politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hurrah! Our sovereign parliament is taking back control!

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic: take back control by giving away control.

Yep. Right.

This is one of memes "Remainers perennially try and troll Leavers with, thinking they're being awfully clever and ironically witty, but actually makes no sense at all.

It's not clever. It is the fundamental contradiction of the Leave position. You can have a Brexit that gives you control or you can have Brexit where you keep some of the connections and current prosperity. You can't have both. The Leave campaign promised control, more money and no change to things you like. That was their biggest lie.

There was no lie.

We will have more control, I think we will have (some) more money, there won't be big change to things we like, there will be no material impact on prosperity, and I can already see some things getting better: like agriculture and fisheries.

We *might* have less geopolitical influence in the medium-term, at least whilst we establish a new global trading web and enhanced non-European foreign policy approach.

I accept that.

"We will have more control"
"I think we will have (some) more money"
"there won't be big change to things we like"
"there will be no material impact on prosperity"

Whilst I hope you are right, these are not certainties, especially given the ham-fisted way the government is approaching Brexit.

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.

The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.

Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.

I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?

The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership..

Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.

It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.

Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?

If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*

Oh.. wait a minute.

Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?

You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.

It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.

I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.

I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?

I genuinely don’t get the point you are trying to make. I think trying to second guess the right wing press was bad for the Labour party. I am glad it no longer has to do it. I also wish the Daily Mail had less hold over Theresa May. Why is this wrong?

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.

The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.

Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.

I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?

The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is that it has shown that in the digital age the Labour party does not have to walk in fear of the right wing press. Funnily enough, it’s now much more of a straitjacket for Tory leaders - just ask Theresa May, she lives in permanent fear of it.

Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.

It’s

Maybe

Oh.. wait a minute.

Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?

You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.

It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.

People are voting with their wallets not to buy the tired old rags. What's not to like, especially when they've long since stopped covering news and morphed into gossip comics?

I’m struggling with the notion that an overweening, all-powerful Daily Mail is a necessary bedrock of a functioning democracy!

You laugh, but I've defended the Guardian before to enthusiastic Tories who, at the height of Cameron's success in the 2008-2011 period, wanted to put it out of business by pulling out all public sector advertisements from it, and other such skulduggery.

As you can imagine, I'm not much of a Guardianista. But it's vital to have a press that vehemently, defiantly, and rudely challenges all of your world views and prejudices from the opposite angle, no matter what Government is in power.

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.

The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.

Lol.

The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership..

Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.

It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.

Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?

If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*

Oh.. wait a minute.

Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?

You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.

It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.

I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.

I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?

I genuinely don’t get the point you are trying to make. I think trying to second guess the right wing press was bad for the Labour party. I am glad it no longer has to do it. I also wish the Daily Mail had less hold over Theresa May. Why is this wrong?

It's not. I think perhaps Casino R is conflating Corbyn's insouciance in the face of press attacks (on its own fairly admirable) with his far from admirable determination to impose a degree (at present ill defined) of government control if the media, should he get into government.

Nigelb said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

I see Donald T. triggered the snowflakes last night...

In the context of a school shooting, that's a pretty tasteless choice of phrase.

I think he means Tusk, not Trump.....

Ah, my bad.

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

I see Donald T. triggered the snowflakes last night...

In the context of a school shooting, that's a pretty tasteless choice of phrase.

I took it to mean Donald Tusks Speech, after the EU27 Council, triggering Brexiteers, not Trump's asinine comments about the school shooting.

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.

The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.

Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.

I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?

The one absolute and undoubted benefit ofleaders - just ask Theresa May, she lives in permanent fear of it.

Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.

It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.

Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?

If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*

Oh.. wait a minute.

Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?

You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.

It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.

I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.

I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?

I genuinely don’t get the point you are trying to make. I think trying to second guess the right wing press was bad for the Labour party. I am glad it no longer has to do it. I also wish the Daily Mail had less hold over Theresa May. Why is this wrong?

It isn't, but that's not what you wrote.

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.

The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.

Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.

I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?

The attacks on Corbyn all seemed a bit desperate. If the Mail doesn't like someone that much, they can't be that bad.

It has less to do with the Mail and everything to do with the fact that the story seemed at best pretty thin.

I yield to no-one in my dislike of Corbyn asa politician but this allegation seemed to be all smoke, based on what I’ve read. That Corbyn was sympathetic to the Soviets is known and nothing new.

