eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.


--
Adam

"ARW" wrote in message
news
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.

UDI for Yorkshire, with Harry Gration (*) as King :-) The Kingdom of
Yorkshire - has a nice ring to it!


(*) A well-known (in West Yorkshire) presenter of the BBC Regional News
programme "Look North".

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:39:01 +0100, ARW
wrote:

eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

Like, 'hands up who wants out?' and only those hands counted?

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.

Meh, like the EU ... for what reason as I don't have one for either?
[1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] When we were on our motorcycle camping trips around the UK it was
a big enough PITA when we came across a toll bridge or road (getting
money out of your pocket whist sitting on a motorbike, especially when
wearing waterproofs), let alone having a real border control. ;-(

p.s. One of our lady BMW riders took herself round the world and she
used to keep a carton of cigarettes that, if just left on the counter
would speed her passage though many customs posts. ;-)

On 08/10/2017 22:39, ARW wrote:
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.

I'm surprised that Salmond/Sturgeon didn't try and include the English
vote in the Scottish referendum. Their victory would have been of
landslide proportions.

For one, I believe the Barnet formula should be scrapped.

On Sunday, 8 October 2017 22:39:01 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.


--
Adam

There are two sorts of independence seekers.
(1) Those who think they'll become the leaders and hence empower and enrich themselves.
(2) Thick ****s who believe the promises of the above. (ie that somehow they will be better off.)

On 09-Oct-17 8:41 AM, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 22:39:01 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.


There are two sorts of independence seekers.
(1) Those who think they'll become the leaders and hence empower and enrich themselves.
(2) Thick ****s who believe the promises of the above. (ie that somehow they will be better off.)

Like Brexit.

--
--

Colin Bignell

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 22:39:01 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.

There are two sorts of independence seekers.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

(1) Those who think they'll become the leaders and hence empower and
enrich themselves.
(2) Thick ****s who believe the promises of the above. (ie that somehow
they will be better off.)

And there are also those like Eire that chose to decide how things
should be done for themselves and didnt enrich anyone at all.

On Sunday, 8 October 2017 23:30:05 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
I'm surprised that Salmond/Sturgeon didn't try and include the English
vote in the Scottish referendum. Their victory would have been of
landslide proportions.

Some might say that's why they didn't include the English vote.

That way they don't actually have to come up with the jam when tomorrow comes.

Owain

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 09-Oct-17 8:41 AM, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 22:39:01 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.


There are two sorts of independence seekers.
(1) Those who think they'll become the leaders and hence empower and
enrich themselves.
(2) Thick ****s who believe the promises of the above. (ie that somehow
they will be better off.)

Like Brexit.

Nothing like BRexit. They will be better off being able to decide who
is allowed to move to Britain and what policy makes sense and being
able to give those who decide policy the bums rush if they **** up
badly enough, like Blair and Brown did so spectacularly.

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 23:30:05 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
I'm surprised that Salmond/Sturgeon didn't try and include the English
vote in the Scottish referendum. Their victory would have been of
landslide proportions.

Some might say that's why they didn't include the English vote.

That way they don't actually have to come up with the jam when tomorrow
comes.

Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

On 08-Oct-17 10:39 PM, ARW wrote:
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

I think the Spanish government made a serious error of judgment in not
allowing the referendum to go ahead without opposition. The evidence is
that only about 40% of Catalans favour separation. If the police had not
deterred any but the most vehement activists from voting, the referendum
would probably have reflected that. In any case, a referendum is not
binding and, in the Spanish case, the constitution would prevent the
government from granting independence even if it didn't.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.

Only the Welsh could vote on that and they aren't likely to support it.
OTOH, if Northern Ireland voted to break away, it would solve the
post-Brexit border problem.


--
--

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote
ARW wrote

eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

I think the Spanish government made a serious error of judgment in not
allowing the referendum to go ahead without opposition.

Their problem is that when the referendum produces a large
majority who vote to leave, they can't just ignore that.

The evidence is that only about 40% of Catalans favour separation.

We've just seen how wrong the 'evidence' can be with referenda.

If the police had not deterred any but the most vehement activists from
voting, the referendum would probably have reflected that.

Easy to claim...

In any case, a referendum is not binding

But very politically difficult to ignore.

and, in the Spanish case, the constitution would prevent the government
from granting independence even if it didn't.

Irrelevant.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.

Only the Welsh could vote on that

That's not true either.

and they aren't likely to support it. OTOH, if Northern Ireland voted to
break away,

Unlikely.

it would solve the post-Brexit border problem.

And if they didnt, it wouldnt.

On 09/10/2017 09:57, Nightjar wrote:
On 08-Oct-17 10:39 PM, ARW wrote:
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

I think the Spanish government made a serious error of judgment in not
allowing the referendum to go ahead without opposition. The evidence is
that only about 40% of Catalans favour separation. If the police had not
deterred any but the most vehement activists from voting, the referendum
would probably have reflected that. In any case, a referendum is not
binding and, in the Spanish case, the constitution would prevent the
government from granting independence even if it didn't.


That seems to me to overlook 2 matters. One is the Spanish
constitution. That was adopted in 1978 with a referendum (and one in
which Catalan voted overwhelmingly in favour). It provides that the
Spanish nation is indissoluble. The other is that the Catalan
government's legislation for was for a *legally binding* referendum.
That made the referendum illegal - as the courts ruled.

It may be that a different referendum might have been agreed somehow -
although I struggle to see how any Spanish government could sanction
even an advisory vote without first amending the constitution.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 08/10/2017 22:39, ARW wrote:
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.

I'm surprised that Salmond/Sturgeon didn't try and include the English
vote in the Scottish referendum. Their victory would have been of
landslide proportions.

For one, I believe the Barnet formula should be scrapped.

Absolutely. London generates by far the most money, and subsidises the
rest of the UK. So time for it to go independent, stay in the EU, and let
the rest of the country starve.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

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

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:36:58 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

HL Mencken

Indeed. The right-wing gutter press are particularly good at this.
They portrayed the EU as demons under the bed, which convinced the
Brexextremists.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:29:00 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:36:58 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Indeed. The right-wing gutter press are particularly good at this.
They portrayed the EU as demons under the bed, which convinced the
Brexextremists.

The EU is undemocratic, run by the Commission which is an oligarchy.

I don't agree. If anything, the UK is an oligarchy, with PPCs chosen
by the political parties, not the voters.

With a toothless Parliament that can neither initiate nor repeal
legislation. A form of government the UK has been evolving away from
over the last couple of hundred years.

That's an accurate description of the UK parliament, and we haven't
been evolving away from it - it's hardly changed for centuries.

I can't imagine why you think we
should be a part of that.

See above.

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:39:01 +0100, ARW
wrote:

eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.

Want shot of the racists.

On 09/10/2017 09:41, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 23:30:05 UTC+1, FredxxxÂ* wrote:
I'm surprised that Salmond/Sturgeon didn't try and include the English
vote in the Scottish referendum. Their victory would have been of
landslide proportions.

Some might say that's why they didn't include the English vote.

That way they don't actually have to come up with the jam when
tomorrow comes.

Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

Why? Polls were taken from the rest of the UK, there was no conspiracy.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 17:08:45 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:29:00 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:36:58 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Indeed. The right-wing gutter press are particularly good at this.
They portrayed the EU as demons under the bed, which convinced the
Brexextremists.

The EU is undemocratic, run by the Commission which is an oligarchy.

I don't agree.

You mean we get to elect the commissioners? You mean we can throw them
out?

We elect the MEP, using a proportional system. We don't elect civil
servants in the UK.

If anything, the UK is an oligarchy, with PPCs chosen
by the political parties, not the voters.

