(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Everyone has a right to vote in the government of their own country, not other countries. If you're not a citizen it is not your nation.
The backstop violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. NI's government will be the EU but NI voters won't get to take part in the government as they won't be able to freely choose representatives.
So, by the same definition, infants and prisoners should be allowed to vote.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Everyone has a right to vote in the government of their own country, not other countries. If you're not a citizen it is not your nation.
The backstop violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. NI's government will be the EU but NI voters won't get to take part in the government as they won't be able to freely choose representatives.
So, by the same definition, infants and prisoners should be allowed to vote.
So are the NI voters you want to disenfranchise infants or prisoners in your eyes?
In the event that Sajid Javid became Prime MInister, would the Pakistani background community continue to vote solidly Labour ? I suspect it would but is there an electability case he could make that certain previously safeish Labour seats could be in play in a future GE ?
I do not think Javid as PM would win any new seats because of Muslim faith. There is not much point in knocking 10k off a safe Labour seat if you cannot win it!
In 1997 and 2001, one of the Bradford seats had a candidate who was a Muslim business man. He did manage to buck the national trend and got swings to the Tories but failed to win the seat. It was said that he managed to persuade influencial figures to change from Labour to Tory. As soon as Riaz was no longer a candidate the Tories went backwards. Some seats you could look at for a Muslim vote are Halifax, Dewsbury, Keighley, that have tended to be more marginal at recent elections.
The problem for Javid is a anti-muslim vote. These can be found in northern mill towns for example These generally tend to be WWC with limited education but do vote Tory unless their is a Muslim candidate locally for instance. White people, some of whom are educated refer to Muslims in derogatory terms and I think if in the unlikley event Javid won the Tories would have problems in marginal Tory held seats. Mind you Johnson has Muslim heritage but I doubt anyone will be swayed by that.
The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.
A lot of NI people living in NI want to elect their leaders, but they just want them to be in Dublin not London. We decided to deal with this problem by ignoring it and squinting so we could pretend the border isn't there, and we signed the GFA to institutionalise this, which granted the Dublin government a measure of sovereignity over NI. Well we pretended to, and as we were both in the EU it kinda worked. But now we are leaving and the Dublin government wishes to maintain its reach over NI, hence the backstop. This is the origin of the problem you cannot acknowledge: if the backstop is slavery then you sold them into slavery when the GFA was signed. If the backstop was with the Irish government alone you wouldn't complain, because it's just the status-quo. But it's with the EU, so you disdain it. Hence the increasingly-hysterical conflict.
It's a bit like those 70's science-fiction movies where the protagonist tells the computer "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say will be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" and there's lots of sparks and bad chromakey.
If voting is a fundamental human right then emigration does not come into it.
Yes it does. Expats don't have the same fundamental human rights as nationals do, that is universal.
Though are you seriously now desperately trying to argue that voting is not a fundamental human right?
Well, it clearly isn't if foreign nationals who live, work and pay tax in the UK cannot vote in UK-wide elections.
The declaration of human rights says you can vote in your own country. NI voters are in their own country, foreign nationals aren't.
BUT WAIT! Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Everyone has a right to vote in the government of their own country, not other countries. If you're not a citizen it is not your nation.
The backstop violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. NI's government will be the EU but NI voters won't get to take part in the government as they won't be able to freely choose representatives.
"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government"
The will of the people of Northern Ireland is to have the backstop.
Why do you have to be a citizen of a country for it to be your country? The UDHR does not say that. If you live, work and pay tax in a country, then why isn't it your country?
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Everyone has a right to vote in the government of their own country, not other countries. If you're not a citizen it is not your nation.
The backstop violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. NI's government will be the EU but NI voters won't get to take part in the government as they won't be able to freely choose representatives.
So, by the same definition, infants and prisoners should be allowed to vote.
So are the NI voters you want to disenfranchise infants or prisoners in your eyes?
Glibly, they are prisoners of Brexit. But no, some of them are neither. I'm merely seeking to find out whether you'll follow through your own argument and citation of the Declaration and say that you're in favour of a toddler being allowed to vote.
Irish nationals who live in the UK can vote in UK elections. UK nationals who live in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections (except Presidential ones?)
Indeed.
However under the backstop EU laws will be NI laws. NI nationals living in NI will not be able to vote in EU elections which are setting NI laws.
Is that true? Will the laws have "direct effect", or will it be the result of the UK passing laws in accordance with a treaty obligation?
The laws will have direct effect and NI voters won't be able to amend that. There will be no way to elect a government who can terminate the obligation.
Of course there is. The UK government could walk away from the backstop at any stage - even if it applied solely to Northern Ireland. There would be a price to pay, but the choice is always there.
If voting is a fundamental human right then emigration does not come into it.
Yes it does. Expats don't have the same fundamental human rights as nationals do, that is universal.
Though are you seriously now desperately trying to argue that voting is not a fundamental human right?
Well, it clearly isn't if foreign nationals who live, work and pay tax in the UK cannot vote in UK-wide elections.
The declaration of human rights says you can vote in your own country. NI voters are in their own country, foreign nationals aren't.
BUT WAIT! Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
Irish nationals who live in the UK can vote in UK elections. UK nationals who live in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections (except Presidential ones?)
Indeed.
However under the backstop EU laws will be NI laws. NI nationals living in NI will not be able to vote in EU elections which are setting NI laws.
Is that true? Will the laws have "direct effect", or will it be the result of the UK passing laws in accordance with a treaty obligation?
The laws will have direct effect and NI voters won't be able to amend that. There will be no way to elect a government who can terminate the obligation.
Of course there is. The UK government could walk away from the backstop at any stage - even if it applied solely to Northern Ireland. There would be a price to pay, but the choice is always there.
Exactly so. This is a question of diplomacy, not being constitutionally bound. It always has been so.
If voting is a fundamental human right then emigration does not come into it.
Yes it does. Expats don't have the same fundamental human rights as nationals do, that is universal.
Though are you seriously now desperately trying to argue that voting is not a fundamental human right?
Well, it clearly isn't if foreign nationals who live, work and pay tax in the UK cannot vote in UK-wide elections.
The declaration of human rights says you can vote in your own country. NI voters are in their own country, foreign nationals aren't.
BUT WAIT! Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
National or social origin doesn't mean that you can't vote here if you are nationalised as a British citizen.
If you were originally born as a foreign national, emigrate to the UK and become a British citizen then your origins as having been foreign previously don't stop you from voting.
Irish nationals who live in the UK can vote in UK elections. UK nationals who live in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections (except Presidential ones?)
Indeed.
However under the backstop EU laws will be NI laws. NI nationals living in NI will not be able to vote in EU elections which are setting NI laws.
Is that true? Will the laws have "direct effect", or will it be the result of the UK passing laws in accordance with a treaty obligation?
The laws will have direct effect and NI voters won't be able to amend that. There will be no way to elect a government who can terminate the obligation.
Of course there is. The UK government could walk away from the backstop at any stage - even if it applied solely to Northern Ireland. There would be a price to pay, but the choice is always there.
The Attorney General disagreed. He said there would be no legal way to walk away unilaterally from the backstop.
If voting is a fundamental human right then emigration does not come into it.
Yes it does. Expats don't have the same fundamental human rights as nationals do, that is universal.
Though are you seriously now desperately trying to argue that voting is not a fundamental human right?
Well, it clearly isn't if foreign nationals who live, work and pay tax in the UK cannot vote in UK-wide elections.
The declaration of human rights says you can vote in your own country. NI voters are in their own country, foreign nationals aren't.
