Cycling UK Forum

pete75 wrote:

pwa wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:

I don't think that there is anything undemocratic about the LibDems position.

If they get elected it will be by people who know their manifesto and then they have a huge mandate. Going from 18 members to nearly 300 to get in government would be a far more democratic indicator than a silly referendum which said nothing and was probably fraudulent.

But for decades they have criticised First Past the Post, which gives a parliamentary majority without having a majority of the votes, yet they will now seek to use that system to overturn a vote which did get more than half the votes. If that is not ironic I don't know what is.

Yes they have criticised it and would prefer a system of PR. We don't currently have that so they have to work with the present system as do all other parties. Are you suggesting that a LIbdem government elected under the present system would have no legitimacy because the party supports PR?

No I'm not. I am saying that of all the parties, the Lib Dems are the last party I would expect to overturn the result of a direct vote that got 52% with a mandate of probably less than 50% of the vote. To be consistent with their own previous commitment to democracy they would have to commit to another referendum to overturn the last referendum. In the unlikely but theoretically possible event that they won a General Election with 50%+ of the vote I would accept their mandate to revoke Article 50 without a referendum.

pwa wrote:No I'm not. I am saying that of all the parties, the Lib Dems are the last party I would expect to overturn the result of a direct vote that got 52% with a mandate of probably less than 50% of the vote. To be consistent with their own previous commitment to democracy they would have to commit to another referendum to overturn the last referendum. In the unlikely but theoretically possible event that they won a General Election with 50%+ of the vote I would accept their mandate to revoke Article 50 without a referendum.

You mean that the percentages for binary referendum should be applied to a multiparty general election? It's an opinion, but I don't think it holds any weight beyond that. As far as I can see, it has no bearing on the LibDems' commitment (or otherwise) to democracy.

mercalia wrote:I read some in the EU are worried that the UK may become Singapore-on-Thames. Well they should concentrate on dealing with Ireland which already is become that, a tax haven? Seems the Irish are upset they are misunderstood

The country has faced increasing criticism of its corporate tax policies, with the American economist Gabriel Zucman leading the charge.

He has accused Ireland of being "the world's number one tax haven".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe ... ting-story

It shouldnt surprise us that they have a bigoted attitude to the backstop

Can you explain any significance this has on Brexit.

More "No-Deal" deception from the Government reported today

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-operation-yellowhammer-boris-johnson-cars-ports-a9108471.html wrote:Ministers accused of 'fiddling the figures' to disguise chaos from HGVs being prevented from reaching the border in the first place

The government’s Operation Yellowhammer dossier – only released after a parliamentary battle – predicted a “low risk of significant sustained queues” at ports other than in Kent.

But new documents have revealed this would only be the case because tens of thousands of vehicles would be turned away before they reached the coast, for not having the correct paperwork.

Andy McDonald, Labour’s shadow transport secretary, said the DfT was “not being straight with the public” by only publishing assumptions that were “practically meaningless”.

Truth is I'm not surprised as the current Government seems to have completely lost sight of the concept of "truth". Just making up lies to suit their story. Electorate deserves better. Discussions over recent posts about democracy but democracy can only work when the public are allowed to form opinions and for that they need facts and truth.

Ian

Psamathe wrote:...I don't know what the answer is but I'm not sure more referenda on most issues is the answer (we'd quickly have public hanging re-introduced once the Daily Main realises the possibility). I do think that we need a confirmatory referendum over the EU mainly because the whole issue was created by a referendum. But given the lies and fraud from the last referendum then as a general principle I'm not convinced more would make us any more "democratic", at least not without more safeguards and accountability for "legal, descent, honest & truthful"....

The issue wasn't created by a referendum, it was highlighted by one. I place the start of the issue around the creation of the EU with the Maastricht Treaty, which "the UK" backed because John Major pushed it through parliament, without a referendum and against opposition from both sides of the house. As I recall it was big news at the time, with some complaining that he was giving away the power that had been lent to him, and some saying the public were being expected to trust him on something they didn't understand.

If Leave won because of anger, than I think it was more anger at not being asked sooner than anything stirred up by those...interesting characters in the Leave campaign.

