The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

1…4849515354…79

Comments

  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    chicagohammer said:

    It may be a touch off topic, but the implemetation of the Fixed term act of 2011 managed to pass me by at the time.

    Whose bright idea was that,

    Lib-Dems. ;ok
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Bit like Militant back in the day.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    IronHerb said:

    Bit like Militant back in the day.

    Not according to Peter Kinfoyle, Kinnock's "Witchfinder General" who was given the task of rooting out Militant
    I don’t see any real comparison with Militant which was a tightly organised, highly motivated group with a particular ideological stance, quite clear and with a strategy which had been well thought out and which was inimical to the interests of the Labour party. I have never seen anything remotely to suggest that this Momentum is anything like that.

    “I see it more as a reaction to Progress, representing the rightward elements of the Labour party, and Momentum taking up the cause of the left. It is as simple as that. I really do not see a comparison between the 1980s and today in that regard.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2016/aug/05/peter-kilfoyle-liverpool-labour-momentum-jeremy-corbyn

    Under Kinnock and Blair Labour moved away from its grassroots membership, became more controlled from the top and the MPs became more middle class in order to distance the party from union influence (but not union finances, they still wanted those). Having spent decades ignoring the members its little surprise that MPs aren't particularly happy with the idea of being held to account by the plebs.

    Back in the 1950s you had the Gaitskellites and the Bevanites, today its the Progress and Momentum; nothing changes much.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    The moment article 50 is triggered all power changes as the EU can allow the two year limit to be a tightening grip upon us that reduces our leverage with each passing month.

    I personally think that one rule would change everything, this rule would be that no benefits above the rate of the persons home nation can be claimed until 5 years employment has been proven. This means you still have free movement to work but having reduced the appeal through not being able to take advantage of host nation benefits it would become unattractive to all but those who wanted and were able to secure work. One of the main issues is that out tax credits and benefits system is so attractive and better than a full time job in many EU nations.
  • VorselaarhammerVorselaarhammer
    MrsGrey said:

    Vorselaarhammer said:

    Mrs grey I do wonder where we will end up.

    Some sort of EU light, maybe with another rebate thrown in.

    I do hope they don't leave the door open for Farage to return to the debate.

    Too late.
    ;doh
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Govt announces that they are going to scrap the 15yr limit on voting rights of Brits abroad. If they get the changes through Parliament (by 2020 is the aim), ex-pats will have lifetime rights to vote in elections and referenda.

    Just in time for me. ;biggrin

  • Expat_HammerExpat_Hammer
    MrsGrey said:

    ex-pats will have lifetime rights to vote in elections and referenda.

    But I live here anyway ;puzzled

  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    I don't think there will be any referendums planned for the next 100 years after the last one. Governments are elected to serve a certain purpose, one of which is to weigh and measure what is in the national interest, it's unreasonable to expect the populous at large to be able to do that, even though likely most of us imagine we could.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    No. Governments are elected to serve the people.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    edited October 2016
    Herb

    Yeah, but in the way that parents are there to 'serve the needs' of their children, which often includes saying: 'no, don't do that; it's naughty/silly/dangerous'.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    IronHerb said:

    No. Governments are elected to serve the people.

    The peoples interest and the national interest must surely be the same thing, as a nation could really only be defined as a body of people sharing a territory or common decent..

  • ironmike44ironmike44
    Grey - so our elected representatives are there to treat us like children? ;wink
  • uposupos
    Iron,
    Amended it for you -so our elected representatives are there to treat us act like children?
  • simoncsimonc
    Claret,
    The peoples interest and the national interest don't necessarily match up with the elected representatives interests, they seem to be primarily concerned with feeding their ego's or eating from the political trough.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    First and foremost MPs represent their party, running for Parliament is expensive and without party backing most people couldn't afford to stand. Generally MPs are expected to follow their party's policy on any given issue and we vote for the candidate whose party's policies we feel are closest to our own interests.

    There are exceptions, occasionally MPs will find themselves having to oppose their party's national policy because of local issues, an example is HS2; Conservative policy supports it but Tory MPs whose constituencies are on the route oppose it.

    It's all a bit of a balancing act but in the end any MP is going to have to do what they think will get them re-elected.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    I think this chap summed up pretty well what government does and what it is for:

    To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice, that is its morality.

