Non - Brexit

“She will be affected for much of her youth and wants to know whether or not she should be enfranchised. If not, why not ?”

Big words for a two-year-old.:grinning:

Well on the way to the speaker’s chair, he might have left by then.
 
Ferkin great swathes of land floating around on tectonic plates....they call them Continents....ferkin great Oceans between them ..within those Continents are Countries..Large ones, medium sized ones, small ones....China.....France........ and tiny little Northern Ireland causing so much MAYhem....and yet it's Parlaiment can't even be bothered to Assemble.......
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I think we need proportional representation and for the electorate to understand the benefits of coalition governments.
Click to expand...
I read all the posts on this topic to try to (feebly) understand the issues. I rarely post because, honestly, I don't have the currency to do so.

However, on this one, I would suggest "not". We have many parties in Canada, coalitions happen but rarely last. Proportional representation was floated by our PM (well, more than floated, it was an election plank) and he has been shot down. Personally, I don't like the idea, re-work the electoral maps if you must ... but if every Tom Dick and Harry in some fringe groups have elected representatives, coalitions (and effectively the balance of power) could end up in the hands of the (name the most "out there" party that you can think of).
 
billythekid said:
What we have witnessed in Parliament since the Brexit business started has been an utter disgrace to the people of our country who they are suppose to represent.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should give democratic control of the country to the House of Lords.


If Jez forces an election, I'd be really happy with a proper coalition government.

Especially if it didn't contain those bastards from the DUP.
 
Toronto John said:
I read all the posts on this topic to try to (feebly) understand the issues. I rarely post because, honestly, I don't have the currency to do so.

However, on this one, I would suggest "not". We have many parties in Canada, coalitions happen but rarely last. Proportional representation was floated by our PM (well, more than floated, it was an election plank) and he has been shot down. Personally, I don't like the idea, re-work the electoral maps if you must ... but if every Tom Dick and Harry in some fringe groups have elected representatives, coalitions (and effectively the balance of power) could end up in the hands of the (name the most "out there" party that you can think of).
Click to expand...

There's certainly compelling arguments against but the key reason I think it is the best option for the UK is that the traditional party set up is so clearly not delivering what the people want. If we had multiple parties all with their own agendas then they would have to find the middle ground in order to deliver any policies. Although extreme groups tend to get more representation do they ever really get extreme policies through against the wishes of the larger parties? I'm not so sure.
 
Which way you voted matters not. You did so expecting our elected government to carry out the wishes of the majority. Both sides (i.e the whole UK) have been let down by those we are supposed to trust. An MP representing a constituency that voted leave should morally support leave and vice versa for remain. The fact that many have chosen to further their own allegiance against the wishes of their constituents is a betrayal of trust that will linger on in many people's minds.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
There's certainly compelling arguments against but the key reason I think it is the best option for the UK is that the traditional party set up is so clearly not delivering what the people want. If we had multiple parties all with their own agendas then they would have to find the middle ground in order to deliver any policies. Although extreme groups tend to get more representation do they ever really get extreme policies through against the wishes of the larger parties? I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you and I can find a lot more middle ground to this argument than our politicos. My concern is if the various fringers hold the balance of power ... can bring down a government. And, I suppose it legitimizes certain "out there" views ... or at least views that I don't like. :sneaky:

We all love to complain about politics. I suppose when I look to the east where you are, or the south where there is the stalemate on federal budget financing/government shutdown, everything is so entrenched that I don't really see a reasonable compromise (or reasonable compromisers on any side of the aisle). In that context, I suppose our little choir boy ain't so bad.
 
wingsnwheels said:
Which way you voted matters not. You did so expecting our elected government to carry out the wishes of the majority. Both sides (i.e the whole UK) have been let down by those we are supposed to trust. An MP representing a constituency that voted leave should morally support leave and vice versa for remain. The fact that many have chosen to further their own allegiance against the wishes of their constituents is a betrayal of trust that will linger on in many people's minds.
Click to expand...

They should lose their seats at the next election, be interesting how many do.
 
But Billy, May’s government has handled negotiations with the EU so badly that they have returned with proposals that are a crock of sh!te, leaving the UK with the worst of both worlds (continuing to pay vast sums into the EU, with no influence over the EU trade policy, effective continued membership of the customs union and therefore no freedom to set our own trade policy). She has seemed fixated on only one aspect of Brexit, the free movement of labour, to the exclusion of all others.

May has also achieved the rare political distinction of entering into an unnecessary election and being propped up by a party that does not believe in evolution and regards gay marriage as a sin. She has then spent hundreds of millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money bribing that party. (I am using ‘British’ advisedly, since it is British taxpayers who are pumping money into Northern Irish projects.)

Surely in that case Parliament has the right and the duty to protect the interests of the country by saying “it cannot be in our interests to sign up to that”.
 
Sorry Roger said:
But Billy, May’s government has handled negotiations with the EU so badly that they have returned with proposals that are a crock of sh!te, leaving the UK with the worst of both worlds (continuing to pay vast sums into the EU, with no influence over the EU trade policy, effective continued membership of the customs union and therefore no freedom to set our own trade policy). She has seemed fixated on only one aspect of Brexit, the free movement of labour, to the exclusion of all others.

May has also achieved the rare political distinction of entering into an unnecessary election and being propped up by a party that does not believe in evolution and regards gay marriage as a sin. She has then spent hundreds of millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money bribing that party. (I am using ‘British’ advisedly, since it is British taxpayers who are pumping money into Northern Irish projects.)

Surely in that case Parliament has the right and the duty to protect the interests of the country by saying “it cannot be in our interests to sign up to that”.
Click to expand...

My answer was in response to the MP’s not following the vote of the people they represent. Being Leave or Remain.
 
Seems they are voting on this amendment.

BBC

19:04


4db5ca1a-1ce7-48de-b415-cf885adb8ecf.png



Conservative MP John Baron has moved his amendment (amendment f) which gives the UK the right to terminate the Northern Ireland backstop without the agreement of the EU.
It is backed by cross-party group of Brexiteers, including 12 Conservatives, one independent and one DUP MP.
MPs have divided to vote on this amendment.
 
billythekid said:
Think if they could have guarantee that our country could leave the Backstop her deal might go through.

The uncertainty of whether we would be tied to the EU apron’s strings for ever and a non, seems to be the problem.
Click to expand...
If she did away with the backstop that would get the DUP and brexiteers on board, such as mogg, johnson and rabb but your left with a number of conservative remoaners, who think they're going to have another referendum, as opposed to the remainers that accept the result of the last one, so it probably wouldn't go through anyway. No idea what's going to happen next, although I think the chance of another referendum is diminishing now, I hope so anyway because that would be a disaster for our country.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
If we had multiple parties all with their own agendas then they would have to find the middle ground in order to deliver any policies. /QUOTE]
My first ever post in the Brexit thread . . .
To your comment above, SDD, the best example of a western country with such a system is Italy, which has basically been in political paralysis since WWII.
I lived there during an election and it is all pretty crazy.
Click to expand...
 
Is this thread going to be like the FA Cup draw when there is a rush for people to be first to post it on here, despite everyone seeing it for themselves on TV?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;