Pastychomper wrote:

Psamathe wrote:...I don't know what the answer is but I'm not sure more referenda on most issues is the answer (we'd quickly have public hanging re-introduced once the Daily Main realises the possibility). I do think that we need a confirmatory referendum over the EU mainly because the whole issue was created by a referendum. But given the lies and fraud from the last referendum then as a general principle I'm not convinced more would make us any more "democratic", at least not without more safeguards and accountability for "legal, descent, honest & truthful"....

The issue wasn't created by a referendum, it was highlighted by one. I place the start of the issue around the creation of the EU with the Maastricht Treaty, which "the UK" backed because John Major pushed it through parliament, without a referendum and against opposition from both sides of the house. As I recall it was big news at the time, with some complaining that he was giving away the power that had been lent to him, and some saying the public were being expected to trust him on something they didn't understand.

If Leave won because of anger, than I think it was more anger at not being asked sooner than anything stirred up by those...interesting characters in the Leave campaign.

Too simplistic to blame Maastricht only.
The UK economy benefitted a good deal from an influx of willing hard workers. And those that went the other way too!

The financial collapse of 2008 arguably created far more loss of living standards and economic growth.
This loss affected all sections of society including initially the very rich.
Those Rees Mogg types wanted to maintain or continue to increase their wealth so they introduced austerity.
And successfully blamed a global banking system failure ( that originated in the USA) on the EU.
It was a successful propaganda ploy but for the most part it wasn't true.

bovlomov wrote:

pwa wrote:No I'm not. I am saying that of all the parties, the Lib Dems are the last party I would expect to overturn the result of a direct vote that got 52% with a mandate of probably less than 50% of the vote. To be consistent with their own previous commitment to democracy they would have to commit to another referendum to overturn the last referendum. In the unlikely but theoretically possible event that they won a General Election with 50%+ of the vote I would accept their mandate to revoke Article 50 without a referendum.

You mean that the percentages for binary referendum should be applied to a multiparty general election? It's an opinion, but I don't think it holds any weight beyond that. As far as I can see, it has no bearing on the LibDems' commitment (or otherwise) to democracy.

It is particularly significant for the Lib Dems because of their long standing advocacy of proportional representation and their opposition to FPTP. By their own way of looking at things, just winning the most parliamentary seats does not in itself constitute a mandate for overturning a In/Out vote that got 52%. If for example they got 42% of the vote and 52% of the seats, by their own stated way of looking at it they would not have a mandate to revoke Article 50. If Lib Dems still stand for anything at all they should seek a second referendum if they wish to overturn the last one. Either that or they will have to abandon their campaign for PR because that will then just look like hypocrisy.

A commitment to Democracy, which is what I thought they stood for, is a commitment to giving the people what they want even if it isn't what you yourself want. If they truly are democrats they have to risk the people choosing something they themselves don't like.

Psamathe wrote:More "No-Deal" deception from the Government reported today

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-operation-yellowhammer-boris-johnson-cars-ports-a9108471.html wrote:Ministers accused of 'fiddling the figures' to disguise chaos from HGVs being prevented from reaching the border in the first place

The government’s Operation Yellowhammer dossier – only released after a parliamentary battle – predicted a “low risk of significant sustained queues” at ports other than in Kent.

But new documents have revealed this would only be the case because tens of thousands of vehicles would be turned away before they reached the coast, for not having the correct paperwork.

Andy McDonald, Labour’s shadow transport secretary, said the DfT was “not being straight with the public” by only publishing assumptions that were “practically meaningless”.

Truth is I'm not surprised as the current Government seems to have completely lost sight of the concept of "truth". Just making up lies to suit their story. Electorate deserves better. Discussions over recent posts about democracy but democracy can only work when the public are allowed to form opinions and for that they need facts and truth.

Ian

A bit like a couple of Brexit supporters on this thread then

Psamathe wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:

RRSODL wrote:
The Lib Dems just voted at their annual conference to fight for revoking article 50 and they are arguing that as we stand, if Labour, SNP, etc join the Lib Dems on a vote, parliament can revoke article 50. This is clearly undemocratic hence my view this will backfire on them, having said that, I doubt very much that Labour would be up fo it.... it would be polical suicide for Corbyn.

