FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Brexit Article 50 and The Lords
Brexit Article 50 and The Lords
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think that's about half a post of useful information "That's an accurate summary of your OP. Finally you are talking some sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think that's about half a post of useful information "We're you going anywhere with this ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility... "I said a few months ago that MP's would vote it through only to have the possibility of the Lords doing the dirty work for them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility... "The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Irrespective of vote the lords should be abolished " I once had a friend who claimed to be a Tory, who suggested that we should abolish the Lords and have a second house made up of elected representatives from the Trade unions.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Just for the record I think that the House of Lords plays a very useful role as a reviewing body. The main point is that even if they are political appointees they are more-or-less free to ignore the party whip (corrupt politics), the press (fake, biased news) and the will of people (which changes as required by the previous two). Some of them are corrupt in their own venal ways, but as the only power they have is to tell government to go away and think about what they are doing that just about works. A large proportion of them are actually experts in their fields and crossbench/independent (although I'm not sure of the exact distinction) so know what they're talking about. If the Lords lays out some reasonable requests and points out some obvious problems government has to very clearly state that it doesn't care and is going to do it anyway.
So, the question is:
What parameters would it be appropriate for the Lords to amended given that it will not try to stop the bill? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether. " You don't actually know what it is or does then. That's why I asked, and you didn't answer. Again  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Irrespective of vote the lords should be abolished I once had a friend who claimed to be a Tory, who suggested that we should abolish the Lords and have a second house made up of elected representatives from the Trade unions.... "I'm sort of with that. There is a reasonable car for it to be made up of people elected from different constituencies with expert skills so the unions, professional bodies like engineering bodies, medicine etc. The last thing we need is another house elected on exactly the same basis as the Commons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Irrespective of vote the lords should be abolished I once had a friend who claimed to be a Tory, who suggested that we should abolish the Lords and have a second house made up of elected representatives from the Trade unions....
I'm sort of with that. There is a reasonable car for it to be made up of people elected from different constituencies with expert skills so the unions, professional bodies like engineering bodies, medicine etc.
The last thing we need is another house elected on exactly the same basis as the Commons."Oh, I agreed with him. I even suggested a name for them, I mooted "soviets"... and then he suddenly wasn't so keen.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Irrespective of vote the lords should be abolished I once had a friend who claimed to be a Tory, who suggested that we should abolish the Lords and have a second house made up of elected representatives from the Trade unions....
I'm sort of with that. There is a reasonable car for it to be made up of people elected from different constituencies with expert skills so the unions, professional bodies like engineering bodies, medicine etc.
The last thing we need is another house elected on exactly the same basis as the Commons.
Oh, I agreed with him. I even suggested a name for them, I mooted "soviets"... and then he suddenly wasn't so keen.... "It would mean experts and people at the very apex of their professions or skills and by definition elite. We don't need them giving us advice though because common sense and common knowledge are far more reliable so scratch that idea | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether. You don't actually know what it is or does then. That's why I asked, and you didn't answer. Again "I wasn't responding to your OP, I was responding to someone else's comment on the thread who I quoted. That is how the forum works, when someone is quoted it means it's a direct reply to that particular post. Never mind the House of Lords it seems you can't even grasp the basics of how this forum works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wasn't responding to your OP, I was responding to someone else's comment on the thread who I quoted. That is how the forum works, when someone is quoted it means it's a direct reply to that particular post. Never mind the House of Lords it seems you can't even grasp the basics of how this forum works. "You never do. Too difficult I guess. As you've said though, I only want attention. Mwah! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wanted to start with someone from the leave side laying out their understanding of the process. I didn't want to do it because there is always some pointless argument about the details or a complete misunderstanding about how the Parliamentary system in the UK functions. However, it seems that isn't going to happen. I was going to ask what parameters it would be appropriate for the Lords to want amended given that it will not try to stop the bill. I suspect that will lead into a wider "discussion", again, about what Parliamentary sovereignty is but I'm not so interested in that as it seems to mean supporting the leave argument under all circumstances
Just for the record I think that the House of Lords plays a very useful role as a reviewing body. The main point is that even if they are political appointees they are more-or-less free to ignore the party whip (corrupt politics), the press (fake, biased news) and the will of people (which changes as required by the previous two). Some of them are corrupt in their own venal ways, but as the only power they have is to tell government to go away and think about what they are doing that just about works. A large proportion of them are actually experts in their fields and crossbench/independent (although I'm not sure of the exact distinction) so know what they're talking about. If the Lords lays out some reasonable requests and points out some obvious problems government has to very clearly state that it doesn't care and is going to do it anyway.
So, the question is:
What parameters would it be appropriate for the Lords to amended given that it will not try to stop the bill?"The bill should not be amended. It is a simple bill which gives the Prime Minister and the government the authority to trigger article 50. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, the question is: What parameters would it be appropriate for the Lords to amended given that it will not try to stop the bill? The bill should not be amended. It is a simple bill which gives the Prime Minister and the government the authority to trigger article 50. " So should any legislation that has anything to do with Brexit be fully scrutinised by either House and subsequently amended in any way? Does Parliament have any role in this process other to vote with the government on everything without question? Does a vote at the end that accepts or rejects everything serve any purpose? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, the question is: What parameters would it be appropriate for the Lords to amended given that it will not try to stop the bill? The bill should not be amended. It is a simple bill which gives the Prime Minister and the government the authority to trigger article 50. So should any legislation that has anything to do with Brexit be fully scrutinised by either House and subsequently amended in any way? Does Parliament have any role in this process other to vote with the government on everything without question? Does a vote at the end that accepts or rejects everything serve any purpose?" nope. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility... "The leader of the Lib dems in the Lords said on the news earlier that the Bill will not be blocked by the Lords in such a way that Teresa May and the government won't be able to trigger article 50 before the end of March. Have a good day Mr Space cadet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The leader of the Lib dems in the Lords said on the news earlier that the Bill will not be blocked by the Lords in such a way that Teresa May and the government won't be able to trigger article 50 before the end of March.
Have a good day Mr Space cadet. "Do you not think that is a very open ended answer though ? They could amend it to include "must stay in the trading block" which in turn may mean keeping freedom of movement which in its self does not block May from triggering A50 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether. "So yet ANOTHER part of the British constitution you willing to trash in your desperate attempt to get out of the EU. I never quite realised how much Leavers hated this country until the referendum came along. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The leader of the Lib dems in the Lords said on the news earlier that the Bill will not be blocked by the Lords in such a way that Teresa May and the government won't be able to trigger article 50 before the end of March.
Have a good day Mr Space cadet.
Do you not think that is a very open ended answer though ?
They could amend it to include "must stay in the trading block" which in turn may mean keeping freedom of movement which in its self does not block May from triggering A50 "There was no talk of that from the leader of the Lords Lib dems on the news, they have to be realistic about what they can get, and the only ammendment he was talking about was securing the rights of EU citizens already living here. Many Brexiters already support that position anyway (including me, I think EU citizens already living and working here before the referendum date of June 23rd 2016 should have full right to stay here), so I think it could be an ammendment which the Lords could get through and which the government could accept. The UK should take the moral high ground on this and do it before article 50 is triggered anyway, which would then put the ball in the EU's court. Teresa May has already tried to get agreement from the EU to do this as long as UK citizens living and working in the EU get a reciprocal agreement but the EU refused and said it's part of negotiations after article 50 is triggered. Its the EU who want to use European citizens as bargaining chips. If the UK gives this right to EU citizens in the UK and then the EU refuses to give the same right to UK citizens in the EU it will show the EU bureaucrats in Brussels up for the vindictive bastards that they are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether.
So yet ANOTHER part of the British constitution you willing to trash in your desperate attempt to get out of the EU. I never quite realised how much Leavers hated this country until the referendum came along. "Do you include your beloved Lib dems in that then? The Lib dems want the House of Lords reformed to make it a democratically elected chamber. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
I said a few months ago that MP's would vote it through only to have the possibility of the Lords doing the dirty work for them "William Hague will keep them all on the straight & Narrow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether.
So yet ANOTHER part of the British constitution you willing to trash in your desperate attempt to get out of the EU. I never quite realised how much Leavers hated this country until the referendum came along. "How does disliking the fact that we have an unelected second house mean that I hate the country? An ability to openly criticise those who rule us is one of the things that my British forefathers fought to gain for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether.
So yet ANOTHER part of the British constitution you willing to trash in your desperate attempt to get out of the EU. I never quite realised how much Leavers hated this country until the referendum came along.
How does disliking the fact that we have an unelected second house mean that I hate the country? An ability to openly criticise those who rule us is one of the things that my British forefathers fought to gain for me.
""Rule us" eh, no, - rule you maybe, but don't get your "you" & "us" mixed up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether.
So yet ANOTHER part of the British constitution you willing to trash in your desperate attempt to get out of the EU. I never quite realised how much Leavers hated this country until the referendum came along.
Do you include your beloved Lib dems in that then? The Lib dems want the House of Lords reformed to make it a democratically elected chamber.
How does disliking the fact that we have an unelected second house mean that I hate the country? An ability to openly criticise those who rule us is one of the things that my British forefathers fought to gain for me.
"This ability to disagree also allows people to broadly support Liberal Democrat policies and attitudes whilst not supporting their specific position on the Lords. I don't think that anyone should leave the country if they disagree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So in the few posts here the broad leavers opinion is that the British Parliamentary system is no good if it stands in the way of getting exactly what they want. So the fact that there were more important arguments than "just" the economy aren't so important it would seem. British Parliamentary sovereignty and the process surrounding it can be inconvenient and it would be OK to bypass it if it gets what they want done? Fair enough if that's what the opinion is but then don't dress it up as a higher ideal "what are you on about? Can you tell us how you will personally be any worse off post Brexit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So in the few posts here the broad leavers opinion is that the British Parliamentary system is no good if it stands in the way of getting exactly what they want. So the fact that there were more important arguments than "just" the economy aren't so important it would seem. British Parliamentary sovereignty and the process surrounding it can be inconvenient and it would be OK to bypass it if it gets what they want done? Fair enough if that's what the opinion is but then don't dress it up as a higher ideal
what are you on about? Can you tell us how you will personally be any worse off post Brexit? "Oh dear. I think that you completely missed the point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So in the few posts here the broad leavers opinion is that the British Parliamentary system is no good if it stands in the way of getting exactly what they want. So the fact that there were more important arguments than "just" the economy aren't so important it would seem. British Parliamentary sovereignty and the process surrounding it can be inconvenient and it would be OK to bypass it if it gets what they want done? Fair enough if that's what the opinion is but then don't dress it up as a higher ideal
what are you on about? Can you tell us how you will personally be any worse off post Brexit?
Oh dear. I think that you completely missed the point "because there is no point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So in the few posts here the broad leavers opinion is that the British Parliamentary system is no good if it stands in the way of getting exactly what they want. So the fact that there were more important arguments than "just" the economy aren't so important it would seem. British Parliamentary sovereignty and the process surrounding it can be inconvenient and it would be OK to bypass it if it gets what they want done? Fair enough if that's what the opinion is but then don't dress it up as a higher ideal
what are you on about? Can you tell us how you will personally be any worse off post Brexit?
Oh dear. I think that you completely missed the point
because there is no point"Try reading it again slower. The point is about parliamentary process and nothing to do with will someone be better or worse off post Brexit. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So in the few posts here the broad leavers opinion is that the British Parliamentary system is no good if it stands in the way of getting exactly what they want. So the fact that there were more important arguments than "just" the economy aren't so important it would seem. British Parliamentary sovereignty and the process surrounding it can be inconvenient and it would be OK to bypass it if it gets what they want done? Fair enough if that's what the opinion is but then don't dress it up as a higher ideal
what are you on about? Can you tell us how you will personally be any worse off post Brexit?
Oh dear. I think that you completely missed the point
because there is no point"If you have the wrong end of the stick, please stop waving it about  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So in the few posts here the broad leavers opinion is that the British Parliamentary system is no good if it stands in the way of getting exactly what they want. So the fact that there were more important arguments than "just" the economy aren't so important it would seem. British Parliamentary sovereignty and the process surrounding it can be inconvenient and it would be OK to bypass it if it gets what they want done? Fair enough if that's what the opinion is but then don't dress it up as a higher ideal
what are you on about? Can you tell us how you will personally be any worse off post Brexit?
Oh dear. I think that you completely missed the point
because there is no point
Try reading it again slower. The point is about parliamentary process and nothing to do with will someone be better or worse off post Brexit.
-Matt"I know. But the post was nonsense, so I asked what the problem with Brexit is exactly, and while you are here, how will it be bad for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether.
So yet ANOTHER part of the British constitution you willing to trash in your desperate attempt to get out of the EU. I never quite realised how much Leavers hated this country until the referendum came along.
How does disliking the fact that we have an unelected second house mean that I hate the country? An ability to openly criticise those who rule us is one of the things that my British forefathers fought to gain for me.
"If any party wants to campaign on the manifesto promise of house of lords reform and then gets a majority in the Commons that's fine, but that isn't what's being said here. This is a threat to destroy a core part of the British constitution and political system unless they vote a certain way, which I believe to be very un-British. In the same way that everyone wants Parliamentary sovereignty.... until parliament might vote against triggering article 50, then the want extraordinarily broad powers for the PM. Everyone wants British judges in British courts making decisions on British laws.... until they are asked to look at the legality of triggering article 50 and then they are "Enemies of the People" and suddenly some people are calling for an independent judiciary to be scrapped and for judges to be elected. So it's nothing to do with reform of the house of lords, its a threat to destroy anything that stands in the way of Brexit. Centaur, what would you prefer? A un-elected house of Lord's that rubber stamps the government's Brexit plans unopposed, or, a fully elected second chamber, let's say like the US Senate that was elected on a mandate to stop Brexit at any cost? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I know. But the post was nonsense, so I asked what the problem with Brexit is exactly, and while you are here, how will it be bad for you?" Then I can't be bothered because we've covered it many times before. This is something different. We can discuss this thread if you like | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So in the few posts here the broad leavers opinion is that the British Parliamentary system is no good if it stands in the way of getting exactly what they want. So the fact that there were more important arguments than "just" the economy aren't so important it would seem. British Parliamentary sovereignty and the process surrounding it can be inconvenient and it would be OK to bypass it if it gets what they want done? Fair enough if that's what the opinion is but then don't dress it up as a higher ideal
what are you on about? Can you tell us how you will personally be any worse off post Brexit?
Oh dear. I think that you completely missed the point
because there is no point
Try reading it again slower. The point is about parliamentary process and nothing to do with will someone be better or worse off post Brexit.
-Matt
I know. But the post was nonsense, so I asked what the problem with Brexit is exactly, and while you are here, how will it be bad for you?"Please try to stick to the OP, what is the role of the House of lords in scrutinising Brexit legislation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So in the few posts here the broad leavers opinion is that the British Parliamentary system is no good if it stands in the way of getting exactly what they want. So the fact that there were more important arguments than "just" the economy aren't so important it would seem. British Parliamentary sovereignty and the process surrounding it can be inconvenient and it would be OK to bypass it if it gets what they want done? Fair enough if that's what the opinion is but then don't dress it up as a higher ideal
what are you on about? Can you tell us how you will personally be any worse off post Brexit?
Oh dear. I think that you completely missed the point
because there is no point
Try reading it again slower. The point is about parliamentary process and nothing to do with will someone be better or worse off post Brexit.