BUT WAIT! Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
National or social origin doesn't mean that you can't vote here if you are nationalised as a British citizen.
If you were originally born as a foreign national, emigrate to the UK and become a British citizen then your origins as having been foreign previously don't stop you from voting.
Irish nationals who live in the UK can vote in UK elections. UK nationals who live in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections (except Presidential ones?)
Indeed.
However under the backstop EU laws will be NI laws. NI nationals living in NI will not be able to vote in EU elections which are setting NI laws.
Is that true? Will the laws have "direct effect", or will it be the result of the UK passing laws in accordance with a treaty obligation?
The laws will have direct effect and NI voters won't be able to amend that. There will be no way to elect a government who can terminate the obligation.
Of course there is. The UK government could walk away from the backstop at any stage - even if it applied solely to Northern Ireland. There would be a price to pay, but the choice is always there.
The Attorney General disagreed. He said there would be no legal way to walk away unilaterally from the backstop.
The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.
A lot of NI people living in NI want to elect their leaders, but they just want them to be in Dublin not London. We decided to deal with this problem by ignoring it and squinting so we could pretend the border isn't there, and we signed the GFA to institutionalise this, which granted the Dublin government a measure of sovereignity over NI. Well we pretended to, and as we were both in the EU it kinda worked. But now we are leaving and the Dublin government wishes to maintain its reach over NI, hence the backstop. This is the origin of the problem you cannot acknowledge: if the backstop is slavery then you sold them into slavery when the GFA was signed. If the backstop was with the Irish government alone you wouldn't complain, because it's just the status-quo. But it's with the EU, so you disdain it. Hence the increasingly-hysterical conflict.
It's a bit like those 70's science-fiction movies where the protagonist tells the computer "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say will be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" and there's lots of sparks and bad chromakey.
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if its with the Irish government alone, or the EU.
It matters if NI voters get to elect the government that passes laws that apply in NI. It is very simple.
If voting is a fundamental human right then emigration does not come into it.
Yes it does. Expats don't have the same fundamental human rights as nationals do, that is universal.
Though are you seriously now desperately trying to argue that voting is not a fundamental human right?
Well, it clearly isn't if foreign nationals who live, work and pay tax in the UK cannot vote in UK-wide elections.
The declaration of human rights says you can vote in your own country. NI voters are in their own country, foreign nationals aren't.
BUT WAIT! Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
National or social origin doesn't mean that you can't vote here if you are nationalised as a British citizen.
If you were originally born as a foreign national, emigrate to the UK and become a British citizen then your origins as having been foreign previously don't stop you from voting.
Irish nationals who live in the UK can vote in UK elections. UK nationals who live in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections (except Presidential ones?)
Indeed.
However under the backstop EU laws will be NI laws. NI nationals living in NI will not be able to vote in EU elections which are setting NI laws.
Is that true? Will the laws have "direct effect", or will it be the result of the UK passing laws in accordance with a treaty obligation?
The laws will have direct effect and NI voters won't be able to amend that. There will be no way to elect a government who can terminate the obligation.
Of course there is. The UK government could walk away from the backstop at any stage - even if it applied solely to Northern Ireland. There would be a price to pay, but the choice is always there.
The Attorney General disagreed. He said there would be no legal way to walk away unilaterally from the backstop.
So what would happen? Would the UK go to prison?
Immaterial. We would be legally bound. Unless you're saying the law is meaningless.
The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.
A lot of NI people living in NI want to elect their leaders, but they just want them to be in Dublin not London. We decided to deal with this problem by ignoring it and squinting so we could pretend the border isn't there, and we signed the GFA to institutionalise this, which granted the Dublin government a measure of sovereignity over NI. Well we pretended to, and as we were both in the EU it kinda worked. But now we are leaving and the Dublin government wishes to maintain its reach over NI, hence the backstop. This is the origin of the problem you cannot acknowledge: if the backstop is slavery then you sold them into slavery when the GFA was signed. If the backstop was with the Irish government alone you wouldn't complain, because it's just the status-quo. But it's with the EU, so you disdain it. Hence the increasingly-hysterical conflict.
It's a bit like those 70's science-fiction movies where the protagonist tells the computer "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say will be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" and there's lots of sparks and bad chromakey.
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if its with the Irish government alone, or the EU.
It matters if NI voters get to elect the government that passes laws that apply in NI. It is very simple.
I'm glad we've moved on from "fundamental" at least. Now... about this being "simple"...
Anyway we're going around in circles and I need to go to bed. The ever increasingly desperate attempts to claim democracy isn't a right are really tragic.
@SouthamObserver@Phukov@viewcode@Cyclefree If there was a threat to have major bombing campaigns unless women were banned from voting, would you be prepared to ban women from voting? Or would you be prepared to have people be killed or maimed instead?
The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.
A lot of NI people living in NI want to elect their leaders, but they just want them to be in Dublin not London. We decided to deal with this problem by ignoring it and squinting so we could pretend the border isn't there, and we signed the GFA to institutionalise this, which granted the Dublin government a measure of sovereignity over NI. Well we pretended to, and as we were both in the EU it kinda worked. But now we are leaving and the Dublin government wishes to maintain its reach over NI, hence the backstop. This is the origin of the problem you cannot acknowledge: if the backstop is slavery then you sold them into slavery when the GFA was signed. If the backstop was with the Irish government alone you wouldn't complain, because it's just the status-quo. But it's with the EU, so you disdain it. Hence the increasingly-hysterical conflict.
It's a bit like those 70's science-fiction movies where the protagonist tells the computer "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say will be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" and there's lots of sparks and bad chromakey.
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if its with the Irish government alone, or the EU.
It matters if NI voters get to elect the government that passes laws that apply in NI. It is very simple.
So, currently, the people of Northern Ireland - and by implication the rest of the UK, too - do get the right to vote for an EU government that makes the laws in the UK?
The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.
A lot of NI people living in NI want to elect their leaders, but they just want them to be in Dublin not London. We decided to deal with this problem by ignoring it and squinting so we could pretend the border isn't there, and we signed the GFA to institutionalise this, which granted the Dublin government a measure of sovereignity over NI. Well we pretended to, and as we were both in the EU it kinda worked. But now we are leaving and the Dublin government wishes to maintain its reach over NI, hence the backstop. This is the origin of the problem you cannot acknowledge: if the backstop is slavery then you sold them into slavery when the GFA was signed. If the backstop was with the Irish government alone you wouldn't complain, because it's just the status-quo. But it's with the EU, so you disdain it. Hence the increasingly-hysterical conflict.
It's a bit like those 70's science-fiction movies where the protagonist tells the computer "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say will be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" and there's lots of sparks and bad chromakey.
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if its with the Irish government alone, or the EU.
It matters if NI voters get to elect the government that passes laws that apply in NI. It is very simple.
So, currently, the people of Northern Ireland - and by implication the rest of the UK, too - do get the right to vote for an EU government that makes the laws in the UK?
Yes obviously! We had the elections a few weeks ago, May sits in the European Council.
I've already said that if NI is OK with remaining under EU law, and if NI gets to keep its MEPs, and if NI gets representation on the European Council . . . then I have absolutely no objection to the backstop.
I wouldn't be completely shocked if Hunt goes out in the next round. At the moment his score is probably being inflated by tactical voting but if, for whatever reason, those Tory MPs decide not to continue voting tactically he could find himself in trouble.
Irish nationals who live in the UK can vote in UK elections. UK nationals who live in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections (except Presidential ones?)
Indeed.
