UK government Brexit bill defeated again

[pitrevie]

3 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

 

Oh my goodness! You mean there's no law in the UK that allows only thw people YOU think are "bright" to vote?? 'Must change that! Or even better, just eliminate all that pesky majority business, and put l'il ol' YOU in charge. What a concept, eh?

Pffffft

 

Churchill didn't appear to have a very high opinion of the average voter.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” 

[Morakot]

15 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Christopher  Monckton

 

555 that was a good one!

 

Monckton was never a member of  the "Lords". Just a pure fraught who happened to have  an aristocratic title.

[pitrevie]

14 minutes ago, Morakot said:

 

555 that was a good one!

 

Monckton was never a member of  the "Lords". Just a pure fraught who happened to have  an aristocratic title.

Pre the Blair reformation he would have been entitled to sit in the Lords but thanks to Blair we have been spared that fate.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Morakot said:

 

No. What's they lie?

So why Dawkins with a Pinocchio  nose?

Edited March 10, 2017 by Grouse

[Morakot]

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

So why Dawkins with a Pinocchio  nose?

 

I think it's called the Pinocchio paradox.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Morakot said:

 

I think it's called the Pinocchio paradox.

Just watched the clip, yet another arrogant person, like some on here who thinks he nose everything, good call.

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, Morakot said:

 

I think it's called the Pinocchio paradox.

The British have spoken! No they haven't...

 

I guess one could say that's a Pinocchio Paradox. Bit obtuse though! Are you a philosopher?

[Grouse]

12 minutes ago, vogie said:

Just watched the clip, yet another arrogant person, like some on here who thinks he nose everything, good call.

And there's another example tending to prove my postulation, or at least hypothesis ( but not proboscis)  that most bright people are not Brexiteers.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Grouse
Arrogance

[Morakot]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

The British have spoken! No they haven't...

 

I guess one could say that's a Pinocchio Paradox. Bit obtuse though! Are you a philosopher?

 

Yes, I am but the point is that it really got me to check the facts, like I hope you did too...

 

Of course the people have spoken, but than again they haven't spoken. No one agreed to a right-wing coup. I'm no fan of Dawkins, but what he said was very meaningful and provided much needed clarity in this age of absurd confusion.

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, Morakot said:

 

When did the British people get the opportunity to vote on the Mastricht and Lisbon treaties?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Morakot said:

 

It's quite self-explanatory; just watch the clip.

 

Whether I agree or not with what's being said there is not very relevant. What's much more interesting is that "Lords reform" has been on the table for more than 100 years and it has been consistently blocked, delayed, and watered down by all sorts of parliamentarians --- spearheaded by conservative politicians. The irony is that only a few weeks ago minsters threaten to create a 1000 (one thousand!) new Conservative peers if the government doesn't get its way. Hypocrisy!

 

Governments of all  parties have, over time, introduced reforms which have moved the power from the unelected House to the elected one. House of Lords reform. Attempts at reform by the coalition government were dropped after rebellious Tory backbenchers joined forces with Labour. Although a watered down version of the Bill did receive Royal Assent in May 2014.

 

Peerage Creations: Appointments to the House of Lords since 1997

Quote

Of the 652 life Peers appointed, 374 were appointed by Tony Blair, 34 by Gordon Brown and 244 were appointed by David Cameron.

Of course, not all appointees by all three were political; but many were.

 

The biggest argument against the House of Lords is that it's members are not elected.

 

But there are pros in this, as well as cons. Lords reform options: pros and cons .

 

Even though some of the remaining hereditaries are professionals who do good work; I think that they should, if not go themselves then have their place in the House made uninheritable so that their heirs do not become members.

 

I see no place for the bishops. Religion should be kept out of politics.

 

Appointed life peers do, though, have a role to play. Many, like Oona King, bring a wealth of political experience to the place. (Shame that she's decided to take YouTube's money and leave politics for a while; I really thought better of her.)

