In one of those “careful what you wish for” unintended consequences, anti-Brexit agitators may have unleashed constitutional reforms with a wider reach than dreary negotiations about the product labels and border control (how anyone gets worked up about leaving the EU is one of life’s big mysteries, for me).
So angry were (at least) 123,821 voters in response to the Lords’ vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union (that is: “stay in the EU in an even less satisfactory manner than now”) that they signed Robert McBride’s petition to “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords”. Because the number of signatories exceeds 100,000, the Government is rules-bound to offer a debate in Parliament on the topic — and to offer a response.
Constitutional arson proposed by maniacs unhappy that their highly tendentious view of what is required for Brexit is not shared by others.
Constitutional arson is the unelected Lords overruling a manifesto commitment of an elected government with the support of the majority of the commons. Remainers don't like democracy.
The threat of stacking the Lords when they get ideas above their station is a tried and tested one in this country since William IV. They are a wealthy elite trying to overrule the public because they think the little people are racist and shouldn't have been consulted.
At the moment, an unelected chamber is trying to ride roughshod over the government and prevent the full repatriation of powers.
They voted to give control to Parliament.
Which part of that don't you understand?
actually Scott we voted to leave the EU. Nothing on the ballot mentioned taking back control. Taking back control is a consequence of us being out of the EU and all it’s institutions ie single market and customs union .
Leaving the SM and CU was not on the ballot either.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
Why on earth would you be content with BINO?
It would satisfy neither Leavers nor Remainers, and wouldn’t last.
I know Remainers think it’ll ultimately allow them to spike Brexit and take the UK back in within 10 years, and sock it to the Brexiteers, but that wouldn’t work for the same reason ultra hard Brexit wouldn’t either.
The U.K. is fundamentally a eurosceptic country and relying on da yoof to alter the electorate to their benefit over time contains some heroic assumptions.
Our relationship with the EU will change and evolve over many decades. This is not us being a member of a club with fixed rules. We will almost certainly wish to change things down the line, and so will they.
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
I am on board with that, but Brexit has to deliver a meaningful level of powers back to the U.K. Parliament as well to start to chart that new course.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Alistair, this is a serious question. Are you happy with the House of Lords trying to strong arm us into a no-deal Brexit? Because I'm really, really not, especially just at the moment there seemed a chance of a partial or at least gradual divorce. It may just be of course that because they're a bunch of low-life party hacks who got there by dubious means they haven't quite considered the implications of what they're doing. But whichever way it is it's ludicrous and unacceptable.
I would also add that for better or worse the public did vote to leave the EU, and if the Lords are seen as trying to frustrate that it will - rightly - be the end of them. And long overdue though it is, the irony of them being abolished for trying to frustrate the will of the people and ultimately fulfilling it by driving us of a cliff-edge would be - interesting.
Normally, I'd say that was hyperbole but this time, I really think the HoL is teetering on destroying itself. And for what? A meaningless charade which will be over-turned.
I viewed the Lords as a minor and harmless tourist attraction. Now I'm sorry to see them persisting in this farrago. A referendum trumps the House of Commons view and the House of Commons trumps the Lords. Something even the die-hard Remainers would agree with had the referendum gone the other way.
I must admit I only know one seriously die-hard Remainer. I know several who voted Remain and probably would again but they're not on favour of these guerilla tactics. They just want us to stop farting around and get on with it. A few doddery geriatrics won't change their mind.
Does this vindicate Trump's pre election stance and rather damn the Democrats ?
If it's true the Iranians had clearly not come clean about their programme*. That's a substantial breach, and more than enough for Trump to forgo renewing the treaty next month.
* Iran has been caught before, but this sounds like the biggest ommission yet.
The alleged scale of the information the Israelis have is fairly damning. Whilst it might be possible to fake such information, the quantity of it will probably mean that's much more difficult to do, and hard not to make mistakes that experts would pickk up. It'd be much easier just to fake a few key documents.
Nothing on the ballot mentioned taking back control.
but it wasn’t on the ballot. following your logic leaving the Customs Union was on the ballot too because that is what remain said would happen on their campaign and HMGs leaflet
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
You appear not to understand how Parliament works. The Lords isn’t a rubber stamp.
Any leavers think their outrage over the lords might have more impact if there hadn't already been so much crying wolf over "traitors" and "saboteurs"?
I would also add that for better or worse the public did vote to leave the EU, and if they are seen as trying to frustrate that it will - rightly - be the end of them.
THEY VOTED TO GIVE PARLIAMENT THE FINAL SAY
I know the Brexiteers are slow on the uptake, but this is not complicated stuff.
In one of those “careful what you wish for” unintended consequences, anti-Brexit agitators may have unleashed constitutional reforms with a wider reach than dreary negotiations about the product labels and border control (how anyone gets worked up about leaving the EU is one of life’s big mysteries, for me).
So angry were (at least) 123,821 voters in response to the Lords’ vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union (that is: “stay in the EU in an even less satisfactory manner than now”) that they signed Robert McBride’s petition to “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords”. Because the number of signatories exceeds 100,000, the Government is rules-bound to offer a debate in Parliament on the topic — and to offer a response.