-Matt
I know. But the post was nonsense, so I asked what the problem with Brexit is exactly, and while you are here, how will it be bad for you?"Just because you don't agree with it or can't understand it doesn't mean it is nonsense. Probably best to start a new thread if you want to just randomly change the topic though. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If any party wants to campaign on the manifesto promise of house of lords reform and then gets a majority in the Commons that's fine, but that isn't what's being said here. This is a threat to destroy a core part of the British constitution and political system unless they vote a certain way, which I believe to be very un-British. In the same way that everyone wants Parliamentary sovereignty.... until parliament might vote against triggering article 50, then the want extraordinarily broad powers for the PM. Everyone wants British judges in British courts making decisions on British laws.... until they are asked to look at the legality of triggering article 50 and then they are "Enemies of the People" and suddenly some people are calling for an independent judiciary to be scrapped and for judges to be elected. So it's nothing to do with reform of the house of lords, its a threat to destroy anything that stands in the way of Brexit. Centaur, what would you prefer? A un-elected house of Lord's that rubber stamps the government's Brexit plans unopposed, or, a fully elected second chamber, let's say like the US Senate that was elected on a mandate to stop Brexit at any cost? " Which is worse an unelected second chamber going against the wishes of the elected chamber and a mojority of the voters or an ex PM telling others to rise up and overturn a democratic vote ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I know. But the post was nonsense, so I asked what the problem with Brexit is exactly, and while you are here, how will it be bad for you? Then I can't be bothered because we've covered it many times before. This is something different. We can discuss this thread if you like "ok, so you would be happy for the Lords to try to block or delay Brexit? Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Which is worse an unelected second chamber going against the wishes of the elected chamber and a mojority of the voters or an ex PM telling others to rise up and overturn a democratic vote ?" That's why I wanted someone else to define what the House of Lords does. It is a revising chamber only. It does not create laws and it cannot overrule the Commons it can only send back legislation for further review. If the upper chamber was elected in the same way as the Commons then there would be a question of superiority that does not currently exist. Bad legislation has consequences and it is the job of the Lords to spot these issues. So, your question is factually incorrect but the answer is that neither is a problem to anyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I know. But the post was nonsense, so I asked what the problem with Brexit is exactly, and while you are here, how will it be bad for you? Then I can't be bothered because we've covered it many times before. This is something different. We can discuss this thread if you like
ok, so you would be happy for the Lords to try to block or delay Brexit? Why? "Why don't you take the advice of the first angry "contributor" and look up what the Lords does then come back with a more appropriate question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I know. But the post was nonsense, so I asked what the problem with Brexit is exactly, and while you are here, how will it be bad for you? Then I can't be bothered because we've covered it many times before. This is something different. We can discuss this thread if you like
ok, so you would be happy for the Lords to try to block or delay Brexit? Why?
Why don't you take the advice of the first angry "contributor" and look up what the Lords does then come back with a more appropriate question?"that is quite appropriate on a forum, I was just asking your opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Which is worse an unelected second chamber going against the wishes of the elected chamber and a mojority of the voters or an ex PM telling others to rise up and overturn a democratic vote ? That's why I wanted someone else to define what the House of Lords does. It is a revising chamber only. It does not create laws and it cannot overrule the Commons it can only send back legislation for further review. If the upper chamber was elected in the same way as the Commons then there would be a question of superiority that does not currently exist. Bad legislation has consequences and it is the job of the Lords to spot these issues. So, your question is factually incorrect but the answer is that neither is a problem to anyone." Not sure a question can be factually incorrect that is certainly a new one to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
I said a few months ago that MP's would vote it through only to have the possibility of the Lords doing the dirty work for them
William Hague will keep them all on the straight & Narrow
"Lol...that'll be like herding a stag do through Benidorm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Which is worse an unelected second chamber going against the wishes of the elected chamber and a mojority of the voters or an ex PM telling others to rise up and overturn a democratic vote ? That's why I wanted someone else to define what the House of Lords does. It is a revising chamber only. It does not create laws and it cannot overrule the Commons it can only send back legislation for further review. If the upper chamber was elected in the same way as the Commons then there would be a question of superiority that does not currently exist. Bad legislation has consequences and it is the job of the Lords to spot these issues. So, your question is factually incorrect but the answer is that neither is a problem to anyone. Not sure a question can be factually incorrect that is certainly a new one to me. " You achieved the impossible then. I did take the time to explain it. If my answer does not make sense I will attempt to explain further. Otherwise, my answer stands. The former Prime minister is offering an opinion which anybody can choose to ignore. The House of Lords will scrutinise the Bill ethically, legally and technically and send it back to the government and lower house with recommendations on how to prevent foreseeable problems from arising. This can be ignored, but in general experience indicates that this is usually foolhardy and arrogant because it eventually bites the country in the arse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Lol...that'll be like herding a stag do through Benidorm "That is the beauty of an upper house that doesn't give a crap and can say whatsoever it chooses. The whips are held in rather limp wrists there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether.
So yet ANOTHER part of the British constitution you willing to trash in your desperate attempt to get out of the EU. I never quite realised how much Leavers hated this country until the referendum came along.
How does disliking the fact that we have an unelected second house mean that I hate the country? An ability to openly criticise those who rule us is one of the things that my British forefathers fought to gain for me.
If any party wants to campaign on the manifesto promise of house of lords reform and then gets a majority in the Commons that's fine, but that isn't what's being said here. This is a threat to destroy a core part of the British constitution and political system unless they vote a certain way, which I believe to be very un-British. In the same way that everyone wants Parliamentary sovereignty.... until parliament might vote against triggering article 50, then the want extraordinarily broad powers for the PM. Everyone wants British judges in British courts making decisions on British laws.... until they are asked to look at the legality of triggering article 50 and then they are "Enemies of the People" and suddenly some people are calling for an independent judiciary to be scrapped and for judges to be elected.
So it's nothing to do with reform of the house of lords, its a threat to destroy anything that stands in the way of Brexit.
Centaur, what would you prefer? A un-elected house of Lord's that rubber stamps the government's Brexit plans unopposed, or, a fully elected second chamber, let's say like the US Senate that was elected on a mandate to stop Brexit at any cost? "What on earth are you ranting and raving about? The British courts have had their say and British law has been done, settled in the highest court in the land, the Supreme court. It was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme court as 3 Supreme court judges ruled in favour of the government's position to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. It was however a unanimous decision that the devolved Parliaments should not have a say and that Westminster and Westminster alone should have the final say on this. The criticism of the judiciary is justified because we also have a free and independent press that must be allowed to do their jobs, just as the courts must be allowed to do their jobs. Are you suggesting we abolish the free and independent press because they don't fall in line with your opinions? With that the elected House of Commons has now voted on it with a majority of 380 odd in favour of the Brexit bill. Part of the reason why people voted Leave is because they are sick and tired of being ruled over by unelected people who cannot be removed through the ballot box in Brussels, the same applies to the Lords. It is actually the Lib dems who have been campaigning for and shouting the loudest for fundamental reform of the House of Lords in recent years to make it a democratically elected chamber. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I know. But the post was nonsense, so I asked what the problem with Brexit is exactly, and while you are here, how will it be bad for you? Then I can't be bothered because we've covered it many times before. This is something different. We can discuss this thread if you like
ok, so you would be happy for the Lords to try to block or delay Brexit? Why?
Why don't you take the advice of the first angry "contributor" and look up what the Lords does then come back with a more appropriate question?
that is quite appropriate on a forum, I was just asking your opinion"If you took the trouble to learn how the Parliamentary system of the country you claim to be so proud of functioned you wouldn't need to ask the question. The Lords will not block the legislation because it is not within it's power to do so. It will not hold up the legislation because it is profoundly apolitical despite the manner in which it is selected and the nominal whips that are taken. It is in nobody's interest to delay Article 50. The Lords will give recommendations as to how to do it better. You made up some assumptions about me and the process and asked a redundant question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What on earth are you ranting and raving about? The British courts have had their say and British law has been done, settled in the highest court in the land, the Supreme court. It was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme court as 3 Supreme court judges ruled in favour of the government's position to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. It was however a unanimous decision that the devolved Parliaments should not have a say and that Westminster and Westminster alone should have the final say on this. The criticism of the judiciary is justified because we also have a free and independent press that must be allowed to do their jobs, just as the courts must be allowed to do their jobs. Are you suggesting we abolish the free and independent press because they don't fall in line with your opinions? With that the elected House of Commons has now voted on it with a majority of 380 odd in favour of the Brexit bill. Part of the reason why people voted Leave is because they are sick and tired of being ruled over by unelected people who cannot be removed through the ballot box in Brussels, the same applies to the Lords. It is actually the Lib dems who have been campaigning for and shouting the loudest for fundamental reform of the House of Lords in recent years to make it a democratically elected chamber. " Take a deep breath. Read the entire thread. Process it. Understand it. Then tell us why you think that 3/11 (27%) is a more significant a number than 48%. Then tell us why you feel it is appropriate to discuss a judge's sexuality. Then tell us if you think that it is not important for the government to defend the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law when it is brought into question as the Lord Chancellor is duty-bound to do. Then explain how a second chamber elected in the same way as the House of Commons will function and what purpose it will serve? In fact, how about explaining what you think that the Lords does. Then explain who, other than Tony Blair, is trying to stop Brexit from happening. I have no problem with you wanting to leave the EU or being basically angry about everything and wanting things to be done your way because you think that you're right. However, if you want to argue please have the courtesy to understand what you are arguing about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether.
So yet ANOTHER part of the British constitution you willing to trash in your desperate attempt to get out of the EU. I never quite realised how much Leavers hated this country until the referendum came along.
How does disliking the fact that we have an unelected second house mean that I hate the country? An ability to openly criticise those who rule us is one of the things that my British forefathers fought to gain for me.
If any party wants to campaign on the manifesto promise of house of lords reform and then gets a majority in the Commons that's fine, but that isn't what's being said here. This is a threat to destroy a core part of the British constitution and political system unless they vote a certain way, which I believe to be very un-British. In the same way that everyone wants Parliamentary sovereignty.... until parliament might vote against triggering article 50, then the want extraordinarily broad powers for the PM. Everyone wants British judges in British courts making decisions on British laws.... until they are asked to look at the legality of triggering article 50 and then they are "Enemies of the People" and suddenly some people are calling for an independent judiciary to be scrapped and for judges to be elected.
So it's nothing to do with reform of the house of lords, its a threat to destroy anything that stands in the way of Brexit.
Centaur, what would you prefer? A un-elected house of Lord's that rubber stamps the government's Brexit plans unopposed, or, a fully elected second chamber, let's say like the US Senate that was elected on a mandate to stop Brexit at any cost?
What on earth are you ranting and raving about? The British courts have had their say and British law has been done, settled in the highest court in the land, the Supreme court. It was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme court as 3 Supreme court judges ruled in favour of the government's position to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. It was however a unanimous decision that the devolved Parliaments should not have a say and that Westminster and Westminster alone should have the final say on this. The criticism of the judiciary is justified because we also have a free and independent press that must be allowed to do their jobs, just as the courts must be allowed to do their jobs. Are you suggesting we abolish the free and independent press because they don't fall in line with your opinions? With that the elected House of Commons has now voted on it with a majority of 380 odd in favour of the Brexit bill.
Part of the reason why people voted Leave is because they are sick and tired of being ruled over by unelected people who cannot be removed through the ballot box in Brussels, the same applies to the Lords.
It is actually the Lib dems who have been campaigning for and shouting the loudest for fundamental reform of the House of Lords in recent years to make it a democratically elected chamber. "After all your bitching and moaning and crying about the royal prerogative, the judiciary, and vote in parliament, you are now going to pretend you didn't complain about all those things?
I have nothing against Lord's reform if that's a manifesto pledge and a party is elected on that manifesto. But this isn't about Lord's reform. Its a threat. Support Brexit or your gone. If they support it, they stay as they are, so how is that reform?
So come on answer the question:
What would you prefer? A un-elected house of Lord's that rubber stamps the government's Brexit plans unopposed, or, a fully elected second chamber, let's say like the US Senate that was elected on a mandate to stop Brexit at any cost? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I know. But the post was nonsense, so I asked what the problem with Brexit is exactly, and while you are here, how will it be bad for you? Then I can't be bothered because we've covered it many times before. This is something different. We can discuss this thread if you like
ok, so you would be happy for the Lords to try to block or delay Brexit? Why?
Why don't you take the advice of the first angry "contributor" and look up what the Lords does then come back with a more appropriate question?
that is quite appropriate on a forum, I was just asking your opinion
If you took the trouble to learn how the Parliamentary system of the country you claim to be so proud of functioned you wouldn't need to ask the question.
The Lords will not block the legislation because it is not within it's power to do so. It will not hold up the legislation because it is profoundly apolitical despite the manner in which it is selected and the nominal whips that are taken. It is in nobody's interest to delay Article 50. The Lords will give recommendations as to how to do it better.
You made up some assumptions about me and the process and asked a redundant question "jeez I know how the system works, if you don't want to answer a simple question just say so  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What on earth are you ranting and raving about? The British courts have had their say and British law has been done, settled in the highest court in the land, the Supreme court. It was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme court as 3 Supreme court judges ruled in favour of the government's position to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. It was however a unanimous decision that the devolved Parliaments should not have a say and that Westminster and Westminster alone should have the final say on this. The criticism of the judiciary is justified because we also have a free and independent press that must be allowed to do their jobs, just as the courts must be allowed to do their jobs. Are you suggesting we abolish the free and independent press because they don't fall in line with your opinions? With that the elected House of Commons has now voted on it with a majority of 380 odd in favour of the Brexit bill. Part of the reason why people voted Leave is because they are sick and tired of being ruled over by unelected people who cannot be removed through the ballot box in Brussels, the same applies to the Lords. It is actually the Lib dems who have been campaigning for and shouting the loudest for fundamental reform of the House of Lords in recent years to make it a democratically elected chamber. Take a deep breath. Read the entire thread. Process it. Understand it. Then tell us why you think that 3/11 (27%) is a more significant a number than 48%. Then tell us why you feel it is appropriate to discuss a judge's sexuality. Then tell us if you think that it is not important for the government to defend the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law when it is brought into question as the Lord Chancellor is duty-bound to do. Then explain how a second chamber elected in the same way as the House of Commons will function and what purpose it will serve? In fact, how about explaining what you think that the Lords does. Then explain who, other than Tony Blair, is trying to stop Brexit from happening. I have no problem with you wanting to leave the EU or being basically angry about everything and wanting things to be done your way because you think that you're right. However, if you want to argue please have the courtesy to understand what you are arguing about." Where on the thread did I say 3 was a more significant number than 11??????? You've just completely made that up and totally misrepresented what I said. What I actually said was 3 of the supreme court judges agreed with the government line to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. Nothing more and nothing less. It is appropriate for the press to talk about judges sexuality because the press is free and independent, i.e. they can talk about what ever the hell they like. I'm not sure why you think I'm angry either, you accused me of shouting on a different thread when I hadn't used any Capitals or exclamation marks, I honestly think you are creating this fantasy illusion in your head and seeing things which are simply not there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I know. But the post was nonsense, so I asked what the problem with Brexit is exactly, and while you are here, how will it be bad for you? Then I can't be bothered because we've covered it many times before. This is something different. We can discuss this thread if you like
ok, so you would be happy for the Lords to try to block or delay Brexit? Why?
Why don't you take the advice of the first angry "contributor" and look up what the Lords does then come back with a more appropriate question?
that is quite appropriate on a forum, I was just asking your opinion
If you took the trouble to learn how the Parliamentary system of the country you claim to be so proud of functioned you wouldn't need to ask the question.
The Lords will not block the legislation because it is not within it's power to do so. It will not hold up the legislation because it is profoundly apolitical despite the manner in which it is selected and the nominal whips that are taken. It is in nobody's interest to delay Article 50. The Lords will give recommendations as to how to do it better.
You made up some assumptions about me and the process and asked a redundant question
jeez I know how the system works, if you don't want to answer a simple question just say so "Sorry. The answer too long and complex. Let me simplify. I do not want the the House of Lords to block the legislation because it cannot. I do not want it to delay the legislation because that does not help anyone. The Lords has stated that it will not be doing that anyway. I want it to do its job which is review the legislation and suggest amendments that will make it work better. If you reread what I wrote you will see that all of that information is contained there as well as my other posts on this thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether.
So yet ANOTHER part of the British constitution you willing to trash in your desperate attempt to get out of the EU. I never quite realised how much Leavers hated this country until the referendum came along.
How does disliking the fact that we have an unelected second house mean that I hate the country? An ability to openly criticise those who rule us is one of the things that my British forefathers fought to gain for me.
If any party wants to campaign on the manifesto promise of house of lords reform and then gets a majority in the Commons that's fine, but that isn't what's being said here. This is a threat to destroy a core part of the British constitution and political system unless they vote a certain way, which I believe to be very un-British. In the same way that everyone wants Parliamentary sovereignty.... until parliament might vote against triggering article 50, then the want extraordinarily broad powers for the PM. Everyone wants British judges in British courts making decisions on British laws.... until they are asked to look at the legality of triggering article 50 and then they are "Enemies of the People" and suddenly some people are calling for an independent judiciary to be scrapped and for judges to be elected.
So it's nothing to do with reform of the house of lords, its a threat to destroy anything that stands in the way of Brexit.
Centaur, what would you prefer? A un-elected house of Lord's that rubber stamps the government's Brexit plans unopposed, or, a fully elected second chamber, let's say like the US Senate that was elected on a mandate to stop Brexit at any cost?
