The Tory party voted for the Iraq War. Who’s blamed for that?
Labour won the general election after the Iraq War broke out if I recall
Yes, on a massive 35.2% of the vote.
FPTP really sucks.
Tory percentage with Comres after No Deal 36% ie almost identical to Labour share after Iraq War, Labour got a majority over 60 in 2005
As said above, we don’t know the consequences of a no deal Brexit so this polling is even less than useless.
It isn't given those who dislike it will probably go LD who led opposition to Brexit not Corbyn Labour dividing the anti Tory opposition, much as those who disliked the Iraq War went LD as they did not want Howard as PM dividing the anti Labour opposition
I think this is largely correct. The one caveat I would make is that Labour got 40% of the vote just two and a bit years ago. The Tories did not get 40% in 2001, or anything close to it. To me that indicates there remains the possibility for widespread tactical voting to stop Johnson. Labour, however, is doing all it can to prevent this. See Rebecca Long Bailey's comments today, for example.
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
I will repeat this once again - the opposition is supposed to oppose it is not their job to allow the Government to get their policies through Parliament.
This is all a mistake of the ERG's making. Granted at the moment they have via Boris inherited the mess but I suspect that won't be the case for long.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
Precisely. As a true PB pedant, I simply pointed out a factual error. All I get in return is personal abuse.
Rob, next you will be telling me you are surprised
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
And your post makes my point perfectly.
It is all the conservatives fault and nothing to do with opposition parties when plainly Corbyn has only been interested in promoting discontent
We all need to concede mps across the HOC have collectively failed
See my point below - oppositions are paid to oppose - if May can't get her own side to support her deal why are YOU expecting anyone else to support it.
Boris is at least trying to force MPs to make a decision. I suspect they won't like it but at least a decision may finally be made...
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
I will repeat this once again - the opposition is supposed to oppose it is not their job to allow the Government to get their policies through Parliament.
This is all a mistake of the ERG's making. Granted at the moment they have via Boris inherited the mess but I suspect that won't be the case for long.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by MEPs at the European Parliament. Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by countries in the European Council.
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Children don't have the same rights as adults. All law abiding free adult citizens of this country got a vote in July 2016.
That's rather different to your original no-exceptions absolutist stance that "It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable." You don't have to be a citizen to be a member of a community. Neither do you have to be a legal adult - 17 year-olds are certainly members of a community.
Yet your stance suddenly does admit of exceptions.
The Tory party voted for the Iraq War. Who’s blamed for that?
Labour won the general election after the Iraq War broke out if I recall
Yes, on a massive 35.2% of the vote.
FPTP really sucks.
Tory percentage with Comres after No Deal 36% ie almost identical to Labour share after Iraq War, Labour got a majority over 60 in 2005
As said above, we don’t know the consequences of a no deal Brexit so this polling is even less than useless.
It isn't given those who dislike it will probably go LD who led opposition to Brexit not Corbyn Labour dividing the anti Tory opposition, much as those who disliked the Iraq War went LD as they did not want Howard as PM dividing the anti Labour opposition
I think this is largely correct. The one caveat I would make is that Labour got 40% of the vote just two and a bit years ago. The Tories did not get 40% in 2001, or anything close to it. To me that indicates there remains the possibility for widespread tactical voting to stop Johnson. Labour, however, is doing all it can to prevent this. See Rebecca Long Bailey's comments today, for example.
Tories got 42% in 2017 though and I cannot see LDs tactically voting for Corbyn Labour again
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by MEPs at the European Parliament. Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by countries in the European Council.
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Er, what? We should either cease all elections forever or agree to let all children, no matter how young, have a vote?
I'm sure you don't want either of those scenarios, but I'm struggling to come up with a a third option from your wording.
Don't ask me - I'm happy with the backstop. It's the Philip Thompson argument I'm struggling with.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by MEPs at the European Parliament. Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by countries in the European Council.
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Er, what? We should either cease all elections forever or agree to let all children, no matter how young, have a vote?
I'm sure you don't want either of those scenarios, but I'm struggling to come up with a a third option from your wording.
Don't ask me - I'm happy with the backstop. It's the Philip Thompson argument I'm struggling with.
All free adult citizens in a country should get a vote on its laws. What are you struggling with?
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
And your post makes my point perfectly.
It is all the conservatives fault and nothing to do with opposition parties when plainly Corbyn has only been interested in promoting discontent
We all need to concede mps across the HOC have collectively failed
See my point below - oppositions are paid to oppose - if May can't get her own side to support her deal why are YOU expecting anyone else to support it.
Boris is at least trying to force MPs to make a decision. I suspect they won't like it but at least a decision may finally be made...
In times of national crisis opposition for opposition sake is irresponsible
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
And your post makes my point perfectly.
It is all the conservatives fault and nothing to do with opposition parties when plainly Corbyn has only been interested in promoting discontent
We all need to concede mps across the HOC have collectively failed
When the history books are written, MPs across the Commons will undoubtedly get the some of the blame for the current fiasco and how it has played out. But that is not how elections work. Voters always hold the government responsible for the state the country is in when they go to the polls and they cast their votes accordingly.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by MEPs at the European Parliament. Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by countries in the European Council.
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Children don't have the same rights as adults. All law abiding free adult citizens of this country got a vote in July 2016.
That's rather different to your original no-exceptions absolutist stance that "It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable." You don't have to be a citizen to be a member of a community. Neither do you have to be a legal adult - 17 year-olds are certainly members of a community.
Yet your stance suddenly does admit of exceptions.
No it doesn't. It is universally accepted that children are not adults and don't have the same rights. Adult citizens is the universal standard for elections. We have the free bit which I'm OK with, not all countries do. Children not voting doesn't change the principle.
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
And your post makes my point perfectly.
It is all the conservatives fault and nothing to do with opposition parties when plainly Corbyn has only been interested in promoting discontent
We all need to concede mps across the HOC have collectively failed
When the history books are written, MPs across the Commons will undoubtedly get the some of the blame for the current fiasco and how it has played out. But that is not how elections work. Voters always hold the government responsible for the state the country is in when they go to the polls and they cast their votes accordingly.
Only if there is a credible opposition which there is not at the moment
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
And your post makes my point perfectly.
It is all the conservatives fault and nothing to do with opposition parties when plainly Corbyn has only been interested in promoting discontent
We all need to concede mps across the HOC have collectively failed
See my point below - oppositions are paid to oppose - if May can't get her own side to support her deal why are YOU expecting anyone else to support it.
Boris is at least trying to force MPs to make a decision. I suspect they won't like it but at least a decision may finally be made...
In times of national crisis opposition for opposition sake is irresponsible
So you want Labour to vote for a deal they never would have negotiated themselves, based on red lines they don't agree with because the Tory party isn't united in a time of national crisis.
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
I will repeat this once again - the opposition is supposed to oppose it is not their job to allow the Government to get their policies through Parliament.
This is all a mistake of the ERG's making. Granted at the moment they have via Boris inherited the mess but I suspect that won't be the case for long.
That is categorically not true.
Which part isn't true?
The opposition is not supposed to oppose for oppositions sake. It is not their job to stop the Government from getting its policies through Parliament.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
RLB confirming what we all already knew - that Labour won’t support anyone except Corbyn for PM following a vote of no confidence is the government.
So, any attempt at a GoNU is going to require more than 200 suicidal political lemmings floor crossers from the two largest parties.
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
I will repeat this once again - the opposition is supposed to oppose it is not their job to allow the Government to get their policies through Parliament.
This is all a mistake of the ERG's making. Granted at the moment they have via Boris inherited the mess but I suspect that won't be the case for long.
That is categorically not true.
Which part isn't true?
The opposition is not supposed to oppose for oppositions sake. It is not their job to stop the Government from getting its policies through Parliament.
It is their job to not vote for any act which they do not agree with. And that's what they did...
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
And your post makes my point perfectly.
It is all the conservatives fault and nothing to do with opposition parties when plainly Corbyn has only been interested in promoting discontent
We all need to concede mps across the HOC have collectively failed
See my point below - oppositions are paid to oppose - if May can't get her own side to support her deal why are YOU expecting anyone else to support it.