Constitutional arson proposed by maniacs unhappy that their highly tendentious view of what is required for Brexit is not shared by others.
Constitutional arson is the unelected Lords overruling a manifesto commitment of an elected government with the support of the majority of the commons. Remainers don't like democracy.
Ooh, is that: 1. A genuine complaint? 2. The party getting their retaliation in first? 3. A defamation suit in waiting? 4. The start of the purge? 5. An MP about to cross the floor?
Dunno, maybe he will have to stand down. A Barrow by-election would be a great betting heat
When was the last time the government took a seat from the Opposition in a by- election?
Ah, just remembered it was next door in Copeland a couple of years ago.
I think the Tories could take a serious tilt at Barrow.
They voted to take control back from the EU to the British Parliament so the British people could hold them directly accountable for decisions made in their name, and hire and fire them accordingly.
And the HoL today voted to ensure the British Parliament makes the decision.
They directly enabled exactly what you want.
And you hate them for it...
"Take back control" quite obviously meant, from Brussels to London, so why you think it applies to relations between the Commons and the Lords is unfathomable. I suspect a misinterpretation of the phrase "Parliamentary Sovereignty" may be the root of the problem. There are many books on the Constitution which would clear up the confusion for you. Then again, these books were written by experts. Perhaps you have limited patience with the opinions of experts?
I think it's time to get a new leader , who believes in not entering a customs union , or making an arrangement for free movement of people , with a differing name.
Nothing on the ballot mentioned taking back control.
but it wasn’t on the ballot. following your logic leaving the Customs Union was on the ballot too because that is what remain said would happen on their campaign and HMGs leaflet
Geez, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but remain lost
I would also add that for better or worse the public did vote to leave the EU, and if they are seen as trying to frustrate that it will - rightly - be the end of them.
THEY VOTED TO GIVE PARLIAMENT THE FINAL SAY
I know the Brexiteers are slow on the uptake, but this is not complicated stuff.
Parliament is in control.
You wanted control.
You have control.
Suck it up!!!
For the fiftieth time and in words of at most two syllables:
I voted remain.
Is that clear enough for you or do I need to find a one-syllable word?
And they voted with Parliament having said the result was binding. So you are wrong on that too.
And then you wonder why you are criticised by all sides. for your rudeness, arrogance and stupidity.
Edit - I think you misunderstood (it's a bit hard to tell given your inability to use nouns coupled with your atrocious manners and inability to comprehend plain English). Parliament does not have the final say. The EU does. I was talking about the fact we lost, and the Lords currently look like sore losers. Moreover they are running appalling risks hat they either don't understand or don't care about, but I do. They are digging their own grave.
Parliament being in control will "wreck Brexit"...
We told you it was crap before the vote. No good whining about it now
the true intention behind these amendments is to reverse brexit. they want us to get such a crap deal that remaining becomes the only option. abolish the house of Lords , long overdue IMO
The alleged scale of the information the Israelis have is fairly damning. Whilst it might be possible to fake such information, the quantity of it will probably mean that's much more difficult to do, and hard not to make mistakes that experts would pickk up. It'd be much easier just to fake a few key documents.
It's not the quantity that matters so much as whether it is new information about unknown or unsuspected nuclear weapons related activity.
If the documentation covers things that were previously disclosed by Iran, or suspected to have occured, that's not a huge deal, and the existing agreement should cover such activity. On the other hand if there are substantial new things in the documentation that is a big deal, as it would show Iran has not come clean.
Certainly the Israeli government is acting like they have a smoking gun, but it will need examing by a lot of other parties before I would take that as a given.
Our relationship with the EU will change and evolve over many decades. This is not us being a member of a club with fixed rules. We will almost certainly wish to change things down the line, and so will they.
For example, after revoking Article 50, it will be wholly unsatisfactory to be left outside the Eurozone, so we will want to change that.
I think it's time to get a new leader , who believes in not entering a customs union , or making an arrangement for free movement of people , with a differing name.
The clarity would at least be helpful.
Not that the Guardian is biased. The poll today shows TM improving her appeal and Corbyn losing appeal.
Ooh, is that: 1. A genuine complaint? 2. The party getting their retaliation in first? 3. A defamation suit in waiting? 4. The start of the purge? 5. An MP about to cross the floor?
Dunno, maybe he will have to stand down. A Barrow by-election would be a great betting heat
When was the last time the government took a seat from the Opposition in a by- election?
Ah, just remembered it was next door in Copeland a couple of years ago.
I think the Tories could take a serious tilt at Barrow.
I think they would have taken it long ago if Woodcock were not the MP.
The problem with the Lords (and indeed parliament as a whole) wanting to control the Brexit process isn't constitutional, it's practical. This is a fiendishly fraught negotiation in the first place, and trying to conduct it by a committee of over a thousand people, each with their own agendas and most of them partisan agendas, is simply impossible; the most likely outcome if they don't let the government get on with negotiating is a catastrophic crash-out.
I would also add that for better or worse the public did vote to leave the EU, and if they are seen as trying to frustrate that it will - rightly - be the end of them.
