I strongly recommend fast-forwarding to 3min 30 secs, to avoid the incredibly smug self-obsessed 'chair':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AraqxOnOS64
 
Quite a game of poker now between the PM and FM. I'm guessing the PM has bluffed and wee Nic is going to take the river card before setting down her full hand. No bluffs on this one, far too serious..only one winner after that mis-gamble by May..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY