advertisement


European Parliament elections

Unfortunately there's no reference on how to define majority.
I don't think the word is that ambiguous.

The story you quoted from and linked appears to be false, it's like the Lisbon Treaty nonsense circulated by some Leave campaigners. Not helpful.

There's more nonsense brewing tonight on Twitter because Dan Snow claims that his postal voting envelope included TBP material. Plenty of piss taking and then Jolyon Maugham going off the deep end. If you're not careful you too will turn into a cat lady.
 
Rubber Face Tice, the well-heeled Tory spiv and establishment property developer is on R4. People up an’ down the country are tired of scaremongering by “The Establishment”. His vehicle called the Brexit Party has no policies but he did say the slogan “changing politics for good” was resonating with peoples up an down the country”. He’s regurgitating the vintage “we hold all the cards in negotiations with the EU”.

aylgfa.jpg


Where did they just pull their thumbs from?
 
I don't think the word is that ambiguous.

The story you quoted from and linked appears to be false, it's like the Lisbon Treaty nonsense circulated by some Leave campaigners. Not helpful.

There's more nonsense brewing tonight on Twitter because Dan Snow claims that his postal voting envelope included TBP material. Plenty of piss taking and then Jolyon Maugham going off the deep end. If you're not careful you too will turn into a cat lady.

The last two words in your post appear to be regurgitated from alt-right bullying spiv Arron Banks. Not helpful. In fact I'd describe it as odious. If you want to come across as calm, rational and reasonable then I'm afraid your mask slipped there.
 
No I haven't. I am highly suspicious of the Gina Miller website though, which completely ignores the Greens and lauds the Lib Dems.

Remain Voter recommend:

East Midlands - Vote Green

Eastern England - Vote Green

London - Vote Change UK

North East - Vote Liberal Democrat

North West - Vote Green

Northern Ireland - Vote your preference: Alliance; SDLP; Green; Sinn Fein

Scotland - Vote Liberal Democrats to win 2 Remain seats

South East - Vote Change UK

South West - Vote Green

Wales - Vote Liberal Democrats

West Midlands - Vote Green

Yorkshire and the Humber - Vote Green

There's an explanation for each recommendation, but that's the lot.

Jack

I got this email and was really pleased to see numerous recommendations for The Green Party.
 
North West.
Lifelong Labour.
I'll be voting Green.
If Labour keep this up I'll be voting Green in the General too.
I'm not having Labour policy decided by the pig ignorant Sunderland-supporting lumpen proletariat.
I'm from a Council estate.
 
Full! Keywords: opinion, informed, effects, funding, annulled, binding, stage, consultative.

3.1. Freedom of voters to form an opinion
c. The question put to the vote must be clear; it must not be misleading; it must not suggest an answer; electors must be informed of the effects of the referendum; voters must be able to answer the questions asked solely by yes, no or a blank vote.

24. National rules on both public and private funding of political parties and election campaigns must be applicable to referendum campaigns (point II.3.4.a). As in the case of elections, funding must be transparent, particularly when it comes to campaign accounts. In the event of a failure to abide by the statutory requirements, for instance if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote may be annulled19. It should be pointed out that the principle of equality of opportunity applies to public funding; equality should be ensured between a proposal’s supporters and opponents (point I.2.2.d).

29. A “yes” vote on a specifically-worded draft – at least in the case of a legally binding referendum – means a statute is enacted and the procedure comes to an end, subject to procedural aspects such as publication and promulgation. On the other hand, a “yes” vote on a question of principle or a generally-worded proposal is simply a stage, which will be followed by the drafting and subsequent enactment of a statute. Combining a specifically-worded draft with a generally-worded proposal or a question of principle would create confusion, preventing electors from being informed of the import of their votes and thereby prejudicing their free suffrage.

53. If electors are to cast an informed vote, it is essential for them to be informed of the effects of their votes; it must therefore be clearly specified in the Constitution or by law whether referendums are legally binding or consultative (point III.8.a, cf. point I.3.1.c on free suffrage).

54. Where a legally binding referendum concerns a question of principle or a generally-worded proposal, it is up to Parliament to implement the people’s decision. Parliament may be obstructive, particularly where its direct interests are affected (reducing the number of members of Parliament or the allowances paid to them, for example). It is preferable, therefore, for referendums on questions of principle or generally-worded proposals to be consultative. If they are legally binding, the subsequent procedure should be laid down in specific constitutional or legislative rules. It should be possible to appeal before the courts in the event that Parliament fails to act (point III.8.b).

Unfortunately there's no reference on how to define majority.
What there also is, however, is a bit about universal suffrage, which seems to indicate that citizens living abroad, and foreign national residents (subject to a minimum period of residence perhaps), should be permitted to vote. Neither of which was observed in this referendum. Had it been, I rather suspect the effect of EU residents, and UK expats, would have been to provide a clear and unequivocal Remain mandate. It feels fundamentally unjust that those who, in principle, would be most affected, we're not given a say.
 
Vote Labour. Only party who can stop Brexit.

It's interesting isn't it ?... stopping Brexit is not Labours stated aim. The say they support Brexit but want to do so if their terms for it are met.

And yet.... all Labour supporters believe that Labour are 'stopping' Brexit. That a vote for Labour is a vote to stop Brexit. Where is the good faith in that?

Doesn't say much for the Labour Party's belief in democracy does it?

Brings to mind Blair's manifesto promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
 
Indeed. In one way Labour provides a haven for the Brexit "don't know" voter, as we just don't really know what their honest position on Brexit really is. Indeed, in a genuinely non-hierarchical manner, even if you were a member of Labour's National Executive I don't think you'd really know what Labour's position on Brexit was.

You misunderstand, Labour's overwhelmingly decisive position on Brexit has reached now reached stage where "Corbyn has insisted a second Brexit referendum would not be "disastrous". I mean you can't get much more emphatic than that!
 
North West.
Lifelong Labour.
I'll be voting Green.
If Labour keep this up I'll be voting Green in the General too.
I'm not having Labour policy decided by the pig ignorant Sunderland-supporting lumpen proletariat.
I'm from a Council estate.
Mustn't post to politics threads before I've had my coffee.
Principle still holds...
 
Unfortunately there's no reference on how to define majority.

Some months ago I posted links to an international agreement on Referendums the UK has signed. Unfortunately I can't find them at present. I think it was the Code of Good Practice on Referendums from the Venice Commission and this set off a further search. It took a while to find the info.

The agreement said two referendums should be used in constitutional matters, which is what the EU one was. The first referendum would help to define exactly what question should go into the second. In other words it wouldn't be a simple stay or leave, but would focus on something specific in terms of exiting.

The agreement said a majority is 55% or above in constitutional matters. A vote for less than that should be ignored.

Cameron and the Tories didn't follow these guidelines and this is why were are in an impasse. Labour didn't help by blithely going along with the idea. Idiots like Gisela Stuart, Kate Hooey and John Mann have a lot to answer for, as does Corbyn.

Jack
 
Some months ago I posted links to an international agreement on Referendums the UK has signed. Unfortunately I can't find them at present. I think it was the Code of Good Practice on Referendums from the Venice Commission and this set off a further search. It took a while to find the info.

The agreement said two referendums should be used in constitutional matters, which is what the EU one was. The first referendum would help to define exactly what question should go into the second. In other words it wouldn't be a simple stay or leave, but would focus on something specific in terms of exiting.

The agreement said a majority is 55% or above in constitutional matters. A vote for less than that should be ignored.

Cameron and the Tories didn't follow these guidelines and this is why were are in an impasse. Labour didn't help by blithely going along with the idea. Idiots like Gisela Stuart, Kate Hooey and John Mann have a lot to answer for, as does Corbyn.

Jack
There is some question as to whether the accompanying piece accurately describes what’s in the convention though. See the current iteration of ‘Oh Britain...’ thread.
 
It's interesting isn't it ?... stopping Brexit is not Labours stated aim. The say they support Brexit but want to do so if their terms for it are met.

And yet.... all Labour supporters believe that Labour are 'stopping' Brexit. That a vote for Labour is a vote to stop Brexit. Where is the good faith in that?

Doesn't say much for the Labour Party's belief in democracy does it?

Brings to mind Blair's manifesto promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.


Context..

I used to be the secretary of my local Labour Party constituency .

