The Politics Thread

[bedwetter2]

Ha ha. A blow-in from that cradle of parliamentary democracy Guyana, who has done rather well out of business from similar "citizens of the world" then lectures us about doing the right thing, all the while knowing that she is buying "democracy", or should I say "justice". What a crock of shit.

Does Guyana have a constitution?

Asking for a friend.

You know we have been through the constitution thing before, you little tinker. If, and that is a big IF, Guyana does have a written constitution that would put it one up on the UK.
Anyway, I'm sure with all your constitutional law experience you already know the answer.

[bedwetter2]

Wow. Being Guyanese makes you undemocratic now.

And indeed good at business.

In fact, I'm struggling to see any point in what you've just written. But to summarise, as I understand it, her bad traits are...

1) Being a bit foreign
2) Being a bit good at business
3) Winning a court case.

I say deport on those deplorable traits. We can make the rest up when we've thought of it.

Still trying to work out why anyone who voted Brexit, in part, to bring British law making back to Britain could complain about this. What a ridiculous set of people. Laughable.

I s'pose they'll all be whinging like snowflakes today, whilst calling remainers errrr whingers.

Let's show we mean business by ripping an Guyanese, female immigrant, because no one else would have challenged it anyhow - no really (well other than the Brazilian bloke that was listed too).

I can only assume they've had their balls cut off in a previous job by a woman who they thought would be better off in the kitchen (or worse an immigrant woman whose job should probably be to clean the kitchen).

Limp dicks.

Spanish, not Brazilian.
I don't think there are many Leavers who are whinging. Just pointing out inconsistencies in the primacy of parliament when it suits some to use the legal profession to muddy the waters.

I'm assuming that you were not being deliberately sexist in your last sentence or you may have to deal with a "million" pink pussy marchers. I pity you.

[BWFC_Insane]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38744073

This is what happens when the right don't get their own way. Threats of violence and intimidation.

Love playing this game.....

I don't read any mention of either the right, the middle or the left in that piece.

What are you on about?

Just being silly. But of a hobohism in reverse....

[BWFC_Insane]

My understanding was that both Maastricht and Lisbon went through full parliamentary process?

[Bruce Rioja]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38744073

This is what happens when the right don't get their own way. Threats of violence and intimidation.

Love playing this game.....

I don't read any mention of either the right, the middle or the left in that piece.

What are you on about?

Just being silly. But of a hobohism in reverse....

Sorry

[Montreal Wanderer]

Ha ha. A blow-in from that cradle of parliamentary democracy Guyana, who has done rather well out of business from similar "citizens of the world" then lectures us about doing the right thing, all the while knowing that she is buying "democracy", or should I say "justice". What a crock of shit.

Does Guyana have a constitution?

Asking for a friend.

You know we have been through the constitution thing before, you little tinker. If, and that is a big IF, Guyana does have a written constitution that would put it one up on the UK.
Anyway, I'm sure with all your constitutional law experience you already know the answer.

It has had at least two constitutions - one on independence which was capitalist in nature replaced over 30 years ago by one which was more socialist (I would say communistic but it does guarantee certain basic individual rights). It is, I believe, a parliamentary democracy although not the cradle.

[Lord Kangana]

Wow. Being Guyanese makes you undemocratic now.

And indeed good at business.

In fact, I'm struggling to see any point in what you've just written. But to summarise, as I understand it, her bad traits are...

1) Being a bit foreign
2) Being a bit good at business
3) Winning a court case.

I say deport on those deplorable traits. We can make the rest up when we've thought of it.

I would like to ask you a genuine question and would appreciate an honest answer: - Have you always been a full-time resident of the United Kingdom? Something tells me that your views on the EU and remaining within it have been coloured by a personal interest.

As to the rest of your clumsy sarcasm, there is a point to saying that the two main promoters of this case have a vested interest which the Miller woman has covered up with the "democracy" bs when it is quite clear that she is a Remainer par excellence.

I don't mind so long as all parties are honest about their affiliations. This may apply to some of the Supreme Court judges too. A number are or have been advisers to the EU legal system. As such I believe they should have declared a conflict of interest and withdrawn from this case.

Finally I would advise you that a number of Prime Ministers have signed EU treaties, most fundamentally Maastricht and Lisbon, without obtaining prior parliamentary approval and so have made major changes to the British legal system and laws by the equivalent of the the Royal Prerogative. Where's the difference?

