In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

They had been closing pits for decades.
Its what happens when demand falls below supply.

Demand hadn't fallen. They could buy coal cheaper from abroad.

Ignoring the obvious dip during the strike, production had been falling
for decades, imports are about half the reduction in production, hence
demand is lower.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/UK_Coal_Production.png

Of course demand for coal was falling long term. No more steam traction.
Domestic coal fires. But demand didn't crash overnight. And of course we
now had cheap North Sea gas which could be wasted generating electricity.
Instead of eking it out for the jobs it did best.

--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 05 Nov 2016 01:13:20 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


So you *still* haven't heard the admission that they had already
planned to close 75 pits before the strke!!


They had been closing pits for decades.
Its what happens when demand falls below supply.

Demand hadn't fallen.

Over what period? I thought coal demand had been in decline for years
and with Ships turning to oil firing from around the 20's ,reliable
electric supplies from the 30's with electric motors replacing steam
in factories ,clean air acts in the 50's causing thousands of homes to
turn to gas and electric for heating and cooking and the railways
withdrawing steam locos I can't see how demand would not have dropped.
Electricity may have taken more as demand increased but many power
stations opened in the 50's allowed closure of former small former
inefficient ones from the town corporation owned era to close
especially as the DC outputs they provided were no longer needed for
trams and trolley buses.
And a number of those post war power stations like the rebuilt
bankside and the new build Fawley burnt oil.
There were still a lot of people around who remembered how strikes in
the twenties which included the mines had affected the country and
considered that relying on it totally was not the thing to do.

G.Harman

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected under a
ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate supported
this position in the referendum, I would have thought they would be one
group who could justify voting against Brexit. Although I actually
agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to do
the same.

I don't quite see the logic of this. An MP's job is to look after his
constituency interests. In London, most constituencies voted remain.
Usually with a higher turnout than at an election.

The problem is the BREXIT means BREXIT dogma of some. Which is so vague as
to mean nothing.

Does that mean total disengagement from Europe including no later free
trade etc agreements? Or trying to retain those while not being subject to
any EU laws, immigration, and so on?

Total disengagement from the EU would almost certainly hit London hard -
given so many international companies have a presence here because it
gives them access to the EU as well as the UK.

I'd expect London MPs to be well aware of this, and protect for the
interests of their constituency. And let those in constituencies who voted
to leave protect the interests of their people.

And that is impossible if the very few cabinet ministers in charge of the
exit want to present them with a fait accompli.

Of course you could just trust them to do the very best for all. If they
did, it would be a first for any politician. Especially the likes of Boris.

--
*If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 05/11/2016 11:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected under a
ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate supported
this position in the referendum, I would have thought they would be one
group who could justify voting against Brexit. Although I actually
agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to do
the same.




Really?
The labour and others didn't want a referendum so why shouldn't they
ignore it?
Many of the constituencies didn't vote leave so why should their MPs
vote leave?
They are there to look after the interests of all not just those that
want to leave so why should they vote leave unless they can show that is
better for most people?

On 05/11/2016 11:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Contrast BMW over that period. Virtually all profits re-invested. Moved
from making small pretty basic cars to a full range of ones the world
wanted to buy. All with a heavily unionised workforce.

But their unions were prepared t accept increased output from each
worker unlike the UK unions that said it takes ten men to do that job
now so there will be ten watchers of that new machine that does the job.

Sigh. BMW consulted with their workforce. Introducing new production
methods was debated and agreed. To the benefit of all.

BL imposed such things. After all, in the UK, workers are merely slaves
with no intelligence and must do exactly what they're told, no more, no
less.


So they did try to invest then, you said they didn't.
Anything that improves profitability is to the benefit of the company
and its employees when it doesn't increase the work load, which having
new machines doesn't do.

On 05/11/2016 01:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 04/11/2016 20:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:



The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing down the
elected government and that can't be allowed to happen even if it does
leave them on the dole.

