BS: voting? (UK)

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 11:48 AM

You do not need to source your opinions Musket, only things you state as fact.

You state and assert things as fact when you have just made them up, then object when asked to verify because you can't.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 05:59 AM

Something I would definitely pay to see.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 11:32 AM

Daily Ma*l, Daily Torygraph, UKIP website, Sky News, Fox News UK desk....

Most of us use a single source though, intelligent opinion reached by us for us, having assessed sufficient information.

The hint here is how Terribulus and Keith A Hole of Hertford insist you provide a link to the source of your opinion.

Through my ear hole I presume....

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 08:00 AM

Ah yes Musktwat but I check my facts and I do not only rely on single sources - It's called paying attention to detail, which is to you a foreign land.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 07:42 AM

:-D

I just noticed the line In all good conscience, I cannot vote for a man who has ever been capable of maintaining an erection.

Who is going to do the non-pc Chinese joke then?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 07:13 AM

If we must be fucked by politicians then at least make sure they know how to fuck you...

What makes me concerned about ironic articles is that as we see on this thread, some people would take them at face value. The sources of Terribulus's cut & pastes rely on the fact...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 06:59 AM

Says it far better than I can.

Milliband has had sex!

What was I saying about dirty tricks? This is getting beyond ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 05:43 AM

"In the opinion polls in the run up to the referendum a sizeable majority of Scots (whether they were Yes or No supporters is irrelevant) supported that there should be a referendum."

"In the run up"?? Here is how it stood at the time that the UK Government offered to legislate to provide the Scottish Parliament with the powers to hold a referendum, providing it was "fair, legal and decisive":

"What Scotland Thinks Poll" - 15th January 2012
Question: Do you support or oppose holding a referendum on Scottish Independence?

Refused to answer = 0%
Don't know = 18%
I support holding a referendum on independence = 35%
I oppose holding such a referendum = 47%

There is the evidence that it was only wanted by a minority.

"What Scotland thinks Poll" - 18th December 2014
Question: When, if ever, do you think there should be another referendum on Scottish independence?

Don't know = 6%
Immediately = 13%
After 2024 = 14%
Between 20019 & 2024 = 18%
Before 2019 = 22%
Never = 26%

There is the evidence that another referendum on independence immediately, or in the term of the next Scottish Parliament is only wanted by a minority - and guess what? That minority polled in December 2014 would appear to be exactly the same percentage (35%) of those polled as wanted a referendum in the first place in January 2012.

There was a clear mandate and it is only sore losers who'd suggest otherwise. People who don't vote don't vote. That is our democracy!!

And the resultant vote in the referendum for for Scottish Independence was? Out of 3,619,915 valid votes cast 2,001,926 voted NO and 1,617,989 voted YES - sore losers? That is our democracy, yet neither the SNP or the YES campaign supporters seem to accept the declared will of the electorate of Scotland. So if there is "a strong vocal minority (about 26%) opposed to it on principle" who have to accept it because that is life, then the same must be true of the other strong vocal minority (about 35%) who are demanding that a referendum be held with the term of the next Scottish Parliament - TRUE?

"the way Scottish and the wider British electoral system works is that" minority interests and issues can be forced through and imposed on the majority without their approval.

" We do not also litter general election ballot papers with individual issues."

Oh I think that it has been done before and in cases as important as this I think that it should be standard operating procedure. Then everybody knows where we stand and we do not waste valuable time, money and resources by imposing unnecessary, bitter, divisive and damaging referenda on the country.

Your next bit is contradictory. What is that Sturgeon has actually said? One minute you say that she says that there will be no promise of another referendum in their 2016 manifesto - then she says there will be?

She cleverly talks about the next election which of course are UK National General Elections where of course there will be no mention of Scottish Independence, she and the entire SNP would be complete and utter idiots mentioning another referendum in the manifesto for that election - "Come on vote for us we intend to break up the United Kingdom" - it advertises a recipe for disaster after the country (Scotland) has rejected the notion.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:24 AM

In the opinion polls in the run up to the referendum a sizeable majority of Scots (whether they were Yes or No supporters is irrelevant) supported that there should be a referendum. There is no evidence that it was only wanted by a small minority. It may not have been top priority for many Scots but there was not a majority against the principle of having it.

