UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
message 3801:
by
Lynne (Tigger's Mum)
(last edited Jul 03, 2016 12:13AM)
(new)
Jul 03, 2016 12:11AM
Its the law. How iften that refrain blocks debate. The some current laws were trade agreement in the past, now it's illegal criminally to break them. Some laws used to be a civil tort if you transgressed now you're a criminal in all senses. GB has many laws that criminalise people that are treated as civil offence still in Europe.
reply
|
flag
We live in a democracy. Rule by the many. That means that once laws are put in place they cannot be varied by an elite or an individual. That protects us from despotism. A law which is enshrined in primary legislation cannot be changed without primary legislation to amend it. No civil servant in any democracy can unilaterally decide that he or she doesn't like a particular law.
Regulations which are part of secondary legislation can be changed without primary legislation, but it is generally a considered process by the body which is responsible for the secondary legislation. You don't just do it on whim or because one farmer threatens to go to the press. And you very rarely do it in the space of a fortnight.
Lynne - laws don't block debate. Any law can be changed, whether through secondary legislation or primary legislation. But primary legislation has to be changed by Parliament and we elect Parliament. We also elect the European Parliament. That is what protects us from mavericks and nutters.
Jim - surely you don't think that voting to leave the EU is going to change the rule of law? Or whether civil servants are allowed to take maternity leave?
This is why we need both subject experts and civil servants. The subject experts understand their subjects. The civil servants understand how the law works.
Will wrote: "Regulations which are part of secondary legislation can be changed without primary legislation, but it is generally a considered process by the body which is responsible for the secondary legislation. You don't just do it on whim or because one farmer threatens to go to the press. And you very rarely do it in the space of a fortnight.Lynne - laws don't block debate. Any law can be changed, whether through secondary legislation or primary legislation. But primary legislation has to be changed by Parliament and we elect Parliament. We also elect the European Parliament. That is what protects us from mavericks and nutters.
Jim - surely you don't think that voting to leave the EU is going to change the rule of law? Or whether civil servants are allowed to take maternity leave?
This is why we need both subject experts and civil servants. The subject experts understand their subjects. The civil servants understand how the law works. ..."
You've missed the point Will, it's not the regulation, it's the Interpretation of regulation. Scotland interpreted the regulation in exactly the opposite way to England and Wales.
After a gentle discussion, Defra in England and Wales reinterpreted the regulation and now their interpretation agrees with Scotland
I've got plenty of examples where it's the interpretation of regulation that causes the difficulties. We had problems with the various livestock identification regulations because each county trading standards office had their own interpretation. Indeed the RPA had their own interpretation which we managed to change because, again, it was possible to show that under their interpretation, MOD would suddenly be legally and financially responsible for the actions of their tenants
But because Trading Standards didn't got to magistrates but merely reported what they considered infractions to the RPA, the penalty wasn't awarded by the courts, (where their interpretation could be challenged) but was an administrative penalty (docking of payments) by the RPA. So you got people losing thousands of pounds because the RPA docked their payments, when actually the person had acted in a way that agreed with the RPA interpretation of regulation, but didn't agree with the Trading Standards interpretation.
The civil servants obviously didn't understand how the law works, or they'd have stepped in to deal with this.
To add to my earlier point (thanks for the replies) we need to get down to brass tacks. For better or for worse, the country is coming out of the UK. The UK now needs a vision of where this nation's going, fit for the 21st century.
Sadly, we have the relics, the two zombie parties lurching around in their Westminster bubble, as they scrape the barrel to resolve their internal party problems.
Meanwhile, the rest of the country is sitting with its thumb up its backside, as we wait for this shambles to be resolved!
I always knew our political leaders were an incompetent bunch, but by God, its taken this referendum to show how far they have fallen. What a shower...
Jim - now you don't just want to get us out of a beneficial trade deal, you want to rip up the rule of law? Just what do you want? R.M.F. - not sure if you meant to say that the country is coming out of the UK. That's certainly possible if Scotland and Northern Ireland manage to get independence out of this. I suspect you meant to say the EU.