I now feel like an evangelical ex-smoker about them.... I just don't/can't trust anything they say. Corbyn twists and turns at every question he is asked; never a straight, clear answer. I keep asking myself, 'why won't he answer a yes/no question with yes or no ?'

I do accept that lots of politicians who actually have a chance of running the country are like this but it would have been Labour that I would have liked to represent me in Parliament and it is them that have let me down.

Haven't seen signs of it changing yet.

Spent his entire Parliamentary life against membership of the EU... now he is for it?

The thing that killed it for me was Tony Blair and I have been looking ever since for a Labour Party that puts honesty and truthfulness first. Iraq/Afganistan was an unforgivable for me ....all but unconstitutional and illegal.
 
Context..

I used to be the secretary of my local Labour Party constituency .

I now feel like an evangelical ex-smoker about them.... I just don't/can't trust anything they say. Corbyn twists and turns at every question he is asked; never a straight, clear answer. I keep asking myself, 'why won't he answer a yes/no question with yes or no ?'

I do accept that lots of politicians who actually have a chance of running the country are like this but it would have been Labour that I would have liked to represent me in Parliament and it is them that have let me down.

Haven't seen signs of it changing yet.

Spent his entire Parliamentary life against membership of the EU... now he is for it?

The thing that killed it for me was Tony Blair and I have been looking ever since for a Labour Party that puts honesty and truthfulness first. Iraq/Afganistan was an unforgivable for me ....all but unconstitutional and illegal.
It's just that a lot of people seem to be suggesting that there is a simple way of dealing with this, and that it almost always cashes out as requiring Labour to adopt the position that they themselves happen to hold. Once you concede that, even leaving aside strategic considerations, there are lots of legitimate positions on this, and that a leader's job is not to add his honest opinion to the mix but to forge a consensus out of it, things look a bit different. There's no real comparison with Iraq, where Blair did impose his honestly-held desire for war on the party, his minions expressed their honestly-held desire to climb the pole, and dissenting opinion was completely ignored.

Labour's actual position - We acknowledge the referendum result, we think that a customs union plus close regulatory alignment represents a reasonable compromise, but we also recognise that we're unlikely to get such a deal, and we'll go back to the people if we can't - is not necessarily one made in bad faith, even if the endpoint seems pretty clear to some of us. I personally would be OK with any of Labour's preferred options - Labour deal, GE - but, realistically, we're going to a vote, and that will probably mean Brexit won't happen.

On the other hand, what are we to make of parties promising simple solutions? Big leaflet in the hall this morning from the Lib Dems: Vote Lib Dem to stop Brexit. Well, that's not going to happen, is it? They can't stop Brexit, and if they were in a position to, they wouldn't even try - not because they're principle-free rubes (although...) but because the fundamental law of representative democracy - that it involves forging consensus - is not going to suspend itself because they have a nice clear message that appeals to a particular constituency.
 
...... and this is just the EU Parliamentary election. This is not a GE and the turnout will be risible and the result will reflect nearly nothing at all.
 
Last edited:
...... leaflet in the hall this morning from the Lib Dems: Vote Lib Dem to stop Brexit. Well, that's not going to happen, is it? They can't stop Brexit, and if they were in a position to, they wouldn't even try - not because they're principle-free rubes (although...) but because the fundamental law of representative democracy - that it involves forging consensus - is not going to suspend itself because they have a nice clear message that appeals to a particular constituency.

Wouldn’t a nice clear message writ large and promoted by the party leader calm your worries.......?

47837306732_7e563e2afa.jpg
 
Labour's actual position - We acknowledge the referendum result, we think that a customs union plus close regulatory alignment represents a reasonable compromise, but we also recognise that we're unlikely to get such a deal, and we'll go back to the people if we can't - is not necessarily one made in bad faith, even if the endpoint seems pretty clear to some of us.

That isn’t a ‘position’ at all, it is crap focus-group fudge/waffle!
 
That isn’t a ‘position’ at all, it is crap focus-group fudge/waffle!
How is it? It was arrived at through debate and democratic procedures. It states a clear preference. It acknowledges that that preference is likely to be brought up short against reality. It's just not your preference - which is, IMO, authoritarian and completely fantastical.
 


advertisement


Back
Top