Tom Tugendhat was selected to be the Tory candidate via an open primary
in Tonbridge and Malling. But such affairs are not cheap.

But at least in the UK you get to pick someone who will represent where
you live. Unlike most continental systems which seem to use the list
system where the candidates are all selected by the parties. Such
people will always be political insiders since they are free to ignore
the voters entirely.

Many UK MPs are political insiders who ignore the voters. And I had
no say in who the party selected here and who is our MP now.

You'll note also that there are no by-elections for MEPs. If one dies
or resigns, the next one on the party list gets the nod.

No worse than the UK. If an MP dies/resigns a new one is chosen by
the party and usually gets elected "on the nod".

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 09/10/2017 09:41, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 23:30:05 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
I'm surprised that Salmond/Sturgeon didn't try and include the English
vote in the Scottish referendum. Their victory would have been of
landslide proportions.

Some might say that's why they didn't include the English vote.

That way they don't actually have to come up with the jam when tomorrow
comes.

Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

Why? Polls were taken from the rest of the UK,

Irrelevant to that utterly mindless conspiracy theory about jam.

there was no conspiracy.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 17:08:45 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:29:00 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:36:58 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Indeed. The right-wing gutter press are particularly good at this.
They portrayed the EU as demons under the bed, which convinced the
Brexextremists.

The EU is undemocratic, run by the Commission which is an oligarchy.

I don't agree.

You mean we get to elect the commissioners? You mean we can throw them
out?

We elect the MEP, using a proportional system.

And they don't even get to initiate legislation or repeal legislation
either.

The most they ever get to do is tick or deny what some
unelected unsackable bureaucrat presents to the EP.

We don't elect civil servants in the UK.

They don't decide policy in the UK.

If anything, the UK is an oligarchy, with PPCs chosen
by the political parties, not the voters.

Tom Tugendhat was selected to be the Tory candidate via an open primary
in Tonbridge and Malling. But such affairs are not cheap.

But at least in the UK you get to pick someone who will represent where
you live. Unlike most continental systems which seem to use the list
system where the candidates are all selected by the parties. Such
people will always be political insiders since they are free to ignore
the voters entirely.

Many UK MPs are political insiders who ignore the voters.

And when they do too much of that, they get the bums rush
at the ballot box as we recent saw with Blair and Brown and
May came so close to that she needed a coalition to stay in govt.

And I had no say in who the party selected here and who is our MP now.

But the country does have a say on which group of MPs
get to set the policy of the country. The EU doesn't, the
same group of unelected unsackable shinybums get to
keep deciding policy regardless of what the voters want.

You'll note also that there are no by-elections for MEPs. If one dies
or resigns, the next one on the party list gets the nod.

No worse than the UK. If an MP dies/resigns a new one is chosen by
the party and usually gets elected "on the nod".

But the voters are free to pull the plug on some clown they don't like.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
With a toothless Parliament that can neither initiate nor repeal
legislation. A form of government the UK has been evolving away from
over the last couple of hundred years.

Ah - right. Explains why May had to bribe the DUP to give herself a
working majority. Without doing that, she would have been very unlikely to
get legislation passed.

--
*Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

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

On 09-Oct-17 10:41 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
....
But a referendum so agreed ought to be binding, ...

Why? What practical difference would it make? Making the result legally
binding would not make it irreversible. Parliament can always unmake any
legislation it makes and one referendum can always overturn the result
of an earlier one, as happened with our membership of the EU.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 09-Oct-17 11:08 AM, Robin wrote:
On 09/10/2017 09:57, Nightjar wrote:
On 08-Oct-17 10:39 PM, ARW wrote:
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

I think the Spanish government made a serious error of judgment in not
allowing the referendum to go ahead without opposition. The evidence
is that only about 40% of Catalans favour separation. If the police
had not deterred any but the most vehement activists from voting, the
referendum would probably have reflected that. In any case, a
referendum is not binding and, in the Spanish case, the constitution
would prevent the government from granting independence even if it
didn't.


