Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Yes, I'm with you on this one - MPs should have more of a say on Brexit, and I still believe they will activate article 50, but more MP input is good in my book, I totally get the point you're making, but as an aside note, consider the following:
Remain made a big fuss about the constitution, the high court case, and of course, parliamentry sovereignty.
However, I warned about Remain doing this, because now they might get the rulebook flung back at them.
I may be wrong, and this is only my reading of the constitution, BUT,
once Parliament gives the government permission to activate Article 50, the government and its ministers of state have a lot of latitude to carry out that duty.
And there are dozens of examples of this going all the way back to the Napoleonic Wars
So, as a made up example, if parliament gives the government permission to drive the car to Edinburgh, then technically, there is nothing stopping the government from going via Australia, as long as it gets to Edinburgh within the time frame
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Yes, I'm with you on this one - MPs should have more of a say on Brexit, and I still believe they will activate article 50, but more MP input is good in my book, I totally get the point you're making, but as an aside note, consider the following:
Remain made a big fuss about the constitution, the high court case, and of course, parliamentry sovereignty.
However, I warned about Remain doing this, because now they might get the rulebook flung back at them.
I may be wrong, and this is only my reading of the constitution, BUT,
From my perspective there is a distinct difference between issuing A50 and a vote on the final agreement. What is going through at the moment is that parliament should be allowed a vote on whether who is entitled to issue A50 (and it can't just be done by May giving Juncker a post it note). They will then be entitled to negotiate on the behalf of parliament. However the final deal will still have to be ratified by parliament as that will require legislative change - we have to remember that parliament voted on the Lisbon Treaty. Of course there's likely a million and one ways to look at this and you can be pretty certain that if May decides that she wants to try and go it alone with Boris the Clown and entourage then there will be another legislative challenge swinging its way through the High Court, the Supreme Court and possibly the ECJ (which might then be appealed). The question is whether the EU will happily wait?
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Yes, I'm with you on this one - MPs should have more of a say on Brexit, and I still believe they will activate article 50, but more MP input is good in my book, I totally get the point you're making, but as an aside note, consider the following:
Remain made a big fuss about the constitution, the high court case, and of course, parliamentry sovereignty.
However, I warned about Remain doing this, because now they might get the rulebook flung back at them.
I may be wrong, and this is only my reading of the constitution, BUT,
From my perspective there is a distinct difference between issuing A50 and a vote on the final agreement. What is going through at the moment is that parliament should be allowed a vote on whether who is entitled to issue A50 (and it can't just be done by May giving Juncker a post it note). They will then be entitled to negotiate on the behalf of parliament. However the final deal will still have to be ratified by parliament as that will require legislative change - we have to remember that parliament voted on the Lisbon Treaty. Of course there's likely a million and one ways to look at this and you can be pretty certain that if May decides that she wants to try and go it alone with Boris the Clown and entourage then there will be another legislative challenge swinging its way through the High Court, the Supreme Court and possibly the ECJ (which might then be appealed). The question is whether the EU will happily wait?
True words, I agree, but there is another element here, and that's events and politics.
If after 2 years, Parliament rejects the deal and says it wants May to do X Y Z, and the EU says HELL NO, then what is Parliament going to do?
It's all very well for Parliament to demand things, but it forgets that there is another side in this negotiation i.e the EU and it seems to forget that Parliament's authority stops at Dover.
The EU does not give two hoots for the British Parliament. If the EU takes a hard line with the UK and says here's a deal, take ir or leave it, then Parliament hasn't got a lot of breathing space. Politics and events are likely to shape any final outcome.
I wish to God that parliament would acknowledge this cold, hard, reality.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
In light of the prison riots they want to halve the prison population. Presumably turning out the sorts of violent people who riot back out into the public.
The problem is that the prison service has been underfunded just like every other public service. They need more beds and more staff so that prisoners don't ruot because they feel like caged animals. The answer isn't to stop sending people to prison, Jeeze don't we read enough stories about people getting bafflingly inadequate sentences for serious offences, or serial offenders that have been let out over and over because over overcrowding?