So you *still* haven't heard the admission that they had already
planned to close 75 pits before the strke!!


They had been closing pits for decades.
Its what happens when demand falls below supply.

Demand hadn't fallen. They could buy coal cheaper from abroad.

Demand had been falling for ages, smokeless zones and stuff like that
were bringing the end of coal in homes. Steam trains were gone.
That left electricity and few industrial processes as the users of coal
and they were switching to alternatives as coal prices increased.
Demand was falling rapidly.



Now ignoring whether that is good or bad for the country, forcing
industrial action so you can close things down with a smug face shows what
Thatcher etc really thought of the working class. They didn't matter.


It wasn't maggie that called for strikes and strikes couldn't prevent
the inevitable. Maybe you think mining was so important to the country
that the miners shouldn't have gone on strike? it obviously wasn't very
important as we are managing quite well without it.

On 05/11/2016 11:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

They had been closing pits for decades.
Its what happens when demand falls below supply.

Demand hadn't fallen. They could buy coal cheaper from abroad.

Ignoring the obvious dip during the strike, production had been falling
for decades, imports are about half the reduction in production, hence
demand is lower.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/UK_Coal_Production.png

Of course demand for coal was falling long term. No more steam traction.
Domestic coal fires. But demand didn't crash overnight. And of course we
now had cheap North Sea gas which could be wasted generating electricity.
Instead of eking it out for the jobs it did best.


How do you eke it out?
Its a gas field, it probably crosses international borders so can be
tapped and emptied by others, you either use it lose it. We decided to
use it.
Now fracking is a different matter, we could leave it in the ground for
later as we have done with coal.
Is it odd that you think we should eke out gas but not do the same with
coal?

On 04/11/2016 12:13, Moron Watch wrote:
"alan_m" wrote in message
...

People are living with the consequences of being in the EU for decades and that's
perhaps why the vote was to leave.


The UK was the fourth largest economy in the World before the vote.
The fifth largest afterwards

And was this due to the vote or more to do with the UK massive debt from
the bailing out UK banks in previous decade and the BOE printing yet
more valueless money?


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 04/11/2016 12:28, pamela wrote:


Brexiteers expecting all their extreme demands to be met should
have realised all they had was a wafer-thin majority in an
advisory referendum beset with dishonest claims.

There is only ONE demand to be met - we leave the EU. There hasn't been
a vote on anything else and no mandate for anything else.

At the end of the day there will be a lot of compromises and the UK
public may win with some and lose out on others. This is probably no
different to what will happen if we stayed within the EU as that isn't a
static organisation and may have to adopt some unpopular policies within
the next decade, or even within the time-scale of us leaving.



--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 05/11/2016 11:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Contrast BMW over that period. Virtually all profits re-invested. Moved
from making small pretty basic cars to a full range of ones the world
wanted to buy. All with a heavily unionised workforce.

But their unions were prepared t accept increased output from each
worker unlike the UK unions that said it takes ten men to do that job
now so there will be ten watchers of that new machine that does the job.

Sigh. BMW consulted with their workforce. Introducing new production
methods was debated and agreed. To the benefit of all.

BL imposed such things. After all, in the UK, workers are merely slaves
with no intelligence and must do exactly what they're told, no more, no
less.


So they did try to invest then, you said they didn't.

They did when they got government handouts. After a fashion, not enough,
too late and often badly. Find out about having a new paint plant miles
from body assembly so everything got nice and rusty on the journey there.
And using untried and untested paint technology because it was cheaper.
Until it fell off, of course.

Anything that improves profitability is to the benefit of the company
and its employees when it doesn't increase the work load, which having
new machines doesn't do.

You've been reading the ladybook version in the Mail again.

More to introducing new technology than simply dumping it on the factory
floor and saying get on with it.

--
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 05/11/16 00:40, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Michael Chare wrote:
WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences. It can not be
used to deprive us all of our liberties.

But depriving the average UK citizen of at least some liberties is
*exactly* what many BREXITEERS wanted.