What on earth are you ranting and raving about? The British courts have had their say and British law has been done, settled in the highest court in the land, the Supreme court. It was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme court as 3 Supreme court judges ruled in favour of the government's position to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. It was however a unanimous decision that the devolved Parliaments should not have a say and that Westminster and Westminster alone should have the final say on this. The criticism of the judiciary is justified because we also have a free and independent press that must be allowed to do their jobs, just as the courts must be allowed to do their jobs. Are you suggesting we abolish the free and independent press because they don't fall in line with your opinions? With that the elected House of Commons has now voted on it with a majority of 380 odd in favour of the Brexit bill.
Part of the reason why people voted Leave is because they are sick and tired of being ruled over by unelected people who cannot be removed through the ballot box in Brussels, the same applies to the Lords.
It is actually the Lib dems who have been campaigning for and shouting the loudest for fundamental reform of the House of Lords in recent years to make it a democratically elected chamber.
After all your bitching and moaning and crying about the royal prerogative, the judiciary, and vote in parliament, you are now going to pretend you didn't complain about all those things?
I have nothing against Lord's reform if that's a manifesto pledge and a party is elected on that manifesto. But this isn't about Lord's reform. Its a threat. Support Brexit or your gone. If they support it, they stay as they are, so how is that reform?
So come on answer the question:
What would you prefer? A un-elected house of Lord's that rubber stamps the government's Brexit plans unopposed, or, a fully elected second chamber, let's say like the US Senate that was elected on a mandate to stop Brexit at any cost? "I reject the premise of your question, because you only offer 2 possible outcomes to chose from. This is not a multiple choice question game format like the game show Egg heads or Who wants to be a Millionaire. What I'd like to see is a democratically elected House of Lords. The House of Lords in its current format doesn't represent how the country voted in any way, shape or form at all. A democratically elected House of Lords can then make decisions on behalf of the people because they will have been elected and given consent to do so by the people. It's one of the few things I agree with the Lib dems about that the House of Lords needs fundamental reform and it should be a democratically elected chamber. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What on earth are you ranting and raving about? The British courts have had their say and British law has been done, settled in the highest court in the land, the Supreme court. It was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme court as 3 Supreme court judges ruled in favour of the government's position to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. It was however a unanimous decision that the devolved Parliaments should not have a say and that Westminster and Westminster alone should have the final say on this. The criticism of the judiciary is justified because we also have a free and independent press that must be allowed to do their jobs, just as the courts must be allowed to do their jobs. Are you suggesting we abolish the free and independent press because they don't fall in line with your opinions? With that the elected House of Commons has now voted on it with a majority of 380 odd in favour of the Brexit bill. Part of the reason why people voted Leave is because they are sick and tired of being ruled over by unelected people who cannot be removed through the ballot box in Brussels, the same applies to the Lords. It is actually the Lib dems who have been campaigning for and shouting the loudest for fundamental reform of the House of Lords in recent years to make it a democratically elected chamber. Take a deep breath. Read the entire thread. Process it. Understand it. Then tell us why you think that 3/11 (27%) is a more significant a number than 48%. Then tell us why you feel it is appropriate to discuss a judge's sexuality. Then tell us if you think that it is not important for the government to defend the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law when it is brought into question as the Lord Chancellor is duty-bound to do. Then explain how a second chamber elected in the same way as the House of Commons will function and what purpose it will serve? In fact, how about explaining what you think that the Lords does. Then explain who, other than Tony Blair, is trying to stop Brexit from happening. I have no problem with you wanting to leave the EU or being basically angry about everything and wanting things to be done your way because you think that you're right. However, if you want to argue please have the courtesy to understand what you are arguing about. Where on the thread did I say 3 was a more significant number than 11??????? You've just completely made that up and totally misrepresented what I said. What I actually said was 3 of the supreme court judges agreed with the government line to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. Nothing more and nothing less. It is appropriate for the press to talk about judges sexuality because the press is free and independent, i.e. they can talk about what ever the hell they like. I'm not sure why you think I'm angry either, you accused me of shouting on a different thread when I hadn't used any Capitals or exclamation marks, I honestly think you are creating this fantasy illusion in your head and seeing things which are simply not there. " Sigh. I did not say that 3 was more significant than 11. I asked why you thought that the 27% disagreement from the judges was significant but the 48% disagreement of the population is not relevant. Why is a judge's sexuality relevant to his decision on the legality of if Parliament has oversight of Article 50? No comment on the government fulfilling its duty to defend the independence of the judiciary? Not important? No thoughts on how an elected upper chamber would function? You do not have to write in capitals to display anger or attempt to intimidate. I have continued to attempt to explain how and why a certain set of circumstances will lead to a certain outcome. I answer your questions as directly as I can. You have continued to assert your certainties without engaging in answering any inconvenient questions. Carry on but it is mind numbingly dull listening to the constant repetition of empty phrases so I really can't be bothered to respond to you anymore. Enjoy your echo-chamber. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What on earth are you ranting and raving about? The British courts have had their say and British law has been done, settled in the highest court in the land, the Supreme court. It was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme court as 3 Supreme court judges ruled in favour of the government's position to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. It was however a unanimous decision that the devolved Parliaments should not have a say and that Westminster and Westminster alone should have the final say on this. The criticism of the judiciary is justified because we also have a free and independent press that must be allowed to do their jobs, just as the courts must be allowed to do their jobs. Are you suggesting we abolish the free and independent press because they don't fall in line with your opinions? With that the elected House of Commons has now voted on it with a majority of 380 odd in favour of the Brexit bill. Part of the reason why people voted Leave is because they are sick and tired of being ruled over by unelected people who cannot be removed through the ballot box in Brussels, the same applies to the Lords. It is actually the Lib dems who have been campaigning for and shouting the loudest for fundamental reform of the House of Lords in recent years to make it a democratically elected chamber. Take a deep breath. Read the entire thread. Process it. Understand it. Then tell us why you think that 3/11 (27%) is a more significant a number than 48%. Then tell us why you feel it is appropriate to discuss a judge's sexuality. Then tell us if you think that it is not important for the government to defend the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law when it is brought into question as the Lord Chancellor is duty-bound to do. Then explain how a second chamber elected in the same way as the House of Commons will function and what purpose it will serve? In fact, how about explaining what you think that the Lords does. Then explain who, other than Tony Blair, is trying to stop Brexit from happening. I have no problem with you wanting to leave the EU or being basically angry about everything and wanting things to be done your way because you think that you're right. However, if you want to argue please have the courtesy to understand what you are arguing about. Where on the thread did I say 3 was a more significant number than 11??????? You've just completely made that up and totally misrepresented what I said. What I actually said was 3 of the supreme court judges agreed with the government line to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. Nothing more and nothing less. It is appropriate for the press to talk about judges sexuality because the press is free and independent, i.e. they can talk about what ever the hell they like. I'm not sure why you think I'm angry either, you accused me of shouting on a different thread when I hadn't used any Capitals or exclamation marks, I honestly think you are creating this fantasy illusion in your head and seeing things which are simply not there. Sigh. I did not say that 3 was more significant than 11. I asked why you thought that the 27% disagreement from the judges was significant but the 48% disagreement of the population is not relevant. Why is a judge's sexuality relevant to his decision on the legality of if Parliament has oversight of Article 50? No comment on the government fulfilling its duty to defend the independence of the judiciary? Not important? No thoughts on how an elected upper chamber would function? You do not have to write in capitals to display anger or attempt to intimidate. I have continued to attempt to explain how and why a certain set of circumstances will lead to a certain outcome. I answer your questions as directly as I can. You have continued to assert your certainties without engaging in answering any inconvenient questions. Carry on but it is mind numbingly dull listening to the constant repetition of empty phrases so I really can't be bothered to respond to you anymore. Enjoy your echo-chamber." I wasn't engaging with you in the first place in this little exchange, the post of mine you took issue with was a post of mine which I had quoted and responded to CLCC. As I said at the beginning of the thread when someone is quoted it is a direct response to that particular person. I responded to CLCC in the first instance. It appears you've still not grasped the basics of how this forum works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Last week I was told that i was a space cadet for suggesting the Lords may amend the Article 50 bill to the point it would derail Ms Mays March plans... Seems this week that is a distinct possibility...
The out of touch, unelected Lords (many of who have vested interests in the EU and receive generous EU pensions funded by the taxpayer) can try to derail Brexit all they like, the government can just appoint more peers to the Lords who are more in line with the thinking of the House of Commons and the British public in order to push Brexit through the Lords. Plus the Lords will be committing political suicide and signing the death warrant of the Lords because it will come under increasing pressure from both the public and the house of commons to either be reformed to make it more democratic or it will face calls to be abolished altogether.
So yet ANOTHER part of the British constitution you willing to trash in your desperate attempt to get out of the EU. I never quite realised how much Leavers hated this country until the referendum came along.
How does disliking the fact that we have an unelected second house mean that I hate the country? An ability to openly criticise those who rule us is one of the things that my British forefathers fought to gain for me.
If any party wants to campaign on the manifesto promise of house of lords reform and then gets a majority in the Commons that's fine, but that isn't what's being said here. This is a threat to destroy a core part of the British constitution and political system unless they vote a certain way, which I believe to be very un-British. In the same way that everyone wants Parliamentary sovereignty.... until parliament might vote against triggering article 50, then the want extraordinarily broad powers for the PM. Everyone wants British judges in British courts making decisions on British laws.... until they are asked to look at the legality of triggering article 50 and then they are "Enemies of the People" and suddenly some people are calling for an independent judiciary to be scrapped and for judges to be elected.
So it's nothing to do with reform of the house of lords, its a threat to destroy anything that stands in the way of Brexit.
Centaur, what would you prefer? A un-elected house of Lord's that rubber stamps the government's Brexit plans unopposed, or, a fully elected second chamber, let's say like the US Senate that was elected on a mandate to stop Brexit at any cost?
What on earth are you ranting and raving about? The British courts have had their say and British law has been done, settled in the highest court in the land, the Supreme court. It was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme court as 3 Supreme court judges ruled in favour of the government's position to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. It was however a unanimous decision that the devolved Parliaments should not have a say and that Westminster and Westminster alone should have the final say on this. The criticism of the judiciary is justified because we also have a free and independent press that must be allowed to do their jobs, just as the courts must be allowed to do their jobs. Are you suggesting we abolish the free and independent press because they don't fall in line with your opinions? With that the elected House of Commons has now voted on it with a majority of 380 odd in favour of the Brexit bill.
Part of the reason why people voted Leave is because they are sick and tired of being ruled over by unelected people who cannot be removed through the ballot box in Brussels, the same applies to the Lords.
It is actually the Lib dems who have been campaigning for and shouting the loudest for fundamental reform of the House of Lords in recent years to make it a democratically elected chamber.
After all your bitching and moaning and crying about the royal prerogative, the judiciary, and vote in parliament, you are now going to pretend you didn't complain about all those things?
I have nothing against Lord's reform if that's a manifesto pledge and a party is elected on that manifesto. But this isn't about Lord's reform. Its a threat. Support Brexit or your gone. If they support it, they stay as they are, so how is that reform?
So come on answer the question:
What would you prefer? A un-elected house of Lord's that rubber stamps the government's Brexit plans unopposed, or, a fully elected second chamber, let's say like the US Senate that was elected on a mandate to stop Brexit at any cost?
I reject the premise of your question, because you only offer 2 possible outcomes to chose from. This is not a multiple choice question game format like the game show Egg heads or Who wants to be a Millionaire. What I'd like to see is a democratically elected House of Lords. The House of Lords in its current format doesn't represent how the country voted in any way, shape or form at all. A democratically elected House of Lords can then make decisions on behalf of the people because they will have been elected and given consent to do so by the people. It's one of the few things I agree with the Lib dems about that the House of Lords needs fundamental reform and it should be a democratically elected chamber. "Right, and if that democratically elected chamber could then stop Brexit, would you still want it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
In conclusion there are no circumstances that leavers believe that the House of Lords should do its job and make recommendations for amendments to the Bill triggering Article 50.
I guess I knew the answer but you learn quite a lot about what people do or do not understand about how our democracy works and how they think it should function.
It explains rather a lot about why we are where we are.
Ho hum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What on earth are you ranting and raving about? The British courts have had their say and British law has been done, settled in the highest court in the land, the Supreme court. It was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme court as 3 Supreme court judges ruled in favour of the government's position to use Royal Perogative to trigger article 50 and law is a matter of interpretation. It was however a unanimous decision that the devolved Parliaments should not have a say and that Westminster and Westminster alone should have the final say on this. The criticism of the judiciary is justified because we also have a free and independent press that must be allowed to do their jobs, just as the courts must be allowed to do their jobs. Are you suggesting we abolish the free and independent press because they don't fall in line with your opinions? With that the elected House of Commons has now voted on it with a majority of 380 odd in favour of the Brexit bill. Part of the reason why people voted Leave is because they are sick and tired of being ruled over by unelected people who cannot be removed through the ballot box in Brussels, the same applies to the Lords. It is actually the Lib dems who have been campaigning for and shouting the loudest for fundamental reform of the House of Lords in recent years to make it a democratically elected chamber. Take a deep breath. Read the entire thread. Process it. Understand it. Then tell us why you think that 3/11 (27%) is a more significant a number than 48%. Then tell us why you feel it is appropriate to discuss a judge's sexuality. Then tell us if you think that it is not important for the government to defend the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law when it is brought into question as the Lord Chancellor is duty-bound to do. Then explain how a second chamber elected in the same way as the House of Commons will function and what purpose it will serve? In fact, how about explaining what you think that the Lords does. Then explain who, other than Tony Blair, is trying to stop Brexit from happening. I have no problem with you wanting to leave the EU or being basically angry about everything and wanting things to be done your way because you think that you're right. However, if you want to argue please have the courtesy to understand what you are arguing about." Don't hold your breath | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway
In conclusion there are no circumstances that leavers believe that the House of Lords should do its job and make recommendations for amendments to the Bill triggering Article 50.
I guess I knew the answer but you learn quite a lot about what people do or do not understand about how our democracy works and how they think it should function.
It explains rather a lot about why we are where we are.
Ho hum "As I said early on, a fishing expedition with no merit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OMG! So for the first time in living memory a PM has used their power as a member of the Privy Council and entered the Lords to attempt to intimidate the second chamber and influence a debate! The woman is an authoritarian disgrace to the office she holds! 14 years for journalists who whistle blow, all emails and internet histories of all UK residents collected and made available to any government department that wants them, no condemnation of Trump making up terrorist attacks but a State visit invitation for the sexual predator! What next? " Poor research again! David Cameron used such powers to enter the Lords. I'm glad to see the PM take an interest in how things are progressing. Corbyn been to Stoke yet? Mrs May has managed visits to both by election constituencies in between heading up the Government. You call it authoritarian, others call it being switched on, active and being a leader | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OMG! So for the first time in living memory a PM has used their power as a member of the Privy Council and entered the Lords to attempt to intimidate the second chamber and influence a debate! The woman is an authoritarian disgrace to the office she holds! 14 years for journalists who whistle blow, all emails and internet histories of all UK residents collected and made available to any government department that wants them, no condemnation of Trump making up terrorist attacks but a State visit invitation for the sexual predator! What next? Poor research again! David Cameron used such powers to enter the Lords. I'm glad to see the PM take an interest in how things are progressing. Corbyn been to Stoke yet? Mrs May has managed visits to both by election constituencies in between heading up the Government. You call it authoritarian, others call it being switched on, active and being a leader" Ah no, the poster you quoted said to 'influence a debate'. Cameron went to listen to the Lord's pay their respect to Lady Thatcher after her death (ie something completely unrelated to government business) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OMG! Poor research again! David Cameron used such powers to enter the Lords. I'm glad to see the PM take an interest in how things are progressing. Corbyn been to Stoke yet? Mrs May has managed visits to both by election constituencies in between heading up the Government. You call it authoritarian, others call it being switched on, active and being a leader" Mr Cameron attended to listen to tributes to Margret Thatcher not a debate. If you are going to fact check please check the facts. All this will do is put peers' backs up. She has nothing to intimidate them with. If this is how she will be negotiating with the EU and for external trade deals then she needs to do some work. Of course, as the Lords only reviews legislation and it is being built up as a huge threat to the process it is probably just political theatre to claim responsibility for an illusory "victory". I have no interest in Corbyn other than him being a useless opposition but the sudden sycophantsy towards May just because she is persuing a hard Brexit even though the NHS is in crisis is interesting to observe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway
In conclusion there are no circumstances that leavers believe that the House of Lords should do its job and make recommendations for amendments to the Bill triggering Article 50.