If the voters elect a majority of MPs who stand on a revoke platform, it would be undemocratic for parliament to revoke?

Do MPs actually have to "stand" for something in an election for their decision to become democratic? To require that would place a lot of constraint on what any Government could do, particularly in changing dynamic situations.

Is there not a case that our system allows MPs so spend time studying and understanding all aspects of complex situations and then making decisions on our behalf in our best interests. And those decisions will often not have been pre-decided in any election manifesto.

Ian

This is the theoretical role of MPs - to act as intelligent representatives of The National Interest meaning the interests of not just the majority but the nation as a whole, particularly it's economic welfare as a whole and it's survivability as a self-governing polity rather than the satellite of a conqueror or vassal of some Big Bully State.

The Leave voters see the EU as a big bully state. Those of us not for leaving see the EU as a far more equitable partner in the enterprise of forming a stronger and more resilient coalition against true Big Bully States such as Russia, China and the USA. The short history of Brexit would seem to indicate that the latter view of the EU has far more evidence for it than the former. Some MPs seem aware of this but others don't.

Actually, those MPs who seem not to see the EU as a helpmeet and partner to Britain may actually understand that the EU membership is, in fact, better for out national interest. Those MPs are not interested in the national interest, however - only the interest of themselves and their cabal of oligarchs, old school chums and others keen on exploiting Britain and its citizens rather than looking after the interests of those citizens.

Parliament is in disrepute for good reason. The good reason is the behaviour of The Tory Party and it's MPs for some decades now. They have neglected their Parliamentary duties and then some.

Yet the rascals are still well ahead in the polls. The power of propaganda poison dripped into the minds of what can't be described as anything other than gullible fools. Sorry.



Cugel

Pastychomper wrote:

Psamathe wrote:...I don't know what the answer is but I'm not sure more referenda on most issues is the answer (we'd quickly have public hanging re-introduced once the Daily Main realises the possibility). I do think that we need a confirmatory referendum over the EU mainly because the whole issue was created by a referendum. But given the lies and fraud from the last referendum then as a general principle I'm not convinced more would make us any more "democratic", at least not without more safeguards and accountability for "legal, descent, honest & truthful"....

The issue wasn't created by a referendum, it was highlighted by one. I place the start of the issue around the creation of the EU with the Maastricht Treaty, which "the UK" backed because John Major pushed it through parliament, without a referendum and against opposition from both sides of the house. As I recall it was big news at the time, with some complaining that he was giving away the power that had been lent to him, and some saying the public were being expected to trust him on something they didn't understand.

If Leave won because of anger, than I think it was more anger at not being asked sooner than anything stirred up by those...interesting characters in the Leave campaign.

Ask any number of people on the street about the Maastricht treaty and John Major and I'd guaranty 90+% would say What? Who?
And those that did know what and who,wouldn't be able to tell youmuch about it.

pwa wrote:

bovlomov wrote:

pwa wrote:No I'm not. I am saying that of all the parties, the Lib Dems are the last party I would expect to overturn the result of a direct vote that got 52% with a mandate of probably less than 50% of the vote. To be consistent with their own previous commitment to democracy they would have to commit to another referendum to overturn the last referendum. In the unlikely but theoretically possible event that they won a General Election with 50%+ of the vote I would accept their mandate to revoke Article 50 without a referendum.

You mean that the percentages for binary referendum should be applied to a multiparty general election? It's an opinion, but I don't think it holds any weight beyond that. As far as I can see, it has no bearing on the LibDems' commitment (or otherwise) to democracy.

It is particularly significant for the Lib Dems because of their long standing advocacy of proportional representation and their opposition to FPTP. By their own way of looking at things, just winning the most parliamentary seats does not in itself constitute a mandate for overturning a In/Out vote that got 52%. If for example they got 42% of the vote and 52% of the seats, by their own stated way of looking at it they would not have a mandate to revoke Article 50. If Lib Dems still stand for anything at all they should seek a second referendum if they wish to overturn the last one. Either that or they will have to abandon their campaign for PR because that will then just look like hypocrisy.