Care to list them?

The freedom to enslave.


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Now ignoring whether that is good or bad for the country, forcing
industrial action so you can close things down with a smug face shows
what Thatcher etc really thought of the working class. They didn't
matter.


It wasn't maggie that called for strikes

Then absolutely no more to be said.

--
*It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 04/11/2016 17:27, Rod Speed wrote:

They clearly didn’t, that's why the undecideds was so
high in the polls and why the polls got the result wrong.

Or people have become political savvy and no longer tell pollsters the
truth.



--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 04/11/2016 12:06, Moron Watch wrote:

Don't say you haven't been warned.

Even those who instigated project fear don't believe it still works.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 05/11/16 15:26, alan_m wrote:
On 04/11/2016 17:27, Rod Speed wrote:

They clearly didnt, that's why the undecideds was so
high in the polls and why the polls got the result wrong.

Or people have become political savvy and no longer tell pollsters the
truth.



Or pollsters have become politically savvy and no longer report it:
Consider how many people more might have e.g. voted UKIP if they hadn't
been so scared of 'letting labour in', because the polls said it was
all so neck-and-neck.




--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 04/11/2016 12:28, pamela wrote:


Brexiteers expecting all their extreme demands to be met should
have realised all they had was a wafer-thin majority in an
advisory referendum beset with dishonest claims.

There is only ONE demand to be met - we leave the EU. There hasn't been
a vote on anything else and no mandate for anything else.

Don't suppose you heard Any Questions today? A 'leave' MP from a 'leave'
area gave very different versions of what his constituents thought they
were voting for. In terms of what bits of the EU they wished to keep - and
which bits remove. And I was surprised - as I've had many others say they
voted leave to get rid of some of the things those wanted to keep.

At the end of the day there will be a lot of compromises and the UK
public may win with some and lose out on others. This is probably no
different to what will happen if we stayed within the EU as that isn't a
static organisation and may have to adopt some unpopular policies within
the next decade, or even within the time-scale of us leaving.

All of which makes the joke of BREXIT meaning BREXIT. And given the one
who said that is in charge, isn't it a good idea she is kept in check by
parliament?

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 04/11/2016 17:27, Rod Speed wrote:

They clearly didn’t, that's why the undecideds was so
high in the polls and why the polls got the result wrong.

Or people have become political savvy and no longer tell pollsters the
truth.

Could be the polls generally ignore those who don't normally vote. In this
case they did - and mainly for leave.

No point in voting in an election if your choice of party never gets
anywhere. But a simple yes no was a chance to kick the government up the
arse since they wanted to remain.

--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 04/11/2016 12:13, Moron Watch wrote:
"alan_m" wrote in message
...

People are living with the consequences of being in the EU for decades and that's
perhaps why the vote was to leave.


The UK was the fourth largest economy in the World before the vote.
The fifth largest afterwards

And was this due to the vote or more to do with the UK massive debt from the bailing
out UK banks in previous decade

Under normal circumstances, allowing the entire banking system to collapse,
along with voters savings, is generally considered a bad idea.

Obviously bank failures don't affect those unfortunate enough
to be living in cardboard boxes under bridges, but then having no
fixed address they won't be included on the Electoral Register
in any case.

Logic does not always prevail in politics but logic would dictate than an MP has an obligation to abide by the majority decision of his electorate. It would be a very easy matter to tot up the votes for each parliamentary constituency and to see how the majority voted in any constituency in the referendum.

If it ever comes to a Commons vote then it should be incumbent on each MP to vote in line with the way his/her constituents did. To do otherwise is a flagrant dereliction of duty and as a matter of principle, any offending MP should stand down.

But they wouldnt do that as they are all o the expenses gravy train or am I cynical?

Roger Hayter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Roger Hayter wrote
dennis@home wrote

The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing
down the elected government and that can't be allowed to
happen even if it does leave them on the dole.

So you *still* haven't heard the admission that they
had already planned to close 75 pits before the strke!!

