politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The prospects for The Independent Group
Comments
-
You persuaded me to remove my lay I'm glad to sayIanB2 said:
It's drifted out to 12, now. But at 20 it was indeed the great trading bet I recommended, and not the screaming lay that another PB'er suggested.kinabalu said:
Yes, that is the nub of the matter.DavidL said:Is the defence of the status quo not supposed to be the job of the Conservative party? Perhaps they should go back to that idea.
At present, the main policy of the Conservative party is to deliver the biggest change to the status quo - leaving the European Union - that we have seen since Mrs T.
And we have a Labour party that if elected could be more radical in power than any since Attlee.
So where on earth does this leave the millions of people in this country who wish to trundle on pretty much as we are, who wish to have a government that just keeps the show on the road, doesn't do stupid things, doesn't take big risks, doesn't chase unicorns, doesn't feel it has to be throwing its weight around the whole time?
Stuffed, that's where. Hence IMO the potential mass appeal of the IG if things go their way, if they get a bit of luck in running, if they get a charismatic leader and some good recruits.
10/1 to win the next election though? No, I'm not quite having that!
0 -
Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.Richard_Tyndall said:
And that is always after the MPs have been allowed to take their seats, thus fulfilling the remit of the election. What you want is to stop them being able to take their seats in the first place and just set aside the result of the election completely.williamglenn said:
Traditionally if they win a no confidence vote in parliament, then an election happens.Richard_Tyndall said:
They do and they are ignored.williamglenn said:
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.0 -
Jailing Grayling would be almost justifiable at this point...Charles said:
(Not) Railing Grayling?Nigelb said:TheScreamingEagles said:From another PB.
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
Would he prefer Flailing ?0 -
The question wasn't should we invoke Article 50 or not, the question was should we Remain or Leave. We haven't Left yet - as Remainers keep telling us in response to any good economic news.williamglenn said:
Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.Richard_Tyndall said:
And that is always after the MPs have been allowed to take their seats, thus fulfilling the remit of the election. What you want is to stop them being able to take their seats in the first place and just set aside the result of the election completely.williamglenn said:
Traditionally if they win a no confidence vote in parliament, then an election happens.Richard_Tyndall said:
They do and they are ignored.williamglenn said:
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.0 -
And are you settled on that or should we ask again tomorrow?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%Richard_Tyndall said:
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a terrible accusation to make
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining0 -
Did we discover how one can delete ones entire history on PB and disappear without trace so as to avoid ever encountering said threatened thread?TheScreamingEagles said:Site notice
I've started writing a thread on AV.
Asking for a friend.0 -
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.Nigelb said:
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Similarly with a referendum.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.0 -
To be fair, we're not quite as clueless as the journalists. Earlier today I came across a learned discussion of the legal issues under a Sky News banner, based largely on parts of the British Nationality Act 1981 that were removed in 2006.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yeah but someone on here googled Bangladeshi nationality law.DougSeal said:
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.Philip_Thompson said:
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?nico67 said:Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
We're tired of experts etc etc.0 -
Yes it is exactly analogous.williamglenn said:
Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.Richard_Tyndall said:
And that is always after the MPs have been allowed to take their seats, thus fulfilling the remit of the election. What you want is to stop them being able to take their seats in the first place and just set aside the result of the election completely.williamglenn said:
Traditionally if they win a no confidence vote in parliament, then an election happens.Richard_Tyndall said:
They do and they are ignored.williamglenn said:
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.0 -
Tyndall's never going to give it up. We could be standing round watching his coffin being lowered into the ground and we'll hear a muffled voice bitching about some earlier decision that hadn't been enacted.williamglenn said:
Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.Richard_Tyndall said:
And that is always after the MPs have been allowed to take their seats, thus fulfilling the remit of the election. What you want is to stop them being able to take their seats in the first place and just set aside the result of the election completely.williamglenn said:
Traditionally if they win a no confidence vote in parliament, then an election happens.Richard_Tyndall said:
They do and they are ignored.williamglenn said:
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.0 -
And Wailing Grayling the one responding to his press coverage.MarqueeMark said:
Flailing Grayling is the person depicted on the House Boulton sigil....Nigelb said:TheScreamingEagles said:From another PB.
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
Would he prefer Flailing ?0 -
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.Richard_Tyndall said:
But of course that is a dumb metaphor because the electorate are not a jury and the referendum was not a trial. Nor is there any compelling fresh evidence.DougSeal said:
Look at the electorate as being a jury and the referendum a trial. At the original trial in 2016, having listened to counsel for both sides, the counsel for the defence (remain) being spectacularly incompetent, counsel for the prosecution (leave) having manipulated and potentially fabricated the evidence, it votes narrowly for the latter. The sentence imposed, while not being death, will nevertheless be a form of punishment that causes irreversible harm to the defendant (Britain) and, indeed, the jury.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Prior to the punishment being inflicted, however, new evidence comes to light that casts doubt on the original conviction. Do we carry out the sentence nonetheless? Or do we present the fresh evidence back to the jury at a retrial prior to the sentence being carried out? I would suggest the latter is the sensible course of action.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.0 -
No it is not.DavidL said:
Is the defence of the status quo not supposed to be the job of the Conservative party? Perhaps they should go back to that idea.kinabalu said:
A good point. Some decent evidence might also be marshaled in support of slashing taxes to the bone or of nationalizing the utilities. Or scrapping trident maybe. Or even privatizing the NHS. Seek and ye shall find.DavidL said:It will be interesting to see how brave they want to be.
Evidence based policy might result in the legalisation of drugs as per Portugal rather fighting on forlornly in a war we can't win.
Evidence based policy might conclude that free TV licences for the older population are pretty ridiculous when they are the only ones left watching the BBC.
Evidence based policy might suggest that a tax system which taxes dividend income at a lower rate than NMW earnings is in need of reform.
I could go on but how many groups are they willing to upset?
But what I strongly suspect is that 'evidence based' is just bullshit jargon for 'we won't do anything to frighten the horses'.
Which is absolutely fair enough. Many people do not want lots of change and many more say that they do but don't really. Defence of the status quo is a very respectable position to take and it ought to be represented. The IG will serve a useful purpose by doing so, and who knows how far they might go with it. Only 10/1 to win the next election.
But let us not pretend that this is something new and exciting, something more than it is. We can safely leave that to Chuka.
Someone in response replied [agreeing it seems with that idea] that this is the biggest change since Mrs T. But that rather belies the point.
If defense of the status quo was the job of the Conservative Party then when the status quo included secondary picketing, nationalised companies, union beer and sandwiches etc then under your logic the job of the Conservative Party would have been to defend secondary picketing, nationalised industry, union beer and sandwiches etc
When the status quo goes against Conservative principles there is nothing unConservative about wishing to change the status quo.0 -
There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.Richard_Tyndall said:
And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.Dadge said:
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.Richard_Tyndall said:
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.Dadge said:
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
0 -
We haven't left yet.DougSeal said:As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.
0 -
I'm sure TSE has a long list of new thoughts to offer. Glittering asides, wise gems, and insightful predictions. It'd be a very dark day for AV thread headers if that wasn't the case.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Did we discover how one can delete ones entire history on PB and disappear without trace so as to avoid ever encountering said threatened thread?TheScreamingEagles said:Site notice
I've started writing a thread on AV.
Asking for a friend.0 -
I know, right?! Disgraceful delay. When they run out of newbies completely by next week I will be very sad.brokenwheel said:No more rebel scum yet? I’m getting cravings.
0 -
In all honesty that is the logic of the dictator.Dadge said:
There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.Richard_Tyndall said:
And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.Dadge said:
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.Richard_Tyndall said:
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.Dadge said:
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
0 -
Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.DougSeal said:
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.0 -
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.Richard_Tyndall said:
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.Nigelb said:
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Similarly with a referendum.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
0 -
Bailing Grayling is trying to keep his ferry from sinking.Nigelb said:
And Wailing Grayling the one responding to his press coverage.MarqueeMark said:
Flailing Grayling is the person depicted on the House Boulton sigil....Nigelb said:TheScreamingEagles said:From another PB.
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
Would he prefer Flailing ?
Oh. There is no ferry, it seems.0 -
+1Omnium said:Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).
0 -
Name one of the current set of MPs who voted Leave in the referendum, who has "realised" that triggering A50 might have been a mistake?Nigelb said:
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.Richard_Tyndall said:
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.Nigelb said:
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Similarly with a referendum.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
What we have is a hardcore set of extreme Remainer MPs who haven't reconciled themselves to the original decision. They've not changed their mind and that's the problem. They thought leaving was wrong, they fought against it, lost and haven't given up.0 -
Hailing Grayling.
When the only future employment he can get is as a cabbie....0 -
.
It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.Nigelb said:
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.Richard_Tyndall said:
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.Nigelb said:
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I .Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Similarly with a referendum.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.0 -
Only a small minority of voters view her as a big security threat. The vast majority of voters positively hate her, especially after justifying the arena bombing. That’s the truth behind polls “strip her of her citizenship, she’s a threat”. Its an age old term and age old trap politicians mustn’t fall into called ‘trial by media’blueblue said:
So how popular do you think his stance is in the Labour heartlands, let alone marginals and Tory seats? I hope Jezza trumpets this particular policy from the rooftops, especially at election time.TheJezziah said:
TBH Corbyn will probably be onto a loser when the Daily Mail aren't attacking him.CarlottaVance said:Magic Grandpa onto another winner:
https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1098615492904914946
the simple fact is Javid is pushing his laissez fair security policy on the basis its strongest security. The reality is, jewellery heist in London, Alice, bubbly sales assistant shot dead, and the blood is on Javids hands. Because if the thousands of foreign fighters aren’t deradicalized by their countries they will be used by the international criminal underworld.
Javids policy makes us less safe. It’s facade security policy. It’s the wrong policy.0 -
It is both a means and an end.IanB2 said:.
It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.Nigelb said:
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.Richard_Tyndall said:
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.Nigelb said:
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I .Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Similarly with a referendum.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.0 -
Of course Charles !!!Charles said:
Naturally you are referring to my comment rather than @dougsealBig_G_NorthWales said:
That is a fabulous comment and can be applied to quite a lot of subjects discussed on here. Top marksCharles said:
😂😂DougSeal said:
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.Philip_Thompson said:
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?nico67 said:Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
😇0 -
And if Labour wins the next election and May's reason tells her that we'd be better off under a Conservative government?Dadge said:
There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.Richard_Tyndall said:
And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.Dadge said:
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.Richard_Tyndall said:
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.Dadge said:
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
0 -
They already can, as you no doubt know.TheScreamingEagles said:
So by your logic we can ignore manifestos.Richard_Tyndall said:
No on voted for a party. They voted for individual MPs. Shame I have to teach you the basics of democracy.TheScreamingEagles said:
The party that won the most votes in Feb 1974 didn't see their mandate enacted.Richard_Tyndall said:
The result of the first vote was enacted with the elected MPs being returned to Parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
What do you make of the two elections of 1974?Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.0 -
Nigelb said:
I can think of a simple fix for that - stop failing.TheScreamingEagles said:
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.0 -
If you follow my posts that has been my position for monthsStereotomy said:
And are you settled on that or should we ask again tomorrow?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%Richard_Tyndall said:
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a terrible accusation to make
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining0 -
The same AV rejected by referendum in 2011 by 68% to 32%?Omnium said:
I'm sure TSE has a long list of new thoughts to offer. Glittering asides, wise gems, and insightful predictions. It'd be a very dark day for AV thread headers if that wasn't the case.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Did we discover how one can delete ones entire history on PB and disappear without trace so as to avoid ever encountering said threatened thread?TheScreamingEagles said:Site notice
I've started writing a thread on AV.
Asking for a friend.
That AV?
-1 -
Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.Richard_Tyndall said:
Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.DougSeal said:
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.0 -
It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.Nigelb said:
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.0 -
Sunk by aerial torpedoes and bombs at Leyte Gulf in Oct 1944.paulyork64 said:
is that about the battleship?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, huzzah!
Well, the next book's out in a month or two, and the next shortly thereafter, but that's not quite in your time frame.
Have you read John Julius Norwich's Byzantium trilogy? Or Musashi, by Eiji Yoshikawa?0 -
Democracy is an end in itself. If you decide it can be ignored or overturned once then it can be done again and again in ways you will not like.IanB2 said:.
It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.Nigelb said:
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.Richard_Tyndall said:
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.Nigelb said:
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I .Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Similarly with a referendum.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.0 -
If Jezza fell under the omnibus, who would replace him?
The betting fav is on Thornberry. But I am looking at Raynor. The former isn't seen as sincere in her lefty views surely?0 -
Nah. You jumped in the shark pool.DougSeal said:
Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.Richard_Tyndall said:
Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.DougSeal said:
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.0 -
No it's both.IanB2 said:.
It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.Nigelb said:
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.Richard_Tyndall said:
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.Nigelb said:
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I .Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Similarly with a referendum.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.0 -
No Sailing GraylingMarqueeMark said:
Bailing Grayling is trying to keep his ferry from sinking.Nigelb said:
And Wailing Grayling the one responding to his press coverage.MarqueeMark said:
Flailing Grayling is the person depicted on the House Boulton sigil....Nigelb said:TheScreamingEagles said:From another PB.
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
Would he prefer Flailing ?
Oh. There is no ferry, it seems.0 -
The right policy that makes us safe is a drone strike taking her out, like Jihadi John, but that's no longer an option now that she's no longer an enemy combatant.dots said:
Only a small minority of voters view her as a big security threat. The vast majority of voters positively hate her, especially after justifying the arena bombing. That’s the truth behind polls “strip her of her citizenship, she’s a threat”. Its an age old term and age old trap politicians mustn’t fall into called ‘trial by media’blueblue said:
So how popular do you think his stance is in the Labour heartlands, let alone marginals and Tory seats? I hope Jezza trumpets this particular policy from the rooftops, especially at election time.TheJezziah said:
TBH Corbyn will probably be onto a loser when the Daily Mail aren't attacking him.CarlottaVance said:Magic Grandpa onto another winner:
https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1098615492904914946
the simple fact is Javid is pushing his laissez fair security policy on the basis its strongest security. The reality is, jewellery heist in London, Alice, bubbly sales assistant shot dead, and the blood is on Javids hands. Because if the thousands of foreign fighters aren’t deradicalized by their countries they will be used by the international criminal underworld.
Javids policy makes us less safe. It’s facade security policy. It’s the wrong policy.
Not letting her return to this country, subject to judicial review, is perfectly legal. If you want the law to be changed seek it to be changed. I have no problems with the law of the land being implemented here as intended though.0 -
I disagree that it's an end in itself, but Ian and Dadge are totally ignoring that part of what democracy is for is resolving conflicts of interest between different groups and resolving questions which are value judgements. Reason can't fulfill either of those functionsRichard_Tyndall said:
Democracy is an end in itself. If you decide it can be ignored or overturned once then it can be done again and again in ways you will not like.IanB2 said:.
It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.Nigelb said:
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.Richard_Tyndall said:
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.Nigelb said:
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it.Richard_Tyndall said:
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I .Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Similarly with a referendum.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.0 -
I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a people's vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
The same AV rejected by referendum in 2011 by 68% to 32%?
That AV?
0 -
The idea of you as a shark is ridiculous. I must say your parroting of your bizarre view on what democracy is - not having a *democratic* opportunity to review or revise any decision until it’s fully enacted - is really tiresome now. Work out your issues elsewhere and stop being so bloody boring!Richard_Tyndall said:
Nah. You jumped in the shark pool.DougSeal said:
Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.Richard_Tyndall said:
Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.DougSeal said:
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.