That seems to me to overlook 2 matters.Â* One is the Spanish
constitution.Â* That was adopted in 1978 with a referendum (and one in
which Catalan voted overwhelmingly in favour).Â* It provides that the
Spanish nation is indissoluble.Â* The other is that the Catalan
government's legislation for was for a *legally binding* referendum.
That made the referendum illegal - as the courts ruled....

I didn't say they should have approved it, simply not stepped and
suppressed it by force. It would be a win-win situation for the
government. If the separatists lost, they would have evidence that there
was not enough support for separation in a free vote. In the unlikely
event that they won, they could say, very interesting, but the
referendum was not legal and the constitution prevents separation anyway.



--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 09-Oct-17 11:08 AM, Robin wrote:
On 09/10/2017 09:57, Nightjar wrote:
On 08-Oct-17 10:39 PM, ARW wrote:
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

I think the Spanish government made a serious error of judgment in not
allowing the referendum to go ahead without opposition. The evidence is
that only about 40% of Catalans favour separation. If the police had not
deterred any but the most vehement activists from voting, the referendum
would probably have reflected that. In any case, a referendum is not
binding and, in the Spanish case, the constitution would prevent the
government from granting independence even if it didn't.


That seems to me to overlook 2 matters. One is the Spanish constitution.
That was adopted in 1978 with a referendum (and one in which Catalan
voted overwhelmingly in favour). It provides that the Spanish nation is
indissoluble. The other is that the Catalan government's legislation for
was for a *legally binding* referendum. That made the referendum
illegal - as the courts ruled....

I didn't say they should have approved it, simply not stepped and
suppressed it by force. It would be a win-win situation for the
government.

Like hell ignoring a referendum would be.

If the separatists lost, they would have evidence that there was not
enough support for separation in a free vote. In the unlikely event that
they won,

Plenty ran the same line about the UK one.

they could say, very interesting, but the referendum was not legal and the
constitution prevents separation anyway.

And that would never fly.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 22:38:24 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 10:41 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
...
But a referendum so agreed ought to be binding, ...

Why? What practical difference would it make? Making the result legally
binding would not make it irreversible. Parliament can always unmake
any legislation it makes and one referendum can always overturn the
result of an earlier one, as happened with our membership of the EU.

Why else would a Parliament and government authorise a referendum, if
they didn't mean that, in the case of a yes vote, that bound the
government to enact it? That is what anyone would expect. Was it in
anyone's mind that the Welsh and Scottish legislatures might not be set
up after those referendums? That Blair might change his mind? Give over.

I also should say that in California, the outcome of a referendum (or
initiative as they call it) acts *directly* to modify the state
constitution, if passed, with no further ado. Nothing is required of the
legislature for this to happen.

A bit like EU regulations, I suppose.

The briefing paper 07212, issued to MPs before the referendum, makes it
quite clear that the referendum was to be advisory only. See page 25.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 23:06:17 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 22:38:24 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 10:41 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
...
But a referendum so agreed ought to be binding, ...

Why? What practical difference would it make? Making the result
legally binding would not make it irreversible. Parliament can always
unmake any legislation it makes and one referendum can always
overturn the result of an earlier one, as happened with our
membership of the EU.

Why else would a Parliament and government authorise a referendum, if
they didn't mean that, in the case of a yes vote, that bound the
government to enact it? That is what anyone would expect. Was it in
anyone's mind that the Welsh and Scottish legislatures might not be
set up after those referendums? That Blair might change his mind? Give
over.

I also should say that in California, the outcome of a referendum (or
initiative as they call it) acts *directly* to modify the state
constitution, if passed, with no further ado. Nothing is required of
the legislature for this to happen.

A bit like EU regulations, I suppose.

The briefing paper 07212, issued to MPs before the referendum, makes it
quite clear that the referendum was to be advisory only. See page 25.

