Jump to content

Brexit - merged threads


scouser
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Grieve represents a constituency that had a majority for leave.  Since he has consistently frustrated the leave attempts, they are entirely justified in having no confidence in him.  That is not 'extreme' - it is the normal process by which you can express 'no confidence' in someone who is not representing the constituency majority interests - and is entirely the right way of going about it; no thrown eggs, threats, violence - just the right democratic process

Its not the constituency at work it's UKIP infiltrators. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Parliament does work. iIt hasn't worked over Brexit almost wholly because of the ineptitude of this government. May came to the House asking for it to basically sign a blank cheque, and so it's hardly surprising that Parliament, whose main job is to keep the Executive branch of government in check, (excuse the repetition) was not nor prepared to sign it. As for the Commons being unable to formulate a forward plan - well that's not their job either. Their real job is to act like a jury in a courtroom - examining the legislation that the executive branch puts in front of them and giving it a yea or a nay. Parliament is not designed to formulate legislation any more than a jury is designed to prosecute or defend on points of law. 

But I'll agree, Parliament hasnt' done its job properly. If it had, May's government would have falllen to a no confidence vote in the middle of last year at the latest.

Ochlocracy is the technical term.

No parliament does not work it swings left and right and we waste time money and energy fighting the majority. 

 

Just now, Rewulf said:

😂

:lol: Forget to read the post? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, oowee said:

This is a real insight into the pressure for change. It will happen but soon enough? 

Did i hear there are riot police stationed at parliament?

She speaks very well. That was a great speech...unanswerable really. What's so interesting about the AfD is the demographics of its support. https://img.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2017-09/grafik-alter-englisch/original .  Also the migration of voters towards it.  https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2017-09/german-election-alternative-for-germany-angela-merkel

You're correct - this is where the real pressure for Eu reform will come from. Who knows? In ten years time we might be rejoining :)

 

Edited by Retsdon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

That's great news but he'll just go sit with the "new party" and vote how he pleases not as his constituents want.

47 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Parliament does work. iIt hasn't worked over Brexit almost wholly because of the ineptitude of this government. May came to the House asking for it to basically sign a blank cheque, and so it's hardly surprising that Parliament, whose main job is to keep the Executive branch of government in check, (excuse the repetition) was not nor prepared to sign it. As for the Commons being unable to formulate a forward plan - well that's not their job either. Their real job is to act like a jury in a courtroom - examining the legislation that the executive branch puts in front of them and giving it a yea or a nay. Parliament is not designed to formulate legislation any more than a jury is designed to prosecute or defend on points of law. 

But I'll agree, Parliament hasnt' done its job properly. If it had, May's government would have falllen to a no confidence vote in the middle of last year at the latest.

Ochlocracy is the technical term.

Sorry like a Jury? They are nothing like impartial their worse than children talking over each other and heckling during speeches. Something needs to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Its not the constituency at work it's UKIP infiltrators. 

 

1 hour ago, oowee said:

No parliament does not work it swings left and right and we waste time money and energy fighting the majority. 

 

:lol: Forget to read the post? 

Who you or me :whistling:?

Are we saying that Beaconsfield Cons now have enough UKIP 'infiltrators' to swing a no confidence vote on poor Mr Grieve ?
So the 'far right' is now the wolf among moderate tories sheep ? 😲

Thats a bit silly, a bit like saying labour are full of soviet era Russian sympathisers isnt it ? ...Oh wait...! 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Mice! said:

That's great news but he'll just go sit with the "new party" and vote how he pleases not as his constituents want.

Sorry like a Jury? They are nothing like impartial their worse than children talking over each other and heckling during speeches. Something needs to change.

Juries aren't impartial. Whatever gave you that idea? Just like Parliament, they're composed of people bringing their own dyed in the wool prejudices to the decision making process.

And as far as Grieve is concerned, it's not his job to act as a mouthpiece for the people who elected him. His job is to act, as he sees it, in the best interests of his country and his constituency as a whole. Of course, if his local constituency party don't like his interpretation they're perfectly entitled to put forward someone else whose interpretation of the countries' interests is more likely to align with theirs. But this talk of 'traitors' is not only dangerous, it's wrong. The man was simply doing his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote
2 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Juries aren't impartial. Whatever gave you that idea? Just like Parliament, they're composed of people bringing their own dyed in the wool prejudices to the decision making process.

And as far as Grieve is concerned, it's not his job to act as a mouthpiece for the people who elected him. His job is to act, as he sees it, in the best interests of his country and his constituency as a whole. Of course, if his local constituency party don't like his interpretation they're perfectly entitled to put forward someone else whose interpretation of the countries' interests is more likely to align with theirs. But this talk of 'traitors' is not only dangerous, it's wrong. The man was simply doing his job.