The SNP made it clear in their manifesto for the last Holyrood election that they were standing on the platform of holding said referendum and they received (in a 4 major party system) a massive 45.4% of the constituency vote and 44% of the regional list vote - so in a parliament with a voting system designed to help avoid majorities they for the first time in the parliament's history actually got a majority. Yes it is disappointing when turnouts are low but just as in the UK elections many people choose to disenfranchise themselves voluntarily. There was a clear mandate and it is only sore losers who'd suggest otherwise. People who don't vote don't vote. That is our democracy!!

As to whether there is another referendum then again the polls still show that most Scots want one at some point. One example being the Daily Record poll in Feb where 80% of Scots think there should be another vote at some point and 59% believe it should be within the next 10 years. There is a strong vocal minority (about 20% sometimes around 25%) opposed to it on principle but there you go we don't always get what we want! That is life.

The facts are that the way Scottish and the wider British electoral system works is that you vote for parties based on their manifestos and if they obtain a majority then they are then in the position to take said manifestos forward. We do not also litter general election ballot papers with individual issues.

And just to let the non-Scots know what this is about. Sturgeon hasn't even said that there will be the promise of another referendum in their 2016 manifesto - despite what some of the London based papers claim. During the leader's debate in Scotland the issue of independence came up and Sturgeon pointed out that while she supports independence this election is not about independence but about issues in general and that the issue of independence will not be in the election manifesto. The other leaders then tried to get her to make a guarantee that there would be no referendum promised in the next election for the Scottish parliament. Something which they of course knew full well she wouldn't and couldn't do. Future SNP manifestos will be written by the SNP party hierarchy and not by Jim Murphy and Ruth Davidson on live TV. She then said that there could be a referendum promise in the 2016 Holyrood manifesto if there was some major change like Scotland being withdrawn from the EU against its wishes. All hypothetical - all nothing to do with this forthcoming vote - and something that they would need to gain acceptance for from the Scottish electorate at said time anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:24 AM

GUEST,Allan Conn - 09 Apr 15 - 07:07 PM

This is getting silly. We should have a referendum to decide if we want a referendum!!!

Silly?? Not at all Allan C. The recent referendum and the run up to it did immense harm to both Scotland and to the UK in general. What drove the referendum was the manifesto promise of the SNP, first in 2007 and again in 2011. The electorate of Scotland number some 4.3 million people the population of Scotland over 5 million. Only 69 people in Scotland forced that harmful referendum on the country and those 69 people only had the support of less than 21% of the electorate of Scotland.

At the next Scottish Parliamentary Election every single ballot paper should have a question added to it - "Do you wish for a Referendum on Scottish Independence to be held during the term of the next Parliament - YES or NO"

That way Allan Conn everyone who votes will be canvassed and the country will clearly be able to demonstrate the wishes of the electorate - too democratic for you?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:05 AM

So Akenaton is voting for a party with no policies or ideals he likes. Typical.

Terribulus. The Supreme Court cannot strike down primary legislation. However, the subject matter here is their right to strike down process and interpretation. We don't live in the right wing dictatorship of your dreams and the judiciary judge whether the will of Parliament is being followed through due process.

To make it otherwise would require fresh primary legislation that identifies what it repeals or clarifies.

Anyway. Three mind before I can pre order my Apple Watch. Bye

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,.gable
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 11:06 PM

It appears GB has become a puppet.

"GOOD FIGHT LAD" had many brillant videos.

Can anyone give a reference link?

(Less than 12 hours and an upper thread on MUSIC deregulation was closed ... mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=156919&messages=10)

By the pricking of my thumbs...something wicked this way comes.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 07:07 PM

This is getting silly. We should have a referendum to decide if we want a referendum!!! I'm not sure that is right so why not have a referendum to decide whether we should have a referendum to see if we want a referendum?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:15 PM

Well , I'm voting SNP as I believe in Scottish Independence, but I am firmly against SNP policy on the EU,(to remain a member).

The slogan "prosperity through equality" looks pretty meaningless in the present circumstances. I think many of these soundbites and half baked policies are simply to placate a slavering media...at least I hope so.
I simply do not see the point of leaving one dysfunctional Union to join another. I do not think we can ever be truly Independent when we are unable to control our own borders and make our own laws and regulations.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 02:58 PM

On a slightly less serious note, but still relevant on an old fogeys forum like this, has politics got far nastier in the last few years or am I looking through rose tinted beer goggles? I am sure I don't remember the amount of name calling, dirty tricks and outright lying that goes on now back in the 70's. When did it start? Or has it always been there?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 02:58 PM

"it is absurd to suggest that because a vote was made once then there can never be another vote again"

And could you point out Allan C where on earth I have EVER said that?

