The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

claretandbluesky

I sort of agree with you about the Tory light thing but I think that is what the country lacks at present, I obviously wouldn't term it Tory light but I would say a middle ground party, so a right of centre labour party or a left of centre tory party. At present I think we have a Tory party which is desperately fighting for identity due to the effects of the referendum and sadly leaning right in all but speech making and heading for anti immigration hard brexit, and we have a far left Labour party which would have so little chance of appealing to the populous at large as it is not that far left thinking.

The contradiction which has arisen in geographical politics is fascinating as in my view the Labour northern heartlands which sent the leave vote due to being excluded from an elitist London based power base would find a general election a huge conundrum. Do they vote for the Tories who cause their problems but will deliver their victory in Europe or Labour who may ease their day to day problems a little but less likely deliver the exit they would consider victory, if at all.


I look for someone who recognises that the economy is the driving force of the nation and acts accordingly, but with that strong economy looks to take care of the less able and those needing help. I want someone not entrenched in a particular politics but of intelligence and common sense, as a leader someone able to get on with people and build trust abroad, someone who can communicate a narrative that builds communities and the country to be inwardly caring and outwardly looking and welcoming. I need above all else to feel that they are doing this for the right reasons and not play politics, and then if they make mistakes as we all would it's ok and just like Slav at present we would support them.

NEoldiron

AC Grayling:

Article 50 ruling: the EU referendum was only ever "advisory"

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/article-50-ruling-eu-referendum-was-only-ever-advisory

Some key points:

A referendum is not an election. Voters can periodically change their minds about the outcome of a previous vote.

The structures of representative democracy exist to provide a filter against mob rule moods and errors.


There should never have been a referendum. The internal party political reason why it was held was not meant to deliver a Leave outcome. So much is public knowledge too. But MPs need to remember that the contingency was guarded against. Briefing paper 07212 sent to MPs on 3 June 2015 before the debate in the House on the 2015 Referendum Bill made it perfectly clear that the referendum was “advisory” and “consultative” only and that neither the government nor parliament was bound by it (section 5). It equally clearly pointed out that in matters of major constitutional import, a “simple plurality of the vote is insufficient” (section 6). Which bits of this are MPs now acting as if they either did not read or did not understand?


At the same time, an unappetising piece of information was provided by the referendum: attitudes to immigration have gone rancid in some quarters.

TheMadcapLaughs

Tomw85 said:

What are these positives NE and how can you be sure that we won't be able to have similar if we leave?

Tom, you may choose to read the leaflet NE is pointing towards, but I fear it may be a waste of your time. You see, the issues are far too complicated for the average person to understand, and far too complicated for anyone who chose to vote leave. The issues only seem to present themselves with absolute clarity to those who chose to vote remain.

TheMadcapLaughs

MrsGrey said:

So not quite the will of the British people - more accurately, it is the will of some British people.

I accept that it is a (small) majority of those who voted, but lets not pretend it is anything other than the choice a minority of the population.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/

Mrs G. You are far better than pointing to a simple pie chart in defence of our peculiar democracy. Every government in our current system is elected without ever achieving a majority of the popular vote. You and NE also point to the issue of whipped voting and free voting. The very idea of a whipped vote surely runs against all logic when one discusses "democracy". NE suggests that MP`s vote against article 50 as MP`s should vote according to their conscious and for what they believe is right. Surely MP`s voting in any other way (I.E. 99% of the time) is simply too horrific to contemplate.

A little while back we were asked if we were proud to be British/English. I think I was one of the very few who said yes (in a strange way). In fact one poster said he was "almost ashamed to be English". We all know what almost means. It is like starting a sentence: "with all due respect." There now seems to be a huge groundswell of pride, admiration and respect for our "peculiar" democracy and our much vaunted legal system. Are we now saying that we are better than "Johnny Foreigner" in this respect? One final point, if we take such pride in the sanctity and sovereignty of our democracy and the legal system that stands above it, why do we allow it to be overruled by the European courts. Or is this just when it suits.

ASLEFshrugged

thornburyiron said:

As does Corbin when he's playing to the guardian or Pravda.

You can't have read the Guardian for a long time, very anti-Corbyn, very pro-Progress/New Labour

claretandbluesky said:

the installing of another non-leader in Ed Milliband over the far more popular and articulate David Milliband by Len Mclusky

Utter rubbish. How exactly did Len McLusky "install" the Labour Leader?