It's not like we send people to prison for nothing at the moment, minor crimes and first offences rarely get a custodial sentence, so who exactly isn't going to prison so they can halve the prison population? It's very worrying.
Yes, I'm with you on this one - MPs should have more of a say on Brexit, and I still believe they will activate article 50, but more MP input is good in my book, I totally get the point you're making, but as an aside note, consider the following:
Remain made a big fuss about the constitution, the high court case, and of course, parliamentry sovereignty.
However, I warned about Remain doing this, because now they might get the rulebook flung back at them.
I may be wrong, and this is only my reading of the constitution, BUT,
once Parliament gives the government permission to activate Article 50, the government and its ministers of state have a lot of latitude to carry out that duty.
And there are dozens of examples of this going all the way back to the Napoleonic Wars
So, as a made up example, if parliament gives the government permission to drive the car to Edinburgh, then technically, there is nothing stopping the government from going via Australia, as long as it gets to Edinburgh within the time frame
It's not about "remain" doing anything, but about following appropriate processes.
To follow your example the government were saying to parliament "I'm taking the car out, going to Edinburgh, tanksby!"
What this is saying is that they have to ask parliament to borrow the car. Parliament can, in theory say no, you can't have the car, or they could say yes and the government take it via Australia, or they could say yes, you can take it, but your only allowed to take it if you use the A1 or M1.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Interesting article in the Guardian about what went on behind the scenes of the respective EU referendum campaigns and some plugging of books about the campaigns:
In many respects, the article only confirms what we already knew:
a) our political leaders are incapable of organising a funeral in a graveyard
b) the referendum was no more than an attempt by Cameron to quell the Euro-sceptics in his own party.
c) Leave didn't expect to win, and didn't want to win - instead hoping to shake down Brussels for a few more concessions.
And these are the people charged with running this country
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: In light of the prison riots they want to halve the prison population. Presumably turning out the sorts of violent people who riot back out into the public.
The problem is that the prison service has been underfunded just like every other public service. They need more beds and more staff so that prisoners don't ruot because they feel like caged animals. The answer isn't to stop sending people to prison, Jeeze don't we read enough stories about people getting bafflingly inadequate sentences for serious offences, or serial offenders that have been let out over and over because over overcrowding?
It's not like we send people to prison for nothing at the moment, minor crimes and first offences rarely get a custodial sentence, so who exactly isn't going to prison so they can halve the prison population? It's very worrying.
Pay for prison officers is pretty low, when you consider the dangers of the job.
Yes, I'm with you on this one - MPs should have more of a say on Brexit, and I still believe they will activate article 50, but more MP input is good in my book, I totally get the point you're making, but as an aside note, consider the following:
Remain made a big fuss about the constitution, the high court case, and of course, parliamentry sovereignty.
However, I warned about Remain doing this, because now they might get the rulebook flung back at them.
I may be wrong, and this is only my reading of the constitution, BUT,
once Parliament gives the government permission to activate Article 50, the government and its ministers of state have a lot of latitude to carry out that duty.
And there are dozens of examples of this going all the way back to the Napoleonic Wars
So, as a made up example, if parliament gives the government permission to drive the car to Edinburgh, then technically, there is nothing stopping the government from going via Australia, as long as it gets to Edinburgh within the time frame
It's not about "remain" doing anything, but about following appropriate processes.
To follow your example the government were saying to parliament "I'm taking the car out, going to Edinburgh, tanksby!"
What this is saying is that they have to ask parliament to borrow the car. Parliament can, in theory say no, you can't have the car, or they could say yes and the government take it via Australia, or they could say yes, you can take it, but your only allowed to take it if you use the A1 or M1.
Processes? Bah and humbug to process! I've been waiting 6 months for article 50 to be activated
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/22 12:13:35
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
22 year-old George Cottrell, formerly an aide to Nigel Farage, has admitted in a U.S. court to posing as a money launderer on the ‘dark web’.
