The Politics Thread 2019

[G STAR RAM]

30 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

And current generation over all future ones.

An important but unwritten social contract broken.

I'm telling my 17 year old son to follow his dreams and go global. His parents generation have let him down. We should reap what we have sown.

Why?

Future generations will have their own opportunities to decide on their futures.

Nothing to stop another Referendum on rejoining the EU in say 5 or 10 years time.

[Highgate]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Nothing to stop another Referendum on rejoining the EU in say 5 or 10 years time.

What's an acceptable timeline for another referendum? 5 years from now, 5 years from the previous one?  Just for the record. 

[G STAR RAM]

19 minutes ago, Highgate said:

What's an acceptable timeline for another referendum? 5 years from now, 5 years from the previous one?  Just for the record. 

I'd say 5 years would be acceptable.

I think by then the country would have had time to assess the effects of Brexit.

It would also give the EU sufficient time to reflect on the effects of us leaving EU and perhaps revise the terms on which our membership was based. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

27 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Why?

Future generations will have their own opportunities to decide on their futures.

Nothing to stop another Referendum on rejoining the EU in say 5 or 10 years time.

What makes you think the EU would want us?

The way we have behaved over the last 3 years should make the EU think they are well shot of us.

And we are still waiting for those German car companies to step in to rescue us with the easiest deal in history.

[Van der MoodHoover]

32 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Why?

Future generations will have their own opportunities to decide on their futures.

Nothing to stop another Referendum on rejoining the EU in say 5 or 10 years time.

Oh ffs. 

I'm thinking on a broader scale to the EU although that is symptomatic. 

What do you think a national debt is? It's a tax on future generations. 

And before you start blowing off about deficit reduction as some sort of Tory triumph I suggest you pause and consider the difference between a deficit and the debt.

"A land fit for heroes" was the quote for the immediate post war years. Endure hardship to ensure something better for the future. 

So our legacy is massive debt to be paid, plus a dying out planet and you say that's ok cos our kids and subsequent can make their own opportunity. 

If you are representative of our collective attitude then I truly despair. 

Ah well perhaps boris and trump can engineer some sort of apocalyptic conflict between them. Would serve us right.

[G STAR RAM]

15 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

What makes you think the EU would want us?

Money

The way we have behaved over the last 3 years should make the EU think they are well shot of us.

We've handled negotiations badly. The aggressive behaviour has been from both sides. If they are so well shot of us, it makes you wonder why they are making it so hard for us to leave. That's right, money.

And we are still waiting for those German car companies to step in to rescue us with the easiest deal in history.

 

6 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

Oh ffs. 

I'm thinking on a broader scale to the EU although that is symptomatic. 

What do you think a national debt is? It's a tax on future generations. 

And before you start blowing off about deficit reduction as some sort of Tory triumph I suggest you pause and consider the difference between a deficit and the debt.

"A land fit for heroes" was the quote for the immediate post war years. Endure hardship to ensure something better for the future. 

So our legacy is massive debt to be paid, plus a dying out planet and you say that's ok cos our kids and subsequent can make their own opportunity. 

If you are representative of our collective attitude then I truly despair. 

Ah well perhaps boris and trump can engineer some sort of apocalyptic conflict between them. Would serve us right.

I thought you was specifically referring to Brexit.

 

[Gritstone Ram]

6 hours ago, McRamFan said:

It actually shows that an 'incident' that has a significant politician involved gets president over anyone else, also probably because the neighbour had said they have recorded it.  If you called the police about your neighbour, they would not bother, after one call.  If you called 4 or 5 times and told them you heard breaking glass, gun shots, or threatened to intervene, then they may turn up, and probably arrest you.

Police are massively underfunded, and the quality in the service they provide is awful.  They are a result driven service provider.  They will go after the little fish, no backbone, or funding to go after the bigger ones. 

On a side note, if a politician lived next to me, I would 'grass' them up at any opportunity.

I think the neighbour is just stirring a bit of trouble up. As for the police I think they have got their priorities wrong.

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'd say 5 years would be acceptable.

I think by then the country would have had time to assess the effects of Brexit.

It would also give the EU sufficient time to reflect on the effects of us leaving EU and perhaps revise the terms on which our membership was based. 

Fair enough, but I can't see a lot of Brexiteers balking at the prospect.  For me the notion of holding a single binding referendum before it was apparent what Brexit actually meant was a ludicrous idea.

That's not how referendums are supposed to work.  The choices are meant to be clear-cut and clearly understood, so citizens can make an informed choice about their futures.

[Stive Pesley]

6 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Does not deal need to be passed?

Thought it was written in law that we leave come what may?

I thought parliament had already voted that we couldn't leave with no deal unless there was a motion agreed? There has been no majority shown for a no-deal scenario in any of the indicative votes, so I can't see it having the numbers. Plus Bercow would never let that happen by default I wouldn't have thought. 

[eddie]

6 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

I thought parliament had already voted that we couldn't leave with no deal unless there was a motion agreed? There has been no majority shown for a no-deal scenario in any of the indicative votes, so I can't see it having the numbers. Plus Bercow would never let that happen by default I wouldn't have thought. 

Leaving on Oct 31 is the default position. I don't think for a moment that Boris will baulk at proroguing parliament as we approach the cliff edge if he thinks that there is any chance that Parliament would ever get close to revoking Article 50. The rich sponsors of the Conservative Party are the only people they (the Cabinet) are interested in.

[GboroRam]

6 hours ago, McRamFan said:

That is the exact point.  Knife crime soaring, not enough coppers.  BJ has a row, 2 cars and a van attend, to a mild domestic, which had no screaming or threatening language.  The police and their priorities are the contradiction here.  Yes, they are massively underfunded, just like the NHS.  Just shows what they deem as important.

