- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3278 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 75779
The Liberal Democrats have started a consultation process on what the parties next manifesto should look like. Its open to non-members and I thought everyone could benefit from you lads giving views.
It asks an interesting question: What would you spend £2 billion on?
I thought about putting the money towards adult education programs. Things like the Open University are fundamentally good ideas that gives people who otherwise can't study because of career and family commitments the chance to learn new skills and achieve lifelong learning. It sounds non-controversial but I'm sure there is ample chance to start a cunt-off on that idea.
Another interesting question is that it asks whether the Lib Dems should focus on staying in the European Union or on what Brexit should now be. An interesting option given the party is fervently pro-EU and I wonder what will fill the vacuum if its abandoned.
|>>|| No. 75780
The Lib Dems are the only true 'protest' party as they define themselves solely by not being Tories or Labour. They need to actually build a platform or they don't deserve to exist.
The Lib Dems should pay attention to the second part of their name when referring to brexit.
|>>|| No. 75781
They should distribute it evenly amongst those who vote for them.
And, to start the derailing early: Doesn't an Open University tuition cost as much as real university tuition now?
|>>|| No. 75782
Why not build on the first part. This country and the west in general is in sore need of a party based on protecting civil rights. Both Labour and the Tories have an authoritarian streak and its to the Lib Dems credit that they have tried to fight against this.
That said I don't think the party should adopt a platform to stand out for its own sake. People want public services and they want sound finances the question is in how to achieve an acceptable balance.
>Doesn't an Open University tuition cost as much as real university tuition now?
It looks to work out at about 5k a year (for full time) which is lower but I agree its still far too high. Adult education is an important source of advancement and I feel the government should definitely subsidize its costs more than it does so it remains viable for the working poor.
Of course an advantage of the OU is that students can pick and choose what they study so in theory you can take up one module purely to gain knowledge of an area that is useful to your career. For instance 'Finance for non-financial managers' is a short course offered to give someone knowledge they can use in their job for a fairly modest fee of £300~.
|>>|| No. 75783
It seems like they are striking the iron while it's hot. Good on them.
|>>|| No. 75785
If the Lib Dems campaign on a platform of staying in the European Union, and then they win the next general election, what would that tell you? Would democracy have failed somehow?
|>>|| No. 75787
That a plurality of the country wants a Lib Dem government and a majority wants out of the European Union.
|>>|| No. 75788
It would tell me that the results of the general election and referendum are non congruent. I consider direct democracy to trump representative democracy when direct democracy is given the opportunity to occur.
Not that we'll ever be allowed to vote on anything again.
|>>|| No. 75789
>What would you spend £2 billion on?
Pokemon cards from Ebay and all the cancer causing Kinder chocolate I want.
|>>|| No. 75790
>I consider direct democracy to trump representative democracy
That's now how the parliamentary system works.
|>>|| No. 75791
Hate to break it to you, but Parliament is not a highly democratic institution.
|>>|| No. 75793
No, it's not, that's why I said 'I consider'.
Parliament is being dishonest if it dismiss referenda results.
|>>|| No. 75794
It's no wonder they prefer being called the LibDems.
It starts to look a bit dodgy when you have the word "democrat" in your name but you directly oppose the result of a referendum.
|>>|| No. 75795
I could happily dismiss the referendum result if I was in Parliament elected with a mandate to do so, or at least rerun the referendum. Leaving the EU based on that result is highly questionable: the majority was paper-thin; the public were lied to again and again; reports have come out about many people regretting their vote. These are the same reasons Scotland wants another referendum, effectively, and the SNP have an electoral mandate to deliver one.
|>>|| No. 75796
The referendum was not binding. Parliament could have made it so, but chose not to. There is a clear majority for remaining. If those members stand again and are elected again, then they have a new mandate that supplants the prior. If Parliament is hung and the coalition is formed by remainers, then they clearly have a mandate to remain. The electorate is entitled to change its mind and express this through the ballot box.
|>>|| No. 75797
Oh and let's not forget the fact that the UK's relationship with the EU cannot be democratically decided with a yes or no question alone. For instance, if the government keeps us in the single market, as it probably will, does that mean it is 'dismissing the result of the referendum'?
|>>|| No. 75798
>The referendum was not binding. Parliament could have made it so, but chose not to.
