Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Well, the idiotic and inept government has been defeated and the need for a vote on the final deal will be included in the Act. A small crumb of comfort for democratic principles at least. 

Agreed, HH. The arguments advanced by the government to defeat the amendment seemed to be based upon accusations of wrecking tactics whereas the arguments for the amendment were, as you say, about democratic principles so I'm glad that argument won. As an aside, unsavoury stories emerging about the Tory whips bullying potential Tory 'rebels' and reducing a female Tory MP to tears won't help their image one little bit.  

We need to keep separate, the external concept of leaving the EU and the internal concept of an inept government, whether it be May or Corbyn.  

Will May now have to seek more widespread consensus on the direction of Brexit ? Or will she continue to tackle potential conflicts with overt confrontation ?

Resurrection posted:

I don't like Grieve or Starmer as I find them both very duplicitous. If you feel they have redeeming features, and I know there are a few on this board who do, then come back with salient arguments that get your actual point over. 

You may not like their political positions ... but surely they are far from being duplicitous as they follow through on their stated feelings?  They are completely open about their opposition to Brexit, and act that way consistently (okay Grieve could be considered duplicitous as he often speaks passionate about finding problems with the government's position on Brexit, then voting with the government / his party anyway).

Out of interest ... would you be happy for parliament to be abolished and for a "presidential" type Prime Minister to be given essentially dictatorial powers - as those who criticise the Tory "Rebels" (Rebel Scum perhaps?) are essentially saying the governments position should just be accepted without question and rubber stamped by parliament.  It would (I admit) save all the bother of voting for and paying for the 650 MPs and nearly 800 Lords.

Addendum to above - its interesting that [@mention:70553749335967768] saves particular venom for two lawyers.  One (Greive) the former Attorney General and the other (Starmer) the former Director of Public Prosecution.  Is there something in their former roles you find abhorrent or just the fact that as lawyers they tend to present the letter of the law (as well as in many cases the spirit / interpretation of the law) rather than just acting on their gut or following the demands of the mob (aka the will of the people)?

Eloise posted:

Resurrection posted:

I don't like Grieve or Starmer as I find them both very duplicitous. If you feel they have redeeming features, and I know there are a few on this board who do, then come back with salient arguments that get your actual point over. 

You may not like their political positions ... but surely they are far from being duplicitous as they follow through on their stated feelings?  They are completely open about their opposition to Brexit, and act that way consistently (okay Grieve could be considered duplicitous as he often speaks passionate about finding problems with the government's position on Brexit, then voting with the government / his party anyway).

Out of interest ... would you be happy for parliament to be abolished and for a "presidential" type Prime Minister to be given essentially dictatorial powers - as those who criticise the Tory "Rebels" (Rebel Scum perhaps?) are essentially saying the governments position should just be accepted without question and rubber stamped by parliament.  It would (I admit) save all the bother of voting for and paying for the 650 MPs and nearly 800 Lords.

Eloise,

Interestingly, my wife, who is a Brexiteer also, was just telling me how appalled she was at the behaviour of the Tory whips last night. She did point out that even our MPs are supposed to be rational thinkers who can make their own minds up without bullying. I cannot fault my wife's argument, nor would I dare.

May and her advisers are the architects of their own downfall. I have no idea any more whether our Mother of all Parliaments is still the best model of democratic values in the world, that could be discussed elsewhere. However, the tampering by Blair in particular over the last few generations has delivered us with a society riven by all sorts of conflicting political interests e.g. the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. Act in haste and you can repent for a long, long time might be Blair's epitaph. That man was a political vandal. 

So,  we have what we have. A Parliament that has a Labour Party desperate for power led by an old guard Marxist who through the machinations of the Labour selection process, now controlled by Momentum, relishing the chance of inflicting defeat after defeat on a very wounded May, no matter what. The fact that many Labour MPs and their constituents are Leavers does not matter a jot to Corbyn who is himself a lifelong loather of the EU. Confused? Me too!

As for the Tories, many of them are Remainers and represent Remain constituency so feel that they are being forced to perform or implement a very unnatural act. Cameron must have been prescient when he did a runner right after the Referendum. All the runes must have said to him, just get the hell out! 

If Momentum controlled Labour do get into power you will experience a more centralised and radically controlled Givernment than has been seen in any of our lifetimes. Although the model harks back to the 70s, the likes of Tony Benn or Michael Foot, who are Corbyn's heros, were considered unelectable to the general population at that time because of their extreme Marxist views. Corbyn will implement these views under the guiding hands of McDonnell and McCluskey. No one else will really matter for fear of deselection or political ostracisation. 

This I confidently predict (in fact more confidently than predictive text's guess at me typing the word "predict"), if Labour get a decent mandate at the next General Election which might come soon if May's Tories continue to implode the people with quite some justification will punish the Tory Party. This is the view from what some of you perceive to be the extreme right wing, so over to you for your own consideration. 

