Democracy

[in_the_top_one]

Democracy is temporarily upheld. We won't be screwed by a small band of fanatics in the executive, whoever that might be late next year.

Great news for everyone, leavers and remainers alike. Take back control. Then hopefully cancel Brexit altogether.

 

[Lienking]

Not very democratic when my own MP Anna Soubry stands on a mandate that she will not stand in the way of Brexit, then when re-elected does precisely that! No idea what this vote means, but there will be major problems if a small bunch of MP's stand in the way of the only democratic single issue decision that 17 million people have been able to make in the last 40 years.

 

[AdebolaCornflakes]

This is democracy at work and it's time the right-wing snowflakes accepted it

 

[mao tse tung]

Lienking - 14/12/2017 09:23

Not very democratic when my own MP Anna Soubry stands on a mandate that she will not stand in the way of Brexit, then when re-elected does precisely that! No idea what this vote means, but there will be major problems if a small bunch of MP's stand in the way of the only democratic single issue decision that 17 million people have been able to make in the last 40 years.

"No idea what this vote means"

Well why comment on it then?

 

[in_the_top_one]

309 is not a small bunch of MPs and many of those voting with the government were whipped to do so, against their better judgement.
And 16m remain voters (*as of June 2016).

The small bunch of MPs you should be worried about is the leave extremists.

 

[in_the_top_one]

What if 'the people' don't actually want brexit anymore, now that they have an inkling of how destructive it will be?

 

[mao tse tung]

What if "the people" don't actually want Brexit anymore because they now realise the case for leave was predicated on a pack of lies?

 

[Lienking]

mao tse tung - 14/12/2017 10:34

Lienking - 14/12/2017 09:23

Not very democratic when my own MP Anna Soubry stands on a mandate that she will not stand in the way of Brexit, then when re-elected does precisely that! No idea what this vote means, but there will be major problems if a small bunch of MP's stand in the way of the only democratic single issue decision that 17 million people have been able to make in the last 40 years.

"No idea what this vote means"

Well why comment on it then?

I comment because no one knows what it means. The vote to trigger article 50 went through by 494 votes to 122, including a majority of the labour MPs. I look forward to someone explaining EXACTLY what this changes , other than a vote on a deal or no deal.

 

[Lienking]

in_the_top_one - 14/12/2017 11:46

309 is not a small bunch of MPs and many of those voting with the government were whipped to do so, against their better judgement.
And 16m remain voters (*as of June 2016).

The small bunch of MPs you should be worried about is the leave extremists.

309 is a very small bunch of MP's, standing in the way of the democratic wishes of 17 million people.

 

[Lienking]

in_the_top_one - 14/12/2017 11:46

309 is not a small bunch of MPs and many of those voting with the government were whipped to do so, against their better judgement.
And 16m remain voters (*as of June 2016).

The small bunch of MPs you should be worried about is the leave extremists.

309 is a very small bunch of MP's, standing in the way of the democratic wishes of 17 million people.

 

[in_the_top_one]

They aren't standing in the way at all. You've misunderstood amendment 7. It just avoids an idiotic executive making decisions for everybody while being accountable to nobody.

Without the amendment, we would be experiencing the antithesis of democracy and the polar opposite of 'taking back control' and 'making the UK parliament sovereign' (even though it always has been).

 

[Lienking]

in_the_top_one - 14/12/2017 16:55

They aren't standing in the way at all. You've misunderstood amendment 7. It just avoids an idiotic executive making decisions for everybody while being accountable to nobody.

Without the amendment, we would be experiencing the antithesis of democracy and the polar opposite of 'taking back control' and 'making the UK parliament sovereign' (even though it always has been).

Your opening post says " Take back control. Then hopefully cancel Brexit altogether." That's not quite the same as a democratic vote on leaving. I am all for a democratic vote on the terms on which we leave. We either leave with no deal, or leave with a deal. The democratic votes on the fact we are leaving took place in the referendum, and also in the parliamentary vote on triggering article 50.

 

[mao tse tung]

Lienking - 14/12/2017 13:42

mao tse tung - 14/12/2017 10:34

Lienking - 14/12/2017 09:23

Not very democratic when my own MP Anna Soubry stands on a mandate that she will not stand in the way of Brexit, then when re-elected does precisely that! No idea what this vote means, but there will be major problems if a small bunch of MP's stand in the way of the only democratic single issue decision that 17 million people have been able to make in the last 40 years.

"No idea what this vote means"

Well why comment on it then?

I comment because no one knows what it means. The vote to trigger article 50 went through by 494 votes to 122, including a majority of the labour MPs. I look forward to someone explaining EXACTLY what this changes , other than a vote on a deal or no deal.

Yes, people do know what the vote was about!

Just because your are either too idle to read about it, or too thick to understand it, it does not mean everyone is.

Its not a vote on a deal or no deal at all; nothing remotely like that.

The vote was about accountability or should I say lack of it; certainly a lack of governmental oversight.

If you do not know what accountability means I suggest you speak with an adult.

 

[Lienking]

mao tse tung - 14/12/2017 18:19

I comment because no one knows what it means. The vote to trigger article 50 went through by 494 votes to 122, including a majority of the labour MPs. I look forward to someone explaining EXACTLY what this changes , other than a vote on a deal or no deal.

Yes, people do know what the vote was about!

Just because your are either too idle to read about it, or too thick to understand it, it does not mean everyone is.

Its not a vote on a deal or no deal at all; nothing remotely like that.

The vote was about accountability or should I say lack of it; certainly a lack of governmental oversight.