He was caught after the drug dealers he agreed to launder money for turned out to be undercover FBI agents.
Cottrell could face around 20 years in a U.S. Federal prison.
The F.B.I. agree to drop many of the other charges against him in exchange for a guilty plea. It read:
I falsely claimed that I would launder the criminal proceeds through my bank accounts for a fee,” Cottrell said in his plea agreement. “Rather than launder any of the money, though … I intended to retain the money.
Cottrell used to run Nigel Farage’s private office and used to handle media requests on his behalf.
He has been imprisoned in Phoenix, Arizona, since earlier this year on money laundering, mail and wire fraud and blackmail charges, reports AZcentral.com
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Howard A Treesong wrote: In light of the prison riots they want to halve the prison population. Presumably turning out the sorts of violent people who riot back out into the public.
The problem is that the prison service has been underfunded just like every other public service. They need more beds and more staff so that prisoners don't ruot because they feel like caged animals. The answer isn't to stop sending people to prison, Jeeze don't we read enough stories about people getting bafflingly inadequate sentences for serious offences, or serial offenders that have been let out over and over because over overcrowding?
It's not like we send people to prison for nothing at the moment, minor crimes and first offences rarely get a custodial sentence, so who exactly isn't going to prison so they can halve the prison population? It's very worrying.
A well funded and robust drug rehabilitation scheme run alongside offender management programmes but independent of the current NOMS set up could go some way to reduce re offending. At minimum this should be available from day one of sentencing and run sometime after a sentence ends.
Ditto a scheme getting offenders into work. With support in place for a good length of time post sentence.
Actually tie all that up education whilst offenders are inside.
Young offenders should get the above and mentoring. YOI are nasty nasty places and are proper breeding grounds for future criminal activities. It would be a boon for schemes targeting younger offenders to be stricter yet offer more.
As a bit of light news it appears Southern Rail are going to extreme lengths to ensure they can get passengers across the country. However it is just like this company not to think things through...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/22 19:48:49
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Whirlwind wrote: As a bit of light news it appears Southern Rail are going to extreme lengths to ensure they can get passengers across the country. However it is just like this company not to think things through...
Whirlwind wrote: As a bit of light news it appears Southern Rail are going to extreme lengths to ensure they can get passengers across the country. However it is just like this company not to think things through...
Modern British politics is out of touch with people and the vote was a shout of protest, as much at the Westminster elite as at the EU.
I think there is a lot of truth in this. I said after the last general election that it was ridiculous that UKIP could score 13% of the vote and get only one seat in Parliament.
Modern British politics is out of touch with people and the vote was a shout of protest, as much at the Westminster elite as at the EU.
I think there is a lot of truth in this. I said after the last general election that it was ridiculous that UKIP could score 13% of the vote and get only one seat in Parliament.
The EU and mainstream national political parties are content to isolate the lower classes, those on the fringes, the marginalised since they have little to give back. The middle is now squeezed dry of support. Depressingly the poorest will be stepped on again by those supposedly 'representing' them.
Well, the Christmas weekend starts now. I'll start drinking later and that's me til January.
A Merry Christmas to my fellow countrymen and women on this thread.
Some good debates this year, even though I was right most of the time
It's been some year, and God knows what 2017 will bring with Brexit and Trump, but that's for another day.
Highlight of the year? Farage Vs. Geldof on the Thames.
Yeah, Farage is an idiot, but that was funny. I laughed so hard, I thought a rib would split and puncture a lung
Anyway, I'm off.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Britain's policy on Syria has been "wrong every step of the way", a former UK ambassador to the country has said.
Peter Ford said the UK had made matters worse by not putting troops on the ground and instead encouraging rebel groups to mount a doomed campaign.
The situation had led to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, which could have been foreseen, he added.
The Foreign Office said removing the Assad regime was the only way to end the suffering of the Syrian people.