However under the backstop EU laws will be NI laws. NI nationals living in NI will not be able to vote in EU elections which are setting NI laws.
Is that true? Will the laws have "direct effect", or will it be the result of the UK passing laws in accordance with a treaty obligation?
The laws will have direct effect and NI voters won't be able to amend that. There will be no way to elect a government who can terminate the obligation.
Of course there is. The UK government could walk away from the backstop at any stage - even if it applied solely to Northern Ireland. There would be a price to pay, but the choice is always there.
The Attorney General disagreed. He said there would be no legal way to walk away unilaterally from the backstop.
So what would happen? Would the UK go to prison?
Immaterial. We would be legally bound. Unless you're saying the law is meaningless.
I am saying that the UK can walk away from the backstop by withdrawing from the agreement that sets it up.
The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.
A lot of NI people living in NI want to elect their leaders, but they just want them to be in Dublin not London. We decided to deal with this problem by ignoring it and squinting so we could pretend the border isn't there, and we signed the GFA to institutionalise this, which granted the Dublin government a measure of sovereignity over NI. Well we pretended to, and as we were both in the EU it kinda worked. But now we are leaving and the Dublin government wishes to maintain its reach over NI, hence the backstop. This is the origin of the problem you cannot acknowledge: if the backstop is slavery then you sold them into slavery when the GFA was signed. If the backstop was with the Irish government alone you wouldn't complain, because it's just the status-quo. But it's with the EU, so you disdain it. Hence the increasingly-hysterical conflict.
It's a bit like those 70's science-fiction movies where the protagonist tells the computer "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say will be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" and there's lots of sparks and bad chromakey.
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if its with the Irish government alone, or the EU.
It matters if NI voters get to elect the government that passes laws that apply in NI. It is very simple.
It *is* very simple, but you're not following thru. Currently, NI voters resident in NI cannot vote in elections to the Irish government because they live outside the State. But under the GFA the Irish government has some say in governance of NI. So they violate your must-elect-the-leaders criterion.
However, it gets more complicated. In October the Irish government plans to hold a referendum to allow Irish citizens living in NI to vote in Dail elections. So some NI residents (those with Irish passports) can vote in Dail elections. But others (those with British passports) won't be able to.
Of course you could grasp the nettle, resile from the GFA, and ensure that the only government holding sway over NI is the UK one. This would bring new problems in its wake, but it would satisfy your criterion. But you won't do that.
Anyway we're going around in circles and I need to go to bed. The ever increasingly desperate attempts to claim democracy isn't a right are really tragic.
@SouthamObserver@Phukov@viewcode@Cyclefree If there was a threat to have major bombing campaigns unless women were banned from voting, would you be prepared to ban women from voting? Or would you be prepared to have people be killed or maimed instead?
The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.
A lot of NI people living in NI want to elect their leaders, but they just want them to be in Dublin not London. We decided to deal with this problem by ignoring it and squinting so we could pretend the border isn't there, and we signed the GFA to institutionalise this, which granted the Dublin government a measure of sovereignity over NI. Well we pretended to, and as we were both in the EU it kinda worked. But now we are leaving and the Dublin government wishes to maintain its reach over NI, hence the backstop. This is the origin of the problem you cannot acknowledge: if the backstop is slavery then you sold them into slavery when the GFA was signed. If the backstop was with the Irish government alone you wouldn't complain, because it's just the status-quo. But it's with the EU, so you disdain it. Hence the increasingly-hysterical conflict.
It's a bit like those 70's science-fiction movies where the protagonist tells the computer "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say will be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" and there's lots of sparks and bad chromakey.
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if its with the Irish government alone, or the EU.
It matters if NI voters get to elect the government that passes laws that apply in NI. It is very simple.
So, currently, the people of Northern Ireland - and by implication the rest of the UK, too - do get the right to vote for an EU government that makes the laws in the UK?
Yes obviously! We had the elections a few weeks ago, May sits in the European Council.
I've already said that if NI is OK with remaining under EU law, and if NI gets to keep its MEPs, and if NI gets representation on the European Council . . . then I have absolutely no objection to the backstop.
Except, no, it's not true. The European Parliament elections do not lead to the creation of a European government. There is no European government. However, I am intrigued that you seem to believe the EU is a fully-fledged democracy. That is not a widely-held view among those who favour Brexit!
Anyway we're going around in circles and I need to go to bed. The ever increasingly desperate attempts to claim democracy isn't a right are really tragic.
@SouthamObserver@Phukov@viewcode@Cyclefree If there was a threat to have major bombing campaigns unless women were banned from voting, would you be prepared to ban women from voting? Or would you be prepared to have people be killed or maimed instead?
No.
Pause.
Well, that was an easily-demolished straw man....
No you wouldn't ban women from voting?
So therefore you would be prepared to have women killed or maimed instead by terrorists seeking to impose that?
The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.
A lot of NI people living in NI want to elect their leaders, but they just want them to be in Dublin not London. We decided to deal with this problem by ignoring it and squinting so we could pretend the border isn't there, and we signed the GFA to institutionalise this, which granted the Dublin government a measure of sovereignity over NI. Well we pretended to, and as we were both in the EU it kinda worked. But now we are leaving and the Dublin government wishes to maintain its reach over NI, hence the backstop. This is the origin of the problem you cannot acknowledge: if the backstop is slavery then you sold them into slavery when the GFA was signed. If the backstop was with the Irish government alone you wouldn't complain, because it's just the status-quo. But it's with the EU, so you disdain it. Hence the increasingly-hysterical conflict.
It's a bit like those 70's science-fiction movies where the protagonist tells the computer "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say will be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" and there's lots of sparks and bad chromakey.
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if its with the Irish government alone, or the EU.
It matters if NI voters get to elect the government that passes laws that apply in NI. It is very simple.
It *is* very simple, but you're not following thru. Currently, NI voters resident in NI cannot vote in elections to the Irish government because they live outside the State. But under the GFA the Irish government has some say in governance of NI. So they violate your must-elect-the-leaders criterion.
However, it gets more complicated. In October the Irish government plans to hold a referendum to allow Irish citizens living in NI to vote in Dail elections. So some NI residents (those with Irish passports) can vote in Dail elections. But others (those with British passports) won't be able to.
Of course you could grasp the nettle, resile from the GFA, and ensure that the only government holding sway over NI is the UK one. This would bring new problems in its wake, but it would satisfy your criterion. But you won't do that.
The Irish government has "some say", with consent, it doesn't unilaterally set the laws with no opt-out.
The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.
A lot of NI people living in NI want to elect their leaders, but they just want them to be in Dublin not London. We decided to deal with this problem by ignoring it and squinting so we could pretend the border isn't there, and we signed the GFA to institutionalise this, which granted the Dublin government a measure of sovereignity over NI. Well we pretended to, and as we were both in the EU it kinda worked. But now we are leaving and the Dublin government wishes to maintain its reach over NI, hence the backstop. This is the origin of the problem you cannot acknowledge: if the backstop is slavery then you sold them into slavery when the GFA was signed. If the backstop was with the Irish government alone you wouldn't complain, because it's just the status-quo. But it's with the EU, so you disdain it. Hence the increasingly-hysterical conflict.
It's a bit like those 70's science-fiction movies where the protagonist tells the computer "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say will be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" and there's lots of sparks and bad chromakey.
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if its with the Irish government alone, or the EU.
It matters if NI voters get to elect the government that passes laws that apply in NI. It is very simple.
It *is* very simple, but you're not following thru. Currently, NI voters resident in NI cannot vote in elections to the Irish government because they live outside the State. But under the GFA the Irish government has some say in governance of NI. So they violate your must-elect-the-leaders criterion.
