I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.
The Brexit fallacy is that we are taking back control. No we are not. There is no control and there never was. Countries all get tossed around by events. Remember "Events, dear boy, events!"? Nothing has changed. By isolating ourselves we just become more exposed to the turbulence of events.
I also see little hope. We simply have no politicians worthy of the job. Corbyn or JRM as possible future leaders? It would be hilarious if it was not so heartbreaking.
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Our elected leaders sit on the EU Council. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament. We vote for these people.
The UK Bureaucracy / Civil Service is largely unaccountable
As for directly hiring and firing "... the people who make the laws that govern us. " - have you looked at the selection of inadequates we have to choose from? I would ban the whole bl**dy lot of them and start again from fresh. Sticking pins in the Electoral Roll and selecting 650 people at random would probably produce more talent than the current shower.
Tangential to the thread topic, I can't tell you how hilarious I'd find it if the excruciatingly pious JC was caught up in the allegations. Maybe Diane can tell us a tale or two...
I think it would bring him down as leader if Diane Abbott/someone else made allegations against him.
Of course it wouldn't. The Corbynites would assume that the whole thing was a media plot against him.
Maybe fiction will become the new reality , an update to Chris Mullins book .A very British Coup.
I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.
The Brexit fallacy is that we are taking back control. No we are not. There is no control and there never was. Countries all get tossed around by events. Remember "Events, dear boy, events!"? Nothing has changed. By isolating ourselves we just become more exposed to the turbulence of events.
I also see little hope. We simply have no politicians worthy of the job. Corbyn or JRM as possible future leaders? It would be hilarious if it was not so heartbreaking.
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Our elected leaders sit on the EU Council. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament. We vote for these people.
The UK Bureaucracy / Civil Service is largely unaccountable
As for directly hiring and firing "... the people who make the laws that govern us. " - have you looked at the selection of inadequates we have to choose from? I would ban the whole bl**dy lot of them and start again from fresh. Sticking pins in the Electoral Roll and selecting 650 people at random would probably produce more talent than the current shower.
I'd make an exception for Frank Field and Stella Creasy and Norman Lamb. Off the top of my head.
The Conservatives are a bit dismal, and Labour are worse, but that's been the case for most of my adult life. It's certainly no reason to leave the country. On the whole, this is a good place to live in. I'd qualify for an Irish passport, but why should I want one?
The Conservatives are a divided collection of fools wearing rose-tinted glasses and Labour has been hijacked by people who ideology has failed everywhere it has been tried.
This was the best country in the world in which to live. Nowadays, it is simply on borrowed time.
Says the poster with the flag of a country stuck in 1517 and where abortion isn't legal yet as her avatar.
Ireland is climbing out of its dark age - the UK is returning to its dark age. We will wave at you as we pass.
Is Corbyn going to ban abortion?
Who knows what he will do? I am not sure Corbyn knows.
Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.
And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.
I work in Westminster. The number of pubs is small, and the number of decent pubs is smaller still.
I'm already fed up with queuing for crap beer, so I don't want 1000+ MP, spads and assorted bag carriers clogging up the watering holes even more. They are very welcome to their subsidised bars.
I virtually never used the bars, but for a place where people work up to 18 hours a day and are on intermittent 8 minutes' notice that they may need to vote, some sort of refreshments facility on site is essential. Anywhere that served Coca-Cola would be fine with me, but I think one has to accept that some MPs will want beer. Not serving stronger booze might make sense.
A canteen/restaurant is fine.
I regularly worked 18 hour days. Only recently was there a canteen open in the evening. If you worked late, you ate at home or bought a sandwich or did without. The idea that I and others should be drinking while working would have been inconceivable. Indeed, it would be a disciplinary offence. Not something to be indulged let alone subsidised.
Most hospitals have canteen facilities for most, if not all, of the 24 hours. However, alcohol isn’t available. And Australian cricket grounds sell a sort of watered down beer, about 2% Disgusting stuff I thought it, but people seem to enjoy it and drink lots of it.
Mrs C, there's no European demos and a small minority of elected politicians (with whom you're comparing the UK Civil Service, which seems unfair) are British.
This problem has built up over years, as triangulating politicians have only spoken in sceptical terms to curry domestic political favour whilst flinging powers and money at Brussels (power which was not theirs to give away).
We are in for a difficult time in the next few years, not least because whatever happens about half the country will be grumpy about it. Personally, I'm far more concerned about the self-declared friend of Hamas.
I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.
The Brexit fallacy is that we are taking back control. No we are not. There is no control and there never was. Countries all get tossed around by events. Remember "Events, dear boy, events!"? Nothing has changed. By isolating ourselves we just become more exposed to the turbulence of events.
I also see little hope. We simply have no politicians worthy of the job. Corbyn or JRM as possible future leaders? It would be hilarious if it was not so heartbreaking.
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Our elected leaders sit on the EU Council. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament. We vote for these people.
The UK Bureaucracy / Civil Service is largely unaccountable
As for directly hiring and firing "... the people who make the laws that govern us. " - have you looked at the selection of inadequates we have to choose from? I would ban the whole bl**dy lot of them and start again from fresh. Sticking pins in the Electoral Roll and selecting 650 people at random would probably produce more talent than the current shower.
Fudge, fudge, fudge.
You cannot possibly equate the fact I have a vote in the UK with this being an equal 'voice' in the wider EU.
Take the Merkel decision to open Germany's borders to all comers last year. That was a decision taken by a German politician who I have no say in electing. However, once those immigrants attain EU citizenship via Germany, they are free to come to the UK - a decision in which I have no say whatsoever. How is this democratic?