0 -
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.Chris said:
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.nico67 said:Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.0 -
So.williamglenn said:
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.0 -
So when the people have voted to leave what (following your definition) is a tyranny, it's tyrannical not to accede to the demands of supporters of said tyranny to have a second vote to allow the people to choose continued tyranny? Thanks for clearing that up.williamglenn said:
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.Richard_Tyndall said:IanB2 said:
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.0 -
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.AnotherEngineer said:I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
0 -
Maybe we should look to local government for an understanding. Certainly in Wales independent councillors are to be found everywhere.0
-
It troubles me that you keep pretending there is no legal process where there is one. The question is indeed whether there should be the power at all (I'd prefer a minister not have the power), whether the process was correctly followed in this case or not (It seems to me the government may be on shaky ground, but if it was followed correctly I won't protest the outcome), and whether the legal process that exists is adequate (it does seem rather broad to me).rcs1000 said:
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.Chris said:
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.nico67 said:Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
.
It is not, as you keep asserting, that it can be done without any legal process. There is one, which can also be appealed.0 -
Jeremy Corbyn is inching closer to backing a second referendum, with the Labour leader under intense pressure from senior figures including Keir Starmer to prevent more restive MPs from leaving the party and spike the guns of the splitters.
At a Brexit policy meeting this week, Starmer spoke out in favour of an amendment drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, the Guardian understands. Under the terms of the amendment, MPs would support the prime minister’s deal in exchange for it being put to a public vote.0 -
Many areas have a great many. It gets a bit silly when you can have multiple independent groups on the same council. I know down in Cornwall they usually have a very high number of independents, even up to a third or more.FrankBooth said:Maybe we should look to local government for an understanding. Certainly in Wales independent councillors are to be found everywhere.
It can work, but there is a reason political parties, imperfect as they are, are a good idea to provide a general direction on things.0 -
If he'd listened to me he could have done this bloody ages ago and avoided so much hassle.IanB2 said:Jeremy Corbyn is inching closer to backing a second referendum, with the Labour leader under intense pressure from senior figures including Keir Starmer to prevent more restive MPs from leaving the party and spike the guns of the splitters.
At a Brexit policy meeting this week, Starmer spoke out in favour of an amendment drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, the Guardian understands. Under the terms of the amendment, MPs would support the prime minister’s deal in exchange for it being put to a public vote.0 -
Corbyn willing to speak about a British citizen who’s joined an organisation keen on killing Jews but unable or unwilling, apparently, to talk since 2017 to one of his own Jewish MPs who has been under attack, including death threats.CarlottaVance said:Magic Grandpa onto another winner:
https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1098615492904914946
Javid has made a mistake. Authorities in the area today said they would be willing to investigate and prosecute members of IS, provided they got legal and other help from us. That is what we should be doing - helping them bring justice for the victims of IS. Then - and only then - do we consider what we do if (and when) IS members return to Britain.0 -
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.0
-
May's deal won't pass.Gardenwalker said:
So.williamglenn said:
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum0 -
Third party breakaway have a habit of reshaping a main party ultimately e.g. the Peelites turning the Whigs into the Liberals, the Liberal Unionists influencing the Tories and the SDP setting the way for New Labour. The TIG will hope to do the same0
-
No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.Richard_Tyndall said:
It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.Nigelb said:
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.
* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.0 -
Did that link make sense in your head?Cyclefree said:
Corbyn willing to speak about a British citizen who’s joined an organisation keen on killing Jews but unable or unwilling, apparently, to talk since 2017 to one of his own Jewish MPs who has been under attack, including death threats.CarlottaVance said:Magic Grandpa onto another winner:
https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/10986154929049149460 -
TM said that no deal was better than a bad dealBig_G_NorthWales said:
That is just silly. Democracy does not include economic armageddonRichard_Tyndall said:
In which case you reject democracy.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%Richard_Tyndall said:
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a terrible accusation to make
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
0 -
TIG will not have achieved much unless they bring about change in many aspects of our system of government. Radical, radical radical....They want a referendum. Why one? Why not ten a year to keep the politicians in line with what the people want? It's better than waiting 40 years for one that kicks the establishment where it hurts. Why not introduce non-binding in-school elections at 14, non-binding national elections concerning all schools for 16 year olds, a write to vote in general elactions at 18 and compulsory voting at 21. Our democracy needs to be kicked into the 21st century.
