Jump to content
Beautiful Sunday
Sign in to follow this  
Buster

The Scottish/UK Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

btw i am disgusted by the latest moves to dissolve parliament. Whatever view we hold individually avoiding further debate in this fashion is truly undemocratic .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bobs said:

btw i am disgusted by the latest moves to dissolve parliament. Whatever view we hold individually avoiding further debate in this fashion is truly undemocratic .

They've "debated" for over 3 years Bobs. In that time they've agreed nothing and adopted the Cleavon Little, Blazing saddles approach to negotiation with the EU. Give us what we want or we shoot the Brexit.  With the inevitable response from the EU, we choose shoot the Brexit. They don't want more debate, they want more time to stop legislation being carried out, that they themselves voted into law in the statute book. They've left the cabinet with no other way of carrying out the legal default they voted in to law themselves. Frankly, they shouldn't be suspended, they should be arrested.  They didn't vote down May's deal to get a better one. They voted it down so they could carry on trying to reverse a referendum. 

I can't stand Johnson, but I'd do exactly what he's doing. This can't drag on for another 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Darth Bino said:

They've "debated" for over 3 years Bobs. In that time they've agreed nothing and adopted the Cleavon Little, Blazing saddles approach to negotiation with the EU. Give us what we want or we shoot the Brexit.  With the inevitable response from the EU, we choose shoot the Brexit. They don't want more debate, they want more time to stop legislation being carried out, that they themselves voted into law in the statute book. They've left the cabinet with no other way of carrying out the legal default they voted in to law themselves. Frankly, they shouldn't be suspended, they should be arrested.  They didn't vote down May's deal to get a better one. They voted it down so they could carry on trying to reverse a referendum. 

I can't stand Johnson, but I'd do exactly what he's doing. This can't drag on for another 3 years.

At least we agree on the not liking Johnson part Darth.  I can’t defend what has happened in the last 3 years but I hold the hard Brexiteers equally responsible for the mess. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bobs said:

At least we agree on the not liking Johnson part Darth.  I can’t defend what has happened in the last 3 years but I hold the hard Brexiteers equally responsible for the mess. 

Hard Brexiteer, soft Brexiteer are media nonsense phrases Bobs. You're either in, or out. We keep getting told what people didn't vote for. There was no would you like to be half in, half out option on the ballot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Darth Bino said:

There was no would you like to be half in, half out option on the ballot

True, it was an in/out choice. What information those who voted relied on, what they envisaged, neither of us know. I get the feeling sometimes that it was rather like asking whether you wanted sauce on your chips. People saw it in simple terms. 

should we leave it at that or consult the public again when negotiations are concluded? I can see the arguments for and against that.  

Closing down your normal democratic institutions? No no I may be frustrated and sickened by what they have failed to do over the last 3 years but democracy stands or falls in Parliament and while i want to see this concluded cutting the MPs  out is not the answer 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brexit really is an unholy mess, entirely of politician's making, from Cameron trying to appease the rabid anti Europeans in his party to the present shitfest of proroguing parliament or a vote of no confidence.

There's an argument that we should hold another referendum because nobody really knew what we were voting for in the first one. So who's fucking fault was that? Politicians on both sides spouting utter shit in the campaign, leaving the vast majority of voters to make their minds up on inaccurate soundbites.

The main thing that has struck me about all this is how little the debate in parliament after the referendum focused on what would be best for the country by compromising a bit from entrenched views. It feels like we've hardly moved an inch in the last 3 years while the other 27 (?) EU countries appear to have reached a consensus fairly quickly with some of them not creating problems that could have stymied things even further.

I cannot see any way out of this other than the default no deal. Another general election is highly unlikely to change things significantly, nor is any government of national unity. Both would probably involve kicking that bloody can a bit further down the road if the other members allow that.

Rant over, but blood pressure still through the roof! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly looks like a No Deal Brexit on the 31th October. Will it be chaos the day after or will we muddle along for a few months until everything clicks into some sort of order. 

What ever happens the British people have got what they voted for to leave the EU. Time will tell if it is one BIG mistake or could this be the making of a new Britain. ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gmca said:

.

There's an argument that we should hold another referendum because nobody really knew what we were voting for in the first one. 