Our elected leaders sit on the EU council and are regularly overruled. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament which is toothless at best, a deliberate stitch up at worst. The EU is a technocratic bureaucracy run for the benefit of the establishment class, with a bare fig leaf of 'democracy' to hide its nakedness.
For all its negatives, and there are a great many many, Brexit will mean I will finally be able to hold those who pass laws over me accountable. This is, quite literally, taking back control.
I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.
The Brexit fallacy is that we are taking back control. No we are not. There is no control and there never was. Countries all get tossed around by events. Remember "Events, dear boy, events!"? Nothing has changed. By isolating ourselves we just become more exposed to the turbulence of events.
I also see little hope. We simply have no politicians worthy of the job. Corbyn or JRM as possible future leaders? It would be hilarious if it was not so heartbreaking.
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Our elected leaders sit on the EU Council. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament. We vote for these people.
The UK Bureaucracy / Civil Service is largely unaccountable
As for directly hiring and firing "... the people who make the laws that govern us. " - have you looked at the selection of inadequates we have to choose from? I would ban the whole bl**dy lot of them and start again from fresh. Sticking pins in the Electoral Roll and selecting 650 people at random would probably produce more talent than the current shower.
And who "governs" the price of oil, climate change, giant tech companies, the terrorist threat etc etc etc? How can people in the UK exercise influence over these factors, which have far more impact on most of us than 95% of the laws passed by Westminster and the EU put together?
"Damian Green is prepared to release text messages he sent to a female activist to a Cabinet Office inquiry in a bid to disprove allegations that he made inappropriate advances."
I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.
The Brexit fallacy is that we are taking back control. No we are not. There is no control and there never was. Countries all get tossed around by events. Remember "Events, dear boy, events!"? Nothing has changed. By isolating ourselves we just become more exposed to the turbulence of events.
I also see little hope. We simply have no politicians worthy of the job. Corbyn or JRM as possible future leaders? It would be hilarious if it was not so heartbreaking.
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Our elected leaders sit on the EU Council. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament. We vote for these people.
The UK Bureaucracy / Civil Service is largely unaccountable
Fudge, fudge, fudge.
You cannot possibly equate the fact I have a vote in the UK with this being an equal 'voice' in the wider EU.
Take the Merkel decision to open Germany's borders to all comers last year. That was a decision taken by a German politician who I have no say in electing. However, once those immigrants attain EU citizenship via Germany, they are free to come to the UK - a decision in which I have no say whatsoever. How is this democratic?
Our elected leaders sit on the EU council and are regularly overruled. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament which is toothless at best, a deliberate stitch up at worst. The EU is a technocratic bureaucracy run for the benefit of the establishment class, with a bare fig leaf of 'democracy' to hide its nakedness.
For all its negatives, and there are a great many many, Brexit will mean I will finally be able to hold those who pass laws over me accountable. This is, quite literally, taking back control.
I don’t think our elected leaders are over-ruled any more frequently than any other leaders. They might have stamped their feet and thrown their toys out of the pram a bit more, that’s all.
I don’t think our elected leaders are over-ruled any more frequently than any other leaders. They might have stamped their feet and thrown their toys out of the pram a bit more, that’s all.
One group of clueless idiots will replace another when the negotiation of Britain’s EU divorce settlement is handed over to the finalists of The Apprentice 2017.
The last two remaining candidates will have a single day to negotiate a Brexit deal, assisted by the hapless twats who’ve already been fired. The finalist who negotiates the least devastating deal will then be crowned the winner.
Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.
And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.
I work in Westminster. The number of pubs is small, and the number of decent pubs is smaller still.
I'm already fed up with queuing for crap beer, so I don't want 1000+ MP, spads and assorted bag carriers clogging up the watering holes even more. They are very welcome to their subsidised bars.
I virtually never used the bars, but for a place where people work up to 18 hours a day and are on intermittent 8 minutes' notice that they may need to vote, some sort of refreshments facility on site is essential. Anywhere that served Coca-Cola would be fine with me, but I think one has to accept that some MPs will want beer. Not serving stronger booze might make sense.
A canteen/restaurant is fine.
I regularly worked 18 hour days. Only recently was there a canteen open in the evening. If you worked late, you ate at home or bought a sandwich or did without. The idea that I and others should be drinking while working would have been inconceivable. Indeed, it would be a disciplinary offence. Not something to be indulged let alone subsidised.
MPs aren't really employees though are they. There's no 'set' hours or terms of employment, and they have their own special status on things like tax returns.
wether thats a good thing or not is another matter...
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Our elected leaders sit on the EU Council. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament. We vote for these people.
The UK Bureaucracy / Civil Service is largely unaccountable
Fudge, fudge, fudge.
You cannot possibly equate the fact I have a vote in the UK with this being an equal 'voice' in the wider EU.
Take the Merkel decision to open Germany's borders to all comers last year. That was a decision taken by a German politician who I have no say in electing. However, once those immigrants attain EU citizenship via Germany, they are free to come to the UK - a decision in which I have no say whatsoever. How is this democratic?
Our elected leaders sit on the EU council and are regularly overruled. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament which is toothless at best, a deliberate stitch up at worst. The EU is a technocratic bureaucracy run for the benefit of the establishment class, with a bare fig leaf of 'democracy' to hide its nakedness.
For all its negatives, and there are a great many many, Brexit will mean I will finally be able to hold those who pass laws over me accountable. This is, quite literally, taking back control.
