LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksA single issue party? Where have we seen that before?
A single issue party? Where have we seen that before?
Not sure of the relevance of the SNP to this?Originally Posted by Splash
/ducks.
If I had voted in my constituency for one of these muppets only to find they bailed out and thought I'd be pleased.. they'd find themselves with no job soon enough.
BUT... they STILL GET PAID AS MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT for all this arsing around.
They're not a Party. They can't be yet because there a million and one things to sort to make a new party.
Gemini A Ltd, which was set up last month by Labour defector Mr Shuker is their little "pot of money"
So.. what ARE they gonna do now... while being paid?
What CAN they do? Cos they cant influence party politics from outsid the party... not from either side.
And they're not even life long politicians. They're attention seeking, smiling at the cameras as they get a moment in the lime light.. but they've not been voted to represent the "Independant Group"
Honestly.. makes my blood boil.
Can anyone here decide to leave their job because they don't like their boss, but still get paid while the arse about in a group with their mates making statements?
nope.
Chukka Amuna £77k salary as MP plus £65k for being part of a Think Tank
Anna Soubry £77k
blah blah...
Last edited by Zak33; 21-02-2019 at 04:56 PM.
Agree with most of that Zak ... except "not even lifelong politicians".
We have too many "professional" politicians already and I think having some years of real-world experience ought to be mandatory. Doing what doesn't much matter .... could be barrister or shop-worker, doctor or dustman. But school --> uni (politics degree) --> Westminster aide --> MP is a disaster, IMHO.
yeah I get that.
Are they being a little hypocritical to say they want another vote on the referendum and not in a by-election?
I mean you could probably guess I'm all in favor of another vote as much like these MPs i think what we voted on two and a bit years ago isn't what we've ended up with, but if they're making that proposition then doesn't the same logic apply to them, the people who elected them as Labour/Conservative MPs isn't what they've ended up with.
Brexit. the Majority voted to leave. Leave we will I think. It's what was wanted I believe.
I just want SOMETHING decided, begun and worked through.
Doubt is the killer bitch from hell
well don't worry. Jezza-sits-on-the-fence is being quite decisive. About the wrong thing entirely unfortunately. Anyone else (further) put off voting for him by this? Of all the things to take a stand on!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47319763
That wasn't really the gist of what i was getting at however, sure the majority voted to leave, we really need to workout what leaving means as it seems with less than 40 odd days to go no one, including parliament, is any the wiser.
Nope. Certainly not.
And when you're back on your chair and the world's stopped spinning .... it certainly isn't a "little" hypocritical.
There, the world is back in focus.
As you could probably guess, I'm not quite on-board with that.
It is true we didn't vote for May's deal or, specifically, even no-deal. But nor did we vote to stay in a customs union, or the single market, or to accept continued free movement.
We didn't vote for ANY specific outcome, or variant. We couldn't, not least because any specific outcome, except no deal, requires the agreement of the EU and there was no way to know what they would, or would not, agree to. If you remember, the EU refused to even start discussing it until we invoked article 50. Their proclaimed logic was that they couldn't discuss leaving terms until art.50 was invoked because, until then, we weren't leaving. I'm informed by an insider that, at that point, they thought we'd do what usually happens with a referendum result they don't like and be told to gote again, until we get it right.
I'm further told that it's only relatively recently that they've started to believe that that is unlikely and that we really are leaving.
So what did we vote for?
My argument would be that one way of looking at the planet's countries is that they fall into two categories - those in the EU, and those not.
Those in the EU get all the benefits, and costs, responsibilities and duties, of membership. That means they accept being part of a wider group, with ALL that that entails, good, bad or indifferent.
"Leaving" means moving from group 1 (EU members) to group 2 (rest of world). You then get none of the duties, costs etc, OR any of the benefits. i.e. as tje EU said, no cherry-picking, no having cake and eating it.
If we leave, we really leave, not end up half-in, half-out.
Then, as an independent, sovereign third-party country, we and the EU work out how to conduct matters, wherever and whenever possible in a mutually beneficial way. There are areas that ought to be easy, lime mutual landing rights. Not member-only privileged access, but friendly, respectful near-neighbour mutual benefit. Security co-operation ought to be easy too, even if arrangements aren't the same as before.
Trade? A mutual deal ought to be possible if it benefits both sides, but will certainly be harder.
And so on.
But, leave means, simply, leave. Those things, be they duties or rights, benefits or costs, part of organisations that require membership? Leave is leave.
Laws? Anything Brussels does that we like we can mirror in UK laws but we do it because WE want to, not because membership requires us to by law.
Representation in forming those laws? Nope. None of our business after we leave.
Essentially, "leave" means starting from the point as any other non-member, with neither the upside nor downside of membership.
I really don't get what's so hard about that concept, even back when we voted. Did everybody understand every last detail?
Clearly not.
But the concept of being in something, deciding to leave, and then not being in it, fully not in it, not in all aspects of it, isn't that tricky.