But it's by no means certain that we are coming out of the EU. All the major parties know that we get a better deal by being inside the EU than outside, but they are now afraid of a very small majority who voted to leave. That very small majority which was partly influenced by a highly misleading campaign.
So now we've got a choice between a hard and immediate Brexit (which will hurt a lot), a soft and slow Brexit (which will not be that much different from what we've got now) or a second referendum/ general election when there is a chance that the vote will go the other way.
A hard Brexit will do untold damage to the economy. A soft Brexit will annoy a lot of people who were expecting an end to immigration. Both Brexits will annoy the 48% who voted to Remain and the 5-7% who now regret voting to Leave and those who now regret that they didn't vote.
A second referendum/ general election will annoy those who scraped an unexpected Leave result and would really rather that we never voted on it again. Because if we did it all again without the Leave campaign's lies it would probably have been a different result.
Whatever happens we have a divided nation. Someone needs to come up with a plan that appeals to both Leave and Remain voters. A campaign which is rooted in honesty and not spin. I am not seeing anyone doing that.
Will wrote: "That very small majority which was partly influenced by a highly misleading campaign."And that is the problem we have. Like you Will, the left is using the bait that we were deceived and deluded into voting exit. In other words they consider the people of this country too stupid to make a decision on their own future. From the people who I spoke to before the 23rd, they knew exactly why they were voting no and it had very little to do with immigration and more to do with control of our own country's democracy and how it runs the UK.
That's why we now have had 20,000 people marching through London believing they know better than the 17m people who voted out. I was appalled that Mark Thomas, one of the leading proponents of democracy should join such a movement that is completely anti-democratic. It's a pity we cannot cross reference the number of the 20,000 actually voted. Looking at the age demographic, probably less than 50%.
Geoff, you're heralding the values of democracy in the same breath as you berate those who are exercising their democratic rights.There is nothing anti-democratic about peaceful protest.
And there's nothing controversial about suggesting that people were deceived by the Leave campaign - within hours of the result being announced you had leading figureheads of Leave backtracking about the things they were saying in the lead up to the referendum.
We are going to have serious problems importing and exporting items coming by road very shortly, it has nothing to do with Brexit and everything to do with France's encouragement of people massing at Calais and disrupting traffic and the more serious piece of drivers' hours legislation which as usual has not been thought through at all.
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "We are going to have serious problems importing and exporting items coming by road very shortly, it has nothing to do with Brexit and everything to do with France's encouragement of people massing ..."My Brother-in-Law was a long-distance lorry driver and got stuck at Calais many times because of his hours....... very often missing a whole weekend at home with his children, and this was long before the migrant problem was as bad as it is today.
It is everyone's democratic right to protest, whether they voted in the referendum or not. Their age or voting history has nothing to do with it. They are expressing their opinion. The Leave campaign managed a narrow win on the back of a campaign which was almost wholly fraudulent. Now they will try to hang on to that one decision, refuse any calls for a second referendum and try to talk down anyone who has an opposite point of view.
That's not the kind of democracy that most of us want. The public have a right to be well informed. They have a right to express their opinion. And if we have an electoral or referendum decision arrived at through deception, they have a right to ask for a proper vote.
There's been a lot of talk about the backgrounds of voters: that people with higher educational qualifications would vote to remain; that young people would vote to remain; that old people would vote to leave. Those comments were based on a poll - and we all remember how misleading polls can be. Something I read online this morning spoke as if there were real figures about the pattern of voting on 23 June. Yes, there are figures for votes according to the ward of the voter. But if there are really figures on age-groups. how have these been arrived at? Has the number given to a voter at the polling station been linked back to their signing-up to vote? That would surely be a big number-crunching exercise. Maybe Will, as an election officer (if that's the title) can comment on that.
There are no real world figures for who voted for what. All we can know is how many votes for leave and remain were submitted at each polling station.When you vote, the poll clerks will make a note on what is known as the "corresponding numbers list" . This keeps a list of your unique voter number and the number on the back of your ballot paper. This means that, in theory, someone could connect each voter to their ballot paper and work out how they voted.
That is done in case of electoral fraud. It means that a ballot could be examined in detail if, say, there have been accusations of "personation" (people claiming to be someone they are not) or some other kind of dodginess.