No, they couldn't have.
|>>|| No. 75799
>The Lib Dems should pay attention to the second part of their name when referring to brexit.
Well there seems to be a cunt off rumbling in this thread for no reason. The Lib Dems are campaigning for a second referendum. I don't think Parliament would dare ignore the referendum result entirely not least because it would only create bigger problems a few years down the line for the entire EU.
If they do well enough in a general to be able to demand one fair enough. If that referendum gives the right answer (remain) then regardless it invalidates the first result. Nothing undemocratic about it.
None of this will ever happen. The Tories will stay in power until 2020 without a snap election and will have engaged and completed Article 50 by then. This means any future membership will involve Schengen and the Euro.
|>>|| No. 75801
>Well there seems to be a cunt off rumbling in this thread for no reason.
It's not for no reason. It's for the reason that some people have difficulty in accepting what "democracy" means. If the electorate votes in a referendum to leave, then that's a mandate to leave. If the electorate subsequently votes to overturn that result, whether by a second referendum or an election returning a pro-remain majority, then that's a mandate to remain.
Of course, there's an argument to be made that we have not democratically decided to leave, since democracy is based on consent and clearly nobody can legitimately call any endorsement of the Leave campaign to be informed consent.
|>>|| No. 75803
Perhaps they should have spoken up during the passage of the Scotland Act 1978 or the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, each of which created a binding referendum.
|>>|| No. 75805
What makes a leave vote uninformed and a remain vote informed? Is the end of Western civilisation actually happening?
|>>|| No. 75806
>No, the mandate is clear.
Which one? The mandate to leave certainly isn't clear. It's an ill-informed 52%. An informed majority with a larger proportion would be a clear mandate, but we didn't get that. Nobody can say with any seriousness that the British public have given their informed consent for their government to extricate the country from the EU.
|>>|| No. 75807
Those weren't binding referendums. Parliament passed legislation which was conditional on the result of a referendum. That doesn't mean that Parliament was bound by the result. That might seem like an academic distinction, but it's an important one with regard to the EU referendum, because Parliament doesn't pass legislation to invoke article 50, that's done by a communication from the government to the European Council.
|>>|| No. 75808
>What makes a leave vote uninformed and a remain vote informed?
You do not have informed consent if you had to lie to get it.
|>>|| No. 75809
>Those weren't binding referendums. Parliament passed legislation which was conditional on the result of a referendum.
Or, in other words, the referendums were binding. It's really not that hard to grasp.
>Parliament doesn't pass legislation to invoke article 50, that's done by a communication from the government to the European Council.
No. That communication would effectively repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and the government doesn't get to do that without Parliament's permission.
|>>|| No. 75810
>Or, in other words, the referendums were binding. It's really not that hard to grasp.
No, they weren't. You can't have binding referendums with a sovereign Parliament. Your contention is clearly too hard for every constitutional authority in the UK to grasp. Or... Maybe you're wrong!
>No. That communication would effectively repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and the government doesn't get to do that without Parliament's permission.
All that means is that Parliament could have given approval for the invocation, conditional on the result. That's not the same thing the invocation itself being triggered by the result.
|>>|| No. 75812
>This means any future membership will involve Schengen and the Euro.
Ohhhh fuck. I hadn't thought of that. Fuck fuck fuckity fuck.
|>>|| No. 75813
>No, they weren't.
Yes, they were. Which part of this are you having trouble with? Those Acts contained legislation which would come into effect or not based on the results. Therefore they were binding. They were only not binding in the sense that Parliament could subsequently amend or repeal the legislation, but that would be a silly position to take given that it implies that no legislation is binding.
>You can't have binding referendums with a sovereign Parliament.