Boris is at least trying to force MPs to make a decision. I suspect they won't like it but at least a decision may finally be made...
In times of national crisis opposition for opposition sake is irresponsible
So you want Labour to vote for a deal they never would have negotiated themselves, based on red lines they don't agree with because the Tory party isn't united in a time of national crisis.
Would you care to try that again..
I want the Labour MPs to be responsible. The choice is a deal almost identical to the one they wanted, except its a temporary rather than permanent customs union - or No Deal which they claim is absolutely horrific.
Based on what they claim they want they should have taken the temporary customs union then sought to make it permanent. They didn't. No deal can't be that bad in their eyes.
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
I will repeat this once again - the opposition is supposed to oppose it is not their job to allow the Government to get their policies through Parliament.
This is all a mistake of the ERG's making. Granted at the moment they have via Boris inherited the mess but I suspect that won't be the case for long.
That is categorically not true.
Which part isn't true?
The opposition is not supposed to oppose for oppositions sake. It is not their job to stop the Government from getting its policies through Parliament.
It is their job to not vote for any act which they do not agree with. And that's what they did...
On the one hand we have an option they claim is basically apocalyptic.
On the other hand we have an option identical to what they wanted on a temporary basis.
They chose what they claim is an apocalypse over what they claim to want.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
RLB confirming what we all already knew - that Labour won’t support anyone except Corbyn for PM following a vote of no confidence is the government.
So, any attempt at a GoNU is going to require more than 200 suicidal political lemmings floor crossers from the two largest parties.
I want the Labour MPs to be responsible. The choice is a deal almost identical to the one they wanted, except its a temporary rather than permanent customs union - or No Deal which they claim is absolutely horrific.
Based on what they claim they want they should have taken the temporary customs union then sought to make it permanent. They didn't. No deal can't be that bad in their eyes.
A labour MP voting for a deal that their constituents have said isn't good enough isn't an MP who is going to win the next election.
A lot of Labour Leave Constituency MPs purposefully went out prior to the MVs to gauge the opinion of their constituencies. That gave them the perfect cover to vote against the deal...
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
And your post makes my point perfectly.
It is all the conservatives fault and nothing to do with opposition parties when plainly Corbyn has only been interested in promoting discontent
We all need to concede mps across the HOC have collectively failed
See my point below - oppositions are paid to oppose - if May can't get her own side to support her deal why are YOU expecting anyone else to support it.
Boris is at least trying to force MPs to make a decision. I suspect they won't like it but at least a decision may finally be made...
In times of national crisis opposition for opposition sake is irresponsible
So you want Labour to vote for a deal they never would have negotiated themselves, based on red lines they don't agree with because the Tory party isn't united in a time of national crisis.
Would you care to try that again..
The Withdrawal Agreement only legally dealt with citizens rights, the exit bill and the Irish border, Labour agreed with that and could have voted for it to get the transition period.
The political declaration was not legally binding so Labour could still have voted for a Customs Union Deal and Single Market elements in the transition period
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
Although I agree that failing to stop No Deal would devastate Labour, Long-Bailey is also correct that a hijacking of Boris' Premiership by Parliament lets Mr Johnson off the hook. Mr Johnson owns Brexit, Mr Johnson should own 'No Deal'.
Because of Corbyn's abject failure to grasp the second referendum early on in proceedings I cannot see past 'No Deal', We are way past the point of a confirmatory vote or a revocation. Almost half the voting public see anything other than no deal as a sell-out. We must crash and burn and then work out how to pull ourselves from the wreckage.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
RLB confirming what we all already knew - that Labour won’t support anyone except Corbyn for PM following a vote of no confidence is the government.
So, any attempt at a GoNU is going to require more than 200 suicidal political lemmings floor crossers from the two largest parties.
I suppose it makes some kind of twisted sense. If you are in a Cult which venerates the Dear Leader, you aren't going to be psychologically capable of even considering putting Ken Clarke as PM for even a day.
You are subject to the laws of the US if you commit acts which violate any number of laws relating to commerce or computer misuse, even if you never set foot outside your own bedroom. In the UK.
You are subject to the laws of other countries if you sell products or services into those countries from the UK without ever setting foot in those countries.
In both cases, you are subject to laws without having any right to vote for the legislatures which imposed those laws.
Firstly US laws apply where US commerce or US websites etc exist. If you violate American laws because you hack an American website etc then yes you have violated their law. However that does not make it British law. You may be extradited however but that will be because you chose to break another nations law not ours - I would advise against hacking American websites.
Similarly if you trade with another nation then you are voluntarily entering into arrangements where the goods, services, conditions etc of what is setting foot in those countries is affected. That doesn't make it British law and it is your choice to freely enter that trade.
The backstop is not comparable to either.
It is an agreement freely entered into by a sovereign nation as part of a wider agreement and which will end once a long-term agreement replacing it is entered into by that sovereign nation.
The objections to the backstop - and indeed to the WA in general (and I am not just referring to you) - seem to be to the very idea of entering into any sort of agreement at all with the EU. It is most odd. I really don’t understand it. The backstop is a consequence of May’s red lines. Change those and the need for the backstop falls away.
Instead the British government’s position seems to be to keep the red lines, ask the other side to allow us to ignore the consequences of the choices we have made and, in addition, make a red line of a date imposed on us by the French.
Most bizarre.
Anyway I have to be off.
Bye.
I can not think of a single agreement this country is in where another nation or nations can change the laws unilaterally and we can not exit the agreement unilaterally. That is the problem.
If we were able to exit unilaterally that would be different, but we can't. We could exit the EU unilaterally, we retain the right to exit NATO and to exit the UN unilaterally, but we can't exit the backstop? I don't think so.
Boris can't call an election unilaterally though - which is what is going to make September such fun to watch.
I found out today I have a new job starting on Sept 1st. Was quite looking forward to following Parliament intently for a few days, but I guess the mortgage isn’t going to pay itself. Damn, gonna be long hours for the first few weeks too.
Boris can't call an election unilaterally though - which is what is going to make September such fun to watch.
I found out today I have a new job starting on Sept 1st. Was quite looking forward to following Parliament intently for a few days, but I guess the mortgage isn’t going to pay itself. Damn, gonna be long hours for the first few weeks too.
I suspect at the moment I'm finished in 2 weeks and will be taking some time off (I need it).
I'm concerned about popcorn intake so really will need to look at doing some exercise..
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by MEPs at the European Parliament. Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by countries in the European Council.
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Children don't have the same rights as adults. All law abiding free adult citizens of this country got a vote in July 2016.
That's rather different to your original no-exceptions absolutist stance that "It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable." You don't have to be a citizen to be a member of a community. Neither do you have to be a legal adult - 17 year-olds are certainly members of a community.
Yet your stance suddenly does admit of exceptions.
No it doesn't. It is universally accepted that children are not adults and don't have the same rights. Adult citizens is the universal standard for elections. We have the free bit which I'm OK with, not all countries do. Children not voting doesn't change the principle.
But there is no universal acceptance of when childhood ends and adulthood begins. Thus, the fundamental right becomes conditional.
It is all the conservatives fault and nothing to do with opposition parties when plainly Corbyn has only been interested in promoting discontent
We all need to concede mps across the HOC have collectively failed
We have to concede for all her talk of wanting to unite the country May and now Johnson are actively and solely working for the interests and preservation of the Conservative Party.
May had the option, in July 2016, of appointing a cross-party negotiating team for A50 whose remit would be to obtain a mutually acceptable Deal. Including Labour, LD and non-party representatives would have made this a truly national enterprise and much harder to gainsay the outcome.
Yes, Corbyn would have doubtless found a reason to oppose but this or rather his Party's fingerprints would have been on the WA as would the LDs and others.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
Although I agree that failing to stop No Deal would devastate Labour, Long-Bailey is also correct that it lets Mr Johnson off the hook. Mr Johnson owns Brexit, Mr Johnson should own 'No Deal'.
Because of Corbyn's abject failure to grasp the second referendum early on in proceedings I cannot see past 'No Deal', We are way past the point of a confirmatory vote or a revocation. Almost half the voting public see anything other than no deal as a sell-out. We must crash and burn and then work out how to pull ourselves from the wreckage.
