By clicking “Accept All”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts
These cookies enable our website and App to remember things such as your region or country, language, accessibility options and your preferences and settings.
Analytic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
You may think that is benign but when one minister can decide what the law of the country is without a vote in the Commons it makes a mockery of democracy.
There is another way. The Great Repeal Bill has a cut off date for Henry VIII amendments. Surely it would be more sensible to have it the other way round. Keep everything the same as now for at least 2 years. That would give Parliament time to consider things in much greater depth.But given the volume of legislation to be nationalised there is no other way, unless the Chamber is to debate each 'normalisation' change from now until we re-enter the EU in 2045 after Andy Burnham becomes Labour leader at the sixth attempt.
There is another way. The Great Repeal Bill has a cut off date for Henry VIII amendments. Surely it would be more sensible to have it the other way round. Keep everything the same as now for at least 2 years. That would give Parliament time to consider things in much greater depth.
There are some very dangerous MPs and Ministers. Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggest that we drop all of our environmental safeguards and adopt those of India.
Quite likely he will be the next Prime Minister.I wouldn't single out Jacob...
I would still bet on Gove being the next leader of the opposition but I can't get decent odds!Quite likely he will be the next Prime Minister.
Quite likely he will be the next Prime Minister.
Remember you heard it here first ....
I would still bet on Gove being the next leader of the opposition but I can't get decent odds!
"I swear, gluten is what killed Gandhi!"His video on how to become gluten intolerant is also worth checking out.
"You're just assuming that I know how to read!"you need to watch this.
You have a point and it's significant that JRM did not get the Treasury SC chairmanship which could have given him an opportunity to shine.I think our Parliament benefits from and is stronger because of the likes of JRM and Jeremy Corbyn - who stick to their principles (even if I don't agree with them) and are willing to hold their own party, as well as the opposition, to account. However, I think they both best serve the nation from the back-benches.
He is known in Westminster as the Hon member for the 18th Century.JRM also has a brand - albeit "Victorian Father" - but he has brand, he is recognisable. However, I don't think (hope) that he is electable (as PM).
Today's Good News:
Ardent Remainer, Tony Blair, speaks to several EU leaders and suggests that there is the appetite in the EU to be flexible on Freedom of Movement in order to keep us in the single market.
Why should Cameron have asked for anything when the UK has been an equal partner in the EU for decades and could have influenced this a long time ago?No, the fault for Brexit lies with the EU and their inflexibility. They should have given Cameron what he asked for instead of being so precious about their Freedom of Movement.
Systemic and institutionalised bigotries (against all marginalized groups, women included) will continue as long as people like this continue to make it a joke.@Mr D, if you can't see why Cyndy is offended, you need to watch this.
His video on how to become gluten intolerant is also worth checking out.
So, you want to get away from the undemocratic (but not really) nature of the EU to take back democratic control of the UK, and if it has to be done in an undemocratic way and result in an undemocratic government, that's fine because...democracy is your goal?But given the volume of legislation to be nationalised there is no other way, unless the Chamber is to debate each 'normalisation' change from now until we re-enter the EU in 2045
Really? Based on what? I have little confidence in MP's or the press to do anything outside their own self-interest, and the last four or five years has shown this to be the case.I have confidence that a combination of opposition MPs and the press will highlight genuine abuses of power rather than merely the fear of it
He is incredibly intellectually dishonest and while smugly eloquent, rarely echoes anything that might damage the party line. He made some comment about voting on the economy for the benefit of the future generation and tried to validate it by saying, "I've just a child and how am I going to tell him that I took away his future", as if he or anyone in his family will ever be affected by the choices he or his party might make.I was pondering, recently, Jacob Rees-Mogg's recent ascent and why his being tipped as a possible next leader of the Tory party.
I don't agree with much of what he says, but his big strength is that he says something. Watching last week's Question Time it was interesting to note that he did answer every question that was asked of the panel.
It's a rather insidious thing to see people who make nothing but vehemently anti-EU arguments try to convince people their opinion is balanced by claiming to be part of the movement which they oppose.As much as I'd have liked the Referendum result to have panned out differently...
No, the fault for Brexit lies with the EU and their inflexibility. They should have given Cameron what he asked for instead of being so precious about their Freedom of Movement. Now they are going to have to ditch that same FoM but at less favourable terms ie. at the price of losing Britain and Britain's financial and other contributions.