Mr Ford, who was the ambassador in Damascus from 2003 to 2006, said the UK should have put forces on to the battlefield or refrained from encouraging the launch of the opposition campaign.
In 2013, possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons was rejected by MPs,
Two years later, the UK launched air strikes targeting so-called Islamic State in Syria after receiving Parliament's backing.
The government motion authorised air strikes "exclusively" against IS in Syria - but not deploying British troops on the ground. Speaking at the time, Mr Ford said the value of strikes would be "piddling" and warned of "inevitable blowback on our streets"..
Speaking on the Today programme on Friday, Mr Ford said: "We have made the situation worse.
"It was eminently foreseeable to anyone who was not intoxicated with wishful thinking. The British Foreign Office, to which I used to belong, I'm sorry to say has got Syria wrong every step of the way."
On Thursday, the Syrian army regained full control of Aleppo - which has been a key battleground in the civil war between government forces and rebel groups.
It is a notable victory for President Bashar al-Assad in the war which began when the uprising against him began in 2011.
Mr Ford said the president's government should be given "a little credit" for a "relatively peaceful" end to the siege in Aleppo.
He told the BBC government forces would now need to strengthen their hold on the city and defend it against possible counter-attacks.
'Blood on its hands'
The former diplomat criticised the Foreign Office for saying President Assad's demise was imminent at the beginning of the war and for predicting he would lose power quickly.
He said the department also said the opposition was dominated by "these so-called moderates, that proved not to be the case".
The BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, said the nature of the opposition side had "changed" over the last five years of war.
He said: "They were a different type of people than the way they are now. The Jihadist side has become much more prominent."
Mr Ford also said: "Now they are telling us another big lie, that Assad can't control the rest of the country. Well, I've got news for them; he is well on the way to doing so."
The West has condemned the bombing in Aleppo, yet similar attacks were being carried out in the Iraqi city of Mosul and in Yemen without the same amount of criticism from Britain, he claimed.
He went on: "We don't talk about atrocities; we don't talk about war crimes, although they are indisputably being committed in both those theatres."
The former ambassador said "we will be lucky" if those campaigns ended in the evacuation of civilians and rebel fighters on green buses, as was the case in Aleppo.
The Foreign Office said a political solution and transition away from Assad were the "only way to end the suffering of the Syrian people".
A spokesman added: "The Assad regime has the blood of hundreds of thousands on its hands. There is no way it can unite and bring stability to Syria.
"The UK has pledged more than £2.3 billion to support those affected by the Syrian conflict and sought to reduce the suffering with every diplomatic lever at our command."
The only reason dakka members would claim that is because they haven't bothered reading into the cold, hard facts of what is happening.
1. we are supporting the 'rebels' - these 'rebels' are happy to work with the terrorists (isil, isis), and they are fighting against the democratically elected government for reasons you won't get told in the news.
2. we are NOT supposed to be involved - russia got invited into syria, we are funding the 'rebel' groups because we don't have the right to march our troops into another country that doesn't want us there.
3. the only gas pipelines to europe are from russia, they pretty much have a monopoly on European energy supply and Europe + the usa want to break that monopoly. solid red lines are current, dotted are being prospected and blue lines are the plans going forward
Spoiler:
The only reason anyone does anything internationally is because of strategic resources.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/24 11:02:08
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
SirDonlad wrote: The only reason dakka members would claim that is because they haven't bothered reading into the cold, hard facts of what is happening.
1. we are supporting the 'rebels' - these 'rebels' are happy to work with the terrorists (isil, isis), and they are fighting against the democratically elected government for reasons you won't get told in the news.
2. we are NOT supposed to be involved - russia got invited into syria, we are funding the 'rebel' groups because we don't have the right to march our troops into another country that doesn't want us there.
3. the only gas pipelines to europe are from russia, they pretty much have a monopoly on European energy supply and Europe + the usa want to break that monopoly. solid red lines are current, dotted are being prospected and blue lines are the plans going forward
Spoiler:
The only reason anyone does anything internationally is because of strategic resources.