Not quite. There is a relentless campaign of one sided condescending claptrap, that the losing side knew what they were voting for and the winning side didn't. In reality there were people on both sides who did not have a well informed picture of what they were voting for.  This as you say, is largely down to people lapping up over simplified inaccurate soundbites on both sides, from a self serving elite class of professional failures. 

Leaving was never going to be a straight forward process without drawbacks, risks and pitfalls. Remaining was never just maintaining a status quo.  The status quo was actually MP's awarding themselves  the right to vote through treaty upon treaty of further political and fiscal union without consent or a mandate and a blank cheque to continue doing it. 

There was no honesty, or clarity from either side, just the usual attempts to herd people one way or the other with "dodgy dossier"standards of information delivery. Clegg lying about the plan for integrated EU army.   Tories telling people they would find 350 million a week for the NHS out of leaving. Remain telling people it only cost 8 billion a year net to be in the EU but just forgetting to include V.A.T. contributions and payments for joint project funding.  Leave telling people we'd waltz out with a free trade deal no problem.  All wrapped up in the arrogant assumption that the working class are so thick they voted entirely on believing these clowns and nothing else.  Which is why when I hear the so called "educated" middle classes throwing their parroted soundbites about like confetti, what I actually hear is the loud clumping of clown shoes. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bobs said:

True, it was an in/out choice. What information those who voted relied on, what they envisaged, neither of us know. I get the feeling sometimes that it was rather like asking whether you wanted sauce on your chips. People saw it in simple terms. 

should we leave it at that or consult the public again when negotiations are concluded? I can see the arguments for and against that.  

Closing down your normal democratic institutions? No no I may be frustrated and sickened by what they have failed to do over the last 3 years but democracy stands or falls in Parliament and while i want to see this concluded cutting the MPs  out is not the answer 

People were certainly given polemic over simplified information Bobs, but on both sides.

Should we consult the public again when the negotiations are concluded. No. Ask the SNP if they had won in 2014, would they have thought it reasonable to have another referendum once negotiations with the UK were concluded?  Or would they have said a question was asked, a decision was made, it would be undemocratic to ask again?

As for the MP's, all of this is of their own making. They voted to have a referendum. The overwhelming  majority stood for election on leave manifestos at the last election. No single party was given a real mandate to govern, but parliament as a whole was given an overwhelming mandate to leave. Their manifestos did not specify not on no deal. The only crisis is that created by the MPs themselves, in their efforts to overturn legislation they passed. When they say it's not normal circumstances, no it's not. It is not normal for MPs to hold a referendum, pass legislation to carry out the result, then attempt to overturn it. That is an abuse of power, not a democratic exercise and that is why the government was left with no other course of action to carry out the legislation that has already been passed, after three years of scrutiny and screaming. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the deal the SNP had struck for independence varied greatly from the White Paper e.g. using currency not suggested in the White Paper then they would have to have a second referendum to confirm leaving the U.K. (in a hypothetical Yes vote in 2014)

When the winning side in the EU referendum had no stated plan put forward to compare the eventual deal against then a second vote to confirm it is not unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ray Vaughn said:

If the deal the SNP had struck for independence varied greatly from the White Paper e.g. using currency not suggested in the White Paper then they would have to have a second referendum to confirm leaving the U.K. (in a hypothetical Yes vote in 2014)

When the winning side in the EU referendum had no stated plan put forward to compare the eventual deal against then a second vote to confirm it is not unreasonable.

How could you put a plan forward to compare to a deal that did not exist at that time, the detail of which could not be predicted? That is unreasonable. It was a binary question. Vote to remain, or vote to leave. To leave, by definition,  meant pulling out of the Treaty of Rome, out of the treaty of Maastricht and out of the treaty of Lisbon. The last two of which never involved asking voters if they were ok with "the deals."

Treaties are "not deals" and any "deal" struck with the EU is in fact a legally binding treaty with the EU. Which is exactly what people voted not to have. The referendum was not a mandate for the EU and MPs to have a cherry picking contest, on which parts of the treaties people voted to revoke, that they would prefer not to revoke. Not only is there no mandate for a second referendum based on another treaty, there's no mandate for another treaty either. If you'd like a vote on whether people would like a free trade agreement after we've left, by all means carry on. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Darth Bino said:

Vote to remain, or vote to leave. To leave, by definition,  meant pulling out of the Treaty of Rome, out of the treaty of Maastricht and out of the treaty of Lisbon. 