Genuine answer, instead of moaning about all the bad thing the EU does, I embraced wholeheartedly it's virtues. Romanians stealing our jobs? What about under freedom of movement when I export my skills all across Europe at a premium (as I do)?

People in this country drive me insane with their insularity. It's not a one-way street.

And because I go out into the outside world, I get to see all the ways in which our sudden leaving will negatively affect so many people on here, in ways they quite clearly have not even considered. So, so, so many people haven't the first idea as to how enmeshed our lives are with Europe. And how they have been for decades.

[BWFC_Insane]

It just gets worse and worse and worse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38738481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

It just gets worse and worse and worse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38738481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but rather than being led by the media to focus on relative trivialities why not spend the time on the mess being created by idealistic incompetents. Anyway, it's not like May can deliver preprepared lines without tripping over them continually. She's a terrible public speaker, but our oh so impartial media don't dwell on that do they?

[bedwetter2]

My understanding was that both Maastricht and Lisbon went through full parliamentary process?

Ah, you will note that I said "without prior approval". In essence, the rules in place for accession to the EEC in 1973 allowed the use of the Royal Prerogative and in theory that remains the case for subsequent treaty changes. However, it was agreed at some point that an enabling act to approve a new treaty would formalise the law.
This is where the disagreement arises as an enabling act is passed by parliament after negotiations are complete and the new treaty is a fait accompli.

So what is now being pressed for by Remainers is knowledge and a say in the negotiating position of the Government ahead of any ratification. Not at all what has been custom and practice until now.

[bedwetter2]

Wow. Being Guyanese makes you undemocratic now.

And indeed good at business.

In fact, I'm struggling to see any point in what you've just written. But to summarise, as I understand it, her bad traits are...

1) Being a bit foreign
2) Being a bit good at business
3) Winning a court case.

I say deport on those deplorable traits. We can make the rest up when we've thought of it.

I would like to ask you a genuine question and would appreciate an honest answer: - Have you always been a full-time resident of the United Kingdom? Something tells me that your views on the EU and remaining within it have been coloured by a personal interest.

As to the rest of your clumsy sarcasm, there is a point to saying that the two main promoters of this case have a vested interest which the Miller woman has covered up with the "democracy" bs when it is quite clear that she is a Remainer par excellence.

I don't mind so long as all parties are honest about their affiliations. This may apply to some of the Supreme Court judges too. A number are or have been advisers to the EU legal system. As such I believe they should have declared a conflict of interest and withdrawn from this case.

Finally I would advise you that a number of Prime Ministers have signed EU treaties, most fundamentally Maastricht and Lisbon, without obtaining prior parliamentary approval and so have made major changes to the British legal system and laws by the equivalent of the the Royal Prerogative. Where's the difference?

Genuine answer, instead of moaning about all the bad thing the EU does, I embraced wholeheartedly it's virtues. Romanians stealing our jobs? What about under freedom of movement when I export my skills all across Europe at a premium (as I do)?

People in this country drive me insane with their insularity. It's not a one-way street.

And because I go out into the outside world, I get to see all the ways in which our sudden leaving will negatively affect so many people on here, in ways they quite clearly have not even considered. So, so, so many people haven't the first idea as to how enmeshed our lives are with Europe. And how they have been for decades.

I appreciate your honesty, although you didn't really answer my question. You see, individuals always refer to their own circumstances or use generalisms such as "many" or even "majority" when such claims are not based upon empirical evidence. You can't run a country or even a company on gut feelings.

Regarding insularity, I have worked in various overseas locations in the past and perhaps there is some insularity in the UK population but that may be due to changing circumstances. When the indigenous population of most countries see a rapidly growing immigrant population taking resources which are then spread more thinly, they do tend to push back. There are plenty of examples in less developed countries and it is now happening in the EU in Greece and Italy in particular, but also France and the Netherlands.

Just ask yourself as you drive around the UK why the roads are so much more heavily used, why hospitals are finding it increasingly difficult to cope, why there is so much demand to build more housing on greenfield land outside the greenbelt of many conurbations. These are visible signs, but I suspect there are other hidden signs of distress to the UK economy. Yes, some of it may be down to incompetence on the part of local or national government but it is an undeniable fact that England has a higher population density per square mile than virtually any other country in the world (i'm not including a city state like Singapore in that).

There are other working people in the UK who have been negatively affected by the EU, just as you extol the benefits for you of open borders.

[Worthy4England]

Wow. Being Guyanese makes you undemocratic now.