However, it gets more complicated. In October the Irish government plans to hold a referendum to allow Irish citizens living in NI to vote in Dail elections. So some NI residents (those with Irish passports) can vote in Dail elections. But others (those with British passports) won't be able to.
Of course you could grasp the nettle, resile from the GFA, and ensure that the only government holding sway over NI is the UK one. This would bring new problems in its wake, but it would satisfy your criterion. But you won't do that.
The Irish government has "some say", with consent, it doesn't unilaterally set the laws with no opt-out.
"So you're OK with "some say"? Well, there you are then. Give the EU the same level of codecision over NI as the Irish government has. Problem solved.
The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.
A lot of NI people living in NI want to elect their leaders, but they just want them to be in Dublin not London. We decided to deal with this problem by ignoring it and squinting so we could pretend the border isn't there, and we signed the GFA to institutionalise this, which granted the Dublin government a measure of sovereignity over NI. Well we pretended to, and as we were both in the EU it kinda worked. But now we are leaving and the Dublin government wishes to maintain its reach over NI, hence the backstop. This is the origin of the problem you cannot acknowledge: if the backstop is slavery then you sold them into slavery when the GFA was signed. If the backstop was with the Irish government alone you wouldn't complain, because it's just the status-quo. But it's with the EU, so you disdain it. Hence the increasingly-hysterical conflict.
It's a bit like those 70's science-fiction movies where the protagonist tells the computer "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say will be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" and there's lots of sparks and bad chromakey.
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if its with the Irish government alone, or the EU.
It matters if NI voters get to elect the government that passes laws that apply in NI. It is very simple.
It *is* very simple, but you're not following thru. Currently, NI voters resident in NI cannot vote in elections to the Irish government because they live outside the State. But under the GFA the Irish government has some say in governance of NI. So they violate your must-elect-the-leaders criterion.
However, it gets more complicated. In October the Irish government plans to hold a referendum to allow Irish citizens living in NI to vote in Dail elections. So some NI residents (those with Irish passports) can vote in Dail elections. But others (those with British passports) won't be able to.
Of course you could grasp the nettle, resile from the GFA, and ensure that the only government holding sway over NI is the UK one. This would bring new problems in its wake, but it would satisfy your criterion. But you won't do that.
The Irish government has "some say", with consent, it doesn't unilaterally set the laws with no opt-out.
"So you're OK with "some say"? Well, there you are then. Give the EU the same level of codecision over NI as the Irish government has. Problem solved.
As an alternative to the backstop I'm fine with that.
"My suspicions were aroused as soon as I saw the set. The five Tories had been placed on high stools with their legs dangling beneath them. If you want to make someone look like a prat, there is no surer way than to make him or her perch several feet above the ground."
A full border should have been put up when southern Ireland became a Republic and severed ties with the Commonwealth. They wanted independence, we should have given them full independence on day one. No CTA, no pegged currencies, no British defence and the same customs duties we'd impose on anybody else.
I am fed up of the kowtowing to this tiny Republic, who generally don't even like us anyway. It was only in the 1990s they officially repealed claims on our territory. Full border controls now please - let their French and German masters defend Irish airspace and waters for free.
"My suspicions were aroused as soon as I saw the set. The five Tories had been placed on high stools with their legs dangling beneath them. If you want to make someone look like a prat, there is no surer way than to make him or her perch several feet above the ground."
A full border should have been put up when southern Ireland became a Republic and severed ties with the Commonwealth. They wanted independence, we should have given them full independence on day one. No CTA, no pegged currencies, no British defence and the same customs duties we'd impose on anybody else.
I am fed up of the kowtowing to this tiny Republic, who generally don't even like us anyway. It was only in the 1990s they officially repealed claims on our territory. Full border controls now please - let their French and German masters defend Irish airspace and waters for free.
It was only in the 1990s England officially repealed claims on Irish territory. After the best part of 1000 years dicking about.
A full border should have been put up when southern Ireland became a Republic and severed ties with the Commonwealth. They wanted independence, we should have given them full independence on day one. No CTA, no pegged currencies, no British defence and the same customs duties we'd impose on anybody else.
I am fed up of the kowtowing to this tiny Republic, who generally don't even like us anyway. It was only in the 1990s they officially repealed claims on our territory. Full border controls now please - let their French and German masters defend Irish airspace and waters for free.
Have you ever been to the border area? And some 40+% of the N Irish population want Union with Ireland anyway.
Pretty much my opinion. A worrying number of posters seem to consider a Boris majority as inevitable.
”This alliance of true believers and cynics makes for a shaky foundation. It is made wobblier still by the fact that Mr Johnson’s team seems to have promised wholly contradictory things to MPs to win their support. A proposed high-speed railway between London and Birmingham will be built or cancelled; today’s cabinet ministers will be retained or sacked en masse: it all depends on whom Mr Johnson’s camp is speaking to”
“Young voters have a problem with Mr Johnson, as do women, points out Ben Page, head of Ipsos MORI, a pollster: “He’s basically not refreshing the parts other Tories do not reach any more.””
“His is “the success of someone who avoids car crashes by sitting in a parked car”, according to Stewart Wood, a Labour peer. All of this means there is a danger that Boris-mania could end as quickly as it began.”
"My suspicions were aroused as soon as I saw the set. The five Tories had been placed on high stools with their legs dangling beneath them. If you want to make someone look like a prat, there is no surer way than to make him or her perch several feet above the ground."
The key phrase is "sensible politicians should think twice before taking part in such a debate in future". If it hasn't actually killed the chances of a leaders debate before the next General Election, it has ensured that it will be hedged around with extremely stringent conditions. If I were on Boris's team, I'd say "These are our terms - prior agreement to all aspects of the format, and one debate only. On ITV."
I mean, it's one thing to insist that the media just has to muscle in to a private member voting arrangement - albeit one where the next Prime Minister will be selected. It's quite another to make such a shockingly rude and inept botch-job of it.
A full border should have been put up when southern Ireland became a Republic and severed ties with the Commonwealth. They wanted independence, we should have given them full independence on day one. No CTA, no pegged currencies, no British defence and the same customs duties we'd impose on anybody else.
I am fed up of the kowtowing to this tiny Republic, who generally don't even like us anyway. It was only in the 1990s they officially repealed claims on our territory. Full border controls now please - let their French and German masters defend Irish airspace and waters for free.
Have you ever been to the border area? And some 40+% of the N Irish population want Union with Ireland anyway.
Very amusing reading arguments over the backstop more hysterical than the sort of thing Baker or Francois come out with. The painting of the issue as so clearly fundamentally a human right violation also makes 90% of Tory MPs including the next PM akin to criminals for backing it. Reliance on ridiculous hypotheticals to defend a position so extreme even most arch brexiteers dont back it, since all but 2 dozen approved it in the end, is a real funny one.
It's so obviously an outrage that only 2 dozen held out against it. Right. All very well holding a minority position, but let's not forget it is a very very minority position so attempting to make it seem so obviously wrong is just laughable.
A full border should have been put up when southern Ireland became a Republic and severed ties with the Commonwealth. They wanted independence, we should have given them full independence on day one. No CTA, no pegged currencies, no British defence and the same customs duties we'd impose on anybody else.
I am fed up of the kowtowing to this tiny Republic, who generally don't even like us anyway. It was only in the 1990s they officially repealed claims on our territory. Full border controls now please - let their French and German masters defend Irish airspace and waters for free.