TheMadcapLaughs

PPS. I have stated that I voted leave as I mistrust politicians and centralized power. Everyone else seems to put their faith in politicians and centralized power. I believe that governments and its laws are there to protect power and money. Most people seem to feel that governments are there as we "need protecting from ourselves" and we are not capable of running our own lives, not smart enough. In fact if it wasn`t for governments we wouldn`t have electricity. I often wondered what retired politicians did, now I know, they work for the electricity board. I believe that people can organise themselves, and organise themselves very well, and from the bottom up, and often contra to government policy and outside of "the law". In fact where governments fail, ordinary people (hard to believe I know) step in. That is why we have organisations like Oxfam, Save The Children, The Red Cross, Barnardos, The Trussell Trust, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, War on Want etc etc etc All of these organisations work towards peace and equality.
Everyone has also been banging on about trade deals and pointing to graphs and charts as proof that the economy is doomed to fail. All this means is that "growth" may stall or even contract. People point to unmitigated growth as the only barometer of success without ever asking themselves if unmitigated growth is desirable or ultimately even achievable. If you want to research alternate points of view feel free to follow the link below:

http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1819&ea.campaign.id=55694&ea.url.id=696270

As Suze pointed out very early on in the thread:

"If voting made any difference they wouldn`t allow us to do it"

grey_til_I_dye

MadCap

Everyone else seems to put their faith in politicians and centralized power.

You can't fairly draw that conclusion from what people have said on here.

But, perhaps the issues are far too complicated for the average person to understand, and far too complicated for anyone who chose to vote in the last election. The issues only seem to present themselves with absolute clarity to those who are convinced Anarchists.

Or perhaps we need to keep sarcasm and personal comments out of the thread, and stick to arguing the issues.

If people can't keep within site boundaries then the thread will be closed.

NEoldiron

Madcap, I followed your suggestion and link.

http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1819&ea.campaign.id=55694&ea.url.id=696270

And also from there to:
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/09/01/canadian-trade-deal-will-let-in-ttip-by-the-back-door

And there were some interesting links from there, this one especially:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11/04/enemies-of-the-people-brexit-campaign-putting-lives-risk

All of which as far as I could see are pro-Remain. What was your point (as a self-confessed Leaver)?

MrsGrey

TheMadcapLaughs said:

MrsGrey said:

So not quite the will of the British people - more accurately, it is the will of some British people.

I accept that it is a (small) majority of those who voted, but lets not pretend it is anything other than the choice a minority of the population.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/

Mrs G. You are far better than pointing to a simple pie chart in defence of our peculiar democracy.

Did you read my comment? I'm not defending anything.


I'm pointing out that all the press (and anyone else) going on about judges 'blocking the will of the British people' is febrile rhetoric designed to ramp up emotions and pander to prejudices. It doesn't reflect the facts in any way: since the vote wasn't about our preferred mechanism and procedure for exiting, nor is it anything more than the will of just over a quarter of the population.

MrsGrey

MadCap, You have also misconstrued other of my comments and attributed to me attitudes which I didn't express.

I think that an independent judiciary is a good thing.

I think requiring the government to adhere to the rule of law is a good thing.

I don't see these two 'good things' as inherently or quintessentially British, so having them is irrelevant to me in terms of my feelings about 'Britishness'.

Where other countries don't have them, I think it is a bad thing. It doesn't make me feel superior to them.

(I'm a bit irritated, tbh, that you seem to be imputing to me ideas I never expressed, then being sarcastic about them. ;puzzled )

TheMadcapLaughs

Mrs G, I apologise unreservedly, I really do. I will be back later with a more considered post, but felt the need to apologise to you as soon as was opportune. ;ok

claretandbluesky

Aslef - I would suggest Len Mclusky installed the last two labour party leaders firstly Ed Milliband by allowing him to beat the far more popular and leadership election leading David Milliband by using the then rules to give ED the deciding union block vote. As for Corbyn he was central to the argument to allow Corbyn onto the ballot paper when he had zero chance of attracting enough nominations under the innocent sounding ' so the left would be represented' , then with others launched a massive push to sign up Corbyn supporters to the Labour party leading to his election, against the wishes of the vast majority of Labour MPs.

If there was one particular banker that wielded as much power in the Tory party as Len Mclusky does in Labour it would be an outrage. There are many people who I have no doubt have the govts ear with regard the party, but none come near to the power LM has, in my opinion.

OutcastLondoner

Corbyn won't be beaten within the party until people realised it wasn't just left activists who were signed up. There aren't enough of them. He gave a lot of people who were already Labour voters hope the party could be more than it was, so they signed up and voted for him. Cornyn's opponents have to offer more of a vision than simply winning an election, especially when most of them don't do a great job of convincing that they can win an election.

