politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rendering unto Caesar

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rendering unto Caesar

Picture credit: Rights Info

Read the full story here

Nigelb

This is why we love you, Cyclefree.

Great article.

dixiedean

First.

Nigel_Foremain

OOh, hello am I first, or is it a glitch?

dixiedean

And absolutely spot on Ms Cyclefree.

kle4

logical_song said:

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1108769593735168002

Who gives a f what date they agree. The WA aint passing next week.

OK, so TMay resigns and her Deal is dust. That might make it easier to break the logjam.

Hopefully. I cannot quite believe even now that the problem is that MPs don't really think now is the crunch moment.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1108766076412850179

nico67 said:

If you’re a Labour MP in a leave area worried about no deal but you don’t want to vote for the deal then doesn’t the current impasse give you the chance to support the Kyle/Wilson amendment .

You stop no deal and ask for the public to ratify the deal .

You'd hope so. But I must say I am not quite buying that they really are worried - they'd have been more amenable to the deal before now if that were so. I think they are worried at not being seen to worry about no deal, so it cannot be counted on that they will take appropriate measures, whatever those may be, to stop it. They too are just interested in the blame game.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1108748114410856449?s=20

HYUFD

Kazakhstan 3 Scotland 0 Looks like the all conquering independent Scotland Nats are hoping for will need a bit if work

kle4

But let’s be blunt. These parents – and Orthodox Jewish and other Christian parents – are not really bothered about the age at which this is taught or about how it is taught. They don’t want it taught at all, let alone by a gay teacher, because they believe that their religion should trump all other considerations

An important point, because they have tried to suggest otherwise, even as they then confirm opposition is about believing it incompatible with their faith.

Making rights dependant on group identity devolves power to self-appointed community leaders, usually male, and in a capricious way, often with actual violence (or the threat of it). It means that there are hierarchies of British citizens: those able to exercise all their rights and those whose rights are subordinate to the group they belong to, without them having any say in whether they want this to happen.

Insidious stuff.

A very powerful conclusion from Cyclefree. I'm biased because I agree with it, but it is still a stirring and compelling article, and I hope some courage is shown.

kle4

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1108748114410856449?s=20

The public really are a bunch of trolls.

Floater

https://order-order.com/2019/03/21/eu-draft-conclusions-approve-brexit-extension-22nd-may-longer-extension-rejected/

kle4

numbertwelve said:

eek said:

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108778845962989568

For the last time for those at the back.

There is a deal on the table. We could pass it tomorrow and all of this would go away. It is not perfect but it is better than no deal.

I am becoming absolutely livid at MPs not just holding their nose and voting for it. Although May has been a gigantic prat and has handled this atrociously, MPs will share a tremendous amount of the responsibility if they precipitate a no deal Brexit.

That they do not like the options before them and think May a prat for making those the options is understandable, but that they've not yet decided on anything in favour or against definitively, rather makes their wailings lacking in persuasive ability. It's yet more displacement activity from making a hard choice, be it revoke, remove May or deal.

Floater

Well said Cyclefree

dyedwoolie

Religious types can be immensely dickish. All love is awesome and all should be taught

kle4

I don't know why I was surprised Ian Paisley Junior would say such a thing as is displayed. I mean, of course he would be one to say it.

SandyRentool

"determine their fertility" is an interesting choice of words. Others may prefer a different phrase.

eek

kle4 said:

numbertwelve said:

eek said:

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108778845962989568

For the last time for those at the back.

There is a deal on the table. We could pass it tomorrow and all of this would go away. It is not perfect but it is better than no deal.

I am becoming absolutely livid at MPs not just holding their nose and voting for it. Although May has been a gigantic prat and has handled this atrociously, MPs will share a tremendous amount of the responsibility if they precipitate a no deal Brexit.

That they do not like the options before them and think May a prat for making those the options is understandable, but that they've not yet decided on anything in favour or against definitively, rather makes their wailings lacking in persuasive ability. It's yet more displacement activity from making a hard choice, be it revoke, remove May or deal.

As I continually repeat - until an item is removed from the table 3 options exist. We need to remove (or have a majority for that option) to force a decision on the other 2 options.

Recidivist

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1108748114410856449?s=20

The public really are a bunch of trolls.

Very good!

dots

eek said:

kle4 said:

numbertwelve said:

eek said:

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108778845962989568

For the last time for those at the back.

There is a deal on the table. We could pass it tomorrow and all of this would go away. It is not perfect but it is better than no deal.

I am becoming absolutely livid at MPs not just holding their nose and voting for it. Although May has been a gigantic prat and has handled this atrociously, MPs will share a tremendous amount of the responsibility if they precipitate a no deal Brexit.

That they do not like the options before them and think May a prat for making those the options is understandable, but that they've not yet decided on anything in favour or against definitively, rather makes their wailings lacking in persuasive ability. It's yet more displacement activity from making a hard choice, be it revoke, remove May or deal.

As I continually repeat - until an item is removed from the table 3 options exist. We need to remove (or have a majority for that option) to force a decision on the other 2 options.

I am removing revoke.

It’s not a player.