To protect the secrecy of the ballot, the corresponding numbers lists are kept separate from the ballot papers. My understanding is that they are locked away by the Returning Officers (or in this case the Counting Officers) and they can only be matched with the ballot papers if a judge orders it. The corresponding numbers list is meaningless on its own.
So yes it would be a big number crunching exercise and could only be done at the direction of a judge if something has gone badly wrong with the impartiality of the count. The secrecy of the ballot is pretty safe.
No, all the figures for voter age, education and so on are taken from polls - usually telephone, face to face or internet polls asking people who they intend to vote for and other details like age, education and so on.
Polls are not 100% reliable, but there have been so many around the EU referendum that it's pretty safe to say they're reasonably accurate.
Will wrote: "Jim - now you don't just want to get us out of a beneficial trade deal, you want to rip up the rule of law? Just what do you want? I was just explaining how the rule of law actually works. This is the system that is, not what I want.
Admittedly previously parliament would create law and the courts would interpret it, but thanks to the use of administrative penalties the civil service have managed to win the interpretation because the courts very rarely get involved
So what do you want? You seem to have an issue with any form of authority, whether it's the UK Government, the civil service, the legal system, the EU or people taking maternity leave. I'm really confused about what you do want.
http://www.handyshippingguide.com/shi...The tunnel had technical problems all week. The A16 approach is blocked nightly by migrants putting obstacles as hazardous as gas bottles and trees, last week a Scottish lorry cab was badly damaged by straw bales strategically placed.
But the article if anyone is interested is really difficult to comply with in the respect of the minimum wage which will vary on a daily basis even more now the £:€ is morte volatile. Plus the mandatory appointment of a fiscal representative in France. Free movement of trade my exhaust!
Will wrote: "So what do you want? You seem to have an issue with any form of authority, whether it's the UK Government, the civil service, the legal system, the EU or people taking maternity leave. I'm really c..."I'm merely reporting what exists
What I want is an end to administrative punishments
Any citizen who is accused of breaking a law or failing to comply with a regulation should have the right to trial, even if only in a magistrates court
message 3817:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jul 03, 2016 06:38AM)
(new)
Michael Cargill wrote: "And there's nothing controversial about suggesting that people were deceived by the Leave campaign - within hours of the result being announced you had leading figureheads of Leave backtracking about the things they were saying in the lead up to the referendum. "And had the Remainers won, the same thing would have happened, as they were equally deceitful.
I have no objection to them marching, Michael. They can do what they like. It's hypocrisy that annoys more that anything and the accusations of xenophobia, race hate and little islander that annoys me. I wanted to leave the EU to increase our world view and negotiate treaties with countries that we were not allowed to make pacts with whilst in the EU. 51.4% of our exports go outside the EU (http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.co.uk/...). That can increase enormously with export agreements.
message 3818:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jul 03, 2016 06:53AM)
(new)
Will wrote: "It is everyone's democratic right to protest, whether they voted in the referendum or not. Their age or voting history has nothing to do with it. They are expressing their opinion. The Leave campaign managed a narrow win on the back of a campaign which was almost wholly fraudulent. Now they will try to hang on to that one decision, refuse any calls for a second referendum and try to talk down anyone who has an opposite point of view.
That's not the kind of democracy that most of us want. The public have a right to be well informed. They have a right to express their opinion. And if we have an electoral or referendum decision arrived at through deception, they have a right to ask for a proper vote. "
The Remain campaign was equally fraudulent, bending statistics to deliberately show the worst possible scenario, branding Brexiters as racists, xenophobes and little Englanders. As usual Will, you always paint the one side of the charge.
Had remain won, would you have called out the liars and demanded a new ballot? No, you wouldn't and we all know that. You lost, face it and let's get on with the important things in the months ahead. You always look back when it suits you.
When you say "That's not the kind of democracy that most of us want. " what you are actually saying is "That's not the kind of democracy I want." Let me explain something to you, Will, that's exactly what kind of democracy most of us want, otherwise you'd have won. The country does not revolve around what you want, thank God.