Yes, you can. We've had them before, and we can have them again. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 could have contained language which would have authorised the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which would have allowed the Government (which is not the same thing as the Parliament) to engage 50 TEU. Parliament chose not to include such language. As such, the Government requires the approval of Parliament to send the letter of intent, and cannot do so without that approval. To do so would be to use prerogative powers to overrule an Act of Parliament, and it is clearly established that that is not lawful.
|>>|| No. 75814
>Parliament could have given approval for the invocation, conditional on the result
It's arguable that they did, given that they passed legislation necessary for the referendum to go ahead knowing that the govt. intended to abide by the result.
>Mr Hammond: The Government’s position is that the referendum is an advisory one, but the Government will regard themselves as being bound by the decision of the referendum and will proceed with serving an article 50 notice. My understanding is that that is a matter for the Government of the United Kingdom, but if there are any consequential considerations, they will be dealt with in accordance with the proper constitutional arrangements that have been laid down.
|>>|| No. 75815
>Yes, they were. Which part of this are you having trouble with?
Again, the same trouble that every constitutional authority in the UK has.
>Those Acts contained legislation which would come into effect or not based on the results. Therefore they were binding. They were only not binding in the sense that Parliament could subsequently amend or repeal the legislation, but that would be a silly position to take given that it implies that no legislation is binding.
DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
That is correct. Parliament cannot be bound, by referendums, by prior legislation, by anything. That is Parliamentary sovereignty in a nutshell.
>Yes, you can. We've had them before, and we can have them again. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 could have contained language which would have authorised the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which would have allowed the Government (which is not the same thing as the Parliament) to engage 50 TEU. Parliament chose not to include such language. As such, the Government requires the approval of Parliament to send the letter of intent, and cannot do so without that approval. To do so would be to use prerogative powers to overrule an Act of Parliament, and it is clearly established that that is not lawful.
>All that means is that Parliament could have given approval for the invocation, conditional on the result. That's not the same thing the invocation itself being triggered by the result.
|>>|| No. 75816
>the Government (which is not the same thing as the Parliament)
Wow, I'm glad to see someone's been paying attention in A level politics. Your vast knowledge will certainly enrich all political discussion.
|>>|| No. 75817
>Parliament cannot be bound, by referendums, by prior legislation, by anything.
That's a twisted reading of it. As I said, the referendums were only not binding in the sense that technically no law ever passed by Parliament was binding. This absurdity aside, there can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that those referendums were, in fact, binding, and that Parliament could have chosen to make this one binding too but chose not to.
|>>|| No. 75818
Yet apparently this constitutional expert who keeps quoting random bollocks about a soverign Parliament doesn't seem to understand the distinction.
|>>|| No. 75819
>technically no law ever passed by Parliament was binding
Isn't that the point he's making? Parliament can rewrite any law they like with no constitutional limitations, including ones that come from itself.
|>>|| No. 75822
Not him but '£350m' was as misleading as you can get without technically being a lie. Though I guess it is a lie since I found out the rebate is applied before the money is sent to the EU.
|>>|| No. 75823
>That's a twisted reading of it
... No, that's the standard reading of it.
>there can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that those referendums were, in fact, binding
Er yes, there can be. The experts consulted by the Constitution Committee had doubt. The Constitution Committee concurred with those doubts. You're really in no position to act is if disagreeing with you is out of the question when Parliament itself doesn't.
I suggest you actually take a look through it this time.
Some choice quotes:
>It is notable that British referendums are formally advisory which means that the power to legislate remains exclusively in the hands of the parliamentary majority. The advisory character of referendums appears to be congruent with the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. However, based on the experience on national level referendums in established democracies, it seems to be very diffcult for parliamentarians to vote against the result of an advisory referendum.
>As a matter of constitutional law a referendum cannot be binding in this country
>Given the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, referendums should be indicative in law
>In the UK system arguably all referendums are indicative, since each would need parliamentary ratification by way of legislation to become law. This could come before the referendum takes place (1978–79) or afterwards (1997–98). Even a referendum on Scottish independence would need negotiation, and presumably UK legislation, to be accepted by the UK Parliament as having lawful force.