What concerns me much more is Corbyn’s approach to press regulation. He has no symapthy for press freedom and his instinct is to regulate and ban. That was the case before this story and it is one reason why I don’t want a Corbyn government.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Unlike the right-wing press, and for that matter, the left-wing press, the BBC is required to be impartial.

Charles said:

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

+1

I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!

I’m flattered but don’t think I really qualify as an “eminent historian”

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.

The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.

Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.

I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?

The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership..

Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.

It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.

Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?

If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*

Oh.. wait a minute.

Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?

You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.

It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.

I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.

I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?

I genuinely don’t get Why is this wrong?

It's not. I think perhaps Casino R is conflating Corbyn's insouciance in the face of press attacks (on its own fairly admirable) with his far from admirable determination to impose a degree (at present ill defined) of government control if the media, should he get into government.

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.

The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.

Lol.

The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership..

Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.

It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.

Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?

If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*

Oh.. wait a minute.

Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?

You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.

It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.

I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.

I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?

I

It's not. I think perhaps Casino R is conflating Corbyn's insouciance in the face of press attacks (on its own fairly admirable) with his far from admirable determination to impose a degree (at present ill defined) of government control if the media, should he get into government.

That's more or less it. Not many people love this Government, but it poses no threat to us.

Corbyn genuinely (and this isn't me trying to do party political spin - I really do mean genuinely) terrifies me.

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

SquareRoot said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

not_on_fire said:

Realistically, how likely is the CU amendment to pass?

I

I

U

T

Tr/

That site is pro-Brex), I would rather trust the government's report (even though they are also pro-Brexit).

(2 of 2)

"The UK economy is likely to be a little smaller after Brexit, mainly because lower migration will mean lower numbers of jobs and less output. We agree with CE that the living standards of the resident population are likely to be little changed."

So, basically, the UK's economy may well be a little smaller *in overall size* than it might otherwise have been by 2030, but that's because of lower net migration. It will make virtually no difference to living standards by 2030 and, in fact, per capita GDP might even be higher.

And, of course, if the UK operated a more liberal immigration policy open to the RoW under a future Government even that would go out the window.

And that's just to 2030. 12 years away. So not decades, over which time Africa and Asia will be the tigers of the future, not Europe (and 94% population and 80%+ of the world economy is non-European even today).

Think man. Don't let your pre-existing conclusions rule your head.

Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.

Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.

To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.

Casino_Royale said:

You laugh, but I've defended the Guardian before to enthusiastic Tories who, at the height of Cameron's success in the 2008-2011 period, wanted to put it out of business by pulling out all public sector advertisements from it, and other such skulduggery.

As you can imagine, I'm not much of a Guardianista. But it's vital to have a press that vehemently, defiantly, and rudely challenges all of your world views and prejudices from the opposite angle, no matter what Government is in power.

Mortimer said:

Gardenwalker said:

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

+1

I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

+1

I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!

Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.

Eh?

As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

SquareRoot said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

not_on_fire said:

Realistically, how likely is the CU amendment to pass?

I

I

U

T

Tr/

That site is pro-Brex), I would rather trust the government's report (even though they are also pro-Brexit).

(2 of 2)

"The UK economy is likely to be a little smaller after Brexit, mainly because lower migration will mean lower numbers of jobs and less output. We agree with CE that the living standards of the resident population are likely to be little changed."

So, basically, the UK's economy may well be a little smaller *in overall size* than it might otherwise have been by 2030, but that's because of lower net migration. It will make virtually no difference to living standards by 2030 and, in fact, per capita GDP might even be higher.

And, of course, if the UK operated a more liberal immigration policy open to the RoW under a future Government even that would go out the window.

And that's just to 2030. 12 years away. So not decades, over which time Africa and Asia will be the tigers of the future, not Europe (and 94% population and 80%+ of the world economy is non-European even today).

Think man. Don't let your pre-existing conclusions rule your head.

Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.

Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.

To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.

Yet at the same time we seem to be maxing out the (non-EU) highly skilled migrant quota each month - employers are complaining.

So presumably we’re still importing a ton of low skilled non-EU, somehow.

MaxPB said:

I see the traitors are at it again. They serve their masters in Brussels, not the British public. The sooner the party is rid of them the better.