TIG should concentrate on breaking the mould. PR, an independent candidate chosen by lottery and a subsequent primary in every constituency. It's not long since we picked 12 good men and true at random (women, LGBTU) and asked them to decide on the life or death of someone on trial for murder. Somehow this process is not good enough for parliament. Dreaming? fanciful? In the words of George Bernard Shaw...
'You see things; you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?”
0 -
It’s a mark of how thick the ERG are, that they even now they don’t grasp this point.Omnium said:Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).
As someone remarked below, if Brexit fails to happen, they will bear a significant part of the responsibility; if we No Deal, then much of it.
0 -
If Failing Grayling annoys him so much I’m going to use it more often.MarqueeMark said:Hailing Grayling.
When the only future employment he can get is as a cabbie....0 -
Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?kinabalu said:Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
0 -
Stereotomy said:
And if Labour wins the next election and May's reason tells her that we'd be better off under a Conservative government?Dadge said:
There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.Richard_Tyndall said:
And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.Dadge said:
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.Richard_Tyndall said:
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.Dadge said:
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
If Labour wins the next election... stop there , they won't, not if Corbyn is leader.
0 -
I agree with all of that. Also, there is a wider question. Why should we be trying to dump this villainess on another country? Regardless of the legal details, she has never even visited Bangladesh. We made her, we should bloody deal with her.rcs1000 said:
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.Chris said:
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.nico67 said:Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.0 -
A stopped clock...kinabalu said:Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
Such is the positioning of the New Left. They're enemies of the West (the US, UK, Israel, and the global Jewish-Capitalist-Zionist conspiracy that persists in their fevered imaginations,) and the enemies of their enemies are their friends.Cyclefree said:Corbyn willing to speak about a British citizen who’s joined an organisation keen on killing Jews but unable or unwilling, apparently, to talk since 2017 to one of his own Jewish MPs who has been under attack, including death threats.
Fruitcakes, loonies and not-really-closet-anymore racists: that's the Labour Party now.0 -
Yeah I'm sure that's exactly what's going through Chuka's headdesertorchid said:TIG will not have achieved much unless they bring about change in many aspects of our system of government. Radical, radical radical....They want a referendum. Why one? Why not ten a year to keep the politicians in line with what the people want? It's better than waiting 40 years for one that kicks the establishment where it hurts. Why not introduce non-binding in-school elections at 14, non-binding national elections concerning all schools for 16 year olds, a write to vote in general elactions at 18 and compulsory voting at 21. Our democracy needs to be kicked into the 21st century.
TIG should concentrate on breaking the mould. PR, an independent candidate chosen by lottery and a subsequent primary in every constituency. It's not long since we picked 12 good men and true at random (women, LGBTU) and asked them to decide on the life or death of someone on trial for murder. Somehow this process is not good enough for parliament. Dreaming? fanciful? In the words of George Bernard Shaw...
