Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.
And a barrister that has a long history of talking about the failings of this government in spending regarding criminal justice is what, just another expert to be ignored? Just because they're writing in the Guardian, doesn't mean one shouldn't look at what they have to say.
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
I agree.
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.
Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.
And a barrister that has a long history of talking about the failings of this government in spending regarding criminal justice is what, just another expert to be ignored? Just because they're writing in the Guardian, doesn't mean one shouldn't look at what they have to say.
Everyone wants more spending on what they care about. Unfortunately we also have trillions in debt and a deficit even after austerity. So unless you are proposing cutting something else to pay for the extra spending you want it's a meaningless comment.
Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.
And a barrister that has a long history of talking about the failings of this government in spending regarding criminal justice is what, just another expert to be ignored? Just because they're writing in the Guardian, doesn't mean one shouldn't look at what they have to say.
It has been the case since the Benn Act but 41% supporting no deal in today's YouGov and more blaming the EU than UK if talks fail he may well be in a better political place than many think
So a minority support No Deal. Why is the government so intent on it then?
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
I wouldn't worry, 95%ish of them will have made their minds up about it before seeing the detail.
Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants
The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.
Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.
Spain has already said they have no issue with Scotland joining the EU as long as independence is achieved constitutionally.
I look forward to the scottish backstop discussions
There’s no need for one. If England wants to leave the single market and customs union there can be a normal customs border.
The usual drivel from unionists, Spain , currency and borders. All have been proven to be bullshit.
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
That's why I sometimes can't help wondering whether Alanbrooke and others here are not what they seem, but people trying to make Brexiteers look as stupid as possible.
The reason I find that difficult to believe is that they go so far beyond what any sane person would consider plausible.
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
I agree.
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.
The Spanish general election takes place on 10th November. It'll be interesting to see what happens in Catalonia.
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
I wouldn't worry, 95%ish of them will have made their minds up about it before seeing the detail.
Yeah, who here actually thinks MPs are going to read the full text of the agreement?
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
How many MPs votes are going to depend upon reading the deal?
Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants
The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.
Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.
I'm not really aware of anyone saying it would happen automatically, just that it would be easier than if we'd gone indy in 2014. I think the Spanish veto would only really be in play if there was an 'illegal' referendum, hence BJ and chums' desperation to avoid a section 30.
Jo Swinson rejected it yesterday so all three Westminster leaders reject Section 30 and will do so at the next GE no doubt
All cowards G , trying to hold onto their Empire, they can go F*** themselves. Given the union is just a treaty , why would they not just revoke the treaty, these pygmies will not stop it for sure.
It has been the case since the Benn Act but 41% supporting no deal in today's YouGov and more blaming the EU than UK if talks fail he may well be in a better political place than many think
So a minority support No Deal. Why is the government so intent on it then?
Only 33% support revoke and Remain in the same poll and 41% can give a Tory majority under FPTP.
Boris wants a Deal but is prepared to go for No Deal if necessary to deliver Brexit
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.
Boris is trying to rig the next election but I think CCHQ might have taken aim at its own foot with this scheme imported from the USA GOP. Driving licences might skew Tory but I'd want to see evidence for that, and more so for passports which might be held by youngish holidaymakers and muslim Hajj pilgrims, which groups tilt towards Labour. Has someone got the numbers?
Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants
The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.
Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.
Of course PM Boris and Westminster can now block any indyref2 to their hearts content and still seem reasonable thanks to the actions of the Spanish courts and Government today in jailing Catalan nationalist leaders for holding an unauthorised referendum.
It has been the case since the Benn Act but 41% supporting no deal in today's YouGov and more blaming the EU than UK if talks fail he may well be in a better political place than many think
Perhaps the funniest thing I've seen in recent days was the new report suggesting that Johnson is now terrified of No Deal - presumably because someone has finally explained to him what it would mean.
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
That's why I sometimes can't help wondering whether Alanbrooke and others here are not what they seem, but people trying to make Brexiteers look as stupid as possible.
The reason I find that difficult to believe is that they go so far beyond what any sane person would consider plausible.
Alanbrooke is exactly what he says he is , a very intelligent businessman with his own companies.
Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.
And a barrister that has a long history of talking about the failings of this government in spending regarding criminal justice is what, just another expert to be ignored? Just because they're writing in the Guardian, doesn't mean one shouldn't look at what they have to say.
Everyone wants more spending on what they care about. Unfortunately we also have trillions in debt and a deficit even after austerity. So unless you are proposing cutting something else to pay for the extra spending you want it's a meaningless comment.