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Yes I basically agree with you (but BTW think that ballot-spoiling might have been the right choice for you in the scenario described!). But I think the British media - including the Guardian - are indifferent to the idea of fair and balanced coverage to an absurd degree. Anyone who has had anything to do with them knows that the standard modus operandi is:

1. Glance over what's happening and decide on a theme that your readers will like.
2. Find people to give pungent quotes that mostly support that theme, with a token quote from someone who disagrees.
3. Simplify, then exagerrate.
4. Repeat until the story loses impetus.

The effect is like having parents who constantly scream contradictory things at you - it produces a sort of balance, but probably makes you unnerved and depressed. Newspapers in most countries have an agenda, but take more seriously the need to tell their readers both sides of any developing story: they are treated as adults.

What can be done about it without damaging freedom is difficult to decide, but giving a strong independent agency the power to require rebuttals of equal front-page prominence where they think the coverage was seriously misleading seems a good start. I know that the current system allows that in theory but it doesn't actually happen - instead, you get a boring and obscure statement at the bottom of page 2. I can't remember the details of Leveson 2, but if it included that, I'm for (that part of) it.

Pong said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

The executive is acting as if it has a mandate for the hardest possible brexit.

It doesn't.

The sovereign parliament is in the process of reminding the executive of this.

FF43 said:

Foxy said:

FF43 said:

This is an interesting thread, from a Labour point of view, but I can imagine Conservative MPs thinking the same

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/967074179270012928

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/967074814077886464

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/967075480351531019

Yes it is quite obvious that the fictional Trade Deals of Fox and co are not going to appeal to either Labour voters or to ex kipper economic nationalists.

But also because people who really care about free trade voted Remain. If you want FTAs with people you also want the Single Market and Customs Union.

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Yes I basically agree with you (but BTW think that ballot-spoiling might have been the right choice for you in the scenario described!). But I think the British media - including the Guardian - are indifferent to the idea of fair and balanced coverage to an absurd degree. Anyone who has had anything to do with them knows that the standard modus operandi is:

1. Glance over what's happening and decide on a theme that your readers will like.
2. Find people to give pungent quotes that mostly support that theme, with a token quote from someone who disagrees.
3. Simplify, then exagerrate.
4. Repeat until the story loses impetus.

The effect is like having parents who constantly scream contradictory things at you - it produces a sort of balance, but probably makes you unnerved and depressed. Newspapers in most countries have an agenda, but take more seriously the need to tell their readers both sides of any developing story: they are treated as adults.

What can be done about it without damaging freedom is difficult to decide, but giving a strong independent agency the power to require rebuttals of equal front-page prominence where they think the coverage was seriously misleading seems a good start. I know that the current system allows that in theory but it doesn't actually happen - instead, you get a boring and obscure statement at the bottom of page 2. I can't remember the details of Leveson 2, but if it included that, I'm for (that part of) it.

One of the reasons what you descibe happens is because newspapers have stopped employing researchers and others who actually search out the facts and check what is written. Some of them have stopped employing journalists. Real ones. This sort of work is time-consuming and expensive. It no longer happens. So it is easier and cheaper to write stories which are little more than opinion columns dressed up as news.

I don’t think your solution will really address the problem. The answer is to have proper, thorough well-funded investigative journalism which establishes facts rather than stories which scream propaganda.

Whether this is possible or, even how to get there, I really don’t know. But we have lost something valuable in not having newspapers which, with honourable exceptions (Andrew Norfolk in the Times, for instance) no longer do this, certainly not as they used to. Look, for instance, at the very poor foreign coverage in most newspapers.

Charles said:

Pong said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

The executive is acting as if it has a mandate for the hardest possible brexit.

It doesn't.

The sovereign parliament is in the process of reminding the executive of this.

You’ve completely ignored the facts of the constitutional position. Parliament is not sovereign. The Executive can do what the f**k it likes subject to parliamentary scrutiny (*not interference*) and electoral consequences.

The only instruction the British people has provided is that we should leave the EU. The details are up to the Executive.

ThomasNashe said:

Charles said:

ThomasNashe said:

Charles

Yes, I agree with Simon. It's really high time we stopped bringing in ballet dancers from the continent, and started training unemployed steel workers from Teesside and south Wales in the pas de deux.

Billy Elliott did it...

