Tory MPs voting animals can't feel pain or emotions is one such example of what an authoritarian, ridiculous notion it is to ket the Tories just pass whatever they want in repealing these EU laws. Will they vote on the age of the sun next?

 

And there was I, thinking you didn't approve of media sources that 'improve' stories for effect - or so you always tell me about The Mail.

 

That is not what they did, according to one of your *approved* sources...

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/no-m...s-vote-11572216

 

[and before you ask - no I do not approve of animal cruelty]

 

 

Edited November 29, 20177 yr by vidcapper

I can't see how Labour could handle the situation any differently if they were in the same situation though, since going through *every single law* passed since we joined is obviously absurdly impractical. Many of the laws were just nodded through anyway, so if they didn't need detailed scrutiny at the time, who would they need it now?

 

Before you say it, this is not another attempt at distraction - if the gov't is being criticised for something, then you would hope the critic had a more practical solution in mind...

That might be justifiable if there was some urgent need to change these laws. If there was such an urgency, you'd have thought the Leave campaigners might have said something about it in the referendum campaign. As it was, they didn't seem able to mention a single law they wanted to change.

That might be justifiable if there was some urgent need to change these laws. If there was such an urgency, you'd have thought the Leave campaigners might have said something about it in the referendum campaign. As it was, they didn't seem able to mention a single law they wanted to change.

 

I must be missing your point here?

 

If the former laws don't need to be changed, then what's the problem with simply 'cut/pasting' them into the statute books?

I must be missing your point here?

 

If the former laws don't need to be changed, then what's the problem with simply 'cut/pasting' them into the statute books?

You are missing something. I haven't criticised the idea of absorbing EU laws into UK law. If the government are reckless enough to go ahead with this nonsense, it is the most logical approach. I do, however, object to them granting themselves the power to amend or repeal those laws at the stroke of a pen.

You are missing something. I haven't criticised the idea of absorbing EU laws into UK law. If the government are reckless enough to go ahead with this nonsense, it is the most logical approach. I do, however, object to them granting themselves the power to amend or repeal those laws at the stroke of a pen.

 

Ah, OK - I'm with you now.

 

Then ISTM what is needed is a time limit on these powers, so they can't be abused after the incorporation process is completed.

Ah, OK - I'm with you now.

 

Then ISTM what is needed is a time limit on these powers, so they can't be abused after the incorporation process is completed.

There should be no time limit. The powers shouldn't be granted at all.

There should be no time limit. The powers shouldn't be granted at all.

 

Well I wouldn't disagree with that, but how else could all the EU-instigated laws be reintegrated into British law within a reasonable time?

 

[assuming Brexit *does* happen, of course]

Well I wouldn't disagree with that, but how else could all the EU-instigated laws be reintegrated into British law within a reasonable time?

 

[assuming Brexit *does* happen, of course]

You still don't seem to have got the point. All EU laws will become part of UK law as part of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. No further action would be required if those laws are to remain the same. However, the government want to be able to repeal or amend them by ministerial fiat. That is not acceptable in a 21st century democracy.

You still don't seem to have got the point. All EU laws will become part of UK law as part of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. No further action would be required if those laws are to remain the same. However, the government want to be able to repeal or amend them by ministerial fiat. That is not acceptable in a 21st century democracy.

 

Got it now - so if they want to amend the laws, they should do it through the normal parliamentary process, even if there are hundreds.

Got it now - so if they want to amend the laws, they should do it through the normal parliamentary process, even if there are hundreds.

Yes. As I said earlier, the Leave campaigners didn't exactly provide a list of laws they wanted to repeal. Therefore, even they don't seem to think there is any great urgency.

Yes. As I said earlier, the Leave campaigners didn't exactly provide a list of laws they wanted to repeal. Therefore, even they don't seem to think there is any great urgency.

 

But there must be hundreds, if not thousands, that've been passed over the years - you could hardly expect the average Brexit voter to have a list of them all to hand. :blink:

But there must be hundreds, if not thousands, that've been passed over the years - you could hardly expect the average Brexit voter to have a list of them all to hand. :blink:

They weren't able to give a single example.