There’s perfectly rational politics behind this government preferring no deal to revoke. This rationale removes revoke from the equation

The outcome sought by May and Gove is No deal saves the Tory party, revoke causes it problems (some things are being bigged up too much in this situation, but, yes, existential problems). Especially if with No deal you can stich other people up at the same time...
The first component is nobody has convincingly explained why no deal is preferable to the WA. What is labours argument with WA that makes it worse than no deal? They Don’t have one. They are operating on the basis they can get some unicorn different from both WA and No Deal. That is the fantasy their actions in the commons are based on. So there are your patsy’s to take the hit for everything that goes wrong with a no deal the government didn’t want but opposition created for the nation. (OGH ran a header on this today, so easy to close your eyes and see the media barrage shredding labour)
The second component is No Deal delivers Brexit. Huge portions of both public and Tory Members want Brexit delivered, and aren’t afraid of No Deal. In contrast what happens if the Government goes for revoke or even long delay?

Unless there is a change of government between now and 29th, there is no revoke option.

Stark_Dawning

Do all males have a right to keep their foreskins? Is to assert that they do antisemitic?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/02/28/stop-this-moral-crusade-against-circumcision/

Cyclefree

SandyRentool said:

"determine their fertility" is an interesting choice of words. Others may prefer a different phrase.

I meant nothing odd about it - merely that women should be able choose whether or not they have children.

AlastairMeeks

I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?

Floater

dyedwoolie said:

Religious types can be immensely dickish. All love is awesome and all should be taught

I was shocked once when having lunch with a Baptist lay preacher.

He was not a fan of Islam it has to be said but agreed with parts of their stance on gays........

Mind you he did say he didn't advocate the death penalty.

We no longer lunch..............

Floater

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?

So, about 2035 then?

ExiledInScotland

Spot On.

I would add the perception that the religious views of some communities are effectively supported ahead of others to avoid being accused of racism. We need a level playing field for all religions. That is not racism, it is equality. Which should be our overarching priority.

OnlyLivingBoy

Agreed 100%, great article. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable about this debate (not the article itself) is when it is shoehorned into a wider clash-of-civilisations type argument that argues that the Western enlightenment is under threat from backwards immigrants and their descendents. It is of course a more nuanced situation than that (who upholds rights of sexual minorities best - Sadiq Khan or Andrea Leadsom?) It's worth remembering that gay people won the right to marry in my children's lifetimes; Section 28 was introduced in my lifetime; and homosexuality was legalised here only in my parents' lifetime. Despite our supposed enlightenment, these fundamental rights have shallow roots here, all the more reason to nurture them.

kle4

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?

In all seriousness there are quite a few things that could do with a serious looking at. Problem is they are never enough of a problem to cause us to look at them. Brexit is an exception, and we're hardly dealing with it well of course.

dyedwoolie

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?

The queens position does make things quite difficult in multiculttural uk, certainly equal footing constitutionally for Islam, Judaism etc would help. Get the bishops out of the Lords etc

IanB2

dots said:

eek said:

kle4 said:

numbertwelve said:

eek said:

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108778845962989568

For the last time for those at the back.

There is a deal on the table. We could pass it tomorrow and all of this would go away. It is not perfect but it is better than no deal.

I am becoming absolutely livid at MPs not just holding their nose and voting for it. Although May has been a gigantic prat and has handled this atrociously, MPs will share a tremendous amount of the responsibility if they precipitate a no deal Brexit.

That they do not like the options before them and think May a prat for making those the options is understandable, but that they've not yet decided on anything in favour or against definitively, rather makes their wailings lacking in persuasive ability. It's yet more displacement activity from making a hard choice, be it revoke, remove May or deal.

As I continually repeat - until an item is removed from the table 3 options exist. We need to remove (or have a majority for that option) to force a decision on the other 2 options.

I am removing revoke.

It’s not a player.

There’s perfectly rational politics behind this government preferring no deal to revoke. This rationale removes revoke from the equation

The outcome sought by May and Gove is No deal saves the Tory party, revoke causes it problems (some things are being bigged up too much in this situation, but, yes, existential problems). Especially if with No deal you can stich other people up at the same time...
The first component is nobody has convincingly explained why no deal is preferable to the WA. What is labours argument with WA that makes it worse than no deal? They Don’t have one. They are operating on the basis they can get some unicorn different from both WA and No Deal. That is the fantasy their actions in the commons are based on. So there are your patsy’s to take the hit for everything that goes wrong with a no deal the government didn’t want but opposition created for the nation. (OGH ran a header on this today, so easy to close your eyes and see the media barrage shredding labour)
The second component is No Deal delivers Brexit. Huge portions of both public and Tory Members want Brexit delivered, and aren’t afraid of No Deal. In contrast what happens if the Government goes for revoke or even long delay?

Unless there is a change of government between now and 29th, there is no revoke option.

Lol @ "no deal saves the Tory party" !

Floater

Stark_Dawning said:

Do all males have a right to keep their foreskins? Is to assert that they do antisemitic?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/02/28/stop-this-moral-crusade-against-circumcision/

For some strange reason that reminded me about a surreal conversation I had with a taxi driver.

A muslim chap - and I still have no idea how the subject came up but he led into it whilst talking about how different sects of Islam basically hate each other .... anyway somehow this led him into him deciding to educate me about the islamic practice of removing all body hair.......

to much info :-)

kyf_100

An absolutely splendid post, Cyclefree. 100% spot on.

not_on_fire

dyedwoolie said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?

The queens position does make things quite difficult in multiculttural uk, certainly equal footing constitutionally for Islam, Judaism etc would help. Get the bishops out of the Lords etc

What about the ERG religion of Brexit unicorns?

Floater

IanB2 said:

dots said:

eek said:

kle4 said:

numbertwelve said:

eek said:

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108778845962989568

For the last time for those at the back.

There is a deal on the table. We could pass it tomorrow and all of this would go away. It is not perfect but it is better than no deal.

