Leavers? No Socialist Remainers? No Students? No Partisan party haters? No
It’s like Blair trying to get elected without the Labour brand. Would never have happened. Lefties who hate Tories would worry they’re letting in the enemy by splitting the vote and vice versa. What they have to offer is a menu that whets the appetite of a very narrow band of wealthy metropolitans who are put out by the great unwashed having voted against the status quo a couple of times.
Straw shortage alert.
What do you mean? I just wonder who would vote for them?
Is the defence of the status quo not supposed to be the job of the Conservative party? Perhaps they should go back to that idea.
Yes, that is the nub of the matter.
At present, the main policy of the Conservative party is to deliver the biggest change to the status quo - leaving the European Union - that we have seen since Mrs T.
And we have a Labour party that if elected could be more radical in power than any since Attlee.
So where on earth does this leave the millions of people in this country who wish to trundle on pretty much as we are, who wish to have a government that just keeps the show on the road, doesn't do stupid things, doesn't take big risks, doesn't chase unicorns, doesn't feel it has to be throwing its weight around the whole time?
Stuffed, that's where. Hence IMO the potential mass appeal of the IG if things go their way, if they get a bit of luck in running, if they get a charismatic leader and some good recruits.
10/1 to win the next election though? No, I'm not quite having that!
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
Do you disagree with Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan’s idea of a veto referendum initiated by citizens?
Is the defence of the status quo not supposed to be the job of the Conservative party? Perhaps they should go back to that idea.
Yes, that is the nub of the matter.
At present, the main policy of the Conservative party is to deliver the biggest change to the status quo - leaving the European Union - that we have seen since Mrs T.
And we have a Labour party that if elected could be more radical in power than any since Attlee.
So where on earth does this leave the millions of people in this country who wish to trundle on pretty much as we are, who wish to have a government that just keeps the show on the road, doesn't do stupid things, doesn't take big risks, doesn't chase unicorns, doesn't feel it has to be throwing its weight around the whole time?
Stuffed, that's where. Hence IMO the potential mass appeal of the IG if things go their way, if they get a bit of luck in running, if they get a charismatic leader and some good recruits.
10/1 to win the next election though? No, I'm not quite having that!
It's drifted out to 12, now. But at 20 it was indeed the great trading bet I recommended, and not the screaming lay that another PB'er suggested.
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
Why do people think that not having a referendum is denying people a voice, when the voice from the last one hasn’t been listened to yet?
Maybe we should grant another referendum, so long as people understand we are leaving anyway whatever the result?
Indeed that would also be reasonable. As long as the basic result of the last referendum is enacted - and we Leave - then the form of Leave does not impact on the democratic legitimacy. Personally I would oppose remaining in a Customs Union as I think it is a very dumb idea but if that was the form of Leave then it would certainly fulfil the remit of the original vote.
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
If people dont like Brexit now they see it, it would obviously be sensible to avoid the damage of pointless transition and to retain our current very favourable terms by having the confirmatory vote now.
That is like saying that the day after a GE we should overturn the result because we don't like the fact we have a hung Parliament.
The penalty for stealing a first is to watch 37 repeats of Solo while eating pineapple pizza.
I prefer to think of it as a reward for editing PB this afternoon.
Watching Solo and eating pineapple pizza is a reward?
I thought you preferred the old dominatrices fro your, umm, more extreme rewards.
Six months worth of gardening leave sounds fun, the reality of it is somewhat different.
Go on the 6 week holiday you’ve always wanted to do. Hike the Andes. Be a cowboy in Montana. Sled with the huskies in Finland. Walk from Casablanca to Cairo.
You’ve got a job you are going to. Money shouldn’t be an issue. Kick back and have fun.
I've done that before.
Sadly family commitments prevent me from going anywhere.
Am mostly spending time in Cineworld and watching every boxset on Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
Oh and shopping.
Learn the Rubik's cube. Utterly pointless, but you can take smug to a whole new level. I recommend it.
Brains Trust: what price does the pb public think TIG will come into for most seats if there are further defections?