'You see things; you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?”0 -
I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?kinabalu said:Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
0 -
If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.Dadge said:
May's deal won't pass.Gardenwalker said:
So.williamglenn said:
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.0 -
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.williamglenn said:
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.AnotherEngineer said:I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.0 -
Touché!Stereotomy said:
And if Labour wins the next election and May's reason tells her that we'd be better off under a Conservative government?Dadge said:
There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.Richard_Tyndall said:
And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.Dadge said:
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.Richard_Tyndall said:
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.Dadge said:
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.Richard_Tyndall said:
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.Dadge said:
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.Richard_Tyndall said:
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.williamglenn said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.williamglenn said:You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
0 -
Yes, I agree with all that. Just because I think it looks as though Javid has satisfied the part of the procedure relating to citizenship, please don't conclude from that that I think he's necessarily satisfied the other requirements, or that his action is right or wise, or that the existing rules are good ones.rcs1000 said:
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.Chris said:
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
I think politicians should be given as little power as possible to meddle directly in such matters, and there should be strong safeguards against the misuse of what power they are given.0 -
I don't think the cognoscenti like Corbyn very much. They do hate the tabloids particularly the Mail and the Sun. I don't have any real objection to what he has said on this matter - the bits I've seen anyway - not like when he brought up his reservations with 'shoot to kill' in the immediate aftermath of terror incidents.kinabalu said:Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
I suspect the Home Office panicked. I wouldn't like to be in Javid's position right now. The idea that we can expect her to go to Bangladesh is just ridiculous. He knows the outrage her return will cause - Ronnie Biggs hardly compares. What choice do we have? Unless she is put on trial where she is.0 -
May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.Endillion said:
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.williamglenn said:
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.AnotherEngineer said:I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.0 -
In all fairness, you rarely have the foggiest idea nowadays what you are voting for under FPP.Endillion said:
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.williamglenn said:
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.AnotherEngineer said:I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.0 -
"No deal is better than a bad deal."kjohnw said:
TM said that no deal was better than a bad deal
You could read that to mean that all deals are bad. She certainly behaves as if that's the way she meant it.0 -
You keep saying this, although as I keep replying to you and you keep studiously ignoring the Tories won a majority with that pledge in Great Britain, while the DUP won a majority pledging the same thing in Northern Ireland.williamglenn said:
May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.Endillion said:
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.williamglenn said:
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.AnotherEngineer said:I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
So a majority of the UK was won with that commitment, it was just split across one party representing Britain winning a majority in Britain and a party representing Northern Ireland winning a majority in Northern Ireland. Overall the two with the same pledges won a majority in the UK.
I'd be curious to see you reply to this point rather than ignore it again.0 -
May's deal is better than nothing. Nothing is worse than May's deal.AnotherEngineer said:
"No deal is better than a bad deal."kjohnw said:
TM said that no deal was better than a bad deal
You could read that to mean that all deals are bad. She certainly behaves as if that's the way she meant it.0 -
An orderly Brexit is on offer. But, most MP's don't want an orderly Brexit.Stonch said:
No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.Richard_Tyndall said:
It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.Nigelb said:
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.
* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.0 -
There is a legal process though.rcs1000 said:
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.Chris said:
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.nico67 said:Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
EDIT: And it seems that the fact we are debating her citizenship says more about us than the legal process which has already determined that she does have Bangladeshi citizenship. It seems that until that matter was settled the decision wasn't taken.0 -
Well, she’s an obnoxious airhead. But, we knew that.TheAncientMariner said:
I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?kinabalu said:Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
0 -
I don't think you can regard whatever's happened behind closed doors in the Home Office as due process. Who knows what basis the decision was made on?kle4 said:
It troubles me that you keep pretending there is no legal process where there is one. The question is indeed whether there should be the power at all (I'd prefer a minister not have the power), whether the process was correctly followed in this case or not (It seems to me the government may be on shaky ground, but if it was followed correctly I won't protest the outcome), and whether the legal process that exists is adequate (it does seem rather broad to me).rcs1000 said:
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
.
It is not, as you keep asserting, that it can be done without any legal process. There is one, which can also be appealed.
The due process would start with an appeal. But it's a problem that - if I understand correctly (I have to say that in case any solicitors are reading this) - the order would remain in force for however long the appeal took. It's been suggested it might take years in this case.0 -
It doesn't really matter. What matters is what those MPs who were elected then will vote for now.Philip_Thompson said:
You keep saying this, although as I keep replying to you and you keep studiously ignoring the Tories won a majority with that pledge in Great Britain, while the DUP won a majority pledging the same thing in Northern Ireland.williamglenn said:
May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.Endillion said:
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.williamglenn said:
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.AnotherEngineer said:I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
So a majority of the UK was won with that commitment, it was just split across one party representing Britain winning a majority in Britain and a party representing Northern Ireland winning a majority in Northern Ireland. Overall the two with the same pledges won a majority in the UK.