MrsGrey

madcap ;ok

ASLEFshrugged

claretandbluesky said:

Aslef - I would suggest Len Mclusky installed the last two labour party leaders firstly Ed Milliband by allowing him to beat the far more popular and leadership election leading David Milliband by using the then rules to give ED the deciding union block vote.

The union block vote was abolished by John Smith in 1993, in 2010 just like every other union member I received my own ballot paper through the post.

claretandbluesky said:

As for Corbyn he was central to the argument to allow Corbyn onto the ballot paper when he had zero chance of attracting enough nominations under the innocent sounding 'so the left would be represented' , then with others launched a massive push to sign up Corbyn supporters to the Labour party leading to his election, against the wishes of the vast majority of Labour MPs.

Len McCluskey publically backed Andy Burnham, indeed many left leaning Labour members were going to vote for Burnham until Corbyn announced his candidacy. Just how much influence McCluskey had getting MPs to nominate Corbyn or in signing up new members is debatable, I’d say that the influx of new members was more to do with Corbyn himself than anyone else.

ASLEFshrugged

In 2010 Unite members first preference votes were

47439 E Miliband
21778 D Miliband
11129 Abbott
7993 Burnham
6995 Balls

Half of the members of McCluskey's own union voted for another candidate despite his support for Ed Miliband. Influence?

MrsGrey

An interesting development.

A complaint has been made to the Crown Prosecution Service that aspects of the Leave campaign breached the Electoral Administration Act 2006. The CPS is considering it.

The argument is that some things were presented as fact by the various leave campaigns, but that they knew these were untrue. And that these statements might thus fall within the definition of an 'attempt to mislead voters' - which is prohibited by electoral law.

Even if the CPS decides to prosecute, it would be a test case.

Even if the court found that an offence had been committed, it wouldn't be able to overturn the referendum result.

It might though, result in criminal charges being brought against the responsible individuals.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/07/brexit-cps-considers-complaint-that-leave-campaigns-misled-voters

ASLEFshrugged

I'm not sure they have a case, if you look at the wording of Section 115 "Undue Influence" of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended by the Electoral Administration Act 2006 it says its an offence if someone "compels, induces or prevails upon....an elector....either to vote or refrain from voting." rather than influencing how they cast their vote.

Having said that it does seem rather unlikely that someone would induce someone to vote without actually wanting them to vote in a certain way......just ignore me.

IronHerb

Who said that? ;biggrin

simonc

IMO, If the British public thought this was anything other than an IN - OUT final decision the Out Vote would have been far far higher, as it stands it shows that the majority are not happy with the EEC or the renegotiated version. I did read the leaflet that NEoldiron linked too & its simply, IN propaganda.
Again IMO Article 50 needs enacting immediately, let the dust fall where it will. There is far too much uncertainty so pull the plaster off fast & deal with the fall out, as i previously stated the drop in the pound more than makes up for any financial penalties.

claretandbluesky

I do still disagree about Len Mclusky's influence Aslef as I remember him making a plea for Corbyn to be artificially included on the ballot for last time, and as you mention receiving your ballot paper as part of your union, if that union was Unite you will also remember the advertising for the Ed Milliband campaign being included with the ballot paper, but no other candidates material was included. He is also at the forefront of Labour party politics it seems without being an MP, hence my comparison to a city banker having such access and influence.

It could be brought into question whether it is a classic example of cash for influence as the union leaders such as Mclusky seem to get access and it would appear influence to some degree due to the money paid to the Labour party. They even made threats to withdraw funding from the Labour party a while back I seem to remember, the party is definitely dependent upon them.

MrsGrey

simonc said:

Again IMO Article 50 needs enacting immediately, let the dust fall where it will. There is far too much uncertainty so pull the plaster off fast & deal with the fall out, as i previously stated the drop in the pound more than makes up for any financial penalties.

Article 50 can't be 'enacted' so I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you mean formal notification should be sent to the EU, as provided for by Article 50?

If yes, go on then. Why don't you do it? Quick as yer like. ;thumbsup

What do you mean you can't, because you aren't empowered to?

Oh, you and Teresa May both, then, it would seem. ;wink

(At the moment, pending the outcome the appeal.)

ASLEFshrugged

claretandbluesky said:

I do still disagree about Len Mclusky's influence Aslef as I remember him making a plea for Corbyn to be artificially included on the ballot for last time.

Last time when? In 2015 McCluskey backed Burnham, a lot of his members were critical of Burnham and Executive Council eventually backed Corbyn despite McCluskey's support. In 2016 Corbyn got onto the ballot sheet because party rules didn't say that the incumbent leader had to get the required nominations

claretandbluesky said:

as you mention receiving your ballot paper as part of your union, if that union was Unite you will also remember the advertising for the Ed Milliband campaign being included with the ballot paper, but no other candidates material was included.