Erm..yeah, thats really my point.
We had no clear policy other than Assad bad. No clear objective other than to declare support for the rebellion.
From the start we have been told Assads position is weak and is within hours, days weeks of being toppled,exiled or killed.
Al Nusra, Queda and the rest have all been seen as allies at somepoint.
Any opposition that gains power is likely to have anti west sentiments. In fact should rebel groups somehow manage to topple Assad and come to power their leadership will be viewed with suspicion by the population.
Europe (especially) looks increasingly impotent. But hey, Germany is going someway to solving a looming pensions crisis. All those refugees it has taken in will soon be generating income for the state.
Deploying British troops is insane. Syria is a quagmire. If we committed troops, we'd be stuck in Syria for a decade, like we were in Iraq. The mission would escalate and before long we'd be maintaining an occupation and fighting an insurgency.
And that's not to mention the sheer fething stupidity of directly attacking Russia's military ally. Things like that have consequences. We can't get away with reckless military adventurism like that. It'd be as bad as Russia invading Finland or Turkey or some other NATO member.
I'd prefer it if we didn't provoke a direct military conflict with Russia thankyou very much.
"Syrian suffering" is for the Syrian people to resolve. I don't want any British lives expended in this conflict.
Our direct military intervention against the Assad Government would merely make matters worse and potentially escalate a regional conflict into a global one.
It beggars belief that UK leaders and MP's are STILL calling for action against Assad, especially after seeing how the so called "moderate" rebels are hopelessly intermingled with and in bed with Islamist Jihaadists.
Calling for Military action against Assad is despicable. We've made enough of a mess of the region with the Iraq debacle and the knock on effect that had on world Islamism and the Arab Spring. Its time we stopped interfering in the region.
Yes, at this point we need to just stand back and stay out of it. Assad is a bastard but if he's the only thing that can keep a lid on that place then what choice do we have really?
It beggars belief that UK leaders and MP's are STILL calling for action against Assad, especially after seeing how the so called "moderate" rebels are hopelessly intermingled with and in bed with Islamist Jihaadists.
Calling for Military action against Assad is despicable. We've made enough of a mess of the region with the Iraq debacle and the knock on effect that had on world Islamism and the Arab Spring. Its time we stopped interfering in the region.
Action is to be taken by Syrians, supported by the west and our assurances that Assad is mounting a last stand in his Damascus residence, his supporters fleeing. The Russians are a figment of the imagination. To Victory!
Voters will have to show proof of identity in a government pilot scheme to reduce electoral fraud.
Some councils in England, including Birmingham and Bradford, will trial the scheme at local elections in 2018.
Constitution minister Chris Skidmore said the pilot would "ensure the integrity of our electoral system".
But former London mayor Ken Livingstone said it was a "political" move and would make life more difficult for most people because of a handful of crimes.
A full list of the participating councils has not been released, but the government wants to use the pilot scheme to see if it should be rolled out across the whole country.
Different councils will trial different types of photo ID, including driving licences, passports or utility bills to prove addresses, although the creation of a new form of ID specifically for voting has been ruled out by ministers.
Northern Ireland already requires voters to show ID before casting their ballot.
Mr Skidmore said fraud was unacceptable and he wanted to protect the rights of voters to have their say.
He defended the plans against allegations they could disenfranchise poor people who do not have ID, telling BBC Radio Four's Today programme: "Voting is one of the most important transactions you can make as an individual. In many transactions you need a proof of ID."
The pilot would test which form of ID worked best, he said, bringing the UK in line with some other countries.
The minister added: "I'm determined to ensure, when it comes to groups who are under-registered, that they get the opportunity to exercise their vote.
"Ensuring those communities are protected, that the risks of electoral fraud are diminished, will ensure those individuals are represented fairly across this country."
The reform was first touted by former cabinet minister Sir Eric Pickles in August, when he released recommendations amid growing concerns about electoral fraud.