I don’t think our elected leaders are over-ruled any more frequently than any other leaders. They might have stamped their feet and thrown their toys out of the pram a bit more, that’s all.
Perhaps. I'm of the view that British sovereignty ended de facto, if not necessarily de jure, with the introduction of QMV. Enlargement from 12 member states to the current 28 further diluted our sovereignty to the point of meaninglessness.
The simple fact is, for me, I want to be able to feel as if I have a say in the hiring and firing of the people who make the laws that govern me. I do not get that feeling from the EU at all. The UK is also in need of serious reform (electoral reform, lords reform, and so on). But the fact remains that the EU was by far and away the biggest threat to democratic accountability. If I believed it were possible to change things from inside, if I believed the EU was heading in a more, not less, democratic direction, I would have voted to remain.
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Our elected leaders sit on the EU Council. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament. We vote for these people.
The UK Bureaucracy / Civil Service is largely unaccountable
Take the Merkel decision to open Germany's borders to all comers last year. That was a decision taken by a German politician who I have no say in electing. However, once those immigrants attain EU citizenship via Germany, they are free to come to the UK - a decision in which I have no say whatsoever. How is this democratic?
Our elected leaders sit on the EU council and are regularly overruled. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament which is toothless at best, a deliberate stitch up at worst. The EU is a technocratic bureaucracy run for the benefit of the establishment class, with a bare fig leaf of 'democracy' to hide its nakedness.
For all its negatives, and there are a great many many, Brexit will mean I will finally be able to hold those who pass laws over me accountable. This is, quite literally, taking back control.
I don’t think our elected leaders are over-ruled any more frequently than any other leaders. They might have stamped their feet and thrown their toys out of the pram a bit more, that’s all.
Perhaps. I'm of the view that British sovereignty ended de facto, if not necessarily de jure, with the introduction of QMV. Enlargement from 12 member states to the current 28 further diluted our sovereignty to the point of meaninglessness.
The simple fact is, for me, I want to be able to feel as if I have a say in the hiring and firing of the people who make the laws that govern me. I do not get that feeling from the EU at all. The UK is also in need of serious reform (electoral reform, lords reform, and so on). But the fact remains that the EU was by far and away the biggest threat to democratic accountability. If I believed it were possible to change things from inside, if I believed the EU was heading in a more, not less, democratic direction, I would have voted to remain.
I understand that argument, and indeed have some sympathy with it. However, I felt, and feel that the EU is crawling towards a proper democratic set-up and we should have been part of pushing that along, not falling for the lunacies of UKIP and electing them as our representatives.
One group of clueless idiots will replace another when the negotiation of Britain’s EU divorce settlement is handed over to the finalists of The Apprentice 2017.
The last two remaining candidates will have a single day to negotiate a Brexit deal, assisted by the hapless twats who’ve already been fired. The finalist who negotiates the least devastating deal will then be crowned the winner.
Sorry - I thought that was a report from Brussels on the current progress...
And who "governs" the price of oil, climate change, giant tech companies, the terrorist threat etc etc etc? How can people in the UK exercise influence over these factors, which have far more impact on most of us than 95% of the laws passed by Westminster and the EU put together?
I made exactly that point in another post down-thread
We were promised a vote. It was reneged on. Blatantly. My belief in the good faith of our leaders on this went. We were being shoe horned whether we wanted it or not along the road the ever closer union.
I really wanted Cameron to pull the chestnuts out of the fire with a real renegotiation, but neither he nor any of the European leaders took it seriously. So having been denied any number of possibilities to be consulted on this over decades, in ways that would not have meant leaving, the one time we were was the nuclear option, which not many in power and comfort thought we'd take. Hence the trauma ever since, because deep down a lot of our political class going back decades realise they screwed up royally.
I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.
The Brexit fallacy is that we are taking back control. No we are not. There is no control and there never was. Countries all get tossed around by events. Remember "Events, dear boy, events!"? Nothing has changed. By isolating ourselves we just become more exposed to the turbulence of events.
I also see little hope. We simply have no politicians worthy of the job. Corbyn or JRM as possible future leaders? It would be hilarious if it was not so heartbreaking.
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Our elected leaders sit on the EU Council. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament. We vote for these people.
The UK Bureaucracy / Civil Service is largely unaccountable
As for directly hiring and firing "... the people who make the laws that govern us. " - have you looked at the selection of inadequates we have to choose from? I would ban the whole bl**dy lot of them and start again from fresh. Sticking pins in the Electoral Roll and selecting 650 people at random would probably produce more talent than the current shower.
I'd make an exception for Frank Field and Stella Creasy and Norman Lamb. Off the top of my head.
Normally I would agree, but I am becoming more jaded with the whole d*rn lot.
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Our elected leaders sit on the EU Council. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament. We vote for these people.
The UK Bureaucracy / Civil Service is largely unaccountable
Take the Merkel decision to open Germany's borders to all comers last year. That was a decision taken by a German politician who I have no say in electing. However, once those immigrants attain EU citizenship via Germany, they are free to come to the UK - a decision in which I have no say whatsoever. How is this democratic?
Our elected leaders sit on the EU council and are regularly overruled. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament which is toothless at best, a deliberate stitch up at worst. The EU is a technocratic bureaucracy run for the benefit of the establishment class, with a bare fig leaf of 'democracy' to hide its nakedness.
For all its negatives, and there are a great many many, Brexit will mean I will finally be able to hold those who pass laws over me accountable. This is, quite literally, taking back control.