I was expecting it to come in to at least 5, if they got lift off through a by-election or a large slug of defections. But it took the SDP ten months from Limehouse to leading the polls, and I was happy to take a little profit back at 10 having backed at 25 and 20 only a day or two earlier. A lot hangs now on whether Corbyn and May can stop the next batch leaving.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Personally, ignoring the legal arguments which are not yet settled, I object whatever her legal status. She is our problem. We made her and she was a British citizen up until we decided she was more hassle than she was worth. The moral thing to do is to allow her back and deal with her here. It is also, as it happens, the sensible practical thing to do if the security agencies are to be believed.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
The penalty for stealing a first is to watch 37 repeats of Solo while eating pineapple pizza.
I prefer to think of it as a reward for editing PB this afternoon.
Watching Solo and eating pineapple pizza is a reward?
I thought you preferred the old dominatrices fro your, umm, more extreme rewards.
Six months worth of gardening leave sounds fun, the reality of it is somewhat different.
Go on the 6 week holiday you’ve always wanted to do. Hike the Andes. Be a cowboy in Montana. Sled with the huskies in Finland. Walk from Casablanca to Cairo.
You’ve got a job you are going to. Money shouldn’t be an issue. Kick back and have fun.
I've done that before.
Sadly family commitments prevent me from going anywhere.
Am mostly spending time in Cineworld and watching every boxset on Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
Oh and shopping.
Learn the Rubik's cube. Utterly pointless, but you can take smug to a whole new level. I recommend it.
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
If people dont like Brexit now they see it, it would obviously be sensible to avoid the damage of pointless transition and to retain our current very favourable terms by having the confirmatory vote now.
That is like saying that the day after a GE we should overturn the result because we don't like the fact we have a hung Parliament.
No, it isn't,
Asking people whether they are happy with the detail of a proposition that was initially vague is both sensible and democratic. And the way that many other countries deal with potentially significant changes. We shouldn't be held victim to Cameron's hubris.
Pushing ahead with a change that none of us had seen the detail or implications of in advance, let alone had the chance to vote for, is both dumb and anti-democratic.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
We've been listening to and thinking about little else for over two years. If after all that it is obvious that no-one has a clue and we are facing tremendous self-harm, then we should think again, as any of us would do with a decision that was as equivalently significant in our own lives. Sooner or later politics and common sense must have some sort of overlap.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
If people dont like Brexit now they see it, it would obviously be sensible to avoid the damage of pointless transition and to retain our current very favourable terms by having the confirmatory vote now.
That is like saying that the day after a GE we should overturn the result because we don't like the fact we have a hung Parliament.
Lots of people are arguing that now after little more than 18 months.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
We've been listening to and thinking about little else for over two years. If after all that it is obvious that no-one has a clue and we are facing tremendous self-harm, then we should think again, as any of us would do with a decision that was as equivalently significant in our own lives. Sooner or later politics and common sense must have some sort of overlap.
We have been listening to people, who wanted to remain all along, twist and turn to delay and ignore the referendum result. The reason it was put to the people in the first place was that everyone knew parliament wanted to remain.
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
If people dont like Brexit now they see it, it would obviously be sensible to avoid the damage of pointless transition and to retain our current very favourable terms by having the confirmatory vote now.
That is like saying that the day after a GE we should overturn the result because we don't like the fact we have a hung Parliament.
Lots of people are arguing that now after little more than 18 months.
The point being that we have now enacted the result of the last election. We have not yet enacted the result of the referendum. As I said. Do that and I would have no argument at all about another referendum. I said after 5 years as I believe that would be a reasonable timescale to see the medium term effects. And of course it is miles better than the 41 years we had to wait last time.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.
Nah - you've got your snidy smart-arse permit - post away!
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Mr. 64, nope, it's about the swordsman, set in Japan, early 17th century. I re-read it recently, and enjoyed it a lot. The same author has another book, Taiko, I'm planning to get at some point.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Brains Trust: what price does the pb public think TIG will come into for most seats if there are further defections?
The BF market (9%ish) is only a little short-priced now.
There's a huge opportunity in the middle ground. Labour have marched off into a Marxist wonderland, and the Tories have deployed personnel unfit for sweet-shop duties.