Have you ever been to the border area? And some 40+% of the N Irish population want Union with Ireland anyway.
Reunion.
True. Point taken. I wonder about the wisdom of feeding this ...... or any other ..... troll, anyway.
A full border should have been put up when southern Ireland became a Republic and severed ties with the Commonwealth. They wanted independence, we should have given them full independence on day one. No CTA, no pegged currencies, no British defence and the same customs duties we'd impose on anybody else.
I am fed up of the kowtowing to this tiny Republic, who generally don't even like us anyway. It was only in the 1990s they officially repealed claims on our territory. Full border controls now please - let their French and German masters defend Irish airspace and waters for free.
Have you ever been to the border area? And some 40+% of the N Irish population want Union with Ireland anyway.
Reunion.
True. Point taken. I wonder about the wisdom of feeding this ...... or any other ..... troll, anyway.
Same thought crossed my mind. Probably best not to feed it.
Wouldn’t surprise me if this is an Ulster Loyalist account. Scottish newspaper threads are infested with them.
A full border should have been put up when southern Ireland became a Republic and severed ties with the Commonwealth. They wanted independence, we should have given them full independence on day one. No CTA, no pegged currencies, no British defence and the same customs duties we'd impose on anybody else.
I am fed up of the kowtowing to this tiny Republic, who generally don't even like us anyway. It was only in the 1990s they officially repealed claims on our territory. Full border controls now please - let their French and German masters defend Irish airspace and waters for free.
Have you ever been to the border area? And some 40+% of the N Irish population want Union with Ireland anyway.
A full border should have been put up when southern Ireland became a Republic and severed ties with the Commonwealth. They wanted independence, we should have given them full independence on day one. No CTA, no pegged currencies, no British defence and the same customs duties we'd impose on anybody else.
I am fed up of the kowtowing to this tiny Republic, who generally don't even like us anyway. It was only in the 1990s they officially repealed claims on our territory. Full border controls now please - let their French and German masters defend Irish airspace and waters for free.
It was only in the 1990s England officially repealed claims on Irish territory. After the best part of 1000 years dicking about.
Britain had a claim to southern Ireland written into its constitution?
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.
I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
Sure, it might be a gamble, if he does a better job than many think, or at least boosts the Tory rating if he can regain some BXP support. But a GE in more chaotic circumstances than those most beneficial to Boris seems perfectly possible as well, and Labour have a great chance of holding out better than the Tories at least, given the Tories being at risk to LDs, Labour, SNP and BXP. Labour also have a far easier path to a governing coalition, even if not straightfoward or guaranteed.
If there is a GE before Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the Tory manifesto says. If there is a GE after a negotiated Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the agreement says. If there is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will be standing in every constituency crying betrayal, as will the LibDems, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid, while BXP will also be standing and screaming that betrayal and surrender to Brussels is just around the corner. Good luck Tories.
Except Boris, unlike May, will be campaigning on leaving in October Deal or No Deal, so they can cry betrayal as much as they want but it will not work with May gone and a Leaver in charge.
Labour itself is split with many of its Remainers now voting LD or Green
If you think logic has anything to do with Brexit, you may not have been paying attention.
If voting is a fundamental human right then emigration does not come into it.
Yes it does. Expats don't have the same fundamental human rights as nationals do, that is universal.
Though are you seriously now desperately trying to argue that voting is not a fundamental human right?
Well, it clearly isn't if foreign nationals who live, work and pay tax in the UK cannot vote in UK-wide elections.
The declaration of human rights says you can vote in your own country. NI voters are in their own country, foreign nationals aren't.
BUT WAIT! Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
National or social origin doesn't mean that you can't vote here if you are nationalised as a British citizen.
If you were originally born as a foreign national, emigrate to the UK and become a British citizen then your origins as having been foreign previously don't stop you from voting.
Nationalised? What am I, a railway?
Unfortunately not.
But you might be a mismanaged car manufacturer with a name that stimulates patriotic feelings.
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
A full border should have been put up when southern Ireland became a Republic and severed ties with the Commonwealth. They wanted independence, we should have given them full independence on day one. No CTA, no pegged currencies, no British defence and the same customs duties we'd impose on anybody else.
I am fed up of the kowtowing to this tiny Republic, who generally don't even like us anyway. It was only in the 1990s they officially repealed claims on our territory. Full border controls now please - let their French and German masters defend Irish airspace and waters for free.
It was only in the 1990s England officially repealed claims on Irish territory. After the best part of 1000 years dicking about.
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
That's a chicken and egg though. IDS had a lack of support amongst MPs because he was useless and they knew he was. Same as Corbyn. That might not apply to a Hunt but reuniting the Tory party and keeping it united through Brexit would challenge the skills of Disraeli, let alone the present mob.
Surely a good to great PM can either be a charismatic leader with a Big Idea...... Blair, Thatcher, ...... or a good committee chair ..... Attlee, possibly Home and Wilson. And they have to recall Macmillan's warning about 'events'.
Boris might be charismatic, but he hasn't got a Big Idea, apart from his own personal aggrandisement. In some respects he's like Cameron; wants to be PM because he thinks he'd be good at it. And that didn't end well!
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
That's a chicken and egg though. IDS had a lack of support amongst MPs because he was useless and they knew he was. Same as Corbyn. That might not apply to a Hunt but reuniting the Tory party and keeping it united through Brexit would challenge the skills of Disraeli, let alone the present mob.
The current Conservative party is not going to reunite unless and until one group has been proved triumphantly right and the other has been wholly chastened. That could take quite a while. Much more likely, it will split further.
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
That's a chicken and egg though. IDS had a lack of support amongst MPs because he was useless and they knew he was. Same as Corbyn. That might not apply to a Hunt but reuniting the Tory party and keeping it united through Brexit would challenge the skills of Disraeli, let alone the present mob.
The current Conservative party is not going to reunite unless and until one group has been proved triumphantly right and the other has been wholly chastened. That could take quite a while. Much more likely, it will split further.
I don't see it quite like that. I think that the candidates (except Rory) were correct that the party faces an existential threat from the Brexit Party and the only solution is to deliver Brexit, any Brexit. Rory was more interested (in a classical Tory way now out of fashion) in the national interest rather than the party one. That view having been rejected Boris will do his best to deliver Brexit and will have an election committed to one if, as I expect, the current HoC continues its defiance. Some of what we might now call the Rory tendency will leave but I don't think the party will split.
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
That's a chicken and egg though. IDS had a lack of support amongst MPs because he was useless and they knew he was. Same as Corbyn. That might not apply to a Hunt but reuniting the Tory party and keeping it united through Brexit would challenge the skills of Disraeli, let alone the present mob.
The current Conservative party is not going to reunite unless and until one group has been proved triumphantly right and the other has been wholly chastened. That could take quite a while. Much more likely, it will split further.
I don't see it quite like that. I think that the candidates (except Rory) were correct that the party faces an existential threat from the Brexit Party and the only solution is to deliver Brexit, any Brexit. Rory was more interested (in a classical Tory way now out of fashion) in the national interest rather than the party one. That view having been rejected Boris will do his best to deliver Brexit and will have an election committed to one if, as I expect, the current HoC continues its defiance. Some of what we might now call the Rory tendency will leave but I don't think the party will split.
It might if Brexit doesn't prove the disaster some of us fear, but 'simply' makes everything less good........ more farmers going bust, higher prices in the shops, lower GDP, and consequently poorer services etc. There will then be a row between those who said 'told you' and those who keep blaming the EU.