I don’t think our elected leaders are over-ruled any more frequently than any other leaders. They might have stamped their feet and thrown their toys out of the pram a bit more, that’s all.
Perhaps. I'm of the view that British sovereignty ended de facto, if not necessarily de jure, with the introduction of QMV. Enlargement from 12 member states to the current 28 further diluted our sovereignty to the point of meaninglessness.
The simple fact is, for me, I want to be able to feel as if I have a say in the hiring and firing of the people who make the laws that govern me. I do not get that feeling from the EU at all. The UK is also in need of serious reform (electoral reform, lords reform, and so on). But the fact remains that the EU was by far and away the biggest threat to democratic accountability. If I believed it were possible to change things from inside, if I believed the EU was heading in a more, not less, democratic direction, I would have voted to remain.
. However, I felt, and feel that the EU is crawling towards a proper democratic set-up
Where do you get that feeling from ? Any particular event or events ?
Although I think much of the political class is upset with the electorate rather than themselves. They've locked us in so close that leaving is very difficult, and blame the electorate for wanting out rather than themselves for binding the UK so badly.
The deceit over the Lisbon referendum (the Constitution with a new font and a few paragraphs reordered) was rancid.
We were promised a vote. It was reneged on. Blatantly. My belief in the good faith of our leaders on this went. We were being shoe horned whether we wanted it or not along the road the ever closer union.
I really wanted Cameron to pull the chestnuts out of the fire with a real renegotiation, but neither he nor any of the European leaders took it seriously. So having been denied any number of possibilities to be consulted on this over decades, in ways that would not have meant leaving, the one time we were was the nuclear option, which not many in power and comfort thought we'd take. Hence the trauma ever since, because deep down a lot of our political class going back decades realise they screwed up royally.
We should have had a vote over Lisbon. Almost Brown’s Iraq.
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Brexit is about our freedom to eat chlorinated chicken. That's it. Everything else is downside.
Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.
And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.
I work in Westminster. The number of pubs is small, and the number of decent pubs is smaller still.
I'm already fed up with queuing for crap beer, so I don't want 1000+ MP, spads and assorted bag carriers clogging up the watering holes even more. They are very welcome to their subsidised bars.
I virtually never used the bars, but for a place where people work up to 18 hours a day and are on intermittent 8 minutes' notice that they may need to vote, some sort of refreshments facility on site is essential. Anywhere that served Coca-Cola would be fine with me, but I think one has to accept that some MPs will want beer. Not serving stronger booze might make sense.
A canteen/restaurant is fine.
I regularly worked 18 hour days. Only recently was there a canteen open in the evening. If you worked late, you ate at home or bought a sandwich or did without. The idea that I and others should be drinking while working would have been inconceivable. Indeed, it would be a disciplinary offence. Not something to be indulged let alone subsidised.
MPs aren't really employees though are they. There's no 'set' hours or terms of employment, and they have their own special status on things like tax returns.
wether thats a good thing or not is another matter...
They are still working when voting and hanging round waiting to vote. So, IMO, they should not be getting pissed.
Once they’ve finished voting they can go off home or to a pub to get pissed to their heart’s content, at their own expense. Just like the rest of us.
We were promised a vote. It was reneged on. Blatantly. My belief in the good faith of our leaders on this went. We were being shoe horned whether we wanted it or not along the road the ever closer union.
I really wanted Cameron to pull the chestnuts out of the fire with a real renegotiation, but neither he nor any of the European leaders took it seriously. So having been denied any number of possibilities to be consulted on this over decades, in ways that would not have meant leaving, the one time we were was the nuclear option, which not many in power and comfort thought we'd take. Hence the trauma ever since, because deep down a lot of our political class going back decades realise they screwed up royally.
Although I think much of the political class is upset with the electorate rather than themselves. They've locked us in so close that leaving is very difficult, and blame the electorate for wanting out rather than themselves for binding the UK so badly.
The deceit over the Lisbon referendum (the Constitution with a new font and a few paragraphs reordered) was rancid.
Quite. Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam, Lisbon all options to say "hang on we think this is going too far too fast, change course a bit please". I suspect our politicos knew there was a high chance that would be the result of consulting, but on they ploughed regardless, till eventually the ballot box caught up with them.
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Brexit is about our freedom to eat chlorinated chicken. That's it. Everything else is downside.
twitter.com/SkyNews/status/925754290290995200
Hm, which would you prefer, chlorinated chicken or horsemeat lasagne?
And who "governs" the price of oil, climate change, giant tech companies, the terrorist threat etc etc etc? How can people in the UK exercise influence over these factors, which have far more impact on most of us than 95% of the laws passed by Westminster and the EU put together?
I made exactly that point in another post down-thread
Quite so. Such a good point that it's worth making again and again.
Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.
And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.
I work in Westminster. The number of pubs is small, and the number of decent pubs is smaller still.
I'm already fed up with queuing for crap beer, so I don't want 1000+ MP, spads and assorted bag carriers clogging up the watering holes even more. They are very welcome to their subsidised bars.
I virtually never used the bars, but for a place where people work up to 18 hours a day and are on intermittent 8 minutes' notice that they may need to vote, some sort of refreshments facility on site is essential. Anywhere that served Coca-Cola would be fine with me, but I think one has to accept that some MPs will want beer. Not serving stronger booze might make sense.
A canteen/restaurant is fine.
I regularly worked 18 hour days. Only recently was there a canteen open in the evening. If you worked late, you ate at home or bought a sandwich or did without. The idea that I and others should be drinking while working would have been inconceivable. Indeed, it would be a disciplinary offence. Not something to be indulged let alone subsidised.
