Because the two are not compatible.KateR wrote:.
What does anyone not understand when he says, we will follow the law and we will leave? It Is simple English.
Seriously?Paul Waine wrote:Interesting questions, Lancs. What is it the Benn Act requires? Write a letter, text requesting extension - does it specify 3 months? When does the Gov't have to write the letter? Is there anything else? Today's 4-October - does BA say anything has to be done by today?
We are all familiar with football laws (well, at least before VAR.). Does the ref need to wait before the ball is in the net before awarding a goal? Can a team score a goal before the ref has started the game?
May not be compatible but not impossible. So he keeps his cards close as he is trying to get a deal despite remainers getting more and more desperate and using no deal as an excuse to stop brexit.Lancasterclaret wrote:Because the two are not compatible.
To get a deal, he needs time.
He hasn't got that time with an Oct 31st deadline.
An extension suits him, IF he is serious about a deal.
Hi Lancs, yes, I've asked you a serious question.Lancasterclaret wrote:Seriously?
Try reading it and then question it.
Wrong. There was no law of the land before the SC decision. They made new law and he immediately complied with it. Getting involved before a law is broken is a very dangerous principle. I really hope that the Government can get the Surrender Act overturned. Not so we can leave without a deal, but so we can get the best deal possible now.martin_p wrote:And there in lies the problem. Our current PM sees obeying the law of the land as a political matter. It’s not. The court is getting involved because of a desire to make sure the PM does not break the law. Absolutely bizarre and not a little sad that anyone has to do that.
Pretty simple isn't it?Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, yes, I've asked you a serious question.
You posted:
"At one stage does the court have to intervene to guarantee that the law is obeyed?
Surely its better now to make sure that law is obeyed, rather than at a stage where the government breaking the law means it gets what it wants?
Surely you are not advocating letting law breakers get away with what they want, even if they break the law?"
Was I wrong to assume that you know what the Benn Act says when you wrote the above? My recollection is that BA refers to "if the Gov't hasn't got a deal...."
We all welcome living in a country where the "rule of law" governs. But, I can't recall the law being empowered to act before a law is (EDIT) alleged to have been broken, can you? So, does BA say something had to be done by Gov't by 4-Oct - and that hasn't been done?
EDIT: replaced "has" by is alleged to have" - I'm pretty sure the rule of law in UK still works on "innocent until proved guilty."
If he does not comply by the 19 Oct and that law is still in force, then there will rightly be an immediate court order. But he is not going to put himself in that position. So BJ keep winding the bastards up.Lancasterclaret wrote:Pretty simple isn't it?
if we wait till Johnson breaks the law, then its too late to stop him breaking the law having the effect that he wants.
I mean, I get the support for Brexit, but I don't get the support for Johnson not lying. There is plenty of evidence that he lies.
But, little known fact, he is physically incapable of lying.Lancasterclaret wrote:Well
He's not a government spokesperson, he's the head of the ERG
Very, very weird to insist on leaving on Oct 31st though, as the only way that doesn't happen is if we agree a deal, and we need more time than what is left to agree a deal by Oct 31st.
There are non-sequiturs in your reply.Lancasterclaret wrote:Pretty simple isn't it?
if we wait till Johnson breaks the law, then its too late to stop him breaking the law having the effect that he wants.
I mean, I get the support for Brexit, but I don't get the support for Johnson not lying. There is plenty of evidence that he lies.
Long post saying nothing that is relevant to what the UK Government are engaged in now.Paul Waine wrote:There are non-sequiturs in your reply.
If the law hasn't been broken - which I guess is what you mean by "if we wait..." - then there's no course of action for "law enforcement" or the courts.
I hope that's "pretty simple."
It may be that, a bit like the "Dangerous Dogs Act" the Benn Act was written in haste - and is, in effect "bad law."