Not "letting Johnson off the hook" as she puts it, means wrecking the country to prove a point.
But, RLB has confirmed, I suspect, what many of us have been saying. The Seamus-Corbyn Strategy is to facilitate a chaotic No Deal and then be swept into power in the ensuing economic meltdown accompanied by the smoke from fields of burning lambs.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
And, from changes in Irish law due to come into force in October, Irish passport holders resident in the UK will be able to vote in Dail and Ireland European Parliament elections.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
All members of the community have the same rights, as long as they fulfil the conditions of being over eighteen, are out of prison, and have either inherited citizenship or applied for and received citizenship.
So there are no conditions, apart from the conditions that exist, but they are ones that you're used to and content with.
I personally agree - but I'm not the one who insists his stance is absolute and unconditional. There are conditions. There are always conditions, and a pure black and white answer is impossible in this ever-grey world.
The entire situation with the backstop is one of compromise. We get to fuzz the boundary in Northern Ireland - something essential to maintain peace there, regardless of what exact words there may or may not be in some document or another - and gain some of the benefits of the Single Market without the normal costs, but at the temporary cost of abiding with some restricted and limited trading legislation that we don't get a say in shaping - if an alternative is not found in time (thus the word "backstop". It's non-ideal, but it's not servitude, or slavery, or subjugation.
It's something neither side particularly want but can put up with - and that both sides would like to see overtaken by a future alternative. A compromise.
The absolutist and adversarial language being put around it, claims of loss of fundamental rights and vassalage, are bollocks and are really unhelpful to anyone. And they're going to cause real issues - either a No Deal Brexit (which will not be unicorns and rainbows, but will inevitably see some issues (even if we don't know exactly what they are) and our children permanently worse off than they otherwise would have been - or a loss of Brexit altogether, with the associated damage in trust to democracy.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
Although I agree that failing to stop No Deal would devastate Labour, Long-Bailey is also correct that it lets Mr Johnson off the hook. Mr Johnson owns Brexit, Mr Johnson should own 'No Deal'.
Because of Corbyn's abject failure to grasp the second referendum early on in proceedings I cannot see past 'No Deal', We are way past the point of a confirmatory vote or a revocation. Almost half the voting public see anything other than no deal as a sell-out. We must crash and burn and then work out how to pull ourselves from the wreckage.
Not "letting Johnson off the hook" as she puts it, means wrecking the country to prove a point.
But, RLB has confirmed, I suspect, what many of us have been saying. The Seamus-Corbyn Strategy is to facilitate a chaotic No Deal and then be swept into power in the ensuing economic meltdown accompanied by the smoke from fields of burning lambs.
Unfortunately yes but like the tories they will reap the wrath of what they have sowed.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
Actually possession of citizenship is mentioned in the UN Charter. I will highlight the relevant word.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
You get to vote in the government of your own country, not the government of other people's countries. Citizenship is what makes it your country.
As for being born there, that is insufficient since citizenship is not defined at birth. In fact from the charter.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Anybody who moves to NI, changes their nationality to make it their country, is denied the right to vote still.
You are subject to the laws of the US if you commit acts which violate any number of laws relating to commerce or computer misuse, even if you never set foot outside your own bedroom. In the UK.
You are subject to the laws of other countries if you sell products or services into those countries from the UK without ever setting foot in those countries.
In both cases, you are subject to laws without having any right to vote for the legislatures which imposed those laws.
Firstly US laws apply where US commerce or US websites etc exist. If you violate American laws because you hack an American website etc then yes you have violated their law. However that does not make it British law. You may be extradited however but that will be because you chose to break another nations law not ours - I would advise against hacking American websites.
Similarly if you trade with another nation then you are voluntarily entering into arrangements where the goods, services, conditions etc of what is setting foot in those countries is affected. That doesn't make it British law and it is your choice to freely enter that trade.
The backstop is not comparable to either.
It is an agreement freely entered into by a sovereign nation as part of a wider agreement and which will end once a long-term agreement replacing it is entered into by that sovereign nation.
The objections to the backstop - and indeed to the WA in general (and I am not just referring to you) - seem to be to the very idea of entering into any sort of agreement at all with the EU. It is most odd. I really don’t understand it. The backstop is a consequence of May’s red lines. Change those and the need for the backstop falls away.
Instead the British government’s position seems to be to keep the red lines, ask the other side to allow us to ignore the consequences of the choices we have made and, in addition, make a red line of a date imposed on us by the French.
Most bizarre.
Anyway I have to be off.
Bye.
I can not think of a single agreement this country is in where another nation or nations can change the laws unilaterally and we can not exit the agreement unilaterally. That is the problem.
If we were able to exit unilaterally that would be different, but we can't. We could exit the EU unilaterally, we retain the right to exit NATO and to exit the UN unilaterally, but we can't exit the backstop? I don't think so.
Did you propose to a European girl at some point, but get turned down?
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
All members of the community have the same rights, as long as they fulfil the conditions of being over eighteen, are out of prison, and have either inherited citizenship or applied for and received citizenship.
So there are no conditions, apart from the conditions that exist, but they are ones that you're used to and content with.
I personally agree - but I'm not the one who insists his stance is absolute and unconditional. There are conditions. There are always conditions, and a pure black and white answer is impossible in this ever-grey world.
The entire situation with the backstop is one of compromise. We get to fuzz the boundary in Northern Ireland - something essential to maintain peace there, regardless of what exact words there may or may not be in some document or another - and gain some of the benefits of the Single Market without the normal costs, but at the temporary cost of abiding with some restricted and limited trading legislation that we don't get a say in shaping - if an alternative is not found in time (thus the word "backstop". It's non-ideal, but it's not servitude, or slavery, or subjugation.
It's something neither side particularly want but can put up with - and that both sides would like to see overtaken by a future alternative. A compromise.
The absolutist and adversarial language being put around it, claims of loss of fundamental rights and vassalage, are bollocks and are really unhelpful to anyone. And they're going to cause real issues - either a No Deal Brexit (which will not be unicorns and rainbows, but will inevitably see some issues (even if we don't know exactly what they are) and our children permanently worse off than they otherwise would have been - or a loss of Brexit altogether, with the associated damage in trust to democracy.
These aren't conditions.
If you're not a citizen, this is not your country. The fundamental right is to vote "in his country". If you want to make this your country there is a method to do that.
If you're a child, you don't have an adults rights.
If you're a prisoner you've forfeit them.
None of those are relevant. Absolutely under no circumstances is it OK to deny a fundamental human right to a free adult citizen. Comparing free adult citizens to babies is pathetic whatabouterism.
Firstly US laws apply where US commerce or US websites etc exist. If you violate American laws because you hack an American website etc then yes you have violated their law. However that does not make it British law. You may be extradited however but that will be because you chose to break another nations law not ours - I would advise against hacking American websites.
Similarly if you trade with another nation then you are voluntarily entering into arrangements where the goods, services, conditions etc of what is setting foot in those countries is affected. That doesn't make it British law and it is your choice to freely enter that trade.
The backstop is not comparable to either.
It is an agreement freely entered into by a sovereign nation as part of a wider agreement and which will end once a long-term agreement replacing it is entered into by that sovereign nation.
The objections to the backstop - and indeed to the WA in general (and I am not just referring to you) - seem to be to the very idea of entering into any sort of agreement at all with the EU. It is most odd. I really don’t understand it. The backstop is a consequence of May’s red lines. Change those and the need for the backstop falls away.
Instead the British government’s position seems to be to keep the red lines, ask the other side to allow us to ignore the consequences of the choices we have made and, in addition, make a red line of a date imposed on us by the French.
Most bizarre.
Anyway I have to be off.
Bye.
I can not think of a single agreement this country is in where another nation or nations can change the laws unilaterally and we can not exit the agreement unilaterally. That is the problem.
If we were able to exit unilaterally that would be different, but we can't. We could exit the EU unilaterally, we retain the right to exit NATO and to exit the UN unilaterally, but we can't exit the backstop? I don't think so.