How do you know? The complaint has come forward and disagrees. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

Fair enough, but I can't see a lot of Brexiteers balking at the prospect.  For me the notion of holding a single binding referendum before it was apparent what Brexit actually meant was a ludicrous idea.

That's not how referendums are supposed to work.  The choices are meant to be clear-cut and clearly understood, so citizens can make an informed choice about their futures.

Although I kind of agree, I'm not really sure how much credible information could be provided prior to Brexit actually happening? 

Nobody could provide accurate facts and figures. The effects of Brexit won't be known until Brexit has happened. 

So basically people would still be voting upon estimates grossly exaggerated by both sides...which is what the first vote was based on anyway.

I mean every getting themselves worked up by 'no deal', what does it even mean? It means we leave the EU without a deal in place. Does anyone seriously believe that it will stay like that? No deal would harm both parties and to suggest that a deal would not subsequently agreed is absurd in my opinion. The big difference being that the EU would no longer have us over a barrel in relation to timescales. Just my take on things and I know it's impossible to prove whether I'm correct or not!

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, StivePesley said:

I thought parliament had already voted that we couldn't leave with no deal unless there was a motion agreed? There has been no majority shown for a no-deal scenario in any of the indicative votes, so I can't see it having the numbers. Plus Bercow would never let that happen by default I wouldn't have thought. 

Bercow should keep his beak out. It's got absolutely nothing to do with him and he is supposed to be impartial.

 

[Highgate]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Although I kind of agree, I'm not really sure how much credible information could be provided prior to Brexit actually happening? 

Nobody could provide accurate facts and figures. The effects of Brexit won't be known until Brexit has happened. 

So basically people would still be voting upon estimates grossly exaggerated by both sides...which is what the first vote was based on anyway.

I mean every getting themselves worked up by 'no deal', what does it even mean? It means we leave the EU without a deal in place. Does anyone seriously believe that it will stay like that? No deal would harm both parties and to suggest that a deal would not subsequently agreed is absurd in my opinion. The big difference being that the EU would no longer have us over a barrel in relation to timescales. Just my take on things and I know it's impossible to prove whether I'm correct or not!

It's a question of informing the public as much as you can. When the original referendum was held, nothing at all was known about Brexit.  Whereas holding a referendum after a withdrawal deal and subsequent trade arrangements were in place/ or alternatively the stark reality of a no deal, would at least give the electorate the opportunity of making an informed choice.

I agree with you up to a point, Brexit's effect will only be fully known after living with them for a while...but at least with treaties such as the Maastricht Treaty or the Nice Treaty, parliaments ratified them, or electorates voted for them after the Treaties had been negotiated, not before.  There is a good reason for this and it seems almost ridiculous to point it out.

The consequences of having a single referendum on whether to accept or reject an amorphous concept is plain to see for anyone who has been paying attention to politics in the UK for the last couple of years.

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, Highgate said:

It's a question of informing the public as much as you can. When the original referendum was held, nothing at all was known about Brexit.  Whereas holding a referendum after a withdrawal deal and subsequent trade arrangements were in place/ or alternatively the stark reality of a no deal, would at least give the electorate the opportunity of making an informed choice.

I agree with you up to a point, Brexit's effect will only be fully known after living with them for a while...but at least with treaties such as the Maastricht Treaty or the Nice Treaty, parliaments ratified them, or electorates voted for them after the Treaties had been negotiated, not before.  There is a good reason for this and it seems almost ridiculous to point it out.

The consequences of having a single referendum on whether to accept or reject an amorphous concept is plain to see for anyone who has been paying attention to politics in the UK for the last couple of years.

Let's say 2 Referendums were held then...how would you have set them out?

[AndyinLiverpool]

17 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Bercow should keep his beak out. It's got absolutely nothing to do with him and he is supposed to be impartial.

 

Suspension of parliament has EVERYTHING to do with the Speaker. The Speaker represents the House of Commons and is the highest authority in the House. Any attempt by a PM to suspend parliament against the will of the House would necessitate action by the Speaker in the name of the Commons.

[G STAR RAM]

16 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Suspension of parliament has EVERYTHING to do with the Speaker. The Speaker represents the House of Commons and is the highest authority in the House. Any attempt by a PM to suspend parliament against the will of the House would necessitate action by the Speaker in the name of the Commons.

If that was the reason he was doing it maybe yes, but we all know it's not.

Id say him allowing anything to try and overturn the will of the voters is well beyond his powers.

[Highgate]

29 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Let's say 2 Referendums were held then...how would you have set them out?

Not an easy question to answer.  The first when the original was held, the second when the final shape of Brexit is known, ie whether it's a no deal or whatever.  That's one option, not that it would be without it's problems.  Potentially a pro-remain parliament could negotiate a bad deal in the hope it would be rejected in the second referendum.  So that system would require the electorate to have faith in the integrity of their elected representatives.......so that's a potential stumbling block!  Still it would avoid the single referendum flaw of the helplessly uninformed electorate.   

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Not an easy question to answer.  The first when the original was held, the second when the final shape of Brexit is known, ie whether it's a no deal or whatever.  That's one option, not that it would be without it's problems.  Potentially a pro-remain parliament could negotiate a bad deal in the hope it would be rejected in the second referendum.  So that system would require the electorate to have faith in the integrity of their elected representatives.......so that's a potential stumbling block!  Still it would avoid the single referendum flaw of the helplessly uninformed electorate.   

I stopped reading at this point ?

[Highgate]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I stopped reading at this point ?

It's a bit of a crisis for democracy really, when you think about it.  The notion that the majority of elected parliamentarians in the UK (or many other democratic countries) would put their country's interest first, before thinking about themselves or their party, sounds so naive now that's it's laughable.

Any yet, fundamentally, that's how elected parliaments should actually work.