Good law, on the other hand, may have started with the MPs - yes, all of them - thinking about what they were putting into action when they voted to support a number of previous events. I mark the first one as approval for Lisbon Treaty, which included Article 50, but didn't include, let's call it Article 50A - what happens if a member state exercises the right, granted by Art 50, to leave. Then, we've got all the support for the referendum, and all the further support for exercising Article 50 rights and then all the decisions around May's "deal" - and the subsequent requests for delays. Where did the MPs think this was all going? Didn't they know that they'd all "given their support" for leaving with "no deal?" Pretty simple, as no deal has always been the default if the UK and EU weren't able to agree a deal.
What would I have done? Put all my efforts to getting a deal.... But, then, I'd have also asked, way back in 2005/6/7 where's Article 50A?
As we like to say: Pretty simple - these are the realities.
Oh, I nearly forgot... I'm not dodging your reference to BJ and lying/not lying. Can you give me the name of any politician who tells the truth? Any politician who's been in politics for 10 years or more has a "economical with the truth" record as long as, well, the longside. It's what they do in that matters, isn't it?
It strikes me they are up to something which none of us are likely to second guess.martin_p wrote:And again, we’ve been told time and time again that the EU is so scared of no deal that it’s our best negotiating tool. Now we’re being told that in response to a letter requesting that we avoid no deal at the end of the month the EU will say ‘no thanks, we want no deal’.
How do you Brexiteers square that circle exactly?
But Johnson is saying we can leave without a deal on 31st and obey the law so what’s the point.summitclaret wrote:Wrong. There was no law of the land before the SC decision. They made new law and he immediately complied with it. Getting involved before a law is broken is a very dangerous principle. I really hope that the Government can get the Surrender Act overturned. Not so we can leave without a deal, but so we can get the best deal possible now.
Hi Erasmus, please, let's not make comparisons between the NHS and US health care system(s) - and, let's be truthful about the NHS, it doesn't provide "a high standard of care to all persons regardless...." The NHS rations care, you can be lucky and treated quickly, or you can be unlucky and you are in a long queue, hoping that they will get round to treating you before it's too late. Or, the NHS has got old and out-of-date equipment, methods, procedures - and you aren't getting the health care that you need and would get under another country's system. And, then the NHS investigates and treats one situation at a time. If your situation is complex, or just not clear cut, you get sent to look at one possible cause, but, if it's not that - maybe after 5-6 months (and more) investigations - you are back to your GP to start a second series of appointments. My understanding is that other health care systems will look at all possibilities immediately.Erasmus wrote:To Paul Waine. Paul, I think your comments on health care and socialism are a little disingenuous. The socialist model of healthcare is one by which money raised through taxation, primarily from those who are richer, is used to provide a high standard of care to all persons regardless of their ability to pay.
The exact means by which that care is delivered is not the central issue. It is the use of tax revenues to provide expensive treatments to all people regardless of their economic status. A more relevant comparison would be between the NHS and US healthcare. The fact is that both the countries you refer to, Germany and the Netherlands, spend more per head of tax revenue on healthcare than we do in Britain. So in that fundamental sense, their systems are more socialist than ours.
What is the polite "social media" response to your post?Lancasterclaret wrote:Long post saying nothing that is relevant to what the UK Government are engaged in now.
Pretty simple why the government is in court.
Pretty simple why they are not trusted
Pretty simple why people persist in making excuses for them.
The response you’re looking for is ‘yes, that’s right’.Paul Waine wrote:What is the polite "social media" response to your post?
I'll guess I'll leave it as we are.
But, that would obviously be inaccurate, and I guess Lancs knows that. And, If I posted that it would be a lie. (which I think came into the exchange, somewhere).martin_p wrote:The response you’re looking for is ‘yes, that’s right’.
Yes, I know. I'm not a supporter of the US approach to health care.Erasmus wrote:Paul, as I said, it is the source of the funding that is crucial, not the mode of delivery. Where good health provision that poor people cannot afford is delivered to the poorest people due to the redistribution of wealth through insurance/taxation payments that is the basis of socialist ideology. I remember when I lived in the US and asked a hospital official about the provision of healthcare for my family, I was told, 'We don't have socialist healthcare in this country.'