>and that Parliament could have chosen to make this one binding too but chose not to
No. They could not have. YET AGAIN, at most they could have included a legislative trigger to approve of the invocation in the case of a leave victory. Do you understand the distinction between the government having approval to invoke article 50 and the government being bound to invoke article 50?
|>>|| No. 75824
Talking about Parliamentary sovereignty isn't random bollocks, mate, it's the precise reason why referendums CANNOT be binding.
|>>|| No. 75825
That plus the implication that by not paying that money out we'd have more money to spend. Then there was the very heavy implication that five nations, including Turkey, were going to join the EU imminently, and that their populations were coming here. Or the insinuation on their leaflet (by way of highlighting that Turkey shared borders with Iraq and Syria) that ISIS were coming. A non-trivial number of people believed that a vote to Leave would mean a reversal of mass immigration, and they must have formed that idea from somewhere.
|>>|| No. 75827
>(by way of highlighting that Turkey shared borders with Iraq and Syria) that ISIS were coming.
What a terrible, terrible lie.
|>>|| No. 75830
The part where you seem to think that Parliament being unable to bind itself means that it is unable to bind the government.
|>>|| No. 75832
All those times where you said that referendums that were in fact binding were somehow not binding.
|>>|| No. 75837
>"parliament is unable to bind the government" from me saying "referendums can't bind parliament"
It's from the part where you say referendums can't be binding. Parliament's inability to bind itself does not mean referendums can't be binding any more than it means drink-drive laws can't be binding. Down a bottle of wine, go for a drive, then try telling the magistrates that s.8 Road Traffic Act 1988 is not binding because Parliament can't bind itself. They will of course tell you where to go (namely the Crown Court).
Parliament is the legislature. Government is the executive. In our system, they're intertwined, but they're separate entities. HMG can legislate on its own initiative (through Statutory Instruments) only when Parliament has authorised it to do so. Parliament can without doubt bind the Government, because the Government is not sovereign. The AV referendum was undoubtedly binding. Anyone who says otherwise is just engaging in constitutional wankery. The simple fact of the matter is that the Government had no choice in the matter - having held the referendum, it was bound (by section 8 of the Act) to make an order in accordance with the result. The Act made provisions for AV and amended the Representation of the People Act. If the question had passed, the Government would have had to put down a commencement order to bring them into effect. The question did not pass, and so the Government had to (and did) put down an order repealing them. Having carried out the referendum, the Government had to lay down an order based on the result. I fail to see how anyone could seriously suggest that was somehow not binding.
|>>|| No. 75838
>Parliament's inability to bind itself does not mean referendums can't be binding any more than it means drink-drive laws can't be binding.
Yes it does.
One more time!
>We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory.
>neither Parliament nor government can be legally bound by a referendum result
>The advisory character of referendums appears to be congruent with the idea of parliamentary sovereignty
Don't argue about constitutional law and then complain about "constitutional wankery", you huge fucking idiot.
|>>|| No. 75839
Brexit voter logic: vote to leave EU in a misguided attempt to reclaim national sovereignty; complain when said sovereignty could prevent us from actually leaving the EU.
|>>|| No. 75840
I am a brexiteer and voted in favour of Leave for the purposes of national sovereignty (along with other reasons). I know full well that legal sovereignty still resides with Parliament but in practical terms it does not as we've outsourced a chunk of it.
|>>|| No. 75841
>neither Parliament nor government can be legally bound by a referendum result
This is manifestly wrong, given I've provided no fewer than three examples where the government was legally bound by a referendum result.
|>>|| No. 75842
It is but government also has the power to revoke previous laws binding itself. Overturning Acts that bind Parliament such as the Fixed Term Parliaments Act can be revoked anyway without any such kerfuffle as having two thirds of MPs.
|>>|| No. 75844
>It is but government also has the power to revoke previous laws binding itself.
Only if Parliament has given the government that power.
>Overturning Acts that bind Parliament such as the Fixed Term Parliaments Act can be revoked anyway without any such kerfuffle as having two thirds of MPs.