Might want to ensure you're reading things properly in the future, that wasn't me.This is a left wing virtual rag soaked in Tory hatred and Brexit denial stating speculation as fact. Really Cobby, your references are as embarrassing as your unqualified pro-EU bias![]()
But in my view, the free movement of people without a job and trying to find work does not apply here. That is not needed for a single market economy to function, and in some cases, can even be detrimental.
Yes. Because we've no idea who's in the UK and who's not. As ridiculous as it sounds, we have no proper exit tracking and we don't know when people leave. It was Labour, under Tony Blair, that dismantled the fairly efficient exit checks system we had in place (1998). I could go into their ulterior motives for doing this ... but let's just say Labour are one shady lot when it comes to immigration (immigrants tend to vote Labour, especially illegal immigrants).For some reason that everyone seems to ignore, our governments have never bothered to use this power to remove EU immigrant benefit claimants. Does anyone know why?
Yes. Because we've no idea who's in the UK and who's not. As ridiculous as it sounds, we have no proper exit tracking and we don't know when people leave. It was Labour, under Tony Blair, that dismantled the fairly efficient exit checks system we had in place (1998). I could go into their ulterior motives for doing this ... but let's just say Labour are one shady lot when it comes to immigration (immigrants tend to vote Labour, especially illegal immigrants).
The Coalition brought in exit checks for (some) rail and sea travellers (2015). And there is the API for air passengers, but how do you catch up on years of missing data, years during which millions of people left the UK but for which you have no records?
And even now the exit checks we have in place don't cover everybody. For example not all EEA nationals are subject to exit checks (though I don't know whether it's because of some EU rule that prevents such checking).
Its because our civil servants have some very odd ideas. A bit like the way Health Tourism is described as a problem when France and Germany think of it as a great money-making idea. France is even building hospitals near Calais for Brits who don't want to wait for their operations!For some reason that everyone seems to ignore, our governments have never bothered to use this power to remove EU immigrant benefit claimants. Does anyone know why?
Unregistered, untracked, illegal immigrants - the kind ukippers, The Cult of Trump, and apparently this guy seem to think are so pervasive - I'm genuinely curious how they are supposed to be able to vote and claim benefits while remaining anonymous, un-tracked and out of the system.I could go into their ulterior motives for doing this ... but let's just say Labour are one shady lot when it comes to immigration (immigrants tend to vote Labour, especially illegal immigrants).
The Coalition brought in exit checks for (some) rail and sea travellers (2015). And there is the API for air passengers, but how do you catch up on years of missing data, years during which millions of people left the UK but for which you have no records?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40623473
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40610573
Easy though apparently, this Brexit malarkey.
I was talking to someone the other night about filtering Voter Rolls to extract different types of information. Its amazing how much data can be extracted using just date of birth an date of registration. The simple answer is that no one tries to do it.I'm genuinely curious how they are supposed to be able to vote
There is a paragraph in the current issue of Private Eye which is relevant to both this and the thread about Grenfell Tower.But given the volume of legislation to be nationalised there is no other way, unless the Chamber is to debate each 'normalisation' change from now until we re-enter the EU in 2045
There is a paragraph in the current issue of Private Eye which is relevant to both this and the thread about Grenfell Tower.
After the Great Fire of London the next year's "Rebuilding of London Act" outlawed flammable wooden exteriors of buildings. In 2012, using a Henry VIII clause Eric Pickles took out a protection regarding flammability which had lasted for over 300 years at the behest of Sajid Javid's so called "Bonfire of Red Tape." They got their bonfire but not the one they expected.
Obviously if you follow Gove's hatred of experts who do you agree with? The Daily Mail?He's taken what should have been a genuine discussion point and turned it into a Remainiac-refusnik page-turner of epic proportions. He did miss off the plague of locust heading our way in 2019.
Academic in Brexit scare-mongering one-eyed "briefing" report shock.
He's taken what should have been a genuine discussion point and turned it into a Remainiac-refusnik page-turner of epic proportions.
As an example I was talking to someone with a deep knowledge of farming. Almost no veal is eaten in the UK but a lot is produced. It goes to France and other countries and is often preferred over veal grown in France because of the big difference in animal welfare for veal calves.Some claim we can import food from countries outside the EU, but they have radically different ways of rearing cattle and many other animals.
Certainly is and the CAP not only costs us money* but sees food prices in the EU being circa 20% higher than world prices.Food is one of the sectors most heavily intertwined with the EU by far.