"The point is that the people of Scotland will decide whether there should be another vote or not."

The "people" of Scotland will decide no such thing just as in the recent Independence referendum the "people" of Scotland decided nothing. It was and will be the electorate of Scotland that can decide if they want a referendum, but that should itself be decided by referendum that could be organised by the Scottish Parliament (Simple question: Do you want a referendum on Independence YES or NO) - not simply because it appears in one political party manifesto which 21% of the electorate sign up to and agree with. Should the electorate of Scotland decide that they want a referendum on independence then the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament will agree the terms under which the referendum will be conducted - just as they did the last time.

Musktwat may witter on about the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court does not trump Parliamentary Sovereignty ("The legislative body has absolute sovereignty, and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies").

The rest is pure waffle, partly convincing waffle but waffle nonetheless. Fact remains if you want to hold a binding referendum in the UK on any subject then that referendum has to be agreed to and sanctioned by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and that sits in Westminster.

Remind me again Musktwat/Allan Conn how many times has Westminster pulled the rug on the Northern Ireland Assembly?

"one scenario might be if a Tory/UKIP backed gvt seemed to be heading for the European exit door."

If memory serves me correctly, for the UK to leave the EU there has to be a referendum on it. So all any political party in power can do is put it to the electorate of the United Kingdom, so while a British Government may want to leave UK - they won't decide it. Should the electorate of the UK decide that the UK should leave the EU then that would happen within two years of a Government representative giving notice of our intention to quit, in which time the electorate of Scotland can press for whatever they like, but in that case they would be irrespective of what the SNP might tell the Scottish voters:
1. Outside the EU
2. Forced to create their own currency

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 11:10 AM

Teribus it is absurd to suggest that because a vote was made once then there can never be another vote again. That isn't how it works. If it did work like that then we wouldn't even have a devolved parliament as the first devolution referendum was lost. The point is that the people of Scotland will decide whether there should be another vote or not. I tend to agree with Musket that for there to be another one, at least in the short/medium term, then there would need to be some real upheaval going on. So one scenario might be if a Tory/UKIP backed gvt seemed to be heading for the European exit door. I suspect that Scotland would then ask itself what it should do.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 10:58 AM

Terribulus doesn't understand reality though Allan.

Try not to make the mistake of answering his infernal questions either. He responds with claiming you didn't (on other threads normally) and then he cherry picks what you say to make himself look clever. Snag is, most think he looks like a one legged bloke at an arse kicking contest.

You are right. The agreement for the terms of the referendum set a precedent that could use the Supreme Court to uphold a mandated Scottish government and their right to referendum.

That's why I was concerned that it could lead to neverendum territory.

The historical crap Terribulus is stating is irrelevant and forms no viable precedent should Westminster and Edinburgh have conflicting mandates.

That said. Scotland rejected independence and barring fundamental changes to The UK such as Tory suicidal EU exit, am argument could be made to The Supreme Court that nothing has altered since the last one. SNP look like forming the next Scottish Parish Pump Committee and as we and all their supporters know, they are committed to The EU.

Hey Ho.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 10:11 AM

Allan C myself and my fellow countrymen did exercise their democratic right on the 18th of September last year - they voted for Scotland to remain as part of the United Kingdom - question is why don't you and the Scottish Nationalist party accept that as your erstwhile leader loudly proclaimed that he would do?

"Westminster simply realised it had no option other than transfer the authority to the Scottish gvt" - NO

Following what existing precedent? The granting of temporary powers? I take it that you do know what the word temporary means?

The Scottish Parliament can hold a non binding referendum on anything they want to for that referendum to affect the make up of the United Kingdom, the country that we presently all live in then the referendum must be sanctioned by the Queen and her Parliament in Westminster.

