BradburgerDavid Cameron ‘tried to get Mail editor sacked’
According to BBC Newsnight, over his stance on Brexit: –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38816692
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerNo. Think. Please. Unless you are some feudal fundamentalist who believes every acre should have an equal vote, not every person, it is not about comparitive areas coloured in.
Let me try a different way.
Imagine if you will a system whereby your president is decided by referendum. Everyone votes for their choice – directly. The votes are counted, and the winner is the one with the most votes. Really not so hard so far, one hopes.
Now, the vote of a US citizen in California, (with all his/her booklearnin’ and fancy ways) counts for exactly the same as the vote of a redneck with a fear of long words.
Also (and this is the bit I was trying to get across before) the vote of a widower rancher who’s isolated home makes him the only eligible voter in 200 square miles counts for exactly the same as one of twenty adults living in a tenement in Queens.
OK, so far so good – you’d agree that’s a fair system?
Beermat,
Interesting that you should use a referendum as an example of an ‘alternative’ system for electing a US president.
(That is, the result is decided by the majority).
As you point out, a simple, logical, and straightforward ‘fair & square’ vote, with the winner being the one with the most votes cast to them by the electorate.
Simple eh?
But if that really is the case, then you do really have to ask the question as to why certain people are claiming that the result of our referendum on the EU (‘in/out’, or presidential candidate A or B in your example), despite the decision taken by the majority of the country’s electorate, is not valid?
It seems to me that whatever system you use (and the more clear cut & simple it is), someone will always try and dispute the result.
(In the case of our EU referendum, the argument that is that in some of our constituencies, a majority of its electorate voted to remain, yet the result of the total votes cast, supported to leave).
State boundaries, sizes, populations have nothing to do with this equation whatsoever.
Under this system, your man would have lost.
Now surely you can see the irony of your post (the last part being especially relevant), because as you have argued and indeed agreed upon, anyone who supports the ‘but my constituency voted remain’ argument, has no reason to what so ever!
The fact is, a good amount of the losing side in both cases (Trump & Brexit), are, as RpR points out, “in denial”.
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerObama did nothing similar. The Iraqi action was in response to very specific intelligence about an immediate threat – as I’m sure you know really.
Trump either did what he said he would – ban Muslims, very explicitly and clearly stated as a policy aim – or he didn’t. You cannot have it both ways, although avoiding the words ‘ban’ and ‘muslim’ in the EO was an attempt to.
Who are you quoting?
Why can’t people on the right get their head around the concept of a news organisation who have better things to do than pursue ‘something against’ anyone?
Lying your way into public office is not some clever way of taking the **** out of the media who call you out on it! I would suggest it’s taking the **** out of those that voted for the liar regardless.
Beermat, take a look at this: –
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerWhat I found interesting was that during an interview on Radio 5 this morning discussing the ban with a frequent US traveller who was from the Middle East, he mentioned that the extreme ‘interrogations’ and thorough searches through luggage (and other personal effects upon arriving in the US, including website and social media usage), which have been reported since the Trump ban, are in fact, nothing new.
He said it had happened under previous administrations, and that they viewed “anyone with a different skin tone, or from the Middle East”, with caution.
At which point the presenter interjected that her brother, a white englishman who happened to have a business in the states, suffered something similar, based on the fact that the US authorities thought he was rather a “too frequent visitor” there.
So it would seem that the US authorities have been enforcing a tough policy on vetting on entry those from no particular country (or religion), if they feel they have a reason to, for a long time now.
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerI have just heard a former advisor of Trump and a rabid supporter of the man lie on the BBC world service, making up the results of a UK opinion poll to say Trump impulsive bigotry had 52 percent approval – and then saying that this was Obama’s list. Both lies went unchallenged at the time and uncorrected afterwards. I do not think the BBC can be accused of an anti-Trump bias any more.
Beermat,
Maybe they’ve cottoned on to the fact that Trump and his team have been taking the **** out of them and the rest of the media (and everyone else) who have something against him, all along!
(Hence, those ‘alternative facts’ quotes).
It’s interesting that there seems to be no sign of Obama’s criticism on the BBC News website.
But they’ve just broken the ‘news’ that Peter Capaldi will be leaving Dr Who!
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerSorry Paul, you are a bit behind the times
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/barack-obama-donald-trump-travel-ban-muslims-heartened-protests-latest-a7554236.html
Or for those who only believe the Torygraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/30/british-dual-citizens-will-now-allowed-travel-us-boris-johnson/
And whilst the countries in the current executive order were identified by Barak Obama the method was certainly not. Amateur Hour describes the Trump administration quite well on this one
Not really.
Over the course of the weekend, not once did I see any comment mentioned from him or Hillary Clinton on any of the media outlets.
(Of all the US and world political ‘heavy weights’, one really would expect them to be the first to pass comment on what Trump has done).
So to say I’m behind the times (and seeing as the Independent article was only posted late today, your claim could be regarded as ‘alternative’ fact.
As of now, the BBC news website has no mention of Obama’s comments).
But that is the problem (as we can see from the Brexit thread), you and your like are not keen on evidence that is actually (erm, what’s the word), factual!
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerI don’t know what all the fuss is about from the ‘terminally offended’. Isn’t he simply reflecting the wishes of the American voters who put him in power ?
It would seem someone had a similar idea back in 1995: –
Whilst the latest Executive Order could be said to have been carried out in a rather ham-fisted, (the ‘sledgehammer to crack a nut’ analogy), it is interesting how there has been no comment from Hillary Clinton, or indeed Barack Obama, on it.
It’s possible therefore that the countries included in the order were actually ones proposed from the Obama administration!
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerSome food for thought….