A commitment to Democracy, which is what I thought they stood for, is a commitment to giving the people what they want even if it isn't what you yourself want. If they truly are democrats they have to risk the people choosing something they themselves don't like.

It's like this,they are being honest and open about whatcthey'll do if voted into office.You have a choice in who to vote for.

Cugel's previous post is spot on.

reohn2 wrote:

Pastychomper wrote:

Psamathe wrote:...I don't know what the answer is but I'm not sure more referenda on most issues is the answer (we'd quickly have public hanging re-introduced once the Daily Main realises the possibility). I do think that we need a confirmatory referendum over the EU mainly because the whole issue was created by a referendum. But given the lies and fraud from the last referendum then as a general principle I'm not convinced more would make us any more "democratic", at least not without more safeguards and accountability for "legal, descent, honest & truthful"....

The issue wasn't created by a referendum, it was highlighted by one. I place the start of the issue around the creation of the EU with the Maastricht Treaty, which "the UK" backed because John Major pushed it through parliament, without a referendum and against opposition from both sides of the house. As I recall it was big news at the time, with some complaining that he was giving away the power that had been lent to him, and some saying the public were being expected to trust him on something they didn't understand.

If Leave won because of anger, than I think it was more anger at not being asked sooner than anything stirred up by those...interesting characters in the Leave campaign.

Ask any number of people on the street about the Maastricht treaty and John Major and I'd guaranty 90+% would say What? Who?
And those that did know what and who,wouldn't be able to tell youmuch about it.

Indeed. Would those blaming the Maastricht Treaty have preferred the EC wasn't reformed into a Union and instead the other cooperation communities (social, policing and defence) had joined the EC under its existing (and somewhat misfiring in the opinion of many UK commentators) procedures? Or if you would you have had some sort of "mini-Maastricht" reform, which parts of the treaty would you have left out? https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty ... pean_Union

RRSODL wrote:Parties campaign on a manifesto on which voters based their vote. Are you happy to accept MPs would follow their own political agenda after you elected them?

It's rather inevitable, isn't it? Stuff always comes up between elections that wasn't covered in any manifesto.

The Lib Dems have a history on having a manifesto that says one thing and doing the opposite, [...] we were promised by a remainer PM, David Cameron, that whatever the result of the referendum, it would be respected, furthermore, a large majority of MPs in parliament voted to aprove it.

But notably, those MPs did not require the referendum to be respected because Cameron couldn't get a majority for that!

Anyway, the above seems like double standards. All parties that have been around a while have a history of U-turning on their manifestoes: LD on tuition fees, Con on implementing the referendum (I seem to remember Mr Cameron talking about serving notice on the EU the day after the vote - instead he served notice on the country!) and I expect Labour has made similar reversals. If a policy cannot be delivered because LD did not win a majority, Labour thought it a bad idea in light of new evidence or Con found they had a defective leader unable to deliver, why shouldn't it be reconsidered?

When people tell me that lots of people have changed their mind, I have no doubt, it's being 3 years but people are changing their minds on both sides of brexit, my family wants to get on with it and do it when they voted to remain and initially they feared for their jobs..... my daughter thought she would be made redundant within months but she was up to recently managing a project on brexit so the bank is definitely staying, not going to Ireland like people said in 2016. The worst part is that we waisted 2 years with Mrs May and we run out of time to negotiate a good deal.

Once May set the red lines, no good deal was possible. Now we are wasting time with Mr Al Johnson claiming good progress is being made while EC officials, French and Irish politicians are saying that the UK delegation has offered nothing so far - but the dangerous thing with this time-wasting is that Johnson's backers stand to profit if the deadline comes and the UK defaults.

Things have changed. It's time for more votes. That's democracy.

It's going to be interesting in Wales at the next election. Plaid have taken the Lib Dem approach and come out in favour of revoking Article 50, which on the face of it means they will be massacred at the ballot box in the South Wales valleys they have long been working to get a foothold in. Labour too could take some real damage.