I am becoming absolutely livid at MPs not just holding their nose and voting for it. Although May has been a gigantic prat and has handled this atrociously, MPs will share a tremendous amount of the responsibility if they precipitate a no deal Brexit.

That they do not like the options before them and think May a prat for making those the options is understandable, but that they've not yet decided on anything in favour or against definitively, rather makes their wailings lacking in persuasive ability. It's yet more displacement activity from making a hard choice, be it revoke, remove May or deal.

As I continually repeat - until an item is removed from the table 3 options exist. We need to remove (or have a majority for that option) to force a decision on the other 2 options.

I am removing revoke.

It’s not a player.

There’s perfectly rational politics behind this government preferring no deal to revoke. This rationale removes revoke from the equation

The outcome sought by May and Gove is No deal saves the Tory party, revoke causes it problems (some things are being bigged up too much in this situation, but, yes, existential problems). Especially if with No deal you can stich other people up at the same time...
The first component is nobody has convincingly explained why no deal is preferable to the WA. What is labours argument with WA that makes it worse than no deal? They Don’t have one. They are operating on the basis they can get some unicorn different from both WA and No Deal. That is the fantasy their actions in the commons are based on. So there are your patsy’s to take the hit for everything that goes wrong with a no deal the government didn’t want but opposition created for the nation. (OGH ran a header on this today, so easy to close your eyes and see the media barrage shredding labour)
The second component is No Deal delivers Brexit. Huge portions of both public and Tory Members want Brexit delivered, and aren’t afraid of No Deal. In contrast what happens if the Government goes for revoke or even long delay?

Unless there is a change of government between now and 29th, there is no revoke option.

Lol @ "no deal saves the Tory party" !

I would put it differently - revoke destroys the tory party.

SandyRentool

Cyclefree said:

SandyRentool said:

"determine their fertility" is an interesting choice of words. Others may prefer a different phrase.

I meant nothing odd about it - merely that women should be able choose whether or not they have children.

If a woman in the UK becomes pregnant, then under the existing law she does not have that right.

IanB2

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1108748114410856449?s=20

Good to see support for the two guilty parties back below 75%

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Woolie, that'd increase the influence of religion over a society that is largely atheist and agnostic (or Christian in name only).

AlastairMeeks

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?

In all seriousness there are quite a few things that could do with a serious looking at. Problem is they are never enough of a problem to cause us to look at them. Brexit is an exception, and we're hardly dealing with it well of course.

On so many of these questions the best answer is Lord Irvine of Lairg's answer to the West Lothian Question.

dyedwoolie

Floater said:

dyedwoolie said:

Religious types can be immensely dickish. All love is awesome and all should be taught

I was shocked once when having lunch with a Baptist lay preacher.

He was not a fan of Islam it has to be said but agreed with parts of their stance on gays........

Mind you he did say he didn't advocate the death penalty.

We no longer lunch..............

Its tricky. Whilst I hate the stance taken on some issues, LGBTQ especially, I think more inclusiveness in terms of society might help break down the entrenched religious positions. Take the example of the hijab. I hate its forced wearing but I'd be delighted if society were free to choose and it spread beyond the Muslim community, that would desensitize it as a flashpoint. I think anyway

dyedwoolie

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Woolie, that'd increase the influence of religion over a society that is largely atheist and agnostic (or Christian in name only).

Perhaps but the influence is there anyway, bring it in tent

kle4

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?

In all seriousness there are quite a few things that could do with a serious looking at. Problem is they are never enough of a problem to cause us to look at them. Brexit is an exception, and we're hardly dealing with it well of course.

On so many of these questions the best answer is Lord Irvine of Lairg's answer to the West Lothian Question.

Has worked for most, and been proven correct on Brexit.

dyedwoolie

not_on_fire said:

dyedwoolie said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't feel we've had enough constitutional tinkering recently. A full separation of the church and the state is overdue. Perhaps something to look at once Brexit is uncontroversial?

The queens position does make things quite difficult in multiculttural uk, certainly equal footing constitutionally for Islam, Judaism etc would help. Get the bishops out of the Lords etc

What about the ERG religion of Brexit unicorns?

False gods not allowed to play

Richard_Tyndall

Brilliant article and agree with every word.

One question to The House as I don't know the legal position. Since the governance of NI has been temporarily returned to Westminster because of the stalemate at Stormont could Parliament not legislate right now to sweep away the bigotry laws in NI?

Chris

Floater said:

dyedwoolie said:

Religious types can be immensely dickish. All love is awesome and all should be taught

I was shocked once when having lunch with a Baptist lay preacher.

He was not a fan of Islam it has to be said but agreed with parts of their stance on gays........

Mind you he did say he didn't advocate the death penalty. ...

Not a bible-believing Christian, then?

CarlottaVance

Excellent post! Agree completely - and I wish MPs could spare some time to stop this in its tracks and reverse it before spreads too far:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/19/fresh-complaints-about-lgbt-lessons-at-greater-manchester-primary-schools

HYUFD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Woolie, that'd increase the influence of religion over a society that is largely atheist and agnostic (or Christian in name only).

The UK maybe, the world isn't, less than 10% of the global population are atheists and no more than a quarter are not religious. The higher the black and South Asian and Polish population with increased migration the more religion will have a place here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion

Morris_Dancer

Mr. HYUFD/Woolie, adding that influence to the legislature is nuts.

Anyway, I must be off. Bye, sinners.

kle4

Richard_Tyndall said:

Brilliant article and agree with every word.