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerBradburger
Whatever the politics, from a historical and legal perspective, I am afraid that is just fundamentally wrong. Yes, the UK became a party to the Treaty of Rome by use of the royal prerogative, but no, that did not result in EU directives, laws etc having effect in the UK. The whole point of the case turns on the fact that use of the prerogative cannot change UK law. EU law has effect in the UK and overrides UK law not because the UK signed the Treaty of Rome but because that is what is provided in the European Communities Act 1972, an act discussed and passed by Parliament. The only reason EU law overrides UK law is because an act of parliament says so, so it is completely wrong to say it was done without parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, EU law would cease to apply in the UK if Parliament repealed the European Communities Act 1972, whether or not Article 50 was triggered.
The whole point of the case is that the Government could trigger Article 50 by use of the royal prerogative, were it not for the fact, according to the Supreme Court, that that would inevitably have the effect of amending the 1972 Act, and you cannot amend acts of parliament without approval of parliament.
So, whatever you think of her motives for bringing the case, she was neither ignorant, hypocritical nor stupid, but actually understood how parliamentary sovereignty works.
Paul
And there lies the problem!
I think you’ll find that because Ted Heath and his Government enacted the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the House of Commons (that is, through Parliament only) they actually breached our constitutional convention because (and this is the important bit), the fact that any such change to our constitution (that would be EEC and later EU Law overriding UK Law) could not be done without prior consent of the British people, by either a referendum or general election.
Remember that back in 1970, Heath declared that it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people‘.
Now, we all know Heath never had a referendum on our joining the then Common Market in 1972, because the good old opinions polls showed that a huge margin of the British electorate opposed us becoming a member.
(We of course had the ‘token’ one in 1975 to ‘join’ something that we had already joined – see below)
Now, what did Heath do?
He signed the Treaty of Rome anyway, on the basis that he would, some months later, present the European Communities Bill to Parliament, which they would (of course) pass!
Now, it has been argued and indeed assumed by many that Parliament “can do whatever it likes”, but that is simply not the case.
Whilst the UK does not have a written constitution, the simple fact is (to the annoyance of many including the likes of Tim Farron, Nick Clegg, and their much loved EU) that the power lies with its people!
Perhaps you can now see the irony in all this, and why Gina Miller (and a good deal of MPs) actually don’t understand how UK Parliamentary sovereignty works!
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerAnother Brexit ‘Challange’
Saw this the other day on the Daily Politics: –
Sour grapes indeed!
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/
Btw, it’s well worth reading the stuff on the Lawyers for Britain link, especially the piece about whether the referendum was ‘binding’ or not.
:dev2:
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerYou can say all you want about legally binding, implicit etc etc but clearly it wasn’t and the legal system has proved as such.
Again…. Cameron et al screwed it up and caused this, they didn’t do their job properly
If that is the case, then so did Parliament, in which case, why should they be trusted any differently now?
(The old ‘closing the stable door after the horse has bolted’ saying springs to mind).
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerSo people are already being stopped and held at the borders, unable to travel, refused boarding on flights, including an Iraqi interpreter and also an aid to the US military in Iraq, fleeing as their lives are in danger.
Way to go America…..
Well, whether you agree with what Trumps policies are, at least he has done (ASAP) what he said and promised his voters he would do, and show them and the world him doing so.
A very good lesson for any current or future Government and Politician that ‘promise’ so much, but deliver so little!
And, whatever your opinion, at least he is putting his country first.
(Another lesson some should take heed of).
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerJohn is spot on.
If Cameron and his Government did make a such massive **** up on the referendum, it was by believing that the UK would chose to vote remain!
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerThe problem arises partly because the question on the referendum paper was too simplistic for the eventual outcome and therefore open to very different scales of interpretation.
Some people voted to leave because of sovereignty
Some voted to leave because of immigration
Some voted to leave because of the single market
Some voted to leave because they thought they would be better off.
Some voted to leave because they thought their children would be better offEtc.
Now it could be that many voted for a number of those reasons, but is is also true that some who voted to leave wanted to do so to get away from the institution whilst still remaining in the single market or the customs union.
The question did not allow for such subtleties and so the actual nature of the way the leave decision is to be implemented was not voted for. Therefore a very poor contract if that what it was, (a point of view I disagree with) or a very good one depending on your perspective of how contracts should be written.
So to say it was the will of the majority of those who voted (not of course the majority of the people eligible to vote) for what is now known as a hard brexit, the one the government appears to want to pursue, is not likely to be accurate.
It Is therefore entirely legitimate, in my view, for the elected representatives of those voters, and those who voted to stay, should scrutinise the government on this issue. this point has effectively been conceded by TM by the Bill announced last week and promise of publication of the white paper relating to it
trekbuster,
But that’s where yours, and anyone else who makes such claims or arguments, is flawed.
It was clearly stated by the PM himself and the ‘official’ leave campaign that by voting to leave the EU, it would mean just that – leave completely!
No if’s or buts – out means out (or in means in) if that’s what was voted for.
And by voting leave, that meant not remaining in the single market, no freedom of movement, or anything else that ties us to EU law and jurisdiction.
We either leave or stay – simple!
If people didn’t understand the question and what voting remain or leave meant for our future membership of the EU, then that quite frankly, that is their problem.
And back to the issue of MPs backing their constituents who voted remain.
They have no reason to, as it was not based on whose constituents voted remain or leave.
It was what the UK electorate who turned out to vote for as a whole decided, and that is quite rightly the decision they should back.
If they think alternatively on the issue, then I think you have to question their understanding of what it means to be a UK Member of Parliament and whether they should have been an MP in the first place!
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerCheers
Paul
Sign In