Was this in the legislation? And was every member of the general public,
who would be voting on the matter, so advised?

And if this briefing paper was written, why was the public told "we will
implement what you vote for"?

Quite. The point is that MPs were told that when they were voting to have
a referendum.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 09/10/17 09:05, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Oct-17 8:41 AM, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 22:39:01 UTC+1, ARWÂ* wrote:
eg Catalonia,

I'm all for democracy and a free vote.

So hands up everyone that wants shut of the Welsh.


There are two sorts of independence seekers.
(1) Those who think they'll become the leaders and hence empower and
enrich themselves.
(2) Thick ****s who believe the promises of the above. (ie that
somehow they will be better off.)

Like Brexit.

Well onluy isnofar as the 'freedom seekers' are now IN the EU and have
been for the last 40 odd years.

Anyone remember Daniel Cohn-Bendit, red as they come 'smash
civilisation' etc etc. Now he's got a cushgy job in the EU.

Ther is no true independence - there will always be some bunch of ****s
thinking they can get away with it, that need to be removed.

Unfortunately the EU provides no such mechanism, hence brexit.



--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 09/10/2017 11:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Absolutely. London generates by far the most money, and subsidises the
rest of the UK. So time for it to go independent, stay in the EU, and let
the rest of the country starve.


Ah, the magic bucket of money theory again.

Where do you think the "city" gets all of its money if not from all of
us in the form of our pension funds, the value of the companies we work
for and for the last decade from a poorer standard of living for the
general population due to the various measures used to bail them out.



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

On 09/10/2017 17:40, Mark wrote:


No worse than the UK. If an MP dies/resigns a new one is chosen by
the party and usually gets elected "on the nod".

The party may have the say about who stands as their candidate but very
soon after the rest of us have the choice not to vote for him. There are
cases where a substantial majority in the vote for one party has been
eroded down to nothing.


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

On 09-Oct-17 10:32 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 10:41 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
...
But a referendum so agreed ought to be binding, ...

Why? What practical difference would it make? Making the result
legally binding would not make it irreversible. Parliament can always
unmake any legislation it makes and one referendum can always overturn
the result of an earlier one, as happened with our membership of the EU.

Why else would a Parliament and government authorise a referendum, if
they didn't mean that, in the case of a yes vote, that bound the
government to enact it? That is what anyone would expect. Was it in
anyone's mind that the Welsh and Scottish legislatures might not be set
up after those referendums? That Blair might change his mind? Give
over.

My question was what practical difference would it make if the result
were legally binding? No UK government has ever failed to abide by the
result of a referendum.


--
--

Colin Bignell

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 09/10/2017 11:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Absolutely. London generates by far the most money, and subsidises the
rest of the UK. So time for it to go independent, stay in the EU, and let
the rest of the country starve.


Ah, the magic bucket of money theory again.

Where do you think the "city" gets all of its money

From the 'financial services' etc.

if not from all of us in the form of our pension funds, the value of the
companies we work for

Most of it doesnt come from there.

and for the last decade from a poorer standard of living for the general
population

Its very arguable indeed that the general population
has seen a poorer standard of living in the last decade.

due to the various measures used to bail them out.

That has certainly been where most of the big increase
in govt debt has come from, but there isnt any evidence
of a poorer standard of living for the general population.

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 11:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Absolutely. London generates by far the most money, and subsidises the
rest of the UK. So time for it to go independent, stay in the EU, and
let the rest of the country starve.


Ah, the magic bucket of money theory again.

Where do you think the "city" gets all of its money if not from all of
us in the form of our pension funds, the value of the companies we work
for and for the last decade from a poorer standard of living for the
general population due to the various measures used to bail them out.

You're not actually trying to say every part of the UK generates income in
some way or another, are you?

