Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

I don’t take issue with Labour selecting candidates that suit their ethos, it would be stupid not to push from the top down. We’ve called them a disorganised rabble for 18 months+ and this is their way of making sure they are all singing the same tune. It’s the tune that matters.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm glad. Why would you want to publicise all your weak points in the middle of a negotiation? Why aren't these MPs demanding that  the EU  release all their impact reports?

The EU impact reports can be seen by our meps. They're not hidden away.

 

Tbh it strikes me that the information within these papers is the actual information people needed BEFORE the referendum. 

 

Rather than have two sets of journalists and politicians vying for air time, civil servants should have been instructed to spend a year going through all available information to produce risk assessments for every section of society and every industry without politicised or biased interference. 

 

Then the campaign could have begun and the two sides could have squabbled over what the assessments meant but we could have all accessed the information we really needed to make the decision.

 

As things stand now, parliament has told government to provide the assessments and there is no way on earth that a government should be able to ignore the will of parliament - exactly as William rees mogg says. Why they want it is irrelevant. If parliament cannot hold government's toes to the fire then we are in a truly sorry state as a nation.

 

One of your chief reasons for wanting out of the EU was to ensure the ability to hold leaders to account ffs.

Edited 28 November 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don’t take issue with Labour selecting candidates that suit their ethos, it would be stupid not to push from the top down. We’ve called them a disorganised rabble for 18 months+ and this is their way of making sure they are all singing the same tune. It’s the tune that matters.

But it's the opposite. The top of the party didn't want to move left at all. It's the grassroots pushing the change.

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The EU impact reports can be seen by our meps. They're not hidden away.

 

Tbh it strikes me that the information within these papers is the actual information people needed BEFORE the referendum. 

 

Rather than have two sets of journalists and politicians vying for air time, civil servants should have been instructed to spend a year going through all available information to produce risk assessments for every section of society and every industry without politicised or biased interference. 

 

Then the campaign could have begun and the two sides could have squabbled over what the assessments meant but we could have all accessed the information we really needed to make the decision.

 

As things stand now, parliament has told government to provide the assessments and there is no way on earth that a government should be able to ignore the will of parliament - exactly as William rees mogg says. Why they want it is irrelevant. If parliament cannot hold government's toes to the fire then we are in a truly sorry state as a nation.

 

One of your chief reasons for wanting out of the EU was to ensure the ability to hold leaders to account ffs.

Quote

“A certain level of confidentiality is necessary to protect EU interests and to keep chances for a satisfactory outcome high. When entering into a game, no-one starts by revealing his entire strategy to his counterpart from the outset: this is also the case for the EU.”

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/june/tradoc_151381.pdf

Page 4

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm glad. Why would you want to publicise all your weak points in the middle of a negotiation? Why aren't these MPs demanding that  the EU  release all their impact reports?

 

They are not asking for the full Brexit impact reports to be "publicised". They are asking for them to be given to the House of Commons Select Committee on Brexit.

That is an important part of national democracy. I thought you believed in that? Indeed, I thought part of the point of Brexit was to strengthen national democracy?

 

Now you seem to want to neuter national democracy by limiting scrutiny of government, increasing the unaccountability and power of our unelected executive......that's all very well (for you) with the Tories in Govt, but would you feel the same way if Corbyn was PM? No need for parliament to scrutinise the impact of Corbyn's policies either?

 

MEPs can demand to see EU reports, because they're members of the European Parliament. MPs (more specifically MPs on the Brexit Select Committee) should be able to see UK reports, to hold govt to account on our behalf.

If any of them publicised confidential info, there'd be a very limited number of suspects. If you're going to stop the Brexit Select Committee seeing reports, why not stop cabinet seeing them - let's just appoint Mugabe as UK Dictator, eh?!

[Webbo]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

They are not asking for the full Brexit impact reports to be "publicised". They are asking for them to be given to the House of Commons Select Committee on Brexit.

That is an important part of national democracy. I thought you believed in that? Indeed, I thought part of the point of Brexit was to strengthen national democracy?

 

Now you seem to want to neuter national democracy by limiting scrutiny of government, increasing the unaccountability and power of our unelected executive......that's all very well (for you) with the Tories in Govt, but would you feel the same way if Corbyn was PM? No need for parliament to scrutinise the impact of Corbyn's policies either?

 

MEPs can demand to see EU reports, because they're members of the European Parliament. MPs (more specifically MPs on the Brexit Select Committee) should be able to see UK reports, to hold govt to account on our behalf.