Unless the Act itself says otherwise, it can only be overturned by another Act passing through both Houses as normal. The government can't simply lay down Regulations to repeal the FTPA.
|>>|| No. 75845
You say 'we', and that little pronoun encompasses the length and breadth of these isles. The hipsters of Bristol and Norwich, the Asian communities of Bradford and Birmingham. The flatcapped farmers, the flatcapped ex-miners. The Jocks and the Geordies, the Welsh, the Cornish, the Provos of Northern Ireland, the mutants of Wight. The Labour Party of Stoke, the Lib Dems of Cambridge, the Greens of Brighton, the Tories of Buckinghamshire, the Kippers of Kent. The Highlands, the Lowlands, the Midlands. Land's End and John o' Groats. Go fifty miles in any direction and you can find people using completely different words and pronouncing things in completely different ways.
But Europe is 'they'. Because they are so different to that monolithic 'we' in your mind that to share a government with them makes you sick to the back teeth.
It boggles my mind, frankly.
|>>|| No. 75846
Yes, they are British, the others are not. That's the shared basis of the country in which we live.
|>>|| No. 75848
And that sort of arbitrary line-drawing is why nationalism deserves to die an undignified death.
|>>|| No. 75849
It's not arbitrary at all.
Anyway, now we are leaving the EU, better scurry off to your corporatist superstate quick globalistlad.
|>>|| No. 75851
Of course it isn't poppet. It's past your bedtime now, don't have nightmares about Tusk and Juncker.
|>>|| No. 82103
Fucking hell, when was that?
I still remember when he was elected leader that he was unable to bring himself to say he supported abortion, something which seemed fairly fundamental to the Liberal bit of his party's name.
|>>|| No. 82104
Honestly, it makes me respect him more. His voting record has been largely pro-LGBT. Someone who is privately conservative but publicly liberal is surely the very embodiment of liberal values. Liberalism counts for nothing if you're only liberal when it suits you.
|>>|| No. 82105
>His voting record has been largely pro-LGBT.
Apart from the whole abstaining on gay marriage vote thing.
|>>|| No. 82106
I currently vote tory and couldn't give one tenth of a fig about whether somebody is gay or not. I've never met a tory who does.
|>>|| No. 82111
I wonder if the Liberal Democrats had already gotten wind of the snap election and that is why they called for a new round of consultations over Easter.
This is rather bottom of the barrel stuff. The Lib Dem platform is clear on LGBT issues and Farron's faith is not something that should be called into question both because it doesn't matter what you think at home and because he is up against Theresa May.
He has publicly stated many times that he regrets the decision and that he abstained over concerns of religious protection. I don't think you can really pull this one over us.
|>>|| No. 82112
>concerns of religious protection.
What does that actually mean when it's at home, then?
|>>|| No. 82113
Not him, but I imagine it's something to do with the ham-fisted way the government put it through, which might have either forced the Church of England to accept it or alternatively prohibited them from doing it. Personally I was opposed to the measure on constitutional grounds, since we're an old country with old law. Ireland was a good example of how to do it properly. They undertook a review of the law and made the necessary changes rather than rushing a bill through. The referendum wasn't so much to gauge public opinion but rather because it was necessary for the constitutional amendment that was needed to make it happen.
|>>|| No. 82114
I want to know if a "Liberal" politician thinks being gay is one of the "sins" we're all committing. I mean, he's borderline mentally ill for thinking that anyway, but it's good to have specifics.
|>>|| No. 82116
We all know he is an evangelical Christian and the faith establishment whether it be CoE, Catholic or indeed Buddhist views homosexuality (or rather sex outside of procreation) as a sin. This shouldn't come as a surprise as it is just part of a manichaean outlook the major religions share with Farron quite right to try to avoid a theological debate on the issue - unless you would rather he just lie to keep the misinformed happy.
The fact that we do not live in a theocracy renders the point moot and like the liberal elements of all faiths he does not seek to impose his faith on others. A similar situation would play out if Theresa was asked if homosexuality is a sin. Today he pointed out he was in full support of LGBT+ issues and that should be the end of it.
|>>|| No. 82117
>that should be the end of it.
Farron doesn't get a free pass because you like him mate.
|>>|| No. 82118
He gets a free pass because he is not looking to force his religion on people. That was the central point of my post.
|>>|| No. 82123
It only he'd given a straight answer to Channel Four last night.