Still shouldn't be allowed to bring down the govt.

And the govt hadn't decided to close 75 pits before the strike anyway.

The admission that they had was quite big news about 20 years ago!!

The govt doesn’t decide what pits are closed.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
BMC hardly invested at all in the good times. Preferred to give it all
to shareholders. So when competition increased and no new decent
product had to go cap in hand to the government. Hence BL. More or
less what happened in the US too.

Like I said why would you invest in a company where the unions were
determined not to let you gain from the investment?

Have it your own way. British car workers are strike prone layabouts. Must
be true because the Mail and Express agree about this.

But then along come Japanese and German companies who know from experience
how to treat their employees and they manage to produce competitive
product *and* have excellent industrial relations.

Because neither of them are actually stupid
enough to employ the worst of the British strikers.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 05/11/2016 11:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected under a
ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate supported
this position in the referendum, I would have thought they would be one
group who could justify voting against Brexit. Although I actually
agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to do
the same.




Really?
The labour and others didn't want a referendum so why shouldn't they
ignore it?
Many of the constituencies didn't vote leave so why should their MPs vote
leave?
They are there to look after the interests of all not just those that want
to leave so why should they vote leave unless they can show that is better
for most people?

Mindlessly simplistic view of what MPs are there for.

Those who bothered to vote made it clear what the
majority who voted wanted Britain to do, remoaner.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 04/11/2016 12:28, pamela wrote:


Brexiteers expecting all their extreme demands to be met should
have realised all they had was a wafer-thin majority in an
advisory referendum beset with dishonest claims.

There is only ONE demand to be met - we leave the EU. There hasn't been a
vote on anything else and no mandate for anything else.

At the end of the day there will be a lot of compromises

We'll see...

The EU might well just stone wall and Britain may well
decide that BRexit means BRexit and that its leaving anyway.

and the UK public may win with some and lose out on others. This is
probably no different to what will happen if we stayed within the EU as
that isn't a static organisation and may have to adopt some unpopular
policies within the next decade, or even within the time-scale of us
leaving.

Bet it doesn’t on the most fundamental issues like the
free movement of people within in the EU and all policy
being decided by the commission with the european
parliament only being able to say yes or no on that.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/11/16 00:40, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Michael Chare wrote:
WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences. It can not be
used to deprive us all of our liberties.

But depriving the average UK citizen of at least some liberties is
*exactly* what many BREXITEERS wanted.

Care to list them?

The freedom to enslave.

Even more of a swivelled eyed loon that usual.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 12:48:01 GMT, pamela wrote:

snip

So what we have since found out is that many of the fanatics
here didn't vote for us the simply 'Leave the EU', they had
other agenda (like bringing the whole EU down).

After the referendum the fanatics broke cover and trumpeted their
hidden demands. Luckily Parliamentary Sovereignity provides us
with a balancing force.

Quite.

I wonder how many of those who voted leave because of
'immigration who have since learned just what little difference
it will make because of how much the UK relies on immigrant
workers.

Hoodwinked Brexit voters have seen the financial indicators and
now have an education in the true cost to them of what they were
told was a free lunch.

As much as any of us know what the outcome will be.

For some it seems that there is no cost too high to (say) *try to* (as
there is no guarantee it will happen) take down the EU. Talk about
cutting your nose off ...

The only people who try to defend the fact that the referendum
was (actually / legally) just an opinion poll (irrespective of
what anyone 'promised' as we know such promises are bs) just
want it to carry on and everyone to keep quiet because they
realise just how bogus the whole this is.

The referendum result was a fluke outcome of a dishonest campaign
but Brexiteers have tried to keep up the sham that it was some
marvellous exercise in democracy.

Yup.

Maybe we should rerun it just
to make sure it wasn't a fluke?

No point yet IMHO. Give it a while whilst they actually find out what
likely we will or won't be able to end up with and then do it.