MPs aren't really employees though are they. There's no 'set' hours or terms of employment, and they have their own special status on things like tax returns.
wether thats a good thing or not is another matter...
They are employed by the electorate, are they not?
And who "governs" the price of oil, climate change, giant tech companies, the terrorist threat etc etc etc? How can people in the UK exercise influence over these factors, which have far more impact on most of us than 95% of the laws passed by Westminster and the EU put together?
I made exactly that point in another post down-thread
Quite so. Such a good point that it's worth making again and again.
We were promised a vote. It was reneged on. Blatantly. My belief in the good faith of our leaders on this went. We were being shoe horned whether we wanted it or not along the road the ever closer union.
I really wanted Cameron to pull the chestnuts out of the fire with a real renegotiation, but neither he nor any of the European leaders took it seriously. So having been denied any number of possibilities to be consulted on this over decades, in ways that would not have meant leaving, the one time we were was the nuclear option, which not many in power and comfort thought we'd take. Hence the trauma ever since, because deep down a lot of our political class going back decades realise they screwed up royally.
We should have had a vote over Lisbon. Almost Brown’s Iraq.
However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.
The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.
Brexit is about our freedom to eat chlorinated chicken. That's it. Everything else is downside.
twitter.com/SkyNews/status/925754290290995200
Hm, which would you prefer, chlorinated chicken or horsemeat lasagne?
Horsemeat lasagne was illegal whereas the putative chlorinated chicken is not only legal but mustn't be discriminated against. Huge difference.
We were promised a vote. It was reneged on. Blatantly. My belief in the good faith of our leaders on this went. We were being shoe horned whether we wanted it or not along the road the ever closer union.
Let us blame the EU for the UK govt failing to hold the promised referendum???
@Sean_F Thanks for your reply in the previous thread. It looks like this issue has been going on for a very long time now, in all the mainstream political parties.
We were promised a vote. It was reneged on. Blatantly. My belief in the good faith of our leaders on this went. We were being shoe horned whether we wanted it or not along the road the ever closer union.
I really wanted Cameron to pull the chestnuts out of the fire with a real renegotiation, but neither he nor any of the European leaders took it seriously. So having been denied any number of possibilities to be consulted on this over decades, in ways that would not have meant leaving, the one time we were was the nuclear option, which not many in power and comfort thought we'd take. Hence the trauma ever since, because deep down a lot of our political class going back decades realise they screwed up royally.
We should have had a vote over Lisbon. Almost Brown’s Iraq.
We should not take complex, multi-faceted decisions like this by referenda. Margaret Thatcher is alleged to have said that referenda were the tools of dictators and demagogues and she was right about that. The Germans, who have more reason than most to regret decisions taken by referenda, have a constitutional ban on them and we would be wise to follow their example.
We were promised a vote. It was reneged on. Blatantly. My belief in the good faith of our leaders on this went. We were being shoe horned whether we wanted it or not along the road the ever closer union.
Let us blame the EU for the UK govt failing to hold the promised referendum???
No I was blaming the UK Govt for not holding it.
Had they I think it would've crashed and burnt so less extended QMV in all likelihood.
The fact the vote was not held in and of itself altered the prism through which many of us saw this issue. It crystallised our thoughts into a binary choice.
Mr. Nick, would you have approved of the idea of a referendum over Lisbon?
There's a case to be made that the removal of powers (such as vetoes) from the politicians with whom we entrust power should require the assent of the electorate.
I do think some issues require a referendum to be settled legitimately. It was significantly unhelpful that both sides of the EU campaign managed to be almost uniformly dreadful.
We were promised a vote. It was reneged on. Blatantly. My belief in the good faith of our leaders on this went. We were being shoe horned whether we wanted it or not along the road the ever closer union.
I really wanted Cameron to pull the chestnuts out of the fire with a real renegotiation, but neither he nor any of the European leaders took it seriously. So having been denied any number of possibilities to be consulted on this over decades, in ways that would not have meant leaving, the one time we were was the nuclear option, which not many in power and comfort thought we'd take. Hence the trauma ever since, because deep down a lot of our political class going back decades realise they screwed up royally.
We should have had a vote over Lisbon. Almost Brown’s Iraq.
We should not take complex, multi-faceted decisions like this by referenda. Margaret Thatcher is alleged to have said that referenda were the tools of dictators and demagogues and she was right about that. The Germans, who have more reason than most to regret decisions taken by referenda, have a constitutional ban on them and we would be wise to follow their example.
But if you don't have any mainstream party offering a particular option - i.e. leave the EU - then fringe or single issue parties rise in support - mainstream parties have to react to stay in power.
See Kippers (remember them ? ) in Uk and various other parties accross the EU.
If there hadn't been a referendum offered who is to speculate how high kipper support would have risen ?
We were promised a vote. It was reneged on. Blatantly. My belief in the good faith of our leaders on this went. We were being shoe horned whether we wanted it or not along the road the ever closer union.
Let us blame the EU for the UK govt failing to hold the promised referendum???
No I was blaming the UK Govt for not holding it.
Had they I think it would've crashed and burnt so less extended QMV in all likelihood.
The fact the vote was not held in and of itself altered the prism through which many of us saw this issue. It crystallised our thoughts into a binary choice.
We were promised a vote. It was reneged on. Blatantly. My belief in the good faith of our leaders on this went. We were being shoe horned whether we wanted it or not along the road the ever closer union.