The Tiggers can simply march in. However the Tiggers themselves a a rum bunch. There's no evidence at all that they aren't just the outcasts of the other failing parties.
It has to boil down to economic policy. Labour either don't have one, or are committed to an Orwellian state of incomprehensible poverty. Hard to tell. The Tories should be fine. The Tories are born with competance. And then from stage left the ghastly figure of Gavin Williamson emerges. The LDs - pointless.
The penalty for stealing a first is to watch 37 repeats of Solo while eating pineapple pizza.
I prefer to think of it as a reward for editing PB this afternoon.
Watching Solo and eating pineapple pizza is a reward?
I thought you preferred the old dominatrices fro your, umm, more extreme rewards.
Six months worth of gardening leave sounds fun, the reality of it is somewhat different.
Go on the 6 week holiday you’ve always wanted to do. Hike the Andes. Be a cowboy in Montana. Sled with the huskies in Finland. Walk from Casablanca to Cairo.
You’ve got a job you are going to. Money shouldn’t be an issue. Kick back and have fun.
I've done that before.
Sadly family commitments prevent me from going anywhere.
Am mostly spending time in Cineworld and watching every boxset on Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
Oh and shopping.
Learn the Rubik's cube. Utterly pointless, but you can take smug to a whole new level. I recommend it.
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
We've been listening to and thinking about little else for over two years. If after all that it is obvious that no-one has a clue and we are facing tremendous self-harm, then we should think again, as any of us would do with a decision that was as equivalently significant in our own lives. Sooner or later politics and common sense must have some sort of overlap.
We have been listening to people, who wanted to remain all along, twist and turn to delay and ignore the referendum result. The reason it was put to the people in the first place was that everyone knew parliament wanted to remain.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
We've been listening to and thinking about little else for over two years. If after all that it is obvious that no-one has a clue and we are facing tremendous self-harm, then we should think again, as any of us would do with a decision that was as equivalently significant in our own lives. Sooner or later politics and common sense must have some sort of overlap.
Listening and thinking is not doing. Turning around the day after a GE and having the Government say, we have been listening and thinking about you voting us out but we have decided to ignore you would not be considered democratic.
Besides, very few MPs have done any listening or thinking (on either side). They have just sat there with their preconceived ideas of good and bad and refused to engage in a process of enacting the referendum result.
Ferrari still looking like early favourites for the championship. Mercedes are notorious for claiming Ferrari look strong, but Helmut Marko has rather more objectivity when comparing the silver with the red cars..
"We don’t look back we look forward, it’s a very good relationship (with Honda), the concern was reliability. From what I saw yesterday on the circuit Ferrari, for sure, are the fastest car,. Behind is Red Bull and Mercedes so let’s see what we can do in Melbourne we are optimistic we can win races from their own strengths, like Monte Carlo and Singapore....
Other motorsport commentators concur.
Mercedes are still overwhelming betting favourites, so there is a trading opportunity, I think.
Mr. 64, nope, it's about the swordsman, set in Japan, early 17th century. I re-read it recently, and enjoyed it a lot. The same author has another book, Taiko, I'm planning to get at some point.
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
If people dont like Brexit now they see it, it would obviously be sensible to avoid the damage of pointless transition and to retain our current very favourable terms by having the confirmatory vote now.
That is like saying that the day after a GE we should overturn the result because we don't like the fact we have a hung Parliament.
No, it isn't,
Asking people whether they are happy with the detail of a proposition that was initially vague is both sensible and democratic. And the way that many other countries deal with potentially significant changes. We shouldn't be held victim to Cameron's hubris.
Pushing ahead with a change that none of us had seen the detail or implications of in advance, let alone had the chance to vote for, is both dumb and anti-democratic.
One might very easily say the same thing about any GE result. Indeed I am sure you think exactly that every time the Tories win an election.
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
If people dont like Brexit now they see it, it would obviously be sensible to avoid the damage of pointless transition and to retain our current very favourable terms by having the confirmatory vote now.
That is like saying that the day after a GE we should overturn the result because we don't like the fact we have a hung Parliament.
No, it isn't,
Asking people whether they are happy with the detail of a proposition that was initially vague is both sensible and democratic. And the way that many other countries deal with potentially significant changes. We shouldn't be held victim to Cameron's hubris.
Pushing ahead with a change that none of us had seen the detail or implications of in advance, let alone had the chance to vote for, is both dumb and anti-democratic.
One might very easily say the same thing about any GE result. Indeed I am sure you think exactly that every time the Tories win an election.
Fact remains that if there is good reason to believe most people don't want the deal now that we see it, we should have the chance to make a go or no go decision before it is too late.
Going ahead with a massive change and then undoing it all a few years later and ending with worse terms, just to satisfy your purism, would be idiotic.
The penalty for stealing a first is to watch 37 repeats of Solo while eating pineapple pizza.
I prefer to think of it as a reward for editing PB this afternoon.
Watching Solo and eating pineapple pizza is a reward?
I thought you preferred the old dominatrices fro your, umm, more extreme rewards.
Six months worth of gardening leave sounds fun, the reality of it is somewhat different.
Go on the 6 week holiday you’ve always wanted to do. Hike the Andes. Be a cowboy in Montana. Sled with the huskies in Finland. Walk from Casablanca to Cairo.
You’ve got a job you are going to. Money shouldn’t be an issue. Kick back and have fun.
I've done that before.
Sadly family commitments prevent me from going anywhere.
Am mostly spending time in Cineworld and watching every boxset on Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
Oh and shopping.
Learn the Rubik's cube. Utterly pointless, but you can take smug to a whole new level. I recommend it.
I learned the Rubik's cube when I was eight.
Alternatively, you were born an idiot savant.....
Well at least 50% of 'idiot savant' is likely to be true.
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
If people dont like Brexit now they see it, it would obviously be sensible to avoid the damage of pointless transition and to retain our current very favourable terms by having the confirmatory vote now.
That is like saying that the day after a GE we should overturn the result because we don't like the fact we have a hung Parliament.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
We've been listening to and thinking about little else for over two years. If after all that it is obvious that no-one has a clue and we are facing tremendous self-harm, then we should think again, as any of us would do with a decision that was as equivalently significant in our own lives. Sooner or later politics and common sense must have some sort of overlap.
We have been listening to people, who wanted to remain all along, twist and turn to delay and ignore the referendum result. The reason it was put to the people in the first place was that everyone knew parliament wanted to remain.
Now it would appear that most people do, as well.
I disagree it appears that way. It may do if you only talk to people in the political bubble.
But even if it were the case, it would only be so because the Remain side have had a further 28 months to hum and haw about what a disaster it will be, without enacting the result. Hardly a fair way to decide anything, especially something already decided.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You can change your mind as you wish.
The vote must be enacted.
My personal view is that you shouldn't ever interrupt that enactment. I also think that anyone that suggests a vote on something that can't be swiftly enacted shouldn't suggest such stuff.
Listening to the latest Brexit rundown on PM, I realise that we are surely heading for political meltdown and a general election.
I have said before on here that a GE will be needed to try and sort this mess out. It is our system's escape valve.
Still green on a 2019. Red on all else.
I'm the exact reverse (and comfortable with that). Britain is nowhere near the low point of incoherence before a general election is inevitable. It's not going to be pretty though.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
In which case you reject democracy.
That is just silly. Democracy does not include economic armageddon
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
If people dont like Brexit now they see it, it would obviously be sensible to avoid the damage of pointless transition and to retain our current very favourable terms by having the confirmatory vote now.
That is like saying that the day after a GE we should overturn the result because we don't like the fact we have a hung Parliament.
No, it isn't,
Asking people whether they are happy with the detail of a proposition that was initially vague is both sensible and democratic. And the way that many other countries deal with potentially significant changes. We shouldn't be held victim to Cameron's hubris.
Pushing ahead with a change that none of us had seen the detail or implications of in advance, let alone had the chance to vote for, is both dumb and anti-democratic.
One might very easily say the same thing about any GE result. Indeed I am sure you think exactly that every time the Tories win an election.
Fact remains that if there is good reason to believe most people don't want the deal now that we see it, we should have the chance to make a go or no go decision before it is too late.
Going ahead with a massive change and then undoing it all a few years later and ending with worse terms, just to satisfy your purism, would be idiotic.
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
In which case you reject democracy.
That is just silly. Democracy does not include economic armageddon
Can do. If I vote for it, and enough others do, then surely that's what we should get.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
What do you make of the two elections of 1974?
The result of the first vote was enacted with the elected MPs being returned to Parliament.
If Corbyn held a referendum with the question “should the United Kingdom adopt a communist economic model?” and won, would it become undemocratic to oppose it until full communism was achieved?
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
In which case you reject democracy.
That is just silly. Democracy does not include economic armageddon
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
If people dont like Brexit now they see it, it would obviously be sensible to avoid the damage of pointless transition and to retain our current very favourable terms by having the confirmatory vote now.
That is like saying that the day after a GE we should overturn the result because we don't like the fact we have a hung Parliament.
No, it isn't,
Asking people whether they are happy with the detail of a proposition that was initially vague is both sensible and democratic. And the way that many other countries deal with potentially significant changes. We shouldn't be held victim to Cameron's hubris.
Pushing ahead with a change that none of us had seen the detail or implications of in advance, let alone had the chance to vote for, is both dumb and anti-democratic.
One might very easily say the same thing about any GE result. Indeed I am sure you think exactly that every time the Tories win an election.
Fact remains that if there is good reason to believe most people don't want the deal now that we see it, we should have the chance to make a go or no go decision before it is too late.
Going ahead with a massive change and then undoing it all a few years later and ending with worse terms, just to satisfy your purism, would be idiotic.
Nope it would be democratic.
Thankfully even many of our politicians have more common sense than you.
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.
:-)
Tres bien.
Well as I have often thought to myself, if everybody only opined on something when they had the first clue what they were talking about, there would be a kind of hush all over the world.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
What do you make of the two elections of 1974?
The result of the first vote was enacted with the elected MPs being returned to Parliament.
The party that won the most votes in Feb 1974 didn't see their mandate enacted.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Look at the electorate as being a jury and the referendum a trial. At the original trial in 2016, having listened to counsel for both sides, the counsel for the defence (remain) being spectacularly incompetent, counsel for the prosecution (leave) having manipulated and potentially fabricated the evidence, it votes narrowly for the latter. The sentence imposed, while not being death, will nevertheless be a form of punishment that causes irreversible harm to the defendant (Britain) and, indeed, the jury.
Prior to the punishment being inflicted, however, new evidence comes to light that casts doubt on the original conviction. Do we carry out the sentence nonetheless? Or do we present the fresh evidence back to the jury at a retrial prior to the sentence being carried out? I would suggest the latter is the sensible course of action.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
What do you make of the two elections of 1974?
The result of the first vote was enacted with the elected MPs being returned to Parliament.
The party that won the most votes in Feb 1974 didn't see their mandate enacted.
No on voted for a party. They voted for individual MPs. Shame I have to teach you the basics of democracy.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Look at the electorate as being a jury and the referendum a trial. At the original trial in 2016, having listened to counsel for both sides, the counsel for the defence (remain) being spectacularly incompetent, counsel for the prosecution (leave) having manipulated and potentially fabricated the evidence, it votes narrowly for the latter. The sentence imposed, while not being death, will nevertheless be a form of punishment that causes irreversible harm to the defendant (Britain) and, indeed, the jury.
Prior to the punishment being inflicted, however, new evidence comes to light that casts doubt on the original conviction. Do we carry out the sentence nonetheless? Or do we present the fresh evidence back to the jury at a retrial prior to the sentence being carried out? I would suggest the latter is the sensible course of action.
Except Brexit isn't a punishment, won't cause irreversible harm and can be reversed at a later date.
Indeed if we Brexit with the Remainers Deal available then "nothing will change" during transition. So the referendum could be honoured and then seek a reversal during transition. But to stymie the process now, no its dishonourable.
If Corbyn held a referendum with the question “should the United Kingdom adopt a communist economic model?” and won, would it become undemocratic to oppose it until full communism was achieved?
You have to deliver on the question. In that scenario the uk should adopt it. The question wasn't about 'full communism'. If it had been then that's precisely what needs to happen.