He tweeted that the government was "right to give greater powers to electoral officials and the police to deal with intimidation and other unwanted behaviour".
Labour's shadow minister for voter engagement and youth affairs, Cat Smith MP, said the party supported the plan.
However, she said more needed to be done to ensure eligible voters were registered after a change to the rules by the Conservatives in February meant people had to register as individuals, rather than as a household - a move that saw thousands of people drop off the register.
"The government's priority should be to ensure the integrity of the system, but also to address the fact that under them hundreds of thousands of people have fallen off the register due to their unnecessarily rushed changes," she said.
"Despite what the Tories say, they have been more interested in fixing the rules to suit themselves, rather than helping the many eligible voters who are not on the electoral roll."
Mr Livingstone, who was suspended from the Labour Party and is currently an independent, said the Conservative government was the driving force behind the idea.
"The real problem is the people most likely not to have a passport or a driving licence are going to be the poorest and that I suspect will basically hit the Labour Party," he told Today.
He continued: "It's really bad to make life more difficult for the vast majority of people when you're dealing with a handful of dodgy council people...
"If we had a real problem with fraud, as you've got in some dodgy countries around the world, it would be justified, but it really isn't."
As well as the trials, election officials and police will be given new powers to tackle intimidation of voters by activists, who will also be banned from collecting postal votes for submission - a practice known as "harvesting".
And the government has said it is also considering plans to check the nationality of voters to stop fraudulent registrations.
There will also be reforms to improve the security of the postal ballot system, such as requiring postal voters to re-apply every three years.
This sounds like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Although I'm somewhat dismayed they couldn't find anyone other than Ken to talk to, he really needs to go away already.
Nice easy distraction for people to yell at each other about, whilst the comments section fills up with people yelling " fake news 1111 " at each other.
Bodes well eh ?
TBF Rees-Mogg said pretty much the exact opposite of this would happen so we should've known really.
"Mr Flanagan said that comments by the British international trade minister Liam Fox at the weekend, in which he raised the prospect of the UK remaining a member of the customs union, were “the polar opposite of what he said in September”.
..hmm..
Fox not up to the job ? who'd a thunk.
..ahh... now we see what the issue really is.
For the rich anyway.
How do you guarantee a ball bustingly expensive, painful and awkward Hard Brexit ?
Because the remaining 27 EU members will be fine with that.
...One would suggest that might also have an impact as/when we have to try and start using the WTO tariff system.
Couldn't see, say, Luxembourg or Ireland being especially thrilled for example.
it's a wee bit heavy going in parts -- and somewhat depressing too, alas -- but worth the effort.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
And that's not to mention the sheer fething stupidity of directly attacking Russia's military ally. Things like that have consequences. We can't get away with reckless military adventurism like that. It'd be as bad as Russia invading Finland or Turkey or some other NATO member.
Just slight correction. Finland is not(and hopefully will not be one. If finland is to sign miliary partnesqhip better be one that has better quarantee for aid than nato) member of nato. So even if nato were to intervene(not quaranteed evenfor members let alone independent) it's not because finland is part of nato but becaupe it suits usa. No different really even if we were member of nato.
Voters will have to show proof of identity in a government pilot scheme to reduce electoral fraud.
Some councils in England, including Birmingham and Bradford, will trial the scheme at local elections in 2018.
Constitution minister Chris Skidmore said the pilot would "ensure the integrity of our electoral system".
But former London mayor Ken Livingstone said it was a "political" move and would make life more difficult for most people because of a handful of crimes.
A full list of the participating councils has not been released, but the government wants to use the pilot scheme to see if it should be rolled out across the whole country.
Different councils will trial different types of photo ID, including driving licences, passports or utility bills to prove addresses, although the creation of a new form of ID specifically for voting has been ruled out by ministers.
Northern Ireland already requires voters to show ID before casting their ballot.