"The precedents were set with the acceptance first that Northern Ireland can leave whenever it wants" - Complete and utter twaddle Allan C and you know it. The arrangement with Northern Ireland would be a call for a referendum that would then have to be agreed to with Westminster. There would then be consultations between Stormont, Westminster and Dublin and the options on the referendum paper would be agreed (Likely options would be - 1: Remain as part of the UK; 2: Unite with the Republic of Ireland; 2: Full independence). Should the vote go for unification with the Republic of Ireland then a referendum has to take place in the Republic of Ireland to establish that it is the will of the people there for the union to take place - it is not just up to the electorate or the Assembly in Northern Ireland as you seem to imagine, not by a long shot.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 09:36 AM

The point is that Westminster simply realised it had no option other than transfer the authority to the Scottish gvt.As the other post re the EU also states the idea of parliamentary sovereignty is not accepted as fact in the Scottish Courts anyway where the Scottish tradition of the sovereignty of the Scottish people comes in to the debate. Only a minority of Scots are against ever having another referendum (though they are very vocal) and should a Scottish gvt be in a position where it is holding one then the UK gvt, following the existing precedent, would have no real option other than to agree to it again. Despite Cameron's ramblings Ruth Davidson conceded last night, even though she rallies against the thought of having one, that the Conservatives would not attempt to block another referendum. That is democracy!

Let's face it there are legalities and there are realities! The legality is that the UK gvt could wind up the Scottish parliament tomorrow and make Nicola Sturgeon's post along with all the other MSPs redundant thus making sure there was no parliamentary route to independence. The reality is that they could never actually force that legality. It simply wouldn't be politically acceptable and neither would blocking a referendum in a part of the UK where there is a clear political mandate to hold it. The precedents were set with the acceptance first that Northern Ireland can leave whenever it wants and then that Scotland was free to choose too. What don't you like about your own countrymen having a democratic choice?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 07:55 AM

Hate to disappoint you Allan C but:

Only the Government of the United Kingdom has the power to call and hold referenda, whether they affect the UK as a whole or its constituent parts.

Since 1973 there have been twelve referendums held by the Government of the United Kingdom, the majority of them have been related to the issue of devolution. The first UK-wide referendum was held in 1975 on the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Community.

1: Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum, 1973, on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join the Republic of Ireland - Result remain part of the UK

2: United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975, on whether the UK should remain part of the European Economic Community - Result remain part of the EEC

3: Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly - Result a small majority voted yes, but fell short of the 40% threshold required to enact devolution

4: Welsh devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly - Result no

5: Scottish devolution referendum, 1997, Two questions: On whether there should be a Scottish Parliament - Result yes; On whether a Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers - Result yes

6: Welsh devolution referendum, 1997, on whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales - Result yes

7: Greater London Authority referendum, 1998, on whether there should be a Mayor of London and Greater London Authority - Result yes

8: Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998, on the Good Friday Agreement - Result yes

9: North East England devolution referendum, 2004, on an elected regional assembly - Result no

10: Welsh devolution referendum, 2011 - Result yes

11: United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011, 5 May 2011 - Result no

12: Scottish independence referendum, 2014 on the question "Should Scotland be an independent country?", 18 September 2014 - Result NO

Looking at the above although there have been 12 referenda held since 1973 only two of them have involved the electorate of the whole of the UK. As it is the UK that is the EU Member state then any proposed referendum that seeks to alter the status of the United Kingdom's EU Membership will be exactly the same as the one held in 1975 and it would involve a voting process involving the electorate of the whole of the UK.

No precedent was set with regard to the Scottish Independence Referendum, strictly limited temporary powers were transferred as can be seen from reading the following:

Legality of a referendum:
There was debate as to whether the Scottish Parliament had the power to legislate for a referendum relating to the issue of Scottish independence, as the constitution is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament. The Scottish government insisted in 2010 that they could legislate for a referendum, as it would be an "advisory referendum on extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament", whose result would "have no legal effect on the Union". Lord Wallace, Advocate General for Scotland, said in January 2012 that holding a referendum concerning the constitution would be outside the legislative power of the Scottish Parliament and that private individuals could challenge a Scottish Parliament referendum bill.

The two governments signed the Edinburgh Agreement, which allowed for the temporary transfer of legal authority. In accordance with the Edinburgh Agreement, the UK government drafted an Order in Council granting the Scottish Parliament the necessary powers to hold, on or before 31 December 2014, an independence referendum. The draft Order was approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, and the Order, titled The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013, was approved by The Queen, following the advice of Her Ministers, at a meeting of the Privy Council on 12 February 2013. Under the powers temporarily transferred from Westminster under the section 30 Order, the Scottish Parliament adopted the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013, summoning the referendum, defining the question to be asked, giving the date on which the referendum was to be held, and establishing the rules governing the holding of the referendum. The Bill for the Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 14 November 2013 and received Royal Assent on 17 December 2013. Under section 36 of the Act, it came into force the day after Royal Assent."