This puzzles me. It has long been stated that the backstop does not have an exit clause and so cannot be left legally. But neither the UN, EU (pre-Lisbon) nor the Geneva Conventions have an exit clause, and as the US has demonstrated by its unilateral abrogation of a nuclear deal treaty, an exit clause is not necessary. So I find it difficult to accept your axiom.
Firstly US laws apply where US commerce or US websites etc exist. If you violate American laws because you hack an American website etc then yes you have violated their law. However that does not make it British law. You may be extradited however but that will be because you chose to break another nations law not ours - I would advise against hacking American websites.
Similarly if you trade with another nation then you are voluntarily entering into arrangements where the goods, services, conditions etc of what is setting foot in those countries is affected. That doesn't make it British law and it is your choice to freely enter that trade.
The backstop is not comparable to either.
It is an agreement freely entered into by a sovereign nation as part of a wider agreement and which will end once a long-term agreement replacing it is entered into by that sovereign nation.
The objections to the backstop - and indeed to the WA in general (and I am not just referring to you) - seem to be to the very idea of entering into any sort of agreement at all with the EU. It is most odd. I really don’t understand it. The backstop is a consequence of May’s red lines. Change those and the need for the backstop falls away.
Instead the British government’s position seems to be to keep the red lines, ask the other side to allow us to ignore the consequences of the choices we have made and, in addition, make a red line of a date imposed on us by the French.
Most bizarre.
Anyway I have to be off.
Bye.
I can not think of a single agreement this country is in where another nation or nations can change the laws unilaterally and we can not exit the agreement unilaterally. That is the problem.
If we were able to exit unilaterally that would be different, but we can't. We could exit the EU unilaterally, we retain the right to exit NATO and to exit the UN unilaterally, but we can't exit the backstop? I don't think so.
Of course we bloody can. We just say "We're no longer in the backstop; the EU has not followed good faith"
What are they going to do? Invade us?
Yes, we'd have issues with getting a FTA with them, and others may look on us askance, but guess what: under No Deal, that's exactly where we'd be, anyway!
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
Actually possession of citizenship is mentioned in the UN Charter. I will highlight the relevant word.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
You get to vote in the government of your own country, not the government of other people's countries. Citizenship is what makes it your country.
As for being born there, that is insufficient since citizenship is not defined at birth. In fact from the charter.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Anybody who moves to NI, changes their nationality to make it their country, is denied the right to vote still.
As I say, no mention of citizenship. "His country" is an entirely nebulous term. If you have chosen to live in a country and you live there legally, why isn't it "your country"? Of course, when the Charter was written there was no such thing as British citizenship.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
And, from changes in Irish law due to come into force in October, Irish passport holders resident in the UK will be able to vote in Dail and Ireland European Parliament elections.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
All members of the community have the same rights, as long as they fulfil the conditions of being over eighteen, are out of prison, and have either inherited citizenship or applied for and received citizenship.
So there are no conditions, apart from the conditions that exist, but they are ones that you're used to and content with.
I personally agree - but I'm not the one who insists his stance is absolute and unconditional. There are conditions. There are always conditions, and a pure black and white answer is impossible in this ever-grey world.
The entire situation with the backstop is one of compromise. We get to fuzz the boundary in Northern Ireland - something essential to maintain peace there, regardless of what exact words there may or may not be in some document or another - and gain some of the benefits of the Single Market without the normal costs, but at the temporary cost of abiding with some restricted and limited trading legislation that we don't get a say in shaping - if an alternative is not found in time (thus the word "backstop". It's non-ideal, but it's not servitude, or slavery, or subjugation.
It's something neither side particularly want but can put up with - and that both sides would like to see overtaken by a future alternative. A compromise.
The absolutist and adversarial language being put around it, claims of loss of fundamental rights and vassalage, are bollocks and are really unhelpful to anyone. And they're going to cause real issues - either a No Deal Brexit (which will not be unicorns and rainbows, but will inevitably see some issues (even if we don't know exactly what they are) and our children permanently worse off than they otherwise would have been - or a loss of Brexit altogether, with the associated damage in trust to democracy.
These aren't conditions.
If you're not a citizen, this is not your country. The fundamental right is to vote "in his country". If you want to make this your country there is a method to do that.
If you're a child, you don't have an adults rights.
If you're a prisoner you've forfeit them.
None of those are relevant. Absolutely under no circumstances is it OK to deny a fundamental human right to a free adult citizen. Comparing free adult citizens to babies is pathetic whatabouterism.
You can't kill a baby or a prisoner, because there's a fundamental unconditional right to life. If they don't have the right to vote then clearly it's not unconditional is it?
You are subject to the laws of the US if you commit acts which violate any number of laws relating to commerce or computer misuse, even if you never set foot outside your own bedroom. In the UK.
You are subject to the laws of other countries if you sell products or services into those countries from the UK without ever setting foot in those countries.
In both cases, you are subject to laws without having any right to vote for the legislatures which imposed those laws.
Firstly US laws apply where US commerce or US websites etc exist. If you violate American laws because you hack an American website etc then yes you have violated their law. However that does not make it British law. You may be extradited however but that will be because you chose to break another nations law not ours - I would advise against hacking American websites.
Similarly if you trade with another nation then you are voluntarily entering into arrangements where the goods, services, conditions etc of what is setting foot in those countries is affected. That doesn't make it British law and it is your choice to freely enter that trade.
The backstop is not comparable to either.
It is an agreement freely entered into by a sovereign nation as part of a wider agreement and which will end once a long-term agreement replacing it is entered into by that sovereign nation.
The objections to the backstop - and indeed to the WA in general (and I am not just referring to you) - seem to be to the very idea of entering into any sort of agreement at all with the EU. It is most odd. I really don’t understand it. The backstop is a consequence of May’s red lines. Change those and the need for the backstop falls away.
Instead the British government’s position seems to be to keep the red lines, ask the other side to allow us to ignore the consequences of the choices we have made and, in addition, make a red line of a date imposed on us by the French.
Most bizarre.
Anyway I have to be off.
Bye.
I can not think of a single agreement this country is in where another nation or nations can change the laws unilaterally and we can not exit the agreement unilaterally. That is the problem.
If we were able to exit unilaterally that would be different, but we can't. We could exit the EU unilaterally, we retain the right to exit NATO and to exit the UN unilaterally, but we can't exit the backstop? I don't think so.
Did you propose to a European girl at some point, but get turned down?
He tried to renegotiate her backstop, but she misunderstood.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
All members of the community have the same rights, as long as they fulfil the conditions of being over eighteen, are out of prison, and have either inherited citizenship or applied for and received citizenship.
So there are no conditions, apart from the conditions that exist, but they are ones that you're used to and content with.
I personally agree - but I'm not the one who insists his stance is absolute and unconditional. There are conditions. There are always conditions, and a pure black and white answer is impossible in this ever-grey world.
The or subjugation.
It's something neither side particularly want but can put up with - and that both sides would like to see overtaken by a future alternative. A compromise.
The absolutist and adversarial language being put around it, claims of loss of fundamental rights and vassalage, are bollocks and are really unhelpful to anyone. And they're going to cause real issues - either a No Deal Brexit (which will not be unicorns and rainbows, but will inevitably see some issues (even if we don't know exactly what they are) and our children permanently worse off than they otherwise would have been - or a loss of Brexit altogether, with the associated damage in trust to democracy.
These aren't conditions.
If you're not a citizen, this is not your country. The fundamental right is to vote "in his country". If you want to make this your country there is a method to do that.
If you're a child, you don't have an adults rights.
If you're a prisoner you've forfeit them.
None of those are relevant. Absolutely under no circumstances is it OK to deny a fundamental human right to a free adult citizen. Comparing free adult citizens to babies is pathetic whatabouterism.
You do not have to be a British citizen to vote in UK elections. So, in the UK, the right to vote is not predicated on citizenship. But it is conditional: you have to be a citizen of certain countries.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
RLB confirming what we all already knew - that Labour won’t support anyone except Corbyn for PM following a vote of no confidence is the government.
So, any attempt at a GoNU is going to require more than 200 suicidal political lemmings floor crossers from the two largest parties.
I suppose it makes some kind of twisted sense. If you are in a Cult which venerates the Dear Leader, you aren't going to be psychologically capable of even considering putting Ken Clarke as PM for even a day.
