| The Comments |
Thanks Micky
It was not in the Independent online article, and I could not find it under BMG.
I would still appreciate a link if you have one.
So it was options, and unrealistic ones at that. All these 'choices' type questions are pretty meaningless. When I am asked them I invariable want an option that is not on the list.
However from the options voted on it is clear that only 29% wanted to stay in ie 71% were in favour of an out option. This would have been a much better headline but presumably did not find favour with the 'Independant'.
Mrs May is a canny operator and a remainer by instinct. I suspect in the early negociations with her appointees, after taking office, she quickly realised that being out was out, hence the 'Brexit is Brexit' quote. Staying in the single market or customs union was just not compatible with her other objectives (or with the vote, or with unity in the party). However as an initial remainer I expect her to be steering the UK towards a close association with the EU. I'm pretty sure she believes an agreement is possible. The null option is just a negociating stance.
1
Like
|
tteedd, your statement "The null option is just a negotiating stance." I wholehartedly agree with your view there, if you said that you would agree to certain conditions while negotiating, it would leave you open to plenty of manipulation by the EU, and like i said shows she has an intention to get the best for the UK under the circumstances. Maybe Theresa May will become the second "Iron Lady"?
This message was last edited by robertt8696 on 07/03/2017.
1
Like
|
|
brace yourself! hahaha
0
Like
|
A REMAINER bid for a second EU referendum at the end of Article 50 talks suffered an almost fatal defeat today as the House of Lords rejected the call for another Brexit vote.
Europhile peers had attempted to add an amendment to the Government's Article 50 Bill this afternoon calling for a public vote on the terms of the Prime Minister's final Brexit agreement.
But peers overwhelmingly rejected the demand with 336 voting against the amendment and only 131 supporting it.
0
Like
|
democracy strikes again.....
1
Like
|
|
What is worrying is that over a third voted for.
It is about time the H of L was reformed (and preferably, with the replacement not designed by politicians). We need a new way of takling constitutional matters. The commons always makes a bollocks of it.
1
Like
|
Not always, but then a lot can be done with percentages and polls.......So on the law of averages, Parliament dont always get it wrong
0
Like
|
My view is that parliament is there to govern. Nearly all constitutional changes that the commons have made or attempted to make in my lifetime have caused problems and not (or would not have) increased democracy.
I think there is a need for some forum, outside of parliament, to take a long hard look at all constitutional changes.
Our head of state (as a constitutional monarch) has not interfered even when she is against proposals, where a president (I don't want one) might.
This may be a bit off thread, but non political scrutiny may have made a differrence when we joined the EU and when constitutional changes were made within the EU. In our case these changes were often agreed by the PM and only reported to parliament after the fact.
Mrs May in the forthcoming negociations at least has the authority of a referendum behind her. Changes made by Thatcher, Major and Blair had little scrutiny, let alone Heaths original negociations which were buldozed through parliament.
0
Like
|
Tteedd, the very organization outside Parliament (the House of Commons) is in fact the House of Lords, and so is already in existence. This is why Theresa May is having to put things to the House of Lords, as they are the moderators of Parliament.
Parliament make constitutional changes, the House Of Lords make observations, advise, and object or endorse things for the population.
This message was last edited by robertt8696 on 07/03/2017.
0
Like
|
Peers voting on amendment 3 - calling for a vote in both Houses on the terms of deal..... Amendment won 366 to 268
“Parliamentary approval for the outcome of negotiations with the European Union
(1) The prime minister may not conclude an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, on the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Such approval shall be required before the European Parliament debates and votes on that agreement.
(3) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to an agreement on the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union.
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
David Davies has said that the Govt intends to overturn the result.
But following this logic through.....Wouldn't this result act as incentive for the EU bureaucrats to come up with a bad deal, in full knowledge that this would be rejected by MPs, which would then result in a rejection of the deal, leaving no option but for the Govt to resort to the Hard Brexit (WTO) option which ironically was the last thing the rebels wanted in the first place?
Or am I missing something here?
This message was last edited by ads on 07/03/2017.
This message was last edited by ads on 07/03/2017.
This message was last edited by ads on 07/03/2017.
1
Like
|
Or am I missing something here?
No you are not. The lords is stuffed with people who wish to frustrate the will of the people. An undemocratic house full of undemocratic people. Bring on reform.
I note that this has brought about the sacking of Heseltine as a government advisor. He always was a loose cannon, full of his own importance. He was always dangerous. His ambitions to be PM brought down Thatcher.
This message was last edited by tteedd on 08/03/2017.
1
Like
|
Tadd,
A few aspects to bear in mind about the EU Commission...
The Commission is the EU institution that has the monopoly on legislative initiative and important executive powers in policies such as competition and external trade. It is the principal executive body of the European Union and it is formed by a College of members composed of one Commissioner per Member State.
It is alone responsible for drawing up proposals for new European legislation,
The Commission is the sole EU institution tabling laws for adoption by the Parliament and the Council that:
protect the interests of the EU and its citizens on issues that can't be dealt with effectively at national level;
The President defines the policy direction for the Commission
Over the past four years the Commission has become much closer to the Parliament than to the Council on many issues. The Commission should be accountable to both – it is appointed by governments and approved by the Parliament. But it should also be independent of both.
The politicisation of the Commission is a problem. There has always been some ambiguity over its contradictory roles: it is a political body that initiates legislation and brokers compromises among the member-states, but also a technical body that polices markets and rules, and negotiates on behalf of the member-states. During the euro crisis the Commission’s technical role has grown, which makes the ambiguity more problematic. When it pronounces, say, that France may be given two further years in which to meet the 3 per cent budget rule, is that the result of objective economic analysis or a reflection of the shifting political climate in national capitals? This ambiguity gives governments and others a reason to criticise the Commission.
If the Commission becomes too party-political, its ability to carry out technical functions effectively to act as a guardian of liberal democracy – may be compromised.
1
Like
|
Ads
Was your last post towards me?
No matter
Not that different to other elected leaders and govt
The leader PM or president guides the way committees draw up plans the leader endorses it then pushes it through with their majority then it is challenged etc etc etc but the leader gets their way time and time again
It is called politics and we all accept it
May did not like heseltine so she sacked him and she would do the same to any cabinet minister who opposes HER views says a lot about uk democracy
This message was last edited by Tadd1966 on 08/03/2017.
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
0
Like
|
"It's the duty of Parliament to assert its sovereignty in determining the legacy we leave to new generations of young people."
Michael Heseltine. 7 March 2017
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
Amazing which chumpions the remoaners will now hero worship.
Tony Blair, John Major and now Michael Heseltine,
Says it all.
1
Like
|
Sadly much hypocrisy appears to exist when you review the realities compared to the rhetoric, the denials ," turning of blind eyes", and lack of willingness to recognise the need for reform and reassess and admit to failings, or even take account of actual reform taking place as opposed to ideological rhetoric, and the structures in place within political systems that inhibit reform or accountability.
The bottom line are the realities that citizens are exposed to, and how remote political elites are from their citizens, how their policies play out, how accountable they are, how accessible they are, how willing they are to listen to growing citizen concerns and adequately respond so as not to proliferate unrest.
1
Like
|
Ads are you talking about the EU or he Uk?
0
Like
|
Both Perrypower.
P.s. the bottom line will be how willing they are to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.
This message was last edited by ads on 08/03/2017.
0
Like
|