Simple matter of record.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:33 AM

The Scottish gvt called the last referendum and the UK gvt accepted it with provisos. The precedent is set now. Even Ruth Davidson the leader of the Scottish Tories conceded last night on the leaders debate that the Conservatives would not try to block another referendum should the Scottish gvt hold one.

It is true that there is a hardened minority within Scotland who personally wish to never see another vote but polls show they are a minority. There may be one at some point but it isn't an issue for this election. Sturgeon has laid down how she views one could be had again. The SNP would need to stand at the Scottish election with their manifesto stating they would hold a vote and they would then need to win a majority at Holyrood. The days of "never mind what the Scottish electorate decides we'll override that with the opinion down south" are gone!

As to EU withdrawal then I think the idea of each part of the UK having a veto is a bit of a non starter which just wouldn't be accepted in England. However the legal process as far as the devolved parts of the UK being dragged out of the EU against their wishes is not so straight forward as you seem to think - especially if there is still an SNP administration in Edinburgh. It could well cause a constitutional crisis with another Scottish referendum being a possibility.

http://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/blog/british-withdrawal-eu-existential-threat-united-kingdom

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:01 AM

Fortunately it isn't in Ms Sturgeon's gift to call a referendum on the break up of the United Kingdom that power only exists at Westminster, and Scotland as part of the United Kingdom in any UK wide Referendum on EU Membership must abide by the vote of the majority vote of the electorate of the entire United Kingdom (I know that that is not a concept or a reality that the SNP can live with - nevertheless we do live in a democracy and that might eventually sink in).

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:45 AM

I also note that Ms Sturgeon has ruled out the possibility of another referendum unless there is a 'material change' such as Britain quitting the EU against Scottish opinion. Very sensible too.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:14 AM

Oh good heavens no Musktwat, I rarely stoop to obscenity and then only when severely provoked, while to the three of you it would appear to be your "default" setting. That, along with your typical "Bully Boy" argument, which is typified as follows - Flat statement followed by flat contradiction, followed by personal insult, followed by threat of physical attack.

You object to being referred to as Musktwat?? You've never mentioned it before - I think considering your choice of language it rather fits - but when you get my name right I'll get all three of yours right.

Ah back to announcing to the world who are "normal people" and who are not? My, my, what astounding arrogance on your part.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 03:47 AM

Answer the question!....or face the rope!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 03:01 AM

No. You lower the tone. Normal people complain about the hue of the tone. Calling me Musktwat and then complaining when you are summed up rather accurately does little more than invite an adjective or two added to the description of you along the lines of hypocrit.

Fool







Sorry. Hypocritical fool.

That's better.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 02:36 AM

OK then Musktwat - 08 Apr 15 - 06:33 PM

Shifting from gratuitous insult to obscenity - does that display your capability of putting your own thoughts articulated to words? - Doesn't help your argument, doesn't show you in the most favourable light - in fact it makes you all come across as, let me see what would be the best way to put this? "Thick odious cnuts {Anag.} capable only of lowering the tone of the place.

Now here are a couple of simple questions for the three of you:

1: What vile posts? (by the bye you are not the world committee entrusted to judge what is vile and what is not, and the three of you considering your use of language are the very last people on earth to dictate to others what is vile or obscene)

2: What others have shown how what vile posts come across as?

At the moment Musktwats you are on a hiding to nothing, caught out in your own stupid game of scatter accusations about like confetti while demonstrating that you cannot back up a single one with any substantive evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:33 PM

OK, I will take back odious bastard and put thick odious cunt instead. Terribulus and Akenhateon can put vile posts yet don't like it when others show them what their posts come across as.

Mind you, one chuckle in all this. The bit above this saying Goofus has us pegged..

😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹

Goofus's comments are so difficult to swallow you'd need a PEG to digest the contents. I thought he was too busy curing gay people of the illness he reckons they have to care about here any more. Goofus, Keith and Akenaton... You really do have a prize list of people impressed with your contributions Terribulus.

By the way, I assume Akenhateon in his little post above also meant Terribulus where he calls me Musktwat. There again, the little people don't understand their own inadvertent irony.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:56 PM

Ah so Musktwat's answer to the "Simple Question":

"Care to tell us all what far right websites" I cut and paste from? Examples Please. Or is this just more Made Up Shit?