THEY VOTED TO GIVE PARLIAMENT THE FINAL SAY
I know the Brexiteers are slow on the uptake, but this is not complicated stuff.
Parliament is in control.
You wanted control.
You have control.
Suck it up!!!
Parliament has already had its say.
It was the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, which handed power to the Executive for us to leave the EU.
It’s up to Parliament to decide whether we leave with the deal negotiated by the Executive, or leave without a deal - everything else in the meantime is just posturing that makes leaving without a deal all the more likely.
Parliament being in control will "wreck Brexit"...
We told you it was crap before the vote. No good whining about it now
the true intention behind these amendments is to reverse brexit. they want us to get such a crap deal that remaining becomes the only option. abolish the house of Lords , long overdue IMO
Surely we hold all the cards so it doesn't matter if we have a crap deal because the EU will be forced to offer us something much better in short order?
Okay, I voted remain, have a healthy amount of contempt for some arguments for leave, and generally support the HoL - in fact, I think the HoL is generally very good at its job.
Having said all that, IMO the HoL are going too far on this matter. It is bad not only for them, but potentially for the country.
The problem with the Lords (and indeed parliament as a whole) wanting to control the Brexit process isn't constitutional, it's practical. This is a fiendishly fraught negotiation in the first place, and trying to conduct it by a committee of over a thousand people, each with their own agendas and most of them partisan agendas, is simply impossible; the most likely outcome if they don't let the government get on with negotiating is a catastrophic crash-out.
How on earth is that likely? You only write that because you consider the idea of revoking Article 50 to be too humiliating to contemplate, but it's going to happen.
Nothing on the ballot mentioned taking back control.
but it wasn’t on the ballot. following your logic leaving the Customs Union was on the ballot too because that is what remain said would happen on their campaign and HMGs leaflet
Geez, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but remain lost
actually i voted leave. the point i was trying to make was that scott trying to say that the house of Lords deciding to wreck Brexit by tying the governments hands in the negotiations is not taking back control that the people wanted it is thwarting the will of the people and trying to prevent us leaving the EU and truly taking back control
To be honest, I half-expected the voters to swing around a little but even the Remainers around here have accepted two things. Firstly they lost the referendum. Secondly, that's democracy in action.
A few spoilt children can't accept it, but scweaming and scweaming won't affect anything. You're embarrassing the adults on your own side.
They voted to take control back from the EU to the British Parliament so the British people could hold them directly accountable for decisions made in their name, and hire and fire them accordingly.
And the HoL today voted to ensure the British Parliament makes the decision.
They directly enabled exactly what you want.
And you hate them for it...
"Take back control" quite obviously meant, from Brussels to London, so why you think it applies to relations between the Commons and the Lords is unfathomable. I suspect a misinterpretation of the phrase "Parliamentary Sovereignty" may be the root of the problem. There are many books on the Constitution which would clear up the confusion for you. Then again, these books were written by experts. Perhaps you have limited patience with the opinions of experts?
This point is obvious enough that Scott must know he's wrong. I've never quite understood the instinct to push on regardless that seems to be so common in political discussions
No. I'm saying that the Lords are giving every indication that they don't respect the lower chamber.
They voted today to put the lower chamber in charge.
They respect them much more than the Government.
This is what you voted for...
It's a nonsense to suppose that if no deal is agreed between the government and EU, Parliament can require a deal to be struck, or extend the period of negotiation, because Parliament has no way of enforcing its decisions on the EU. And the proposers of this amendment know that it's a nonsense.
The problem with the Lords (and indeed parliament as a whole) wanting to control the Brexit process isn't constitutional, it's practical. This is a fiendishly fraught negotiation in the first place, and trying to conduct it by a committee of over a thousand people, each with their own agendas and most of them partisan agendas, is simply impossible; the most likely outcome if they don't let the government get on with negotiating is a catastrophic crash-out.
How on earth is that likely? You only write that because you consider the idea of revoking Article 50 to be too humiliating to contemplate, but it's going to happen.
But that's not the point. Unless it can be revoked - and there is no mechanism to do so and limited time to come up with one - we leave with a deal or without one. The Lords appear to be doing their damndest to make sure we leave without one.
I want a deal, therefore I am furious with them. They are behaving like idiots. That said, many of them are idiots so that's not terribly surprising.
The problem with the Lords (and indeed parliament as a whole) wanting to control the Brexit process isn't constitutional, it's practical. This is a fiendishly fraught negotiation in the first place, and trying to conduct it by a committee of over a thousand people, each with their own agendas and most of them partisan agendas, is simply impossible; the most likely outcome if they don't let the government get on with negotiating is a catastrophic crash-out.
How on earth is that likely? You only write that because you consider the idea of revoking Article 50 to be too humiliating to contemplate, but it's going to happen.
But that's not the point. Unless it can be revoked - and there is no mechanism to do so and limited time to come up with one - we leave with a deal or without one. The Lords appear to be doing their damndest to make sure we leave without one.
I want a deal, therefore I am furious with them. They are behaving like idiots. That said, many of them are idiots so that's not terribly surprising.