 

No it didn't.  All it meant was leave or remain in the European Union.  There was nothing on the ballot paper about treaties.

One way of delivering on the referendum result would be to dissolve the European Union, then instantly replace it with an identical institution except with a different name, say Europe United.

I'm surprised (and disappointed) no remain politician has suggested it.  It's no more facile than the leavers' argument that leave means leave, no matter what the circumstances or how far they depart from what was talked about by leavers at the time of the referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DavidA said:

No it didn't.  All it meant was leave or remain in the European Union.  There was nothing on the ballot paper about treaties.

One way of delivering on the referendum result would be to dissolve the European Union, then instantly replace it with an identical institution except with a different name, say Europe United.

I'm surprised (and disappointed) no remain politician has suggested it.  It's no more facile than the leavers' argument that leave means leave, no matter what the circumstances or how far they depart from what was talked about by leavers at the time of the referendum.

David, you cannot leave the EU without revoking those treaties. If you don't revoke them you are still in. That was the purpose of the repeal bill. Leave means leave is a facile description. Leave means revoking every legally binding treaty ever signed with the EU, would have been the honest and accurate description. It was however the Maybot who coined that ridiculous definition and she was (she claimed) a remainer.

What you have proposed, I would describe as the Norseman lager solution. Change it's name and the customers who don't like it will think it tastes better. It worked so well I can't find a pint of Lorimers on sale anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darth Bino said:

 Leave means leave is a facile description. 

Exactly my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As referenda are advisory and we actually have a democratic process (albeit a flawed one) where we elect representatives to act on our behalf, the blame for the omnishambles lies squarely with politicians.   The MP expenses scandal started the mass distrust of politicians and the Brexit stuff has exacerbated the situation.  None of the traditional parties has a credible leader with any statesmanlike qualities.  Nobody takes responsibility for anything and MPs seem to live in this oddly ambivalent world where they are equally comfortable espousing democracy in one breath and breaching all of the Nolan principles in the next.  There was a bye-election in Wales a few weeks ago which was caused by the electorate recalling a Tory MP who had been found guilty of fiddling his expenses.  The Tory party put him up as a candidate in the bye election and seemed genuinely surprised when he lost.

We see the same thing in the USA

The upshot of all this is that we get people of little moral substance like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage given credibility that is wholly unwarranted.  Farage has stood for parliament about 9 times and never won.  Christ, he was beaten once by a guy dressed in a dolphin costume.

The media must share some of the blame too.  They are far too scared to put any pressure on these people or subject them to proper scrutiny.  In the old days, the likes of Brian Walden would get Thatcher on his program for half an hour and give her a good seeing to.  These days we get two minutes of soundbites before Robert Peston says we've run out of time.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chuckitphilliben said:

As referenda are advisory and we actually have a democratic process (albeit a flawed one) where we elect representatives to act on our behalf, the blame for the omnishambles lies squarely with politicians.   The MP expenses scandal started the mass distrust of politicians and the Brexit stuff has exacerbated the situation.  None of the traditional parties has a credible leader with any statesmanlike qualities.  Nobody takes responsibility for anything and MPs seem to live in this oddly ambivalent world where they are equally comfortable espousing democracy in one breath and breaching all of the Nolan principles in the next.  There was a bye-election in Wales a few weeks ago which was caused by the electorate recalling a Tory MP who had been found guilty of fiddling his expenses.  The Tory party put him up as a candidate in the bye election and seemed genuinely surprised when he lost.

We see the same thing in the USA

The upshot of all this is that we get people of little moral substance like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage given credibility that is wholly unwarranted.  Farage has stood for parliament about 9 times and never won.  Christ, he was beaten once by a guy dressed in a dolphin costume.

The media must share some of the blame too.  They are far too scared to put any pressure on these people or subject them to proper scrutiny.  In the old days, the likes of Brian Walden would get Thatcher on his program for half an hour and give her a good seeing to.  These days we get two minutes of soundbites before Robert Peston says we've run out of time.  