WAS

"You still alive?

Odious bastard." - Musktwat - 08 Apr 15 - 03:23 PM

Now what was it that I predicted again? Oh yes:

To anyone else following this I predict with almost 100% certainty that there will be no such examples forthcoming from any of the Musktwats.

By God Guest from Sanity has you lot pegged right. So all the crap about cut 'n'pastes from far right websites is just Musktwat Made Up Shit Thanks for confirming it.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:57 PM

What a BRILLIANT response!!!   how can anyone take these creatures seriously?

This from the same person that on another thread just said to me Morrison's?......not a grocer? Don't tell me, let me guess....Shelf stacker?

And then says someone else does not have the wit to see irony. You just couldn't make this stuff up. Priceless...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:29 PM

What a BRILLIANT response!!!   how can anyone take these creatures seriously?

They don't even have the wit to see the irony in their behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:23 PM

You still alive?

Odious bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 11:30 AM

Simple Question Musktwat - 08 Apr 15 - 10:54 AM

Care to tell us all what far right websites" do I cut and paste from? Examples Please. Or is this just more Made Up Shit?

To anyone else following this I predict with almost 100% certainty that there will be no such examples forthcoming from any of the Musktwats.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 10:54 AM

Terribulus now thinks I get my thoughts from Labour politicians. Oh dear...

Still, I at least get thoughts. I don't cut and paste them from far right websites eh? 😎

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 08:15 AM

Blog on the subject from Steve Peers, Professor of EU Law and Human Rights at Essex Uni

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/what-happens-to-british-expatriates-if.html

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:57 AM

Teribus the point was not about buying property in Spain. You are right anybody can buy property there. The point is that there are nigh on a million Brits living in Spain at the moment, many of whom, I'd imagine most of whom have bought property. The price of property in Spain has fallen dramatically over the last few years. There are many people who would struggle, or in fact find it virtually impossible, should they have to relocate back to the UK. What I was asking was how can UKIP guarantee how the likes of, for instance, the Spanish gvt would treat a million permanent residents who are no longer EU citizens? It is a fair question which no-one has yet answered. It is a genuine question to! We know what UKIP are suggesting but do we know how the EU would view it and probably more importantly the individual member countries?

As to the SNP membership then of course having a large membership guarantees nothing. I never suggested it does but it does show a movement of fortunes within the parties in Scotland. It is head in the sand stuff to deny that. One Labour politician the other day described it as a tsunami. For those not in Scotland the figures are quite remarkable.

The estimates for Labour and Tory membership in Scotland are 13,135 and 12,000 each. Looks reasonable for the Tories but they have a lot to worry about due to the demographics in their membership with what I'd imagine is probably a very elderly average age. The Lib Dems have 3,000 members. At the time of the referendum date the SNP had 25,000 members which had grown to 43,644 just 3 days after the vote; then to 62,870 by a week after the vote. People thought it would soon stop but just kept going. Teribus states 100,000 but that is already out of date. At the SNP conference just a couple of weeks ago it had reached 102,000 and is now thought to be at the 103,000 mark.

Potential voting patterns are changing too. Traditionally the SNP do not do all that well at Wesminster elections. Last election they obtained just under 20% of the total vote. In a poll just this week the SNP are now standing at 46% of the total whereas the Labour/Tory/LibDem combined vote is 48% in total. One percentage swing and the SNP are standing equal with all 3 major unionist parties combined.

None of that guarantees anything but it is easy to see who is currently doing well in Scotland!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:06 AM

GUEST,Allan Conn - 04 Apr 15 - 04:46 AM

Didn't quite get the bit about 1 million Brits who own property in Spain having their right to live and own property in Spain put at risk should the UK leave the EU? The two things are completely disconnected, there is nothing whatsoever to stop anyone from outside the EU buying property in Spain, or Portugal, or anywhere else and once bought it is yours provided you pay all necessary fees and taxes. The property market in Spain in particular is such that nobody buying anything would be turned away - and just think how much foreign currency those 1 million Brits bring into the economy.

As to SNP membership rocketing? Currently just passed through the 100,000 mark it has to reach far, far higher than that before membership guarantees anything. The 2011 "landslide" SNP vote in Scotland amounted to less than 21% of the electorate ~903,000.

Musktwat - "Nobody says unfettered immigration is a good thing and here in The UK we don't have it."