I didn't mean to ramble on but as usual you 'provoked' my thinking ????

Eloise posted:

Addendum to above - its interesting that [@mention:70553749335967768] saves particular venom for two lawyers.  One (Greive) the former Attorney General and the other (Starmer) the former Director of Public Prosecution.  Is there something in their former roles you find abhorrent or just the fact that as lawyers they tend to present the letter of the law (as well as in many cases the spirit / interpretation of the law) rather than just acting on their gut or following the demands of the mob (aka the will of the people)?

Nah, just instinctive dislike to both! Nothing against lawyers, just find these two particularly oleaginous, nauseating specimens with their own smug self interest and inherent confidence in their own articulation and intellectuality quite overbearing. Their contempt for democracy also permeates their being. Other than that, I am sure they are fine fellows.   

Resurrection posted:

Nah, just instinctive dislike to both! Nothing against lawyers, just find these two particularly oleaginous, nauseating specimens with their own smug self interest and inherent confidence in their own articulation and intellectuality quite overbearing. Their contempt for democracy also permeates their being. Other than that, I am sure they are fine fellows.   

Can I correct that for you "Their contempt for what you consider to be democracy" ... given that they are voted for as individuals to represent their constituents they are doing exactly what the job description is.  Both are also (it should be noted) in remain voting constituencies (as always as calculated by Chris Hanratty as the referendum was based on local authority area not constituencies).

Eloise posted:

Resurrection posted:

Nah, just instinctive dislike to both! Nothing against lawyers, just find these two particularly oleaginous, nauseating specimens with their own smug self interest and inherent confidence in their own articulation and intellectuality quite overbearing. Their contempt for democracy also permeates their being. Other than that, I am sure they are fine fellows.   

Can I correct that for you "Their contempt for what you consider to be democracy" ... given that they are voted for as individuals to represent their constituents they are doing exactly what the job description is.  Both are also (it should be noted) in remain voting constituencies (as always as calculated by Chris Hanratty as the referendum was based on local authority area not constituencies).

Actually, in both today's comments I have kind of deliberately avoided the whole EU fiasco. I just don't like these two specimens on each occasion I have had to endure their legalese mutterings on anything. Not business, just personal! Damn! Don't know where the emojis are on this MacBook. Ah, found one.  

Resurrection posted:

Eloise posted:

Addendum to above - its interesting that [@mention:70553749335967768] saves particular venom for two lawyers.  One (Greive) the former Attorney General and the other (Starmer) the former Director of Public Prosecution.  Is there something in their former roles you find abhorrent or just the fact that as lawyers they tend to present the letter of the law (as well as in many cases the spirit / interpretation of the law) rather than just acting on their gut or following the demands of the mob (aka the will of the people)?

Nah, just instinctive dislike to both! Nothing against lawyers, just find these two particularly oleaginous, nauseating specimens with their own smug self interest and inherent confidence in their own articulation and intellectuality quite overbearing. Their contempt for democracy also permeates their being. Other than that, I am sure they are fine fellows.   

You appear to have confirmed the premise of the question I posed in an earlier post in this response to Eloise. You declined to answer my question, but instead took high umbrage at my suggestion that your reference to 'Tumbrels' was at best misguided.  

I seems that your very idea of democracy is a little flawed. Two individuals stand up for their beliefs, and just because their views do not coincide with your own they are displaying a contempt for democracy. Your response to Eloise's question reinforces my distaste for your previous post:

"If the incomprehensible numpty Grieve abetted by the equally incomprehensible numpty Starmer continue to play fast and loose with democratic decisions via weasel, legalistic words then the tumbrels will be out for them ere long."

Resurrection posted:

I have no idea any more whether our Mother of all Parliaments is still the best model of democratic values in the world, that could be discussed elsewhere. However, the tampering by Blair in particular over the last few generations has delivered us with a society riven by all sorts of conflicting political interests e.g. the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. Act in haste and you can repent for a long, long time might be Blair's epitaph. That man was a political vandal. 

So Scotland and Wales are not allowed to self determination and have democratically stated views (expressed through referendum carried 75/25 in Scotland; 50.5/49.5 in Wales) carried out but the UK as a whole should be beholden to a 52/48 referendum on leaving the EU?

Devolution was hardly "rushed" though ... it was something that had been "demanded" since 1707 in Scotland and separate Welsh legislation first came into law in 1881.  Both first had referendums in 1979, with a Scottish Assembly being legislated for in 1978.  In 1979 there was a small majority (ironically given the conversation context a 52/48 split) to form the Scottish Assembly but the Scottish Devolution Act of 1978 required 40% of the Scottish Electorate to vote to form the Assembly a threshold which wasn't reached. 