RTFA. It points out that plenty of cash can be found for a policy which will in all likelihood be entirely ineffective, outside of providing Patel with a headline.
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
I agree.
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.
Remember that this is the same Kingdom of Spain which will have a veto over the conditions that an independent Scotland would have once it entered negotiations to re-enter the EU. Wonder if that has been wargamed at the NatFest?
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.
Boris is trying to rig the next election but I think CCHQ might have taken aim at its own foot with this scheme imported from the USA GOP. Driving licences might skew Tory but I'd want to see evidence for that, and more so for passports which might be held by youngish holidaymakers and muslim Hajj pilgrims, which groups tilt towards Labour. Has someone got the numbers?
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
The more I research the issue of dealing with risk in complex adaptive systems, them more I appreciate the damage of analysis paralysis. Surely, we've been past that point in the UK where inaction and uncertainty is what is causing the bulk of the damage for at least a year, perhaps more like two.
There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.
Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants
The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.
Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.
Of course PM Boris and Westminster can now block any indyref2 to their hearts content and still seem reasonable thanks to the actions of the Spanish courts and Government today in jailing Catalan nationalist leaders for holding an unauthorised referendum.
Thankyou Madrid!
You really are as thick as mince and nasty with it.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
The more I research the issue of dealing with risk in complex adaptive systems, them more I appreciate the damage of analysis paralysis. Surely, we've been past that point in the UK where inaction and uncertainty is what is causing the bulk of the damage for at least a year, perhaps more like two.
There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.
Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.
Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.
Does that make me an honorary Nit?
I agree.
The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence
The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.
There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.
I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.
But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.
Remember that this is the same Kingdom of Spain which will have a veto over the conditions that an independent Scotland would have once it entered negotiations to re-enter the EU. Wonder if that has been wargamed at the NatFest?
You moron , the Spanish Government has already stated many times that it is none of their business and that they would NOT veto Scotland joining EU if it met the joining rules.
Mr. CatMan, I'm not sure but in the pilot there was a long list of permissible types of ID, and if none were already owned a voter could simply ask the local council for one specifically for the purpose of voting.
Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants
The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.
Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.
Of course PM Boris and Westminster can now block any indyref2 to their hearts content and still seem reasonable thanks to the actions of the Spanish courts and Government today in jailing Catalan nationalist leaders for holding an unauthorised referendum.
Thankyou Madrid!
You really are as thick as mince and nasty with it.
Far from it, being really nasty would be Boris passing a law jailing Sturgeon and the Scottish executive for trying to hold an unauthorised independence referendum as Madrid has done, instead Boris will just block an unauthorised referendum
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
Do you need to show photo ID in order to collect welfare benefits?
You need ID to pick up a parcel from the post office. Perhaps the post office are preventing people from receiving certain items of mail?
You can use a Bank Card as ID at the post office.
Is that going to be allowed as a form of ID to vote? (Genuine question)
Not everyone has a bank card, driving licience or passport. Come to think about it they may not have a utility bill either. The poor will be impacted by an ID measure. Some people live in ways many on PB cannot comprehend.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
If it’s effectively the same deal as before but with some amendments then Mark Up would speed things up surely?
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.
Boris is trying to rig the next election but I think CCHQ might have taken aim at its own foot with this scheme imported from the USA GOP. Driving licences might skew Tory but I'd want to see evidence for that, and more so for passports which might be held by youngish holidaymakers and muslim Hajj pilgrims, which groups tilt towards Labour. Has someone got the numbers?
Many elderly people don't have either.
Apparently 25% don’t have driving license or passport
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
The more I research the issue of dealing with risk in complex adaptive systems, them more I appreciate the damage of analysis paralysis. Surely, we've been past that point in the UK where inaction and uncertainty is what is causing the bulk of the damage for at least a year, perhaps more like two.
There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...
There are going to be free alternatives, so people will just need to take the ten or so minutes to apply for it.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...
yebbut last time (2017) I went along to vote only to be told that I had already voted. There were several furiously busy phonecalls before I was allowed to vote. I didn't pursue the matter further (were they going to do so themselves?) but there is an argument for some kind of better identification process. There are unscrupulous people out there, sadly.
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know whaffected by it.
Jesus wept.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Maybe the current farrago goes back to the same treaty or were you too young to notice at the time ?
Likewise since you lawyers all demand more time and studious contemplation , how come we keep signing up to things in EU summits at 4 in the morning when everyone is knackered and they all just want to go home ?
