Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Old 13th Jan 2019, 14:42
  #2761 (permalink)  
512
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England
Posts: 19
After all this discussion, with most of it absolute tosh, made up by various people with nothing better to do than preach their own self important views of life. Time is fast coming to the point to get things together and act.

It will come down to a decision on moving forward, this decision was put in the hands of the British people by Parliament, with an undertaking that they would enact the will of the people.

This was reaffirmed by Parliament when the exit date was set as 23:00 on 29th March 2019.

Parliament needs to reflect on what will be the outcome, if they, after all their self important posturing decide to ignore the will of the people and their own obligations and follow a different path. Are they willing to potentially upset the electorate to the extent that the next time they ask the people for a decision, they may get a decision that they will like even less?

Over two and half years of consistently campaigning by the Government, the media, the self appointed chatterers and all their allies from wherever, that leaving would be a bad decision, they have completely failed to sway the electorate.

It is not surprising given that the majority of the world does rather well despite being outside the EU.

The only thing that has been learnt in this process that the left, liberal, remainer (insert your own label) have no interest in democracy, truth or decency and do not have the ability to have a reasonable debate on any subject. They just shout, rant, mislead and use offensive language as a means of shutting anyone else up!
512 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 15:03
  #2762 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,552
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
But there weren't any.

And it is still the case that none has been identified..
Balderdash.

Leavers identified squillions for the NHS,
Control of EU immigration,
Control of UK laws from the EU
Control of VAT
Restoration of Sovereignty of Parliament
Freedom for Global Trade
Blue passports

And the best the remainers could manage was fear with little effective rebuttal.

Had they countered with the advantages of EU membership and shown the positive benefits as they effected the older demographic then might have less to complain of.

I think Project Fear, give the politicos a kicking, and £350m/week carried the day.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 15:10
  #2763 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 7,054
What Bercow has done is really quite serious. He has brought partiality to the role of the Speaker. From now on the Speaker's appointment will be a political prize to be openly fought over by all parties. It might all be water of a duck's back to him but he has prostituted the British parliamentary process and in doing so has introduced into the British Parliament precisely the sort of oligarchic hegemony that defines the rule of the unelected few at the top trough of the EU.
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 15:12
  #2764 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 778
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph View Post


I think youre being a little unfair. Surely the fact of the matter is that some (much?) of the business of Parliament is governed by precedent and that the controversial amendment allowed by Bercow defied well established precedent. I don’t think anyone here would dispute that Bercow ignored the advice of his professional advisors and the claim that he did so in order to pursue a personal goal is surely a reasonable one. He claims that to follow precedent would effectively mean that Parliament would always be bound by past rulings and no progress could be made in the future on anything.

Precedent gives guidance, stability in the event of contention if you will.

How could those areas of English law currently incorporating precedent be conducted if the stability that function provides was removed, or even worse, made up on the hoof and contrary to previous rulings. Anarchy in the courts would be the answer.
The jumping off point of fairness is a little meh in my view. We are not in normal times where precedent, which, as the speaker observed & you noted, would cause us never to advance when required and we do require.

What this boils down to is this: The real objection to the Speaker's decision is that it did not support the government over parliament. And when you think of it, that is not really much of a constitutional objection at all. The context of course is the Government's own constitutional trespasses, which are many:


The government prolongs the current parliamentary session over two years, so that there will not be a Queen's Speech.

The government packs the select committees with Tory majorities, even though it is a hung parliament by procedural sleight of hand.

A secretary of state repeatedly misleads the House and its committees over the extent and existence of Brexit sector analyses reports.

The Government repeatedly ignores and does not even participate in votes on opposition motions.

The Government sought to make the Article 50 notification without any parliamentary approval whatsoever, and forced litigation to go all the way tot eh Supreme Court so that parliament could have that approval.

The Government commits itself to billions of pounds of public expenditure in a blatant bribe to the DUP for support in a supply and confidence vote.

The Government repeatedly seeks to circumvent or abuse the Sewell convention in its dealings with the devolved administrations.

The Government seeks to legislate for staggeringly wider "Henry VIII powers" so that it can legislate and even repeal Acts without any recourse to parliament.

The Government becomes first administration in parliamentary history to be held to be in contempt of parliament.

The Government stands by as there are attacks on the independent judiciary and the independent civil service?