Blair simply followed through on promises since the late 60s.

PS. you didn't answer my initial question ... how can Starmer and Grieve (sorry think I spelt his name wrong earlier) be considered "duplicitous" when they are following through when voting their publicly stated views?

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

Eloise posted:

Addendum to above - its interesting that [@mention:70553749335967768] saves particular venom for two lawyers.  One (Greive) the former Attorney General and the other (Starmer) the former Director of Public Prosecution.  Is there something in their former roles you find abhorrent or just the fact that as lawyers they tend to present the letter of the law (as well as in many cases the spirit / interpretation of the law) rather than just acting on their gut or following the demands of the mob (aka the will of the people)?

Nah, just instinctive dislike to both! Nothing against lawyers, just find these two particularly oleaginous, nauseating specimens with their own smug self interest and inherent confidence in their own articulation and intellectuality quite overbearing. Their contempt for democracy also permeates their being. Other than that, I am sure they are fine fellows.   

You appear to have confirmed the premise of the question I posed in an earlier post in this response to Eloise. You declined to answer my question, but instead took high umbrage at my suggestion that your reference to 'Tumbrels' was at best misguided.  

I seems that your very idea of democracy is a little flawed. Two individuals stand up for their beliefs, and just because their views do not coincide with your own they are displaying a contempt for democracy. Your response to Eloise's question reinforces my distaste for your previous post:

"If the incomprehensible numpty Grieve abetted by the equally incomprehensible numpty Starmer continue to play fast and loose with democratic decisions via weasel, legalistic words then the tumbrels will be out for them ere long."

 

 

 

 

 

Mate, you don't have to rationalise to me or yourself your distaste for my opinions. I told you and the others in this thread that I don't like Starmer or Grieve from a purely personal point of view. If you admire these two particularly distasteful specimens then that is fine by me. However, bringing their names up just gives me an excuse to try and find suitable invectives to describe them. 

Resurrection posted:

<snip>

I have no idea any more whether our Mother of all Parliaments...

<snip>

What a parochial expression.  Iceland's parliament (Thingvellir) was set-up in 930 - long before the English parliament.

Eloise posted:

Resurrection posted:

I have no idea any more whether our Mother of all Parliaments is still the best model of democratic values in the world, that could be discussed elsewhere. However, the tampering by Blair in particular over the last few generations has delivered us with a society riven by all sorts of conflicting political interests e.g. the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. Act in haste and you can repent for a long, long time might be Blair's epitaph. That man was a political vandal. 

So Scotland and Wales are not allowed to self determination and have democratically stated views (expressed through referendum carried 75/25 in Scotland; 50.5/49.5 in Wales) carried out but the UK as a whole should be beholden to a 52/48 referendum on leaving the EU?

Devolution was hardly "rushed" though ... it was something that had been "demanded" since 1707 in Scotland and separate Welsh legislation first came into law in 1881.  Both first had referendums in 1979, with a Scottish Assembly being legislated for in 1978.  In 1979 there was a small majority (ironically given the conversation context a 52/48 split) to form the Scottish Assembly but the Scottish Devolution Act of 1978 required 40% of the Scottish Electorate to vote to form the Assembly a threshold which wasn't reached. 

Blair simply followed through on promises since the late 60s.

PS. you didn't answer my initial question ... how can Starmer and Grieve (sorry think I spelt his name wrong earlier) be considered "duplicitous" when they are following through when voting their publicly stated views?

Ha! Ha! may I refer you to today's Scotsman and Nippy's Budget. The love affair between the Scots, the SNP and Sturgeon herself is sinking like a stone. My personal impression of Blair was a man who woke up every morning convinced he had to create a new commandment, and did; aided and abetted by his rather nasty thuggish mate and enforcer, Campbell. Rather like McCluskey to Corbyn except McCluskey tells Corbyn what to do. 

My impression of the duplicitousness of these two specimens is based on the enduring the tripe that has come out of their mouths over a number of years. 

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

<snip>

I have no idea any more whether our Mother of all Parliaments...

<snip>

What a parochial expression.  Iceland's parliament (Thingvellir) was set-up in 930 - long before the English parliament.

Iceland's may have been the first/an earlier Parliament but they hardly spread its ideas and principles to the far flung corners of the Earth whereas the British Empire played a key role in the constituencies of Australia, NZ, the US, Canada, India etc hence the Mother of All Parliaments notion.

thebigfredc posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

<snip>

I have no idea any more whether our Mother of all Parliaments...

<snip>

What a parochial expression.  Iceland's parliament (Thingvellir) was set-up in 930 - long before the English parliament.

Iceland's may have been the first/an earlier Parliament but they hardly spread its ideas and principles to the far flung corners of the Earth whereas the British Empire played a key role in the constituencies of Australia, NZ, the US, Canada, India etc hence the Mother of All Parliaments notion.

