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

1…6162646667…78

Comments

  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    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?
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    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_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    edited November 2016
    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.
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    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)?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited November 2016
    TheMadcapLaughs said:

    MrsGrey said:

    image

    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.


  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited November 2016
    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 )
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    edited November 2016
    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
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    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.
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    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.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    madcap ;ok
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    edited November 2016
    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.


  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    edited November 2016
    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?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    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
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    edited November 2016
    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.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Who said that? ;biggrin
  • simoncsimonc
    edited November 2016
    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.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    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.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited November 2016
    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.)
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    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?
  • PrestonHammerPrestonHammer
    I am more baffled that Diane Abbott got 11129 people to vote for her... ;lol
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited November 2016
    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.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    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.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    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.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited November 2016
    ;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
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    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.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    Even 40 or so SNP MPs apparently voted leave so I don't know how they'll square that one.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    NEoldiron said:

    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)?

    My point was that we seem to be getting ourselves into a lather about trade deals without stopping and thinking about who these deals really benefit. Nothing more and nothing less. It didn`t even occur to me which side of the fence War On Want stood as regards to Brexit. Although it seems logical that movements that tend to be "hard left" would generally support the principal of Remain. Which I find strange as they would also normally support the idea of local democracy.

  • PrestonHammerPrestonHammer
    You mean the whole of the SNP then? ;lol
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    On the CPS thing and politicians lying or manipulating the truth, I hope George Osbourne is also prosecuted for promising "emergency budget cuts" in the wake of a leave vote...................I think the phrase, to include the words "emergency" and "cuts", was very deliberate.......................
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    thornburyiron said:

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

    Did they ? I thought they all voted remain ?
This discussion has been closed.