Finally, we knew that the Brexit campaign were drawing on spurious data, in the same way we knew that Remain were lying. Contrary to what you might think, the people of Britain aren't gullible. You just always assume they are, from your glorious pedestal of the righteous, looking down on us poor ignorant peasants.
So we're agreed that there's nothing controversial about suggesting that people were deceived by the Leave campaign?It would be pretty much impossible for the Remain camp to backtrack in the same way due to the nature of what they campaigned about.
What anti-democratic movement where you referring to?
Michael Cargill wrote: "So we're agreed that there's nothing controversial about suggesting that people were deceived by the Leave campaign?"That's the exact opposite of what I said, Michael, as you are well aware. What I said was that there was deception and lies from both sides, but the electorate knew better than to believe either side.
It would be pretty much impossible for the Remain camp to backtrack in the same way due to the nature of what they campaigned about.
If you believe that, Michael, you are truly living in a fools paradise.
Geoff, unless you're trying to suggest that the people of Great Britain are immune to propaganda I don't really understand what your point is.What things would Remain be immediately U-turning on if the vote had gone the other way?
And what anti-democratic movement where you referring to?
No, the Remainers were not equally fraudulent. Not even remotely.The Leave campaign lied about the £350 million cost savings, the reduction (or not) in the level of immigration, the deal that would be possible with the EU, the state of the economy after Brexit. Hell, they even fudged what type of Brexit was on offer. They didn't have anything remotely resembling a plan. They rubbished every expert and try to gag anyone who gave the public information about the impact of Brexit.
In other words, just about everything.
The Remain camp pretty much told it as it is. Their estimates of the economic cost has been vindicated by several independent sources including the Bank of England, the IMF and the CBI. They correctly predicted the response from other EU states to the Leave campaign's barmy claims about accessing the single market without free movement of people.
If I was being generous I might say that Osborne could have been clearer about his £4,300 figure. But the estimate was a reasonable one - and far closer to the truth than Leave's ridiculous £350 million a week.
No-one who voted Leave knew what they were voting for, because the people running the Leave campaign didn't know what "Leave" looked like.
One legal expert has called the Leave campaign "criminally irresponsibility":
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/...
He said: "Leave conducted one of the most dishonest campaigns this country has ever seen.
On virtually every major issue that was raised in this referendum debate Leave’s arguments consisted of at best misrepresentations and at worst outright deception.
And by doing so – by normalising and legitimising this type of dishonesty as a primary tool to win votes, I’m afraid that Leave have inflicted quite untold damage on the quality of our national democracy.”
Will wrote: "One legal expert has called the Leave campaign "criminally irresponsibility"And we all know what that's worth - the cost of his fee.
We knew that we wanted to take control of our democratic process.We knew that we didn't want to become a part of the United States of Europe.
We knew we wanted control of our immigration process.
We knew we didn't want to be ruled over by unelected committees and appointees.
We already have control of our democratic process.We weren't about to become part of the United States of Europe.
The Leave campaign aren't now offering control of our immigration process. And they may not be able to do anything about it if we are forced to accept freedom of movement in return for access to the single market.
We aren't ruled by unelected committees or appointees in the EU, any more than we are under the UK Government. Both the EU and the UK Government have elected parliaments, appointed Ministers and unelected civil servants.
But you didn't mention the £350 million a week, or the trade deals without free movement of people. Or the economic slowdown.
In other words, you didn't know what you were voting for. And you still don't.
That sums it up in a nutshell Geoff.
Will wrote: "We already have control of our democratic process.We weren't about to become part of the United States of Europe.
The Leave campaign aren't now offering control of our immigration process. And t..."
I would suggest you look at my previous posts then, Will.
There is a list of the bodies of the EU. As for the United States of Europe, staying in would give a choice, join the Euro club and accept the integration they need to make to allow the currency to survive, or stay outside and get second-class status. European political integration is inevitable if the Euro is to stand any chance of success.
message 3829:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jul 03, 2016 09:08AM)
(new)
Will wrote: "We already have control of our democratic process.In a minor way, that is correct, however, as you well know, 2/3 of all laws passed in the UK originate from Europe.