Can people apply online for these acceptable IDs, or only in person? Will councils, already trying to deal with the cuts by moving as much admin online as possible, be able to cope with people asking for IDs? Will central government give more resources to local governments for this added service, or will council tax increase? How much training will people who sit at voting booths be given so they know what is acceptable ID, and what is a fake ID? Will they also be given unconscious bias training? Will the national government do an advertising campaign telling people about the change and available IDs, or will this be down to local governments?
Voter ID laws are an answer to what question? We have no credible issue with voter fraud in this country. This is a solution begging a problem; it is nothing more than a continuation of the Cameroon model of making it harder to vote and disrupting young people and people who move often trying to exercise the franchise.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...
yebbut last time (2017) I went along to vote only to be told that I had already voted. There were several furiously busy phonecalls before I was allowed to vote. I didn't pursue the matter further (were they going to do so themselves?) but there is an argument for some kind of better identification process. There are unscrupulous people out there, sadly.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
You mean in ll the time youve been on PB youre only getting round to thinking about this now ?
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.
Yes of course they have I think you answered your own question.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...
There are going to be free alternatives, so people will just need to take the ten or so minutes to apply for it.
Knowing the type of people i refer to in earlier comments i doubt they have the capacity to plan ahead. People will just arrive at polling stations and get turned away. Surely if the way voting is undertaken is changed. It should be mandatory. You can always spoil the ballot...
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.
Indeed, an interesting trio of graphs in this twitter thread.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal! Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know whaffected by it.
Jesus wept.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Maybe the current farrago goes back to the same treaty or were you too young to notice at the time ?
Likewise since you lawyers all demand more time and studious contemplation , how come we keep signing up to things in EU summits at 4 in the morning when everyone is knackered and they all just want to go home ?
You're almost raving now. Try calming down, lying in a darkened room for a while, and attempting to re-connect with reality.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...
yebbut last time (2017) I went along to vote only to be told that I had already voted. There were several furiously busy phonecalls before I was allowed to vote. I didn't pursue the matter further (were they going to do so themselves?) but there is an argument for some kind of better identification process. There are unscrupulous people out there, sadly.
Sure, I am just saying that some people lack capacity to plan ahead.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...
yebbut last time (2017) I went along to vote only to be told that I had already voted. There were several furiously busy phonecalls before I was allowed to vote. I didn't pursue the matter further (were they going to do so themselves?) but there is an argument for some kind of better identification process. There are unscrupulous people out there, sadly.
Syrian state media shows Syrian government troops arriving in Kurdish held towns on the Turkish border after an agreement between the Kurdish administration and the Assad regime to contain Turkish aggression
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...
There are going to be free alternatives, so people will just need to take the ten or so minutes to apply for it.
Knowing the type of people i refer to in earlier comments i doubt they have the capacity to plan ahead. People will just arrive at polling stations and get turned away. Surely if the way voting is undertaken is changed. It should be mandatory. You can always spoil the ballot...
I can imagine a scenario where you get a warning the first time, with instructions of how to proceed next time. After a few elections it’ll be second nature.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal! Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.
* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy1883
+1 I agree. Brexit is very complicated. Just Leaving is not viable as some people advocate.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.
Whilst on the surface it seems simply a matter of applying for said ID card but it’s extra hassle, it possibly problematic of those scared of official forms and most likely being remembering where you put the damn thing last year or even five years ago
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
I lost my polling card at a recent election and went along and gave my name and address. No problem! I asked one of the staff about ID and he was in favour but to be honest i am not so sure as some people have chaotic lives with a low level of sophistication. It cannot be right to penalise those who have as much right as anyone else to vote but not the means...
yebbut last time (2017) I went along to vote only to be told that I had already voted. There were several furiously busy phonecalls before I was allowed to vote. I didn't pursue the matter further (were they going to do so themselves?) but there is an argument for some kind of better identification process. There are unscrupulous people out there, sadly.
Sure, I am just saying that some people lack capacity to plan ahead.
Yes I appreciate that. On balance I like the system as is. Then again for those people perhaps they could plaster the message all over the motorways like they are doing for Brexit: "Want to vote? Register now."
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.
Boris is trying to rig the next election but I think CCHQ might have taken aim at its own foot with this scheme imported from the USA GOP. Driving licences might skew Tory but I'd want to see evidence for that, and more so for passports which might be held by youngish holidaymakers and muslim Hajj pilgrims, which groups tilt towards Labour. Has someone got the numbers?
Many elderly people don't have either.
Apparently 25% don’t have driving license or passport
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.
Yes of course they have I think you answered your own question.
No - answering the question would require some research. Foxy just posted some relevant data. Perhaps there is more.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.
Indeed, an interesting trio of graphs in this twitter thread.