I really wanted Cameron to pull the chestnuts out of the fire with a real renegotiation, but neither he nor any of the European leaders took it seriously. So having been denied any number of possibilities to be consulted on this over decades, in ways that would not have meant leaving, the one time we were was the nuclear option, which not many in power and comfort thought we'd take. Hence the trauma ever since, because deep down a lot of our political class going back decades realise they screwed up royally.
We should have had a vote over Lisbon. Almost Brown’s Iraq.
We should not take complex, multi-faceted decisions like this by referenda. Margaret Thatcher is alleged to have said that referenda were the tools of dictators and demagogues and she was right about that. The Germans, who have more reason than most to regret decisions taken by referenda, have a constitutional ban on them and we would be wise to follow their example.
While I agree, having, effectively, promised one and then not holding one gave us the worst of all worlds. Well, the worst until we got where we are now!
You're right about the caricature. We either do what we are told by the EU (while having some influence over those decisions) or we do what we are told by the EU and the US (and have no influence). Seriously, there is no real upside to Brexit that I can see.
Agreed, the next PM will almost certainly be a Tory even if Corbyn forms a government after the next general election (which on present polls he would with LD and SNP support). Corbyn is held in this market by being the only Labour contender against multiple Tories.
And who "governs" the price of oil, climate change, giant tech companies, the terrorist threat etc etc etc? How can people in the UK exercise influence over these factors, which have far more impact on most of us than 95% of the laws passed by Westminster and the EU put together?
I made exactly that point in another post down-thread
Quite so. Such a good point that it's worth making again and again.
There has always been stuff like this affecting our lives. It is an argument for co-operation and co-ordination, the precise nature of which people can debate.
It is not, though, an argument against democratic accountability.
While I agree, having, effectively, promised one and then not holding one gave us the worst of all worlds. Well, the worst until we got where we are now!
Exactly my point. People were effectively told that they could make 2+2 become 5 just by voting for it to happen. This was an exercise in deception, not an exercise in democracy.
And who "governs" the price of oil, climate change, giant tech companies, the terrorist threat etc etc etc? How can people in the UK exercise influence over these factors, which have far more impact on most of us than 95% of the laws passed by Westminster and the EU put together?
I made exactly that point in another post down-thread
Quite so. Such a good point that it's worth making again and again.
Thanks!
It is an utterly bonkers point; an important part of being sane lies in recognising that we don't have much control over most things, but still thinking that we should soldier on and control as much as we can. How do you rule out an extrapolation of your position to: I am going to die at some stage, I might get cancer tomorrow, the earth is going to be made uninhabitable by the dying sun in a couple of billion years, so I'm not going to get out of bed in the morning?
Strategists will recognise the Empty Fortress Strategyin the government's approach to Brexit. China's most famous general attempted to hold a defenceless city against superior forces by opening the gates and partying on the walls. His opponents, knowing how crafty he was, suspected a trap and passed by the city, as Zhuge Liang knew they would do.
The flaw in this plan is that the EU know Brexit is empty and think May and Davis are deluded, not cunning.
Releasing the papers won't make the slightest difference to the negotiations with the EU. They may or may not make a difference to the government's ability to fool a part of the population.
Strategists will recognise the Empty Fortress Strategyin the government's approach to Brexit. China's most famous general attempted to hold a defenceless city against superior forces by opening the gates and partying on the walls. His opponents, knowing how crafty he was, suspected a trap and passed by the city, as Zhuge Liang knew they would do.
The flaw in this plan is that the EU know Brexit is empty and think May and Davis are deluded, not cunning.
Releasing the papers won't make the slightest difference to the negotiations with the EU. They may or may not make a difference to the government's ability to fool a part of the population.
Well if it will make no difference to the negotation, then they might as well be kept secret then.
I think the Irish border issue will be finessed. The point is a valid one but it is likely to be resolved as a permanent border (and undesirable from the writer's POV). I read somewhere that the Irish question has been moved to round two of the Brexit talks - ie it will be tacked along with the transition period and future trading relationship and not with the preliminary issues of citizenship and money.
How do you rule out an extrapolation of your position to: I am going to die at some stage, I might get cancer tomorrow, the earth is going to be made uninhabitable by the dying sun in a couple of billion years, so I'm not going to get out of bed in the morning?
I do not rule out your extrapolation. I now live my life by the very principles you outline. Since, in the overall scheme of things, I will make no discernible difference, I might as well have a hell of a time and slide into my coffin bankrupt and worn out after enjoying everything the world has to offer. I am retiring later this month. I see no point in saving or working any harder than I have to.
I cannot take it with me. There are no pockets in a shroud.
Surely the PM can just classify them as cabinet papers, or top secret?
I’d have them marked TS and released completely redacted bar the title of each document.
The respect for Parliamentary sovereignty among these Leavers is flaky. It's almost as if that isn't the real motivation of many Leavers.
Parliamentary sovereignty shall thankfully return on the day we leave the EU.
I’ve no objection at all with allowing the viewing of sensitive negotiation documents under Privy Council terms, but that’s not what Kier Starmer wants. He wants us to go into the most difficult and delicate negotiations in decades with all our cards face up on the table.
Strategists will recognise the Empty Fortress Strategyin the government's approach to Brexit. China's most famous general attempted to hold a defenceless city against superior forces by opening the gates and partying on the walls. His opponents, knowing how crafty he was, suspected a trap and passed by the city, as Zhuge Liang knew they would do.
The flaw in this plan is that the EU know Brexit is empty and think May and Davis are deluded, not cunning.