We weren't about to become part of the United States of Europe.
The telling word here is 'about'. We would have a choice in the future as to whether we join the United States of Europe and the Euro, or whether we stay outside and lose any opportunity to influence decisions, whilst still be shacked to the laws being created by the integrated nations (Sorry, not nations, regions). By then we would have become more and more dependent upon the largesse of the EU.
The Leave campaign aren't now offering control of our immigration process. And they may not be able to do anything about it if we are forced to accept freedom of movement in return for access to the single market.
Conjecture. That is the whole point of negotiating exit. Perhaps you should look the word negotiation up.
We aren't ruled by unelected committees or appointees in the EU, any more than we are under the UK Government. Both the EU and the UK Government have elected parliaments, appointed Ministers and unelected civil servants.
UK parliament has direct control of the civil service. This is not true of the EU. The MEPs dont even have control of the legislative process. MEPs cannot propose legislation. The European Commission proposes new laws (The European Commission is unelected.) The MEPs can only table amendments or reject a bill.
But you didn't mention the £350 million a week, or the trade deals without free movement of people. Or the economic slowdown.
I have already commented on the £350 million, but you don't seem to understand the difference between gross and net. I've also commented on the trade deals and free movement of people.
Don't bother to even go to the economic slowdown. I presume you mean the recent blip of the Pound and FTSE 100, both of which are going back up. Perhaps of more concern to the markets is the current leadership turmoils of the two leading political parties. This is where the real problem lies, as markets hate political turmoil. Labour is in intent on selft destruction, something I thought was solved in the 1980s and the Conservatives are in the middle of leadership election.
In other words, you didn't know what you were voting for. And you still don't. "
I know exactly what I voted for, Will. It seems more like you don't.
Tony Blair said today one of the possibilities was another referendum if people had changed their opinions, how would he know if anyone had changed their minds without actually holding a referendum. Another guess by the political classes of what the electorate's mindset is? Or just what they hope for. We all know how accurate the polls have been.
Geoff - you've clearly made up your mind about what Brexit means, which is fine and dandy because no-one else has. Good luck with that one.You've also got your prejudices about what the EU does and doesn't do. I am not going to bother correcting that one. It's all been said.
As to you thinking that the value of sterling is a "blip" or focusing on the FTSE 100 instead of the FTSE 250, it beggars belief. But I know of old that there is no point in explaining things to you.
The £350 million is not a matter of gross versus net. It was used by the Leave campaign repeatedly as the actual amount that would be saved. That is a bare-faced lie and everyone knows it is. Even the Leave campaign now admit it, with Gove switching to a figure of £100 million, which is also wrong.
Lynne - the Government can gauge the public's mood through surveys, online petitions and demonstrations. It's not an exact science, but it gives an indication of strength of feeling.
As a Scottish nationalist, I find it amusing to be lumped in with 'little Englanders,' just because I voted to leave. As I said, Immigration is rarely an issue where I live, because immigrants are as rare as hen's teeth. Still, that doesn't stop some, but no all, sections of the remain camp from branding people like myself a xenophobe...
And to confound the stereotypes of ignorant oiks voting leave, I have university qualifications :)
Two final points
1) this 350 million a week on the NHS the remain camp keeps banging on about, really gets my goat, because if Britain's place in the EU, or Britain's economic prosperity hinges on £12 billion a year, then this nation is in deeper trouble than I thought.
And it shows the intellectual paucity of both sides if we're squabbling over what is loose change (in government revenue terms at least)
2) As I've said often, society gets the democracy it deserves. All this bull about deception from both sides is just that - bull. I would like to think that the majority of the British public drew their own conclusions rather than listen to charlatans such as Cameron, Johnson, Farage etc etc
message 3833:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jul 03, 2016 12:00PM)
(new)
Will wrote: "You've also got your prejudices about what the EU does and doesn't do. I am not going to bother correcting that one. It's all been said."You never fail to amaze me, Will. Everything I say is prejudiced and wrong, whilst everything you say is correct and irrefutable. It says more about your prejudices than mine.
Your perceived certainty is merely a confirmation of your insecurities.