 

If appointed, then peers can vote with their consciences and are less in fear of the Whips than their elected colleagues in the Commons. There are also the Cross Benchers. If members were elected then, as can be seen from the Commons, there would be very few, if any, independents.

 

They also do not have to worry about losing their place, and the House does not have to worry about losing their experience.

 

However, there are far too many peers who just turn up to get their £300 and do no actual work; and even more who rarely turn up at all.

 

So all future peers should, I believe, on appointment make a decision on whether or not they are going to engage fully in the activities of the House. Those who decide not to will therefore be honourary peers. They'd have the title and the prestige, but no political power.

 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

Governments of all  parties have, over time, introduced reforms which have moved the power from the unelected House to the elected one. House of Lords reform. Attempts at reform by the coalition government were dropped after rebellious Tory backbenchers joined forces with Labour. Although a watered down version of the Bill did receive Royal Assent in May 2014.

 

Peerage Creations: Appointments to the House of Lords since 1997

Of course, not all appointees by all three were political; but many were.

 

The biggest argument against the House of Lords is that it's members are not elected.

 

But there are pros in this, as well as cons. Lords reform options: pros and cons .

 

Even though some of the remaining hereditaries are professionals who do good work; I think that they should, if not go themselves then have their place in the House made uninheritable so that their heirs do not become members.

 

I see no place for the bishops. Religion should be kept out of politics.

 

Appointed life peers do, though, have a role to play. Many, like Oona King, bring a wealth of political experience to the place. (Shame that she's decided to take YouTube's money and leave politics for a while; I really thought better of her.)

 

If appointed, then peers can vote with their consciences and are less in fear of the Whips than their elected colleagues in the Commons. There are also the Cross Benchers. If members were elected then, as can be seen from the Commons, there would be very few, if any, independents.

 

They also do not have to worry about losing their place, and the House does not have to worry about losing their experience.

 

However, there are far too many peers who just turn up to get their £300 and do no actual work; and even more who rarely turn up at all.

 

So all future peers should, I believe, on appointment make a decision on whether or not they are going to engage fully in the activities of the House. Those who decide not to will therefore be honourary peers. They'd have the title and the prestige, but no political power.

 

Thank you for your erudition as always! Wise words indeed

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

16 hours ago, Notadoctor said:

if you consider the process democratic, think again (or think for the first time?) - Brits have not spoken on Brexit

I am not sure who this is aimed at, and without going back through a hundred posts, and noting you haven't posted before this on this thread, I will ask you this: Are you trying to tell us all the UK-EU Referendum was undemocratic? Or are you referring to the unelected House of Lords?

[pitrevie]

3 hours ago, nontabury said:

When did the British people get the opportunity to vote on the Mastricht and Lisbon treaties?

 

 

 

 

 

 

We don't vote on treaties because we have a system of representative democracy. Are you really suggesting that anyone would bother to read these treaties and make a considered judgement. We rely on our representatives in Parliament to do the job for us and like all the laws and treaties originating from the EU none of them can take effect until our own Parliament approves them which it did. It has been stated often enough the UK Parliament is supreme in all matters of law making in the U.K. And has been since the time of Cromwell.  As Thatcher remarked if we were to submit these issues to referenda then we would not have abolished hanging. 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

7 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

We don't vote on treaties because we have a system of representative democracy. Are you really suggesting that anyone would bother to read these treaties and make a considered judgement. We rely on our representatives in Parliament to do the job for us and like all the laws and treaties originating from the EU none of them can take effect until our own Parliament approves them which it did. It has been stated often enough the UK Parliament is supreme in all matters of law making in the U.K. And has been since the time of Cromwell.  As Thatcher remarked if we were to submit these issues to referenda then we would not have abolished hanging. 

Okay thanks for that. I rather like the cartoon.

I would point out that the UK was promised a vote on "any major change in the EU treaties and agreements" by several  (some prospective) PMs in the run up to several elections, but each time we were let down. That is where representational democracy breaks down. Had Thatcher read through the Single European Act herself before signing it in '86 she said herself she would never have signed it.

You can't trust every decision to the elected few, and the civil service..