Now which of your red rosette wearing "donkeys" told you that?? Ever Blair admitted his Labour Government's policy of unfettered immigration was on reflection a terrible mistake - only one of many that that particularly inept crew owned up to.

"If we exited The EU, we would still have the same situation with EU citizens, as Norway and others have seen."

Really? Only difference would be that it would be up to us to decide what the EU could and could not impose on us (As far as Norway goes the EU cannot tell Norway to do anything or comply with anything related to agriculture, fishing or oil and gas)

"Unless as I said before, some politician has an action plan to replace our trading overnight because the vast majority is within The EU and of the rest, a large portion is due to our EU gateway."

For some time now the UK's trade with the world has been greater than its trade with the EU, only "rules" related to UK exports prevent the real picture being shown (UK goods that are sent out to countries outside the EU via the international container terminal in Rotterdam have to be categorised as trade with the EU, which of course its not). The economy of the EU Eurozone countries has been all but static now for months so they are not buying, the rest of the world is.

"Access to raw material means we all pay the same tariff for, for instance, US steel or Chinese widgets. Labour means workers can move around the zone seeking better employment.

They are the sacred cows and as Norway and others have found, to trade with The EU, you either get into tariff or follow their rules."

Not strictly true, the EFTA countries have more wriggle room and greater Sovereignty. Liked your assumption that just anyone can come to Norway and work - in theory maybe, but I would advise anyone against drifting up to Norway on spec to find a job - if they were to do that they'd have to come cash rich - In practice Norway has too many of their own rules to allow that - still what would I know Musktwat - after all I only worked there for about 30 years. To work in Norway you need:
- A Sponsor and a job before you arrive
- While you pay into their National Insurance Scheme you do so for the first four years at a reduced rate but you have no call or entitlement to any of their benefits - your employer on the other hand has to pay their full whack and the Norwegian N.I. Scheme over the years has made an absolute fortune out of collecting contributions that they know they will never need to pay anything out on - it is this accrued fund that forms the "domestic investment" part of their "Sovereign Wealth Fund" which can only be invested internally in Norway in Norwegian Companies, what they get from their Oil & Gas Wealth goes to the "international investment" part of their "Sovereign Wealth Fund".
- You are given a Personnummer without which you can do or get nothing and there is no avoiding or evading tax (UK could have had the same had they gone for the National ID Card - but guess what? That would have infringed the civil rights of the illegals working here)

Unlike the UK the Norwegian Authorities are well up to speed on knowing who in term of numbers is in their country and where they came from.

Bonzo3legs - 06 Apr 15 - 11:58 AM

Tell me Bonzo which Conservative Government are you talking about? Or is it thanks to our present "wonderful Coalition Government", that whoever wishes to avail themselves of this transfer of unused Personal Allowance up to £1,060 means that that family have up to £1,060 to spend, thereby benefiting the economy? What paltry proportion of that £1,060 would be paid in tax and what would our wastrel politicians blow it on that would be of monitorable benefit to the nation as a whole?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:29 AM

thanks for that, Musket, especially that final bracketed clause, which makes plain that anyone who thinks leaving the EU is the answer to this is sadly mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:46 AM

It is about opening up markets and is being negotiated at EU level. However, the clause that decisions made by governments, councils, authority bodies etc can be challenged on the decision rather than the process leading to the decision interferes with Westminster sovereignty. (and of course other countries.)

Part of me sees why this is being debated. France has a habit of agreeing with everything and then saying they can't interfere when parish council level decisions defy national agreement.

However, I am involved in NHS commissioning still, in an advisory capacity,keep trying to say I'm retired) and am on a think tank discussing the ramifications of this to what is seen as the key market. Private healthcare providers could use this to effectively destroy NHS provision. Fracking is important but less than 0.001% of the potential of these negotiations. (Which also affect non EU trade partners such as Norway.)

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 03:54 PM

You are right, Nigel, I think, they will probably have no more influence on it than I do. But since we don't know exactly how it will go we can't say for definite. Arguably it could be seen as a transfer of more powers from the UK...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 03:37 PM

I've had responses from my Labour and LibDem candidates on answer to the question whether they would vote against the current TTIP proposal under which a company can sue the government for decisions arrived at democratically. The LibDem said she would vote against any agreement that permitted this; the labour candidate was more cautious and only committed to voting against it in its current form.
Okay, I have to admit I hadn't heard of TTIP, so I had to read up on it before commenting.