But for the Speaker to allow an amendment on business motion so that the will of elected MPs can be carried? Loud outrage and front page screaming headlines. I'm not buying the fuss
Parapunter is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 15:25
  #2765 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 58
Quite possibly what Bercow has done is to save the country, certainly in an economic sense. More hero than villain in my book.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 15:26
  #2766 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,402
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
Balderdash.

Leavers identified squillions for the NHS,
Control of EU immigration,
Control of UK laws from the EU
Control of VAT
Restoration of Sovereignty of Parliament
Freedom for Global Trade
Blue passports
Almost all of which are lies, apart from the blue passports which we could have had anyway.

So, still no actual benefits then.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 15:33
  #2767 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northampton
Posts: 509
I don't see any lies!!
rogerg is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 16:10
  #2768 (permalink)  
512
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England
Posts: 19
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
Almost all of which are lies, apart from the blue passports which we could have had anyway.

So, still no actual benefits then.
Originally Posted by rogerg View Post
I don't see any lies!!
Only remain ones!
512 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 16:57
  #2769 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Parapunter View Post
The jumping off point of fairness is a little meh in my view. We are not in normal times where precedent, which, as the speaker observed & you noted, would cause us never to advance when required and we do require.

What this boils down to is this: The real objection to the Speaker's decision is that it did not support the government over parliament. And when you think of it, that is not really much of a constitutional objection at all. The context of course is the Government's own constitutional trespasses, which are many:


The government prolongs the current parliamentary session over two years, so that there will not be a Queen's Speech.

The government packs the select committees with Tory majorities, even though it is a hung parliament by procedural sleight of hand.

A secretary of state repeatedly misleads the House and its committees over the extent and existence of Brexit sector analyses reports.

The Government repeatedly ignores and does not even participate in votes on opposition motions.

The Government sought to make the Article 50 notification without any parliamentary approval whatsoever, and forced litigation to go all the way tot eh Supreme Court so that parliament could have that approval.

The Government commits itself to billions of pounds of public expenditure in a blatant bribe to the DUP for support in a supply and confidence vote.

The Government repeatedly seeks to circumvent or abuse the Sewell convention in its dealings with the devolved administrations.

The Government seeks to legislate for staggeringly wider "Henry VIII powers" so that it can legislate and even repeal Acts without any recourse to parliament.

The Government becomes first administration in parliamentary history to be held to be in contempt of parliament.

The Government stands by as there are attacks on the independent judiciary and the independent civil service?


But for the Speaker to allow an amendment on business motion so that the will of elected MPs can be carried? Loud outrage and front page screaming headlines. I'm not buying the fuss
All the examples you give may well be factually correct, indeed I accept they are correct. But they are not pertinent examples - they are examples of government shenanigans which happen day in day out most likely on both sides of the benches. But, we do not actually hold or expect our government to be impartial and even handed. We do expect the speaker of the HoC to hold both those attributes and to be seen to do so publically or else business in the HoC is a busted flush. The real objection is that the speaker did not follow the accepted position of precedence and did not accept the professional advice of his professional advisors which he seeks to conceal. Crispin Blunt summed it up well, and cavortingcheetah sets out the consequences perfectly in his post.

As to the independence of the civil service, I would suggest you be best placed to direct your miffness at Tony Blair who started the process off of politicising it.
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 17:15
  #2770 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: n/a
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
...And the best the remainers could manage was fear with little effective rebuttal...
What a Triumph it would be if May could inform the House on Tuesday that she has made Britain great again. Secured £1 trillion worth of foreign investment. Created new employment for tens of thousands of high income earners. Attracted global businesses to locate their headquarters in the UK. Added at least 15% on the value of Sterling.

This is a fraction of what Britain has lost as the result of a campaign based on scaremongering and missinformation. The damage is not just economic. The country has destroyed it's reputation for tolerance.

No rebuttal required. The facts are self evident.
sfm818 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 17:21
  #2771 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 915
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph View Post


In my opinion ‘those who actually started it’ would be Tony Blair who singularly failed to carry through on his promise (twice I believe) to hold a referendum on the EU in the early part of the Millenium on the Lisbon treaty. Had he had followed through on his promise we would have had a better idea of any referendum of membership of the EU in 2016. Pity I think as it would have been illuminating to the EU/UK as a whole as to our national mood towards the EU at that time.
Whilst Blair had a more than a few failings, he, along with Major and every other PM had the acumen and political strength to disregard the siren calls and / or intense political bullying because they knew what would happen if we voted to leave......the exception was Cameron......with more than passing influence from Farage.
Krystal n chips is online now  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 17:21
  #2772 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by sfm818 View Post
What a Triumph it would be if May could inform the House on Tuesday that she has made Britain great again. Secured £1 trillion worth of foreign investment. Created new employment for tens of thousands of high income earners. Attracted global businesses to locate their headquarters in the UK. Added at least 15% on the value of Sterling.