I voted to enter the Common Market in 1974, because that's what it appeared to be. That was the first lie. Since that time the lies have come thick and fast, and with them the treaties. Each treaty gradually easing us further and further towards a federal Europe.
It's an interesting thing, the EU and referendums. Are we going to have a re-run of the Irish referendum, where the first vote was rejected, so the EU forced a second one? Democracy in action? I don't think so.
After the Irish vote, the EU is very much against treaties nowadays, in case they are held accountable by the electorate.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "We knew that we wanted to take control of our democratic process.We knew that we didn't want to become a part of the United States of Europe.
We knew we wanted control of our immigration process...
We knew we didn't want to be ruled over by unelected committees and appointees"
1) as a vague notion felt viscerally yes, but what does it mean in actuality? I don't think most have a notion of that. And taking back our country (from EU bureaucrats I assume) has in some led to seek to 'take it back' from people of different skin pigmentation or who speak a Slavic language
2) Personally I did, but I concede this is a minority and unpopular view
3) We will have titular control but still fail to control the numbers. Where the sustained numbers may come from is from illegal immigration through people smuggling. The government better beef up the Border Agency and policing
4) We're about to be ruled over by a new PM who has not been directly chosen by the nation
Marc wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "We knew that we wanted to take control of our democratic process.We knew that we didn't want to become a part of the United States of Europe.
We knew we wanted control of our immigration process...
We knew we didn't want to be ruled over by unelected committees and appointees"
1) as a vague notion felt viscerally yes, but what does it mean in actuality? I don't think most have a notion of that. And taking back our country (from EU bureaucrats I assume) has in some led to seek to 'take it back' from people of different skin pigmentation or who speak a Slavic language
2) Personally I did, but I concede this is a minority and unpopular view
3) We will have titular control but still fail to control the numbers. Where the sustained numbers may come from is from illegal immigration through people smuggling. The government better beef up the Border Agency and policing
4) We're about to be ruled over by a new PM who has not been directly chosen by the nation "
1. In actuality, we have spent hundreds of years removing rule by monarchy, dictatorship and rotten boroughs. Why should we relinquish that for bureaucrats?
2. Why? The EU is a mess. The Southern states are all but bankrupt, Spain has youth unemployment running at 40%. The only country doing well out of the deal is Germany. If they didn't have the Euro and the Southern states keeping it low, their exports would be through the floor because the Mark would be so high.
3. This is the one I was least interested in, to be quite candid. A quota system would be more effective, not because it would reduce immigration, it wouldn't. What it would do is allow us to bring in the specific skilled workers we need, when we need them.
4. That is correct, and is a weakness in our system, and it has happened before. However, we have been able to correct it before. Gordon Brown being an example. We would not be able to do that in a federal Europe. Changing our prime minister would be irrelevent.
It's moot cos we're leaving anyway, but even if the EU chooses to become more integrated politically, the UK would probably have still kept its distance as it has with the Eurozone.
Marc wrote: "It's moot cos we're leaving anyway, but even if the EU chooses to become more integrated politically, the UK would probably have still kept its distance as it has with the Eurozone."If that had happened, we'd have been isolated in the 2nd tier of Europe, unable to control the legislation produced by those inside the federated states whilst being stopped from making alliances with countries outside the Union. If we hadn't decided to leave now, we would have done when that happened.
Marc wrote: "We're about to be ruled over by a new PM who has not been directly chosen by the nation ..."
The PM is never directly chosen by the nation. The PM is chosen by the monarch and is the person who can command a majority in Parliament but normally just the house of commons. The PM doesn't have to be an MP, we've had PMs who sat in the Lords.
Even in a a general election it is theoretically possible that the PM could lose their seat and their party win, because the PM's sole elected position is as the MP for that constituency.
Jim - not really. The PM is only formally "chosen" by the monarch. In reality, the monarch can't refuse the prime minister chosen by the people through a general election. The people normally know the leader of each party as they vote in an election.It is possible for the PM to resign (Tony Blair) or be ousted in a leadership campaign (Margaret Thatcher), but then there is usually pressure for their successor to go to the country to give them a mandate.
