Wolmar for MP
 

I see "transport expert" Christian Wolmar has been chosen as Labour
candidate next month's Richmond Park by-election. He also stood to be
Labour's candidate for London mayor, where he came fifth out of six
candidates, so this is an improvement, and he now does get to take on Zac
Goldsmith. But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time).

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/richmond-park-byelection-labour-nominates-transport-expert-christian-wolmar-to-stand-against-zac-a3388081.html

Wolmar for MP
 

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.
--
Roland Perry

Wolmar for MP
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.

Wolmar for MP
 

On 05/11/2016 21:32, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


Is Goldsmith standing as the official tory candidate or as an independent?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 05/11/2016 21:32, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


Is Goldsmith standing as the official tory candidate or as an independent?

Theoretically the latter, but in effect, both:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-zac-goldsmith-heathrow-by-election-a7380126.html

Wolmar for MP
 

In article , (Graeme
Wall) wrote:

On 05/11/2016 21:32, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-
september.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.

Is Goldsmith standing as the official tory candidate or as an
independent?

He claims to be an Independent but he appears to have active endorsements
from the Conservative Party and from UKIP.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Wolmar for MP
 

Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity [Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/

But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

Wolmar for MP
 

On 07/11/2016 09:39, Recliner wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity [Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/

But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".


Last thing I'd do is turn my back on them, not without a kevlar jacket
anyway.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision not
to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity [Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/

But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your claims
otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they make because
they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making them because
they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good of the country, it's
the right thing to do - and in the current state of the country's finances
doing what's right for the economy trumps doing what is socially the right
thing to do.

And the reality of (basic maths) is that,

1) the alternative of putting up taxes on the rich collects such a tiny
amount of money it's hardly worth doing
and
2) costs cutting by government is bound to have a greater effect on the
worst off members of society because, making use of the things that
government provides, is a much larger part of a poor person's life than that
of a rich person.

If you disagree on the fundamentals of someone's policy you have to have a
convincing argument that that policy is wrong. Calling them names because
of the unavoidable consequences of that, well founded [1], policy is not a
vote winner in my book.

tim

[1] it must be well founded because so far you haven't put up an argument
against it. You seem to think that name calling suffices here. It doesn't

FTAOD "you" in the above refers to no person in particular here

Wolmar for MP
 

On 07/11/2016 12:14, tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe

mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision
not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity [Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/


But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your
claims otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they make
because they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making
them because they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good of the
country, it's the right thing to do - and in the current state of the
country's finances doing what's right for the economy trumps doing what
is socially the right thing to do.


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/2016 12:14, tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe

mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had
a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision
not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity [Huh?]
and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/


But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by
phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your
claims otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they make
because they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making
them because they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good of the
country, it's the right thing to do - and in the current state of the
country's finances doing what's right for the economy trumps doing what
is socially the right thing to do.


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term. That
is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.

tim

Wolmar for MP
 

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/2016 12:14, tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe


mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty
much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have
had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision
not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile
campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity
[Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/



But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by
phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your
claims otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they make
because they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making
them because they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good of the
country, it's the right thing to do - and in the current state of the
country's finances doing what's right for the economy trumps doing what
is socially the right thing to do.


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for


But you've just said that the economy trumps that.


about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term.
That is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Are there?


Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



And just what is my like?

If the economy gets shafted it won't be just me that is affected.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term. That
is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



Genuine question: who do you think it is good for?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Wolmar for MP
 

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

Wolmar for MP
 

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:35:06 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term. That
is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



Genuine question: who do you think it is good for?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.


Guy Gorton

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 12:07, Guy Gorton wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:35:06 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term. That
is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



Genuine question: who do you think it is good for?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.


And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?







--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 12:07, Guy Gorton wrote:

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.


And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?


No.

If you really believed that your straw men represented the British way
of life, you would be ashamed to be British, wouldn't you? Are you?

Peter

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 12:05, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).


Under our unwritten constitution, the conventional view is that no
Parliament can bind its successors. So, even if such the referendum Act
had included such a provision, another Act after the referendum could
have repealed the relevant provision of the first one (and if necessary
further provisions enacted to annul any penalties or other consequences
stemming from it and from its repeal).

(NB this is related to but somewhat separate from the question of the
legislative supremacy of Parliament given that Parliament would only be
taking away what Parliament had given - not taking away some fundamental
right stemming from common law.)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Wolmar for MP
 

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:05:45 +0000, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

When a government is defeated in a general election the outgoing PM advises the monarch to ask the
leader of the winning party to form a government. But if this is only advisory, the Queen doesn't
have to follow it, does she? Well of course she does because "advised" in practice means
"instructed".