This is a fraction of what Britain has lost as the result of a campaign based on scaremongering and missinformation. The damage is not just economic. The country has destroyed it's reputation for tolerance.

No rebuttal required. The facts are self evident.
If a Brexit of any flavour subsequently made everyone in the UK millionaires remainers would complain that it hadn’t made everyone double millionaires.
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 17:31
  #2773 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph View Post
If a Brexit of any flavour subsequently made everyone in the UK millionaires remainers would complain that it hadn’t made everyone double millionaires.
Apparently I'm not allowed to call nonsense nonsense. But that is nonsense.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 17:41
  #2774 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 778
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph View Post


All the examples you give may well be factually correct, indeed I accept they are correct. But they are not pertinent examples - they are examples of government shenanigans which happen day in day out most likely on both sides of the benches. But, we do not actually hold or expect our government to be impartial and even handed. We do expect the speaker of the HoC to hold both those attributes and to be seen to do so publically or else business in the HoC is a busted flush. The real objection is that the speaker did not follow the accepted position of precedence and did not accept the professional advice of his professional advisors which he seeks to conceal. Crispin Blunt summed it up well, and cavortingcheetah sets out the consequences perfectly in his post.

As to the independence of the civil service, I would suggest you be best placed to direct your miffness at Tony Blair who started the process off of politicising it.
I'm afraid you are objectively wrong here & here's why. I don't need to justify the speaker's decision by reference to the Government's constitutional violations, I merely thought it would be helpful to do add context. The speaker's decision is justified in its' own terms, it is welcome, fair & liberal. The decision means MP's & not the government have ultimate control over the business of the house - there can be no good objection to this, none.

It may well have been against the advice of the speaker's advisers but I remind you, the role of advisers is to advise. (I do hope you aren't in that cohort who hate this decision but also rail against 'unelected bureaucrats' without a second thought, because oh the irony).

If MP's do not wish to amend a Government motion, they can simply vote against amendment, but the speaker has given them the choice but the real problem you have, I suspect, is the Government has now lost it's working majority on Brexit issues, if it still had that majority, then this would be a non issue, the Government would win. Hurts a bit, right?

The synthetic uproar you & others express deploys the language of precedent & constitutional first principle, heady stuff. But & here's where the centre of your argument withers away, you deploy that rhetoric selectively. You cannot reasonably confect such a level of outrage at Bercow's treasonous constitutional abuse when you've nodded along with violations of constitutional first principle - Shenanigans you said, wasn't it? Shenanigans? De minimis, anyone?

Each of the examples I posted are greater or lesser instances of constitutional violations. Where you think you're constructing a water tight case against the speaker, you are in fact merely betraying your political allegiances and why? Because those violations were to the benefit of the government & by extension, your desire to see Brexit steamrollered through by any means possible.

The purpose of a constitution is not to enable Government to do as it pleases, it is to provide checks & balances to each element of the state. Given that most MP's wanted such a vote, the actual outrage would have been had the speaker NOT allowed it.

It's a pity you can't balance your partisanship, in the end it always shows & always undermines.
Parapunter is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 17:48
  #2775 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 315
However this sorry business ends, it is satisfying to see that when a failed government loses control of events Parliament can and will exert its authority.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 17:51
  #2776 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,552
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
Almost all of which are lies, apart from the blue passports which we could have had anyway.

So, still no actual benefits then.
You make my point most eloquently. It is not whether these were true or false but the demonstrable fact that remainers, led by the Lily livered PM who subsequently jumped ship, failed to refute.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 17:55
  #2777 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by cavortingcheetah View Post
What Bercow has done is really quite serious. He has brought partiality to the role of the Speaker. From now on the Speaker's appointment will be a political prize to be openly fought over by all parties. It might all be water of a duck's back to him but he has prostituted the British parliamentary process and in doing so has introduced into the British Parliament precisely the sort of oligarchic hegemony that defines the rule of the unelected few at the top trough of the EU.
Might I suggest that what Berco has done is extremely serious? His nonsense about breaking with precedent in order to achieve change is nothing more than an infantile sophistry employed as a feeble attempt to conceal the bias which has characterised his work as Speaker. He is doing the job in the manner which the Labour government of the time appointed him to do; he is elected as a Conservative MP but espouses (and openly supports) the political views of the Labour party. Perhaps this is a perverted neutrality.