If any of them publicised confidential info, there'd be a very limited number of suspects. If you're going to stop the Brexit Select Committee seeing reports, why not stop cabinet seeing them - let's just appoint Mugabe as UK Dictator, eh?!

And do you trust the anti brexit mps on the committee not to leak anything that will help their cause? I don't. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/june/tradoc_151381.pdf

Page 4

Post as much shit as you want webbo, you're wrong.

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

Post as much shit as you want webbo, you're wrong.

It's an EU document?

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

And do you trust the anti brexit mps on the committee not to leak anything that will help their cause? I don't. 

If what you mean is that the impact assessments might contain information which, should the public become aware of it, might significantly reduce support for Brexit, then I'd say it is vital this information IS released. Or do you hate democracy?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's an EU document?

I knew I'd regret the first sentence and giving you a chance to ignore the rest.

I don't care.

 You don't think the EU know we're ****ed outside of the single market? Every government department argued this only 18 months ago.

This is about democracy and accountability. The government are treating both parliament and the country with contempt.

Edited 28 November 2017 by Guest

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

If what you mean is that the impact assessments might contain information which, should the public become aware of it, might significantly reduce support for Brexit, then I'd say it is vital this information IS released. Or do you hate democracy?

We're EU citizens aren't we? why aren't all the EUs impact reports released? Why can't our press interview the EU negotiators?

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

I knew is regret the first sentence.

I don't care.

 You don't think the EU know we're ****ed outside of the single market? Ever government department argued this only 18 months ago.

This is about democracy and accountability. The government are treating both parliament and the country with contempt.

No, this a blatant attempt to sabotage brexit. The remainers want to create a steady stream of bad headlines to try and make the country change their mind. If they cared about democracy they'd respect the vote.

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

No, this a blatant attempt to sabotage brexit. The remainers want to create a steady stream of bad headlines to try and make the country change their mind. If they cared about democracy they'd respect the vote.

If the people changed their mind it would still be democracy.

 

You claim to want Brexit to ensure accountability of our leaders. But you're willing to hide the truth from parliament and the people to make sure your aims are met. You are everything you despise.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

If the people changed their mind it would still be democracy.

 

You claim to want Brexit to ensure accountability of our leaders. But you're willing to hide the truth from parliament and the people to make sure your aims are met. You are everything you despise.

Stop being a drama queen.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Webbo said:

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/june/tradoc_151381.pdf

Page 4

Page 1 and 2:

 

The EU is very open to a broad range of views when preparing for trade 
negotiations. Specifically, the European Commission asks for information 
through: 
 Public consultations - the Commission publishes an electronic
questionnaire for all stakeholders send in their views. The consultation takes 
place very early in the reflection process to make sure that suggestions 
can be taken into account from the very beginning. Interested organisations 
have at least two months to reflect on the topic and send back their 
views. They can also be call for comments later in the process to check if 
the public views have evolved or to get some views on a specific aspect of 
negotiations. To give an example, the Commission invited stakeholders to 
express their opinions on future trade relations with the US trade not less 
than three times during just one year, to feed into the reflections of the EU-
US High-Level group on Jobs and Growth. 
Once the consultation period is over, the Commission publishes the 
contributions, analyses them and draws conclusions that will serve as 
guidance throughout the negotiation process. 
 Civil society dialogue – the Commission invites non-governmental 
organisations (for example, Oxfam, etc.), consumer groups, industry
associations, and other interested parties to participate in regular meetings
in Brussels. To encourage participation by civil society representatives based 
elsewhere in Europe, the Commission reimburse travel costs.

 

 Sustainability impact assessment – the Commission commissions an 
independent study to look at the economic, social and environmental 
impacts of any agreement. Before being published, the study is also 
scrutinised by the civil society, the draft and the final report being 
discussed in civil society meetings. The results of the impact assessment are 
fed into the preparations for negotiations and are taken into account in the 
negotiations themselves.

 

 

So the eu's assessment has been shared with non government organisations for comments to be fed into their negotiating strategy. The document you have produced defeats your own points.

 

 

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I knew I'd regret the first sentence and giving you a chance to ignore the rest.

I don't care.

 You don't think the EU know we're ****ed outside of the single market? Every government department argued this only 18 months ago.

This is about democracy and accountability. The government are treating both parliament and the country with contempt.

There was only 1 sentence?

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Post as much shit as you want webbo, you're wrong.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Stop being a drama queen.

Toddybad 6002 

Webbo 0

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Page 1 and 2:

 

The EU is very open to a broad range of views when preparing for trade 
negotiations. Specifically, the European Commission asks for information 
through: 
 Public consultations - the Commission publishes an electronic
questionnaire for all stakeholders send in their views. The consultation takes 
place very early in the reflection process to make sure that suggestions 
can be taken into account from the very beginning. Interested organisations 
have at least two months to reflect on the topic and send back their 
views. They can also be call for comments later in the process to check if 
the public views have evolved or to get some views on a specific aspect of 
negotiations. To give an example, the Commission invited stakeholders to 
express their opinions on future trade relations with the US trade not less 
than three times during just one year, to feed into the reflections of the EU-
US High-Level group on Jobs and Growth. 
Once the consultation period is over, the Commission publishes the 
contributions, analyses them and draws conclusions that will serve as 
guidance throughout the negotiation process. 
 Civil society dialogue – the Commission invites non-governmental 
organisations (for example, Oxfam, etc.), consumer groups, industry
associations, and other interested parties to participate in regular meetings
in Brussels. To encourage participation by civil society representatives based 
elsewhere in Europe, the Commission reimburse travel costs.

 

 Sustainability impact assessment – the Commission commissions an 
independent study to look at the economic, social and environmental 
impacts of any agreement. Before being published, the study is also 
scrutinised by the civil society, the draft and the final report being 
discussed in civil society meetings. The results of the impact assessment are 
fed into the preparations for negotiations and are taken into account in the 
negotiations themselves.

 

 

So the eu's assessment has been shared with non government organisations for comments to be fed into their negotiating strategy. The document you have produced defeats your own points.

 

 

Toddybad 6003

Webbo 0

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Toddybad 6003

Webbo 0

Can you be the ref in tonights games?

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Toddybad 6003

Webbo 0

 

Would you like some help out of your infantile cesspit?

[Guest]

Just now, Kopfkino said:

 

Would you like some help out of your infantile cesspit?

It feels like an infantile argument.

 

There is no sensible argument for parliament not to be able to hold government to account.

 

Webbo also provided a document to back up his argument that did the exact opposite.

 

How am I supposed to have a sensible debate?

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Page 1 and 2:

 

The EU is very open to a broad range of views when preparing for trade 
negotiations. Specifically, the European Commission asks for information 
through: 
 Public consultations - the Commission publishes an electronic
questionnaire for all stakeholders send in their views. The consultation takes 
place very early in the reflection process to make sure that suggestions 
can be taken into account from the very beginning. Interested organisations 
have at least two months to reflect on the topic and send back their 
views. They can also be call for comments later in the process to check if 
the public views have evolved or to get some views on a specific aspect of 
negotiations. To give an example, the Commission invited stakeholders to 
express their opinions on future trade relations with the US trade not less 
than three times during just one year, to feed into the reflections of the EU-
US High-Level group on Jobs and Growth. 
Once the consultation period is over, the Commission publishes the 
contributions, analyses them and draws conclusions that will serve as 
guidance throughout the negotiation process. 
 Civil society dialogue – the Commission invites non-governmental 
organisations (for example, Oxfam, etc.), consumer groups, industry
associations, and other interested parties to participate in regular meetings
in Brussels. To encourage participation by civil society representatives based 
elsewhere in Europe, the Commission reimburse travel costs.

 

 Sustainability impact assessment – the Commission commissions an 
independent study to look at the economic, social and environmental 
impacts of any agreement. Before being published, the study is also 
scrutinised by the civil society, the draft and the final report being 
discussed in civil society meetings. The results of the impact assessment are 
fed into the preparations for negotiations and are taken into account in the 
negotiations themselves.

 

 

So the eu's assessment has been shared with non government organisations for comments to be fed into their negotiating strategy. The document you have produced defeats your own points.

 

 

I read that 2 or 3 times and can't see where it says it publishes information of benefit to their opponents?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

I read that 2 or 3 times and can't see where it says it publishes information of benefit to their opponents?

I can't see anywhere in the parliamentary motion that asked the government to publish information publically?

Edited 28 November 2017 by Guest

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I can't see anywhere in the parliamentary motion that asked the government to publish information publically?

If they show those reports to the select committee they'll be leaked and some how in your twisted mind you'll find a way of blaming the tories and or austerity.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If they show those reports to the select committee they'll be leaked and some how in your twisted mind you'll find a way of blaming the tories and or austerity.

There is no justification for not supplying the reports. Hence the fact there'll be a debate about contempt of parliament. Frankly, the rule of law is more important than anything else here. I couldn't care less if the assessments get leaked, I most certainly care that a government (and it hadn't even got a bloody majority to argue it has a mandate ffs) can ride roughshod over parliament.

Edited 28 November 2017 by Guest