Anything else would be like asking for a vote on something without
telling everyone what that something is (other than we have no real
idea how things might change after either outcome). ;-)


Cheers, T i m

alan_m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

They clearly didn’t, that's why the undecideds was so
high in the polls and why the polls got the result wrong.

Or people have become political savvy and no longer tell pollsters the
truth.

No evidence of that. Most knew plenty who were undecided
and knew they were undecided themselves too.

Essentially because it was never going to be possible to know
if Britain would do fine economically outside the EU or not or
what the govt might decide to do to get a better deal on leaving
or even what would happen to the EU if Britain stayed either.

Rather like the first election after the war where Churchill got the
bums rush at the ballot box very unceremoniously indeed and that
result surprised almost everyone, including the voters themselves.

Bazza wrote

Logic does not always prevail in politics

Doesnt ever in fact.

but logic would dictate than an MP has an obligation
to abide by the majority decision of his electorate.

No logic involved in that at all. Pity about the party system.

It would be a very easy matter to tot up the votes for
each parliamentary constituency and to see how the
majority voted in any constituency in the referendum.

Harder than you might think in fact.

If it ever comes to a Commons vote then it should be incumbent
on each MP to vote in line with the way his/her constituents did.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

To do otherwise is a flagrant dereliction of duty and as a
matter of principle, any offending MP should stand down.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

But they wouldnt do that as they are all o
the expenses gravy train or am I cynical?

Just ignorant and silly.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 10:52:43 -0700 (PDT), Bazza
wrote:

Logic does not always prevail in politics but logic would dictate than an
MP has an obligation to abide by the majority decision of his electorate.
It would be a very easy matter to tot up the votes for each parliamentary
constituency and to see how the majority voted in any constituency in the
referendum.

If it ever comes to a Commons vote then it should be incumbent on each MP
to vote in line with the way his/her constituents did. To do otherwise is
a flagrant dereliction of duty and as a matter of principle, any offending
MP should stand down.

But they wouldnt do that as they are all o the expenses gravy train or am
I cynical?

Has anyone done the numbers (if they exist in sufficient detail), to
see how the cookie would crumble based on how the individual
constituencies voted in the referendum if Teresa called a snap
election?

Not even possible. How they vote in a general election is nothing
like how they vote in a simple yes/no referendum and it is never
going to be possible to work out who wont bother to vote in a
general election when Labour has committed electoral suicide
so spectacularly and that will presumably see plenty of Labour
voters who did get off their arse and vote in the referendum
where their vote may have a real effect, and did, who decide
that their vote is irrelevant in a general election and don't bother.

Yes, that sentence should be taken out the back and beaten to
death with the largest waddy you can find, but I'm too lazy to fix it.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/waddy

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 12:48:01 GMT, pamela wrote:

snip

So what we have since found out is that many of the fanatics
here didn't vote for us the simply 'Leave the EU', they had
other agenda (like bringing the whole EU down).

After the referendum the fanatics broke cover and trumpeted their
hidden demands. Luckily Parliamentary Sovereignity provides us
with a balancing force.

Quite.

I wonder how many of those who voted leave because of
'immigration who have since learned just what little difference
it will make because of how much the UK relies on immigrant
workers.

Hoodwinked Brexit voters have seen the financial indicators and
now have an education in the true cost to them of what they were
told was a free lunch.

As much as any of us know what the outcome will be.

For some it seems that there is no cost too high to (say) *try to* (as
there is no guarantee it will happen) take down the EU. Talk about
cutting your nose off ...

The only people who try to defend the fact that the referendum
was (actually / legally) just an opinion poll (irrespective of
what anyone 'promised' as we know such promises are bs) just
want it to carry on and everyone to keep quiet because they
realise just how bogus the whole this is.

The referendum result was a fluke outcome of a dishonest campaign
but Brexiteers have tried to keep up the sham that it was some
marvellous exercise in democracy.

Yup.

Maybe we should rerun it just
to make sure it wasn't a fluke?