To all intents and purposes we already have a deal. We just need to sign it. The political declaration about the future relationship is irrelevant at this stage.
The alleged scale of the information the Israelis have is fairly damning. Whilst it might be possible to fake such information, the quantity of it will probably mean that's much more difficult to do, and hard not to make mistakes that experts would pickk up. It'd be much easier just to fake a few key documents.
It's not the quantity that matters so much as whether it is new information about unknown or unsuspected nuclear weapons related activity.
If the documentation covers things that were previously disclosed by Iran, or suspected to have occured, that's not a huge deal, and the existing agreement should cover such activity. On the other hand if there are substantial new things in the documentation that is a big deal, as it would show Iran has not come clean.
Certainly the Israeli government is acting like they have a smoking gun, but it will need examing by a lot of other parties before I would take that as a given.
Good points, well put.
But on the other hand, as events have shown elsewhere (e.g. the Libyan nuclear program, the NK one, or the Syrian chemical program), it is easy to pull the wool over the eyes of the relevant UN authorities. Would I be surprised if there was an undisclosed program? No. But I agree that it might not be a smoking gun.
I think it's time to get a new leader , who believes in not entering a customs union , or making an arrangement for free movement of people , with a differing name.
The clarity would at least be helpful.
Not that the Guardian is biased. The poll today shows TM improving her appeal and Corbyn losing appeal.
She is going nowhere pre Brexit
I think you said the same about Rudd on Saturday. ?
The other point to consider is that the Lords have proposed quite a radical constitutional departure here. Traditionally international treaties have always been Royal Prerogative, I.e. powers reserved to the executive. There are a number of good reasons for that starting with the fact that until less than a hundred years ago it was difficult for plenipotentiaries to check back before signing a treaty, so they had to make up their own minds.
Now, the Lords (following the Law Lords' views and indeed the views of some ministers) are offering Parliament veto on these treaties. That's quite a change.
It may be a needed change, even a desirable one from many points of view. But I wonder if this ad hoc way of doing it is the best one. (Admittedly it's the way we've made up most of our constitution.)
They voted to take control back from the EU to the British Parliament so the British people could hold them directly accountable for decisions made in their name, and hire and fire them accordingly.
And the HoL today voted to ensure the British Parliament makes the decision.
They directly enabled exactly what you want.
And you hate them for it...
"Take back control" quite obviously meant, from Brussels to London, so why you think it applies to relations between the Commons and the Lords is unfathomable. I suspect a misinterpretation of the phrase "Parliamentary Sovereignty" may be the root of the problem. There are many books on the Constitution which would clear up the confusion for you. Then again, these books were written by experts. Perhaps you have limited patience with the opinions of experts?
This point is obvious enough that Scott must know he's wrong. I've never quite understood the instinct to push on regardless that seems to be so common in political discussions
Me neither. Especially on the internet, where you can drop out of an argument without loss of face by pretending that your broadband is down or you've gone on holiday.
Well, my husband who lives in the adjoining constituency just said this about Mr W: "A wiffly sort of character. Neither now't nor summat."
Apparently he left his wife for a girlfriend. A period of illness may also have been involved.
OTOH my husband can be a bit vague about gossip. He once came back from a drink with a friend saying that nothing much had happened in his family. It turned out that said friend, who came from a large Irish Catholic family, had a sister who had come out as gay, set up home with a teacher at her school (she was also a teacher) and they had adopted a child, the family's first grandchild, which had made the grandparents overwhelmed with delight since all the boys in the family had failed to reproduce.
The problem with the Lords (and indeed parliament as a whole) wanting to control the Brexit process isn't constitutional, it's practical. This is a fiendishly fraught negotiation in the first place, and trying to conduct it by a committee of over a thousand people, each with their own agendas and most of them partisan agendas, is simply impossible; the most likely outcome if they don't let the government get on with negotiating is a catastrophic crash-out.
How on earth is that likely? You only write that because you consider the idea of revoking Article 50 to be too humiliating to contemplate, but it's going to happen.
It seems to me that revocation will happen only if the Executive wants it to happen. If Parliament refuses to pass the necessary legislation to ensure at least a functioning legal system then the clock will run down on A50 and we fall into a black hole.
I cannot help but suspect that if he was a Corbyn-supporting anitsemite he'd have been fine.
There is something deeply rotten at the heart of the Labour party.
Kelvin Hopkins, an elderly MP who is unwaveringly a Corbynite, has been suspended for some time while a complaint is investigated. Essentially those dealing with complaints can't win - they usually look unfair or selective, but unless they're obvious nonsense they do have to be investigated. I do think that the process is too damned slow.
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
Our relationship with the EU will change and evolve over many decades. This is not us being a member of a club with fixed rules. We will almost certainly wish to change things down the line, and so will they.
For example, after revoking Article 50, it will be wholly unsatisfactory to be left outside the Eurozone, so we will want to change that.
The Lords might wish to revoke A50. The Commons won't. And the Commons prevail.
The Israelis would certainly know about hiding nuclear weapons and lying about it. Read the sad story of Mordechai Vanunu
Are you happy with a nuclear-armed Iran?