 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 3/8/2017 at 2:27 PM, transam said:

If it came with a salary and pension attached I would come hat in hand...A Top Hat at that...

Ha ha, just like John Prescott (Gordon "no more boom and bust" Brown's deputy PM), who said on television he would never accept a Lordship...

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 3/8/2017 at 2:32 PM, dick dasterdly said:

IMO the vast majority who voted to leave or remain didn't have any chance of a 'clear picture' as the politicians and media were only promoting their own interests.  One of the reasons why (yet again) so many didn't vote ....

I would add to that: a 72% turnout was huge compared to the MEP elections, and the overall majority of votes in the referendum was bigger than any general election for about 70 years.

The campaigns were were fairly dreadful on both sides with "alternative facts" everywhere, and the press putting words into campaigners mouths and printing headlines to suit their own side.

I am sure there were many millions who voted had researched and followed the CM, EEC and EU over the years and had made their mind up well before the referendum was finally called.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

6 hours ago, Grouse said:

And there's another example tending to prove my postulation, or at least hypothesis ( but not proboscis)  that most bright people are not Brexiteers.

Well, I saw some statistics that supposedly shows that people who voted leave are less well educated, which I expect is where your postulation came from. 

I will remind you casting a vote in the UK is a completely secret ballot. If I remember correctly no exit ballot polls were allowed either, only results as they came in.

 

Statistics and opinion polls  Sir Humphrey! Not reliable information.

Also intelligence and education do not always equate. I suppose you think Alan Sugar is thick too, he hasn't done too badly though eh?

 

I do know who is whinging about the result though.

Only three weeks to go, and EU chief negotiator is starting to get the idea the EU needs a deal, shouldn't all the Remoaners do that too?

 

 

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Well, I saw some statistics that supposedly shows that people who voted leave are less well educated, which I expect is where your postulation came from. 

I will remind you casting a vote in the UK is a completely secret ballot. If I remember correctly no exit ballot polls were allowed either, only results as they came in.

 

Statistics and opinion polls  Sir Humphrey! Not reliable information.

Also intelligence and education do not always equate. I suppose you think Alan Sugar is thick too, he hasn't done too badly though eh?

 

I do know who is whinging about the result though.

Only three weeks to go, and EU chief negotiator is starting to get the idea the EU needs a deal, shouldn't all the Remoaners do that too?

 

 

Yes indeed!

 

Alan Sugar knows which side his bread is buttered on. Have you read his biography? Good read.

 

BTW, remoaners is becoming passé; please use something more derogatory! Maybe the intellectuals?

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Yes indeed!

 

Alan Sugar knows which side his bread is buttered on. Have you read his biography? Good read.

 

BTW, remoaners is becoming passé; please use something more derogatory! Maybe the intellectuals?

Ha ha! Good one.

(Not read his book, but I will look for a copy.)

Edited March 10, 2017 by George FmplesdaCosteedback

[pitrevie]

7 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Okay thanks for that. I rather like the cartoon.

I would point out that the UK was promised a vote on "any major change in the EU treaties and agreements" by several  (some prospective) PMs in the run up to several elections, but each time we were let down. That is where representational democracy breaks down. Had Thatcher read through the Single European Act herself before signing it in '86 she said herself she would never have signed it.

You can't trust every decision to the elected few, and the civil service..

 

Great so what do we do from now on when we negotiate treaties with numerous countries? Should we hold a referendum every time we negotiate a new treaty or even when there is some change to an existing treaty as with Lisbon, Maastricht etc?

Then if our representatives don't read what they are signing up to and people like Thatcher fundamentally don't understand what they are signing then how on earth is Joe public going to make an informed decision when it's down to him to decide. I guess we will all have to rely on the Daily Hail to tell us which way to vote I am certain their leader writers will be wading through these issues so as to better inform us. 

As Churchill often said democracy is the worst form of government but it's better than all the rest. 

[SheungWan]

8 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Well, I saw some statistics that supposedly shows that people who voted leave are less well educated, which I expect is where your postulation came from. 