When the Gov don’t have a majority all these shenanigans come into play.summitclaret wrote:
So the talk is that the government is trying to get Hungary to use its veto.Lowbankclaret wrote:When the Gov don’t have a majority all these shenanigans come into play.
Had the Tory’s still have the luxury of a majority none of this would be happening.
Spijed wrote:So the talk is that the government is trying to get Hungary to use its veto.
Don't you think it's a sad state of affairs that we are now happy to deal with fascism to get our way?
What does Breton Woods have to do with domestic policy? Or what did I write that you don't think is correct?Lowbankclaret wrote:Please could I humbly request you research the Breton Woods agreement.
That will guide you to how the world order was rebuilt after the Second World War.
It is if true but, look what the manifesto deniers would have driven us to. We could be much nearer to a deal if BJ had not had the rug pulled on his preferred strategy to get a deal.Spijed wrote:So the talk is that the government is trying to get Hungary to use its veto.
Don't you think it's a sad state of affairs that we are now happy to deal with fascism to get our way?
Well if your not prepared to read it, don’t expect me to have a debate with you.AndrewJB wrote:What does Breton Woods have to do with domestic policy? Or what did I write that you don't think is correct?
Just to say, America won the Second World War, they had more troops in theatre than anyone else.AndrewJB wrote:What does Breton Woods have to do with domestic policy? Or what did I write that you don't think is correct?
I'm not just talking about your direct benefit from the NHS and education, but the massive dollop of socialism this country was fed after WW2. The redistribution that took place benefited everyone. Britain - heavily indebted, bombed to ruin, and with millions of men returning from war - became prosperous again by building a welfare state and a fairer society. The fact that millions went from existing on the breadline to being fully fledged consumers. The fact that want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness were targeted for destruction. This is the socialism you benefited from, and as I said, your life would have been very different had you been born fifty to a hundred years earlier.Paul Waine wrote:Hi Andrew, where to start? OK, let's keep the same order as your post.
Fantastic "it's not greedy to see a collective approach...." especially, when you are doing the collecting. Wouldn't a truly collective action be one where everyone was taxed at the same rate, rather than "you've got more, so we are taking a lot more from you?" And, so we will "address... deep inequality here" rather than do something for the people living in real poverty in the largest part of the world? You really should ask the people who lived through socialism in USSR and Eastern Europe, or in China how their socialism worked out for them. Or, why not take a look at Corbyn's favourite socialist country, Venezuela? It's wonderful (that first came out as "woeful") that you think that the 5th (or are we down to 6th, now) largest economy in the world can address problems in other, much poorer, countries by "setting an example."
I'm puzzling over what you mean by suggesting socialism provided my education and my healthcare. My paternal grandfather was a mill worker, spent a large part of the 30s out of work. He lived in a 2 bed terrace, no elec, a gas mantle for lighting - this was how it was 70 years ago/1950s. He'd passed away - cotton worker's disease - before the streets where he lived were demolished in "slum clearance." My father was at grammar school before 1939 - and went on to uni and, after military service, became a teacher. I followed the same path, grammar school and uni. I'm not sure why you think socialism contributed to my education - the provision of state education isn't exclusively a feature of socialism. And, I've seen rather a lot of the NHS over the last few years - and, I've always "kept in touch" through one event or another in my life. And, not everything about the NHS is "great!" I've posted a few times on here that we'd have a better national health care system if it was set up like they do in Netherlands (which I've also experienced) or Germany - and several other European nations that have not gone down the "socialism" model of health care we have in the UK. (It's a pity that the EU didn't mandate all member states adopted the same health care models - the NHS would not have been anyone's choice - and maybe everyone would have voted to remain).
