The solicitor general stated on this mornings on the Radio 4 Today Programme that a possible 'direction' on Brexit given to the government by Parliament would be constitutionally unacceptable. He added " I have a problem, both constitutionally and politically, with the concept of a direction being given by parliament. Let the elected government govern, if the Tory rebels continue with their guerrilla tactics we may well end up with Rees Mogg in charge.
The solicitor general agreed a form of words with Grieve that was acceptable. This was after the programme you listened to. He seems a decent and honourable man, I watched him come to the aid of Davis who could not understand questions that were being put to him. Tonight he has been exposed as someone who is unable to act on behalf of the government. He must wonder what his role is.
The solicitor general stated on this mornings on the Radio 4 Today Programme that a possible 'direction' on Brexit given to the government by Parliament would be constitutionally unacceptable. He added " I have a problem, both constitutionally and politically, with the concept of a direction being given by parliament.Let the elected government govern. The solicitor General works for the government, the agreement with the rebels was intentionally wooly to buy time. The government are trying to avoid being blackmailed by a few oddballs that are hellbent on reversing the referendum decision. Crunch time coming very shortly, interesting to hear Grieve on QT tonight.
Sorry, but this makes little sense. If it was deliberately wooly to buy time, why would they then put a version of their own that will be debated next week. Not much time gained there. It sounds more like a panic measure.
This could equally be addressed to the desperate remoaners applying last minute pressure to reverse the referendum result. A Rees Mogg or similar Brexiteer led government with more certainty of action would do nicely. The bullying tactics from the EU have to be confronted at some time, sooner the better in my opinion.
Agreed. Just when I thought it would be safe to return to reasonable debate, we get this aggressive tripe again. At least we had some peace for a while.
Ha ha - am I the only one who makes sweeping statements? It is of course a generalisation - but is widely accepted. Not surprising as there is a logic. Young people tend to be more idealisitc - they can look at life and how it should be "nice". Later on they have all sorts of commitments and cares and expenses. These often mean they become more "practical" and look at their own interests and perhaps feel less able to be altruistic. Socialism (let's not get bogged down with tight definitions) is basically more to do with believing society is improved if you share resources around and make sure less well off people are given help - it is a "kind" philosophy. Capitalism (again let's not be too pedantic) tends to believe that society is helped more if you leave it to individuals to create wealth - I know you hate "trickle down" theory but to an extent it cannot be denied. If a society becomes wealthy it is more likely (except in dictatorships) that more people are able to gain some of that wealth - not of course remotely equally. I know I am generalising but this is just a little local discussion not a treatise on economic theory. Nobody thought the day after the referendum we would be "out" of the EU. In fact the timetable was not remotely important. Nor should it be. It is not fantasy about repeating referenda - but I did not say the EU dictated or ordered a re-run - but there are several examples of referenda that turned up an unfavourable result for the EU and the countries involved chose to have another go. (Denmark and Ireland are examples in the back of my mind).
In a turbulent ever changing world it is reassuring to be able to rely on the resident 'not 606 WFC clique' to ensure political views are kept within their narrow parameters. I will get back to my self build.
I think that when two 60 year olds start making assumptions about 'what youth are like' then we open ourselves to all sorts of criticism Leo I do not think that 'youth' is associated with idealism as such - but most teenagers live in a kind of bubble. This means that their group of friends are rarely more than about a year older (or younger) than themselves - nobody else really matters at that age. This 'bubble' continues for some years and the generations only start to really mix on equal terms after all studies are over. It's only then that ideas really start circulating. As you grow older you learn more tolerance of other conflicting ideas - so your politics may be the same but you learn to understand the alternatives better. I cannot really speak about British youth because most of my work over the last 30 years has been with their German (or Turkish) counterparts. My feeling is that the youth of today are not as political as in former times - maybe on individual issues, but not in terms of party politics. In some ways they are more socially left - ie. they respond to issues like gay rights, freedom of movement, multi culturalism - also to environmental themes. But they are economically more right wing in as much as the ideas of communal ownership, or solidarity are more likely to still be found in older generations. Many of todays youth are, at any rate, more materialistic than we were - and materialism does not marry up with socialism. As for the repeated referendums - they were not a repetition. The reason for this is that the question asked was an amended one. It was never a case of simply holding referendums until you get the right result - if 'A' is rejected then you go away and amend it until it is acceptable. Quite simple really, and perfectly democratic.
I was a teenager once, and was 20, 30 and so on; I have children in their 20s, 30s and 40s and grandchildren under 10 so let's not be ageist. A sixty something is as perfectly able as anyone else to observe and use experience. I can - can you not? My only point in suggesting how youngsters may think was to counter your sweeping assertion that the youth voted against brexit and your implication that as time goes on they will not change their minds thus increasing the proportion against brexit. An entirely sweeping view with no backing as well as being very ageist. {2 of the constituent countries of the UK. voted against, as did our capital city and all the other biggest cities eg. Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool etc. As did the youth of this country. By the time Britain actually leaves (if it does) the electorate will have changed - those of 14/15/16 will then be of voting age and many of the older carrot crunchers of middle England will have left us for pastures new} I do not intend to prolong a debate on how young people think as it is generalised and perhaps subjective but most books on sociology and psychology I have read indicate people get more "conservative" with age. The subject is not important though. You rely on semantics regarding the "repeated" referenda. The EU were not happy with the outcome of the first referendum and encouraged an amendment that would get through. Perhaps you think the UK should have done likewise. Many people would not like that form of democracy (as it happens I would). Keep asking slightly different questions till you get the answer you want. For many brexiters that goes to the core of their belief that the EU is not democratic.