I'm in agreement with all that, but although you are technically correct that referendums are normally advisory under national law, can that really be the case on referendums about independence? There is also international law on the right to self determination, which states that indigenous people have the right to freely determine their political status and economic, social and cultural development . Isn't that what they were asked to do. or not do in the EU referendum? Having chosen to do so in it, how then can that be considered as merely advisory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Darth Bino said:

I'm in agreement with all that, but although you are technically correct that referendums are normally advisory under national law, can that really be the case on referendums about independence? There is also international law on the right to self determination, which states that indigenous people have the right to freely determine their political status and economic, social and cultural development . Isn't that what they were asked to do. or not do in the EU referendum? Having chosen to do so in it, how then can that be considered as merely advisory?

One of the things that is quite clear to me is that a big chunk of rhetoric is about UK independence.  Tbe UK is already an independent country as defined by Richard Osman on Pointless. And even if we extend the argument to say that a lot of decisions are made in Brussels, we should remember that that parliament includes uk representatives and that in many areas the uk has a right of veto.  

What is driving some leave voters in england is a desire for english independence and the roots of that lie in the flawed nature of devolution.  If there are assemblies or parliaments in scotland wales and NI then there should be one in england too.  I heard some twat tory politician answer that by saying 'we already have an english parliament.  It's called the house of commons'. 

Many Scots, welsh and northern irish will always feel that they are somehow subservient to English rule while those structures and attitudes prevail.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chuckitphilliben said:

I heard some twat tory politician answer that by saying 'we already have an english parliament.  It's called the house of commons'. 

Many Scots, welsh and northern irish will always feel that they are somehow subservient to English rule while those structures and attitudes prevail.

 

 

I can also understand why some question the right of Scots, Welsh, and Irish to vote on English matters when they can’t vote on Scottish, Welsh or Irish matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bobs said:

I can also understand why some question the right of Scots, Welsh, and Irish to vote on English matters when they can’t vote on Scottish, Welsh or Irish matters. 

Absolutely.  It is quite unnecessary 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chuckitphilliben said:

One of the things that is quite clear to me is that a big chunk of rhetoric is about UK independence.  Tbe UK is already an independent country as defined by Richard Osman on Pointless. And even if we extend the argument to say that a lot of decisions are made in Brussels, we should remember that that parliament includes uk representatives and that in many areas the uk has a right of veto.  

What is driving some leave voters in england is a desire for english independence and the roots of that lie in the flawed nature of devolution.  If there are assemblies or parliaments in scotland wales and NI then there should be one in england too.  I heard some twat tory politician answer that by saying 'we already have an english parliament.  It's called the house of commons'. 

Many Scots, welsh and northern irish will always feel that they are somehow subservient to English rule while those structures and attitudes prevail.

 

 

Richard Osman constitutes  one man's opinion, not a legal ruling on status.  I would counter argue, that when your own legal system is subordinate to an EU legal authority, you' re not fully independent. You are not free to develop economically when subject to EU rules, so again not fully independent.The EU determines the minimum level of V.A.T. not your own government. There are also many areas where you do not have a veto.  In fact Jean Claude Junker's last state of the union address proposed a "reform" that would abolish all national vetoes in the council of ministers and replacing them with qualified majority voting, while leaving the commission in charge of drawing up legislation, not the elected parliament. Pooled sovereignty can never be described as independence for the obvious reason that it isn't.

I have no problem with England having it's own parliament. The bugbear is in deciding what is or is not a purely English matter. That's where the area of funding higher education presents just one example of a problem there. If the English parliament decides to raise tuition fees yet again, it's not just English students at English universities who get hit with them. Yet they could claim (and do in Westminster) that Scotland has autonomy in education so why shouldn't they? 

Devolution or no devolution the Tory twat will still thrive in his, or her, natural habitat. Labour twats and Fabian twats too to be fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it the various treaties and agreements mean that governments will try to harmonise rates of tax (including VAT). How quickly they do this is up to them.GB still has children’s books, and clothes, not to mention new housing on Zero rates. Others have done it differently. 

In a global economy you are never truly independent. You depend on others as they depend on you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Bino said:

Richard Osman constitutes  one man's opinion, not a legal ruling on status.  I would counter argue, that when your own legal system is subordinate to an EU legal authority, you' re not fully independent. You are not free to develop economically when subject to EU rules, so again not fully independent.The EU determines the minimum level of V.A.T. not your own government. There are also many areas where you do not have a veto.  In fact Jean Claude Junker's last state of the union address proposed a "reform" that would abolish all national vetoes in the council of ministers and replacing them with qualified majority voting, while leaving the commission in charge of drawing up legislation, not the elected parliament. Pooled sovereignty can never be described as independence for the obvious reason that it isn't.

