• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

milo said:
It looks to me that the momentum is with those calling for parliamentary scrutiny of the terms of exit.

This piece by James Kirkup in today's Telegraph is quite good.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...not-an-end-to-parliamentary-democracy-mps-mu/

Miliband has done well to build cross party support for this and reframe the argument.
Click to expand...
My only issue with parliament discussing the terms of brexit is that we have voted in a government that we see best fit to run the country. We didn't vote in Labour or the Green Party or any other nonsense-peddlers because they're not trusted to make the big decisions - let's not involve them in one of the biggest.
 
scaramanga said:
My only issue with parliament discussing the terms of brexit is that we have voted in a government that we see best fit to run the country. We didn't vote in Labour or the Green Party or any other nonsense-peddlers because they're not trusted to make the big decisions - let's not involve them in one of the biggest.
Click to expand...

That is not how parliamentary democracy works and the government recommendation at the referendum was rejected by the electorate. The Conservative manifesto at the last election also pledged to keep us in the EEA. I think that their mandate to push this through without parliamentary support looks pretty weak.
 
After 15 years, they're having a laugh. They can't predict 15 hours ahead with any certainty so why put any creditably in a 15 year projection.
 
scaramanga said:
The EU opening negotiation (cloaked as not a negotiation) was free trade, free movement.

So both sides will move to the middle from there.
Click to expand...

I hope that we are just seeing a phony war and that pragmatism wins out. I am concerned that the government are talking themselves into a corner on freedom of movement.
 
milo said:
That is not how parliamentary democracy works and the government recommendation at the referendum was rejected by the electorate. The Conservative manifesto at the last election also pledged to keep us in the EEA. I think that their mandate to push this through without parliamentary support looks pretty weak.
Click to expand...
Based on manifestos and referendum recommendations, only UKIP should be helping make the decisions.

I think we can all agree that's a bad idea.
 
scaramanga said:
The EU opening negotiation (cloaked as not a negotiation) was free trade, free movement.

So both sides will move to the middle from there.
Click to expand...
The Tory opening negotiation is No Free Movement meaning No free trade, hence the WTO is on the table. Your opinion is not sovereign, even logic has gone out the window at the moment.
 
Ok but worst case scenario is not meet in the middle, you cant pick and chose, the report is 9.5% is predicted worse case, to pick up the 7.5% (and run with it once its been pointed out) is not valid, just because you think its logical. We have seen this year that logic is long gone.
 
scaramanga said:
My only issue with parliament discussing the terms of brexit is that we have voted in a government that we see best fit to run the country. We didn't vote in Labour or the Green Party or any other nonsense-peddlers because they're not trusted to make the big decisions - let's not involve them in one of the biggest.
Click to expand...
Do you believe these statements or just say them for effect, true question as if its the latter I will stop replying. As milo stated we have a parliamentary system so Parliament is key. Using your logic 78% of the population did not vote for the Tories.
 
scaramanga said:
Based on manifestos and referendum recommendations, only UKIP should be helping make the decisions.

I think we can all agree that's a bad idea.
Click to expand...

The leave campaign did not propose a model for our future relationship with Europe at the referendum. I think that this leaves a gap and that no party can claim a mandate for their interpretation of the result. Short of a general election, which the Prime Minister has ruled out, parliamentary scrutiny is the only viable option.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Do you believe these statements or just say them for effect, true question as if its the latter I will stop replying. As milo stated we have a parliamentary system so Parliament is key. Using your logic 78% of the population did not vote for the Tories.
Click to expand...
Since when has parliament ever been involved in negotiating trade deals? This is a matter for the foreign office with the PM when required.

Serious question - if Labour had the same politics as UKIP, would you be insisting they got their 35% of the say? What about UKIP and the Green Party? They've got seats - shall we waste valuable negotiating time canvassing their silly little opinions?
 
milo said:
The leave campaign did not propose a model for our future relationship with Europe at the referendum. I think that this leaves a gap and that no party can claim a mandate for their interpretation of the result. Short of a general election, which the Prime Minister has ruled out, parliamentary scrutiny is the only viable option.
Click to expand...
Yet we can't decide on the end result as it's going to be a negotiation.

When you vote for a party and its manifesto, you don't get to choose which policies are jettisoned when they negotiate a coalition - they just take the best deal they can get.
 
scaramanga said:
It's a negotiation. Both sides will move to the middle.

It's incredibly naive to think otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

You're argument re. this negotiation is sensible and perfectly logical. Sense and logic dictates that the two sides compromise and meet in the middle.

However, emotion plays a big part in politics. And I fear that the big hitters in the EU will take a deal that might be worse economically for them in the short term if it means that, long-term, there is a stronger political union of the EU nations. Politically, they can't let Britain have their cake and eat it.

For the Tories, they are making a big nationalist play right now and it is popular with voters. I'm not convinced they will give that up.

We'll find out!
 
r-u-s-x said:
Ok but worst case scenario is not meet in the middle, you cant pick and chose, the report is 9.5% is predicted worse case, to pick up the 7.5% (and run with it once its been pointed out) is not valid, just because you think its logical. We have seen this year that logic is long gone.
Click to expand...
o_O

Worst case scenario = WTO brexit.

They have only mentioned one outcome in the quoted snippet - that of the worst outcome possible. In that scenario, there's a range of dips in GDP from 5.4-9.5%. When I say worst case scenario, I mean WTO based trade, not the end point of a very narrow analysis that has a near 0% chance of being our route forwards.
 
the dza said:
You're argument re. this negotiation is sensible and perfectly logical. Sense and logic dictates that the two sides compromise and meet in the middle.

However, emotion plays a big part in politics. And I fear that the big hitters in the EU will take a deal that might be worse economically for them in the short term if it means that, long-term, there is a stronger political union of the EU nations. Politically, they can't let Britain have their cake and eat it.

For the Tories, they are making a big nationalist play right now and it is popular with voters. I'm not convinced they will give that up.

We'll find out!
Click to expand...
The EU will have to accept some kind of deal or be seen to be holding the EU together at ransom - that's not a healthy negotiating point for them to be in either.

The UK will have to accept some kind of free movement. It probably won't be quite as free as it is now, but it won't be far off. It might be that we get a better or extended "emergency brake" or that we get a short period of "work before benefits". Whatever it is, there will still be a lot of immigration because the country needs it.
 
scaramanga said:
Since when has parliament ever been involved in negotiating trade deals? This is a matter for the foreign office with the PM when required.

Serious question - if Labour had the same politics as UKIP, would you be insisting they got their 35% of the say? What about UKIP and the Green Party? They've got seats - shall we waste valuable negotiating time canvassing their silly little opinions?
Click to expand...
Brexit is constitutional not a trade deal - will involve altering laws and removing rights, hence the need for Parliamentary input. We are a Parliamentary Democracy
I think there is a serious democracy deficit in fptp and would have some form of proportional voting so yes I believe that they should have their say under this system.
 
scaramanga said:
Yet we can't decide on the end result as it's going to be a negotiation.

When you vote for a party and its manifesto, you don't get to choose which policies are jettisoned when they negotiate a coalition - they just take the best deal they can get.
Click to expand...

We can worry about the end later. For the moment I think that the government needs to set out what it is proposing and allow parliament the chance to discuss it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back