Even if Ed Miliband was still Labour leader, it still makes absolutely no sense for Labour to back a GoNU. If No Deal is a disaster, then those desperate to avoid it should be prepared to support a proper Labour government. If they're not prepared to, it clearly isn't that bad an outcome.
Penny for Luciana Berger's (among others) thoughts the day they realise/realised there will at some point be a forced choice between backing No Deal and backing Corbyn as PM.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
And, from changes in Irish law due to come into force in October, Irish passport holders resident in the UK will be able to vote in Dail and Ireland European Parliament elections.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
All members of the community have the same rights, as long as they fulfil the conditions of being over eighteen, are out of prison, and have either inherited citizenship or applied for and received citizenship.
So there are no conditions, apart from the conditions that exist, but they are ones that you're used to and content with.
I personally agree - but I'm not the one who insists his stance is absolute and unconditional. There are conditions. There are always conditions, and a pure black and white answer is impossible in this ever-grey world.
The or subjugation.
It's something neither side particularly want but can put up with - and that both sides would like to see overtaken by a future alternative. A compromise.
The absolutist and adversarial language being put around it, claims of loss of fundamental rights and vassalage, are bollocks and are really unhelpful to anyone. And they're going to cause real issues - either a No Deal Brexit (which will not be unicorns and rainbows, but will inevitably see some issues (even if we don't know exactly what they are) and our children permanently worse off than they otherwise would have been - or a loss of Brexit altogether, with the associated damage in trust to democracy.
These aren't conditions.
If you're not a citizen, this is not your country. The fundamental right is to vote "in his country". If you want to make this your country there is a method to do that.
If you're a child, you don't have an adults rights.
If you're a prisoner you've forfeit them.
None of those are relevant. Absolutely under no circumstances is it OK to deny a fundamental human right to a free adult citizen. Comparing free adult citizens to babies is pathetic whatabouterism.
You do not have to be a British citizen to vote in UK elections. So, in the UK, the right to vote is not predicated on citizenship. But it is conditional: you have to be a citizen of certain countries.
All British citizens can vote in UK elections.
We don't have to, but we have extended it to certain other countries too. But for our own free adult citizens it is unconditional.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
RLB confirming what we all already knew - that Labour won’t support anyone except Corbyn for PM following a vote of no confidence is the government.
So, any attempt at a GoNU is going to require more than 200 suicidal political lemmings floor crossers from the two largest parties.
I suppose it makes some kind of twisted sense. If you are in a Cult which venerates the Dear Leader, you aren't going to be psychologically capable of even considering putting Ken Clarke as PM for even a day.
Even if Ed Miliband was still Labour leader, it still makes absolutely no sense for Labour to back a GoNU. If No Deal is a disaster, then those desperate to avoid it should be prepared to support a proper Labour government. If they're not prepared to, it clearly isn't that bad an outcome.
Penny for Luciana Berger's (among others) thoughts the day they realise/realised there will at some point be a forced choice between backing No Deal and backing Corbyn as PM.
If labour let the UK crash out just because they think they can mop up afterwards they have a surprise coming. If he fails to recognize that his moment of destiny has arrived and puts party before the national interest he is finished.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Children don't have the same rights as adults. All law abiding free adult citizens of this country got a vote in July 2016.
That's rather different to your original no-exceptions absolutist stance that "It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable." You don't have to be a citizen to be a member of a community. Neither do you have to be a legal adult - 17 year-olds are certainly members of a community.
Yet your stance suddenly does admit of exceptions.
No it doesn't. It is universally accepted that children are not adults and don't have the same rights. Adult citizens is the universal standard for elections. We have the free bit which I'm OK with, not all countries do. Children not voting doesn't change the principle.
But there is no universal acceptance of when childhood ends and adulthood begins. Thus, the fundamental right becomes conditional.
And why aren't these students demi-adults on the streets like Hong Kong? They've got plenty more reason. If Johnson -Patel and the far right is the future horribilis they want then good luck to them
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
RLB confirming what we all already knew - that Labour won’t support anyone except Corbyn for PM following a vote of no confidence is the government.
So, any attempt at a GoNU is going to require more than 200 suicidal political lemmings floor crossers from the two largest parties.
I suppose it makes some kind of twisted sense. If you are in a Cult which venerates the Dear Leader, you aren't going to be psychologically capable of even considering putting Ken Clarke as PM for even a day.
Even if Ed Miliband was still Labour leader, it still makes absolutely no sense for Labour to back a GoNU. If No Deal is a disaster, then those desperate to avoid it should be prepared to support a proper Labour government. If they're not prepared to, it clearly isn't that bad an outcome.
Penny for Luciana Berger's (among others) thoughts the day they realise/realised there will at some point be a forced choice between backing No Deal and backing Corbyn as PM.
That made sense when there was time to elect a proper Labour government, there isn't now.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Children don't have the same rights as adults. All law abiding free adult citizens of this country got a vote in July 2016.
That's rather different members of a community.
Yet your stance suddenly does admit of exceptions.
No it doesn't. It is universally accepted thavoting doesn't change the principle.
But there is no universal acceptance of when childhood ends and adulthood begins. Thus, the fundamental right becomes conditional.
And why aren't these students demi-adults on the streets like Hong Kong? They've got plenty more reason. If Johnson -Patel and the far right is the future horribilis they want then good luck to them
"They've got plenty more reason."
bit early to hit the white powder Roger
are you seriously saying bumbling Boris is more dictatorial than the Chinese Communist Party ?
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
Actually possession of citizenship is mentioned in the UN Charter. I will highlight the relevant word.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
You get to vote in the government of your own country, not the government of other people's countries. Citizenship is what makes it your country.
As for being born there, that is insufficient since citizenship is not defined at birth. In fact from the charter.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Anybody who moves to NI, changes their nationality to make it their country, is denied the right to vote still.
As I say, no mention of citizenship. "His country" is an entirely nebulous term. If you have chosen to live in a country and you live there legally, why isn't it "your country"? Of course, when the Charter was written there was no such thing as British citizenship.
His country is not entirely nebulous, it is quite clear. As for "no such thing" as British citizenship that is not true. The distinction in the law between subjects and aliens has existed since medieval times.
British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 was passed before the Charter was written.
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
I will repeat this once again - the opposition is supposed to oppose it is not their job to allow the Government to get their policies through Parliament.
This is all a mistake of the ERG's making. Granted at the moment they have via Boris inherited the mess but I suspect that won't be the case for long.
That is categorically not true.
Which part isn't true?
The opposition is not supposed to oppose for oppositions sake. It is not their job to stop the Government from getting its policies through Parliament.
It is their job to not vote for any act which they do not agree with. And that's what they did...
The problem is that they say (a) we support Brexit but (b) we won't vote for any Brexit deal because we are not in government
Effectively they are lying about (a) - at least de facto if not de jure.
Just listened to the RBL interview I think that she is seriously limited in the analysis capability. Listen to the clip and see how many facts she fails to grasp, it really is pathetic.
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
I will repeat this once again - the opposition is supposed to oppose it is not their job to allow the Government to get their policies through Parliament.
This is all a mistake of the ERG's making. Granted at the moment they have via Boris inherited the mess but I suspect that won't be the case for long.
That is categorically not true.
Which part isn't true?
The opposition is not supposed to oppose for oppositions sake. It is not their job to stop the Government from getting its policies through Parliament.
It is their job to not vote for any act which they do not agree with. And that's what they did...
The problem is that they say (a) we support Brexit but (b) we won't vote for any Brexit deal because we are not in government
Effectively they are lying about (a) - at least de facto if not de jure.
No one doubts that Corbyn has been playing games. He’s as guilty as the rest.
The problem is Brexit rhetoric attempts to blame “Remainers”. Even Big G is at it, confused no doubt by misplaced sentiment toward the late T May.
I at least - avowed Corbyn hater - am content to support him as PM of a temporary GONU whose only policy is call an election.
The question is really whether certain Tory backbenchers would.
No Deal is just too devastating to visit upon the country.