(But the ballet dancers are from outside the EU because they are on the essential jobs list)

If the Royal Ballet wants to maintain its unique global reputation it really has to be able to employ the best dancers, regardless of their nationality. With all due respect to veterinary surgeons, we're not talking about quite the same levels of skill.

JosiasJessop said:

MaxPB said:

I see the traitors are at it again. They serve their masters in Brussels, not the British public. The sooner the party is rid of them the better.

That's silly, both in tone and sentiment.

brendan16 said:

Charles said:

Pong said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

The executive is acting as if it has a mandate for the hardest possible brexit.

It doesn't.

The sovereign parliament is in the process of reminding the executive of this.

You’ve completely ignored the facts of the constitutional position. Parliament is not sovereign. The Executive can do what the f**k it likes subject to parliamentary scrutiny (*not interference*) and electoral consequences.

The only instruction the British people has provided is that we should leave the EU. The details are up to the Executive.

The Executive is comprised of Ministers selected from the party or parties which command a majority in the House of Commons. So by definition Parliament must be overall supportive and complicit - as if it wasn't the government would soon fall.

Perhaps we get the debate wrong anyway - shouldn't the people be sovereign?

Cyclefree said:

One of the reasons what you descibe happens is because newspapers have stopped employing researchers and others who actually search out the facts and check what is written. Some of them have stopped employing journalists. Real ones. This sort of work is time-consuming and expensive. It no longer happens. So it is easier and cheaper to write stories which are little more than opinion columns dressed up as news.

I don’t think your solution will really address the problem. The answer is to have proper, thorough well-funded investigative journalism which establishes facts rather than stories which scream propaganda.

Whether this is possible or, even how to get there, I really don’t know. But we have lost something valuable in not having newspapers which, with honourable exceptions (Andrew Norfolk in the Times, for instance) no longer do this, certainly not as they used to. Look, for instance, at the very poor foreign coverage in most newspapers.

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.

Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.

To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.

I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?

Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.

Charles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Mortimer said:

Gardenwalker said:

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

+1

I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

+1

I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!

Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.

Eh?

As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...

Sorry, not directed at you.

Charles seems to be blaming bad Brexit on uppity parliamentarians. I guess he prefers untrammelled power for his friends in the Executive.

The problem is not constitutional ignorance, the problem is Brexit.

No - I was criticising this amendment because Parliament is overstepping its role. The detail of treaty negotiations are rightly a matter for the executive. Almost by definition contradictory “noises off” will undermine the negotiators position and result in an outcome that is less aligned with their objectives than otherwise

The right response for an MP who doesn’t agree with the objective is to withdraw their support for the executive; for a voter the opportunity comes at the next election

Charles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Mortimer said:

Gardenwalker said:

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

+1

I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

+1

I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!

Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.

Eh?

As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...

Sorry, not directed at you.

Charles seems to be blaming bad Brexit on uppity parliamentarians. I guess he prefers untrammelled power for his friends in the Executive.

The problem is not constitutional ignorance, the problem is Brexit.

No - I was criticising this amendment because Parliament is overstepping its role. The detail of treaty negotiations are rightly a matter for the executive. Almost by definition contradictory “noises off” will undermine the negotiators position and result in an outcome that is less aligned with their objectives than otherwise

The right response for an MP who doesn’t agree with the objective is to withdraw their support for the executive; for a voter the opportunity comes at the next election

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh FFS.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/967299903293739008

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Mortimer said:

Gardenwalker said:

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

+1

I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose

“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).

The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose

+1

I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!

Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.

Eh?

As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...

Sorry, not directed at you.

Charles seems to be blaming bad Brexit on uppity parliamentarians. I guess he prefers untrammelled power for his friends in the Executive.

The problem is not constitutional ignorance, the problem is Brexit.

No - I was criticising this amendment because Parliament is overstepping its role. The detail of treaty negotiations are rightly a matter for the executive. Almost by definition contradictory “noises off” will undermine the negotiators position and result in an outcome that is less aligned with their objectives than otherwise

The right response for an MP who doesn’t agree with the objective is to withdraw their support for the executive; for a voter the opportunity comes at the next election

You are mistaking what is in effect a profound transformation of the country’s legal and economic settlement with “a treaty”. This is a long, multi-part process, parliament must have its say.

SouthamObserver said:

In other news a snowcopalypse approaches ...
https://twitter.com/theiaincameron/status/967314768938897408

another_richard said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.

Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.

To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.

I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?

Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.

Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.

People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

One of the reasons what you descibe happens is because newspapers have stopped employing researchers and others who actually search out the facts and check what is written. Some of them have stopped employing journalists. Real ones. This sort of work is time-consuming and expensive. It no longer happens. So it is easier and cheaper to write stories which are little more than opinion columns dressed up as news.

I don’t think your solution will really address the problem. The answer is to have proper, thorough well-funded investigative journalism which establishes facts rather than stories which scream propaganda.

Whether this is possible or, even how to get there, I really don’t know. But we have lost something valuable in not having newspapers which, with honourable exceptions (Andrew Norfolk in the Times, for instance) no longer do this, certainly not as they used to. Look, for instance, at the very poor foreign coverage in most newspapers.

Investigative journalism doesn’t sell newspapers. It’s that simple. The headlines that such journalism produces might mean the odd one-off spike, but no more - and that doesn’t justify the investment from a business perspective.

Sadly true. Apart from the Times and the Guardian no-one is doing proper investigations any more. To think it was only a decade ago that the Telegraph got the MPs’ Expenses scoop, what a shadow of its former self that title has become.

another_richard said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.

Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.

To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.

I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?

Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.

Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.

People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.

Beverley_C said:

Jonathan said:

In the age of the Internet newspapers are not very good at covering news. So they've become full of reaction, comment and bile. They really shouldn't be called newspapers at all.

Loo roll perhaps? Hard loo roll (the unpopular stuff)

MaxPB said:

another_richard said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.

Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.

To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.

I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?

Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.

Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.

People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.

Indeed, a remainer friend of mine has just lived through this. She's had Nigerian neighbours for the last two years, they've sold and an "investor" bought the house who has rented it out as a HMO to five Romanians. A few days ago she said "I get why people voted leave" and was asking for advice on how to have the landlord sanctioned and the people evicted. Her reasons - they are loud, they play music late into the night, they shout at each other all the time, they leave rubbish out on the front lawn, they are constantly drunk and they "leer" at her when she leaves the house if they are on the front lawn.

She used to wear "living next to Africans" as a badge of non-racist/leaver honour.

MaxPB said:

another_richard said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.

Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.

To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.

I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?

Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.

Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.

People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.

Indeed, a remainer friend of mine has just lived through this. She's had Nigerian neighbours for the last two years, they've sold and an "investor" bought the house who has rented it out as a HMO to five Romanians. A few days ago she said "I get why people voted leave" and was asking for advice on how to have the landlord sanctioned and the people evicted. Her reasons - they are loud, they play music late into the night, they shout at each other all the time, they leave rubbish out on the front lawn, they are constantly drunk and they "leer" at her when she leaves the house if they are on the front lawn.

She used to wear "living next to Africans" as a badge of non-racist/leaver honour.

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.

The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.

Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.

I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?

The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is that it has shown that in the digital age the Labour party does not have to walk in fear of the right wing press. Funnily enough, it’s now much more of a straitjacket for Tory leaders - just ask Theresa May, she lives in permanent fear of it.

Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.

It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.

Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?

If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*

Oh.. wait a minute.

Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?

You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.

It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.

I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.

I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?

Unlike the right-wing press, and for that matter, the left-wing press, the BBC is required to be impartial.

HYUFD said:

I don't think May personally has a problem with staying in the Customs Union, it is only hard Brexiteers on her backbenches who oppose remaining in it.

If she remains committed to leaving it until Parliament votes to stay in she can say she has done everything she can but in the end had to bow to the sovereign will of Parliament.

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

I don't think May personally has a problem with staying in the Customs Union, it is only hard Brexiteers on her backbenches who oppose remaining in it.

If she remains committed to leaving it until Parliament votes to stay in she can say she has done everything she can but in the end had to bow to the sovereign will of Parliament.

take the easy option and blame others, how Tory.

Casino_Royale said:

We will have more control, I think we will have (some) more money, there won't be big change to things we like, there will be no material impact on prosperity, and I can already see some things getting better: like agriculture and fisheries.

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

I don't think May personally has a problem with staying in the Customs Union, it is only hard Brexiteers on her backbenches who oppose remaining in it.

If she remains committed to leaving it until Parliament votes to stay in she can say she has done everything she can but in the end had to bow to the sovereign will of Parliament.

take the easy option and blame others, how Tory.