Fascinating! So there might be an effect of suppressing the Leave vote in a future referendum? I can't deny the frisson of pleasure that this causes me, but no, it's wrong to think in those terms.
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
Eh ? We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
? They've had "months and months" to read an agreement that hasn't been reached yet, let alone written down?
You are a follower of the late Dr J. B. Rhine, I presume?
Not really. It's been policy for years and is standard practice in much of the world.
Boris is trying to rig the next election but I think CCHQ might have taken aim at its own foot with this scheme imported from the USA GOP. Driving licences might skew Tory but I'd want to see evidence for that, and more so for passports which might be held by youngish holidaymakers and muslim Hajj pilgrims, which groups tilt towards Labour. Has someone got the numbers?
Many elderly people don't have either.
Apparently 25% don’t have driving license or passport
I was looking for this stat earlier. Do you have a source (apologies if it was cut off your quote)
LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!
FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.
The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
Eh ? We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.
I've always quite liked the fact that you can vote in this country without any form of identification whatsoever, because it shows how honest most people are and how there's a high level of trust between people. It would be kind of depressing if we have to resort to ID checks like every other country just because of problems in a tiny number of areas.
There are problems but not connected with personation which is what voter ID addresses. That is how we know it is about voter suppression. The actual problems are around postal vote fraud and so-called family voting.
Forcing people to apply for ID cards could certainly suppress turnout among some groups. Considering which groups will predominantly need to apply, I wonder whether the government has really thought this through.
Yes of course they have I think you answered your own question.
An attempt to suppress the Brexit party vote, then ?
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
Eh ? We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.
You thought we were talking about whether MPs would vote this weekend to approve Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement?
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
Sounds like Nancy Pelosi. "We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it"
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
Eh ? We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.
If that's really the case, which is... unlikely, then it would probably take a good few hours to make sure it really is the WA, and not something similar with a few strange clauses sneaked in.
This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.
They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.
Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.
Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing
maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.
Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?
See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.
Eh ? We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.
You thought we were talking about whether MPs would vote this weekend to approve Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement?
There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.
This sounds suspiciously like Tony Wilson's interpretation of praxis:
In the Channel Four television documentary New Order: Play At Home, Factory Records owner Tony Wilson describes praxis as “Doing something because you have the urge to do it, inventing the reasons later.” Elsewhere, Wilson has been quoted as saying “You learn why you do something by doing it. The Theory of Independence was discovered in the act of putting out your own records, doing very well, being friends with your artists and not ripping them off. And by 1981, we were all doing it.” Which perfectly sums up the Factory ethos.
Given that Factory Records went spectacularly bust after sending the Happy Mondays to Barbados to discover crack cocaine, I'm not sure this is a great precedent.
I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.
You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.
Jesus wept.
Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.
Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?
That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
Sounds like Nancy Pelosi. "We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it"
Comments
So a minority support No Deal. Why is the government so intent on it then?
The reason I find that difficult to believe is that they go so far beyond what any sane person would consider plausible.
Boris wants a Deal but is prepared to go for No Deal if necessary to deliver Brexit
Did you read the linked article ? Your comment is curiously absent any kind of rebuttal.
Thankyou Madrid!
It points out that plenty of cash can be found for a policy which will in all likelihood be entirely ineffective, outside of providing Patel with a headline.
The more I research the issue of dealing with risk in complex adaptive systems, them more I appreciate the damage of analysis paralysis. Surely, we've been past that point in the UK where inaction and uncertainty is what is causing the bulk of the damage for at least a year, perhaps more like two.
There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.
Is that going to be allowed as a form of ID to vote? (Genuine question)
Why break a longstanding habit ?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html
speed things up surely?
https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1183722196117737478
A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?
Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?
Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.
Likewise since you lawyers all demand more time and studious contemplation , how come we keep signing up to things in EU summits at 4 in the morning when everyone is knackered and they all just want to go home ?
Voter ID laws are an answer to what question? We have no credible issue with voter fraud in this country. This is a solution begging a problem; it is nothing more than a continuation of the Cameroon model of making it harder to vote and disrupting young people and people who move often trying to exercise the franchise.
There must have been worse bets but right now I can't think of any.
What's the opposite of fill your boots?
https://twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1183323171409334272?s=19
Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.
* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy1883
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50039106
Whilst on the surface it seems simply a matter of applying for said ID card but it’s extra hassle, it possibly problematic of those scared of official forms and most likely being remembering where you put the damn thing last year or even five years ago
We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.
They've had "months and months" to read an agreement that hasn't been reached yet, let alone written down?
You are a follower of the late Dr J. B. Rhine, I presume?
Seriously?
You have to read it to know what's in it.