The only that got everyone wound up enough so it got front-page news was bendy bananas - and that was a Boris Johnson fake news story. Just think that one made-up story caused long-term damage to the economy of the country as idiots believed it to be true...

 

Ooops.

So, anyway.

 

Some of the things that Theresa May doesn't think are good enough reasons to stop a President Of The United States having an official British visit:

 

Several allegations of sexual assault, including a minor, many of them in pending court cases (if he ever vacates the Presidency)

 

Allegations of rape from his former wife.

 

Implying he'd shag his own daughter.

 

Having multiple business ties with Russians and lying about them.

 

Hiring his entire family into political posts.

 

Failing to condemn Nazi organisations and murders committed by them, and murders of numerous non-whites.

 

Calling for the death penalty for 5 innocent young black youths.

 

Spreading falsehoods about the former President and Secretary of State.

 

Rounding up Latinos.

 

Trying to end health care for the poor.

 

Trying to cut taxes for the mega-rich at the expense of the not-rich.

 

Not fulfilling any of his campaign promises.

 

threatening North Korea.

 

Banning Muslims entering the USA from Muslim Countries with no links to terror acts in the USA (except those Muslim countries that he has business interests in, and which have citizens who have committed terror acts).

 

Supporting rich people who have been accused of being sexual predators, even when they are standing for office.

 

A company he financially supports has tried to create false rape accusations in order to make actual rape accusations of of a fellow Ultra-right-wing look as fake as the lying woman paid to do it.

 

and finally, (at least for today),

 

Has retweeted fake hate videos from a Far-Right banned British hate group and bragged about it in the face of a feeble comment from the Prime Minister and her fellow Brexiteering lackeys desperate not to upset any potential trade deal with the USA (NB: Trump and HIS lackeys have commented that Brexit is the perfect opportunity to steal away UK business and made no offers of anything of help).

 

So, pretty much there is nothing that May finds outrageous enough to tell him to piss off. Terrific example of supporting family values there, then. Apparently all those things he has done are fine, barely worth a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile, our closest democratic allies, and leaders who have done none of those things, are vilified.

 

Funny ol' sense of values in the world our Conservative Party have.

So, anyway.

 

Some of the things that Theresa May doesn't think are good enough reasons to stop a President Of The United States having an official British visit:

 

Not fulfilling any of his campaign promises.

 

He has fulfilled quite a few of his campaign promises. However, many of them, including pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Accord, were ones that we would have been happy for him to have broken.

They weren't able to give a single example.

 

How many could *any* of us name, off the cuff?

 

The only specific one I can come up with is the Working Time Directive, but that's one of the more beneficial ones.

How many could *any* of us name, off the cuff?

 

The only specific one I can come up with is the Working Time Directive, but that's one of the more beneficial ones.

The Leave campaigners were trying to claim some sort of knowledge of their subject. Surely that should include having some vague idea of what the institution they claim to despise has actually done.

 

The Tories did, of course, to their great shame negotiate an opt-out from the Working Time Directive. Labour, to their credit, changed that.

He has fulfilled quite a few of his campaign promises. However, many of them, including pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Accord, were ones that we would have been happy for him to have broken.

 

True - OTOH this isn't an exhaustive list and there are many many more serious issues that could be added but my wrist can only take so much pounding on a keyboard.....

Does anyone have thought on the Damien Green porn issue?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/d...-says-detective

 

ISTM the issue is not the *fact* of him watching porn, but *where* he was doing it? :unsure:

 

It does make you wonder how many others were/are watching it, but have not been caught?

Edited December 1, 20177 yr by vidcapper

If there was porn on his Commons-supplied computer, that would be a sackable offence at any other employer, regardless of the fact that it was apparently legal. If it was downloaded by somebody else, it is still a serious disciplinary matter as it would mean he would have allowed that other person to access his PC which would have been likely to contain sensitive information. The fact that his supporters are concentrating on the type of porn allegedly involved is just an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue