What's in the news?

[Nick]

9 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

I agree that threats of violence alone should not be the basis for a decision. If it was just a few extremists making threats, it would be down to the police to deal with them. My concern about violence is about spontaneous and escalating violence by people angry at their decision being ignored. No doubt people like Robinson and the thugs on College Green would fan the flames - and elements on the Remain side could also get involved. Not only could that cause violence during the campaign, it could seriously exacerbate social division, alienation from democratic politics and could give the Far Right a big boost - effects lasting long after the referendum.

 

But, as per my previous post, I have other concerns about a second referendum: winning a vote in parliament; getting govt to legislate for it; getting EU agreement to a delay (probable but not certain); agreeing what will be on the ballot paper; lack of time (particularly with EU elections due in May); conducting a referendum campaign when a lot of voters have entrenched opinions and/or a low level of understanding and/or zero trust in any claims made by any politicians; the potential for much greater public division, public disorder, even violence and death during the campaign....and the distinct chance that a second referendum would produce another Leave vote or even No Deal.

 

Is No Deal unworkable? I agree that it would be disastrous. It would cause all sorts of logistical chaos, conflict, job losses, business closures, national isolation, loss of cooperative projects, lost tax revenue, slashed public spending and/or increased debt, economic volatility, border chaos, even potential deaths. But the country would carry on working. It would be a horrendous mess for a long time, but unworkable? To a lesser extent, Tory/Coalition austerity policies since 2010 have been disastrous, but workable. Those on the right would claim that Corbyn's plans are "unworkable". You seem to want to restrict democratic choices only to options that you find acceptable.....a rather, er, illiberal stance. More than half the public voted for Brexit and something close to half still support it, but most of them reject May's Deal. What option would you allow them on the ballot paper if not No Deal? It would cause outrage and alienation from the democracy if you just offered a choice between Remain and May's Deal. I suppose a Canada-type deal and checks on trade crossing the Irish Sea would be an option, as it's clear the EU would accept that....

 

No, I don't mean that the original referendum could have been 2-stage, as the outcome of negotiations couldn't have been anticipated in that way. I mean that it could have been clear beforehand that, if there was a Leave vote, then there'd be a second referendum once the deal was negotiated. I'm not pretending that I thought of this at the time - and, like you, I don't remember ANY party making such a suggestion. But, assuming that the Lib Dem policy for a second referendum was only introduced after the Leave vote, it does lack democratic credibility: "Oh shit! We didn't expect to lost, er, well, we now need a second vote on the final deal!". As I said before, if there had been a major shift in public opinion, there would have been a case for a second referendum. If Parliament cannot approve any deal and we're heading for No Deal, there's also a case - as that clearly wasn't what people voted for. They voted for a negotiated Brexit deal.

 

I appreciate that outside Lib Dem target seats (and maybe a couple of Green target seats), a vote for either party will not affect the result - due to our stupid election system (I support PR - STV in multi-member constituencies, one of the reasons I've voted Lib Dem a couple of times in the past). But, even without affecting any constituency results, a big switch of votes to smaller centre-left parties would affect internal thinking within Labour. In some seats, of course, there'd be a risk of handing seats to the Tories - but I'm in Leicester South, where Labour had a 20,000+ majority last time.

 

I hope the ultimate outcome is Remain, I really do. But I think anyone seeing a second referendum as a simple solution is dreaming - it's like wishing the clock could be turned back to produce a different referendum result. Can't happen.....and there are major risks in having a second referendum. Not as major as those of No Deal, by a long chalk, but serious enough. Probably enough of this extended dialogue for now, eh? 

Great post. 

[Guest MattP]

I'm not sure the speaker's chair will ever recover it's reputation of impartiality after John Bercow. 

 

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm not sure the speaker's chair will ever recover it's reputation of impartiality after John Bercow. 

 

 

May is shamelessly trying to run down the clock, so it’s completely the right thing for him to be doing. 

 

I thought parliament ‘taking back control’ was what you voted for. 

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

May is shamelessly trying to run down the clock, so it’s completely the right thing for him to be doing. 

 

I thought parliament ‘taking back control’ was what you voted for. 

A man as intelligent as you must surely realise the speakers job is to be completely impartial? If you want the speaker to be political and select amendments based on himself making judgements on the Prime Ministers actions then that's upto you, I hope you'll be consistent when someone like Rees-Mogg is in the chair. I didn't realise John Bercow selecting amendments on his own politics is parliament taking back control - if it was I wouldn't have voted for it.

His own clerks have said this is against the standing orders of the house, are we really prepared to rip up centuries of parliamentary procedure just to drag May back to the Commons 18 days earlier? He's taken a copy of Erskine May and set fire to it.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

FFS

Shouldn't laugh but what else can you do?

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

Granted UN refugee status in Thailand: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-46806485

 

Good news - and a brave young woman.

[Alf Bentley]

Two excellent assessments of where the parliamentary numbers now stand re. No Deal, May's Deal, Second Referendum, Norway/EEA etc

Detailed down to the level of where individual MPs stand.

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/01/has-parliament-moved-uk-towards-joining-eea-s-european-free-trade

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/01/parliament-can-agree-it-doesn-t-want-no-deal-brexit-s-it

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

A man as intelligent as you must surely realise the speakers job is to be completely impartial? If you want the speaker to be political and select amendments based on himself making judgements on the Prime Ministers actions then that's upto you, I hope you'll be consistent when someone like Rees-Mogg is in the chair. I didn't realise John Bercow selecting amendments on his own politics is parliament taking back control - if it was I wouldn't have voted for it.

His own clerks have said this is against the standing orders of the house, are we really prepared to rip up centuries of parliamentary procedure just to drag May back to the Commons 18 days earlier? He's taken a copy of Erskine May and set fire to it.

 

May is riding roughshod over parliamentary democracy. He is making sure partiament gets to have its say. 

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, Buce said:

May is riding roughshod over parliamentary democracy. He is making sure partiament gets to have its say. 

You can't be thinking straight. I don't like the way May has handled this but I have no problem with her having 21 days to come back to parliament after losing a vote - to drag her back three days after is ludicrous.

But this is besides the point anyway, surely you cannot throw away hundreds of years of speakers impartiality just because in 2019 John Bercow wants to make a judgement on Theresa May, that is not right.

[Izzy]

31 minutes ago, MattP said:

A man as intelligent as you 

Easy there Tiger 

[Guest MattP]

Bercow being taken apart now, he's completely fcuked this. Totally broken the rules and he knows it.

[Buce]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

You can't be thinking straight. I don't like the way May has handled this but I have no problem with her having 21 days to come back to parliament after losing a vote - to drag her back three days after is ludicrous.

But this is besides the point anyway, surely you cannot throw away hundreds of years of speakers impartiality just because in 2019 John Bercow wants to make a judgement on Theresa May, that is not right.

 

It's regrettable, certainly, but personally, I don't care what is done in the cause of ending this headlong march to fvcking disaster. I will never be convinced that Brexit is a sensible decision, neither do I accept the whining arguments about the 'will of the people' - it was the uninformed will of 25% of 'the people', a huge slice of which will never live to see the consequences of their vote. In our form of so-called democracy, we elect MPs to make decisions for us in what they consider to be our best interests, something you have no problem with when you approve of the decisions being made.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

It's regrettable, certainly, but personally, I don't care what is done in the cause of ending this headlong march to fvcking disaster. I will never be convinced that Brexit is a sensible decision, neither do I accept the whining arguments about the 'will of the people' - it was the uninformed will of 25% of 'the people', a huge slice of which will never live to see the consequences of their vote. In our form of so-called democracy, we elect MPs to make decisions for us in what they consider to be our best interests, something you have no problem with when you approve of the decisions being made.

I can absolutely assure you whatever happens I will never want a speaker to make judgements based on their own political opinions, our constitiution is sacrosanct. If you are upset about Brexit that is fine, campaign to reverse it, campaign to have a second referendum, do whatever you want, but don't tear down the things that have kept this country as a functioning democracy for centuries.

Bercow's sophistry is now being completely shown up, he can't provide a precedent for this and his own clerks advised him against it. He has to go.

[davieG]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

a huge slice of which will never live to see the consequences of their vote

Isn't that the same for any election or at least the effects of the 5 years in parliament impacting on the future. What do you suggest, banning anyone over a certain age from voting?

 

Maybe you should put your energies into getting all the young eligible voters to vote when they have the opportunity to do so instead of whining about the way others have voted.

[Guest MattP]

Brilliantly ironic from Leadsom

 

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, davieG said:

Isn't that the same for any election or at least the effects of the 5 years in parliament impacting on the future. What do you suggest, banning anyone over a certain age from voting?

 

Maybe you should put your energies into getting all the young eligible voters to vote when they have the opportunity to do so instead of whining about the way others have voted.

 

I think there’s probably a good argument for that. We ban sixteen and seventeen year olds, an arbitrary decision decided by parliament, on the grounds that they are... what, too immature? Too stupid? When I compare my daughter and her friends with her grandma and hers, I know who I’d rather rely on to make informed decisions about their future. 

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

I think there’s probably a good argument for that. We ban sixteen and seventeen year olds, an arbitrary decision decided by parliament, on the grounds that they are... what, too immature? Too stupid? When I compare my daughter and her friends with her grandma and hers, I know who I’d rather rely on to make informed decisions about their future. 

Actually, it's on the grounds they are not adults.

As for the rest of the post, you are losing it, log off for a bit.

Edited 9 January 2019 by MattP

[davieG]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I think there’s probably a good argument for that. We ban sixteen and seventeen year olds, an arbitrary decision decided by parliament, on the grounds that they are... what, too immature? Too stupid? When I compare my daughter and her friends with her grandma and hers, I know who I’d rather rely on to make informed decisions about their future. 

Way to stereotype a large proportion of the population based on your daughters.

 

 Why don't you just campaign for compulsory euthanasia for anyone over 65, you could save on all those pensions, that have been paid for, medical expenses which could be spent on body enhancements. 

 

My respect for your opinions has just vanished.

 

I'll ask Mark to ban any over 65s from commenting in the thread, or perhaps as they are so stupid from the forum.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Actually, it's on the grounds they are not adults.

 

Itself an arbitrary age. Old enough to die for the country, old enough to kill themselves smoking, old enough to be married, old enough to have sex, old enough to have a baby.....

 

But too young to vote. 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

Itself an arbitrary age. Old enough to die for the country, old enough to kill themselves smoking, old enough to be married, old enough to have sex, old enough to have a baby.....

 

But too young to vote. 

Oh dear.

You can't be sent to a combat zone until 18.
You can't legally buy cigarettes until you are 18.
You can't marry without parental consent until you are 18.

Buy yeah, they can shag.

Edited 9 January 2019 by MattP

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, davieG said:

Way to stereotype a large proportion of the population based on your daughters.

 

 Why don't you just campaign for compulsory euthanasia for anyone over 65, you could save on all those pensions, that have been paid for, medical expenses which could be spent on body enhancements. 

 

My respect for your opinions has just vanished.

 

I'll ask Mark to ban any over 65s from commenting in the thread, or perhaps as they are so stupid from the forum.

 

No worries, I don’t need or want the respect of a stranger on the internet. 

 

Unlike you, I accept differences of opinion, even if I don’t agree with them. 

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Oh dear.

You can't be sent to a combat zone until 18.
You can't legally buy cigarettes until you are 18.
You can't marry without parental consent until you are 18.

Buy yeah, they can shag.

 

You can legally smoke at 16. 

 

So you can marry at 16, with consent, but you can marry. 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

You can legally smoke at 16. 

 

So you can marry at 16, with consent, but you can marry. 

You can legally drink alcohol at 5 in the home, but you wouldn't give them the vote I presume.

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

Unlike you, I accept differences of opinion, even if I don’t agree with them. 

 

Evidently not given you think there's a good case for banning a group of people cos you don't like how they voted.