If you can't enact the results of a referendum the next morning then don't have them. Otherwise expect chaos.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.
However, suppose we have a second referendum and vote to Remain. The lesson will be learnt that any pro-EU vote counts permanently, and if the electorate gets it 'wrong' their desire will be frustrated, wittingly or not, until they change their mind.
Teaching the electorate their opinion will only be taken forward if it agrees with the political class is a dangerous thing.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Look at the electorate as being a jury and the referendum a trial. At the original trial in 2016, having listened to counsel for both sides, the counsel for the defence (remain) being spectacularly incompetent, counsel for the prosecution (leave) having manipulated and potentially fabricated the evidence, it votes narrowly for the latter. The sentence imposed, while not being death, will nevertheless be a form of punishment that causes irreversible harm to the defendant (Britain) and, indeed, the jury.
Prior to the punishment being inflicted, however, new evidence comes to light that casts doubt on the original conviction. Do we carry out the sentence nonetheless? Or do we present the fresh evidence back to the jury at a retrial prior to the sentence being carried out? I would suggest the latter is the sensible course of action.
If you can't enact the results of a referendum the next morning then don't have them. Otherwise expect chaos.
Should the government:
- Ratify the withdrawal agreement negotiated with the European Union? - Revoke notification under Article 50 and remain a member of the European Union?
Immediately actionable. No chaos, and a clear mandate for whatever happens as the next step.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Look at the electorate as being a jury and the referendum a trial. At the original trial in 2016, having listened to counsel for both sides, the counsel for the defence (remain) being spectacularly incompetent, counsel for the prosecution (leave) having manipulated and potentially fabricated the evidence, it votes narrowly for the latter. The sentence imposed, while not being death, will nevertheless be a form of punishment that causes irreversible harm to the defendant (Britain) and, indeed, the jury.
Prior to the punishment being inflicted, however, new evidence comes to light that casts doubt on the original conviction. Do we carry out the sentence nonetheless? Or do we present the fresh evidence back to the jury at a retrial prior to the sentence being carried out? I would suggest the latter is the sensible course of action.
But of course that is a dumb metaphor because the electorate are not a jury and the referendum was not a trial. Nor is there any compelling fresh evidence.
Listening to the latest Brexit rundown on PM, I realise that we are surely heading for political meltdown and a general election.
I have said before on here that a GE will be needed to try and sort this mess out. It is our system's escape valve.
Still green on a 2019. Red on all else.
I'm the exact reverse (and comfortable with that). Britain is nowhere near the low point of incoherence before a general election is inevitable. It's not going to be pretty though.
The irresistible force (the Soft Brexit majority in parliament) is (and has always been) on a collision course with the immovable object (TMay). May has been a master of delaying the inevitable, but the day is now almost upon us, and I'm struggling to see a way out. If we assume that the meaningful vote fails again, and that she refuses to extend or revoke A50, what will happen? (Bear in mind that there will be a massive Tory rebellion against leaving without a deal, which I assume will be successful in some way.) I'd be interested to hear people's theories.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.
😂😂
😇
That is a fabulous comment and can be applied to quite a lot of subjects discussed on here. Top marks
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.
Yeah but someone on here googled Bangladeshi nationality law.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
What do you make of the two elections of 1974?
The result of the first vote was enacted with the elected MPs being returned to Parliament.
The party that won the most votes in Feb 1974 didn't see their mandate enacted.
No on voted for a party. They voted for individual MPs. Shame I have to teach you the basics of democracy.
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.
Mr. B, hmm. They're 2.87 for the Constructors' title, or you can back Leclerc at 7.5 (fifth the odds top 3).
....
Betfair exchange has Ferrari around 3.2, and Merc around 1.7. To my mind their odds ought to be considerably closer.
And their engine boffins have an advantage on data. Laps driven during the test by the various engines: Ferrari: 1489 Honda: 957 Mercedes: 946 Renault: 878
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.
They do and they are ignored.
Traditionally if they win a no confidence vote in parliament, then an election happens.
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.
Very droll!