Releasing the papers won't make the slightest difference to the negotiations with the EU. They may or may not make a difference to the government's ability to fool a part of the population.
Well if it will make no difference to the negotation, then they might as well be kept secret then.
Politicians will score points. For everyone else there is maybe value in knowing what's coming down the pike, so you can flee do something about it.
Incidentally, Theresa May was asked at her last press conference, if it is so important for the government to prepare for a no deal, what would she say to businesses that might also want to prepare for a no deal by moving their operations away from the UK. She didn't answer.
Surely the PM can just classify them as cabinet papers, or top secret?
I’d have them marked TS and released completely redacted bar the title of each document.
The respect for Parliamentary sovereignty among these Leavers is flaky. It's almost as if that isn't the real motivation of many Leavers.
I cannot understand their obsession with importing chlorinated chicken. Surely they should be promoting healthy British chicken.
Healthy British Chicken raised to ethical standards - £5 per kg* American battery farmed, chlorinated chicken - £0.50p per kg*
Choose...
* Chicken can come up and well as go down and you may get your dinner back. Chicken may be variable in quality and represent a poor dietry investment as well as hormonal and anitbiotic boosts. Price shown are for illustration purposes only. Real outcome could be much worse. Salmonella and C Difficile only available on selected budget plans.
Surely the PM can just classify them as cabinet papers, or top secret?
I’d have them marked TS and released completely redacted bar the title of each document.
The respect for Parliamentary sovereignty among these Leavers is flaky. It's almost as if that isn't the real motivation of many Leavers.
Parliamentary sovereignty shall thankfully return on the day we leave the EU.
I’ve no objection at all with allowing the viewing of sensitive negotiation documents under Privy Council terms, but that’s not what Kier Starmer wants. He wants us to go into the most difficult and delicate negotiations in decades with all our cards face up on the table.
I don't think he wants the UK to go into the negotiations at all....
Surely the PM can just classify them as cabinet papers, or top secret?
I’d have them marked TS and released completely redacted bar the title of each document.
The respect for Parliamentary sovereignty among these Leavers is flaky. It's almost as if that isn't the real motivation of many Leavers.
Parliamentary sovereignty shall thankfully return on the day we leave the EU.
I’ve no objection at all with allowing the viewing of sensitive negotiation documents under Privy Council terms, but that’s not what Kier Starmer wants. He wants us to go into the most difficult and delicate negotiations in decades with all our cards face up on the table.
Lord give me Parliamentary sovereignty, but not yet. The Augustinian Brexiteers strike.
Further on that taxi incident, police saying it's not terror related.
Which reminds me, what happened regarding the other not terrorism taxi that hit people at a museum? Not heard anything about the chap being arrested/charged with dangerous driving.
Surely the PM can just classify them as cabinet papers, or top secret?
I’d have them marked TS and released completely redacted bar the title of each document.
The respect for Parliamentary sovereignty among these Leavers is flaky. It's almost as if that isn't the real motivation of many Leavers.
Parliamentary sovereignty shall thankfully return on the day we leave the EU.
I’ve no objection at all with allowing the viewing of sensitive negotiation documents under Privy Council terms, but that’s not what Kier Starmer wants. He wants us to go into the most difficult and delicate negotiations in decades with all our cards face up on the table.
So why do you think JRM supports their publication?
Surely the PM can just classify them as cabinet papers, or top secret?
I’d have them marked TS and released completely redacted bar the title of each document.
The respect for Parliamentary sovereignty among these Leavers is flaky. It's almost as if that isn't the real motivation of many Leavers.
I cannot understand their obsession with importing chlorinated chicken. Surely they should be promoting healthy British chicken.
Healthy British Chicken raised to ethical standards - £5 per kg American battery farmed, chlorinated chicken - £0.50p per kg
Choose...
Google "2 sisters chicken" and/or listen to radio 4 Food Programme before getting overly excited about the superior quality of UK chicken. Also bear in mind that if you use mains water you are a chlorinated human.
Surely the PM can just classify them as cabinet papers, or top secret?
I’d have them marked TS and released completely redacted bar the title of each document.
The respect for Parliamentary sovereignty among these Leavers is flaky. It's almost as if that isn't the real motivation of many Leavers.
Parliamentary sovereignty shall thankfully return on the day we leave the EU.
I’ve no objection at all with allowing the viewing of sensitive negotiation documents under Privy Council terms, but that’s not what Kier Starmer wants. He wants us to go into the most difficult and delicate negotiations in decades with all our cards face up on the table.
So why do you think JRM supports their publication?
Because he doesn't know what's in them, and he doesn't have to negotiate the settlement.
Comments
The UK Bureaucracy / Civil Service is largely unaccountable
As for directly hiring and firing "... the people who make the laws that govern us. " - have you looked at the selection of inadequates we have to choose from? I would ban the whole bl**dy lot of them and start again from fresh. Sticking pins in the Electoral Roll and selecting 650 people at random would probably produce more talent than the current shower.
And Australian cricket grounds sell a sort of watered down beer, about 2% Disgusting stuff I thought it, but people seem to enjoy it and drink lots of it.
This problem has built up over years, as triangulating politicians have only spoken in sceptical terms to curry domestic political favour whilst flinging powers and money at Brussels (power which was not theirs to give away).
We are in for a difficult time in the next few years, not least because whatever happens about half the country will be grumpy about it. Personally, I'm far more concerned about the self-declared friend of Hamas.