No point yet IMHO. Give it a while whilst they actually
find out what likely we will or won't be able to end up with

Not even possible without invoking Article 50.

and then do it.

See above.

Anything else would be like asking for a vote on something
without telling everyone what that something is

There is no alternative with invoking Article
50 now unless the appeal succeeds.

(other than we have no real idea how things
might change after either outcome). ;-)

So the vote has to happen anyway.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 20:33 5 Nov 2016, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 12:48:01 GMT, pamela
wrote:


Maybe we should rerun it just
to make sure it wasn't a fluke?

No point yet IMHO. Give it a while whilst they actually find out
what likely we will or won't be able to end up with and then do
it.

Anything else would be like asking for a vote on something
without telling everyone what that something is (other than we
have no real idea how things might change after either outcome).
;-)

I wouldn't want to do anything against the wishes of the Great
British Public.

Soon they will change their minds about Brexit.

Bet they don’t.

When that happens,

It isnt going to.

it would be dishonest to force through a change
which the majority of the people no longer wants.

Its dishonest to claim that they have changed their minds.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
It looks as if our negotiating position with the EU will be made
weaker by public debates about our stance in Parliament. Bad
though that is it's still not a sufficient reason to deny
Parliament and the people it represents their rights.

I really don't see how. As soon as real negotiations start on any new deal
with the EU, it'll be public anyway.

--
*If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , alan_m
writes
On 04/11/2016 12:06, Moron Watch wrote:

Don't say you haven't been warned.

Even those who instigated project fear don't believe it still works.

It's morphed into project FUD
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 23:36 4 Nov 2016, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 18:14 3 Nov 2016, dennis@home wrote:

On 03/11/2016 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater
wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a
referendum, and that the govt would implement the people's
decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

So what.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll
now get it good and hard.

No, I asked that we leave this EU. Since the Govt had told me
that whatever the country's wish turned out to be in this
regard would be implemented, that's what I expect to happen.

The court should have declined to hear this case: it's not
within their competence.


Sorry but all of what the government does is subject to UK
law. They may change that law if needed but until they do they
must obey.

This is the sovereignty TNP and the likes have been asking
for, the UK parliament deciding what happens even if it takes
a court order to make them do it.

The people are sovereign. Parliament is here to serve us. They
are not our masters.
If MPs are not happy with the way the government is conducting
business they can always call a vote of no confidence and so
cause a general election.

The wild exuberence of jubilant Brexiteers had led them to think
they could ram through some extremist version of Brexit decided
by covert committees without further consultation.

You seem to overlook the fact that there is another party
involved in these discussions - the representatives of the EU
who will have their own agenda on what deal they are prepared to
accept. The HOC can debate all it likes about what our
negotiating position but what if the EU simply say no. Do we
have to go back to parliament and have another debate? And after
2 years the EU can simply refuse an extension and we're out on
WTO terms.

It looks as if our negotiating position with the EU will be made
weaker by public debates about our stance in Parliament. Bad
though that is it's still not a sufficient reason to deny
Parliament and the people it represents their rights.

We should have thought more carefully about this when we voted.

Luckily we still have Parliamentary sovereignity in Blighty
where these matters are debated for all to see and we also have
the rule of law to make sure these correct procedures are
followed.

Which law limits the use of the royal prerogative in this
situation?

The court didn't say there was a law which prohibited the royal
prerogative. It said the Government does not have power under the
royal prerogative to invoke Article 50.
So the "rule of law" was not under threat. Another remainer untruth.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
BMC hardly invested at all in the good times. Preferred to give it all
to shareholders. So when competition increased and no new decent
product had to go cap in hand to the government. Hence BL. More or
less what happened in the US too.

Like I said why would you invest in a company where the unions were
determined not to let you gain from the investment?

Have it your own way. British car workers are strike prone layabouts. Must
be true because the Mail and Express agree about this.

But then along come Japanese and German companies who know from experience
how to treat their employees and they manage to produce competitive
product *and* have excellent industrial relations.