Though I spoke without certainty or authoritatively and inserted a 'weasel word' in my sentence. I said the law 'seems to be clear', rather than that it is clear. Of course what seems to be be clear and what isn't is as you must know an issue best settled in the courts which is where this case will likely end up.
However my secondary point with the questions at the end is questioning whether the issue is her citizenship (which the courts can settle), or whether there is an issue regardless of citizenship - as Mr Tyndall replied.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
What do you make of the two elections of 1974?
The result of the first vote was enacted with the elected MPs being returned to Parliament.
The party that won the most votes in Feb 1974 didn't see their mandate enacted.
No on voted for a party. They voted for individual MPs. Shame I have to teach you the basics of democracy.
So by your logic we can ignore manifestos.
Everyone does. It was in Soubry's election literature that she would support Brexit. She lied. It is what politicians do.
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
Would he prefer Flailing ?
Flailing Grayling is the person depicted on the House Boulton sigil....
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it. Similarly with a referendum.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.
Then one presumes you would never have asked the question in the first place.
I seem to recall something like 80% of MPs voted in favour of the referendum, only the SNP and Ken Clarke rejecting it in principle. as a result I have no principled objection to Ken Clarke and the SNP then saying they wish to reject the referendum (though I'm curious how the SNP would react if we said we'd reject a Yes vote). Anyone who voted for the referendum then seeks to reverse it without implementing it first is a fraud though.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.
They do and they are ignored.
Traditionally if they win a no confidence vote in parliament, then an election happens.
And that is always after the MPs have been allowed to take their seats, thus fulfilling the remit of the election. What you want is to stop them being able to take their seats in the first place and just set aside the result of the election completely.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.
😂😂
😇
That is a fabulous comment and can be applied to quite a lot of subjects discussed on here. Top marks
Naturally you are referring to my comment rather than @dougseal
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.
And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.
If you can't enact the results of a referendum the next morning then don't have them. Otherwise expect chaos.
Should the government:
- Ratify the withdrawal agreement negotiated with the European Union? - Revoke notification under Article 50 and remain a member of the European Union?
Immediately actionable. No chaos, and a clear mandate for whatever happens as the next step.
Ratify: As we decide. Revoking: I think that would be fine IF you wanted to say that it was an 'improper' referendum.
The limbo land beyond the above choices is just where we are.
Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).
Comments
At present, the main policy of the Conservative party is to deliver the biggest change to the status quo - leaving the European Union - that we have seen since Mrs T.
And we have a Labour party that if elected could be more radical in power than any since Attlee.
So where on earth does this leave the millions of people in this country who wish to trundle on pretty much as we are, who wish to have a government that just keeps the show on the road, doesn't do stupid things, doesn't take big risks, doesn't chase unicorns, doesn't feel it has to be throwing its weight around the whole time?
Stuffed, that's where. Hence IMO the potential mass appeal of the IG if things go their way, if they get a bit of luck in running, if they get a charismatic leader and some good recruits.
10/1 to win the next election though? No, I'm not quite having that!
That is like saying that the day after a GE we should overturn the result because we don't like the fact we have a hung Parliament.
Well, the next book's out in a month or two, and the next shortly thereafter, but that's not quite in your time frame.
Have you read John Julius Norwich's Byzantium trilogy? Or Musashi, by Eiji Yoshikawa?
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
Asking people whether they are happy with the detail of a proposition that was initially vague is both sensible and democratic. And the way that many other countries deal with potentially significant changes. We shouldn't be held victim to Cameron's hubris.
Pushing ahead with a change that none of us had seen the detail or implications of in advance, let alone had the chance to vote for, is both dumb and anti-democratic.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.com/2018/06/review-musashi-by-eiji-yoshikawa.html
There's a huge opportunity in the middle ground. Labour have marched off into a Marxist wonderland, and the Tories have deployed personnel unfit for sweet-shop duties.
The Tiggers can simply march in. However the Tiggers themselves a a rum bunch. There's no evidence at all that they aren't just the outcasts of the other failing parties.
It has to boil down to economic policy.
Labour either don't have one, or are committed to an Orwellian state of incomprehensible poverty. Hard to tell.