    Written more than 150 years ago, and not much, unfortunately, has changed. And this chap was pretty mild in his admonishment.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    edited October 2016
    Madcap - what did he propose as an alternative?
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    ASLEF - probably survival of the fittest in a lawless world - Lord of the Flies landscape?
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Think he had a chip on his shoulder
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    ;nonono ;whome
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    Democracy from the bottom up, not the top down. A trust that, if left alone, man has the innate ability to organise society perfectly adequately for himself in the name of equality and fairness. I don`t believe that society is organised to promote the general good, I think it is organised to profit and benefit the fortunate few. Not a popular word I know, but communism, without the State. I find it very hard to understand that anyone can take a look around the World and think it`s fair. Unfortunately State Socialism/Communism has failed (as predicted by most Anarchicist writers) as power and money tend to corrupt. I know that most people will scoff at a Socialist Utopia, but surely aiming that high has got to be worthwhile, and although not a revolutionary in the true sense of the word (too much of a coward I`m afraid) I think that people should strive to chip away at centralised power, I think people should be taught an "alternative" way of thinking and acting. The possibility that things could be different. ALL great social changes have been won from the bottom up. No government has voluntarily conceded power to "the common man", all changes that make our lives better and easier have been hard won. Mostly by radicals, revolutionaries, anarchists. Yet these are the very people who are generally vilified by governments, the press, etc etc etc. I used to be, I suppose, a Marxist, but have always had Anarchistic leanings (since the Punk era) and base most of my "appreciation" of things/events from this perspective. Anarchy is basically a society organised via cooperation rather than coercion, but also values the uniqueness and "beauty" of the individual. I think that centralised government is pretty superfluous, I find it hard to get my head round the fact that a tiny, tiny minority of people make (in some cases) life and death decisions for millions of people, just seems plain wrong and crazy to me. I know it`s a tired old saying, but "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" what`s so wrong with that. I also find it hard to justify "value". Why is a small shiny stone, or a lump of yellow metal more valuable, valued more by society, than a kidney dialysis machine?? I think you will find that most people would prefer the machine, we have the resources, we have the technology, we have the wealth, but someone, somewhere, makes the decision not to make them. I believe, contrary to some, that the vast majority of people do have the intelligence, the compassion, the will, to make decisions at grass roots levels and those decisions would be generally for the common good, as it seems mad to me that decisions would be made by the majority of "normal" people, that would be contrary to the common good, when you think about that, it makes perfect sense. Not gonna happen in my lifetime, but if the right people keep chipping away, you never know.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    NEoldiron said:

    ASLEF - probably survival of the fittest in a lawless world - Lord of the Flies landscape?

    You really couldn`t be more wrong. Read a little of Kropotkin, the total antihesis of what you have just said...................

  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    Sorry Madcap but society changes slowly. Four hundred years ago in Britain some thought that one man had the Divine Right to rule millions, two hundred years ago a man could only vote if he owned freehold property worth 40 shillings or more (that's £2 to all you post-decimal types) and one hundred years ago women couldn't vote. And its worth remembering the UK is quite advanced socially/politically compared to some other countries.

    Maybe the type of society you describe existed back when we lived in extended family groups, before some clever Dick invented the wheel but we've come a long way since then and it will be an equally long way back. In the meantime we need to make the best of the social and political systems we have, keep developing and reforming, evolution rather than revolution.

    Saving the NHS from gradual privatisation seems more important to me than achieving Utopia

    BTW Utopia is derived from the Ancient Greek "Eu" (not) and "Topus" (place); ergo Utopia is "no-place".
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited October 2016
    ;hmm The eu (pronounced ef or ev) prefix means 'good', I thought.

    Hence euphonious (good noise) and euthanasia (good death).

  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    Mrs Grey - sorry my mistake it should be "οὐ " not "eu", "eu" is good.

    Sir Thomas More was having a bit of a joke, describing a perfect society and giving a name that suggested it didn't exist. With "jokes" like that its little wonder he got his head chopped off.......
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Ah. ;ok

    Hence 'News From Nowhere'.

    I don't think I'd ever made that connection before.

    Or if I had, I'd forgotten it. ;puzzled
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    Adler most anarchist writers acknowledge the fact that society changes gradually punctuated by violent episodes. I still think an anarchist society is worth striving for. Most anarchists are pacifists and condemn violence both state and terrorist so acknowledge the fact that it may take generations and not by violent overthrow. Again a lot of anarchist thought think that an anarchist society is the ultimate in evolution. Should say Adler. How do you over ride predictive text.......
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    Indeed, William Morris, crazy dude.
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    edited October 2016
    I posted these on July 7th on the Dimi Payet thread (in the context of his new contract)

    "There are many 1st teamers whose national currency is the euro. If their salaries were negotiated in euros, the Daves will have to cough up a significant %age increase in pounds. Would that unsettle those players whose contracts are in pounds? Of course this is all speculation, but still needs consideration."

    and

    "When their salaries were negotiated, it's only natural that they would have calculated how much those salaries were worth in euros. Now that the salaries are worth considerably less euros, will they ask for an increase? ;hmm"

    I think it now becomes an issue with all the forecasts for the fate of sterling.


    The first response to the second post was the following:

    "What if the £ goes back up, will the club then look to re negotiate their contracts down? I don't think that the £ will stay low for a prolonged period so don't really see this as being too much of an issue in the long run."
    ;lol ;lol ;lol
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    edited October 2016


    And for another piece of cheery info - not, although this really ought to be on the "UK Out" thread.

    http://www.cityam.com/251146/sterling-falls-again-against-euro-and-dollar
This discussion has been closed.