They'll be asking him whether women who have abortions are sinners next.
|>>|| No. 82127
You never know he might get away with it. All he needs is for Corbyn to say something daft as usual.
|>>|| No. 82128
No, Corbyn's problem is that he doesn't really say much of anything. I think people thought they were getting one of those grandstanding European socialist types, but he's just not that guy.
Sage for wrong wonk.
|>>|| No. 82229
>If you've got a religious fruitcake for a leader then it's to be expected that nutters will be drawn in.
Yeah, I heard before the snap election Farron was going to start his own Jonestown, but there weren't enough Lib Dem members left.
|>>|| No. 82230
Well he is the former MP of Bradford East. Its simply a politicians job to represent the views of their constituents.
|>>|| No. 82329
It's a politician's job to grab votes in general elections and then vote as they're told to in parliament.
|>>|| No. 82336
It just occurred to me reading this just how much of a current licence for discrimination in the modern world it is to have some historical discrimination you can tack on to.
David Ward's anti sematic remarks were to describe Israel as an apartheid state, whilst not technically apartheid it runs the line so fucking close that only a shill or the pedantically obtuse wouldn't acknowledge it.
It doesn't matter how badly behaved Israel is because there was a genocide that is barely in living memory. Even when they are systematically rounding up the Palestinians into ghettos denying them the basic needs for life, and culling them every couple of years.
It's like the world is children that don't understand that when someone says 'don't pick on X or bully Y' what the moral is. That the lesson is there is some sort of special quality to X and Y and not 'that you shouldn't pick on or bully anyone'. It's a fucking embarrassment we've taken a step backwards from being able to understand why things are right and wrong to just simply parroting the circumstances they were applied in the past. I can’t stand how much Israel hides behind this shit, and they get away with it.
|>>|| No. 82924
Farron's resigned. The question marks over his views on homosexuality and abortion have finally done him in.
|>>|| No. 82925
I've come to collect.jpg
There bloody better not be a leadership election coming up where I have to choose between Jo Swinson and Vince Cable. I don't care how well Vince can wear a hat he's still a shitstain.
|>>|| No. 82926
It's almost as if people don't understand that he can have a life outside work. He leaves his personal views at the door when it comes to party business, in much the same way that I don't watch porn at work.
|>>|| No. 82927
I don't care, if you think like he does at all you're a bit nuts. Fortunately nothing he nor his party of verminous collaborators does matters.
|>>|| No. 82928
>In a statement, he said he was "torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader".
Lad. He clearly couldn't reconcile front line politics with backwards religious views.
His bizarre comments earlier today about wanting a deputy leader show he's clearly a dinosaur.
|>>|| No. 82931
>Lad. He clearly couldn't reconcile front line politics with backwards religious views.
Not him but I have trouble accepting someones private faith as a point of interest for 'front line politics'. It is nothing but an ad hominem designed in this instance to cynically exploit the pink vote.
|>>|| No. 82932
I'm glad he has stuck to his views. The fact the liberal party is crushing him for it is shameful on them.
|>>|| No. 82933
If he'd simply given a straight answer then the spectre of homosexuality wouldn't have lingered around him like a bad fart. His failure to deal with this made it an issue.
|>>|| No. 82934
Funny how the leader whose father was a vicar and presumably has similarly backward views didn't get pulled up on it.
|>>|| No. 82935
Similar backwards views as in she was the first prominent Tory to support Out4Marriage?
Similar backwards views that she, together with Gideon and Hague, wrote a letter in The Telegraph in 2013 telling other Tories to back same sex marriage?
Similar backwards views that it was Theresa May herself who wrote a foreword to the 2010 Tory manifesto pledging to look into expanding civil partnerships into gay marriage?
Please don't tell me you're basing your opinion on Theresa May on social media memes.
|>>|| No. 82936
Sorry, you're right. When Tim Farron publicly supports same-sex marriage, he's betraying his religion, whereas when Theresa May publicly supports same-sex marriage, she really means it.
I've got a bridge you might be interested in.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]