Will wrote: "It is possible for the PM to resign (Tony Blair) or be ousted in a leadership campaign (Margaret Thatcher), but then there is usually pressure for their successor to go to the country to give them a mandate. ..."John Major pretty well saw out the five year term of the parliament when he became PM as did Gordon Brown. Looking further back Harold Wilson resigned and Jim Callaghan went for three years without a general election
Antony Eden resigned and Harold Macmillan went for two years without an election.
So there may be pressure for them to go to the country, but it seems to be entirely ignored. Indeed I'm trying to find an example of a party leader who did go to the country within twelve months of taking the job of PM
Just saw the figuresthe FTSE 100 is higher than it was before the referendum
the FTSE 250 is now higher than it was in mid June
the pound is stable and comfortingly low, good for our exporters and the tourist industry
Osborne has admitted that there will not be a draconian budget and he's finally put austerity to rest.
Perhaps the hysteria was a little overdone?
According to Wikipedia, there have been nine "snap elections" in the last century. Seven were deliberate decisions by the Government:1923
1931
1951
1955
1966
February 1974
October 1974
And two were forced by a motion of no confidence against the will of the government:
1924
1979
More info about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_el...
With all the comments about Leaving the EU and the subsequent emotions - the comments from the Remainers reminded me of the Kubler-Ross stages of grief and loss...........1.Denial — The first reaction is denial. In this stage individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality.
2. Anger — When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, they become frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. "It's not fair!"; '"Who is to blame?"; "Why would this happen?".
3. Bargaining
4. Depression, In this state, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time mournful and sullen.
5. Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
In this last stage, individuals embrace the inevitable future,
I'm really waiting for stage 5...... but as we seem to be stuck in stage 2 - I think that is a long way off!!
Will wrote: "According to Wikipedia, there have been nine "snap elections" in the last century. Seven were deliberate decisions by the Government:1923
1931
1951
1955
1966
February 1974
October 1974
And ..."
but none of them were because we'd changed PM in mid parliament. The main pressure for the new mandate tends to come from the opposition who hope they're in on a chance
T4bsF (Call me Flo) wrote: "I'm really waiting for stage 5...... but as we seem to be stuck in stage 2 - I think that is a long way off!!..."
very perceptive comment Flo. I think you're right. I suspect that after a few weeks when the world hasn't ended, the economy is still there, people still have jobs and there is still food in the shops, there'll be a growing acceptance that voting leave was not an act of madness
You could say exactly the same thing about the Leave camp.1. Denial: the stock market crash isn't so bad really. It's okay that the Bank of England has pumped more than £3 billion into the economy and stands by to inject up to £250 billion to try to stave off a recession. We're going to get a great deal from the EU. We will still find a way to reduce immigration and somehow get a tariff free trade deal with Europe.
2. Anger: please stop calling us old, racist, and less well educated. You lot should have voted when you had the chance. And that demonstration was "just a tantrum".
3. Bargaining: we won the vote (unexpectedly) so we don't want any more referendums ever, no matter how much new information comes to light. Or how much we were misled by the lies of Gove and Boris.
4. Depression: oh, hang on a minute, I've just lost my job ...
5. Acceptance: maybe this whole EU thing wasn't so bad after all.
Like you, I'm waiting for stage 5.
I did say we were stuck in stage 2 - but you still seem to be clinging to stage 1 Will
We could go round in circles all day playing this game!The referendum isn't legally binding, so it is much too early to say that we are definitely leaving. The winning margin in the referendum was small. The 48% won't go away. And as we uncover more of the facts about leaving, the 52% could well reduce.
From my point of view, anyone assuming that we are definitely going to leave is in denial.
But this sort of debate doesn't really get us anywhere. You see it one way. I see it another. Referring to the denial curve doesn't prove my point or yours.
News just coming in. Nigel Farage is standing down as leader of UKIP.
Will wrote: "We could go round in circles all day playing this game!The referendum isn't legally binding, so it is much too early to say that we are definitely leaving. The winning margin in the referendum was small. ..."
Given that Welsh referendum went through at 50.3 to 49.7 and was regarded as perfectly fine, the margin is actually far more convincing
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