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
That's a chicken and egg though. IDS had a lack of support amongst MPs because he was useless and they knew he was. Same as Corbyn. That might not apply to a Hunt but reuniting the Tory party and keeping it united through Brexit would challenge the skills of Disraeli, let alone the present mob.
The current Conservative party is not going to reunite unless and until one group has been proved triumphantly right and the other has been wholly chastened. That could take quite a while. Much more likely, it will split further.
I don't see it quite like that. I think that the candidates (except Rory) were correct that the party faces an existential threat from the Brexit Party and the only solution is to deliver Brexit, any Brexit. Rory was more interested (in a classical Tory way now out of fashion) in the national interest rather than the party one. That view having been rejected Boris will do his best to deliver Brexit and will have an election committed to one if, as I expect, the current HoC continues its defiance. Some of what we might now call the Rory tendency will leave but I don't think the party will split.
Rory Stewart was committed to delivering Brexit. The remaining candidates are all committed to repudiating the current deal and if necessary delivering no deal Brexit.
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
That's a chicken and egg though. IDS had a lack of support amongst MPs because he was useless and they knew he was. Same as Corbyn. That might not apply to a Hunt but reuniting the Tory party and keeping it united through Brexit would challenge the skills of Disraeli, let alone the present mob.
The current Conservative party is not going to reunite unless and until one group has been proved triumphantly right and the other has been wholly chastened. That could take quite a while. Much more likely, it will split further.
I don't see it quite like that. I think that the candidates (except Rory) were correct that the party faces an existential threat from the Brexit Party and the only solution is to deliver Brexit, any Brexit. Rory was more interested (in a classical Tory way now out of fashion) in the national interest rather than the party one. That view having been rejected Boris will do his best to deliver Brexit and will have an election committed to one if, as I expect, the current HoC continues its defiance. Some of what we might now call the Rory tendency will leave but I don't think the party will split.
If I was a Remainer with an ERG loon as my MP, I would vote for any party that would eject them. I'll vote for my Tory MP at the next GE because he's a good guy and not an ERG loon.
I don't see it quite like that. I think that the candidates (except Rory) were correct that the party faces an existential threat from the Brexit Party and the only solution is to deliver Brexit, any Brexit. Rory was more interested (in a classical Tory way now out of fashion) in the national interest rather than the party one. That view having been rejected Boris will do his best to deliver Brexit and will have an election committed to one if, as I expect, the current HoC continues its defiance. Some of what we might now call the Rory tendency will leave but I don't think the party will split.
A party committed to Brexit, any Brexit, at the cost of the national interest, is no longer the Conservative and Unionist Party.
It is the Brexit party. The MPs just have admitted it yet
Rory Stewart was committed to delivering Brexit. The remaining candidates are all committed to repudiating the current deal and if necessary delivering no deal Brexit.
How can he be committed to delivering "Brexit" when it [the WA] stands no chance of getting through the House of Commons? Rory's unicorn.
I don't see it quite like that. I think that the candidates (except Rory) were correct that the party faces an existential threat from the Brexit Party and the only solution is to deliver Brexit, any Brexit. Rory was more interested (in a classical Tory way now out of fashion) in the national interest rather than the party one. That view having been rejected Boris will do his best to deliver Brexit and will have an election committed to one if, as I expect, the current HoC continues its defiance. Some of what we might now call the Rory tendency will leave but I don't think the party will split.
A party committed to Brexit, any Brexit, at the cost of the national interest, is no longer the Conservative and Unionist Party.
It is the Brexit party. The MPs just have admitted it yet
Rory Stewart was committed to delivering Brexit. The remaining candidates are all committed to repudiating the current deal and if necessary delivering no deal Brexit.
How can he be committed to delivering "Brexit" when it [the WA] stands no chance of getting through the House of Commons? Rory's unicorn.
I wasn’t touting for Rory Stewart. They’re all batshit mental. None of them have an actual workable plan to deliver what they purport to be promising.
I am looking forward to the “I told you so” threads in the next few months as the Brexit Party (formerly the Tory party) continues to make a dog’s breakfast of everything.
Meanwhile any Tory MPs not entirely obsessed with themselves might care to listen to the interview with Mark Rutte, Dutch PM, on the Today programme after the 8 o’clock news news.
Or, more likely, they will continue to put their hands over their ears shouting “La la- we can’t hear you.”
Incidentally, the punters who instantly changed the price on Rory after the debate on Tuesday obviously read the runes a lot better than those of us discussing it on here.
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
That's a chicken and egg though. IDS had a lack of support amongst MPs because he was useless and they knew he was. Same as Corbyn. That might not apply to a Hunt but reuniting the Tory party and keeping it united through Brexit would challenge the skills of Disraeli, let alone the present mob.
The current Conservative party is not going to reunite unless and until one group has been proved triumphantly right and the other has been wholly chastened. That could take quite a while. Much more likely, it will split further.
I don't see it quite like that. I think that the candidates (except Rory) were correct that the party faces an existential threat from the Brexit Party and the only solution is to deliver Brexit, any Brexit. Rory was more interested (in a classical Tory way now out of fashion) in the national interest rather than the party one. That view having been rejected Boris will do his best to deliver Brexit and will have an election committed to one if, as I expect, the current HoC continues its defiance. Some of what we might now call the Rory tendency will leave but I don't think the party will split.
If I was a Remainer with an ERG loon as my MP, I would vote for any party that would eject them. I'll vote for my Tory MP at the next GE because he's a good guy and not an ERG loon.
It's possible there will be some local alliances, but I really cannot see anything nation(s)wide. Anyway, which side is Labour on?
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
That's a chicken and egg though. IDS had a lack of support amongst MPs because he was useless and they knew he was. Same as Corbyn. That might not apply to a Hunt but reuniting the Tory party and keeping it united through Brexit would challenge the skills of Disraeli, let alone the present mob.
The current Conservative party is not going to reunite unless and until one group has been proved triumphantly right and the other has been wholly chastened. That could take quite a while. Much more likely, it will split further.
I don't see it quite like that. I think that the candidates (except Rory) were correct that the party faces an existential threat from the Brexit Party and the only solution is to deliver Brexit, any Brexit. Rory was more interested (in a classical Tory way now out of fashion) in the national interest rather than the party one. That view having been rejected Boris will do his best to deliver Brexit and will have an election committed to one if, as I expect, the current HoC continues its defiance. Some of what we might now call the Rory tendency will leave but I don't think the party will split.
If I was a Remainer with an ERG loon as my MP, I would vote for any party that would eject them. I'll vote for my Tory MP at the next GE because he's a good guy and not an ERG loon.
Well I am a Remainer with an ERG loon as my MP, but it will be tricky to get Suella out.
I'm not sure Portillo would ever have done anything other than race Blair to the bottom in the popularity stakes. He wouldn't have been any different to Blair on Iraq, would he? Maybe even a little more gung ho.....
Was IDS any different to Blair on Iraq?
No, because he made the big mistake, as many of us did, that a PM wouldn't lie to the House on such a grave matter.
Seems naive now, of course. But that was before people understood how much New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
That's a chicken and egg though. IDS had a lack of support amongst MPs because he was useless and they knew he was. Same as Corbyn. That might not apply to a Hunt but reuniting the Tory party and keeping it united through Brexit would challenge the skills of Disraeli, let alone the present mob.
The current Conservative party is not going to reunite unless and until one group has been proved triumphantly right and the other has been wholly chastened. That could take quite a while. Much more likely, it will split further.