The Tories are ending their careers anyway, so it may not be such a big issue as for the minor parties and independents. The most sensible course would be to agree some conditions and constraints upon a GONU (GOMOO) such that it is clear its to do the one job of securing an extension (or the two jobs of extension and referendum) only. I’d hope most anti-no-deal MPs would be able to swallow that. The problem arises if, as appears quite possible, Labour simply wants to be seen to try but not to succeed.
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
I will repeat this once again - the opposition is supposed to oppose it is not their job to allow the Government to get their policies through Parliament.
This is all a mistake of the ERG's making. Granted at the moment they have via Boris inherited the mess but I suspect that won't be the case for long.
That is categorically not true.
Which part isn't true?
The opposition is not supposed to oppose for oppositions sake. It is not their job to stop the Government from getting its policies through Parliament.
It is their job to not vote for any act which they do not agree with. And that's what they did...
The problem is that they say (a) we support Brexit but (b) we won't vote for any Brexit deal because we are not in government
Effectively they are lying about (a) - at least de facto if not de jure.
No one doubts that Corbyn has been playing games. He’s as guilty as the rest.
The problem is Brexit rhetoric attempts to blame “Remainers”. Even Big G is at it, confused no doubt by misplaced sentiment toward the late T May.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
RLB confirming what we all already knew - that Labour won’t support anyone except Corbyn for PM following a vote of no confidence is the government.
So, any attempt at a GoNU is going to require more than 200 suicidal political lemmings floor crossers from the two largest parties.
I suppose it makes some kind of twisted sense. If you are in a Cult which venerates the Dear Leader, you aren't going to be psychologically capable of even considering putting Ken Clarke as PM for even a day.
Even if Ed Miliband was still Labour leader, it still makes absolutely no sense for Labour to back a GoNU. If No Deal is a disaster, then those desperate to avoid it should be prepared to support a proper Labour government. If they're not prepared to, it clearly isn't that bad an outcome.
Penny for Luciana Berger's (among others) thoughts the day they realise/realised there will at some point be a forced choice between backing No Deal and backing Corbyn as PM.
I think those kind of thoughts cost more than a penny these days
I at least - avowed Corbyn hater - am content to support him as PM of a temporary GONU whose only policy is call an election.
The question is really whether certain Tory backbenchers would.
No Deal is just too devastating to visit upon the country.
Totally agree but listen to RBL interview ch4 news
I saw the clip.
Despicable game-playing, or arrant stupidity - I cant decide. However, in the event of a successful VONC (which is the only way she gets her election) Corbyn has to either support a GONU or some other parliamentary mechanism which can extend the Brexit deadline.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
Although I agree that failing to stop No Deal would devastate Labour, Long-Bailey is also correct that it lets Mr Johnson off the hook. Mr Johnson owns Brexit, Mr Johnson should own 'No Deal'.
Because of Corbyn's abject failure to grasp the second referendum early on in proceedings I cannot see past 'No Deal', We are way past the point of a confirmatory vote or a revocation. Almost half the voting public see anything other than no deal as a sell-out. We must crash and burn and then work out how to pull ourselves from the wreckage.
Not "letting Johnson off the hook" as she puts it, means wrecking the country to prove a point.
But, RLB has confirmed, I suspect, what many of us have been saying. The Seamus-Corbyn Strategy is to facilitate a chaotic No Deal and then be swept into power in the ensuing economic meltdown accompanied by the smoke from fields of burning lambs.
The electorate probably recognise there's no economic disruption that can't be made worse by putting a tithe on the capital value of every listed company / state-mandated residential rent levels / insert other McDonnell policy here
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Children don't have the same rights as adults. All law abiding free adult citizens of this country got a vote in July 2016.
That's rather different members of a community.
Yet your stance suddenly does admit of exceptions.
No it doesn't. It is universally accepted thavoting doesn't change the principle.
But there is no universal acceptance of when childhood ends and adulthood begins. Thus, the fundamental right becomes conditional.
And why aren't these students demi-adults on the streets like Hong Kong? They've got plenty more reason. If Johnson -Patel and the far right is the future horribilis they want then good luck to them
"They've got plenty more reason."
bit early to hit the white powder Roger
are you seriously saying bumbling Boris is more dictatorial than the Chinese Communist Party ?
How could he be? One is the unelected leader of a state who acceded to his position by party nepotism and who overrides local assemblies at whim whilst pursuing a deliberate weak currency policy and distracting his citizenry with foreign devils whilst ensuring that his elite coterie can indulge in drugs and weird sex impervious to law whilst supported by a sycophantic press who can destroy people at whim....
...and the other is the leader of the Chinese Communist Party.
RLB is doing all she can to ensure that those voters who have abandoned labour over Brexit are gone for good.
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
Although I agree that failing to stop No Deal would devastate Labour, Long-Bailey is also correct that it lets Mr Johnson off the hook. Mr Johnson owns Brexit, Mr Johnson should own 'No Deal'.
Because of Corbyn's abject failure to grasp the second referendum early on in proceedings I cannot see past 'No Deal', We are way past the point of a confirmatory vote or a revocation. Almost half the voting public see anything other than no deal as a sell-out. We must crash and burn and then work out how to pull ourselves from the wreckage.
Not "letting Johnson off the hook" as she puts it, means wrecking the country to prove a point.
But, RLB has confirmed, I suspect, what many of us have been saying. The Seamus-Corbyn Strategy is to facilitate a chaotic No Deal and then be swept into power in the ensuing economic meltdown accompanied by the smoke from fields of burning lambs.
Except as the polling shows No Deal gives a Tory majority, if Labour forced further extension the Tories would be third (albeit Boris could refuse to implement extension and go into opposition). https://twitter.com/tianran/status/1157199736232927232?s=20
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Children don't have the same rights as adults. All law abiding free adult citizens of this country got a vote in July 2016.
That's rather different members of a community.
Yet your stance suddenly does admit of exceptions.
No it doesn't. It is universally accepted thavoting doesn't change the principle.
But there is no universal acceptance of when childhood ends and adulthood begins. Thus, the fundamental right becomes conditional.
And why aren't these students demi-adults on the streets like Hong Kong? They've got plenty more reason. If Johnson -Patel and the far right is the future horribilis they want then good luck to them
"They've got plenty more reason."
bit early to hit the white powder Roger
are you seriously saying bumbling Boris is more dictatorial than the Chinese Communist Party ?
How could he be? One is the unelected leader of a state who acceded to his position by party nepotism and who overrides local assemblies at whim whilst pursuing a deliberate weak currency policy and distracting his citizenry with foreign devils whilst ensuring that his elite coterie can indulge in drugs and weird sex impervious to law whilst supported by a sycophantic press who can destroy people at whim....
...and the other is the leader of the Chinese Communist Party.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
Actually possession of citizenship is mentioned in the UN Charter. I will highlight the relevant word.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
You get to vote in the government of your own country, not the government of other people's countries. Citizenship is what makes it your country.
As for being born there, that is insufficient since citizenship is not defined at birth. In fact from the charter.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Anybody who moves to NI, changes their nationality to make it their country, is denied the right to vote still.
As I say, no mention of citizenship. "His country" is an entirely nebulous term. If you have chosen to live in a country and you live there legally, why isn't it "your country"? Of course, when the Charter was written there was no such thing as British citizenship.
His country is not entirely nebulous, it is quite clear. As for "no such thing" as British citizenship that is not true. The distinction in the law between subjects and aliens has existed since medieval times.
British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 was passed before the Charter was written.
If it was clear it would say citizenship. It doesn't. There is no reason for it not to if citizenship was the intended standard. There is, of course, a big difference between being a subject and a citizen. The 1914 act did not create British citizenship.
Genuine question! Can you tell who is trading on the currency markets? For example would we know at the time that BOE were buying pounds to support the rate or speculators were trying to drive it in a direction for their own benefit?
If it was clear it would say citizenship. It doesn't. There is no reason for it not to if citizenship was the intended standard. There is, of course, a big difference between being a subject and a citizen. The 1914 act did not create British citizenship.
It is clear. It literally says his country. Citizens of this country, formerly subjects of this country are quite clearly who this applies to. It has never applied to all aliens in this country.