They came along after the unions had been sorted
--
bert

In article ,
Bazza wrote:
Logic does not always prevail in politics but logic would dictate than
an MP has an obligation to abide by the majority decision of his
electorate. It would be a very easy matter to tot up the votes for each
parliamentary constituency and to see how the majority voted in any
constituency in the referendum.

Those figures were broadcast during the results.

If it ever comes to a Commons vote then it should be incumbent on each
MP to vote in line with the way his/her constituents did. To do
otherwise is a flagrant dereliction of duty and as a matter of
principle, any offending MP should stand down.

There's not going to be a vote on us leaving the EU. That's a done deal,
I'd say. It's the terms of any deal we will try and get with the EU
afterwards that should be approved by the commons.

It's actually not that simple. Some who voted out only really cared about
immigration. Some thought cutting off all trade ties with the EU and
forging new ones eleswhere would be the way forward. Some want to keep
things like EU employment protection, while others wanted an end of it.
And so on. Which goes to prove that few actually were clear on what the
result of voting to leave would actually be.

So any agreement of any type proposed after we leave isn't going to suit
everyone.

But they wouldnt do that as they are all o the expenses gravy train or
am I cynical?

--
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Roger Hayter
writes
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected under a
ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate supported
this position in the referendum, I would have thought they would be one
group who could justify voting against Brexit. Although I actually
agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to do
the same.



But their justification for another independence referendum is that the
rest of the UK has voted Brexit. So if they vote remain now they will
thwart that ambition which is their overriding goal in life.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected under a
ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate supported
this position in the referendum, I would have thought they would be one
group who could justify voting against Brexit. Although I actually
agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to do
the same.

I don't quite see the logic of this. An MP's job is to look after his
constituency interests. In London, most constituencies voted remain.
Usually with a higher turnout than at an election.

The problem is the BREXIT means BREXIT dogma of some. Which is so vague as
to mean nothing.

Does that mean total disengagement from Europe including no later free
trade etc agreements? Or trying to retain those while not being subject to
any EU laws, immigration, and so on?

Total disengagement from the EU would almost certainly hit London hard -
given so many international companies have a presence here because it
gives them access to the EU as well as the UK.

Where has anyone ever suggested total disengagement from Europe?
Just a bitter remoaner attempting to spread FUD.
I'd expect London MPs to be well aware of this, and protect for the
interests of their constituency. And let those in constituencies who voted
to leave protect the interests of their people.

And that is impossible if the very few cabinet ministers in charge of the
exit want to present them with a fait accompli.

Of course you could just trust them to do the very best for all. If they
did, it would be a first for any politician. Especially the likes of Boris.


--
bert

In article om,
lid writes
On 05/11/2016 11:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected under a
ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate supported
this position in the referendum, I would have thought they would be one
group who could justify voting against Brexit. Although I actually
agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to do
the same.




Really?
The labour and others didn't want a referendum so why shouldn't they
ignore it?
The vast majority of MPs including Labour voted in favour of holding a
referendum
Many of the constituencies didn't vote leave so why should their MPs
vote leave?
They are there to look after the interests of all not just those that
want to leave so why should they vote leave unless they can show that
is better for most people?


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
Some thought cutting off all trade ties with the EU and
forging new ones eleswhere would be the way forward.
More of your imaginary nonsense. Who suggested cutting off all trade
ties with the EU? No-one. Not a single person.
--
bert

in 1536703 20161105 111024 (Roger Hayter) wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected under a
ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate supported
this position in the referendum, I would have thought they would be one
group who could justify voting against Brexit. Although I actually
agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to do
the same.

Even if his constituency clearly voted Remain, as many did?

Does anyone know what the result would have been if run on the lines
of a General Election? How many constituencies voted Remain?

I really don't understand Theresa May's attitude. It seems to be
"you voted Leave and you are bloody well going to get it no matter how
much it hurts."