Mr Skidmore said fraud was unacceptable and he wanted to protect the rights of voters to have their say.
He defended the plans against allegations they could disenfranchise poor people who do not have ID, telling BBC Radio Four's Today programme: "Voting is one of the most important transactions you can make as an individual. In many transactions you need a proof of ID."
The pilot would test which form of ID worked best, he said, bringing the UK in line with some other countries.
The minister added: "I'm determined to ensure, when it comes to groups who are under-registered, that they get the opportunity to exercise their vote.
"Ensuring those communities are protected, that the risks of electoral fraud are diminished, will ensure those individuals are represented fairly across this country."
The reform was first touted by former cabinet minister Sir Eric Pickles in August, when he released recommendations amid growing concerns about electoral fraud.
He tweeted that the government was "right to give greater powers to electoral officials and the police to deal with intimidation and other unwanted behaviour".
Labour's shadow minister for voter engagement and youth affairs, Cat Smith MP, said the party supported the plan.
However, she said more needed to be done to ensure eligible voters were registered after a change to the rules by the Conservatives in February meant people had to register as individuals, rather than as a household - a move that saw thousands of people drop off the register.
"The government's priority should be to ensure the integrity of the system, but also to address the fact that under them hundreds of thousands of people have fallen off the register due to their unnecessarily rushed changes," she said.
"Despite what the Tories say, they have been more interested in fixing the rules to suit themselves, rather than helping the many eligible voters who are not on the electoral roll."
Mr Livingstone, who was suspended from the Labour Party and is currently an independent, said the Conservative government was the driving force behind the idea.
"The real problem is the people most likely not to have a passport or a driving licence are going to be the poorest and that I suspect will basically hit the Labour Party," he told Today.
He continued: "It's really bad to make life more difficult for the vast majority of people when you're dealing with a handful of dodgy council people...
"If we had a real problem with fraud, as you've got in some dodgy countries around the world, it would be justified, but it really isn't."
As well as the trials, election officials and police will be given new powers to tackle intimidation of voters by activists, who will also be banned from collecting postal votes for submission - a practice known as "harvesting".
And the government has said it is also considering plans to check the nationality of voters to stop fraudulent registrations.
There will also be reforms to improve the security of the postal ballot system, such as requiring postal voters to re-apply every three years.
This sounds like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Although I'm somewhat dismayed they couldn't find anyone other than Ken to talk to, he really needs to go away already.
Apparently because there is electoral fraud in Pakistan and Bangladesh that means we should be suspicious that the same thing could happen here, without any evidence that it is actually happening obviously, but that appears the Tory way now, both being bigots and not undertaking proper research on the issue.
In his report, Sir Eric cited research suggesting certain Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities could be more vulnerable to fraud due to a lack of understanding of the voting process.
He highlighted "kinship" traditions, saying they emphasised collective over individual rights and made it more likely that people would "hand over" their vote over to others.
Mr Skidmore dismissed suggestions the new measures were targeted at any "particular community" but said it was essential people across the UK were able to fulfil their democratic rights "regardless of their race or their religion".
However I'd be more cynical that this is a method of stopping lower income people (so more likely to vote labour) who might not have appropriate ID (because they can't afford it).
And since when did they start knighting complete prats like Eric Pickles which even by the Tory party standards he is a particularly bad one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/27 19:34:46
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Voters will have to show proof of identity in a government pilot scheme to reduce electoral fraud.
Some councils in England, including Birmingham and Bradford, will trial the scheme at local elections in 2018.
Constitution minister Chris Skidmore said the pilot would "ensure the integrity of our electoral system".
But former London mayor Ken Livingstone said it was a "political" move and would make life more difficult for most people because of a handful of crimes.
A full list of the participating councils has not been released, but the government wants to use the pilot scheme to see if it should be rolled out across the whole country.
Different councils will trial different types of photo ID, including driving licences, passports or utility bills to prove addresses, although the creation of a new form of ID specifically for voting has been ruled out by ministers.