Citizenship continues where subjects came beforehand, its a modern word for an old concept. If you're an alien then you're welcome in this country but its not your country and you don't get to vote.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
All members of the community have the same rights, as long as they fulfil the conditions of being over eighteen, are out of prison, and have either inherited citizenship or applied for and received citizenship.
So there are no conditions, apart from the conditions that exist, but they are ones that you're used to and content with.
I personally agree - but I'm not the one who insists his stance is absolute and unconditional. There are conditions. There are always conditions, and a pure black and white answer is impossible in this ever-grey world.
The or subjugation.
It's something neither side particularly want but can put up with - and that both sides would like to see overtaken by a future alternative. A compromise.
The absolutist and adversarial language being put around it, claims of loss of fundamental rights and vassalage, are bollocks and are really unhelpful to anyone. And they're going to cause real issues - either a No Deal Brexit (which will not be unicorns and rainbows, but will inevitably see some issues (even if we don't know exactly what they are) and our children permanently worse off than they otherwise would have been - or a loss of Brexit altogether, with the associated damage in trust to democracy.
These aren't conditions.
If you're not a citizen, this is not your country. The fundamental right is to vote "in his country". If you want to make this your country there is a method to do that.
If you're a child, you don't have an adults rights.
If you're a prisoner you've forfeit them.
None of those are relevant. Absolutely under no circumstances is it OK to deny a fundamental human right to a free adult citizen. Comparing free adult citizens to babies is pathetic whatabouterism.
You do not have to be a British citizen to vote in UK elections. So, in the UK, the right to vote is not predicated on citizenship. But it is conditional: you have to be a citizen of certain countries.
All British citizens can vote in UK elections.
We don't have to, but we have extended it to certain other countries too. But for our own free adult citizens it is unconditional.
Yes, of course. The right to vote in the UK is conditional on the possession of certain types of nationality.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
And, from changes in Irish law due to come into force in October, Irish passport holders resident in the UK will be able to vote in Dail and Ireland European Parliament elections.
Problem solved!!
How do NI citizens who weren't born there vote?
If you mean "People who live in NI and were born there" then they can do it by getting a Irish passport as per the GFA. If you mean "People of Irish descent who live in GB or NI" then they can do it by getting an Irish passport as per Eire citizenship rules. If you mean "People with an Irish passport who live in GB or NI" then they already have a passport and so can vote.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
And, from changes in Irish law due to come into force in October, Irish passport holders resident in the UK will be able to vote in Dail and Ireland European Parliament elections.
Problem solved!!
How do NI citizens who weren't born there vote?
There is no such thing as Northern Irish citizenship.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
And, from changes in Irish law due to come into force in October, Irish passport holders resident in the UK will be able to vote in Dail and Ireland European Parliament elections.
Problem solved!!
How do NI citizens who weren't born there vote?
If you mean "People who live in NI and were born there" then they can do it by getting a Irish passport as per the GFA. If you mean "People of Irish descent who live in GB or NI" then they can do it by getting an Irish passport as per Eire citizenship rules. If you mean "People with an Irish passport who live in GB or NI" then they already have a passport and so can vote.
I specifically said "who weren't born there" so why would I mean "and were born there"?
Someone born anywhere in the world outside of NI, who has moved to NI, made that there home, naturalised and become a citizen there - how do they vote?
It comes down to the ROI. The EU have repeatedly said they 'back' Ireland, placing the responsibility for the backstop squarely on Ireland's shoulders. The EU couldn't effectively refuse to renegotiate the backstop if Ireland wished it. Therefore, Varadkar needs to find something he wants (surely there's plenty, and it's not like Boris has shown he is unwilling to take the British taxpayers' credit card for a spin), and offer a time limited backstop in return. Then mop up the credit for being a master diplomat who saved everyone from no deal. Things are impossible until they're not.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
And, from changes in Irish law due to come into force in October, Irish passport holders resident in the UK will be able to vote in Dail and Ireland European Parliament elections.
Problem solved!!
How do NI citizens who weren't born there vote?
There is no such thing as Northern Irish citizenship.
Indeed but there is UK citizenship and NI is part of the UK.
Lets say a doctor moves from India to Northern Ireland, sets up a home there and acquires local citizenship. How do they vote in European Parliamentary elections? How do they vote and get their vote counted in the European Council?
If it was clear it would say citizenship. It doesn't. There is no reason for it not to if citizenship was the intended standard. There is, of course, a big difference between being a subject and a citizen. The 1914 act did not create British citizenship.
It is clear. It literally says his country. Citizens of this country, formerly subjects of this country are quite clearly who this applies to. It has never applied to all aliens in this country.
Citizenship continues where subjects came beforehand, its a modern word for an old concept. If you're an alien then you're welcome in this country but its not your country and you don't get to vote.
If you have lived in a country for 30 years, have raised a family in it, pay taxes in it and own your only home in it, why is it not your country? Where does it state this in the Charter?
And you do get to vote in the UK if you are the citizen of some foreign countries.
Yes, of course. The right to vote in the UK is conditional on the possession of certain types of nationality.
If this is your country then there is no precondition of nationality by definition.
Some guests from other countries can vote too, which is a legacy to viewing more people as of this country. But everyone of this country meets the definition by defintion, it is a truism.
If it was clear it would say citizenship. It doesn't. There is no reason for it not to if citizenship was the intended standard. There is, of course, a big difference between being a subject and a citizen. The 1914 act did not create British citizenship.
It is clear. It literally says his country. Citizens of this country, formerly subjects of this country are quite clearly who this applies to. It has never applied to all aliens in this country.
Citizenship continues where subjects came beforehand, its a modern word for an old concept. If you're an alien then you're welcome in this country but its not your country and you don't get to vote.
If you have lived in a country for 30 years, have raised a family in it, pay taxes in it and own your only home in it, why is it not your country? Where does it state this in the Charter?
And you do get to vote in the UK if you are the citizen of some foreign countries.
It states this in Article 15.
If you have lived in a country for 30 years, have raised a family in it, pay taxes in it then you have a right to make it your country. As per Article 15 of the Charter.
If you have not chosen to make it your country, then it is not your country. By your own choice.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
And, from changes in Irish law due to come into force in October, Irish passport holders resident in the UK will be able to vote in Dail and Ireland European Parliament elections.
Problem solved!!
How do NI citizens who weren't born there vote?
There is no such thing as Northern Irish citizenship.
Indeed but there is UK citizenship and NI is part of the UK.
Lets say a doctor moves from India to Northern Ireland, sets up a home there and acquires local citizenship. How do they vote in European Parliamentary elections? How do they vote and get their vote counted in the European Council?
He can't acquire local citizenship. It does not exist.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
And, from changes in Irish law due to come into force in October, Irish passport holders resident in the UK will be able to vote in Dail and Ireland European Parliament elections.
Problem solved!!
How do NI citizens who weren't born there vote?
There is no such thing as Northern Irish citizenship.
Indeed but there is UK citizenship and NI is part of the UK.
Lets say a doctor moves from India to Northern Ireland, sets up a home there and acquires local citizenship. How do they vote in European Parliamentary elections? How do they vote and get their vote counted in the European Council?
He can't acquire local citizenship. It does not exist.
He can, he can become a UK citizen rather than [or as well as] an Indian one. Now how do they vote?
If it was clear it would say citizenship. It doesn't. There is no reason for it not to if citizenship was the intended standard. There is, of course, a big difference between being a subject and a citizen. The 1914 act did not create British citizenship.
It is clear. It literally says his country. Citizens of this country, formerly subjects of this country are quite clearly who this applies to. It has never applied to all aliens in this country.
Citizenship continues where subjects came beforehand, its a modern word for an old concept. If you're an alien then you're welcome in this country but its not your country and you don't get to vote.
If you have lived in a country for 30 years, have raised a family in it, pay taxes in it and own your only home in it, why is it not your country? Where does it state this in the Charter?
And you do get to vote in the UK if you are the citizen of some foreign countries.
It states this in Article 15.
If you have lived in a country for 30 years, have raised a family in it, pay taxes in it then you have a right to make it your country. As per Article 15 of the Charter.
If you have not chosen to make it your country, then it is not your country. By your own choice.