I don't see it quite like that. I think that the candidates (except Rory) were correct that the party faces an existential threat from the Brexit Party and the only solution is to deliver Brexit, any Brexit. Rory was more interested (in a classical Tory way now out of fashion) in the national interest rather than the party one. That view having been rejected Boris will do his best to deliver Brexit and will have an election committed to one if, as I expect, the current HoC continues its defiance. Some of what we might now call the Rory tendency will leave but I don't think the party will split.
If I was a Remainer with an ERG loon as my MP, I would vote for any party that would eject them. I'll vote for my Tory MP at the next GE because he's a good guy and not an ERG loon.
Well I am a Remainer with an ERG loon as my MP, but it will be tricky to get Suella out.
I'm not sure Portillo would ever have done anything other than race Blair to the bottom in the popularity stakes. He wouldn't have been any different to Blair on Iraq, would he? Maybe even a little more gung ho.....
Portillo didn’t win for the same reason Gove probably won’t: because MPs didn’t trust him.
In fact, whilst he was intelligent and savvy (although probably not quite as bright as Gove, but also far less fanatical) he was quite personal to politicians he didn’t like and has essentially undermined every Tory leader since Major.
Please make it Gove. BORIS V GOVE. The country deserves a cockroach fight.
Yes, there is a nailed on crap outcome so we might at least hope for some entertainment.
And a month replaying quotes from their Red Bus campaign while the two most disreputable characters in British politics mud wrestle. What's not to like? I feel an opera coming on......
I wasn't a member of the party in 2001, but I remember having a conversation about the selection of IDS with a friend of mine who was a senior district councillor and a dyed-in-the-wool Tory activist (she'd been PA to a cabinet minister). I asked her what on earth the party was doing choosing an obvious dud instead of Ken Clarke. The answer was very revealing: she accepted that IDS was going to be a dud, and that everyone in the party knew he was going to be a dud, but that they had no choice but to go for IDS because Ken Clarke would have split the party over Europe.
I think we are seeing a similar dynamic now, but it's based on a more obviously false premise.
That, and also IDS made a decent effort to campaign amongst the members.
Rory Stewart was committed to delivering Brexit. The remaining candidates are all committed to repudiating the current deal and if necessary delivering no deal Brexit.
How can he be committed to delivering "Brexit" when it [the WA] stands no chance of getting through the House of Commons? Rory's unicorn.
I wasn’t touting for Rory Stewart. They’re all batshit mental. None of them have an actual workable plan to deliver what they purport to be promising.
We’re witnessing the governing party willingly trash the UK economy and world standing for purely party needs. We’re witnessing the main opposition party prevaricating and unwilling to step up to adopt sane policies solely to protect ideological purity of the leaders policies and those who fear losing their seats. Add in the so call political (Ltd) company that has only one policy designed to wreck all before it for no perceived gain for the person on the street. I can only see two possible solutions a) revoke, establish a cross party group of leavers to work on producing a workable way to leave the EU and if they ever come back with a unanimous proposal put it back to the people. b) hold referendum with leave/remain and if leave wins deal (WA) / no deal.
That astounding survey that reported that IDS is one of Conservative members’ favourite post-war leaders tells you what you need to know about the state of the current Conservative party.
If Hunt somehow gets knocked out in the next round, Javid could unexpectedly find himself in the final two if the Johnson team's determination to vote tactically against Gove continues to be their policy.
Not impossible that Boris’s team might prefer to face off against the friendly Saj.
But, I still think they’d prefer to game Hunt as a known entity.
That astounding survey that reported that IDS is one of Conservative members’ favourite post-war leaders tells you what you need to know about the state of the current Conservative party.
Not sure why you are so surprised. Osborne and Cameron stood for nothing other than GDP figures (and weren't even good at it) and IDS is at least somebody who says and votes for conservative ideas like national independence.
I have always liked IDS as have all the Tory voters I know.
Mr. P, Boris deserves to be criticised for his incompetence over the Iranian prisoner case, however, it's also unreasonably to describe it as a simple situation when Iran is less than co-operative and the woman in question is an Iranian citizen as well as a British one.
Mr. Royale, I saw some of the debate, though not all, and Javid was the one who surprised the most on the upside in terms of performance.
That astounding survey that reported that IDS is one of Conservative members’ favourite post-war leaders tells you what you need to know about the state of the current Conservative party.
Not sure why you are so surprised. Osborne and Cameron stood for nothing other than GDP figures (and weren't even good at it) and IDS is at least somebody who says and votes for conservative ideas like national independence.
I have always liked IDS as have all the Tory voters I know.
Exactly. The nutjobs adore the worst leader that the Conservative party has ever had, the one that took them to irrelevance in pursuit of a mad hobbyhorse.
Is the message of IDS not in part that anyone other than Boris is also going to really struggle to have a significant number of MPs on board and have a weak position in Parliament? What I think we will see today is more than half of all the MPs backing Boris, probably more like 2/3 in the final ballot.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
IDS failed all by himself. His lack of support among MPs was a consequence of his lack of talent not a cause of his failure.
That's a chicken and egg though. IDS had a lack of support amongst MPs because he was useless and they knew he was. Same as Corbyn. That might not apply to a Hunt but reuniting the Tory party and keeping it united through Brexit would challenge the skills of Disraeli, let alone the present mob.
The differences between IDS and Johnson are that MPs want Johnson and Johnson will be PM while IDS was thankfully kept out of power. Otherwise the motivations behind both selections seem similar. In both cases the selectorate are urged by the Daily Telegraph and backers to appoint someone that should clearly be seen as unsuitable.
Rory Stewart was committed to delivering Brexit. The remaining candidates are all committed to repudiating the current deal and if necessary delivering no deal Brexit.
How can he be committed to delivering "Brexit" when it [the WA] stands no chance of getting through the House of Commons? Rory's unicorn.
I wasn’t touting for Rory Stewart. They’re all batshit mental. None of them have an actual workable plan to deliver what they purport to be promising.
What I find so interesting is they are touting for a job where it's likely they will be thrown out of it within hours / minutes of them getting the job..
That astounding survey that reported that IDS is one of Conservative members’ favourite post-war leaders tells you what you need to know about the state of the current Conservative party.
It would be interesting to work backwards and try to picture what the demographic looks like. It'll certainly look like nothing I've ever seen.
In the event that Sajid Javid became Prime MInister, would the Pakistani background community continue to vote solidly Labour ? I suspect it would but is there an electability case he could make that certain previously safeish Labour seats could be in play in a future GE ?
I do not think Javid as PM would win any new seats because of Muslim faith. There is not much point in knocking 10k off a safe Labour seat if you cannot win it!
In 1997 and 2001, one of the Bradford seats had a candidate who was a Muslim business man. He did manage to buck the national trend and got swings to the Tories but failed to win the seat. It was said that he managed to persuade influencial figures to change from Labour to Tory. As soon as Riaz was no longer a candidate the Tories went backwards. Some seats you could look at for a Muslim vote are Halifax, Dewsbury, Keighley, that have tended to be more marginal at recent elections.
The problem for Javid is a anti-muslim vote. These can be found in northern mill towns for example These generally tend to be WWC with limited education but do vote Tory unless their is a Muslim candidate locally for instance. White people, some of whom are educated refer to Muslims in derogatory terms and I think if in the unlikley event Javid won the Tories would have problems in marginal Tory held seats. Mind you Johnson has Muslim heritage but I doubt anyone will be swayed by that.
I honestly don’t think that would feature.
He’s agnostic on religion and married to a white English woman and Christianity is the only religion practiced in his home. He’s a fantastic example of integration and he’s a really nice guy too.