The Tories should be fine. The Tories are born with competance. And then from stage left the ghastly figure of Gavin Williamson emerges.
The LDs - pointless.
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
Besides, very few MPs have done any listening or thinking (on either side). They have just sat there with their preconceived ideas of good and bad and refused to engage in a process of enacting the referendum result.
"We don’t look back we look forward, it’s a very good relationship (with Honda), the concern was reliability. From what I saw yesterday on the circuit Ferrari, for sure, are the fastest car,. Behind is Red Bull and Mercedes so let’s see what we can do in Melbourne we are optimistic we can win races from their own strengths, like Monte Carlo and Singapore....
Other motorsport commentators concur.
Mercedes are still overwhelming betting favourites, so there is a trading opportunity, I think.
Still green on a 2019. Red on all else.
Would he prefer Flailing ?
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Going ahead with a massive change and then undoing it all a few years later and ending with worse terms, just to satisfy your purism, would be idiotic.
But even if it were the case, it would only be so because the Remain side have had a further 28 months to hum and haw about what a disaster it will be, without enacting the result. Hardly a fair way to decide anything, especially something already decided.
My Nap of the day BTW - lay 29/3 No Deal.
The market has it as a 25% chance, I have it as close to zero.
Mr. 64, I'd say so. Musashi, from what I gather (not very up on Japanese history) is something of a cult figure, and very famous.
The vote must be enacted.
My personal view is that you shouldn't ever interrupt that enactment. I also think that anyone that suggests a vote on something that can't be swiftly enacted shouldn't suggest such stuff.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/21/no-deal-brexit-could-cause-staff-shortages-and-passenger-delays-warns-train-operator
I've started writing a thread on AV.
ii) You really need to find something to do for the next 6 weeks....
Tres bien.
Well as I have often thought to myself, if everybody only opined on something when they had the first clue what they were talking about, there would be a kind of hush all over the world.
Prior to the punishment being inflicted, however, new evidence comes to light that casts doubt on the original conviction. Do we carry out the sentence nonetheless? Or do we present the fresh evidence back to the jury at a retrial prior to the sentence being carried out? I would suggest the latter is the sensible course of action.
😇
Indeed if we Brexit with the Remainers Deal available then "nothing will change" during transition. So the referendum could be honoured and then seek a reversal during transition. But to stymie the process now, no its dishonourable.
If you can't enact the results of a referendum the next morning then don't have them. Otherwise expect chaos.
However, suppose we have a second referendum and vote to Remain. The lesson will be learnt that any pro-EU vote counts permanently, and if the electorate gets it 'wrong' their desire will be frustrated, wittingly or not, until they change their mind.
Teaching the electorate their opinion will only be taken forward if it agrees with the political class is a dangerous thing.
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, everyone.
- Ratify the withdrawal agreement negotiated with the European Union?
- Revoke notification under Article 50 and remain a member of the European Union?
Immediately actionable. No chaos, and a clear mandate for whatever happens as the next step.
We're tired of experts etc etc.
To my mind their odds ought to be considerably closer.
And their engine boffins have an advantage on data.
Laps driven during the test by the various engines:
Ferrari: 1489
Honda: 957
Mercedes: 946
Renault: 878
Though I spoke without certainty or authoritatively and inserted a 'weasel word' in my sentence. I said the law 'seems to be clear', rather than that it is clear. Of course what seems to be be clear and what isn't is as you must know an issue best settled in the courts which is where this case will likely end up.
However my secondary point with the questions at the end is questioning whether the issue is her citizenship (which the courts can settle), or whether there is an issue regardless of citizenship - as Mr Tyndall replied.
Similarly with a referendum.
I seem to recall something like 80% of MPs voted in favour of the referendum, only the SNP and Ken Clarke rejecting it in principle. as a result I have no principled objection to Ken Clarke and the SNP then saying they wish to reject the referendum (though I'm curious how the SNP would react if we said we'd reject a Yes vote). Anyone who voted for the referendum then seeks to reverse it without implementing it first is a fraud though.
Revoking: I think that would be fine IF you wanted to say that it was an 'improper' referendum.
The limbo land beyond the above choices is just where we are.
Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).