I guess I knew the answer but you learn quite a lot about what people do or do not understand about how our democracy works and how they think it should function.
It explains rather a lot about why we are where we are.
Ho hum
As I said early on, a fishing expedition with no merit. "Except you did not take your own advice and learn what the Lords does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway
In conclusion there are no circumstances that leavers believe that the House of Lords should do its job and make recommendations for amendments to the Bill triggering Article 50.
I guess I knew the answer but you learn quite a lot about what people do or do not understand about how our democracy works and how they think it should function.
It explains rather a lot about why we are where we are.
Ho hum o-
As I said early on, a fishing expedition with no merit.
Except you did not take your own advice and learn what the Lords does."I know exactly the function.of the Lords. You phrased the question in a way that intimated that you didn't and wanted it explained to you. I find that strange from someone who contributes so much to the Politics forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway
In conclusion there are no circumstances that leavers believe that the House of Lords should do its job and make recommendations for amendments to the Bill triggering Article 50.
I guess I knew the answer but you learn quite a lot about what people do or do not understand about how our democracy works and how they think it should function.
It explains rather a lot about why we are where we are.
Ho hum o-
As I said early on, a fishing expedition with no merit.
Except you did not take your own advice and learn what the Lords does.
I know exactly the function.of the Lords. You phrased the question in a way that intimated that you didn't and wanted it explained to you. I find that strange from someone who contributes so much to the Politics forum. "Really? Then why do you believe that they can block the legislation? Who has said that they are going to try other than the Brexit press? I started the thread in the way that I did in order to establish what the Lords could do, which you took exception too due to a perceived "fishing" expedition. To what end, I have no idea. The actual question was what amendments would be acceptable when you graciously allow the Lords to do its job? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway
In conclusion there are no circumstances that leavers believe that the House of Lords should do its job and make recommendations for amendments to the Bill triggering Article 50.
I guess I knew the answer but you learn quite a lot about what people do or do not understand about how our democracy works and how they think it should function.
It explains rather a lot about why we are where we are.
Ho hum o-
As I said early on, a fishing expedition with no merit.
Except you did not take your own advice and learn what the Lords does.
I know exactly the function.of the Lords. You phrased the question in a way that intimated that you didn't and wanted it explained to you. I find that strange from someone who contributes so much to the Politics forum.
Really? Then why do you believe that they can block the legislation?
Who has said that they are going to try other than the Brexit press?
I started the thread in the way that I did in order to establish what the Lords could do, which you took exception too due to a perceived "fishing" expedition. To what end, I have no idea.
The actual question was what amendments would be acceptable when you graciously allow the Lords to do its job?"I have re-read the thread and you didn't say that the Lords could block the passage of the Bill. So I apologise for implying otherwise. All of your chums did though, which is what I thought might be avoided. If you had felt able to state the facts rather than be indignant then we could have moved on much more smoothly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway
In conclusion there are no circumstances that leavers believe that the House of Lords should do its job and make recommendations for amendments to the Bill triggering Article 50.
I guess I knew the answer but you learn quite a lot about what people do or do not understand about how our democracy works and how they think it should function.
It explains rather a lot about why we are where we are.
Ho hum o-
As I said early on, a fishing expedition with no merit.
Except you did not take your own advice and learn what the Lords does.
I know exactly the function.of the Lords. You phrased the question in a way that intimated that you didn't and wanted it explained to you. I find that strange from someone who contributes so much to the Politics forum.
Really? Then why do you believe that they can block the legislation?
Who has said that they are going to try other than the Brexit press?
I started the thread in the way that I did in order to establish what the Lords could do, which you took exception too due to a perceived "fishing" expedition. To what end, I have no idea.
The actual question was what amendments would be acceptable when you graciously allow the Lords to do its job?
I have re-read the thread and you didn't say that the Lords could block the passage of the Bill. So I apologise for implying otherwise.
All of your chums did though, which is what I thought might be avoided. If you had felt able to state the facts rather than be indignant then we could have moved on much more smoothly."Apology graciously accepted. Not all leavers are rabid right wing immigrant hating fascists. I love my country, I love my democracy and I love the fact that people can debate without fear. Your views may not echo mine, and that's fine. I wish the Lords well as this Bill progresses. They are there to do their job in scrutinising the Government of the day, they cannot block the bill, and their input will always be valued. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So will the Commons back the Lord's amendment? They are, in fact, only asking for the proposals to be laid out to reassure people that it's a priority. Personally, I think it's an opportunity to look gracious and more open to negotiation. One positive act to get the ball rolling. A quick opportunity for the EU to reciprocate on something they'll want to do anyway. http://newscdn.newsrep.net/h5/nrshare.html?r=3&lan=en_GB&pid=14&id=Z598f9ebcTb_uk&app_lan=&mcc=234&declared_lan=en_GB&pubaccount=ocms_0&referrer=200620&showall=1&mcc=234" I also think that the EU stance is softening a bit. Let's take a chance take the moral high ground and accept the amendment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"disappointing to see that Amber Rudd was sent to intimidate the Lord's this time. Ineffective and disrespectful in my opinion. " Didn't work!
I did say a few weeks ago that there was a high probability that this would happen.
I hear May has said she will have the Commons reject the amendment, send it back to the Lords and be triggering Article 50 before the end of March. I still say I think there is a high (now even higher) probability that the Lords will hold up the bill just long enough to stop May being able to trigger Article 50 in March.
Of course April is budget month and that is an annual legal requirement so that will most lightly put brexit back to mid or late May or even June...
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain does need a second house, but I'm not sure that a load of old duffers and waffle merchants is what is needed. I've suggested this before. There should be an lottery every 5 years when people from all walks of life, yes even people off here as long as they haven't got usual criminal record get chance to be a member of the house of representatives. With it being a lottery and not an election we wouldn't get all this holier than though, whiter than white bull shit and we'd get a truly random bunch of people that could question the commons without worrying about their constituents back home and come up with some ideas that truly represented what the people think. Good idea isn't it. The ancient greeks used to do it." They used to bump each other off in those times as well 
I can't see that taking off to be honest what what happen if you had some twat like Katey price win or one of the towie cast  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"May already offered to come to an agreement with the EU right away but it was merkl and tusk who said a big fat NO. I do belive we should put it right out there that EU citizens that already qualify to stay here should be honoured. This would force tusks hand to agree on that one point at least." Why would it force tusk's hand? And if we did do that, the EU didn't reciprocate immediately how would the EU be seen by people, particularly those who voted to remain? And if after we unilaterally guaranteed EU citizens' right to stay, what if the EU then during negotiations said they weren't going to reciprocate? How would remainers then view the EU? What could we do? What should we do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"May already offered to come to an agreement with the EU right away but it was merkl and tusk who said a big fat NO. I do belive we should put it right out there that EU citizens that already qualify to stay here should be honoured. This would force tusks hand to agree on that one point at least. Why would it force tusk's hand? And if we did do that, the EU didn't reciprocate immediately how would the EU be seen by people, particularly those who voted to remain? And if after we unilaterally guaranteed EU citizens' right to stay, what if the EU then during negotiations said they weren't going to reciprocate? How would remainers then view the EU? What could we do? What should we do?" An you really see that happening ? I'm pretty sure it would advesly effect the employment potential of the afore mentioned EU citizens | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So will the Commons back the Lord's amendment? They are, in fact, only asking for the proposals to be laid out to reassure people that it's a priority. " Does the Lords amendment guarantee EU nationals status, or just state it should be a priority? I don't know the wording. I agree that current EU nationals working in the UK should be protected post A50, but it seems a poor negotiating position to put into law a unilateral commitment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"disappointing to see that Amber Rudd was sent to intimidate the Lord's this time. Ineffective and disrespectful in my opinion. Didn't work!
I did say a few weeks ago that there was a high probability that this would happen.
I hear May has said she will have the Commons reject the amendment, send it back to the Lords and be triggering Article 50 before the end of March. I still say I think there is a high (now even higher) probability that the Lords will hold up the bill just long enough to stop May being able to trigger Article 50 in March.
Of course April is budget month and that is an annual legal requirement so that will most lightly put brexit back to mid or late May or even June...
"I don't think that's the intention at all. The amendment is limited in its scope. Its on quite an important point of principle and most importantly it gives the Commons an opportunity to assert its authority as it is hard for the Government to paint this as bad without explicitly saying they wish bargain with people. It's very clever. I think it's intended to tap the rhetoric away from acting "tough" to being more amenable. There are a lot of very experienced diplomats and civil servants in there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So will the Commons back the Lord's amendment? They are, in fact, only asking for the proposals to be laid out to reassure people that it's a priority. Does the Lords amendment guarantee EU nationals status, or just state it should be a priority? I don't know the wording. I agree that current EU nationals working in the UK should be protected post A50, but it seems a poor negotiating position to put into law a unilateral commitment." As I said, it's not a law to be enacted, it's a plan to run alongside the Article 50 Bill. It's a demonstration of clear intent. Nothing conceded. There shouldn't really be a big fuss over this. It should be a PR coup! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"May already offered to come to an agreement with the EU right away but it was merkl and tusk who said a big fat NO. I do belive we should put it right out there that EU citizens that already qualify to stay here should be honoured. This would force tusks hand to agree on that one point at least." That is, actually, according to Theresa May. The EU cannot legally negotiate anything until Article 50 is enacted. They can then say yes on day 1. The amendment makes this a priority with a plan ready to go. Is that bad? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain does need a second house, but I'm not sure that a load of old duffers and waffle merchants is what is needed. I've suggested this before. There should be an lottery every 5 years when people from all walks of life, yes even people off here as long as they haven't got usual criminal record get chance to be a member of the house of representatives. With it being a lottery and not an election we wouldn't get all this holier than though, whiter than white bull shit and we'd get a truly random bunch of people that could question the commons without worrying about their constituents back home and come up with some ideas that truly represented what the people think. Good idea isn't it. The ancient greeks used to do it." Disagree. The upper house reviews legislation and trays to spot potential problems; legal, technical and ethical. It actually needs experts and some wisdom. The selection process could certainly be improved with less political selection. Perhaps elections from within professional bodies? Doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, unions etc. Elected, but from specific constituencies. That way the Commons also maintains primacy as it does now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think that's the intention at all. The amendment is limited in its scope. Its on quite an important point of principle and most importantly it gives the Commons an opportunity to assert its authority as it is hard for the Government to paint this as bad without explicitly saying they wish bargain with people. It's very clever. I think it's intended to tap the rhetoric away from acting "tough" to being more amenable. There are a lot of very experienced diplomats and civil servants in there." What? You don't think that after May attended the first day of debate and sent Rudd to attend last night vote that the Lords would not want to embarrass the PM by just doing enough to derail her timetable and show her up as an authoritarian who is picking fights for the sake of enforcing her authority? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"May already offered to come to an agreement with the EU right away but it was merkl and tusk who said a big fat NO. I do belive we should put it right out there that EU citizens that already qualify to stay here should be honoured. This would force tusks hand to agree on that one point at least. Why would it force tusk's hand? And if we did do that, the EU didn't reciprocate immediately how would the EU be seen by people, particularly those who voted to remain? And if after we unilaterally guaranteed EU citizens' right to stay, what if the EU then during negotiations said they weren't going to reciprocate? How would remainers then view the EU? What could we do? What should we do? An you really see that happening ? I'm pretty sure it would advesly effect the employment potential of the afore mentioned EU citizens " Yes, I do. But I'm asking what if they do.... How would you feel about that? And why if the EU didn't reciprocate would it have any bearing on the employment potential of EU citizens here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not a statement making it a priority, the amendment says: "Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future." Isn't that saying their current rights are honoured after A50? I agree they should be, but that should be a two way commitment. If they want that amendment why not say Ministers must arrange for an equal reciprocal agreement, rather than just one way?" Correct we should only be giving this commitment once the EU has agreed a reciprocal deal for UK nationals living in the EU. I don't trust the likes of Juncker, Tusk or Merkel one tiny bit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a very British and a quite honourable move to take the moral high ground. The Lords have done what they are supposed to do and that is add an amendment that has been maturely debated and well thought out. For those who think that it should be the EU who should make such warranties. Just stop and think. The EU are not evicting us, they have done nothing. The UK is the country that is making all the noise and all of the agitation, the EU quite rightly need not and will not do anything or react to anything until the noisy agitators make their move. The Lords have simply added some dignity and some moral high ground by putting this government and the EU on notice that human beings are not pawns in a game and any game using people as pawns is not acceptable to the UK." Maybe we should expect the EU to react to our request. As we pay a lot more into the EU than we get in return the least we can expect is an answer to our question concerning how those UK residents currently resident in other countries will be treated . As these EU citizens probably make a substantial contribution to the local economy it is probably safe to assume that the EU countries concerned will be happy for them to remain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a very British and a quite honourable move to take the moral high ground. The Lords have done what they are supposed to do and that is add an amendment that has been maturely debated and well thought out. For those who think that it should be the EU who should make such warranties. Just stop and think. The EU are not evicting us, they have done nothing. The UK is the country that is making all the noise and all of the agitation, the EU quite rightly need not and will not do anything or react to anything until the noisy agitators make their move. The Lords have simply added some dignity and some moral high ground by putting this government and the EU on notice that human beings are not pawns in a game and any game using people as pawns is not acceptable to the UK." it won't be up to the EU anyway, it will be up to individual countries. Did the EU allow a million migrants to enter and reside in Germany or was it Germany? I read in a Spanish paper that Rajoy and May had pretty much agreed a bi-lateral deal on this already | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a very British and a quite honourable move to take the moral high ground. The Lords have done what they are supposed to do and that is add an amendment that has been maturely debated and well thought out. For those who think that it should be the EU who should make such warranties. Just stop and think. The EU are not evicting us, they have done nothing. The UK is the country that is making all the noise and all of the agitation, the EU quite rightly need not and will not do anything or react to anything until the noisy agitators make their move. The Lords have simply added some dignity and some moral high ground by putting this government and the EU on notice that human beings are not pawns in a game and any game using people as pawns is not acceptable to the UK. Maybe we should expect the EU to react to our request. As we pay a lot more into the EU than we get in return the least we can expect is an answer to our question concerning how those UK residents currently resident in other countries will be treated . As these EU citizens probably make a substantial contribution to the local economy it is probably safe to assume that the EU countries concerned will be happy for them to remain. " You surprise me. I would have thought that the typical Brexiters could not give a flying fuck about British citizens living in the EU and see them as acceptable collateral casualties. Indeed many on here have said that if they like living abroad so much they should rescind their UK citizenship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a very British and a quite honourable move to take the moral high ground. The Lords have done what they are supposed to do and that is add an amendment that has been maturely debated and well thought out. For those who think that it should be the EU who should make such warranties. Just stop and think. The EU are not evicting us, they have done nothing. The UK is the country that is making all the noise and all of the agitation, the EU quite rightly need not and will not do anything or react to anything until the noisy agitators make their move. The Lords have simply added some dignity and some moral high ground by putting this government and the EU on notice that human beings are not pawns in a game and any game using people as pawns is not acceptable to the UK. Maybe we should expect the EU to react to our request. As we pay a lot more into the EU than we get in return the least we can expect is an answer to our question concerning how those UK residents currently resident in other countries will be treated . As these EU citizens probably make a substantial contribution to the local economy it is probably safe to assume that the EU countries concerned will be happy for them to remain. You surprise me. I would have thought that the typical Brexiters could not give a flying fuck about British citizens living in the EU and see them as acceptable collateral casualties. Indeed many on here have said that if they like living abroad so much they should rescind their UK citizenship." I think they might be motivated by a desire for British citizens living in Spain to have the same rights they have enjoyed for decades | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a very British and a quite honourable move to take the moral high ground. The Lords have done what they are supposed to do and that is add an amendment that has been maturely debated and well thought out. For those who think that it should be the EU who should make such warranties. Just stop and think. The EU are not evicting us, they have done nothing. The UK is the country that is making all the noise and all of the agitation, the EU quite rightly need not and will not do anything or react to anything until the noisy agitators make their move. The Lords have simply added some dignity and some moral high ground by putting this government and the EU on notice that human beings are not pawns in a game and any game using people as pawns is not acceptable to the UK." So if the UK honour this Lords ammendment and give EU citizens living here the rights to stay, then once article 50 is triggered if the EU refuse to give the same reciprocal deal for UK citizens living in the EU, will remainers then concede that this 'club' called the EU is really not something we should want to be a member of or play any part in. In fact if the EU does that and sends all UK citizens back to the UK after we have allowed EU citizens to stay here we should be as pro active as possible in the negotiations to go for as hard a Brexit as possible and put as much distance between ourselves and the EU as possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a very British and a quite honourable move to take the moral high ground. The Lords have done what they are supposed to do and that is add an amendment that has been maturely debated and well thought out. For those who think that it should be the EU who should make such warranties. Just stop and think. The EU are not evicting us, they have done nothing. The UK is the country that is making all the noise and all of the agitation, the EU quite rightly need not and will not do anything or react to anything until the noisy agitators make their move. The Lords have simply added some dignity and some moral high ground by putting this government and the EU on notice that human beings are not pawns in a game and any game using people as pawns is not acceptable to the UK. Maybe we should expect the EU to react to our request. As we pay a lot more into the EU than we get in return the least we can expect is an answer to our question concerning how those UK residents currently resident in other countries will be treated . As these EU citizens probably make a substantial contribution to the local economy it is probably safe to assume that the EU countries concerned will be happy for them to remain. You surprise me. I would have thought that the typical Brexiters could not give a flying fuck about British citizens living in the EU and see them as acceptable collateral casualties. Indeed many on here have said that if they like living abroad so much they should rescind their UK citizenship. I think they might be motivated by a desire for British citizens living in Spain to have the same rights they have enjoyed for decades "No Tebbit summed it up pretty well in what he said in the Lords, in that many Lords seem to be ignoring the rights of UK citizens in the EU. It really comes to something when our own (unelected and appointed) representatives in Parliament put the rights of foreigners before the rights of their own people who are UK nationals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not a statement making it a priority, the amendment says: "Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future." Isn't that saying their current rights are honoured after A50? I agree they should be, but that should be a two way commitment. If they want that amendment why not say Ministers must arrange for an equal reciprocal agreement, rather than just one way?" Bring forward proposals. Not read into legislation or make a commitment. What I am saddened, but not surprised by is that many posters think that the opposite statement is therefore acceptable. "Ministers of the Crown...should not ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members...continue to be treated in the same way..." Really? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Correct we should only be giving this commitment once the EU has agreed a reciprocal deal for UK nationals living in the EU. I don't trust the likes of Juncker, Tusk or Merkel one tiny bit. " You don't see the paradox? Let's rephrase from the other perspective and see what you think. "The EU should only give this commitment. once the UK has agreed a reciprocal deal for EU nationals living in the UK. I don't trust the likes of Davis, Fox, Jonson and May" You propose a permanent stand off to a cliff edge where the UK gets no deal. We will look "tough" though and prove that we can piss higher up the wall. That's the main thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Correct we should only be giving this commitment once the EU has agreed a reciprocal deal for UK nationals living in the EU. I don't trust the likes of Juncker, Tusk or Merkel one tiny bit. You don't see the paradox? Let's rephrase from the other perspective and see what you think. "The EU should only give this commitment. once the UK has agreed a reciprocal deal for EU nationals living in the UK. I don't trust the likes of Davis, Fox, Jonson and May" You propose a permanent stand off to a cliff edge where the UK gets no deal. We will look "tough" though and prove that we can piss higher up the wall. That's the main thing." That's not what is being suggested at all. Teresa May already offered the EU a reciprocal deal to settle this issue about 2 months ago, Merkel and Tusk refused and said we will not agree until article 50 is triggered. So then it follows this can be settled immediately after article 50 is triggered, UK nationals can stay in the EU and EU nationals can stay in the UK, both sides simply have to agree to it. The EU have said they will only agree after article 50 is triggered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Correct we should only be giving this commitment once the EU has agreed a reciprocal deal for UK nationals living in the EU. I don't trust the likes of Juncker, Tusk or Merkel one tiny bit. You don't see the paradox? Let's rephrase from the other perspective and see what you think. "The EU should only give this commitment. once the UK has agreed a reciprocal deal for EU nationals living in the UK. I don't trust the likes of Davis, Fox, Jonson and May" You propose a permanent stand off to a cliff edge where the UK gets no deal. We will look "tough" though and prove that we can piss higher up the wall. That's the main thing. That's not what is being suggested at all. Teresa May already offered the EU a reciprocal deal to settle this issue about 2 months ago, Merkel and Tusk refused and said we will not agree until article 50 is triggered. So then it follows this can be settled immediately after article 50 is triggered, UK nationals can stay in the EU and EU nationals can stay in the UK, both sides simply have to agree to it. The EU have said they will only agree after article 50 is triggered. " absolutely correct!!! But it would have been a magnanimous gesture by the UK government to have done it and taken the morale high ground! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Correct we should only be giving this commitment once the EU has agreed a reciprocal deal for UK nationals living in the EU. I don't trust the likes of Juncker, Tusk or Merkel one tiny bit. You don't see the paradox? Let's rephrase from the other perspective and see what you think. "The EU should only give this commitment. once the UK has agreed a reciprocal deal for EU nationals living in the UK. I don't trust the likes of Davis, Fox, Jonson and May" You propose a permanent stand off to a cliff edge where the UK gets no deal. We will look "tough" though and prove that we can piss higher up the wall. That's the main thing. That's not what is being suggested at all. Teresa May already offered the EU a reciprocal deal to settle this issue about 2 months ago, Merkel and Tusk refused and said we will not agree until article 50 is triggered. So then it follows this can be settled immediately after article 50 is triggered, UK nationals can stay in the EU and EU nationals can stay in the UK, both sides simply have to agree to it. The EU have said they will only agree after article 50 is triggered. " Well, it's exactly what suggested You've now just repeated what I said having previously said that the EU were being mean and nasty. Do you inherently not wish the UK to reassure people who have lived and worked here for years that we are going to go into the negotiations with proposals to ensure their status. Their families status? Just proposals ready to go on day 1. If you think there is uncertainty for us imagine how they must feel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who will have to deal with the fall out from Article 50/ Brexit. I do wonder why on such a complexed topic, we Joe Public were give the option to vote IN or OUT. This is far to large a topic. I some how thought we paid those politicians to deal with such complextedtopics. As they are the ones who have ALL THE STATS AT THEIR HANDS. little Rant over. Remind me what do they do again!" what the people tell them to do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who will have to deal with the fall out from Article 50/ Brexit. I do wonder why on such a complexed topic, we Joe Public were give the option to vote IN or OUT. This is far to large a topic. I some how thought we paid those politicians to deal with such complextedtopics. As they are the ones who have ALL THE STATS AT THEIR HANDS. little Rant over. Remind me what do they do again! what the people tell them to do" You really do not know how the British Parliamentary system works do you? What is the purpose of the House of Lords? Are you actually able to write it down with any clarity? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who will have to deal with the fall out from Article 50/ Brexit. I do wonder why on such a complexed topic, we Joe Public were give the option to vote IN or OUT. This is far to large a topic. I some how thought we paid those politicians to deal with such complextedtopics. As they are the ones who have ALL THE STATS AT THEIR HANDS. little Rant over. Remind me what do they do again! what the people tell them to dotoo You really do not know how the British Parliamentary system works do you? What is the purpose of the House of Lords? Are you actually able to write it down with any clarity?" CandM don't know if the UK has a constitution or not and thinks that Hitler and Mussolini were left wing. That should tell you all you need to know about their competence to discuss politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who will have to deal with the fall out from Article 50/ Brexit. I do wonder why on such a complexed topic, we Joe Public were give the option to vote IN or OUT. This is far to large a topic. I some how thought we paid those politicians to deal with such complextedtopics. As they are the ones who have ALL THE STATS AT THEIR HANDS. little Rant over. Remind me what do they do again!" Are you suggesting that politicians know more than members of the public ? If a politician makes a bad decision it has no impact on them. If a company director makes a bad decision many could lose their jobs or if a Doctor miss diagnoses people could die . I would not want to leave such an important decision to my local MP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who will have to deal with the fall out from Article 50/ Brexit. I do wonder why on such a complexed topic, we Joe Public were give the option to vote IN or OUT. This is far to large a topic. I some how thought we paid those politicians to deal with such complextedtopics. As they are the ones who have ALL THE STATS AT THEIR HANDS. little Rant over. Remind me what do they do again! Are you suggesting that politicians know more than members of the public ? If a politician makes a bad decision it has no impact on them. If a company director makes a bad decision many could lose their jobs or if a Doctor miss diagnoses people could die . I would not want to leave such an important decision to my local MP. " What Does The House Of Lords Do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"back to the subject at hand.... here is what the all-party parliamentry select committee on exiting the EU says..... i think the interesting thing about this report is that has been agreed unanimously... and there are very very high profile leavers on the committee such as michael gove, Dominic Raab and Peter Lilley. so you people advocating for may and the governments position may want to read this ..and argue why may is correct and they are wrong.... anyway.... The committee report states: “The result of the referendum and subsequent debate in the UK and across the EU have created a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty for EU citizens resident in the UK and for UK citizens in the EU. “EU nationals in the UK did not have a vote in the referendum. They came to the UK legally and have contributed to the UK economically and culturally and enriched UK society. The vast majority have worked hard, paid their taxes, integrated, raised families and put down roots. It is difficult to see what more the UK could have asked of them. The result of the referendum, however, has made them very unsure of their future. Although the government has said it wants EU citizens to be able to remain, the committee notes that this has not offered sufficient reassurance that the rights and status that they have enjoyed will be guaranteed.” “EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU are aware that their fate is subject to the negotiations. They do not want to be used as bargaining chips, and the uncertainty they are having to live with is not acceptable. Notwithstanding the assurance given by the home secretary, we recommend that the UK should now make a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals living in the UK.” I really hope there are enough tory mp's that vote for the amendment when it comes back on tuesday..... hopefully this forces the government to do the right thing by people who contribute so many things... " So why is the EU not doing anything to assure UK citizens living the EU have the right to remain? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why is the EU not doing anything to assure UK citizens living the EU have the right to remain?" For the same reason as there will be no exit negotiations until article 50 is triggered... We are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the EU to guarantee UK citizens living abroad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"back to the subject at hand.... here is what the all-party parliamentry select committee on exiting the EU says..... i think the interesting thing about this report is that has been agreed unanimously... and there are very very high profile leavers on the committee such as michael gove, Dominic Raab and Peter Lilley. so you people advocating for may and the governments position may want to read this ..and argue why may is correct and they are wrong.... anyway.... The committee report states: “The result of the referendum and subsequent debate in the UK and across the EU have created a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty for EU citizens resident in the UK and for UK citizens in the EU. “EU nationals in the UK did not have a vote in the referendum. They came to the UK legally and have contributed to the UK economically and culturally and enriched UK society. The vast majority have worked hard, paid their taxes, integrated, raised families and put down roots. It is difficult to see what more the UK could have asked of them. The result of the referendum, however, has made them very unsure of their future. Although the government has said it wants EU citizens to be able to remain, the committee notes that this has not offered sufficient reassurance that the rights and status that they have enjoyed will be guaranteed.” “EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU are aware that their fate is subject to the negotiations. They do not want to be used as bargaining chips, and the uncertainty they are having to live with is not acceptable. Notwithstanding the assurance given by the home secretary, we recommend that the UK should now make a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals living in the UK.” I really hope there are enough tory mp's that vote for the amendment when it comes back on tuesday..... hopefully this forces the government to do the right thing by people who contribute so many things... So why is the EU not doing anything to assure UK citizens living the EU have the right to remain?" Because as they have stated on many occasions, under the terms of Article 50 NOTHING can be negotiated until A50 has been triggered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why is the EU not doing anything to assure UK citizens living the EU have the right to remain? For the same reason as there will be no exit negotiations until article 50 is triggered... We are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the EU to guarantee UK citizens living abroad. " That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. " This is the wording of the amendment: "Within three months of exercising the power under section 1(1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future." As you've failed to explain on the parallel Tebbit thread, perhaps you can explain here why you object to this? Why isn't being kind an inherent good? Why isn't providing proposals for their security the right thing to do? The EU cannot do this yet. They are not creating any new legislation until Article 50 is triggered. Legally NOTHING HAS CHANGED. We can. We are passing legislation and our Parliamentary system allows us the opportunity to offer thousands of people and their families the knowledge that we are in some way "great" and signal in the legislation not just the words.of politicians, that we will put people first? They are PROPOSALS. I'm interested to know what you think this word means and why it weakens anyone's position on anything as we need them any way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who will have to deal with the fall out from Article 50/ Brexit. I do wonder why on such a complexed topic, we Joe Public were give the option to vote IN or OUT. This is far to large a topic. I some how thought we paid those politicians to deal with such complextedtopics. As they are the ones who have ALL THE STATS AT THEIR HANDS. little Rant over. Remind me what do they do again! what the people tell them to dotoo You really do not know how the British Parliamentary system works do you? What is the purpose of the House of Lords? Are you actually able to write it down with any clarity? CandM don't know if the UK has a constitution or not and thinks that Hitler and Mussolini were left wing. That should tell you all you need to know about their competence to discuss politics." I know if we have a constitution or not. I asked you where I could read it. Where can I? And Hitler and Mussolini were left wing ffs they were both socialists and members of socialist parties were they not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who will have to deal with the fall out from Article 50/ Brexit. I do wonder why on such a complexed topic, we Joe Public were give the option to vote IN or OUT. This is far to large a topic. I some how thought we paid those politicians to deal with such complextedtopics. As they are the ones who have ALL THE STATS AT THEIR HANDS. little Rant over. Remind me what do they do again! what the people tell them to do You really do not know how the British Parliamentary system works do you? What is the purpose of the House of Lords? Are you actually able to write it down with any clarity?" Do you ever actually have anything to say? Or do you just like asking stupid questions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who will have to deal with the fall out from Article 50/ Brexit. I do wonder why on such a complexed topic, we Joe Public were give the option to vote IN or OUT. This is far to large a topic. I some how thought we paid those politicians to deal with such complextedtopics. As they are the ones who have ALL THE STATS AT THEIR HANDS. little Rant over. Remind me what do they do again! what the people tell them to dotoo You really do not know how the British Parliamentary system works do you? What is the purpose of the House of Lords? Are you actually able to write it down with any clarity? CandM don't know if the UK has a constitution or not and thinks that Hitler and Mussolini were left wing. That should tell you all you need to know about their competence to discuss politics. I know if we have a constitution or not. I asked you where I could read it. Where can I? And Hitler and Mussolini were left wing ffs they were both socialists and members of socialist parties were they not?" priceless...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who will have to deal with the fall out from Article 50/ Brexit. I do wonder why on such a complexed topic, we Joe Public were give the option to vote IN or OUT. This is far to large a topic. I some how thought we paid those politicians to deal with such complextedtopics. As they are the ones who have ALL THE STATS AT THEIR HANDS. little Rant over. Remind me what do they do again! what the people tell them to dotoo You really do not know how the British Parliamentary system works do you? What is the purpose of the House of Lords? Are you actually able to write it down with any clarity? CandM don't know if the UK has a constitution or not and thinks that Hitler and Mussolini were left wing. That should tell you all you need to know about their competence to discuss politics. I know if we have a constitution or not. I asked you where I could read it. Where can I? And Hitler and Mussolini were left wing ffs they were both socialists and members of socialist parties were they not? priceless......" were they not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who will have to deal with the fall out from Article 50/ Brexit. I do wonder why on such a complexed topic, we Joe Public were give the option to vote IN or OUT. This is far to large a topic. I some how thought we paid those politicians to deal with such complextedtopics. As they are the ones who have ALL THE STATS AT THEIR HANDS. little Rant over. Remind me what do they do again! what the people tell them to dotoo You really do not know how the British Parliamentary system works do you? What is the purpose of the House of Lords? Are you actually able to write it down with any clarity? CandM don't know if the UK has a constitution or not and thinks that Hitler and Mussolini were left wing. That should tell you all you need to know about their competence to discuss politics. I know if we have a constitution or not. I asked you where I could read it. Where can I? And Hitler and Mussolini were left wing ffs they were both socialists and members of socialist parties were they not? priceless...... were they not?" Did you take history at school? If not take the time to read up about Hitler and his infiltration of the Socialist movement in Germany, but I have a suspicion you really already know this and choose instead to act dumb.....just for effect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. " Have you ever heard of gestures of good faith when entering negotiations? Like it or not we (the UK) are the people who are starting this, common sense should dictate that we ramp down the rhetoric and do everything in our power to assuage and alleviate the fears of EU citizens (and their families) living and working in the UK, and in this way build positive feelings with the governments of the EU we are about to enter into exit negotiations with. However what is our PM doing? She is standing legs apart and threatening mayhem for all if she does not get her way. Now regardless of being pro or anti the EU and brexit, how do you all think this is going to work out for the UK? Do you think that eventually the EU will turn round and say, we can play hardball too, now you may be able to hurt us, but we will destroy you! Or maybe you all think that the populations of all the other EU countries will look at us and say 'I got to have me a bit of that' and force the dismantlement of the EU and in that way save us from what we are setting ourselves up for? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who will have to deal with the fall out from Article 50/ Brexit. I do wonder why on such a complexed topic, we Joe Public were give the option to vote IN or OUT. This is far to large a topic. I some how thought we paid those politicians to deal with such complextedtopics. As they are the ones who have ALL THE STATS AT THEIR HANDS. little Rant over. Remind me what do they do again! what the people tell them to dotoo You really do not know how the British Parliamentary system works do you? What is the purpose of the House of Lords? Are you actually able to write it down with any clarity? CandM don't know if the UK has a constitution or not and thinks that Hitler and Mussolini were left wing. That should tell you all you need to know about their competence to discuss politics. I know if we have a constitution or not. I asked you where I could read it. Where can I? And Hitler and Mussolini were left wing ffs they were both socialists and members of socialist parties were they not? priceless...... were they not? Did you take history at school? If not take the time to read up about Hitler and his infiltration of the Socialist movement in Germany, but I have a suspicion you really already know this and choose instead to act dumb.....just for effect." Oh, infiltration. Thats a good excuse. So which party was Mussolini a member of before he formed the fascist party? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And Hitler and Mussolini were left wing ffs they were both socialists and members of socialist parties were they not?" And the Republic of North Korea is a shining light of democratic freedom because it calls itself The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And Hitler and Mussolini were left wing ffs they were both socialists and members of socialist parties were they not? And the Republic of North Korea is a shining light of democratic freedom because it calls itself The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. "the usual uneducated excuse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. " so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. Have you ever heard of gestures of good faith when entering negotiations? Like it or not we (the UK) are the people who are starting this, common sense should dictate that we ramp down the rhetoric and do everything in our power to assuage and alleviate the fears of EU citizens (and their families) living and working in the UK, and in this way build positive feelings with the governments of the EU we are about to enter into exit negotiations with. However what is our PM doing? She is standing legs apart and threatening mayhem for all if she does not get her way. Now regardless of being pro or anti the EU and brexit, how do you all think this is going to work out for the UK? Do you think that eventually the EU will turn round and say, we can play hardball too, now you may be able to hurt us, but we will destroy you! Or maybe you all think that the populations of all the other EU countries will look at us and say 'I got to have me a bit of that' and force the dismantlement of the EU and in that way save us from what we are setting ourselves up for?" Gestures of goodwill go towards people of integrity who you are able to put trust in. The likes Jean Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk don't fall into that category. As for the EU destroying us, pull the other one, maybe you forgot the part of Teresa May's speech where she said "no deal is better than an bad deal". If the EU wants to start playing hardball then great, we walk away from the table with no deal and go onto WTO terms with them, personally I'd be very happy with that settlement. What is it about settling this issue of EU citizens and UK citizens on a mutually agreed reciprocal deal after article 50 is triggered you are against? What is it about wanting the same commitment from the EU on UK citizens that you think is unreasonable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of?" surely the issue is not that of which party he was in before he formed the fascist party where and when he became a dictator.. he was expelled from the Socialist party that he was a member of.. that gives you an idea that him and they had very different views.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of? surely the issue is not that of which party he was in before he formed the fascist party where and when he became a dictator.. he was expelled from the Socialist party that he was a member of.. that gives you an idea that him and they had very different views.. " yes, they weren't left wing enough for him, thank you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of?" Here are the Wiki quotes. Good enough in this context. Voice your opinion if you understand it otherwise please get back in your box: "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.[11] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[12] Adolf Hitler and other proponents officially portrayed Nazism as being neither left- nor right-wing, but syncretic.[13][14] Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying: "Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors ... But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.[15]" Hitler, when asked whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class, and indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps", stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".[16] The National Fascist Party (Partito Nazionale Fascista, PNF) was an Italian political party, created by Benito Mussolini as the political expression of fascism (previously represented by groups known as Fasci). The party ruled Italy from 1922 when Fascists took power with the March on Rome, to 1943, when Mussolini was deposed by the Grand Council of Fascism. Preceding the PNF, Mussolini's first established political party was known as "The Fascist Revolutionary Party" (Partito Fascista Rivoluzionario, PFR), which was, according to Mussolini, founded in 1915.[1] After poor November 1919 election results, the PFR was eventually renamed in 1921 to the National Fascist Party.[2] | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of?" he was a member of the national facist party who's political position is considered but italy and the italian government themselves to be far-right in fact the "party" is one of two not allowed to be reconstituted under the italian law..... if you want to say they were left... the italian have done and still have a communist party.... ... so...... is THIS a fight you really want to be having? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of? Here are the Wiki quotes. Good enough in this context. Voice your opinion if you understand it otherwise please get back in your box: "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.[11] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[12] Adolf Hitler and other proponents officially portrayed Nazism as being neither left- nor right-wing, but syncretic.[13][14] Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying: "Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors ... But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.[15]" Hitler, when asked whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class, and indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps", stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".[16] The National Fascist Party (Partito Nazionale Fascista, PNF) was an Italian political party, created by Benito Mussolini as the political expression of fascism (previously represented by groups known as Fasci). The party ruled Italy from 1922 when Fascists took power with the March on Rome, to 1943, when Mussolini was deposed by the Grand Council of Fascism. Preceding the PNF, Mussolini's first established political party was known as "The Fascist Revolutionary Party" (Partito Fascista Rivoluzionario, PFR), which was, according to Mussolini, founded in 1915.[1] After poor November 1919 election results, the PFR was eventually renamed in 1921 to the National Fascist Party.[2]" get back in my box? Yes mein Fuhrer. You obviously don't understand it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of? he was a member of the national facist party who's political position is considered but italy and the italian government themselves to be far-right in fact the "party" is one of two not allowed to be reconstituted under the italian law..... if you want to say they were left... the italian have done and still have a communist party.... ... so...... is THIS a fight you really want to be having? " yep. Which party was he in before the fascist party? Do you not want to say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of? surely the issue is not that of which party he was in before he formed the fascist party where and when he became a dictator.. he was expelled from the Socialist party that he was a member of.. that gives you an idea that him and they had very different views.. yes, they weren't left wing enough for him, thank you "PMSL, that is clutching at straws..
ok then which party and what was the name of that party that he initially formed after he was expelled from the Socialists..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of? surely the issue is not that of which party he was in before he formed the fascist party where and when he became a dictator.. he was expelled from the Socialist party that he was a member of.. that gives you an idea that him and they had very different views.. yes, they weren't left wing enough for him, thank you
PMSL, that is clutching at straws..
ok then which party and what was the name of that party that he initially formed after he was expelled from the Socialists..
"Seems I've touched a nerve with those who consider themselves to lean towards the left | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What is it about settling this issue of EU citizens and UK citizens on a mutually agreed reciprocal deal after article 50 is triggered you are against? What is it about wanting the same commitment from the EU on UK citizens that you think is unreasonable? " it seems that if you are not... or don't know any of the 3million plus people potentially affected by this.... you will not and seem not to want to understand.... see.... the answer is "gesture of good faith"... i would like to think that this would be a sign that since the UK started this situation... it is a easy thing that would foster a lot of goodwill..... it wouldn't cost any money... and it would raise a whole lot of moral.... in a slight different context, let me use and courntey as examples of a different arguement going on right now.... the US and the EU look like they are about to rip up a perfectly good Visa free travel agreement because the US refuse to allow visa free travel from 5 EU countries.... they aren't countries that export terror.... all it would take to solve an issue is the the US to allow those 5 with the rest of the 23.... and it wouldn't affect the millions of people going each way.... again... gesture of goodwill..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. Have you ever heard of gestures of good faith when entering negotiations? Like it or not we (the UK) are the people who are starting this, common sense should dictate that we ramp down the rhetoric and do everything in our power to assuage and alleviate the fears of EU citizens (and their families) living and working in the UK, and in this way build positive feelings with the governments of the EU we are about to enter into exit negotiations with. However what is our PM doing? She is standing legs apart and threatening mayhem for all if she does not get her way. Now regardless of being pro or anti the EU and brexit, how do you all think this is going to work out for the UK? Do you think that eventually the EU will turn round and say, we can play hardball too, now you may be able to hurt us, but we will destroy you! Or maybe you all think that the populations of all the other EU countries will look at us and say 'I got to have me a bit of that' and force the dismantlement of the EU and in that way save us from what we are setting ourselves up for? Gestures of goodwill go towards people of integrity who you are able to put trust in. The likes Jean Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk don't fall into that category. As for the EU destroying us, pull the other one, maybe you forgot the part of Teresa May's speech where she said "no deal is better than an bad deal". If the EU wants to start playing hardball then great, we walk away from the table with no deal and go onto WTO terms with them, personally I'd be very happy with that settlement. What is it about settling this issue of EU citizens and UK citizens on a mutually agreed reciprocal deal after article 50 is triggered you are against? What is it about wanting the same commitment from the EU on UK citizens that you think is unreasonable? " This is fundamental. When you do something nice it turns out that people reciprocate. You may well never have tried it. You may well never have negotiated anything more complex than a discount on your kitchen either. Generally speaking resolving one mutually beneficial point early Will set a positive tone for the entire process. You don't seem to like responding to the actual text of the amendment which seeks a PROPOSAL. proposal pr?'p??z  l/Submit
noun
1.
a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration by others.
"a set of proposals for a major new high-speed rail link"
synonyms: scheme, plan, project, programme, manifesto, motion, bid, proposition, presentation, submission, approach, suggestion, overture, draft, recommendation, tender, terms; rareproffer
"the Select Committee gave the proposal a very mixed reception"
What do we lose in presenting this proposal which we need to anyway to start discussions? The EU will also present its proposal, we will simply have formally stated our intention.
I think that makes us better people. Do you not? Does it make us look "weak" to you?
It's the difference between a positive view of the world and a suspicious one.
Do you think we will be filling our boots with trade deals with your approach? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of? Here are the Wiki quotes. Good enough in this context. Voice your opinion if you understand it otherwise please get back in your box: "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.[11] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[12] Adolf Hitler and other proponents officially portrayed Nazism as being neither left- nor right-wing, but syncretic.[13][14] Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying: "Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors ... But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.[15]" Hitler, when asked whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class, and indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps", stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".[16] The National Fascist Party (Partito Nazionale Fascista, PNF) was an Italian political party, created by Benito Mussolini as the political expression of fascism (previously represented by groups known as Fasci). The party ruled Italy from 1922 when Fascists took power with the March on Rome, to 1943, when Mussolini was deposed by the Grand Council of Fascism. Preceding the PNF, Mussolini's first established political party was known as "The Fascist Revolutionary Party" (Partito Fascista Rivoluzionario, PFR), which was, according to Mussolini, founded in 1915.[1] After poor November 1919 election results, the PFR was eventually renamed in 1921 to the National Fascist Party.[2]" Wow and you accuse others on here of being angry and aggressive.
Telling other forum users to get back in their box is hardly a friendly manner in which to converse with people now is it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of?" Just as you don't wish to explain what the role of the House of Lords is. Hypocrisy makes people look foolish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. Have you ever heard of gestures of good faith when entering negotiations? Like it or not we (the UK) are the people who are starting this, common sense should dictate that we ramp down the rhetoric and do everything in our power to assuage and alleviate the fears of EU citizens (and their families) living and working in the UK, and in this way build positive feelings with the governments of the EU we are about to enter into exit negotiations with. However what is our PM doing? She is standing legs apart and threatening mayhem for all if she does not get her way. Now regardless of being pro or anti the EU and brexit, how do you all think this is going to work out for the UK? Do you think that eventually the EU will turn round and say, we can play hardball too, now you may be able to hurt us, but we will destroy you! Or maybe you all think that the populations of all the other EU countries will look at us and say 'I got to have me a bit of that' and force the dismantlement of the EU and in that way save us from what we are setting ourselves up for? Gestures of goodwill go towards people of integrity who you are able to put trust in. The likes Jean Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk don't fall into that category. As for the EU destroying us, pull the other one, maybe you forgot the part of Teresa May's speech where she said "no deal is better than an bad deal". If the EU wants to start playing hardball then great, we walk away from the table with no deal and go onto WTO terms with them, personally I'd be very happy with that settlement. What is it about settling this issue of EU citizens and UK citizens on a mutually agreed reciprocal deal after article 50 is triggered you are against? What is it about wanting the same commitment from the EU on UK citizens that you think is unreasonable? This is fundamental. When you do something nice it turns out that people reciprocate. You may well never have tried it. You may well never have negotiated anything more complex than a discount on your kitchen either. Generally speaking resolving one mutually beneficial point early Will set a positive tone for the entire process. You don't seem to like responding to the actual text of the amendment which seeks a PROPOSAL. proposal pr?'p??z l/Submit
noun
1.
a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration by others.
"a set of proposals for a major new high-speed rail link"
synonyms: scheme, plan, project, programme, manifesto, motion, bid, proposition, presentation, submission, approach, suggestion, overture, draft, recommendation, tender, terms; rareproffer
"the Select Committee gave the proposal a very mixed reception"
What do we lose in presenting this proposal which we need to anyway to start discussions? The EU will also present its proposal, we will simply have formally stated our intention.
I think that makes us better people. Do you not? Does it make us look "weak" to you?
It's the difference between a positive view of the world and a suspicious one.
Do you think we will be filling our boots with trade deals with your approach?"You just come across as being naive in the extreme. Many elements from within the EU, particularly the Europhile zealots in the EU commission have said they want to punish the UK for leaving. We should be giving away nothing to these people. What is the point of any gesture of goodwill towards people who have already stated they want to punish us. Never mind negotiating deals on a new kitchen I doubt you'd be able to negotiate a deal at a car boot sale. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of? surely the issue is not that of which party he was in before he formed the fascist party where and when he became a dictator.. he was expelled from the Socialist party that he was a member of.. that gives you an idea that him and they had very different views.. yes, they weren't left wing enough for him, thank you "You are starting to make yourself look very silly, you clearly never had a (half) decent education or you wouldn't pursue your ridiculous argument. I only hope your children fair better.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of? surely the issue is not that of which party he was in before he formed the fascist party where and when he became a dictator.. he was expelled from the Socialist party that he was a member of.. that gives you an idea that him and they had very different views.. yes, they weren't left wing enough for him, thank you
PMSL, that is clutching at straws..
ok then which party and what was the name of that party that he initially formed after he was expelled from the Socialists..
Seems I've touched a nerve with those who consider themselves to lean towards the left "Nn as I don't share any of his views.. What was that name again of the party he founded? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You just come across as being naive in the extreme. Many elements from within the EU, particularly the Europhile zealots in the EU commission have said they want to punish the UK for leaving. We should be giving away nothing to these people. What is the point of any gesture of goodwill towards people who have already stated they want to punish us. Never mind negotiating deals on a new kitchen I doubt you'd be able to negotiate a deal at a car boot sale. " please oh dear lord lets not have people with this sort of distain and attitude be in high spots when we do the negoiations otherwise there will be no deals... its like you go into everything, with a "if it is a win for you, then it is a loss for them" attitude.... or scarily, i am thinking that is what you really want... no agreement like i said, regardless of what happens this is one of those golden chances where the UK gets to set the tone of the talks going forward.... and you are talking about 5% of the entire population being affected... do you know any people that would be affect by this? in which case what do you begrudge them by not giving them the same security as you..... as the select committee said, these people did not get a vote, have done everything that we have asked of them don't deserve to be used as human bargining chips..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. Have you ever heard of gestures of good faith when entering negotiations? Like it or not we (the UK) are the people who are starting this, common sense should dictate that we ramp down the rhetoric and do everything in our power to assuage and alleviate the fears of EU citizens (and their families) living and working in the UK, and in this way build positive feelings with the governments of the EU we are about to enter into exit negotiations with. However what is our PM doing? She is standing legs apart and threatening mayhem for all if she does not get her way. Now regardless of being pro or anti the EU and brexit, how do you all think this is going to work out for the UK? Do you think that eventually the EU will turn round and say, we can play hardball too, now you may be able to hurt us, but we will destroy you! Or maybe you all think that the populations of all the other EU countries will look at us and say 'I got to have me a bit of that' and force the dismantlement of the EU and in that way save us from what we are setting ourselves up for? Gestures of goodwill go towards people of integrity who you are able to put trust in. The likes Jean Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk don't fall into that category. As for the EU destroying us, pull the other one, maybe you forgot the part of Teresa May's speech where she said "no deal is better than an bad deal". If the EU wants to start playing hardball then great, we walk away from the table with no deal and go onto WTO terms with them, personally I'd be very happy with that settlement. What is it about settling this issue of EU citizens and UK citizens on a mutually agreed reciprocal deal after article 50 is triggered you are against? What is it about wanting the same commitment from the EU on UK citizens that you think is unreasonable? " What WTO terms are you happy with? You say you are happy for us to go into WTO terms, but we have yet to negotiate our schedule with them as far as I'm aware. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a social and economic theory whereas Nazism is a political ideology.....if you don't know the difference then it speaks volumes for the education (or lack of) you received. so you won't answer the question? Which party was Mussolini a member of? surely the issue is not that of which party he was in before he formed the fascist party where and when he became a dictator.. he was expelled from the Socialist party that he was a member of.. that gives you an idea that him and they had very different views.. yes, they weren't left wing enough for him, thank you
You are starting to make yourself look very silly, you clearly never had a (half) decent education or you wouldn't pursue your ridiculous argument.