Nope, that is not what it says. The fact that you and I arguing about it demonstrates that it is entirely unclear. The word citizenship is not mentioned. It could have been, but it isn't. The term was omitted, not chosen, not used. There was a reason for that; the authors of the Charter did not want to use it.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
There aren't any conditions. All free adult citizens have the same rights.
Possession of citizenship - which is not mentioned in the UN Charter - creates a condition. An interesting corollary to this is that people born in Northern Ireland do have the right to Irish citizenship and so could, in theory, vote in EU elections if they so wished.
And, from changes in Irish law due to come into force in October, Irish passport holders resident in the UK will be able to vote in Dail and Ireland European Parliament elections.
Problem solved!!
How do NI citizens who weren't born there vote?
There is no such thing as Northern Irish citizenship.
Indeed but there is UK citizenship and NI is part of the UK.
Lets say a doctor moves from India to Northern Ireland, sets up a home there and acquires local citizenship. How do they vote in European Parliamentary elections? How do they vote and get their vote counted in the European Council?
Until 2005 everyone born in Northern Ireland had dual UK/Irish citizenship. That changed and now people born in the North have only UK citizenship. However, since their parents and grandparents where likely born "... on the ISLAND of Ireland..." then those born after 2004 are Irish citizens by descent rather than by birth.
Comments
Of course reality will be different - and the actual polling will be very painful for Boris...
Boris is at least trying to force MPs to make a decision. I suspect they won't like it but at least a decision may finally be made...
On a wider note, her continued self-identification as a Brexit backer will make it tough for her to win a Labour leadership election when the time eventually comes. Same with Laura Pidcock. This is a significant problem for the far-left. They have no viable, long-term Corbyn replacement. That is why we can expect Corbyn to remain in place for a number of years yet.
You don't have to be a citizen to be a member of a community. Neither do you have to be a legal adult - 17 year-olds are certainly members of a community.
Yet your stance suddenly does admit of exceptions.
No I don't believe babies should get a vote.
Would you care to try that again..
So, any attempt at a GoNU is going to require more than 200
suicidal political lemmingsfloor crossers from the two largest parties.https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/1158774892466229249
Based on what they claim they want they should have taken the temporary customs union then sought to make it permanent. They didn't. No deal can't be that bad in their eyes.
On the other hand we have an option identical to what they wanted on a temporary basis.
They chose what they claim is an apocalypse over what they claim to want.
A lot of Labour Leave Constituency MPs purposefully went out prior to the MVs to gauge the opinion of their constituencies. That gave them the perfect cover to vote against the deal...
The political declaration was not legally binding so Labour could still have voted for a Customs Union Deal and Single Market elements in the transition period
Because of Corbyn's abject failure to grasp the second referendum early on in proceedings I cannot see past 'No Deal', We are way past the point of a confirmatory vote or a revocation. Almost half the voting public see anything other than no deal as a sell-out. We must crash and burn and then work out how to pull ourselves from the wreckage.
If we were able to exit unilaterally that would be different, but we can't. We could exit the EU unilaterally, we retain the right to exit NATO and to exit the UN unilaterally, but we can't exit the backstop? I don't think so.
https://twitter.com/bbctms/status/1158780194230087680?s=20
I'm concerned about popcorn intake so really will need to look at doing some exercise..
May had the option, in July 2016, of appointing a cross-party negotiating team for A50 whose remit would be to obtain a mutually acceptable Deal. Including Labour, LD and non-party representatives would have made this a truly national enterprise and much harder to gainsay the outcome.
Yes, Corbyn would have doubtless found a reason to oppose but this or rather his Party's fingerprints would have been on the WA as would the LDs and others.
But, RLB has confirmed, I suspect, what many of us have been saying. The Seamus-Corbyn Strategy is to facilitate a chaotic No Deal and then be swept into power in the ensuing economic meltdown accompanied by the smoke from fields of burning lambs.
So there are no conditions, apart from the conditions that exist, but they are ones that you're used to and content with.
I personally agree - but I'm not the one who insists his stance is absolute and unconditional. There are conditions. There are always conditions, and a pure black and white answer is impossible in this ever-grey world.
The entire situation with the backstop is one of compromise. We get to fuzz the boundary in Northern Ireland - something essential to maintain peace there, regardless of what exact words there may or may not be in some document or another - and gain some of the benefits of the Single Market without the normal costs, but at the temporary cost of abiding with some restricted and limited trading legislation that we don't get a say in shaping - if an alternative is not found in time (thus the word "backstop". It's non-ideal, but it's not servitude, or slavery, or subjugation.
It's something neither side particularly want but can put up with - and that both sides would like to see overtaken by a future alternative. A compromise.
The absolutist and adversarial language being put around it, claims of loss of fundamental rights and vassalage, are bollocks and are really unhelpful to anyone. And they're going to cause real issues - either a No Deal Brexit (which will not be unicorns and rainbows, but will inevitably see some issues (even if we don't know exactly what they are) and our children permanently worse off than they otherwise would have been - or a loss of Brexit altogether, with the associated damage in trust to democracy.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
You get to vote in the government of your own country, not the government of other people's countries. Citizenship is what makes it your country.
As for being born there, that is insufficient since citizenship is not defined at birth. In fact from the charter.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Anybody who moves to NI, changes their nationality to make it their country, is denied the right to vote still.
If you're not a citizen, this is not your country. The fundamental right is to vote "in his country". If you want to make this your country there is a method to do that.
If you're a child, you don't have an adults rights.
If you're a prisoner you've forfeit them.
None of those are relevant. Absolutely under no circumstances is it OK to deny a fundamental human right to a free adult citizen. Comparing free adult citizens to babies is pathetic whatabouterism.
We just say "We're no longer in the backstop; the EU has not followed good faith"
What are they going to do? Invade us?
Yes, we'd have issues with getting a FTA with them, and others may look on us askance, but guess what: under No Deal, that's exactly where we'd be, anyway!
They are both aiming for their own feet and our future hangs upon which of them has the poorer aim.
Penny for Luciana Berger's (among others) thoughts the day they realise/realised there will at some point be a forced choice between backing No Deal and backing Corbyn as PM.
We don't have to, but we have extended it to certain other countries too. But for our own free adult citizens it is unconditional.
bit early to hit the white powder Roger
are you seriously saying bumbling Boris is more dictatorial than the Chinese Communist Party ?
British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 was passed before the Charter was written.
The question is really whether certain Tory backbenchers would.
No Deal is just too devastating to visit upon the country.
Effectively they are lying about (a) - at least de facto if not de jure.
The problem is Brexit rhetoric attempts to blame “Remainers”. Even Big G is at it, confused no doubt by misplaced sentiment toward the late T May.
take a break, have a holiday youre going paranoid
LibDems opposed it
Despicable game-playing, or arrant stupidity - I cant decide. However, in the event of a successful VONC (which is the only way she gets her election) Corbyn has to either support a GONU or some other parliamentary mechanism which can extend the Brexit deadline.
If he doesn’t, he will be toast.
Unlike certain disaster capitalists on this board, I am paid in pounds and spend in pounds.
otherwise youre just caterwauling
...and the other is the leader of the Chinese Communist Party.
Pause.
Ah, my coat. So kind...
https://twitter.com/tianran/status/1157199736232927232?s=20
Citizenship continues where subjects came beforehand, its a modern word for an old concept. If you're an alien then you're welcome in this country but its not your country and you don't get to vote.
Someone born anywhere in the world outside of NI, who has moved to NI, made that there home, naturalised and become a citizen there - how do they vote?
Lets say a doctor moves from India to Northern Ireland, sets up a home there and acquires local citizenship. How do they vote in European Parliamentary elections? How do they vote and get their vote counted in the European Council?
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1158786442954514433?s=20
And you do get to vote in the UK if you are the citizen of some foreign countries.
Some guests from other countries can vote too, which is a legacy to viewing more people as of this country. But everyone of this country meets the definition by defintion, it is a truism.
If you have lived in a country for 30 years, have raised a family in it, pay taxes in it then you have a right to make it your country. As per Article 15 of the Charter.
If you have not chosen to make it your country, then it is not your country. By your own choice.