Yes. I worry about countries being held to ransom. Note no country with nuclear weapons have yet been attacked. Iran are as entitled to live without fear of being attacked as the Israelis are. They also have less of a track record of belligerence
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Am I right in thinking Benjy's great revelation is that Iran is still pursuing a secret nuclear weapons programme? An interesting position of outrage from this particular goose.
I cannot help but suspect that if he was a Corbyn-supporting anitsemite he'd have been fine.
There is something deeply rotten at the heart of the Labour party.
Kelvin Hopkins, an elderly MP who is unwaveringly a Corbynite, has been suspended for some time while a complaint is investigated. Essentially those dealing with complaints can't win - they usually look unfair or selective, but unless they're obvious nonsense they do have to be investigated. I do think that the process is too damned slow.
The Tories are taking forever over Charlie Elphicke as well of course. However, that said I gather police are now involved so that's going to slow things down further.
I cannot help but suspect that if he was a Corbyn-supporting anitsemite he'd have been fine.
There is something deeply rotten at the heart of the Labour party.
Kelvin Hopkins, an elderly MP who is unwaveringly a Corbynite, has been suspended for some time while a complaint is investigated. Essentially those dealing with complaints can't win - they usually look unfair or selective, but unless they're obvious nonsense they do have to be investigated. I do think that the process is too damned slow.
Urrrm, read the link, as this is different. The disputes panel decided not to suspend him. But Jennie Formby, a Coryn ally, overruled that decision.
Given Labour's recent behaviour, I think it's perfectly fair to question whether she would have done that if he had not been a thorn in Corbyn's side.
This is the problem that a political party gets in when they do not apply rules well and fairly: the assumption then becomes they never do.
And BTW, the fact that Hopkins is 'elderly' is irrelevant.
The other point to consider is that the Lords have proposed quite a radical constitutional departure here. Traditionally international treaties have always been Royal Prerogative, I.e. powers reserved to the executive. There are a number of good reasons for that starting with the fact that until less than a hundred years ago it was difficult for plenipotentiaries to check back before signing a treaty, so they had to make up their own minds.
Now, the Lords (following the Law Lords' views and indeed the views of some ministers) are offering Parliament veto on these treaties. That's quite a change.
It may be a needed change, even a desirable one from many points of view. But I wonder if this ad hoc way of doing it is the best one. (Admittedly it's the way we've made up most of our constitution.)
Is it not the case that treaties are made by the Executive but require legislation to ratify them before coming into force? But such legislation cannot be amended because a treaty involves an independent third party - in this case the EU. What the HoL is trying to do is in violation of this.
I suspect that it is all posturing because A50 is king: unless the notification is revoked or extended we leave on schedule come what may.
Nothing on the ballot mentioned taking back control.
but it wasn’t on the ballot. following your logic leaving the Customs Union was on the ballot too because that is what remain said would happen on their campaign and HMGs leaflet
Geez, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but remain lost
actually i voted leave. the point i was trying to make was that scott trying to say that the house of Lords deciding to wreck Brexit by tying the governments hands in the negotiations is not taking back control that the people wanted it is thwarting the will of the people and trying to prevent us leaving the EU and truly taking back control
Precisely so.
The premise is that Leave voters are too stupid to understand.
Am I right in thinking Benjy's great revelation is that Iran is still pursuing a secret nuclear weapons programme? An interesting position of outrage from this particular goose.
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
I don’t think posters like it also really change the minds of those who already have a negative image of the Tory party.
I think it's time to get a new leader , who believes in not entering a customs union , or making an arrangement for free movement of people , with a differing name.
The clarity would at least be helpful.
Not that the Guardian is biased. The poll today shows TM improving her appeal and Corbyn losing appeal.
She is going nowhere pre Brexit
I think you said the same about Rudd on Saturday. ?
As a matter of interest have you seen the details of the poll. I am content to say TM is going nowhere before Brexit
Well, my husband who lives in the adjoining constituency just said this about Mr W: "A wiffly sort of character. Neither now't nor summat."
Apparently he left his wife for a girlfriend. A period of illness may also have been involved.
OTOH my husband can be a bit vague about gossip. He once came back from a drink with a friend saying that nothing much had happened in his family. It turned out that said friend, who came from a large Irish Catholic family, had a sister who had come out as gay, set up home with a teacher at her school (she was also a teacher) and they had adopted a child, the family's first grandchild, which had made the grandparents overwhelmed with delight since all the boys in the family had failed to reproduce.
His partner is Isabel Hardman who is very outspoken about her own depression
Well, my husband who lives in the adjoining constituency just said this about Mr W: "A wiffly sort of character. Neither now't nor summat."
Apparently he left his wife for a girlfriend. A period of illness may also have been involved.
OTOH my husband can be a bit vague about gossip. He once came back from a drink with a friend saying that nothing much had happened in his family. It turned out that said friend, who came from a large Irish Catholic family, had a sister who had come out as gay, set up home with a teacher at her school (she was also a teacher) and they had adopted a child, the family's first grandchild, which had made the grandparents overwhelmed with delight since all the boys in the family had failed to reproduce.