One question to The House as I don't know the legal position. Since the governance of NI has been temporarily returned to Westminster because of the stalemate at Stormont could Parliament not legislate right now to sweep away the bigotry laws in NI?

Merely as a lay person I'd assume the answer was yes, one on the basis that power devolved from one body to another can usually be exercisable still, depending on the rules, by the delegating body, but also because I am sure there were several threats to do just that regarding abortion in NI from various sides.

GreenHeron

Fabulous post, Ms Cyclefree.

numbertwelve

We are not as a country psychologically prepared for no deal.

Contingency planning has largely, I think, been predicated on the fact that we’ll get a deal and life will move on.

There’s gonna be a hell of a lot of craziness if a week on Monday people are faced with the reality that the logistics networks in the country have ground to a halt.

rcs1000

A typically excellent piece from Ms Cyclefree.

I have friends who are very frum, and live in North London, and send their children to a hyper-orthodox state funded Jewish school. It's fair to say that said school does not teach homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle choice.

This is a really, really difficult area. How much do we allow the state to dictate what is and isn't acceptable behaviour? What about private schools? Etc etc.

CarlottaVance

It was “a mistake”:

https://news.sky.com/story/birmingham-pub-bombings-were-ira-operation-gone-badly-wrong-inquest-hears-11671729

eek

CarlottaVance said:

Excellent post! Agree completely - and I wish MPs could spare some time to stop this in its tracks and reverse it before spreads too far:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/19/fresh-complaints-about-lgbt-lessons-at-greater-manchester-primary-schools

I'm sure they would were there not more pressing issues and certain parties didn't have a need to pander to more sexist / homophobic / racist / insane demographics...

Cyclefree

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

SandyRentool said:

"determine their fertility" is an interesting choice of words. Others may prefer a different phrase.

I meant nothing odd about it - merely that women should be able choose whether or not they have children.

If a woman in the UK becomes pregnant, then under the existing law she does not have that right.

She does have the right - within certain limits - to have an abortion. In NI she does not, unless she can travel to the mainland. I think the law should be the same in NI as on the mainland.

To be clear, I could never have an abortion myself. I have never been in a position where I have had to consider it. When I was pregnant with my last child I had to have a test for Downs and I was a bit horrified at the assumption made by the hospital that, if the result were positive, I would have an abortion. The pregnancy was very much wanted. Fortunately, all was OK. I mention this because these are such personal and emotional decisions and at such a time what one needs is help, comfort and advice not sermons.

My view is that it should be safe, legal but rarer than it is, in an ideal world. But we are not in an ideal world and other women should have access to it and make their own decisions about their fertility.

kle4

numbertwelve said:

We are not as a country psychologically prepared for no deal.

Contingency planning has largely, I think, been predicated on the fact that we’ll get a deal and life will move on.

There’s gonna be a hell of a lot of craziness if a week on Monday people are faced with the reality that the logistics networks in the country have ground to a halt.

No doubt. Everyone is still busy chasing unicorns or pursuing options long since dead, with nothing but poetic words about how angry and sad they are. It's like they are standing on the tracks in the path of an incoming train, but too split on whether to jump to either side to actually do anything (while Mark Francois decides to leap foward and attempt to headbutt the train into submission).

Floater

eek said:

CarlottaVance said:

Excellent post! Agree completely - and I wish MPs could spare some time to stop this in its tracks and reverse it before spreads too far:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/19/fresh-complaints-about-lgbt-lessons-at-greater-manchester-primary-schools

I'm sure they would were there not more pressing issues and certain parties didn't have a need to pander to more sexist / homophobic / racist / insane demographics...

So, according to you leavers are sexist and homophobic as well as the usual charges laid against them?

Barnesian

Great article.

Reminds me of John Stuart Mills "On Liberty" - a must read for everyone.

IanB2

Government confirms the rate of signatures for the Revoke petition is the highest their site has ever seen.

kle4

Floater said:

eek said:

CarlottaVance said:

Excellent post! Agree completely - and I wish MPs could spare some time to stop this in its tracks and reverse it before spreads too far:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/19/fresh-complaints-about-lgbt-lessons-at-greater-manchester-primary-schools

I'm sure they would were there not more pressing issues and certain parties didn't have a need to pander to more sexist / homophobic / racist / insane demographics...

So, according to you leavers are sexist and homophobic as well as the usual charges laid against them?

I don't think he mean leavers on the second bit. But I will await correction.

Cyclefree

Nigelb said:

This is why we love you, Cyclefree.

Great article.

So I’m forgiven my coffee fundamentalism, then ....... ?

tlg86

@Cyclefree - a very powerful piece. For what it's worth, I do think there is an age appropriateness issue here, but it's clear that this goes way beyond that. Whilst I know you yourself are not guilty of this, we do have a big problem in that there are people in this country who love nothing more than to stick the knife into Christians (especially in NI) but won't do the same to other religions.

eek

Floater said:

eek said:

CarlottaVance said:

Excellent post! Agree completely - and I wish MPs could spare some time to stop this in its tracks and reverse it before spreads too far:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/19/fresh-complaints-about-lgbt-lessons-at-greater-manchester-primary-schools

I'm sure they would were there not more pressing issues and certain parties didn't have a need to pander to more sexist / homophobic / racist / insane demographics...

So, according to you leavers are sexist and homophobic as well as the usual charges laid against them?

What has leavers to do with the my comment? All those demographics relate to areas that parties either focus on or carefully avoid talking about to ensure their core vote still votes for them...

DougSeal

Richard_Tyndall said:

Brilliant article and agree with every word.

One question to The House as I don't know the legal position. Since the governance of NI has been temporarily returned to Westminster because of the stalemate at Stormont could Parliament not legislate right now to sweep away the bigotry laws in NI?

In theory yes. Parliament remains sovereign over the whole UK and it would merely take an amendment to the Abortion Act 1967
- specifically repealing section 7(3) and replacing it with a clause explicitly extending its territorial scope to Northern Ireland. Similarly any other piece of legislation could be extended to cover NI. However politically that would be very difficult because of the Sewel Convention -

"14. The United Kingdom Parliament retains authority to legislate on any issue, whether devolved or not. It is ultimately for Parliament to decide what use to make of that power. However, the UK Government will proceed in accordance with the convention that the UK Parliament would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters except with the agreement of the devolved legislature. The devolved administrations will be responsible for seeking such agreement as may be required for this purpose on an approach from the UK Government."

- Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Govt and the devolved administrations
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/316157/MoU_between_the_UK_and_the_Devolved_Administrations.pdf

Theuniondivvie

Floater said:

eek said:

CarlottaVance said:

Excellent post! Agree completely - and I wish MPs could spare some time to stop this in its tracks and reverse it before spreads too far:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/19/fresh-complaints-about-lgbt-lessons-at-greater-manchester-primary-schools

I'm sure they would were there not more pressing issues and certain parties didn't have a need to pander to more sexist / homophobic / racist / insane demographics...

So, according to you leavers are sexist and homophobic as well as the usual charges laid against them?

There's one lad named at the top of this piece who's definitely homophobic and a leaver that the Tories are pandering to (I can't judge his sexism, but I have my suspicions).

kle4

DougSeal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Brilliant article and agree with every word.

One question to The House as I don't know the legal position. Since the governance of NI has been temporarily returned to Westminster because of the stalemate at Stormont could Parliament not legislate right now to sweep away the bigotry laws in NI?

In theory yes. Parliament remains sovereign over the whole UK and it would merely take an amendment to the Abortion Act 1967 (specifically repealing section 7(3) and replacing it with a clause explicitly extending its territorial scope to Northern Ireland. However politically that would be very difficult because of the Sewel Convention -

"14. The United Kingdom Parliament retains authority to legislate on any issue, whether devolved or not. It is ultimately for Parliament to decide what use to make of that power. However, the UK Government will proceed in accordance with the convention that the UK Parliament would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters except with the agreement of the devolved legislature. The devolved administrations will be responsible for seeking such agreement as may be required for this purpose on an approach from the UK Government."

- Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Govt and the devolved administrations
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/316157/MoU_between_the_UK_and_the_Devolved_Administrations.pdf

Did the convention anticipate what to do if the devolved legislature is not in a position to agree or disagree?

SandyRentool

Cyclefree said:

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

SandyRentool said:

"determine their fertility" is an interesting choice of words. Others may prefer a different phrase.

I meant nothing odd about it - merely that women should be able choose whether or not they have children.

If a woman in the UK becomes pregnant, then under the existing law she does not have that right.

She does have the right - within certain limits - to have an abortion. In NI she does not, unless she can travel to the mainland. I think the law should be the same in NI as on the mainland.

To be clear, I could never have an abortion myself. I have never been in a position where I have had to consider it. When I was pregnant with my last child I had to have a test for Downs and I was a bit horrified at the assumption made by the hospital that, if the result were positive, I would have an abortion. The pregnancy was very much wanted. Fortunately, all was OK. I mention this because these are such personal and emotional decisions and at such a time what one needs is help, comfort and advice not sermons.

My view is that it should be safe, legal but rarer than it is, in an ideal world. But we are not in an ideal world and other women should have access to it and make their own decisions about their fertility.

Thanks for your thoughtful and personal response.

eek

Cyclefree said:

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

SandyRentool said:

"determine their fertility" is an interesting choice of words. Others may prefer a different phrase.

I meant nothing odd about it - merely that women should be able choose whether or not they have children.

If a woman in the UK becomes pregnant, then under the existing law she does not have that right.

She does have the right - within certain limits - to have an abortion. In NI she does not, unless she can travel to the mainland. I think the law should be the same in NI as on the mainland.

To be clear, I could never have an abortion myself. I have never been in a position where I have had to consider it. When I was pregnant with my last child I had to have a test for Downs and I was a bit horrified at the assumption made by the hospital that, if the result were positive, I would have an abortion. The pregnancy was very much wanted. Fortunately, all was OK. I mention this because these are such personal and emotional decisions and at such a time what one needs is help, comfort and advice not sermons.

My view is that it should be safe, legal but rarer than it is, in an ideal world. But we are not in an ideal world and other women should have access to it and make their own decisions about their fertility.

Today in Bulgaria is some Downs Syndrome support / ??? day. The hotel I'm in is very proud that they have 2 people with Downs Syndrome who work for them. And whilst I would not want to have a child with that Syndrome due to the work required (I know parents with such children) - I always find them an absolute joy to be with whenever I encounter them.,,,

Theuniondivvie

Good job no one in a position of responsibilty has been stoking things up.

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1108757367506767872

Cyclefree

rcs1000 said:

A typically excellent piece from Ms Cyclefree.

I have friends who are very frum, and live in North London, and send their children to a hyper-orthodox state funded Jewish school. It's fair to say that said school does not teach homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle choice.

This is a really, really difficult area. How much do we allow the state to dictate what is and isn't acceptable behaviour? What about private schools? Etc etc.

Three thoughts:-

1. Homosexuality is not a “lifestyle choice”. It is a fact of nature. That fact needs to be made clear.
2. All schools should have to teach the facts about sexuality - whether religious schools, private schools, academies, whatever. No exceptions.
3. The state is not dictating behaviour. It is setting out the facts - about sexuality, about the law. And it has an interest in ensuring that people are not taught or enabled to behave in a way which can lead to crimes. Think of it as an example of “nudge” theory.

rcs1000

tlg86 said:

@Cyclefree - a very powerful piece. For what it's worth, I do think there is an age appropriateness issue here, but it's clear that this goes way beyond that. Whilst I know you yourself are not guilty of this, we do have a big problem in that there are people in this country who love nothing more than to stick the knife into Christians (especially in NI) but won't do the same to other religions.

If you'd written...

Whilst I know you yourself are not guilty of this, we do have a big problem in that there are people in this country who love nothing more than to stick the knife into Muslims

or...

Whilst I know you yourself are not guilty of this, we do have a big problem in that there are people in this country who love nothing more than to stick the knife into Jews

Then your point would have been equally valid.

kyf_100

kle4 said:

numbertwelve said:

We are not as a country psychologically prepared for no deal.

Contingency planning has largely, I think, been predicated on the fact that we’ll get a deal and life will move on.

There’s gonna be a hell of a lot of craziness if a week on Monday people are faced with the reality that the logistics networks in the country have ground to a halt.

No doubt. Everyone is still busy chasing unicorns or pursuing options long since dead, with nothing but poetic words about how angry and sad they are. It's like they are standing on the tracks in the path of an incoming train, but too split on whether to jump to either side to actually do anything (while Mark Francois decides to leap foward and attempt to headbutt the train into submission).

Yup. I voted to leave, but I did not vote to leave with no deal. I voted in the expectation that our government would, if it were not able to negotiate an exit that kept some of the economic benefits of the EU while disentangling us from the political bullshit, it would still be able to negotiate a competent, timely and orderly exit. It has done no such thing.

I would take May's deal in a heartbeat. But if the only options available are to remain or to crash out with no deal, then remain is the only sensible option left. The country cannot be allowed to crash out to no deal. We are simply not prepared. Put another way, would you trust this government - who could not organise a piss up in a brewery - to have made adequate preparations for a no deal exit?

The sad thing is that leaving - via May's deal that disentangles us from most of the EU, if not all, but certainly from the nefarious political projects of the EU - is within reach. It's there.

But the extremists on both sides will not compromise. They will not be forgiven.

DougSeal

kle4 said:

DougSeal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Brilliant article and agree with every word.

One question to The House as I don't know the legal position. Since the governance of NI has been temporarily returned to Westminster because of the stalemate at Stormont could Parliament not legislate right now to sweep away the bigotry laws in NI?

In theory yes. Parliament remains sovereign over the whole UK and it would merely take an amendment to the Abortion Act 1967 (specifically repealing section 7(3) and replacing it with a clause explicitly extending its territorial scope to Northern Ireland. However politically that would be very difficult because of the Sewel Convention -

"14. The United Kingdom Parliament retains authority to legislate on any issue, whether devolved or not. It is ultimately for Parliament to decide what use to make of that power. However, the UK Government will proceed in accordance with the convention that the UK Parliament would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters except with the agreement of the devolved legislature. The devolved administrations will be responsible for seeking such agreement as may be required for this purpose on an approach from the UK Government."

- Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Govt and the devolved administrations
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/316157/MoU_between_the_UK_and_the_Devolved_Administrations.pdf

Did the convention anticipate what to do if the devolved legislature is not in a position to agree or disagree?

There is an assumption that Westminster would resume legislating directly but, again, at the moment politically it isn't really in much of a position to do so.

eek

Theuniondivvie said:

Good job no one in a position of responsibilty has been stoking things up.

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1108757367506767872

Would you really want to take a taxi after voting revoke / May's Deal...

TOPPING

Great article spot on shame it has to be spelled out.

rcs1000

Barnesian said:

Great article.

Reminds me of John Stuart Mills "On Liberty" - a must read for everyone.

So: are they free to teach their children what they want?

tlg86

rcs1000 said:

tlg86 said:

@Cyclefree - a very powerful piece. For what it's worth, I do think there is an age appropriateness issue here, but it's clear that this goes way beyond that. Whilst I know you yourself are not guilty of this, we do have a big problem in that there are people in this country who love nothing more than to stick the knife into Christians (especially in NI) but won't do the same to other religions.

If you'd written...

Whilst I know you yourself are not guilty of this, we do have a big problem in that there are people in this country who love nothing more than to stick the knife into Muslims

or...

Whilst I know you yourself are not guilty of this, we do have a big problem in that there are people in this country who love nothing more than to stick the knife into Jews

Then your point would have been equally valid.

Yep. You mentioned private schools earlier, would it be fair to say that this issue hasn't come up with Jews because there's a lot more private Jewish schools? I'm sure I saw something on London news regarding Jewish schools that weren't officially schools.

JosiasJessop

I seem to be joining a chorus (though with my voice I won't be thanked) of praise for this article. Thanks, Ms Free.

I would like to add one complicating factor, however: culture. Some things are *not* mainstays of a religion, and are in fact cultural: yet the proponents want to use religion as an excuse for a cultural practice. FGM is a good example, where it is practiced by some Christian groups (and even, in the past, some Jews), and views on it within Islam are mixed, to say the least.

Even the Burkha and Hajib can be seen as more of a cultural than a religious practice: although even there the boundaries are very blurred.

nico67

IanB2 said:

Government confirms the rate of signatures for the Revoke petition is the highest their site has ever seen.

Now running at over 2,000 a minute ! I can’t see it making much difference but it will be interesting to see how high it gets .

DavidL

@Cyclefree. Brilliant. I really could not agree more.

DavidL

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

This is why we love you, Cyclefree.

Great article.

So I’m forgiven my coffee fundamentalism, then ....... ?

Oh steady.

Barnesian

rcs1000 said:

Barnesian said:

Great article.

Reminds me of John Stuart Mills "On Liberty" - a must read for everyone.

So: are they free to teach their children what they want?

Yes indeed - as long as they allow their children to be exposed to other views as well.

He believes that societies thrive when diverse opinions are expressed, whether those opinions are right or wrong. Hearing diverse opinions strengthens your own views because you have to defend them rather than passively hold them, - and it may even cause you to change your views.

John Stuart Mill would really approve of politicalbetting.com for the reasons above.

Jonathan

Cyclefree. A dose of sense in mad world. Thanks for writing it.

eek

Once upon a time (3 weeks ago) this would have been an utterly implausible Sci-Fi / horror story https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1108740579771539456

dyedwoolie

No deal - horrible
Revoke - horrible for democracy without the cover of a referendum
Deal - the logical answer but seems doomed
So basically we are relying on the EU twiddling their thumbs for 1 or 2 years while Britain has a midlife crisis. Ain't gonna happen

Theuniondivvie

https://twitter.com/lloyd_rm/status/1108786423379972097

IanB2

Six local by elections tonight.

Thurrock: Independent (formerly UKIP) resignation - Inds are standing again but an interesting Lab v Con tussle here.
Basildon: Labour resignation - a straight Lab v Con contest; Labour looks favourite
Southend: Labour death - looks safe for Labour
Kensington: Labour resignation - safe Labour
Newcastle-u-Lyme: Labour resignation - safe Labour. Being contested by the 'SDP'
Durham: LibDem resignation - LibDem v Labour, LibDems look favourites

El_Capitano

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1108794048641466369

Ishmael_Z

eek said:

Once upon a time (3 weeks ago) this would have been an utterly implausible Sci-Fi / horror story https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1108740579771539456

She is determined to fly the plane into the mountain, and she has locked herself into the cockpit. The situation is in no way terrifying.

kyf_100

dyedwoolie said:

No deal - horrible
Revoke - horrible for democracy without the cover of a referendum
Deal - the logical answer but seems doomed
So basically we are relying on the EU twiddling their thumbs for 1 or 2 years while Britain has a midlife crisis. Ain't gonna happen

No deal - unconscionable.

Deal - Clearly, the sane option. Repeatedly rejected.

Revoke - works, but has to be simultaneously accompanied by a combination of a) May's resignation, b) a second referendum (deal or no deal, but we have to revoke to do it on our timeframe rather than the EU's) or c) a general election ("let the next lot sort it out, but also judge us for our decision to revoke")

dyedwoolie

Re private schools. At mine homosexuality was taught by experiment given the absence of girls. Those raging hormones needed dealing with. This assisted place poor lad found it all a bit intense

IanB2

nico67 said:

IanB2 said:

Government confirms the rate of signatures for the Revoke petition is the highest their site has ever seen.

Now running at over 2,000 a minute ! I can’t see it making much difference but it will be interesting to see how high it gets .

Just passed 1 1/4 million

dyedwoolie

kyf_100 said:

dyedwoolie said:

No deal - horrible
Revoke - horrible for democracy without the cover of a referendum
Deal - the logical answer but seems doomed
So basically we are relying on the EU twiddling their thumbs for 1 or 2 years while Britain has a midlife crisis. Ain't gonna happen

No deal - unconscionable.

Deal - Clearly, the sane option. Repeatedly rejected.

Revoke - works, but has to be simultaneously accompanied by a combination of a) May's resignation, b) a second referendum (deal or no deal, but we have to revoke to do it on our timeframe rather than the EU's) or c) a general election ("let the next lot sort it out, but also judge us for our decision to revoke")

And we have euro elections where Brexit parties sweep up, EU considers evicting us

AndyJS

https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1108780861917401088?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1108780861917401088&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47614151

Jonathan

Deal - bad
No Deal - mad
Extension - sad
Referendum - glad

Danny565

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/lloyd_rm/status/1108786423379972097

No doubt PB commentators will soon be telling us that, although any abuse that Tory MPs get is always the fault of Corbyn/Labour, abuse towards Labour MPs cannot possibly be May's fault.

Philip_Thompson

AndyJS said:

https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1108780861917401088?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1108780861917401088&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47614151

No doubt that MP was one who decided to give her confidence after she pulled the plug on the December vote last year. Zero sympathy for him.

The writing was on the wall then. MPs who kept her then but complain now are pathetic. Nothing has changed.

eek

dyedwoolie said:

kyf_100 said:

dyedwoolie said:

No deal - horrible
Revoke - horrible for democracy without the cover of a referendum
Deal - the logical answer but seems doomed
So basically we are relying on the EU twiddling their thumbs for 1 or 2 years while Britain has a midlife crisis. Ain't gonna happen

No deal - unconscionable.

Deal - Clearly, the sane option. Repeatedly rejected.