I only hope your children fair better...."why are you insulting me? Is that the best you can do? And funnily enough my nephews were educated in Italy so they might know more on the subject than you. If you are so educated then give us the names of the parties he was a member of? And he fell out with the socialist party because he wanted a form of national socialism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. This is the wording of the amendment: "Within three months of exercising the power under section 1(1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future." As you've failed to explain on the parallel Tebbit thread, perhaps you can explain here why you object to this? Why isn't being kind an inherent good? Why isn't providing proposals for their security the right thing to do? The EU cannot do this yet. They are not creating any new legislation until Article 50 is triggered. Legally NOTHING HAS CHANGED. We can. We are passing legislation and our Parliamentary system allows us the opportunity to offer thousands of people and their families the knowledge that we are in some way "great" and signal in the legislation not just the words.of politicians, that we will put people first? They are PROPOSALS. I'm interested to know what you think this word means and why it weakens anyone's position on anything as we need them any way." Thus is the wording in part 6 of the 12 point Credit Plant Protect rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU. We want to guarantee rights of EU citizens living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can. What part of that does anyone not understand? We want to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK, but it has to be reciprocal. So far the EU has not said anything about reciprocity... And don't give the crap about they can't because A50 hasn't been triggered yet,as they've been saying plenty on everything else so far. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't even understand the difference between Socialism and National Socialism.....it's a waste of time even attempting to educate you on that as you are clearly incapable of taking it in. " yawn. Which parties was he a member of? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You just come across as being naive in the extreme. Many elements from within the EU, particularly the Europhile zealots in the EU commission have said they want to punish the UK for leaving. We should be giving away nothing to these people. What is the point of any gesture of goodwill towards people who have already stated they want to punish us. Never mind negotiating deals on a new kitchen I doubt you'd be able to negotiate a deal at a car boot sale. please oh dear lord lets not have people with this sort of distain and attitude be in high spots when we do the negoiations otherwise there will be no deals... its like you go into everything, with a "if it is a win for you, then it is a loss for them" attitude.... or scarily, i am thinking that is what you really want... no agreement " That's not what i've said at all, you just took what i said and completely twisted it and misrepresented it. There is no "win for us, loss for them" attitude at all, its a win for us, win for them" attitude because i want the deal to be a reciprocal deal for both EU nationals here and UK nationals there. There is the agreement, i'm not sure why you and others think this is such an unreasonable thing to expect in return from the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. This is the wording of the amendment: "Within three months of exercising the power under section 1(1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future." As you've failed to explain on the parallel Tebbit thread, perhaps you can explain here why you object to this? Why isn't being kind an inherent good? Why isn't providing proposals for their security the right thing to do? The EU cannot do this yet. They are not creating any new legislation until Article 50 is triggered. Legally NOTHING HAS CHANGED. We can. We are passing legislation and our Parliamentary system allows us the opportunity to offer thousands of people and their families the knowledge that we are in some way "great" and signal in the legislation not just the words.of politicians, that we will put people first? They are PROPOSALS. I'm interested to know what you think this word means and why it weakens anyone's position on anything as we need them any way. Thus is the wording in part 6 of the 12 point Credit Plant Protect rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU. We want to guarantee rights of EU citizens living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can. What part of that does anyone not understand? We want to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK, but it has to be reciprocal. So far the EU has not said anything about reciprocity... And don't give the crap about they can't because A50 hasn't been triggered yet,as they've been saying plenty on everything else so far. "
Exactly
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't even understand the difference between Socialism and National Socialism.....it's a waste of time even attempting to educate you on that as you are clearly incapable of taking it in. yawn. Which parties was he a member of?" The bare basic teachings of Political Science.... There are three principal methods of establishing a political movement in a democracy... (A) You start a political movement from scratch, establish a stand alone political party and attract members and supporters of that party from within the electorate. (B) You merge two or more existing political parties into one vehicle for studying and ultimately implementing political change upon election. (C) You join an existing political party and use it as a vehicle to enact major policy change and ideology within that party, using the existing membership and supporters as a base camp. If needed resulting in expulsion from that party of individuals or groups that don't accept the changes, ideologies or policies. Both Mussolini and Hitler chose route C, along with many other dictators that have emerged throughout modern history. The words 'Socialist' and 'Socialism' have been hijacked and used to serve as vehicles to establish major political change and ideology throughout Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. This is the wording of the amendment: "Within three months of exercising the power under section 1(1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future." As you've failed to explain on the parallel Tebbit thread, perhaps you can explain here why you object to this? Why isn't being kind an inherent good? Why isn't providing proposals for their security the right thing to do? The EU cannot do this yet. They are not creating any new legislation until Article 50 is triggered. Legally NOTHING HAS CHANGED. We can. We are passing legislation and our Parliamentary system allows us the opportunity to offer thousands of people and their families the knowledge that we are in some way "great" and signal in the legislation not just the words.of politicians, that we will put people first? They are PROPOSALS. I'm interested to know what you think this word means and why it weakens anyone's position on anything as we need them any way. Thus is the wording in part 6 of the 12 point Credit Plant Protect rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU. We want to guarantee rights of EU citizens living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can. What part of that does anyone not understand? We want to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK, but it has to be reciprocal. So far the EU has not said anything about reciprocity... And don't give the crap about they can't because A50 hasn't been triggered yet,as they've been saying plenty on everything else so far.
Exactly
"You are comparing an amendment to legislation to a political "promise". 3. Strengthen the Union between the four nations of the United Kingdom. How's that going? 8. Free trade with European markets through a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union. Already rejected by the UK Etcetera. Etcetera. Empty wish list. Have a think about what equivalence there is between the two. Then, if you can bring yourself to, explain why reciprocity is a requirement for doing what's right? Do you not feel that giving people a slightly better sense of security is the right thing to do? Nothing is even being guaranteed. At whatever point you wish to use people as negotiating tools you have to table a PROPOSAL. Why does saying what the PROPOSAL is weaken your negotiation over peoples' lives and futures? That is, after all, how you appear to wish to treat them as. You are rejecting the opportunity to change the terms of discussion and direction of travel of this aspect of Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't even understand the difference between Socialism and National Socialism.....it's a waste of time even attempting to educate you on that as you are clearly incapable of taking it in. yawn. Which parties was he a member of? The bare basic teachings of Political Science.... There are three principal methods of establishing a political movement in a democracy... (A) You start a political movement from scratch, establish a stand alone political party and attract members and supporters of that party from within the electorate. (B) You merge two or more existing political parties into one vehicle for studying and ultimately implementing political change upon election. (C) You join an existing political party and use it as a vehicle to enact major policy change and ideology within that party, using the existing membership and supporters as a base camp. If needed resulting in expulsion from that party of individuals or groups that don't accept the changes, ideologies or policies. Both Mussolini and Hitler chose route C, along with many other dictators that have emerged throughout modern history. The words 'Socialist' and 'Socialism' have been hijacked and used to serve as vehicles to establish major political change and ideology throughout Europe." Ok, I'll educate you. Mussolini was very pro socialism as was clearly indicated at the Congress of Verona 1943. 'Fascio Nazionale' - '(National Union) that would be led by an aristocracy of warrior producers that would unite Italians of all classes, factions and regions into a disciplined socialism.' Mussolini didn't just change from a socialist to a 'fascist' he simply became a socialist that had a stronger belief in a united nation that overcame social hierarchy through labour for the benefit of the state as a whole and defended by the 'warrior spirit' of all its citizens. . A clearer case of socialism or being a socialist would be hard to find | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A clearer case of socialism or being a socialist would be hard to find" It rather depends how you choose to define a policy structure based on a random collection of policies collected from various contradictory political beliefs. Just out of interest, what does this have to do with my actual original post which you have transparently failed to address? The National Fascist Party was rooted in Italian nationalism and the desire to restore and expand Italian territories, which Italian Fascists deemed necessary for a nation to assert its superiority and strength and to avoid succumbing to decay.[3] Italian Fascists claimed that modern Italy is the heir to ancient Rome and its legacy, and historically supported the creation of an Italian Empire to provide spazio vitale ("living space") for colonization by Italian settlers and to establish control over the Mediterranean Sea.[4] Fascists promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[5] This economic system intended to resolve class conflict through collaboration between the classes.[6] Italian Fascism opposed liberalism, but rather than seeking a reactionary restoration of the pre-French Revolutionary world, which it considered to have been flawed, it had a forward-looking direction.[7] It was opposed to Marxist socialism because of its typical opposition to nationalism,[8] but was also opposed to the reactionary conservatism developed by Joseph de Maistre.[9] It believed the success of Italian nationalism required respect for tradition and a clear sense of a shared past among the Italian people alongside a commitment to a modernized Italy.[10] The National Fascist Party along with its successor, the Republican Fascist Party, are the only parties whose re-formation is banned by the Constitution of Italy: "It shall be forbidden to reorganize, under any form whatever, the dissolved fascist party". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A clearer case of socialism or being a socialist would be hard to find It rather depends how you choose to define a policy structure based on a random collection of policies collected from various contradictory political beliefs. Just out of interest, what does this have to do with my actual original post which you have transparently failed to address? The National Fascist Party was rooted in Italian nationalism and the desire to restore and expand Italian territories, which Italian Fascists deemed necessary for a nation to assert its superiority and strength and to avoid succumbing to decay.[3] Italian Fascists claimed that modern Italy is the heir to ancient Rome and its legacy, and historically supported the creation of an Italian Empire to provide spazio vitale ("living space") for colonization by Italian settlers and to establish control over the Mediterranean Sea.[4] Fascists promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[5] This economic system intended to resolve class conflict through collaboration between the classes.[6] Italian Fascism opposed liberalism, but rather than seeking a reactionary restoration of the pre-French Revolutionary world, which it considered to have been flawed, it had a forward-looking direction.[7] It was opposed to Marxist socialism because of its typical opposition to nationalism,[8] but was also opposed to the reactionary conservatism developed by Joseph de Maistre.[9] It believed the success of Italian nationalism required respect for tradition and a clear sense of a shared past among the Italian people alongside a commitment to a modernized Italy.[10] The National Fascist Party along with its successor, the Republican Fascist Party, are the only parties whose re-formation is banned by the Constitution of Italy: "It shall be forbidden to reorganize, under any form whatever, the dissolved fascist party"." well I would define that as socialism wouldn't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A clearer case of socialism or being a socialist would be hard to find It rather depends how you choose to define a policy structure based on a random collection of policies collected from various contradictory political beliefs. Just out of interest, what does this have to do with my actual original post which you have transparently failed to address? The National Fascist Party was rooted in Italian nationalism and the desire to restore and expand Italian territories, which Italian Fascists deemed necessary for a nation to assert its superiority and strength and to avoid succumbing to decay.[3] Italian Fascists claimed that modern Italy is the heir to ancient Rome and its legacy, and historically supported the creation of an Italian Empire to provide spazio vitale ("living space") for colonization by Italian settlers and to establish control over the Mediterranean Sea.[4] Fascists promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[5] This economic system intended to resolve class conflict through collaboration between the classes.[6] Italian Fascism opposed liberalism, but rather than seeking a reactionary restoration of the pre-French Revolutionary world, which it considered to have been flawed, it had a forward-looking direction.[7] It was opposed to Marxist socialism because of its typical opposition to nationalism,[8] but was also opposed to the reactionary conservatism developed by Joseph de Maistre.[9] It believed the success of Italian nationalism required respect for tradition and a clear sense of a shared past among the Italian people alongside a commitment to a modernized Italy.[10] The National Fascist Party along with its successor, the Republican Fascist Party, are the only parties whose re-formation is banned by the Constitution of Italy: "It shall be forbidden to reorganize, under any form whatever, the dissolved fascist party". well I would define that as socialism wouldn't you?" Other than the nationalism and military expansionism. If you'd like to "win" then please feel free to. I have no idea what point you've proven other than trying to trying to associate socialism with fascism. I'm still utterly mystified as to how this defines the role of the House of Lords in the British legislative process or it's impact on the passage of the Article 50 Bill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. This is the wording of the amendment: "Within three months of exercising the power under section 1(1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future." As you've failed to explain on the parallel Tebbit thread, perhaps you can explain here why you object to this? Why isn't being kind an inherent good? Why isn't providing proposals for their security the right thing to do? The EU cannot do this yet. They are not creating any new legislation until Article 50 is triggered. Legally NOTHING HAS CHANGED. We can. We are passing legislation and our Parliamentary system allows us the opportunity to offer thousands of people and their families the knowledge that we are in some way "great" and signal in the legislation not just the words.of politicians, that we will put people first? They are PROPOSALS. I'm interested to know what you think this word means and why it weakens anyone's position on anything as we need them any way. Thus is the wording in part 6 of the 12 point Credit Plant Protect rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU. We want to guarantee rights of EU citizens living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can. What part of that does anyone not understand? We want to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK, but it has to be reciprocal. So far the EU has not said anything about reciprocity... And don't give the crap about they can't because A50 hasn't been triggered yet,as they've been saying plenty on everything else so far.
Exactly
You are comparing an amendment to legislation to a political "promise".
3. Strengthen the Union between the four nations of the United Kingdom.
How's that going?
8. Free trade with European markets through a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union.
Already rejected by the UK
Etcetera. Etcetera.
Empty wish list.
Have a think about what equivalence there is between the two.
Then, if you can bring yourself to, explain why reciprocity is a requirement for doing what's right? Do you not feel that giving people a slightly better sense of security is the right thing to do? Nothing is even being guaranteed.
At whatever point you wish to use people as negotiating tools you have to table a PROPOSAL.
Why does saying what the PROPOSAL is weaken your negotiation over peoples' lives and futures?