His partner is Isabel Hardman who is very outspoken about her own depression
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
I think it's time to get a new leader , who believes in not entering a customs union , or making an arrangement for free movement of people , with a differing name.
The clarity would at least be helpful.
Not that the Guardian is biased. The poll today shows TM improving her appeal and Corbyn losing appeal.
She is going nowhere pre Brexit
I think you said the same about Rudd on Saturday. ?
As a matter of interest have you seen the details of the poll. I am content to say TM is going nowhere before Brexit
In the transition , implementation period you mean she will go ?
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
I don’t think posters like it also really change the minds of those who already have a negative image of the Tory party.
It might change their minds about politics, though. Someone like them *can* do well. Witness also the MoL.
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Personally I think Glynne Shotwell is a great role model for female engineering.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail Brexit
If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
I think it's time to get a new leader , who believes in not entering a customs union , or making an arrangement for free movement of people , with a differing name.
The clarity would at least be helpful.
Not that the Guardian is biased. The poll today shows TM improving her appeal and Corbyn losing appeal.
She is going nowhere pre Brexit
I think you said the same about Rudd on Saturday. ?
As a matter of interest have you seen the details of the poll. I am content to say TM is going nowhere before Brexit
In the transition , implementation period you mean she will go ?
I do not see her going before Summer 2019 and after that who knows
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.
Not at all. As I said a few days ago Parliament has no power over the EU treaties. They cannot unilaterally revoke article 50 no matter how much they might wish to.
Unless the treaty allows it, which the author says it does.
The author is not the judge of that. It will be decided by the ECJ.
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Personally I think Glynne Shotwell is a great role model for female engineering.
I think I agree with that. She's managed to make the difficult jump from techie to manager and businesswoman rather well, with an added skill of being good at PR and an amazing skill of working with Elon for more than a year without getting fired.
Not at all. As I said a few days ago Parliament has no power over the EU treaties. They cannot unilaterally revoke article 50 no matter how much they might wish to.
Unless the treaty allows it, which the author says it does.
The author is not the judge of that. It will be decided by the ECJ.
And would only be decided long after the UK had left.
The problem with the Lords (and indeed parliament as a whole) wanting to control the Brexit process isn't constitutional, it's practical. This is a fiendishly fraught negotiation in the first place, and trying to conduct it by a committee of over a thousand people, each with their own agendas and most of them partisan agendas, is simply impossible; the most likely outcome if they don't let the government get on with negotiating is a catastrophic crash-out.
How on earth is that likely? You only write that because you consider the idea of revoking Article 50 to be too humiliating to contemplate, but it's going to happen.
But that's not the point. Unless it can be revoked - and there is no mechanism to do so and limited time to come up with one - we leave with a deal or without one. The Lords appear to be doing their damndest to make sure we leave without one.
I want a deal, therefore I am furious with them. They are behaving like idiots. That said, many of them are idiots so that's not terribly surprising.
To all intents and purposes we already have a deal. We just need to sign it. The political declaration about the future relationship is irrelevant at this stage.
Nope. As was stated at the time, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. If Parliament tries to force the Government into a position it does not agree with we will simply end up crashing out without a deal.
They voted to take control back from the EU to the British Parliament so the British people could hold them directly accountable for decisions made in their name, and hire and fire them accordingly.
And the HoL today voted to ensure the British Parliament makes the decision.
They directly enabled exactly what you want.
And you hate them for it...
"Take back control" quite obviously meant, from Brussels to London, so why you think it applies to relations between the Commons and the Lords is unfathomable. I suspect a misinterpretation of the phrase "Parliamentary Sovereignty" may be the root of the problem. There are many books on the Constitution which would clear up the confusion for you. Then again, these books were written by experts. Perhaps you have limited patience with the opinions of experts?
Taking back control means decisions currently made in Brussels will be taken by Parliament. This process by definition includes the House of Lords. If you don’t like the makeup of the HoL or its consitutional role then perhaps campaigning for an increased role for the British Parliament in lawmaking wasn’t so wise.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail Brexit
If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.
But the problem is that historically many jobs have been considered in the same class and gender, and even race or creed. There were jobs suitable for women, and jobs suitable for men - a distinction that is harmful to both. Likewise, it would have been unlikely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.
But the problem is that historically many jobs have been considered in the same class and gender, and even race or creed. There were jobs suitable for women, and jobs suitable for men - a distinction that is harmful to both. Likewise, it would have been unlikely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
They voted to take control back from the EU to the British Parliament so the British people could hold them directly accountable for decisions made in their name, and hire and fire them accordingly.
And the HoL today voted to ensure the British Parliament makes the decision.
They directly enabled exactly what you want.
And you hate them for it...
"Take back control" quite obviously meant, from Brussels to London, so why you think it applies to relations between the Commons and the Lords is unfathomable. I suspect a misinterpretation of the phrase "Parliamentary Sovereignty" may be the root of the problem. There are many books on the Constitution which would clear up the confusion for you. Then again, these books were written by experts. Perhaps you have limited patience with the opinions of experts?