Do you really think that the educated 13thC English elite didn't know of the Norse Sagas?

Resurrection posted:

"Mate, you don't have to rationalise to me or yourself your distaste for my opinions."

For once I completely agree with you!

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

"Mate, you don't have to rationalise to me or yourself your distaste for my opinions."

For once I completely agree with you!

Gracious as ever! ????

Resurrection posted:

If Momentum controlled Labour do get into power you will experience a more centralised and radically controlled Givernment than has been seen in any of our lifetimes.

What an exciting possibility - island democracy will (of the people) have spoken and there'll be no higher court to keep the resulting government in check.

Win, win - you might say. If it suited your bias.

Adam Meredith posted:

Resurrection posted:

If Momentum controlled Labour do get into power you will experience a more centralised and radically controlled Givernment than has been seen in any of our lifetimes.

What an exciting possibility - island democracy will (of the people) have spoken and there'll be no higher court to keep the resulting government in check.

Win, win - you might say. If it suited your bias.

You're quite right Adam. Juncker’s EU army would be sent in to restore proper discipline, and, err, democracy!

Huge posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

<snip>

I have no idea any more whether our Mother of all Parliaments...

<snip>

What a parochial expression.  Iceland's parliament (Thingvellir) was set-up in 930 - long before the English parliament.

Iceland's may have been the first/an earlier Parliament but they hardly spread its ideas and principles to the far flung corners of the Earth whereas the British Empire played a key role in the constituencies of Australia, NZ, the US, Canada, India etc hence the Mother of All Parliaments notion.

Do you really think that the educated 13thC English elite didn't know of the Norse Sagas?

I have no idea whether the English ruling class of the 1200s new of them/it.

My point, surely irrefutable even for you, was that it the British who took it with them to the colonies - like we did with our national sport of cricket.

Resurrection posted:

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

"Mate, you don't have to rationalise to me or yourself your distaste for my opinions."

For once I completely agree with you!

Gracious as ever! ????

Thank you.

thebigfredc posted:

Huge posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

<snip>

I have no idea any more whether our Mother of all Parliaments...

<snip>

What a parochial expression.  Iceland's parliament (Thingvellir) was set-up in 930 - long before the English parliament.

Iceland's may have been the first/an earlier Parliament but they hardly spread its ideas and principles to the far flung corners of the Earth whereas the British Empire played a key role in the constituencies of Australia, NZ, the US, Canada, India etc hence the Mother of All Parliaments notion.

Do you really think that the educated 13thC English elite didn't know of the Norse Sagas?

I have no idea whether the English ruling class of the 1200s new of them/it.

My point, surely irrefutable even for you, was that it the British who took it with them to the colonies - like we did with our national sport of cricket.

They did know of the Norse Sagas, those stories were a staple of the bardic tradition (note: the Normans were of Norse descent!)

Indeed, the British Empire took representative democracy to the colonies, but many other countries gained their parliaments without being part of the British Empire, and the true originating Mother of most of these parliaments is Thingvellir, either directly or indirectly.  That's the parliament from which almost all others descend (true however, that a significant number of the the world's parliaments descend indirectly from Thingvellir via the English parliament).

Resurrection posted:

Ha! Ha! may I refer you to today's Scotsman and Nippy's Budget. The love affair between the Scots, the SNP and Sturgeon herself is sinking like a stone.

It strikes me you are trying to have things both ways here...

First off: the whole point of devolution is that it allows the Scottish Government to set its own rules and legislation for many areas of governance.  They have to balance the positive policies (free prescriptions for example) with the negatives (increased tax to pay for those policies).  That is what is called democracy.  If the voters don't like what Sturgeon and the SNP have legislated they are free to vote her out.  

Isn't this what "taking back control" was all about in the referendum campaigning?  Something which (as far as I remember) you, your self, said was a prime motivator for your vote to leave.

There certainly is no rolling back on Scottish popularity with devolution and the support for full independence appears to be fairly constant.  As for the popularity of Sturgeon and the SNP ... while it has dropped from its heights at the time of the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections ... the SNP are still looking like they would comfortably retain a majority - of course a lot can happen in the next 3 1/2 (or so) years.

In any case; you have attacked my response to your diatribe on the legitimacy and desirability of the Scottish and Welsh parliament / assemblies with an attack on the current leader of the Scottish Government.  So a simple question: do you disagree with the notion that if a majority of people in a "nation" support independence (or in the case of Scotland and Wales some independence in policy making) then independence should be granted?

Eloise,

Surely it was about Westminster taking back control - and hence entirely consistent with seizing back control from the parliaments and assemblies of the other parts of the United Kingdom.

If you are to take beck control, Westminster should be paramount and no-one else should have any other right to self determination.