And indeed good at business.

In fact, I'm struggling to see any point in what you've just written. But to summarise, as I understand it, her bad traits are...

1) Being a bit foreign
2) Being a bit good at business
3) Winning a court case.

I say deport on those deplorable traits. We can make the rest up when we've thought of it.

Still trying to work out why anyone who voted Brexit, in part, to bring British law making back to Britain could complain about this. What a ridiculous set of people. Laughable.

I s'pose they'll all be whinging like snowflakes today, whilst calling remainers errrr whingers.

Let's show we mean business by ripping an Guyanese, female immigrant, because no one else would have challenged it anyhow - no really (well other than the Brazilian bloke that was listed too).

I can only assume they've had their balls cut off in a previous job by a woman who they thought would be better off in the kitchen (or worse an immigrant woman whose job should probably be to clean the kitchen).

Limp dicks.

Spanish, not Brazilian.
I don't think there are many Leavers who are whinging. Just pointing out inconsistencies in the primacy of parliament when it suits some to use the legal profession to muddy the waters.

I'm assuming that you were not being deliberately sexist in your last sentence or you may have to deal with a "million" pink pussy marchers. I pity you.

Brazilian in most reports I read, but no matter.

They haven't muddied the waters - they've clarified them. Can a very small body of people use executive powers to bypass UK law having been elected by a minority of the UK population (as all governments generally are - apolitical point)? No. Which is a good thing.

There was no manifesto pledge by the Government to do so (in fact their pledge was to stay in and they were elected on that basis). We're not at war and haven't had any sort of legally binding vote on the matter (they could have set it up so this was the case, as they did with the AV referendum, but didn't), didn't publish a plan nor explain what "Brexit" actually meant, although I remember the £350m for the NHS seemed quite clear.

There was plenty of debate on "referendums" in 1975 in relation to EEC Membership, recorded in Hansard.

Here's what the head witch had to say about it (part of anyhow)

The Lord President made great play on the question of the full-hearted consent of the people. Yesterday, when I was having the compulsory cold collation which we have to have these days, I was interested to see this letter in the Evening Standard: ‘ How tired one gets of the well-worn clichç ' the full-hearted consent of the people '. What exactly is meant by this? Referenda for every important piece of legislation? If this was the case, we would have no Race Relations Act, immigration would have been stopped, abortions would still be illegal and hanging still be in force. All these laws were passed not only without this full-hearted consent nonsense, but, if the polls are to be believed, in the face of a determined 70 to 80 per cent. of the electors' wishes to the contrary.’ I expect that that is what we shall move to if we have the first referendum without considering the consequences that every piece of legislation will require full-hearted consent, which normally means consent exercised through the House, consent which my right hon. Friends and I have been concerned to exercise through the House but which the Lord President is now saying is consent exercised through the new device of a referendum

So pretty much anything up to at least 80% should be ignored if Parliament sees fit. As an aside she also points out that it would be untenable for any Government to continue in the face of a referendum defeat...

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... referendum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BWFC_Insane]

It just gets worse and worse and worse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38738481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but rather than being led by the media to focus on relative trivialities why not spend the time on the mess being created by idealistic incompetents. Anyway, it's not like May can deliver preprepared lines without tripping over them continually. She's a terrible public speaker, but our oh so impartial media don't dwell on that do they?

The argument that gaffes and blunders "don't really matter" doesn't work though. I mean this is a pretty major error. At a time Labour should be in the ascendancy, the fact they are suffering with the worst leader of an opposition in history, means they are literally bleeding support daily. May is poor. She can be as bad as she likes. There is nobody to challenge her in an electoral battle.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

The argument that gaffes and blunders "don't really matter" doesn't work though. I mean this is a pretty major error. At a time Labour should be in the ascendancy, the fact they are suffering with the worst leader of an opposition in history, means they are literally bleeding support daily. May is poor. She can be as bad as she likes. There is nobody to challenge her in an electoral battle.

I didn't say they don't matter, just that we're all focusing on what is not a major gaffe, simply an error. An error that anyone could easily make unless you don't think people don't bumble their words sometimes.