I have no problem with England having it's own parliament. The bugbear is in deciding what is or is not a purely English matter. That's where the area of funding higher education presents just one example of a problem there. If the English parliament decides to raise tuition fees yet again, it's not just English students at English universities who get hit with them. Yet they could claim (and do in Westminster) that Scotland has autonomy in education so why shouldn't they? 

Devolution or no devolution the Tory twat will still thrive in his, or her, natural habitat. Labour twats and Fabian twats too to be fair.

But the UK, like other member states,  has MEPs that can vote for or against things.

Perhaps the problem is that within the union there are some powerful shared interests with superior voting strength making decisions that other members of the union, with different geopolitical or economic priorities, dont agree with.  That leaves them feeling disempowered and a bit frustrated leading to the feeling that they might be better outside that union running their own affairs even if it means they lose some of the advantages of being members of that union in the first place. 

Makes you think 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chuckitphilliben said:

But the UK, like other member states,  has MEPs that can vote for or against things.

Perhaps the problem is that within the union there are some powerful shared interests with superior voting strength making decisions that other members of the union, with different geopolitical or economic priorities, dont agree with.  That leaves them feeling disempowered and a bit frustrated leading to the feeling that they might be better outside that union running their own affairs even if it means they lose some of the advantages of being members of that union in the first place. 

Makes you think 

Scotland has MPs who can vote for things at Westminster, that does not make Scotland independent. Scotland remains semi autonomous because sovereignty is pooled at a central authority in London, where it is impossible for Scottish MP's to out vote hundreds of MPs who are not Scottish. The situation with the EU is no different in principle. A lesser degree of sovereignty is pooled, (at this stage in the Eurostate development project) but it is impossible for UK MEPs, or ministers in the Council of Ministers to outvote the representatives of some 440 million people from 27 other states. A nation cannot by definition be independent when it has pooled it's sovereignty with others. The referendum, whether EU fans find it inconvenient or not, was as much a referendum on UK independence as the Scottish referendum was for Scotland, regardless of all the yadda yadda by remain politicians in denial.

That leads to the fundamental problem with the right to self determination on free political, economic, social and cultural development with May's so called "deal."  The "deal" gave 27 other nations comprising the EU, the power to enforce the political and economic restrictions of the single market and the customs union in perpetuity. That is a flagrant violation of the right to self determination and calling it a "backstop" doesn't stop it being that. EU law does not supersede international law, however much the EU would like it to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Darth Bino said:

Scotland has MPs who can vote for things at Westminster, that does not make Scotland independent. Scotland remains semi autonomous because sovereignty is pooled at a central authority in London, where it is impossible for Scottish MP's to out vote hundreds of MPs who are not Scottish. The situation with the EU is no different in principle. A lesser degree of sovereignty is pooled, (at this stage in the Eurostate development project) but it is impossible for UK MEPs, or ministers in the Council of Ministers to outvote the representatives of some 440 million people from 27 other states. A nation cannot by definition be independent when it has pooled it's sovereignty with others. The referendum, whether EU fans find it inconvenient or not, was as much a referendum on UK independence as the Scottish referendum was for Scotland, regardless of all the yadda yadda by remain politicians in denial.

That leads to the fundamental problem with the right to self determination on free political, economic, social and cultural development with May's so called "deal."  The "deal" gave 27 other nations comprising the EU, the power to enforce the political and economic restrictions of the single market and the customs union in perpetuity. That is a flagrant violation of the right to self determination and calling it a "backstop" doesn't stop it being that. EU law does not supersede international law, however much the EU would like it to. 

So it's a question of scale then.  

There was a guy called Richard Booth who declared hay on wye an independent kingdom with him the king.  He printed his own money and passports and appointed a minister of technology.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chuckitphilliben said:

So it's a question of scale then.  

There was a guy called Richard Booth who declared hay on wye an independent kingdom with him the king.  He printed his own money and passports and appointed a minister of technology.   

No mate, it's not a question of scale. It's a question of political and economic status and international law. I could declare myself the independent kingdom of Shug, but I'd still get a council tax demand , a recommendation that I visit ward 30 for a while and it would still be irrelevant to the realities of pooled sovereignty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...