Off Topic Politics Thread

[San Tejón]

The recent incident where the wife of an American “spy”, with diplomatic immunity ran down and killed a biker, when she drove on the wrong side of the road.
It would appear that the Americans informed the Foreign Secretary of her intention to leave the country, in case the uk police wished to speak with her and Raab gave his blessing.

 

[Beddy]

The question I ask is why does a wife or a husband have Diplomatic immunity just because they are a spouse of an official??........that seems crazy to me.

 

[VocalMinority]

The question I ask is why does a wife or a husband have Diplomatic immunity just because they are a spouse of an official??........that seems crazy to me.

I dont know if this is correct but I assumed it was so a rogue government couldn't trump up charges on their family to force the official to do something.


Kind of like the whole oil tanker seizure fiasco but with people.

 

[Beddy]

I dont know if this is correct but I assumed it was so a rogue government couldn't trump up charges on their family to force the official to do something.


Kind of like the whole oil tanker seizure fiasco but with people.

Ok I understand but you would have thought the lady might have at least met and apologised to the family for her mistake. I really feel for the family.

 

[StJabbo1]

Ok I understand but you would have thought the lady might have at least met and apologised to the family for her mistake. I really feel for the family.

If this woman is at fault then she should face a charge of causing death by dangerous driving. Change to diplomatic immunity law required.

 

[VocalMinority]

Ok I understand but you would have thought the lady might have at least met and apologised to the family for her mistake. I really feel for the family.

I agree.

If I'm right then i think really the US should have waived her immunity as it's clearly a legitimate investigation. The US aren't denying it I dont think.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

This was literally the section of the deal I was referencing late last night when I said we could agree an extension however my poor knowledge of british parliament and terminology may have let me down here.

Can anyone give me a definition of 'minister of the crown'. I had assumed it was a legal term that just meant any minister because they all serve the crown so I was fine with it but I just googled it and it seems it may be something similar to the cabinet but I'm still not sure I understand.

It doesnt sound like ministers can just put forward a bill for us to pass so we can extend like I had thought.

My reading of it is that if the government doesn’t want an extension then there won’t be one. Parliament can’t demand one, unless something similar to the Benn Act is passed, or, even better, the WAB is amended to change this clause.

 

[Archers Road]

Also since when has the speaker had the power to decide what can and cant be debated in parliament ????????????

Since about 1376

 

[VocalMinority]

My reading of it is that if the government doesn’t want an extension then there won’t be one. Parliament can’t demand one, unless something similar to the Benn Act is passed, or, even better, the WAB is amended to change this clause.

That's how I'm reading it now with my new understanding of what 'Minister of the crown' means

Wiki seems to say they are people who are appointed by the PM.

So it is saying an extension cant be put forward by anyone but the PM or his cronies.

I would certainly amend this to allow parliamentary scrutiny and extension.

 

[VocalMinority]

My reading of it is that if the government doesn’t want an extension then there won’t be one. Parliament can’t demand one, unless something similar to the Benn Act is passed, or, even better, the WAB is amended to change this clause.

Just want to say its amazing that in a 110 page document we both end up bringing up the same line for different reasons. What are the odds.

 

[fatletiss]

. I have spent all my life in politics and my best friend was a whip in the Brown administration. .

Oh please tell me you called him “Mr Whippy.”

Please

 

[fatletiss]

. My personal experience aside, I did way up some of the things I dislike about the EU and still do. (I'm not going to go into all that again) However I am always willing to compromise but most of you to me have indicated you are not prepared to do that. That does not seem right IMO.........However I'm always willing to listen.............

Nonsense Beddy. Give me something to compromise on. Time and time again me and several others (about 16m probably) have asked why it would be better to leave.

Nada
Nothing

Nil.

 

[fatletiss]

Oh and one more thing Beddy, you don’t post like you’re prepared to listen. You have your reasons and have made it clear that nothing will change your mind.

So what exactly are you listening for?

 

[VocalMinority]

Boris has come out and said he will call an election if an extension is passed and his timetable voted down.