I will remind you casting a vote in the UK is a completely secret ballot. If I remember correctly no exit ballot polls were allowed either, only results as they came in.

 

Statistics and opinion polls  Sir Humphrey! Not reliable information.

Also intelligence and education do not always equate. I suppose you think Alan Sugar is thick too, he hasn't done too badly though eh?

 

I do know who is whinging about the result though.

Only three weeks to go, and EU chief negotiator is starting to get the idea the EU needs a deal, shouldn't all the Remoaners do that too?

 

 

Alan Sugar said that quitting the EU would be a massive mistake and the British people 'mugs' if they voted to leave.

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Great so what do we do from now on when we negotiate treaties with numerous countries? Should we hold a referendum every time we negotiate a new treaty or even when there is some change to an existing treaty as with Lisbon, Maastricht etc?

Then if our representatives don't read what they are signing up to and people like Thatcher fundamentally don't understand what they are signing then how on earth is Joe public going to make an informed decision when it's down to him to decide. I guess we will all have to rely on the Daily Hail to tell us which way to vote I am certain their leader writers will be wading through these issues so as to better inform us. 

As Churchill often said democracy is the worst form of government but it's better than all the rest. 

Am I correct in thinking you are a supporter of Scottish seperation. And if so,one of the arguments put forward by the  SNP, was that Briexit was a fundamental change from what they voted for in the referendum of 2014, even though everyone was aware that a Briexit referendum was on the cards.Yet the British people as a whole,voted in 1973 to join the EEC, not the EU, and they certainly were not given the opportunity to vote on the Mastricht and Lisbon so called treaties.

 Is't it about time you and the rest of the Remoaners,realise that the British people have,as a whole voted to leave this undemocratic and corrupt so called Union.

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by nontabury

[pitrevie]

2 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Am I correct in thinking you are a supporter of Scottish seperation. And if so,one of the arguments put forward by the  SNP, was that Briexit was a fundamental change from what they voted for in the referendum of 2014, even though everyone was aware that a Briexit referendum was on the cards.Yet the British people as a whole,voted in 1973 to join the EEC, not the EU, and they certainly were not given the opportunity to vote on the Mastricht and Lisbon so called treaties.

 Is't it about time you and the rest of the Remoaners,realise that the British people have,as a whole voted to leave this undemocratic and corrupt so called Union.

 

 

 

No you are not correct in fact I see more strength in being unified than going alone hence my support for the EU.

Once again back to this silly distinction of course we didn't vote for the EU in 1975 are you really saying that the organization should not have changed in any way, it's much larger now but it's still the same organization that we joined more members constantly changing what organization doesn't change. It's still headquartered in the same place.

As for a vote on Lisbon or Maastricht I assume then that you are in favour of having a referendum every time we conclude a new or different treaty with anyone. Does that mean all the new treaties that are up for negotiation must first be approved by referendum?  That should be fun when we negotiate a free trade agreement with the USA I look forward to a referendum on the matter. 

That isn't the way the British system works and as I have pointed out we are a representative democracy, we elect MPs to use their judgement on these matters. 

I would really like to know what you think the average member of the public knows about the Lisbon or Maastricht treaties or indeed the SEA. My guess is zero.

[rockingrobin]

23 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Am I correct in thinking you are a supporter of Scottish seperation. And if so,one of the arguments put forward by the  SNP, was that Briexit was a fundamental change from what they voted for in the referendum of 2014, even though everyone was aware that a Briexit referendum was on the cards.Yet the British people as a whole,voted in 1973 to join the EEC, not the EU, and they certainly were not given the opportunity to vote on the Mastricht and Lisbon so called treaties.

 Is't it about time you and the rest of the Remoaners,realise that the British people have,as a whole voted to leave this undemocratic and corrupt so called Union.

 

 

 

Then I assume you support a referendum on the final UK / EU negotiated agreement  

[JAG]

Did you not understand what I wrote?
 
It seems to me that most bright people are NOT Brexiteers.
 