From all I can find it appears to be an agreement being made between the US & the EU. As such, as long as we are part of the EU, I don't see your local candidates having the opportunity to vote for or against it.

Of course, I'm open to correction! (but not with whips!)

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 03:28 PM

As you know the details of TTIP are taking place behind closed doors so I think very few of us know what exactly is going on. Yes, there has been a lot of focus on the NHS but it is not limited to that and both GM and fracking have been raised as concerns by the US Center for economic and policy research (whoever they are.) See Wiki on TTIP which includes this extract of the leaked version :


Chapter II, articles 3 to 18 contains general principles for investment. Article 14 contains proposed rules which forbid governments to "directly or indirectly nationalise, expropriate" unless it is for a public purpose, under due process of law, on a non-discriminatory basis, with compensation.[25] Article 14(2) defines the necessary compensation as being "fair market value of the investment at the time immediately before the expropriation or the impending expropriation became public knowledge plus interest at a commercial rate established on a market basis".

So while I defer to your experience with judicial reviews under the current system, I was referring to any review into a case brought under that clause or any of the part of the treaty.

But in any case, that is losing the principle among the detail. And the principle is whether a company should be able to sue a government for decisions arrived at democratically.

I don't claim to know everything about this topic but I do know enough that I want my concerns discussed by my candidates. And they at least give the appearance of being concerned as well
well. That may just be skilled politicking naturally

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 02:51 PM

With the greatest of respect DMcG, you are failing to understand TTIP. Healthcare has been the stalking horse in this as NHS spending is increasingly open to competition despite commissioning decisions being slowly taken out of political control. (as chair if a health authority I was appointed to proxy through the board the will of Parliament and ministers) which has led to huge debate amongst MPs regarding the impact of TTIP on the £106 billion of NHS care that could be open to challenge.

Nobody is thinking of fracking. They are thinking of the threat to major issues. To date, judicial reviews are the nearest you can get to challenging democratic decisions by challenging the process.

Perhaps before saying judicial reviews are irrelevant, you might ask somebody to tell you how the affair you refer to is all about swapping judicial reviews for litigation.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 02:37 PM

I see that ake's pin up girl says she would veto any referendum held by the UK about leaving the EU. Good for her.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 01:39 PM

I should say that the Conservative message to date - and as I say I haven't from my local candidate yet - is the TTIP is much misunderstood and companies suing governments won't happen.

Which is a very different thing to "can't happen", isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 01:19 PM

I'm not sue if your response was about my post, Musket. I'm talking about TTIP: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Transatlantic. Important though they are, poor independent chemist shops are at a completely different level. This agreement is to try to reach common regulations on both sides of the Atlantic for various aspects of trade. And the dispute resolution mechanism, if agreed, would allow BigOil, for example, to sue the UK if our government voted for different regulations on fracking. [Substitute whatever cause of concern you may have.]   My question is whether, as a matter of principle, we should ever allow a company to sue a government for decisions it has reached democratically, and the two candidates who have replied so far say (a) the agreement on the table would allow this and (b) they are against it.


Judicial review doesn't really come into it. All that can decide is whether an action is lawful or not, and would only apply after the law which I am objecting to had been passed.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 11:18 AM

Judicial reviews have always been available, based on the ability to make x decision based on y evidence. As opposed to not liking the decision.

I chaired a health authority that was taken to judicial review over the granting of a GP contract and that was some experience......

My time as a regulator suggests if such a proposal goes through, enforcing regulations in any arena would be difficult. In my old line of work, it would mean a large pharmaceutical company could fetter every decision under a regulatory umbrella whilst a poor independent pharmacy / chemist shop would have to take it on the chin via the appeals process.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 08:12 AM

I've had responses from my Labour and LibDem candidates on answer to the question whether they would vote against the current TTIP proposal under which a company can sue the government for decisions arrived at democratically. The LibDem said she would vote against any agreement that permitted this; the labour candidate was more cautious and only committed to voting against it in its current form.

I have only just asked the Conservative candidate so he has not yet had an opportunity to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 06:58 AM

Thanks, boko, i hadn't noticed that - certainly the most important issue in the election. I think will vote to.....nah, couldnwwrite that not even in jest. Sounds pretty desperate if that is the best reason you can think of for supporting that bunch of crooks . Hang on just realised you were being sarcastic. D'oh!