Northern Ireland already requires voters to show ID before casting their ballot.
Mr Skidmore said fraud was unacceptable and he wanted to protect the rights of voters to have their say.
He defended the plans against allegations they could disenfranchise poor people who do not have ID, telling BBC Radio Four's Today programme: "Voting is one of the most important transactions you can make as an individual. In many transactions you need a proof of ID."
The pilot would test which form of ID worked best, he said, bringing the UK in line with some other countries.
The minister added: "I'm determined to ensure, when it comes to groups who are under-registered, that they get the opportunity to exercise their vote.
"Ensuring those communities are protected, that the risks of electoral fraud are diminished, will ensure those individuals are represented fairly across this country."
The reform was first touted by former cabinet minister Sir Eric Pickles in August, when he released recommendations amid growing concerns about electoral fraud.
He tweeted that the government was "right to give greater powers to electoral officials and the police to deal with intimidation and other unwanted behaviour".
Labour's shadow minister for voter engagement and youth affairs, Cat Smith MP, said the party supported the plan.
However, she said more needed to be done to ensure eligible voters were registered after a change to the rules by the Conservatives in February meant people had to register as individuals, rather than as a household - a move that saw thousands of people drop off the register.
"The government's priority should be to ensure the integrity of the system, but also to address the fact that under them hundreds of thousands of people have fallen off the register due to their unnecessarily rushed changes," she said.
"Despite what the Tories say, they have been more interested in fixing the rules to suit themselves, rather than helping the many eligible voters who are not on the electoral roll."
Mr Livingstone, who was suspended from the Labour Party and is currently an independent, said the Conservative government was the driving force behind the idea.
"The real problem is the people most likely not to have a passport or a driving licence are going to be the poorest and that I suspect will basically hit the Labour Party," he told Today.
He continued: "It's really bad to make life more difficult for the vast majority of people when you're dealing with a handful of dodgy council people...
"If we had a real problem with fraud, as you've got in some dodgy countries around the world, it would be justified, but it really isn't."
As well as the trials, election officials and police will be given new powers to tackle intimidation of voters by activists, who will also be banned from collecting postal votes for submission - a practice known as "harvesting".
And the government has said it is also considering plans to check the nationality of voters to stop fraudulent registrations.
There will also be reforms to improve the security of the postal ballot system, such as requiring postal voters to re-apply every three years.
This sounds like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Although I'm somewhat dismayed they couldn't find anyone other than Ken to talk to, he really needs to go away already.
Apparently because there is electoral fraud in Pakistan and Bangladesh that means we should be suspicious that the same thing could happen here, without any evidence that it is actually happening obviously, but that appears the Tory way now, both being bigots and not undertaking proper research on the issue.
In his report, Sir Eric cited research suggesting certain Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities could be more vulnerable to fraud due to a lack of understanding of the voting process.
He highlighted "kinship" traditions, saying they emphasised collective over individual rights and made it more likely that people would "hand over" their vote over to others.
Mr Skidmore dismissed suggestions the new measures were targeted at any "particular community" but said it was essential people across the UK were able to fulfil their democratic rights "regardless of their race or their religion".
However I'd be more cynical that this is a method of stopping lower income people (so more likely to vote labour) who might not have appropriate ID (because they can't afford it).
And since when did they start knighting complete prats like Eric Pickles which even by the Tory party standards he is a particularly bad one.
Just had an argument with my father in law about this piece of bullgak policy. He's not a bad man but I try and set the record straight when it comes to 'preventing those immigrants and criminals voting'.
I don't see Labour being particularly bothered by the poor not being able to vote though. Its a nice angle for them to be seen as a party for the people. The Tories are definitely not caring that their mask is slipping.
There is plenty of electoral fraud in the UK by the use of postal votes. Bliar was warned about this arising when he proposed to change the rules about 15 years ago. He ignored the warnings, made the changes, and fraud duly increased. Unfortunately, Voter ID does nothing to combat postal voting fraud.