That actually surprised me as as far as I was concerned he had already won, it was just a case of short delays for parliament to amend his deal before it was passed and he has succeeded in most of his promises as far as propaganda goes.

An election now would massively increase delay and not speed up passing his deal.

Only reason I can see for him to do this is to increase his support by blaming the delay on opposition so he can get more MP's elected than he would in an election after we have left as he is a one policy PM.

Once again putting himself and his desire for power above the country.
Bloody tyrant.

 

[The Ides of March]

Hmm.......... trouble is I have so little faith in parliament at the moment. All political parties seem only to be interested in themselves. My understanding is they have all got copies of the agreement with the EU. Surely they are for it or against it.........have the vote then an election lets get it done and dusted!!

Only two parties are in it for themselves, Beddy. Johnson's s Conservatives and the DUP. No other party wanted the referéndum in the first place because they assessed the ensuing chaos. It is the Tories to blame, lock, stock and two smoking barrels.

 

[VocalMinority]

Only two parties are in it for themselves, Beddy. Johnson's s Conservatives and the DUP. No other party wanted the referéndum in the first place because they assessed the ensuing chaos. It is the Tories to blame, lock, stock and two smoking barrels.

Personally I would just say Johnson and the ERG.

People like Letwin have at least been consistent and democratic.

The DUP didn't take the bribe.

Johnson and the ERG are the ones who delayed Brexit and sold out for power.

 

[Beddy]

Oh and one more thing Beddy, you don’t post like you’re prepared to listen. You have your reasons and have made it clear that nothing will change your mind.

So what exactly are you listening for?

So you are saying because I have made it plain I won’t change my mind I shouldn’t debate what’s going on.? I should just accept what those with opposing views say and do? You must be crazy if you really think I would do that.

 

[StJabbo1]

Boris has come out and said he will call an election if an extension is passed and his timetable voted down.

That actually surprised me as as far as I was concerned he had already won, it was just a case of short delays for parliament to amend his deal before it was passed and he has succeeded in most of his promises as far as propaganda goes.

An election now would massively increase delay and not speed up passing his deal.

Only reason I can see for him to do this is to increase his support by blaming the delay on opposition so he can get more MP's elected than he would in an election after we have left as he is a one policy PM.

Once again putting himself and his desire for power above the country.
Bloody tyrant.

Johnson can't just call an election.
https://www.parliament.uk/education/about-your-parliament/general-elections/
Triggering an election other than at five-year intervals
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 provides for general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every five years. There are two provisions that trigger an election other than at five-year intervals:

• A motion of no confidence is passed in Her Majesty's Government by a simple majority and 14 days elapses without the House passing a confidence motion in any new Government formed
• A motion for a general election is agreed by two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons including vacant seats (currently 434 out of 650)

 

[fatletiss]

So you are saying because I have made it plain I won’t change my mind I shouldn’t debate what’s going on.? I should just accept what those with opposing views say and do? You must be crazy if you really think I would do that.

No I’ve not said that

Beddy, you seem to be fact finding not debating. It’s all a bit odd, if I’m honest. You’ve made up your mind yet come across as someone who seems to be finding out as you go along.

How do you expect anyone to debate something with someone who comes across as missing some basic fundamentals of the situation and still hasn’t given anything about leaving that will be good?

Sorry mate, we get on great but your posting on this leaves me baffled.

 

[VocalMinority]

Johnson can't just call and election.
https://www.parliament.uk/education/about-your-parliament/general-elections/
Triggering an election other than at five-year intervals
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 provides for general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every five years. There are two provisions that trigger an election other than at five-year intervals:

• A motion of no confidence is passed in Her Majesty's Government by a simple majority and 14 days elapses without the House passing a confidence motion in any new Government formed
• A motion for a general election is agreed by two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons including vacant seats (currently 434 out of 650)

I'm aware, hard not to be after recent events.

I really meant call for but I'm expecting the opposition to go for this one as the extension will have been passed according to what johnson has said.

I'm just pointing out this is purely a power grab and does not speed up or help brexit in any way. Nor does it give the public a proper say like a referendum.