If you do not know what accountability means I suggest you speak with an adult.
[/QUOTE]

The first sign that someone is incapable of having a proper discussion is when they resort to insults. I have a degree in economics gained in the days when 7% of the population went to University. I am a qualified accountant with a further qualification recognised by the Australian government as a Masters Degree equivalent. I can assure you I am not thick. I also watch Question Time, Andrew Marr, and numerous other political tv things, so I certainly make an effort to try and understand what is going on.. I have always supported Labour until Corbyn came along, so this thing of accusing people of being right wing is also ludicrous.

Theresa May and Boris say this vote changes nothing . I also read that the lost vote can still be overturned. Other papers say it's the start of the end of Brexit. If you know what this vote means in the long term, you obviously know more than the government and all the reporters.

 

[Ingy]

Lienking - 14/12/2017 13:42

mao tse tung - 14/12/2017 10:34

Lienking - 14/12/2017 09:23

Not very democratic when my own MP Anna Soubry stands on a mandate that she will not stand in the way of Brexit, then when re-elected does precisely that! No idea what this vote means, but there will be major problems if a small bunch of MP's stand in the way of the only democratic single issue decision that 17 million people have been able to make in the last 40 years.

"No idea what this vote means"

Well why comment on it then?

I comment because no one knows what it means. The vote to trigger article 50 went through by 494 votes to 122, including a majority of the labour MPs. I look forward to someone explaining EXACTLY what this changes , other than a vote on a deal or no deal.

Never really been interested in it...prefer Pointless and Catchphrase.Hope they keep those shows going chap.

 

[mao tse tung]

Lienking - 14/12/2017 20:53

mao tse tung - 14/12/2017 18:19

I comment because no one knows what it means. The vote to trigger article 50 went through by 494 votes to 122, including a majority of the labour MPs. I look forward to someone explaining EXACTLY what this changes , other than a vote on a deal or no deal.

Yes, people do know what the vote was about!

Just because your are either too idle to read about it, or too thick to understand it, it does not mean everyone is.

Its not a vote on a deal or no deal at all; nothing remotely like that.

The vote was about accountability or should I say lack of it; certainly a lack of governmental oversight.

If you do not know what accountability means I suggest you speak with an adult.

The first sign that someone is incapable of having a proper discussion is when they resort to insults. I have a degree in economics gained in the days when 7% of the population went to University. I am a qualified accountant with a further qualification recognised by the Australian government as a Masters Degree equivalent. I can assure you I am not thick. I also watch Question Time, Andrew Marr, and numerous other political tv things, so I certainly make an effort to try and understand what is going on.. I have always supported Labour until Corbyn came along, so this thing of accusing people of being right wing is also ludicrous.

Theresa May and Boris say this vote changes nothing . I also read that the lost vote can still be overturned. Other papers say it's the start of the end of Brexit. If you know what this vote means in the long term, you obviously know more than the government and all the reporters.[/QUOTE]

I think you will find that the first sign that someone is incapable of having a discussion is when they have not bothered to grasp the subject matter.

If the vote changes nothing why did the Government employ a three line whip prior to the vote?

"I also read that the lost vote can still be overturned. Other papers say it's the start of the end of Brexit. If you know what this vote means in the long term, you obviously know more than the government and all the reporters."

You still have not got it, have you?

And thanks for the CV; I'm not setting on at the moment but I will pass it round.

 

[Lienking]

mao tse tung - 15/12/2017 08:53


And thanks for the CV; I'm not setting on at the moment but I will pass it round.

Thanks for that. Shame I'm not looking for any work! Interesting on Question time last night that Nikki Morgan and the Labour MP said we are definitely leaving the EU, and that they both simply wants a vote on the deal. I look forward to them both standing by what they said. The unelected Lord Winston however said it could be the start of us not leaving.

At least that clears that up!

 

[mao tse tung]

Lienking - 15/12/2017 09:07

mao tse tung - 15/12/2017 08:53


And thanks for the CV; I'm not setting on at the moment but I will pass it round.

Thanks for that. Shame I'm not looking for any work! Interesting on Question time last night that Nikki Morgan and the Labour MP said we are definitely leaving the EU, and that they both simply wants a vote on the deal. I look forward to them both standing by what they said. The unelected Lord Winston however said it could be the start of us not leaving.

At least that clears that up!

Dear God!

You are hard work!

Its not about the leave vote; that is done and dusted.

There are countless things that need addressing prior to leaving, and its the manner in which the Government are going about things that are causing the concerns, and quite rightly so.

All European legislation is being incorporated into British law; once that is done the Government want to have carte blanche to repeal or amend any laws that they think fit without any oversight from Parliament.

Try Googling Henry VIII laws if you still do not understand.

Which ever way you look at it, it is not even second cousin to Democracy.

Everyone has their own reasons for wanting out, and there are some fairly imaginative reasons put forward; but at the end of the day, the overwhelming issue was race.

People really do think they will be better off when Johnny foreigner has fooked off home; I reckon Johhny foreigner will have the last laugh.

 

[in_the_top_one]

Love this quote:

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.
We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.”


Which modern day political hero said these true words in the House of Commons?

 

[mao tse tung]

in_the_top_one - 15/12/2017 14:27

Love this quote:

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.
We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.”


Which modern day political hero said these true words in the House of Commons?

David Davies

Unless it is a pre requisite laid out by the constitution, something this country does not have, referendums are a massive cop out.

Politicians are elected to make difficult decisions; a General Election should be then only referendum that is required