What's the issue? The majority of constituents who voted in the last election put a tick in the box marked John Smith*, and John Smith is still their MP. They are still able and willing to vote on bills and measures laid before parliment just as they were before. They'll still be paid an MPs salary because they're still acting as MPs, with surgerys as normal and all that comes with it.
*Obviously not actually John Smith, but I coudn't be bothered to put all their names in individually.
I posted this earlier but nobody bothered to read it, I say again, blame the rules!
No requirement to call a by-election:
http://www.w4mp.org/2014/04/28/why-n...ts-from-party/
The issue, or at least question, is did people vote for :-
a) John Smith, because of who he is. Oh, and by the way, he's XYZ Party, or
b) Did they vote for XYZ party, based on their manifesto or even, because they, their parents and most of the community, have always voted XYZ Party. Currently, XYZ's candidate happens to be John Smith, but if XYZ's candidate had been Sue Brown, that is who they would gave voted for, even if John Smith had been elsewhere on the ballot paper.
If an MP is elected on one platform and, once there, decides on a differwnt platform, it is tantamount to a fraud on any type b) voter.
I did see one set of statistics, a year or two back, that claimed about 96% of voters were type b).
The solution is obvious If they stand for election in a by-election, they give the voters the chance to back tbem or boot them accordingly. But it seems they won't. I wonder why not?
The problem i have with that is you're reasoned enough to know that you didn't vote for ANY specific outcome, because of the perfectly valid reasons you've laid out above, but if you listen/talk to your average person who supports leaving they'll often say they voted leave because of the promise made, some even still believe those promises like the £350m for the NHS, the nobody is saying we should leave the single market, that British car manufactures won't pack up shop, etc, etc.
I don't really want to get into a protracted discussion over how many still believe the lies or even if they are lies and the who said what (on both sides) as i feel it would be going over old ground, and as you've said previously you and i probably wouldn't change each others minds even if we did.
So you're happy with Mrs May's deal?
True there's no legal requirement, but considering one of their claims is that what people voted for two and a half years ago is not what they're getting, morally, logically, they seem to be standing of shaky ground when they say they'll not be triggering a by-election.
Last edited by Corky34; 22-02-2019 at 08:01 AM.
Some probably do or did believe the £350m, just as some probably do or did believe Treasury "forecasts" were fact. Sadly, it is inherent in the principle of democracy that everyone gets a say, whether or not they have any qualifications to assess such 'claims', or perhaps more seriously, whether they've paid attention to claims, reports, etc or, as I'm sure is the case in a good number of cases, were bored rigid by the nearly two years of claim/counter-claim, and just showed up on the day and voted on gut instinct. Every vote has equal effect, despite one being carefully considered and the other being more or less random.The problem i have with that is you're reasoned enough to know that you didn't vote for ANY specific outcome, because of the perfectly valid reasons you've laid out above, but if you listen/talk to your average person who supports leaving they'll often say they voted leave because of the promise made, some even still believe those promises like the £350m for the NHS, the nobody is saying we should leave the single market, that British car manufactures won't pack up shop, etc, etc.
I don't really want to get into a protracted discussion over how many still believe the lies or even if they are lies and the who said what (on both sides) as i feel it would be going over old ground, and as you've said previously you and i probably wouldn't change each others minds even if we did.
....
So you're happy with Mrs May's deal?
And plenty of people were saying we would have to leave the single market, not least the EU, but also Cameron and Osborne (as a threat) and Johnson, Gove and Farage, as an opportunity to strike our own trade deals with the rest of the planet.
Happy with May's "deal", essentially "Chequers"? No. Happy with what she said were her red lines, repeatedly? Reasonably.
What I voted for was to Leave. Not half-leave, or leave but sign uo for half of it again, or BrINO.
As for car companies leaving, which ones? Nissan haven't, certainly not yet. They cancelled a new model and the reasons given were complex commercial reasons. All they said about Brexit was "it didn't help long term planning". And Honda's European boss said specifically and deliberately stated that their decision wasn't about Brexit but was about strategic changes in the world car market.
As for changing minds, I suspect the country now has three groups :-
1) Those that want to Remain, don't accept the referendum result, and won't change their mind,
2) Those that voted Leave and won't change their mind, plus those that voted Remain but do accept the result even if they don't agree with it, and
3) Those that voted either way, or not at all, and just wish everyone would STFU about flipping Brexit, get on with it and move on to the other problems in the country 'cos, hey, Brexit isn't the only thing that matters.
I'm rapidly moving from 2) to 3).
Apex (24-02-2019)
There's also 4) Those that voted leave, and now realise they've made a mistake and 5) those that voted remain and now realise they've made a mistake.
I believe that there are more 4s than 5s, and that there's not reason to give the public a vote. It leavers are so adamant they were right, and the majority feel the same way, they still get their leave. If however, there is now a majority who don't want to leave on May's terms or no deal, then 'the will of the people' has changed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