Taking back control means decisions currently made in Brussels will be taken by Parliament. This process by definition includes the House of Lords. If you don’t like the makeup of the HoL or its consitutional role then perhaps campaigning for an increased role for the British Parliament in lawmaking wasn’t so wise.
I think Parliament should have a say in all of this. That is why I am opposed to the Henry VIII powers. What they should not be allowed to do is continue to surrender powers back to Brussels or prevent Brexit occurring. If they do that they they are once again giving away the ability of future Parliaments to make these decisions.
As an electorate we have said we want Parliament to be the ultimate authority. Since it is being exercised on our behalf it should not be within their power to say no thanks we don't want that authority. If they are not willing to take the responsibility then they do not deserve to be in the seat.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail Brexit If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.
Before the LDs get too excited remember they got 13% in the local elections in 2014 when the wards up on Thursday were last contested
Oh, let them have their moment - there's not been many occasions in recent years for the LibDems to get excited. 2010 in the rose garden with Cameron? Anything more recent?
They actually did quite well in the county council elections last year getting 18%, up 4% on 2013, before collapsing again at the general election to 7%
A lot of us vote the person rather than the party in local elections. My local councillor commands respect and she gets my support for what she does locally despite her being a Conservative. I am sure that a lot of Lib Dem councillors have a personal following too.
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.
But the problem is that historically many jobs have been considered in the same class and gender, and even race or creed. There were jobs suitable for women, and jobs suitable for men - a distinction that is harmful to both. Likewise, it would have been unlikely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
But can you be a good, successful home secretary?
That's a very different and subjective question. But the point a young kid with ambition will see is that he or she could make it into such a position, and it will then be up to them to do well or poorly. But at least they know they *could* make it.
This really matters, and is something I care a fair bit about. We cannot be the best country we can be if we put artificial barriers up to stop people fulfilling their potential. It's bad for them and it;s bad for all of us.
They voted to take control back from the EU to the British Parliament so the British people could hold them directly accountable for decisions made in their name, and hire and fire them accordingly.
And the HoL today voted to ensure the British Parliament makes the decision.
They directly enabled exactly what you want.
And you hate them for it...
"Take back control" quite obviously meant, from Brussels to London, so why you think it applies to relations between the Commons and the Lords is unfathomable. I suspect a misinterpretation of the phrase "Parliamentary Sovereignty" may be the root of the problem. There are many books on the Constitution which would clear up the confusion for you. Then again, these books were written by experts. Perhaps you have limited patience with the opinions of experts?
Taking back control means decisions currently made in Brussels will be taken by Parliament. This process by definition includes the House of Lords. If you don’t like the makeup of the HoL or its consitutional role then perhaps campaigning for an increased role for the British Parliament in lawmaking wasn’t so wise.
I didn't campaign for anything and I voted Remain. I also didn't say that I liked or didn't like anything about the HoL. That aside, the argument that we should keep Brussels in the loop to protect ourselves from our own self-harming tendency is splendidly batty.
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.
I''m with you on role models. There were very few when I was starting out. Even now, there are relatively few senior women in law and City jobs working full time with a family. I was one of very very few at my last job so ended up being a role model and speaking to younger women. It is something which is well worth doing and not just to people who look like you.
It is something I want to continue doing. I think we owe it to those who come after us to pass on whatever advice, stories, knowledge we have. After all, what's the point of hoarding it for yourself?
Ooh, is that: 1. A genuine complaint? 2. The party getting their retaliation in first? 3. A defamation suit in waiting? 4. The start of the purge? 5. An MP about to cross the floor?
Dunno, maybe he will have to stand down. A Barrow by-election would be a great betting heat
When was the last time the government took a seat from the Opposition in a by- election?
Ah, just remembered it was next door in Copeland a couple of years ago.
I think the Tories could take a serious tilt at Barrow.
I think they would have taken it long ago if Woodcock were not the MP.
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.
But the problem is that historically many jobs have been considered in the same class and gender, and even race or creed. There were jobs suitable for women, and jobs suitable for men - a distinction that is harmful to both. Likewise, it would have been unlikely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
But can you be a good, successful home secretary?
That's a very different and subjective question. But the point a young kid with ambition will see is that he or she could make it into such a position, and it will then be up to them to do well or poorly. But at least they know they *could* make it.
This really matters, and is something I care a fair bit about. We cannot be the best country we can be if we put artificial barriers up to stop people fulfilling their potential. It's bad for them and it;s bad for all of us.
Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
Well the Remainers are using democratic vandalism...
Comments
I would also add that for better or worse the public did vote to leave the EU, and if the Lords are seen as trying to frustrate that it will - rightly - be the end of them. And long overdue though it is, the irony of them being abolished for trying to frustrate the will of the people and ultimately fulfilling it by driving us of a cliff-edge would be - interesting.
"The Lords are signing their own death warrant."
Normally, I'd say that was hyperbole but this time, I really think the HoL is teetering on destroying itself. And for what? A meaningless charade which will be over-turned.