 

I'm sorry but how does that work? You vote a politician in but then he doesn't have to listen to the electorate, instead he does his own thing because he/she thinks the people don't know what they are talking about like they are little children?? Isn't that how we got in this mess in the first place through politicians not carrying forth the decision of the people by majority vote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CZ550Kevlar said:

I'm sorry but how does that work? You vote a politician in but then he doesn't have to listen to the electorate, instead he does his own thing because he/she thinks the people don't know what they are talking about like they are little children?? Isn't that how we got in this mess in the first place through politicians not carrying forth the decision of the people by majority vote.

 

Not only that. He was voted in on a manifesto, some of which he has completely ignored. It could be construed as election fraud.

Edited by Newbie to this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CZ550Kevlar said:

I'm sorry but how does that work? You vote a politician in but then he doesn't have to listen to the electorate, instead he does his own thing because he/she thinks the people don't know what they are talking about like they are little children?? Isn't that how we got in this mess in the first place through politicians not carrying forth the decision of the people by majority vote.

 

'It is a tenet of representative democracy that MPs are not delegates for their constituents. ..'

https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/mps-and-political-artiesp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Juries aren't impartial. Whatever gave you that idea? Just like Parliament, they're composed of people bringing their own dyed in the wool prejudices to the decision making process.

And as far as Grieve is concerned, it's not his job to act as a mouthpiece for the people who elected him. His job is to act, as he sees it, in the best interests of his country and his constituency as a whole. Of course, if his local constituency party don't like his interpretation they're perfectly entitled to put forward someone else whose interpretation of the countries' interests is more likely to align with theirs. But this talk of 'traitors' is not only dangerous, it's wrong. The man was simply doing his job.

Spot on.

And the backlash over this will see more B and C team candidates coming to the fore in politics and in Parliament. People should be careful what they wish for in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/03/2019 at 08:59, JohnfromUK said:

There was an interesting interview on Radio 4 this morning with Lord (Mervyn) King - formerly Director of the Bank of England (before Carney).

And an article here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6867499/Ex-Bank-England-governor-Mervyn-King-says-Britain-leave-Europe-without-deal.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

It is a tenet of representative democracy that MPs are not delegates for their constituents. ..'

In that case they should make this very clear when they are canvassing..

'I will promise you this dear constituent, but I will not deliver it if it conflicts with my personal conscience or interests, thank you for your vote'

14 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

 

And the backlash over this will see more B and C team candidates coming to the fore in politics and in Parliament. People should be careful what they wish for in my opinion.

If the A team cant deliver, I say bring on the B or C teams , they could nt be any worse ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The politicians have dug themselves into a massive hole now with nowhere to run.

General Election, they know they'll potentially lose their seat and their job.

Second Referendum, another toxic option.

They won't vote leave because they want to stay.

Now with these new independent parties coming out with rogue politicians it lends itself even further to a hung parliament with the higher chance of a coalition government propped up by politicians who will jump from side to side at their whim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

If the A team cant deliver, I say bring on the B or C teams , they could nt be any worse ?

Most of the A team know there are no winners in Brexit so they stepped back, what we are seeing is the effect of the fact that there are already two many B team involved. Think it can’t get worse? Think again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/03/2019 at 15:54, panoma1 said:

I dont even find that funny anymore! They are corrupt, self serving scum! All of em! They conspire to do everything they can to hide behind archaic procedures, parliamentary privilege, and deception to avoid accountability, look at the corruption we know (a bit!) about....cash for questions, expenses, bribes, freebies, second homes, jollies to exotic parts etc, etc.........apart from a couple of sacrificial lambs they are still all there royally ripping us off!.....and frustrating the will of the people of the UK!

Am I alone in finally reaching this conclusion!

No you are not. It's certainly not funny on any level being a total betrayal of a democratic vote. This will signify to me the end of any small faith i had in our Parliamentary system, our politicos having finally sunk to the same undemocratic level as the euro mob? 

My final post on this debacle.

i have a good memory though, come the polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

Juries aren't impartial. Whatever gave you that idea? Just like Parliament, they're composed of people bringing their own dyed in the wool prejudices to the decision making process.

And as far as Grieve is concerned, it's not his job to act as a mouthpiece for the people who elected him. His job is to act, as he sees it, in the best interests of his country and his constituency as a whole. Of course, if his local constituency party don't like his interpretation they're perfectly entitled to put forward someone else whose interpretation of the countries' interests is more likely to align with theirs. But this talk of 'traitors' is not only dangerous, it's wrong. The man was simply doing his job.

Parliament is overwhelmingly made up of individual members belonging to a party, all conspiring to vote the way their party dictates.........jury's are made up of individuals all voting the way they want....there's the difference!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Most of the A team know there are no winners in Brexit so they stepped back

In that case , why did they vote in massive majority to trigger A 50, surely these bastions of public integrity should have refused ?

Did it have anything to do with murmurings of an early election ?
Did they not fancy their chances on a remain ticket? Both main parties said they would deliver Brexit in the subsequent manifestos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Most of the A team know there are no winners in Brexit so they stepped back, what we are seeing is the effect of the fact that there are already two many B team involved. Think it can’t get worse? Think again!

Anyone who is not upholding the democratic decision of the people is Z team, they are anti democratic and not fit to hold public office! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...