If it is OK for England to dispense with Scotland or Wales or Ireland
because they are a net draw on resources, then the same applies to the
rest of the country and London. Or any other part of the UK you happen to
decide on.

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

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

On 09/10/2017 08:41, harry wrote:
(2) Thick ****s who believe the promises of the above. (ie that somehow they will be better off.)

Is that why you installed solar panels ?.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:38:32 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 09/10/2017 11:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Absolutely. London generates by far the most money, and subsidises the
rest of the UK. So time for it to go independent, stay in the EU, and let
the rest of the country starve.


Ah, the magic bucket of money theory again.

Where do you think the "city" gets all of its money if not from all of
us in the form of our pension funds, the value of the companies we work
for and for the last decade from a poorer standard of living for the
general population due to the various measures used to bail them out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 22:32:08 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 10:41 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
...
But a referendum so agreed ought to be binding, ...

Why? What practical difference would it make? Making the result legally
binding would not make it irreversible. Parliament can always unmake any
legislation it makes and one referendum can always overturn the result
of an earlier one, as happened with our membership of the EU.

Why else would a Parliament and government authorise a referendum, if
they didn't mean that, in the case of a yes vote, that bound the
government to enact it? That is what anyone would expect.

One of the principles of democracy is we get regular elections; we
don't elect a government who then rule forever. It should be the same
with referenda - people have a right to change their minds and should
be asked regularly.

On 10/10/17 13:09, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 22:32:08 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 10:41 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
...
But a referendum so agreed ought to be binding, ...

Why? What practical difference would it make? Making the result legally
binding would not make it irreversible. Parliament can always unmake any
legislation it makes and one referendum can always overturn the result
of an earlier one, as happened with our membership of the EU.

Why else would a Parliament and government authorise a referendum, if
they didn't mean that, in the case of a yes vote, that bound the
government to enact it? That is what anyone would expect.

One of the principles of democracy is we get regular elections; we
don't elect a government who then rule forever. It should be the same
with referenda - people have a right to change their minds and should
be asked regularly.



Indeed. We should have been asked if we wanted to leave the EU every
year for the last 40...

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

On 10/10/17 13:05, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:38:32 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 09/10/2017 11:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Absolutely. London generates by far the most money, and subsidises the
rest of the UK. So time for it to go independent, stay in the EU, and let
the rest of the country starve.


Ah, the magic bucket of money theory again.

Where do you think the "city" gets all of its money if not from all of
us in the form of our pension funds, the value of the companies we work
for and for the last decade from a poorer standard of living for the
general population due to the various measures used to bail them out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money


Ahem. That is Dave you are talking to. Lefty**** par excellemce,
believer in magic money trees and that labour alone makes stuff that
people want and money follows.



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

Karl Marx

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:19:09 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 10:32 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 10:41 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
...
But a referendum so agreed ought to be binding, ...

Why? What practical difference would it make? Making the result
legally binding would not make it irreversible. Parliament can always
unmake any legislation it makes and one referendum can always overturn
the result of an earlier one, as happened with our membership of the EU.

Why else would a Parliament and government authorise a referendum, if
they didn't mean that, in the case of a yes vote, that bound the
government to enact it? That is what anyone would expect. Was it in
anyone's mind that the Welsh and Scottish legislatures might not be set
up after those referendums? That Blair might change his mind? Give
over.

My question was what practical difference would it make if the result
were legally binding? No UK government has ever failed to abide by the
result of a referendum.

But then we haven't had many referenda in the UK, and most have
resulted in keeping the status-quo.

On 10-Oct-17 10:42 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 10:32 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
....
My question was what practical difference would it make if the result
were legally binding? No UK government has ever failed to abide by the
result of a referendum.

Then why are certain people bleating about it "only being advisory" as
if that were relevant in some way?

Perhaps so that, if Brexit turns out to be the disaster that those of us
who voted to remain anticipate, people will be reminded that the
government had a choice :-)

--
--

Colin Bignell