Revoke - works, but has to be simultaneously accompanied by a combination of a) May's resignation, b) a second referendum (deal or no deal, but we have to revoke to do it on our timeframe rather than the EU's) or c) a general election ("let the next lot sort it out, but also judge us for our decision to revoke")

And we have euro elections where Brexit parties sweep up, EU considers evicting us

Which is fine - but given where we currently are:
a) deal repeatedly rejected
b) no-one prepared for No deal
c) no chance of a long extension

Revoke is the sane option.

And as I said before chances are TIG or some other pro-EU group will win enough votes to be the biggest UK party...

AnotherEngineer

IanB2 said:

nico67 said:

IanB2 said:

Government confirms the rate of signatures for the Revoke petition is the highest their site has ever seen.

Now running at over 2,000 a minute ! I can’t see it making much difference but it will be interesting to see how high it gets .

Just passed 1 1/4 million

Whilst I have no doubt that real people are signing this, please bear in mind that ALL online petitions are gameable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=205&v=gkZGPCBlA6U

MarqueeMark

Cyclefree said:

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

SandyRentool said:

"determine their fertility" is an interesting choice of words. Others may prefer a different phrase.

I meant nothing odd about it - merely that women should be able choose whether or not they have children.

If a woman in the UK becomes pregnant, then under the existing law she does not have that right.

She does have the right - within certain limits - to have an abortion. In NI she does not, unless she can travel to the mainland. I think the law should be the same in NI as on the mainland.

To be clear, I could never have an abortion myself. I have never been in a position where I have had to consider it. When I was pregnant with my last child I had to have a test for Downs and I was a bit horrified at the assumption made by the hospital that, if the result were positive, I would have an abortion. The pregnancy was very much wanted. Fortunately, all was OK. I mention this because these are such personal and emotional decisions and at such a time what one needs is help, comfort and advice not sermons.

My view is that it should be safe, legal but rarer than it is, in an ideal world. But we are not in an ideal world and other women should have access to it and make their own decisions about their fertility.

It is a huge decision to take a Downs baby to full term. I have known some who lived into their forties and held down a job. But then, two friends of mine (I was Best Man at their wedding) decided not to terminate a Downs baby. She lived for just two years, spent most of that time in and out of hospital having numerous operations - and the pressures of it all split them up shortly after she died. I could certainly never argue against anybody who did decide to terminate. Especially so if there are other children to consider.

dyedwoolie

eek said:

dyedwoolie said:

kyf_100 said:

dyedwoolie said:

No deal - horrible
Revoke - horrible for democracy without the cover of a referendum
Deal - the logical answer but seems doomed
So basically we are relying on the EU twiddling their thumbs for 1 or 2 years while Britain has a midlife crisis. Ain't gonna happen

No deal - unconscionable.

Deal - Clearly, the sane option. Repeatedly rejected.

Revoke - works, but has to be simultaneously accompanied by a combination of a) May's resignation, b) a second referendum (deal or no deal, but we have to revoke to do it on our timeframe rather than the EU's) or c) a general election ("let the next lot sort it out, but also judge us for our decision to revoke")

And we have euro elections where Brexit parties sweep up, EU considers evicting us

Which is fine - but given where we currently are:
a) deal repeatedly rejected
b) no-one prepared for No deal
c) no chance of a long extension

Revoke is the sane option.

And as I said before chances are TIG or some other pro-EU group will win enough votes to be the biggest UK party...

I think if we revoke the Tories split and probably labour too and we enter very uncertain times politically

Jonathan

dyedwoolie said:

eek said:

dyedwoolie said:

kyf_100 said:

dyedwoolie said:

No deal - horrible
Revoke - horrible for democracy without the cover of a referendum
Deal - the logical answer but seems doomed
So basically we are relying on the EU twiddling their thumbs for 1 or 2 years while Britain has a midlife crisis. Ain't gonna happen

No deal - unconscionable.

Deal - Clearly, the sane option. Repeatedly rejected.

Revoke - works, but has to be simultaneously accompanied by a combination of a) May's resignation, b) a second referendum (deal or no deal, but we have to revoke to do it on our timeframe rather than the EU's) or c) a general election ("let the next lot sort it out, but also judge us for our decision to revoke")

And we have euro elections where Brexit parties sweep up, EU considers evicting us

Which is fine - but given where we currently are:
a) deal repeatedly rejected
b) no-one prepared for No deal
c) no chance of a long extension

Revoke is the sane option.

And as I said before chances are TIG or some other pro-EU group will win enough votes to be the biggest UK party...

I think if we revoke the Tories split and probably labour too and we enter very uncertain times politically

Uncertainty is perhaps better than the current slow death march.

Barnesian

dyedwoolie said:

kyf_100 said:

dyedwoolie said:

No deal - horrible
Revoke - horrible for democracy without the cover of a referendum
Deal - the logical answer but seems doomed
So basically we are relying on the EU twiddling their thumbs for 1 or 2 years while Britain has a midlife crisis. Ain't gonna happen

No deal - unconscionable.

Deal - Clearly, the sane option. Repeatedly rejected.

Revoke - works, but has to be simultaneously accompanied by a combination of a) May's resignation, b) a second referendum (deal or no deal, but we have to revoke to do it on our timeframe rather than the EU's) or c) a general election ("let the next lot sort it out, but also judge us for our decision to revoke")

And we have euro elections where Brexit parties sweep up, EU considers evicting us

In 2014, the Brexit parties (UKIP and Tory) got 50% of the vote and 59% of the seats (43 out of 73).

In 2019, the Brexit parties won't get 50% of the vote.