You cannot possibly equate the fact I have a vote in the UK with this being an equal 'voice' in the wider EU.
Take the Merkel decision to open Germany's borders to all comers last year. That was a decision taken by a German politician who I have no say in electing. However, once those immigrants attain EU citizenship via Germany, they are free to come to the UK - a decision in which I have no say whatsoever. How is this democratic?
Our elected leaders sit on the EU council and are regularly overruled. Our elected MEPs sit in the EU parliament which is toothless at best, a deliberate stitch up at worst. The EU is a technocratic bureaucracy run for the benefit of the establishment class, with a bare fig leaf of 'democracy' to hide its nakedness.
For all its negatives, and there are a great many many, Brexit will mean I will finally be able to hold those who pass laws over me accountable. This is, quite literally, taking back control.
https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/925751058856636416
"Damian Green is prepared to release text messages he sent to a female activist to a Cabinet Office inquiry in a bid to disprove allegations that he made inappropriate advances."
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/
I suspect many times the UK will have allowed things to pass unanimously rather than be the only person in the room voting against.
One group of clueless idiots will replace another when the negotiation of Britain’s EU divorce settlement is handed over to the finalists of The Apprentice 2017.
The last two remaining candidates will have a single day to negotiate a Brexit deal, assisted by the hapless twats who’ve already been fired. The finalist who negotiates the least devastating deal will then be crowned the winner.
wether thats a good thing or not is another matter...
The simple fact is, for me, I want to be able to feel as if I have a say in the hiring and firing of the people who make the laws that govern me. I do not get that feeling from the EU at all. The UK is also in need of serious reform (electoral reform, lords reform, and so on). But the fact remains that the EU was by far and away the biggest threat to democratic accountability. If I believed it were possible to change things from inside, if I believed the EU was heading in a more, not less, democratic direction, I would have voted to remain.
@OKC
The Lisbon Treaty/Constitution was the Rubicon.
We were promised a vote. It was reneged on. Blatantly. My belief in the good faith of our leaders on this went. We were being shoe horned whether we wanted it or not along the road the ever closer union.
I really wanted Cameron to pull the chestnuts out of the fire with a real renegotiation, but neither he nor any of the European leaders took it seriously. So having been denied any number of possibilities to be consulted on this over decades, in ways that would not have meant leaving, the one time we were was the nuclear option, which not many in power and comfort thought we'd take. Hence the trauma ever since, because deep down a lot of our political class going back decades realise they screwed up royally.
Although I think much of the political class is upset with the electorate rather than themselves. They've locked us in so close that leaving is very difficult, and blame the electorate for wanting out rather than themselves for binding the UK so badly.
The deceit over the Lisbon referendum (the Constitution with a new font and a few paragraphs reordered) was rancid.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/925754290290995200
Once they’ve finished voting they can go off home or to a pub to get pissed to their heart’s content, at their own expense. Just like the rest of us.
You've got to admire the adventurousness of the approach.
Had they I think it would've crashed and burnt so less extended QMV in all likelihood.
The fact the vote was not held in and of itself altered the prism through which many of us saw this issue. It crystallised our thoughts into a binary choice.
There's a case to be made that the removal of powers (such as vetoes) from the politicians with whom we entrust power should require the assent of the electorate.
I do think some issues require a referendum to be settled legitimately. It was significantly unhelpful that both sides of the EU campaign managed to be almost uniformly dreadful.
See Kippers (remember them ? ) in Uk and various other parties accross the EU.
If there hadn't been a referendum offered who is to speculate how high kipper support would have risen ?
Well, the worst until we got where we are now!
Why is he giving succour to the EU and damage our negotiations ?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j51tm26vco7a43g/SG F1 Start.MOV?dl=0
It is not, though, an argument against democratic accountability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JamesMayAutocar.jpg
https://twitter.com/bbcphilipsim/status/925771459628290048
But that’s not what Starmer wants.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/jacob-rees-mogg-to-vince-cable-no-deal-risks-are-o/://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/858131/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-May-transition-UK-Brexit
The flaw in this plan is that the EU know Brexit is empty and think May and Davis are deluded, not cunning.
Releasing the papers won't make the slightest difference to the negotiations with the EU. They may or may not make a difference to the government's ability to fool a part of the population.
https://twitter.com/kevinhorourke/status/925674476607598592
Well worth a read, whatever your Brexit leanings.
Well if it will make no difference to the negotation, then they might as well be kept secret then.
Edited extra bit: conflicting reports of crash or terrorism.
I cannot take it with me. There are no pockets in a shroud.
I’ve no objection at all with allowing the viewing of sensitive negotiation documents under Privy Council terms, but that’s not what Kier Starmer wants. He wants us to go into the most difficult and delicate negotiations in decades with all our cards face up on the table.
fleedo something about it.Incidentally, Theresa May was asked at her last press conference, if it is so important for the government to prepare for a no deal, what would she say to businesses that might also want to prepare for a no deal by moving their operations away from the UK. She didn't answer.
American battery farmed, chlorinated chicken - £0.50p per kg*
Choose...
* Chicken can come up and well as go down and you may get your dinner back. Chicken may be variable in quality and represent a poor dietry investment as well as hormonal and anitbiotic boosts. Price shown are for illustration purposes only. Real outcome could be much worse. Salmonella and C Difficile only available on selected budget plans.
The only people who haven't seen the cards are the British public, and the Government don't want us to know how weak the hand is.
Which reminds me, what happened regarding the other not terrorism taxi that hit people at a museum? Not heard anything about the chap being arrested/charged with dangerous driving.