Sadly, it now appears that there will be no winners emerging from this dreadful fiasco. We shall all be losers and I think the greatest loss will be Democracy. MPs, regardless of whichever side they espoused in the referendum, really should be aware of the consequences of overturning the votes to leave. People, already fearful of the way in which democracy, both as a concept and a practice, has been sidelined by the Establishment in pursuit of its new Jerusalem, will be absolutely convinced that politicians really are a class totally divorced from those who appoint and pay them, that individual votes count for nothing and democracy as it has been practised here has become nothing but a hollow sham. It might be encouraging to think that MPs who had been instrumental in the cancellation of Article 50 would be deposed at the electorate's first opportunity. In more normal times, this might have been a predictable consequence but as this thread so eloquently illustrates, these times are anything but normal. There are those, like me, who will never vote Conservative again but who vehemently deny Corbyn and all his works. The LD has never been other than a dumping ground for the disaffected and so offers no hope. To abstain from voting is anathema to me. What a quandary!
Gipsy Queen is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 18:01
  #2778 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 286
Parapunter. I think you need to calm down. Whilst I am a confirmed leaver, provided the correct procedures are adhered to I will not object if we remain. I will be sad no doubt, but I am not going to whinge on about it for ever and a day, I will accept the result and get on with life.

I do not say that the correct procedures have not been adhered to, I do say that Bercow has made up his own ‘rule’ in the likely contradiction to the professional advice he was given. Why ask for advice and then ignore it? Are his advisors not answerable to him alone? Are they answerable to the government of the day as you imply? Do you say his advisors are government cronies?

How can any mature insitution work if the rules and methods of operation are changed at whim? If no-one knows the rules, principles and accepted practice in their field of speciality how is any business to be conducted with any certainty. As per my original post should we abandon the principle of precedent in English law? Should judges make their decisions based on how they feel on the day and ignore past practice?

Fairness does not come into it, not all at. Being able to conduct parliamentary business based on known and accepted parameters very much does. If Brexit is ‘lost’ due to questionable actions by Bercow then the long term simmering discontent among some, note ‘some’ leavers, will be felt for many years to come.

Calm down, and you have no idea of my political affiliation.

Edited to add if hopefully not too late for PP to read.
As to my desire to steamroller Brexit through by any means, you have probably not read my previous posting around New Year where I stated I was quite open to the idea of a second referendum albeit with the result held to a higher level than the one in 2016. Yes, a proviso, but not one that would be insurmountable to a resurgent Remain bloc if it exists.

Last edited by yellowtriumph; 13th Jan 2019 at 18:16.
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 18:12
  #2779 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 778
I'm perfectly calm, thanks. For clarity, are you now moving on from denying the government has serially ignored Parliament's constitution to accusing Bercow of making it up as he goes along? Grieve tabled an amendment, Bercow allowed it, that is all within the scope of his role. I'm sorry you don't like it, but he did nothing wrong & ultimately, you will have to accept that.

The gales of indignation from leavers are a shame. Those who would insist the UK runs it's own affairs would be well advised to first understand the mechanics of them. I will repeat this until I am blue in the face, the role of the speaker is to enable the primacy of Parliament. Bercow did exactly that.
Parapunter is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 18:45
  #2780 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Parapunter View Post
I'm perfectly calm, thanks. For clarity, are you now moving on from denying the government has serially ignored Parliament's constitution to accusing Bercow of making it up as he goes along? Grieve tabled an amendment, Bercow allowed it, that is all within the scope of his role. I'm sorry you don't like it, but he did nothing wrong & ultimately, you will have to accept that.

The gales of indignation from leavers are a shame. Those who would insist the UK runs it's own affairs would be well advised to first understand the mechanics of them. I will repeat this until I am blue in the face, the role of the speaker is to enable the primacy of Parliament. Bercow did exactly that.
To aid to your clarity. If you care to read back you will note that I agreed with your interpretation of your examples of the government actions. I do still assert that Bercow ignored his own independent advice and made his own rule up as he went along. Grieve tabled an amendment which precedent says he should not have accepted. I do accept that it has happened and that is the end of that matter. The ‘mechanics’ as you put it are ‘the rules of the game’ and if Bercow continues to set aside the hitherto accepted rules of the game then we might just as well pick up our ball and walk off the pitch.
yellowtriumph is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.