Let's think about it. We have Trump tweeting any old shite so the media focusses on the that instead of what actually matters. He made sure at a press conference about him divesting control of his businesses that everyone focussed on anything but his businesses by rambling on about his intelligence people talking shite and how the media spouts fake news. He's gotten away with little scrutiny on what really matters. By focussing on Corbyn getting something wrong, which may have been just a case of getting his words out wrong, no one is talking about May wasting months and having to back track on nearly everything she's said. That is a bigger issue and more consequential to all our futures. Yes, Corbyn is a crap leader of the opposition, but no one ever focusses on some fairly sensible things he tries to get debated because their too busy lapping up the media portrayal of him. Ed Milliband as irritating as he was, was no where near as incompetent as May, but we were all too concerned with his ability to eat a bacon butty to notice...led by a media with an agenda.

[Prufrock]

I'm massively enjoying someone who argued we don't have a constitution giving a football-forum precis of the errors (s)he feels were made in a decision that's just been battled out in front of and between 13 of the best legal minds in the country. And Jeremy Wright.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'm massively enjoying someone who argued we don't have a constitution giving a football-forum precis of the errors (s)he feels were made in a decision that's just been battled out in front of and between 13 of the best legal minds in the country. And Jeremy Wright.

Are they experts though?

[Prufrock]

It just gets worse and worse and worse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38738481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but rather than being led by the media to focus on relative trivialities why not spend the time on the mess being created by idealistic incompetents. Anyway, it's not like May can deliver preprepared lines without tripping over them continually. She's a terrible public speaker, but our oh so impartial media don't dwell on that do they?

The argument that gaffes and blunders "don't really matter" doesn't work though. I mean this is a pretty major error. At a time Labour should be in the ascendancy, the fact they are suffering with the worst leader of an opposition in history, means they are literally bleeding support daily. May is poor. She can be as bad as she likes. There is nobody to challenge her in an electoral battle.

He's fecking useless but this wouldn't even be in the top 50 reasons why tbf. Not even sure why it's news. Ridiculous over-reaction to a simple mistake.

[Bruce Rioja]

The argument that gaffes and blunders "don't really matter" doesn't work though. I mean this is a pretty major error. At a time Labour should be in the ascendancy, the fact they are suffering with the worst leader of an opposition in history, means they are literally bleeding support daily. May is poor. She can be as bad as she likes. There is nobody to challenge her in an electoral battle.

I think IDS might have something to say about that

[BWFC_Insane]

The argument that gaffes and blunders "don't really matter" doesn't work though. I mean this is a pretty major error. At a time Labour should be in the ascendancy, the fact they are suffering with the worst leader of an opposition in history, means they are literally bleeding support daily. May is poor. She can be as bad as she likes. There is nobody to challenge her in an electoral battle.

I didn't say they don't matter, just that we're all focusing on what is not a major gaffe, simply an error. An error that anyone could easily make unless you don't think people don't bumble their words sometimes.

Let's think about it. We have Trump tweeting any old shite so the media focusses on the that instead of what actually matters. He made sure at a press conference about him divesting control of his businesses that everyone focussed on anything but his businesses by rambling on about his intelligence people talking shite and how the media spouts fake news. He's gotten away with little scrutiny on what really matters. By focussing on Corbyn getting something wrong, which may have been just a case of getting his words out wrong, no one is talking about May wasting months and having to back track on nearly everything she's said. That is a bigger issue and more consequential to all our futures. Yes, Corbyn is a crap leader of the opposition, but no one ever focusses on some fairly sensible things he tries to get debated because their too busy lapping up the media portrayal of him. Ed Milliband as irritating as he was, was no where near as incompetent as May, but we were all too concerned with his ability to eat a bacon butty to notice...led by a media with an agenda.

Not sure I'd agree Trump has gotten away with "little scrutiny". His supporters simply don't care. So whilst the media are and have been hammering him, his supporters just ignore it all.

There is a world of difference in competence between Ed M and Jeremy C. And Ed M wasn't very good. But leagues, and leagues above Jeremy C.

Ultimately we have to live in the world we are in. And that means politicians appearing credible and in control and "managed" is ultimately very, very important. Especially on the "left" of the political spectrum.

You cannot win an election from the left preaching to the converted. Rather like Trump fanatics, Corbyn's mentalist supporters don't care what he does. They are a fanatical band who just put their fingers in their ears and pretend they are part of a "political revolution". This is very damaging to the country as a whole. Even many lifelong Tories want some form of effective opposition.

[Lord Kangana]

AT has nailed it there. You really needn't worry about Corbyn that much. He's not making life-changing era defining decisions about your life on the basis of how to keep his party together and fight off UKIP.

And lets be clear, even if he was a credible opposition, those in charge have no need to put it to the test til 2020. The damage will be well and truly done by then.