Similarly, the people "advise" parliament in referendums. But in practice after every referendum,
parliament does as instructed by the people (Europe in 1975, Scottish, Welsh, London, North-East
devolution, N. Irish border, alternative vote, Scottish independence). Why should this one be any
different?

Cameron promised to "implement what [we] decide" but then resigned instead. Ball is now in May's
court.

We had a civil war in the 1640s. There was unrest in later centuries to reform the franchise. In
1910 the House of Lords had to be faced down, and suffragettes broke windows, chained themselves to
railings and one died in a spectacular way under the King's horse at a race meeting. The Remoaners
had better be careful about provoking conflict today.

Wolmar for MP
 

In message , at
14:52:00 on Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Robin remarked:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

Under our unwritten constitution, the conventional view is that no
Parliament can bind its successors. So, even if such the referendum
Act had included such a provision, another Act after the referendum
could have repealed the relevant provision of the first one

The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a
successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European
Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative
apparently held by the PM-du-jour.

No-one, as far as I know, says parliament can't - the argument is about
whether *only* Parliament can.
--
Roland Perry

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 14:39, Peter wrote:
On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 12:07, Guy Gorton wrote:

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.


And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?


No.

What is it then?


If you really believed that your straw men represented the British way
of life, you would be ashamed to be British, wouldn't you? Are you?


What makes you think I care about being British?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 14:53, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:05:45 +0000, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

When a government is defeated in a general election the outgoing PM advises the monarch to ask the
leader of the winning party to form a government. But if this is only advisory, the Queen doesn't
have to follow it, does she? Well of course she does because "advised" in practice means
"instructed".

Similarly, the people "advise" parliament in referendums. But in practice after every referendum,
parliament does as instructed by the people (Europe in 1975, Scottish, Welsh, London, North-East
devolution, N. Irish border, alternative vote, Scottish independence). Why should this one be any
different?

Cameron promised to "implement what [we] decide" but then resigned instead. Ball is now in May's
court.

We had a civil war in the 1640s. There was unrest in later centuries to reform the franchise. In
1910 the House of Lords had to be faced down, and suffragettes broke windows, chained themselves to
railings and one died in a spectacular way under the King's horse at a race meeting. The Remoaners
had better be careful about provoking conflict today.


Intersting how the exiters soon resort to threats of violence.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:11:57 +0000, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 12:07:52 +0000, Guy Gorton
wrote:


Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



Genuine question: who do you think it is good for?

Immigrants from countries with wildly different cultures,believes and
lifestyles from Continents apart from Europe that when they come here
prefer to set up enclaves and a long term aim of changing the country
rather than blend in, as opposed to people from Europe whose lifestyle
,religions and sense of how to behave is much closer to those of the
British Way of life and aim to blend in as seamlessly as possible ,
just like all those Poles who fought alongside the British in WW2 and
then found they could not return home whose children and grandchildren
only standout when you see their surname is something like Kowalski.



Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.

And what is the British / English way of life?
Sainsburys , Tesco's and Watneys and cheap motoring and TV have
changed the traditional way of life that our parents and grandparents
lived as much as anything.
As well as having the countrys Political arse kicked in the mid
fifties by the United States who did not fight WW2 to allow the UK to
continue the British way of life of bossing other counties around
while using their resources.



I find it interesting in these debates that many of those who feel the
economic pain that Brexit is going to cause will be worth it then go
on to say that in doing deals with Europe they will be prepared to
give good deals because not to do so will cause them economic pain.
Completely ignoring that people in Europe may actually have similar
thoughts the other way around and that the opportunity to shaft the UK
whose population to a large extent have never really accepted EU
membership to the full and have always clamoured and some cases
obtained special treatment is too good an opportunity to pass up even
if it is not to their best economic interests.
Heart over Head can apply to both parties.

G.Harman

Thanks you for a considered response to my very simplified statement.
I could not and will not try to respond to all your points but will
just say that I signed up to the Common Market - and still would - but
not to a political union with countries and political systems that
have little in common with ours.

Guy Gorton

Wolmar for MP
 

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:28:30 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
14:52:00 on Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Robin remarked:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

Under our unwritten constitution, the conventional view is that no
Parliament can bind its successors. So, even if such the referendum
Act had included such a provision, another Act after the referendum
could have repealed the relevant provision of the first one

The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a
successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European
Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative
apparently held by the PM-du-jour.

No-one, as far as I know, says parliament can't - the argument is about
whether *only* Parliament can.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act - that requires legislation.
Article 50 is simply a mechanism to say a country intends to leave. That decision was taken by the
British people after Parliament overwhelmingly approved a referendum to settle the matter.

The argument of the Remain side is quite bizarre. They seem to be squaring up to defy the people
which could lead to civil war.