On appearances a much bigger issue is he’s bald. On policy, the fact he’s so liberal on migration.
I am sorry to report that last night - shortly before 9.30 - I was the victim of attempted robbery via a knife attack. I was returning home from a church meeting when I became aware of being followed on the pavement by a young guy riding a bike. My intuition kicked in - perhaps on account of his riding so slowly behind me with no desire to overtake - and I crossed the road when less than 3 minutes from home. I became seriously alarmed when he followed me , and eventually drew level with me. He then asked me for money, drew a knife and threatened to stab me. Shock and panic set in, I shouted at him and ran. He continued to pusue me - and in trying to escape I stumbled, fell to the ground and grazed my hands and left knee.I managed to recover and found refuge in the home of a neighbour whose front door I was fortunately able to open. My assailant had followed me into the front garden of my neighbour's property - but made no attempt to enter. My neighbour called the Police , and over the next two hours I provided a full statement. There was then intense Police activity in the area with as many as ten vehicles appearing. The good news is that there are indications that this guy has been apprehended - together with a possible accomplice.In the end , I have been very fortunate - though it was a very scary experience.
Comments
In 1997 and 2001, one of the Bradford seats had a candidate who was a Muslim business man. He did manage to buck the national trend and got swings to the Tories but failed to win the seat. It was said that he managed to persuade influencial figures to change from Labour to Tory. As soon as Riaz was no longer a candidate the Tories went backwards. Some seats you could look at for a Muslim vote are Halifax, Dewsbury, Keighley, that have tended to be more marginal at recent elections.
The problem for Javid is a anti-muslim vote. These can be found in northern mill towns for example These generally tend to be WWC with limited education but do vote Tory unless their is a Muslim candidate locally for instance. White people, some of whom are educated refer to Muslims in derogatory terms and I think if in the unlikley event Javid won the Tories would have problems in marginal Tory held seats. Mind you Johnson has Muslim heritage but I doubt anyone will be swayed by that.
It's a bit like those 70's science-fiction movies where the protagonist tells the computer "If I were to tell you that the next thing I say will be true, but that the last thing I said was a lie, would you believe me?" and there's lots of sparks and bad chromakey.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
The will of the people of Northern Ireland is to have the backstop.
Why do you have to be a citizen of a country for it to be your country? The UDHR does not say that. If you live, work and pay tax in a country, then why isn't it your country?
But no, some of them are neither. I'm merely seeking to find out whether you'll follow through your own argument and citation of the Declaration and say that you're in favour of a toddler being allowed to vote.
It always has been so.
If you were originally born as a foreign national, emigrate to the UK and become a British citizen then your origins as having been foreign previously don't stop you from voting.
It matters if NI voters get to elect the government that passes laws that apply in NI. It is very simple.
Now... about this being "simple"...
@SouthamObserver @Phukov @viewcode @Cyclefree If there was a threat to have major bombing campaigns unless women were banned from voting, would you be prepared to ban women from voting? Or would you be prepared to have people be killed or maimed instead?
"Everyone has the right to rest"
I've already said that if NI is OK with remaining under EU law, and if NI gets to keep its MEPs, and if NI gets representation on the European Council . . . then I have absolutely no objection to the backstop.
https://twitter.com/timfarron/status/1141393078407913472
However, it gets more complicated. In October the Irish government plans to hold a referendum to allow Irish citizens living in NI to vote in Dail elections. So some NI residents (those with Irish passports) can vote in Dail elections. But others (those with British passports) won't be able to.
Of course you could grasp the nettle, resile from the GFA, and ensure that the only government holding sway over NI is the UK one. This would bring new problems in its wake, but it would satisfy your criterion. But you won't do that.
Pause.
Well, that was an easily-demolished straw man....
So therefore you would be prepared to have women killed or maimed instead by terrorists seeking to impose that?
So you and I are no different.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7160341/STEPHEN-GLOVER-pretence-gone-debate-BBCs-bias-hopelessly-exposed.html
I am fed up of the kowtowing to this tiny Republic, who generally don't even like us anyway. It was only in the 1990s they officially repealed claims on our territory. Full border controls now please - let their French and German masters defend Irish airspace and waters for free.
“Young voters have a problem with Mr Johnson, as do women, points out Ben Page, head of Ipsos MORI, a pollster: “He’s basically not refreshing the parts other Tories do not reach any more.””
“His is “the success of someone who avoids car crashes by sitting in a parked car”, according to Stewart Wood, a Labour peer. All of this means there is a danger that Boris-mania could end as quickly as it began.”
I mean, it's one thing to insist that the media just has to muscle in to a private member voting arrangement - albeit one where the next Prime Minister will be selected. It's quite another to make such a shockingly rude and inept botch-job of it.
It's so obviously an outrage that only 2 dozen held out against it. Right. All very well holding a minority position, but let's not forget it is a very very minority position so attempting to make it seem so obviously wrong is just laughable.
Best prices: Brexit date
Not before 2020 1/2
July 2019 - December 2019 6/4
Not before 2022 9/4
Wouldn’t surprise me if this is an Ulster Loyalist account. Scottish newspaper threads are infested with them.
Mr. Dickson, on the other hand, there's never been a better time to stumble across Quintus Servilius Caepio's stolen (and lost) gold.
Don't talk nonsense.
What both Corbyn and IDS show is that systems which involve the membership are all very well but if you are to be a successful leader you need the broad support of MPs in Parliament. Corbyn's ever revolving shadow cabinet of little talent has meant that there has been an incredibly ineffective opposition to a minority government over the last 2 years. Too many of the Tory MPs could never take IDS seriously for obvious reasons.
Whilst the membership of either party are capable of swinging a surprise it doesn't work out.
But you might be a mismanaged car manufacturer with a name that stimulates patriotic feelings.
Boris might be charismatic, but he hasn't got a Big Idea, apart from his own personal aggrandisement. In some respects he's like Cameron; wants to be PM because he thinks he'd be good at it.
And that didn't end well!
There will then be a row between those who said 'told you' and those who keep blaming the EU.
It is the Brexit party. The MPs just have admitted it yet
Meanwhile any Tory MPs not entirely obsessed with themselves might care to listen to the interview with Mark Rutte, Dutch PM, on the Today programme after the 8 o’clock news news.
Or, more likely, they will continue to put their hands over their ears shouting “La la- we can’t hear you.”
Anyway, which side is Labour on?
That said, Antony Eden did more or less the same.
In fact, whilst he was intelligent and savvy (although probably not quite as bright as Gove, but also far less fanatical) he was quite personal to politicians he didn’t like and has essentially undermined every Tory leader since Major.
That’s why he lost.
I don’t much care for his dabbles into politics but i am fairly glad he’s been controlling the public purse.
Clarke could barely hide his contempt for it.
That didn’t go down well.
Interesting definition of financial prudence.
Not impossible that Boris’s team might prefer to face off against the friendly Saj.
But, I still think they’d prefer to game Hunt as a known entity.
I don’t think that’s right because I think about 8 or 9 of his votes are Boris tacticals, so he starts at just sub 30.
I have always liked IDS as have all the Tory voters I know.
Mr. Royale, I saw some of the debate, though not all, and Javid was the one who surprised the most on the upside in terms of performance.
It’s a shame it took him so long to warm up. Hopefully, he’ll be a serious contender in future too.
He’s agnostic on religion and married to a white English woman and Christianity is the only religion practiced in his home. He’s a fantastic example of integration and he’s a really nice guy too.
On appearances a much bigger issue is he’s bald. On policy, the fact he’s so liberal on migration.
That’s what would hurt him.