Speaking of the NHS and referring back to your idea of taxing earnings above £1 million at 90%. You are aware, I assume, of what's happening in the NHS with the doctors who are facing excessively high tax rates as a result of, let's say, "short-sighted" tax treatment of pension contributions. Many are deciding to retire, others are refusing to do overtime - i.e they are declining to use their skills and "contribute to the collective..."* which is the understandable human response to taxes they perceive to be unfair. Now, who'd have thought we'd see that human nature demonstrated in the NHS, the "icon of the socialist state!" And, these GPs are on earnings around £100,000.
* I guess others are choosing to take their skills elsewhere, to work in other countries where the tax rates are so excessive.
I understand Bretton Woods (I like Keynes). I'm just asking you what it has to do with the domestic policies of Western democracies after WW2.Lowbankclaret wrote:Well if your not prepared to read it, don’t expect me to have a debate with you.
It had a major effect on our and European policy. But if your not prepared to educate yourself on history, I will take your comments with the pinch of salt they deserve.
I wasn't promoting the USSR, or communism, and certainly not fascism - but describing how people were attracted to them in the 20s and 30s, because mainstream politics was not delivering for them economically. Both the CPGB and the Blackshirts had tens of thousands of members in the UK - and I don't think all of those people were motivated by the depredations of Hitler and Stalin.Paul Waine wrote:Andrew, I'm intrigued, where did you get your secondary and, I assume, tertiary education - if only your primary education was in the UK?
And, I'm asking that question - before I read your 2nd para.
I referred in my earlier post - our "socialism" debate - to USSR. How do you arrive at the idea that in the 1930s communism "offered steady employment, food, education, healthcare, and leisure to people who were for the most part living without some or all of those things." Don't you know about the 10s of millions that were killed by Stalin through the 1930s (yes, before USSR/Russia ended up fighting Hitler in defence of the Motherland). Don't you know about the millions who starved as a result of the collectivisation of agriculture - i.e. the taking away from the farmers (and this wasn't a wealthy farming class) and distributing their land to the collectives - with their party commissariats. (There are books that record this history, if you are interested).
Ok really, it has everything to do with domestic policy. How does that not compute.AndrewJB wrote:I understand Bretton Woods (I like Keynes). I'm just asking you what it has to do with the domestic policies of Western democracies after WW2.
I understand it as an international agreement, but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise:Lowbankclaret wrote:Ok really, it has everything to do with domestic policy. How does that not compute.
Just chasing an ideal, an ideal that didn't exist and, if you understand it, you know it can never exist and "deliver economically." The grass most definitely wasn't greener (or redder)!AndrewJB wrote:I wasn't promoting the USSR, or communism, and certainly not fascism - but describing how people were attracted to them in the 20s and 30s, because mainstream politics was not delivering for them economically. Both the CPGB and the Blackshirts had tens of thousands of members in the UK - and I don't think all of those people were motivated by the depredations of Hitler and Stalin.
and, you don't see the connection between Bretton Wood and the UK's recovery after WW2?AndrewJB wrote:I understand it as an international agreement, but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
FFSPstotto wrote:I wonder how many actual English folk are involved in this, it seems to be an immigrant movement against the English that will only gather pace to the indigenous people's detriment.
I'm sticking to the current problem PaulPaul Waine wrote:What is the polite "social media" response to your post?
And Europe’sPaul Waine wrote:and, you don't see the connection between Bretton Wood and the UK's recovery after WW2?
No, it would be the accurate reply.Paul Waine wrote:But, that would obviously be inaccurate, and I guess Lancs knows that. And, If I posted that it would be a lie. (which I think came into the exchange, somewhere).
Why? Just, why, Lancs?Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm sticking to the current problem Paul
It's very hard to talk to people who ignore that Johnson is a proven liar.
Agree, but Andrew is only bothered about looking after the UK. It can then "set and example" for the rest, or something.Lowbankclaret wrote:And Europe’s