Wolmar for MP
 

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:37:59 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:53, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:05:45 +0000, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

When a government is defeated in a general election the outgoing PM advises the monarch to ask the
leader of the winning party to form a government. But if this is only advisory, the Queen doesn't
have to follow it, does she? Well of course she does because "advised" in practice means
"instructed".

Similarly, the people "advise" parliament in referendums. But in practice after every referendum,
parliament does as instructed by the people (Europe in 1975, Scottish, Welsh, London, North-East
devolution, N. Irish border, alternative vote, Scottish independence). Why should this one be any
different?

Cameron promised to "implement what [we] decide" but then resigned instead. Ball is now in May's
court.

We had a civil war in the 1640s. There was unrest in later centuries to reform the franchise. In
1910 the House of Lords had to be faced down, and suffragettes broke windows, chained themselves to
railings and one died in a spectacular way under the King's horse at a race meeting. The Remoaners
had better be careful about provoking conflict today.


Intersting how the exiters soon resort to threats of violence.

Not a threat, a warning of the likely consequences of overturning a clear democratic vote.

Wolmar for MP
 

In message , at 15:46:23 on
Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

Under our unwritten constitution, the conventional view is that no
Parliament can bind its successors. So, even if such the referendum
Act had included such a provision, another Act after the referendum
could have repealed the relevant provision of the first one

The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a
successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European
Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative
apparently held by the PM-du-jour.

No-one, as far as I know, says parliament can't - the argument is about
whether *only* Parliament can.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act
- that requires legislation.

The current argument, as I understand it, is whether or not the PM can
trigger Article 50 which is irrevocable and requires them to be able to
repeal the European Communities Act(s) even if Parliament (if asked)
would say "no". By using the Royal Prerogative.

Article 50 is simply a mechanism to say a country intends to leave.

I don't think you can change your mind.

That decision was taken by the British people after Parliament
overwhelmingly approved a referendum to settle the matter.

Parliament approved an advisory referendum.

The argument of the Remain side is quite bizarre. They seem to be
squaring up to defy the people which could lead to civil war.

Teresa May is re-running the Civil War by saying [her] Royal prerogative
trumps Parliament.
--
Roland Perry

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 15:46, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:28:30 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
14:52:00 on Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Robin remarked:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

Under our unwritten constitution, the conventional view is that no
Parliament can bind its successors. So, even if such the referendum
Act had included such a provision, another Act after the referendum
could have repealed the relevant provision of the first one

The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a
successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European
Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative
apparently held by the PM-du-jour.

No-one, as far as I know, says parliament can't - the argument is about
whether *only* Parliament can.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act - that requires legislation.
Article 50 is simply a mechanism to say a country intends to leave. That decision was taken by the
British people after Parliament overwhelmingly approved a referendum to settle the matter.

52:48 is not overwhelming.


The argument of the Remain side is quite bizarre. They seem to be squaring up to defy the people
which could lead to civil war.


More threats of violence.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 15:48, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:37:59 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:53, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:05:45 +0000, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

When a government is defeated in a general election the outgoing PM advises the monarch to ask the
leader of the winning party to form a government. But if this is only advisory, the Queen doesn't
have to follow it, does she? Well of course she does because "advised" in practice means
"instructed".

Similarly, the people "advise" parliament in referendums. But in practice after every referendum,
parliament does as instructed by the people (Europe in 1975, Scottish, Welsh, London, North-East
devolution, N. Irish border, alternative vote, Scottish independence). Why should this one be any
different?

Cameron promised to "implement what [we] decide" but then resigned instead. Ball is now in May's
court.

We had a civil war in the 1640s. There was unrest in later centuries to reform the franchise. In
1910 the House of Lords had to be faced down, and suffragettes broke windows, chained themselves to
railings and one died in a spectacular way under the King's horse at a race meeting. The Remoaners
had better be careful about provoking conflict today.


Intersting how the exiters soon resort to threats of violence.

Not a threat, a warning of the likely consequences of overturning a clear democratic vote.


That's a threat in anybody's language.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:36:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:39, Peter wrote:
On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 12:07, Guy Gorton wrote:

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.


And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?


No.

What is it then?


If you really believed that your straw men represented the British way
of life, you would be ashamed to be British, wouldn't you? Are you?


What makes you think I care about being British?

Evidently you do not. I wonder if you care about anything except
money - EU money of course.

Guy Gorton

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 16:32, Guy Gorton wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:36:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:39, Peter wrote:
On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 12:07, Guy Gorton wrote:

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.


And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?


No.

What is it then?


If you really believed that your straw men represented the British way
of life, you would be ashamed to be British, wouldn't you? Are you?


What makes you think I care about being British?

Evidently you do not. I wonder if you care about anything except
money - EU money of course.


So now you descend to insults. FTAOD I receive no money from the EU.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 15:36, Graeme Wall wrote:

What makes you think I care about being British?