You bring up the right to vote and it's a fair point. Frankly I'm not at all sure universal suffrage is such a brilliant idea. We don't allow children to vote because they are just not knowledgeable enough. It could be argued that some adults are not knowledgable enough! Though how one would determine that I wouldn't know. If you look at the history of suffrage in the U.K., it makes for interesting reading.

Perhaps we should follow the lead set by the governance of the European Union?

Establish a self appointed self perpetuating political class to run things, accountable only to themselves, and take not a blind bit of notice of what the electorate wishes.

[Grouse]

21 minutes ago, JAG said:

Perhaps we should follow the lead set by the governance of the European Union?

Establish a self appointed self perpetuating political class to run things, accountable only to themselves, and take not a blind bit of notice of what the electorate wishes.

I don't mind you butting in to this conversation but please don't deflect.

 

This started with a piece by Dawkins who of course is anti Brexit.

 

I just commented that it appears a majority of really bright people are not in the Brexiteer camp.

 

Why is that?

 

Now democracy across EU is less than perfect we know; though it is not as extreme as you claim.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/20/eu-democratic-deficit

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by Grouse

[Grouse]

Good to see UK democracy isn't dead; yet....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/day-of-action-pro-eu-open-britain-brexit-nationwide-european-union-referendum-bill-article-50-a7622886.html

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, pitrevie said:

No you are not correct in fact I see more strength in being unified than going alone hence my support for the EU.

Once again back to this silly distinction of course we didn't vote for the EU in 1975 are you really saying that the organization should not have changed in any way, it's much larger now but it's still the same organization that we joined more members constantly changing what organization doesn't change. It's still headquartered in the same place.

As for a vote on Lisbon or Maastricht I assume then that you are in favour of having a referendum every time we conclude a new or different treaty with anyone. Does that mean all the new treaties that are up for negotiation must first be approved by referendum?  That should be fun when we negotiate a free trade agreement with the USA I look forward to a referendum on the matter. 

That isn't the way the British system works and as I have pointed out we are a representative democracy, we elect MPs to use their judgement on these matters. 

I would really like to know what you think the average member of the public knows about the Lisbon or Maastricht treaties or indeed the SEA. My guess is zero.

In the 1970's the British electorate voted to join a Trading Block called the EEC.

If it had remained a trading block, with minor changes, this would have been acceptable to the vast majority of people. But you are incorrect in stateing "it's still the same organisation that we joined" The problem occurred when the politicians and senior Bureacrats decided to steam roll it into a Political so called Union,namely the E.U. Without firstly gaining the consent of the people.

I would agree that at the time of these treaties, the average member of the public

( also some well informed people like M.T. ) had no idea what these treaties entailed. However by 2016 many people had started to ask critical questions  regarding the direction the EU had taken  and further more were it is going, this is of course unless it disintegrates, as predicted by many people.

 

 

 

 

[pitrevie]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

In the 1970's the British electorate voted to join a Trading Block called the EEC.

If it had remained a trading block, with minor changes, this would have been acceptable to the vast majority of people. But you are incorrect in stateing "it's still the same organisation that we joined" The problem occurred when the politicians and senior Bureacrats decided to steam roll it into a Political so called Union,namely the E.U. Without firstly gaining the consent of the people.

I would agree that at the time of these treaties, the average member of the public

( also some well informed people like M.T. ) had no idea what these treaties entailed. However by 2016 many people had started to ask critical questions  regarding the direction the EU had taken  and further more were it is going, this is of course unless it disintegrates, as predicted by many people.

 

 

 

 

Could I remind you that the EU was once called the European Economic Community. The Community's initial aim was to bring about economic integration, including a common market and customs union, that sounds to me more than just some trading block. what part of that do you think was obscure?

 

So given that you are so keen on people being consulted about these changes I gather that when the full details are known you will be in favour of those same people being given the final say as to whether we accept the deal on offer? I accept we are going to leave the EU but on what terms, after all we were assured by many of the principal spokesmen that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by pitrevie
Including a quote of original intent