I'd be curious to see you reply to this point rather than ignore it again.0 -
The ERG would be mad to agree to any deal until 5 minutes to midnight.
As for a government policy of no deal - good chance we will leave with no deal with that never being policy...0 -
williamglenn said:
May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.Endillion said:
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.williamglenn said:
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.AnotherEngineer said:I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
Oh, I see. Except that the DUP had similar commitments, so leaving both SM and CU did actually win a majority (kind of).williamglenn said:
May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.Endillion said:
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.williamglenn said:
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.AnotherEngineer said:I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.0 -
It is time ERG were put back in their boxTGOHF said:The ERG would be mad to agree to any deal until 5 minutes to midnight.
As for a government policy of no deal - good chance we will leave with no deal with that never being policy...0 -
It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.Dadge said:
May's deal won't pass.Gardenwalker said:
So.williamglenn said:
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support0 -
On what grounds do you believe she will move to second referendum since she has catergorically ruled that out knowing it would destroy her partyGardenwalker said:
If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.Dadge said:
May's deal won't pass.Gardenwalker said:
So.williamglenn said:
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.0 -
I'm deeply amused by the thought of your device autocorrecting "warhead" to "airhead"._Anazina_ said:
Well, she’s an obnoxious airhead. But, we knew that.TheAncientMariner said:
I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?kinabalu said:Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
0 -
Hey, remeber the NC#9 election fraud that meant the result wasn't certified?
Exciting new twist. The candidates son testified against him! Just look at that picture.
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1098556067976564736?s=190 -
I am making a distinction between a legal process, where a judge/jury make a decision after a show of evidence, and a process that is legal, such as the current one.kle4 said:
It troubles me that you keep pretending there is no legal process where there is one. The question is indeed whether there should be the power at all (I'd prefer a minister not have the power), whether the process was correctly followed in this case or not (It seems to me the government may be on shaky ground, but if it was followed correctly I won't protest the outcome), and whether the legal process that exists is adequate (it does seem rather broad to me).rcs1000 said:
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.Chris said:
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.nico67 said:Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
.
It is not, as you keep asserting, that it can be done without any legal process. There is one, which can also be appealed.
I should have been clearer.0 -
The reason is quite simple: Civilisation is breaking down. The rule of law is in serious trouble. We are reverting to a brutal, tribal state of affairs. We just don't realise it or see it, or we otherwise pretend it isn't happening, because it doesn't seem to affect us.rcs1000 said:
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.Chris said:
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.nico67 said:Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I ing .
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
For the last century or so, the idea that banishment without due process is an acceptable form of punishment would be unthinkable. It is the undoing of enlightenment idea of citizenship. But it has all suddenly become okay.
0 -
The ERG represent a significant chunk of the 52%.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is time ERG were put back in their boxTGOHF said:The ERG would be mad to agree to any deal until 5 minutes to midnight.
As for a government policy of no deal - good chance we will leave with no deal with that never being policy...0 -
Labour (and/or TIG) offering to support the deal if she does - thereby delivering the majority - and the only other option being to become forever the PM who trashed the country. Or be forced into a long and unpredictable extension or revocation.kjohnw said:
On what grounds do you believe she will move to second referendum since she has catergorically ruled that out knowing it would destroy her partyGardenwalker said:
If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.Dadge said:
May's deal won't pass.Gardenwalker said:
So.williamglenn said:
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.
When it's sorted she is going, anyway.0 -
rcs1000 said:
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.Chris said:
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.nico67 said:
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
Bringing her back before she has faced justice in the country in which she chose to live is enabling her to evade justice. Do you think that is right?kinabalu said:Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
0