That is, after all, how you appear to wish to treat them as. You are rejecting the opportunity to change the terms of discussion and direction of travel of this aspect of Brexit."You really are over complicating this when it really is pretty simple. It goes something like this..... Teresa May..."The UK is now officially triggering article 50 to notify the EU that we are leaving". Pause Teresa May...."I would like to put forward a deal to the EU on the status of EU nationals living and working here in the UK before March 2017 that they will be allowed to stay provided UK nationals living and working in the EU are given a reciprocal deal and are allowed to stay in the EU". EU...."Ok we agree to that. You have a deal". Teresa May...."Thankyou, this now concludes this part of the negotiations". Both parties shake hands and the deal is done. Win/win for both sides. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't even understand the difference between Socialism and National Socialism.....it's a waste of time even attempting to educate you on that as you are clearly incapable of taking it in. yawn. Which parties was he a member of? The bare basic teachings of Political Science.... There are three principal methods of establishing a political movement in a democracy... (A) You start a political movement from scratch, establish a stand alone political party and attract members and supporters of that party from within the electorate. (B) You merge two or more existing political parties into one vehicle for studying and ultimately implementing political change upon election. (C) You join an existing political party and use it as a vehicle to enact major policy change and ideology within that party, using the existing membership and supporters as a base camp. If needed resulting in expulsion from that party of individuals or groups that don't accept the changes, ideologies or policies. Both Mussolini and Hitler chose route C, along with many other dictators that have emerged throughout modern history. The words 'Socialist' and 'Socialism' have been hijacked and used to serve as vehicles to establish major political change and ideology throughout Europe. Ok, I'll educate you. Mussolini was very pro socialism as was clearly indicated at the Congress of Verona 1943. 'Fascio Nazionale' - '(National Union) that would be led by an aristocracy of warrior producers that would unite Italians of all classes, factions and regions into a disciplined socialism.' Mussolini didn't just change from a socialist to a 'fascist' he simply became a socialist that had a stronger belief in a united nation that overcame social hierarchy through labour for the benefit of the state as a whole and defended by the 'warrior spirit' of all its citizens. . A clearer case of socialism or being a socialist would be hard to find" Thanks but I had a very good education and as such can differentiate between Socialism and Nationalist Socialism, the latter being the path taken by both Hitler and Il Duce.....You do know that Il Duce founded the National Fascist Party of Italy in 1915 don't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A clearer case of socialism or being a socialist would be hard to find It rather depends how you choose to define a policy structure based on a random collection of policies collected from various contradictory political beliefs. Just out of interest, what does this have to do with my actual original post which you have transparently failed to address? The National Fascist Party was rooted in Italian nationalism and the desire to restore and expand Italian territories, which Italian Fascists deemed necessary for a nation to assert its superiority and strength and to avoid succumbing to decay.[3] Italian Fascists claimed that modern Italy is the heir to ancient Rome and its legacy, and historically supported the creation of an Italian Empire to provide spazio vitale ("living space") for colonization by Italian settlers and to establish control over the Mediterranean Sea.[4] Fascists promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[5] This economic system intended to resolve class conflict through collaboration between the classes.[6] Italian Fascism opposed liberalism, but rather than seeking a reactionary restoration of the pre-French Revolutionary world, which it considered to have been flawed, it had a forward-looking direction.[7] It was opposed to Marxist socialism because of its typical opposition to nationalism,[8] but was also opposed to the reactionary conservatism developed by Joseph de Maistre.[9] It believed the success of Italian nationalism required respect for tradition and a clear sense of a shared past among the Italian people alongside a commitment to a modernized Italy.[10] The National Fascist Party along with its successor, the Republican Fascist Party, are the only parties whose re-formation is banned by the Constitution of Italy: "It shall be forbidden to reorganize, under any form whatever, the dissolved fascist party". well I would define that as socialism wouldn't you?" No because I am educated enough to know the difference | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't even understand the difference between Socialism and National Socialism.....it's a waste of time even attempting to educate you on that as you are clearly incapable of taking it in. yawn. Which parties was he a member of? The bare basic teachings of Political Science.... There are three principal methods of establishing a political movement in a democracy... (A) You start a political movement from scratch, establish a stand alone political party and attract members and supporters of that party from within the electorate. (B) You merge two or more existing political parties into one vehicle for studying and ultimately implementing political change upon election. (C) You join an existing political party and use it as a vehicle to enact major policy change and ideology within that party, using the existing membership and supporters as a base camp. If needed resulting in expulsion from that party of individuals or groups that don't accept the changes, ideologies or policies. Both Mussolini and Hitler chose route C, along with many other dictators that have emerged throughout modern history. The words 'Socialist' and 'Socialism' have been hijacked and used to serve as vehicles to establish major political change and ideology throughout Europe. Ok, I'll educate you. Mussolini was very pro socialism as was clearly indicated at the Congress of Verona 1943. 'Fascio Nazionale' - '(National Union) that would be led by an aristocracy of warrior producers that would unite Italians of all classes, factions and regions into a disciplined socialism.' Mussolini didn't just change from a socialist to a 'fascist' he simply became a socialist that had a stronger belief in a united nation that overcame social hierarchy through labour for the benefit of the state as a whole and defended by the 'warrior spirit' of all its citizens. . A clearer case of socialism or being a socialist would be hard to find Thanks but I had a very good education and as such can differentiate between Socialism and Nationalist Socialism, the latter being the path taken by both Hitler and Il Duce.....You do know that Il Duce founded the National Fascist Party of Italy in 1915 don't you?" I already said that above (Fascio Nazionale) , which simply means union or bundle/collection, and not what the word has lazily been used to mean today. And yes, that was just after he left the Italian Socialist Party in 1914 after 13 years as a member | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The lords can propose, and pass, amendments to the bill (or any bill). It then goes back to the commons to be debated with amendments. It may be accepted, or the amendments removed. If accepted...the bill passes. It rejected it goes back to the lords again...they may try to re-instate the amendments or add new ones. The process repeats. On the third reading in the commons, the bill...with or without amendments accepted will then have a final vote and is accepted or rejected. It then, if accepted (in whatever form it now has), passes into law. There you go OP....question answered." No. Not really. The clue is in the words
"Before the customary rant, could the leave side please outline the function of the House of Lords and its powers?"
You explained the process, which is helpful but not what I asked.
I guess it's easier to answer your own imaginary questions. Eventually. After 100+ posts on other stuff
According to the Houses of Parliament:
"The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament. It plays a vital role in making and shaping laws and checking and challenging the government; it shares this role with the House of Commons. The Lords has a reputation for thorough and detailed scrutiny."
That's why I asked to start with. So that we would define the parameters of the discussion.
In the same way as accepting the amendment defines the parameters of the discussion for the status of EU citizens wherever they are.
We will, however, have taken a lead and will have been as diplomatic and statemanlike as it is possible to be.
Do you disagree or do we have a stronger moral stance if we explicitly vote to not bring forward PROPOSALS on maintaining the rights of EU citizens here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. This is the wording of the amendment: "Within three months of exercising the power under section 1(1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future." As you've failed to explain on the parallel Tebbit thread, perhaps you can explain here why you object to this? Why isn't being kind an inherent good? Why isn't providing proposals for their security the right thing to do? The EU cannot do this yet. They are not creating any new legislation until Article 50 is triggered. Legally NOTHING HAS CHANGED. We can. We are passing legislation and our Parliamentary system allows us the opportunity to offer thousands of people and their families the knowledge that we are in some way "great" and signal in the legislation not just the words.of politicians, that we will put people first? They are PROPOSALS. I'm interested to know what you think this word means and why it weakens anyone's position on anything as we need them any way. Thus is the wording in part 6 of the 12 point Credit Plant Protect rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU. We want to guarantee rights of EU citizens living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can. What part of that does anyone not understand? We want to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK, but it has to be reciprocal. So far the EU has not said anything about reciprocity... And don't give the crap about they can't because A50 hasn't been triggered yet,as they've been saying plenty on everything else so far.
Exactly
You are comparing an amendment to legislation to a political "promise".
3. Strengthen the Union between the four nations of the United Kingdom.
How's that going?
8. Free trade with European markets through a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union.
Already rejected by the UK
Etcetera. Etcetera.
Empty wish list.
Have a think about what equivalence there is between the two.
Then, if you can bring yourself to, explain why reciprocity is a requirement for doing what's right? Do you not feel that giving people a slightly better sense of security is the right thing to do? Nothing is even being guaranteed.
At whatever point you wish to use people as negotiating tools you have to table a PROPOSAL.
Why does saying what the PROPOSAL is weaken your negotiation over peoples' lives and futures?
That is, after all, how you appear to wish to treat them as. You are rejecting the opportunity to change the terms of discussion and direction of travel of this aspect of Brexit.
You really are over complicating this when it really is pretty simple. It goes something like this.....
Teresa May..."The UK is now officially triggering article 50 to notify the EU that we are leaving".
Pause
Teresa May...."I would like to put forward a deal to the EU on the status of EU nationals living and working here in the UK before March 2017 that they will be allowed to stay provided UK nationals living and working in the EU are given a reciprocal deal and are allowed to stay in the EU".
EU...."Ok we agree to that. You have a deal".
Teresa May...."Thankyou, this now concludes this part of the negotiations".
Both parties shake hands and the deal is done. Win/win for both sides. "I don't know if it's faith and belief or naivety that brings you to some of your conclusions. Politicians deliver all of their "promises" as May reduced immigration to the tens of thousands and will deliver on her 12 point wishlist A negotiation on the status of EU nationals does not require working out the details of who pays what. Healthcare, social security, pensions. What is their travel status? What rights have their non working-spouses and children? What if dependents are non-EU citizens? How will they be registered? How long will it take? What is their status until then? When is the cut off date? It is, actually, complicated. Not like kitchen units | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. This is the wording of the amendment: "Within three months of exercising the power under section 1(1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future." As you've failed to explain on the parallel Tebbit thread, perhaps you can explain here why you object to this? Why isn't being kind an inherent good? Why isn't providing proposals for their security the right thing to do? The EU cannot do this yet. They are not creating any new legislation until Article 50 is triggered. Legally NOTHING HAS CHANGED. We can. We are passing legislation and our Parliamentary system allows us the opportunity to offer thousands of people and their families the knowledge that we are in some way "great" and signal in the legislation not just the words.of politicians, that we will put people first? They are PROPOSALS. I'm interested to know what you think this word means and why it weakens anyone's position on anything as we need them any way. Thus is the wording in part 6 of the 12 point Credit Plant Protect rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU. We want to guarantee rights of EU citizens living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can. What part of that does anyone not understand? We want to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK, but it has to be reciprocal. So far the EU has not said anything about reciprocity... And don't give the crap about they can't because A50 hasn't been triggered yet,as they've been saying plenty on everything else so far.
Exactly
You are comparing an amendment to legislation to a political "promise".
3. Strengthen the Union between the four nations of the United Kingdom.
How's that going?
8. Free trade with European markets through a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union.
Already rejected by the UK
Etcetera. Etcetera.
Empty wish list.
Have a think about what equivalence there is between the two.
Then, if you can bring yourself to, explain why reciprocity is a requirement for doing what's right? Do you not feel that giving people a slightly better sense of security is the right thing to do? Nothing is even being guaranteed.
At whatever point you wish to use people as negotiating tools you have to table a PROPOSAL.
Why does saying what the PROPOSAL is weaken your negotiation over peoples' lives and futures?
That is, after all, how you appear to wish to treat them as. You are rejecting the opportunity to change the terms of discussion and direction of travel of this aspect of Brexit.
You really are over complicating this when it really is pretty simple. It goes something like this.....
Teresa May..."The UK is now officially triggering article 50 to notify the EU that we are leaving".
Pause
Teresa May...."I would like to put forward a deal to the EU on the status of EU nationals living and working here in the UK before March 2017 that they will be allowed to stay provided UK nationals living and working in the EU are given a reciprocal deal and are allowed to stay in the EU".
EU...."Ok we agree to that. You have a deal".
Teresa May...."Thankyou, this now concludes this part of the negotiations".
Both parties shake hands and the deal is done. Win/win for both sides.
I don't know if it's faith and belief or naivety that brings you to some of your conclusions.
Politicians deliver all of their "promises" as May reduced immigration to the tens of thousands and will deliver on her 12 point wishlist
A negotiation on the status of EU nationals does not require working out the details of who pays what. Healthcare, social security, pensions. What is their travel status? What rights have their non working-spouses and children? What if dependents are non-EU citizens? How will they be registered? How long will it take? What is their status until then? When is the cut off date?
It is, actually, complicated.
Not like kitchen units "Teresa May couldn't deliver on the Conservative promise to reduce immigration the tens of thousands because of our membership of the EU and the imposition of the EU free movement of people rule from Brussels. What I set out was a simplified basis for a reciprocal agreement but still you didn't understand it. I actually put the cut off date in there but you failed to spot it as you just asked what the cut off date would be, lol. As I said earlier never mind kitchen units you wouldn't even know how to do deals for a couple of quid at a car boot sale if you miss such a blatantly obvious point in a dumbed down scenario for a deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Teresa May couldn't deliver on the Conservative promise to reduce immigration the tens of thousands because of our membership of the EU and the imposition of the EU free movement of people rule from Brussels. What I set out was a simplified basis for a reciprocal agreement but still you didn't understand it. I actually put the cut off date in there but you failed to spot it as you just asked what the cut off date would be, lol. As I said earlier never mind kitchen units you wouldn't even know how to do deals for a couple of quid at a car boot sale if you miss such a blatantly obvious point in a dumbed down scenario for a deal. "How did she do on reducing non-EU immigration to below 100,000? She has total control over that, so that must have been easy to control, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That plays both ways then, we are still full members of the EU and until we officially notify the EU of our intent to leave there is nothing for the UK to guarantee EU citizens living here. Nothing can be agreed on either side until article 50 is triggered. This is the wording of the amendment: "Within three months of exercising the power under section 1(1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future." As you've failed to explain on the parallel Tebbit thread, perhaps you can explain here why you object to this? Why isn't being kind an inherent good? Why isn't providing proposals for their security the right thing to do? The EU cannot do this yet. They are not creating any new legislation until Article 50 is triggered. Legally NOTHING HAS CHANGED. We can. We are passing legislation and our Parliamentary system allows us the opportunity to offer thousands of people and their families the knowledge that we are in some way "great" and signal in the legislation not just the words.of politicians, that we will put people first? They are PROPOSALS. I'm interested to know what you think this word means and why it weakens anyone's position on anything as we need them any way. Thus is the wording in part 6 of the 12 point Credit Plant Protect rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU. We want to guarantee rights of EU citizens living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can. What part of that does anyone not understand? We want to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK, but it has to be reciprocal. So far the EU has not said anything about reciprocity... And don't give the crap about they can't because A50 hasn't been triggered yet,as they've been saying plenty on everything else so far.
Exactly
You are comparing an amendment to legislation to a political "promise".
3. Strengthen the Union between the four nations of the United Kingdom.
How's that going?
8. Free trade with European markets through a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union.
Already rejected by the UK
Etcetera. Etcetera.
Empty wish list.
Have a think about what equivalence there is between the two.
Then, if you can bring yourself to, explain why reciprocity is a requirement for doing what's right? Do you not feel that giving people a slightly better sense of security is the right thing to do? Nothing is even being guaranteed.
At whatever point you wish to use people as negotiating tools you have to table a PROPOSAL.
Why does saying what the PROPOSAL is weaken your negotiation over peoples' lives and futures?
That is, after all, how you appear to wish to treat them as. You are rejecting the opportunity to change the terms of discussion and direction of travel of this aspect of Brexit.
You really are over complicating this when it really is pretty simple. It goes something like this.....
Teresa May..."The UK is now officially triggering article 50 to notify the EU that we are leaving".
Pause
Teresa May...."I would like to put forward a deal to the EU on the status of EU nationals living and working here in the UK before March 2017 that they will be allowed to stay provided UK nationals living and working in the EU are given a reciprocal deal and are allowed to stay in the EU".
EU...."Ok we agree to that. You have a deal".
Teresa May...."Thankyou, this now concludes this part of the negotiations".
Both parties shake hands and the deal is done. Win/win for both sides.
I don't know if it's faith and belief or naivety that brings you to some of your conclusions.
Politicians deliver all of their "promises" as May reduced immigration to the tens of thousands and will deliver on her 12 point wishlist
A negotiation on the status of EU nationals does not require working out the details of who pays what. Healthcare, social security, pensions. What is their travel status? What rights have their non working-spouses and children? What if dependents are non-EU citizens? How will they be registered? How long will it take? What is their status until then? When is the cut off date?
It is, actually, complicated.
Not like kitchen units
Teresa May couldn't deliver on the Conservative promise to reduce immigration the tens of thousands because of our membership of the EU and the imposition of the EU free movement of people rule from Brussels. What I set out was a simplified basis for a reciprocal agreement but still you didn't understand it. I actually put the cut off date in there but you failed to spot it as you just asked what the cut off date would be, lol. As I said earlier never mind kitchen units you wouldn't even know how to do deals for a couple of quid at a car boot sale if you miss such a blatantly obvious point in a dumbed down scenario for a deal. "Bless. I didn't actually expect you to feel it necessary to be May's apologist. You missed, or ignored the point which is that a "promise" was made that could not be delivered for whatever reason. The incompetence of those in charge or "events". The point is that legislation holds government to. A higher standard of delivery. Nobody, other than you it seems, expects her to deliver on her 12 point fantasy but the status of EU citizens (which still includes us by should the way) should be ensured. You explicitly stated that I was over-complicating which would be fine except for the fact that it is complicated. Well done for putting a date in bit neither the UK government nor the EU cares about your opinion on the dates. However, if you think that these sorts of complex negotiations work well with aggressive posturing and you don't feel that our country should take a lead in ensuring that the right thing is done then fine. That says rather a lot about you. Sad. As your other hero "the Donald" would put it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