I agree - it was unfortunate to introduce words like extremist to describe people with a respectable but different set of opinions. Hopefully we will all try not to categorise politicians we disagree with with words generally accepted as derogatory. Or have I misunderstood? Surely this was not a comment on someone whose views make him the lone voice on this forum representing 52% of the referendum voters. Someone who is told to go and understand communism when there is in fact no universal "understanding". If anyone has ever been a lone voice in an argument against all comers you will remember how easy it is to be slightly less tactful. Certainly from that quarter there has been not a hint of a personal attack even though it could be imagined that one or two comments the other way were. I have enjoyed hearing an alternative view and hope it continues. Or do we just want to agree on everything?
I will agree that telling another poster to go away and read up on Communism was a bit 'catty' to say the least. This was a response to the insinuation that people of that persuasion are infiltrating the Labour Party - the idea that Corbyn's supporters are mostly Trotskyists. Ideas which are laughable, not based on any real understanding, and which are used purely to discredit whole groups of people. We know that statistically certain groups were more likely to vote one way than another - so why is it not legitimate to say that the youth voted to remain ? It is as legitimate as saying the UK. voted to leave. Naturally the electorate as a whole will have changed by the time the UK. actually leaves - with an increase of voters who were, statistically, more likely to vote remain - and deaths at the other end amongst groups who were more likely to vote leave. Would it be democratic to leave at a time when the majority has changed it's mind ? Your assumption that people get more conservative with age is a simplistic one - of course a person aged 60 has been exposed to a wider range of ideas than when aged 18, and, as a result, may have become more tolerant. I can accept alternative points of view much better at 60 than I could at 18, but does that make me more conservative ? Besides which, what does 'conservatism' have to do with Brexit ?
We all get catty occasionally. I am told not all my comments have been wonderful You cannot say "the youth voted to remain" if only a percentage did. You can say more of them than older people did or even a majority - but "the youth" is inaccurate. Unless you have psychic powers or are a gifted psephologist you cannot really make valid predictions though about how any changes will go. The polls so far give no clues. It is perfectly possible to argue that in each age group as time passes the percentages will remain similar. Your argument is that the pro-remain voters will simply age and not adapt to their increased age and life perceptions. You cannot know that. If history tells us anything it is that animosity towards the EU increased up to the referendum from 1975 so perhaps a referendum in 5 years would give a 60% leave vote. We just do not know. It is democratic to carry out a referendum's result - nobody stipulated how long it may take or that if not complete in such and such a time we needed another vote. I agree that it is simplistic to say people get more conservative with age - but countless studies have indicated they do. I have seen none that suggest a majority become more radical - individuals yes but collectives -no. Conservatism has nothing to do with brexit - it was only used to refute your suggestion that as people age they will carry the same opinions.
There was no need to resort to 'catty' comments when faced with clear facts. A potential candidate standing on any form of communism in the UK is likely to attract a very poor level of support from the public. Momentum, under Corbyn's leadership, have found it much easier to infiltrate the Labour Party to gain political influence. Nobody is saying most of the recent surge in LP membership are Trots, they are simply, mainly young, gullible and looking for an alternative to main stream politics. Many will no doubt be voting Lib Dem or Conservative in a few years time. I would suggest the well established fact that increasing age also increases the likelihood of voting Conservative is purely down to the past performances of the main political parties. It is a pity all of these Tories amongst us old men have been squeezed out of this forum. The clique will ensure they will not be welcome to express their views.
Wouldn't it be nice if we stayed on "topic" and all tried to resist answering what we perceive as personal comments. We all make mistakes so if we mostly try to ignore the personal bits we will get a much better conversation. I happen to agree with you SH re Momentum. The same happened to Labour in Liverpool (Hatton / Tribune) some years back. They do not help themselves by allowing in elements who want to take the party back to the days when unions were powerful. The UK has shown itself to prefer more middle ground politics of left and right.
I'm surprised you stayed around this long - nothing has changed with the Liberal Lefty clique on here. I take a look now again, but there is no point in contributing. Just look at this private message I received a while back from their pet pit-bull Toby:- I don't post on this board anymore, nor does BB, yet you permanently bleat on about some 'clique' bullshit whilst acting like a complete cock as usual. You should be ****ing ashamed of yourself. I'm ashamed that you're a so-called 'Watford fan', just like your xenophobic buddy SH. I wish you a miserable life, but you're probably on track for that already please log in to view this image Just **** off.
The shame though is that if a few Tories and brexit supporters posted on here we could get a meaningful debate. I support quite a few Tory things - mostly though I don't like union left Labour. However we only have one person who can give us a view on pro brexit - and that is a pity.