The hint is in the name; ASLEF is the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, its the train drivers' union. As for the Ed averts if it had any influence it wasn't that much, as I mentioned in another post around half the Unite members voted for one of the other candidates.

claretandbluesky said:

He is also at the forefront of Labour party politics it seems without being an MP, hence my comparison to a city banker having such access and influence.

It could be brought into question whether it is a classic example of cash for influence as the union leaders such as Mclusky seem to get access and it would appear influence to some degree due to the money paid to the Labour party. They even made threats to withdraw funding from the Labour party a while back I seem to remember, the party is definitely dependent upon them.

The Labour Party was created by the unions to represent them and the unions bankroll the party, why shouldn't the unions have a say when it comes to OUR party?

PrestonHammer

I am more baffled that Diane Abbott got 11129 people to vote for her... ;lol

MrsGrey

ASLEFshrugged said:

I'm not sure they have a case, if you look at the wording of Section 115 "Undue Influence" of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended by the Electoral Administration Act 2006 it says its an offence if someone "compels, induces or prevails upon....an elector....either to vote or refrain from voting." rather than influencing how they cast their vote.

Having said that it does seem rather unlikely that someone would induce someone to vote without actually wanting them to vote in a certain way......just ignore me.

;ok

The later amendment added 'or intends to' as part of that 'prevails upon' wording.

I thought the sticking point might be the meaning of 'free exercise of the franchise' ;hmm

Of course, there is precedent, because in a general election a Lib Dem leaflet that contained false information about Labour was found to come under this category of 'undue influence'.

The difference might be that (as far as I can see from the media coverage of this) the precedent was where one side was telling lies about the other, while in the current case, it is one side just telling lies. Allegedly.

TheMadcapLaughs

grey_til_I_dye said:

MadCap

Everyone else seems to put their faith in politicians and centralized power.

You can't fairly draw that conclusion from what people have said on here.

But, perhaps the issues are far too complicated for the average person to understand, and far too complicated for anyone who chose to vote in the last election. The issues only seem to present themselves with absolute clarity to those who are convinced Anarchists.

Or perhaps we need to keep sarcasm and personal comments out of the thread, and stick to arguing the issues.

If people can't keep within site boundaries then the thread will be closed.

Point 1: fair enough, although most (not all) are looking for solutions within the present system not for a completely new system

Point 2: I have always said from the start that NO-ONE knows what will happen and made it quite clear that all I offer are alternative ways of looking at things, not concrete solutions to perceived future problems and have said often that I may be wrong. I honestly don`t know what will happen tomorrow, let alone in six months or six years time. There are no absolute blue prints as to how society will work best. But, the impression I get from certain posters is that if only those that voted leave would look at and understand the facts as plainly presented, then it would be inevitable that they would change their vote. If I am wrong in this assumption then please excuse the sarcasm.

Point 3: I think it would be a crying shame to close the thread, but if you were to close it, you should have done it about three pages back.

TheMadcapLaughs

Mrs G. Apologies again. I was taking points made by you to make GENERAL assumptions and criticisms, not ones aimed at you. Although I do think it strange that remainers in general are pointing to our system of government and our legal system as something sacrosanct, but are willing to abdicate power to Brussels in a heartbeat. Nothing personal.

MrsGrey

;hmm It seems to me that the emphasis on 'our' system for 'our' country was more something that featured in the 'leave' campaigns. That's how it seeemd to me, anyway.

For myself, as I said earlier: I think it is right that the judiciary is separate from the government and, by extension, political pressure (and why I am strongly opposed to any switch to a system whereby judges are elected).

I have no issue whether the judicial function is carried out by a Magistrate's Court, County Court, High Court, Supreme Court, the ECJ or the ECHR - horses for courses, as far as I am concerned. I also don't really care what nationality the judges are or where they were born, as long as they do their job to the best of their ability. I also don't see that having an appropriate court rule on relevant legislation within its remit as 'abdicating power'. But that's just me.


PS, I have read most of the comment with your conclusion that those who want to stay in the EU have claimed our system of government and our legal system as something sacrosanct. Although as the thead goes back many months, I may have forgotten something.

Anyway, speaking as one 'remain' voter, I can categorically say that what you describe in no way chimes with my own view. (if anything I have posted suggests otherwise, I am happy to clarify.) ;ok

Yeoldhammer

Regardless though I find it difficult to believe any MP outside the SNP (some Northern Ireland parties) would vote against the referendum result. So the end game is Brexit regardless.

thornburyiron

Even 40 or so SNP MPs apparently voted leave so I don't know how they'll square that one.