I viewed the Lords as a minor and harmless tourist attraction. Now I'm sorry to see them persisting in this farrago. A referendum trumps the House of Commons view and the House of Commons trumps the Lords. Something even the die-hard Remainers would agree with had the referendum gone the other way.
I must admit I only know one seriously die-hard Remainer. I know several who voted Remain and probably would again but they're not on favour of these guerilla tactics. They just want us to stop farting around and get on with it. A few doddery geriatrics won't change their mind.
We told you it was crap before the vote. No good whining about it now
I know the Brexiteers are slow on the uptake, but this is not complicated stuff.
Parliament is in control.
You wanted control.
You have control.
Suck it up!!!
I think it's time to get a new leader , who believes in not entering a customs union , or making an arrangement for free movement of people , with a differing name.
The clarity would at least be helpful.
I voted remain.
Is that clear enough for you or do I need to find a one-syllable word?
And they voted with Parliament having said the result was binding. So you are wrong on that too.
And then you wonder why you are criticised by all sides. for your rudeness, arrogance and stupidity.
Edit - I think you misunderstood (it's a bit hard to tell given your inability to use nouns coupled with your atrocious manners and inability to comprehend plain English). Parliament does not have the final say. The EU does. I was talking about the fact we lost, and the Lords currently look like sore losers. Moreover they are running appalling risks hat they either don't understand or don't care about, but I do. They are digging their own grave.
If the documentation covers things that were previously disclosed by Iran, or suspected to have occured, that's not a huge deal, and the existing agreement should cover such activity. On the other hand if there are substantial new things in the documentation that is a big deal, as it would show Iran has not come clean.
Certainly the Israeli government is acting like they have a smoking gun, but it will need examing by a lot of other parties before I would take that as a given.
She is going nowhere pre Brexit
It was the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, which handed power to the Executive for us to leave the EU.
It’s up to Parliament to decide whether we leave with the deal negotiated by the Executive, or leave without a deal - everything else in the meantime is just posturing that makes leaving without a deal all the more likely.
It’s only those who follow your deluded penrose staircase logic that find your arguments convincing ones.
Having said all that, IMO the HoL are going too far on this matter. It is bad not only for them, but potentially for the country.
"THEY VOTED TO GIVE PARLIAMENT THE FINAL SAY."
Classic. I read the ballot paper, did you?
To be honest, I half-expected the voters to swing around a little but even the Remainers around here have accepted two things. Firstly they lost the referendum. Secondly, that's democracy in action.
A few spoilt children can't accept it, but scweaming and scweaming won't affect anything. You're embarrassing the adults on your own side.
I want a deal, therefore I am furious with them. They are behaving like idiots. That said, many of them are idiots so that's not terribly surprising.
But on the other hand, as events have shown elsewhere (e.g. the Libyan nuclear program, the NK one, or the Syrian chemical program), it is easy to pull the wool over the eyes of the relevant UN authorities. Would I be surprised if there was an undisclosed program? No. But I agree that it might not be a smoking gun.
Now, the Lords (following the Law Lords' views and indeed the views of some ministers) are offering Parliament veto on these treaties. That's quite a change.
It may be a needed change, even a desirable one from many points of view. But I wonder if this ad hoc way of doing it is the best one. (Admittedly it's the way we've made up most of our constitution.)
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/209433
Apparently he left his wife for a girlfriend. A period of illness may also have been involved.
OTOH my husband can be a bit vague about gossip. He once came back from a drink with a friend saying that nothing much had happened in his family. It turned out that said friend, who came from a large Irish Catholic family, had a sister who had come out as gay, set up home with a teacher at her school (she was also a teacher) and they had adopted a child, the family's first grandchild, which had made the grandparents overwhelmed with delight since all the boys in the family had failed to reproduce.
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
I ignored this petition before (silly nonsense) but I've just signed it now!
Am I right in thinking Benjy's great revelation is that Iran is still pursuing a secret nuclear weapons programme? An interesting position of outrage from this particular goose.
Given Labour's recent behaviour, I think it's perfectly fair to question whether she would have done that if he had not been a thorn in Corbyn's side.
This is the problem that a political party gets in when they do not apply rules well and fairly: the assumption then becomes they never do.
And BTW, the fact that Hopkins is 'elderly' is irrelevant.
I suspect that it is all posturing because A50 is king: unless the notification is revoked or extended we leave on schedule come what may.
The premise is that Leave voters are too stupid to understand.
Ah, my coat...
What an unfortunate combination of names...
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
This petition needs coverage from radio and TV news and then watch it go.
If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
Born in Lancashire. Made in the West Country.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
As an electorate we have said we want Parliament to be the ultimate authority. Since it is being exercised on our behalf it should not be within their power to say no thanks we don't want that authority. If they are not willing to take the responsibility then they do not deserve to be in the seat.
This really matters, and is something I care a fair bit about. We cannot be the best country we can be if we put artificial barriers up to stop people fulfilling their potential. It's bad for them and it;s bad for all of us.
It is something I want to continue doing. I think we owe it to those who come after us to pass on whatever advice, stories, knowledge we have. After all, what's the point of hoarding it for yourself?
Well the Remainers are using democratic vandalism...