So presumably you don't?

The whole point of Brexit is that a lot of us DO care about being
British, to the extent that we would really like to govern ourselves
again, rather than be ruled by a foreign power.

Can you imagine the United States being told what to do by an American
Union based in Guatemala?

Peter

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 16:58, Peter wrote:
On 08/11/2016 15:36, Graeme Wall wrote:

What makes you think I care about being British?

So presumably you don't?

Not the discredited narrow-minded, bigoted version of being British
currently being marketed, no.


The whole point of Brexit is that a lot of us DO care about being
British, to the extent that we would really like to govern ourselves
again, rather than be ruled by a foreign power.

What foreign power? Or are you imitating the SNP with its pretence that
Westminster is a foreign power?


Can you imagine the United States being told what to do by an American
Union based in Guatemala?


No but I can imagine Britain being told what to do by the USA, after all
we always have done.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:

And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?

People often forget that Britain (well, England) is unique in not having
a way of life. After all, it is just "normal", while everything else is
exciting and "other" in comparison.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 18:27, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:

And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?

People often forget that Britain (well, England) is unique in not having
a way of life. After all, it is just "normal", while everything else is
exciting and "other" in comparison.


Just as everyone else has accents and are natives.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 18:57, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 18:27, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:

And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?

People often forget that Britain (well, England) is unique in not having
a way of life. After all, it is just "normal", while everything else is
exciting and "other" in comparison.


Just as everyone else has accents and are natives.

I find that travelling to places like Germany, Scandinavian and
Scotland, there is a perception amongst a surprising number of the kind
of people one meets in pubs that England does indeed lack natives. This
leads to some strange assumptions, particularly with regard to life in
contemporary London...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Wolmar for MP
 

"Guy Gorton" wrote

Thanks you for a considered response to my very simplified statement.
I could not and will not try to respond to all your points but will
just say that I signed up to the Common Market - and still would - but
not to a political union with countries and political systems that
have little in common with ours.

A similar answer was given by a car worker in Sunderland.

So on the face of it, since Norway and Switzerland have rejected political
union, a similar mini-Brexit to retain zero tariffs, freedom of business
establishment, and free movement of labour just like them would be
acceptable.

Gets rid of the Common Agricultural policy and the Common Fisheries Policy
too.

The problem is that the majority of Brexit voters wanted something more. But
the majority of all voters might well vote for mini-Brexit in Yet Another
Referendum or in a General Election.


--
Mike D

Wolmar for MP
 

In message , at 21:06:43 on Tue, 8 Nov
2016, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:

since Norway and Switzerland have rejected political union, a similar
mini-Brexit to retain zero tariffs, freedom of business establishment,
and free movement of labour just like them would be acceptable.

On one hand they don't have all the free tariffs, on the other hand they
have to comply with European Directives without having had a say in
their drafting.
--
Roland Perry

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 12:05, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).


I suspect that those who prepared the wording of the act (David Cameron
etc) could not conceive that the British people would vote for Brexit.
Hence they did not bother to consider if a binding element should be
included.

Colin

Wolmar for MP
 

On 08/11/2016 15:58, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 15:48, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:37:59 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:53, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:05:45 +0000, "Clive D.W. Feather"
wrote:

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it
being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could
have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

When a government is defeated in a general election the outgoing PM
advises the monarch to ask the
leader of the winning party to form a government. But if this is
only advisory, the Queen doesn't
have to follow it, does she? Well of course she does because
"advised" in practice means
"instructed".

Similarly, the people "advise" parliament in referendums. But in
practice after every referendum,
parliament does as instructed by the people (Europe in 1975,
Scottish, Welsh, London, North-East
devolution, N. Irish border, alternative vote, Scottish
independence). Why should this one be any
different?

Cameron promised to "implement what [we] decide" but then resigned
instead. Ball is now in May's
court.

We had a civil war in the 1640s. There was unrest in later
centuries to reform the franchise. In
1910 the House of Lords had to be faced down, and suffragettes broke
windows, chained themselves to
railings and one died in a spectacular way under the King's horse at
a race meeting. The Remoaners
had better be careful about provoking conflict today.


Intersting how the exiters soon resort to threats of violence.

Not a threat, a warning of the likely consequences of overturning a
clear democratic vote.


That's a threat in anybody's language.

Oxford dictionary definition of threat:
"A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other
hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."

The above does not meet the threat definition

Colin

Wolmar for MP
 

ColinR wrote:
On 08/11/2016 12:05, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).


I suspect that those who prepared the wording of the act (David Cameron
etc) could not conceive that the British people would vote for Brexit.
Hence they did not bother to consider if a binding element should be
included.

Yes, I think that's right. He only agreed to the referendum to get UKIP and
the Tory rightwing off his back. He never expected to lose.