The only power the gov't has over private institutions like this who ignore anti-discrimination laws, is to refuse them state-funded improvement grants - as I believe happened

to the MCC when they wanted to improve Lords cricket ground, because they refused to admit female members. Of course, a lot of wealthy, tory-friendly people are members of the same private clubs that resist progressive reform... :banghead:

 

BTW, what *is* it with your '1 nation, 1 vote' fixation, when that was never part of the referendum legislation (and indeed never could have been part, because it would have been voted down if proposed)?

What is it with your refusal to accept that all attempts to apply any sort of threshold were dismissed buy the government as unnecessary because it was an advisory vote?

What is it with your refusal to accept that all attempts to apply any sort of threshold were dismissed buy the government as unnecessary because it was an advisory vote?

 

But I didn't know *that* was why thresholds were deemed unnecessary - I thought it was mostly because of the 'we never expected to lose' factor.

Cable'a fake news

 

Cable’s fake news! Lib Dem leader says eight European PMs back a second Brexit vote… but they disown a ‘joint statement’ they never signed

 

Sir Vince, 74, faced criticism last night as opponents said he used improper tactics to impede Britain’s divorce from EU

Lib Dems said statement was signed by leaders of Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland and Netherlands

It was allegedly agreed at working lunch of liberal prime ministers in Brussels attended by Sir Vince before EU leaders summit yesterday

But Belgian PM Charles Michel, named in Lib Dem list, was not even present

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-55...t-PR-stunt.html

 

Even the Guardian picks up on this story!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/m...beral-democrats

Naughty Vince! Not Helping.

 

OTOH Farage was dumping dead fish into the Thames having avoided 41 of the 42 fishing policy meetings for the Fisheries Committee he was on designed to helped fisherman. Basically did nothing to help British fisherman and has the hypocrisy to dump dead sea fish into fresh water rivers to show his support when he has done nothing to help any of them EVER, even when he was getting paid to do that exact thing.

 

I know which is the biggest liar of the 2....

 

 

 

 

Naughty Vince! Not Helping.

 

OTOH Farage was dumping dead fish into the Thames having avoided 41 of the 42 fishing policy meetings for the Fisheries Committee he was on designed to helped fisherman. Basically did nothing to help British fisherman and has the hypocrisy to dump dead sea fish into fresh water rivers to show his support when he has done nothing to help any of them EVER, even when he was getting paid to do that exact thing.

 

Are you talking literally or metaphorically? :unsure:

 

What a waste of time/money/everything this Brexit is... :(

What a waste of time/money/everything this Brexit is... :(

 

This is why I prefer discussing it on Usenet - there's a pretty equal balance of Remainers & Leavers there. :mellow:

Edited March 23, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Are you talking literally or metaphorically? :unsure:

 

He Literally dumped 4-day-dead fish into the Thames, and he literally didn't turn up for 41 Fisheries meetings even though he was in the building for some of them and could have grabbed some cash for UK fishermen.

What a waste of time/money/everything this Brexit is... :(

 

This

 

Brexit is ludicrous - absolutely bizarre and anti-intellectual and anti-common sense. It's an UNBELIEVABLY stupid decision, and not even a decision at that.

 

Given what we know now, it's time to cancel this pitiful attempt at stopping the Tories from splitting. Let them split. Let Labour split. We can have a central party, a right wing (gag, I know :puke: ) party and a (yass) socialist party working for utopia, and the Lib Dems. Bring in PR. FAR more logical than whatever THIS MESS is.

 

Also, those blue passports are a DISGRACE and disgust me. I do not want one.

This

 

Brexit is ludicrous - absolutely bizarre and anti-intellectual and anti-common sense. It's an UNBELIEVABLY stupid decision, and not even a decision at that.

 

Given what we know now, it's time to cancel this pitiful attempt at stopping the Tories from splitting. Let them split. Let Labour split. We can have a central party, a right wing (gag, I know :puke: ) party and a (yass) socialist party working for utopia, and the Lib Dems. Bring in PR. FAR more logical than whatever THIS MESS is.

 

Splitting was tried in the 80's, but the status quo soon reasserted itself.

Because of the anti-democratic Establishment-favouring, Etonian FPTP system. Reform and see it change.

Splitting was tried in the 80's, but the status quo soon reasserted itself.

 

If by soon you mean it took 35 years to get another left-leaning Labour Party.

 

If by "Status Quo" you mean Tory-Lite New Labour.

 

If by splitting you mean 4 MP's, more or less, plus another 20.

 

Oddly I believe, for different reasons, we can all agree on PR being worthwhile......

 

 

Because of the anti-democratic Establishment-favouring, Etonian FPTP system. Reform and see it change.

 

No - because a new party like the SDP lacked the grass-roots support structure to support it electorally. It takes time for a new party to establish itself as a significant force, electorally or otherwise. It took Labour over 20 years to make an impact, ditto UKIP.

 

If by soon you mean it took 35 years to get another left-leaning Labour Party.

 

If by "Status Quo" you mean Tory-Lite New Labour.

 

If by splitting you mean 4 MP's, more or less, plus another 20.

 

Oddly I believe, for different reasons, we can all agree on PR being worthwhile......

 

In an adversarial parliamentary system, you're almost bound to end up with two big parties opposing each other, with a few others picking up little more than scraps. Recent experience also shows that the coalitions that FPTP sometimes produces (and PR almost inevitably does), are hardly a magic fix for government either.

 

As you know, I do prefer PR systems though, preferably STV, as that gives voters some control of which candidates are elected, not just which parties.

 

PR would certainly negated the need for the 2017 GE though, as the 12% share UKIP got in 2015 would have got them 75-80 MP's - more than enough to prop up the Tories through the Brexit process.

A hypothetical second referendum...

 

If it produced the same result as the first, would this forum's Remainers finally accept the electorates decision, or would you then seek a third (or even more) if the result still went the 'wrong' way?

 

I'm not suggesting that you should like the result, or that you should stop wanting to be part of the EU - only that that the decision has been made, for good or ill, for some time to come.

A second result which mirrored the first narrow win, but which was run on actual facts and a concrete offer that we can all read, would end the matter for decades, there would be no further argument because there is no possible reasonable alternative to accepting a democratic decision about it. That would be VERY different to the vague lies and promises that everyone had to deal with last time....

A second result which mirrored the first narrow win, but which was run on actual facts and a concrete offer that we can all read, would end the matter for decades, there would be no further argument because there is no possible reasonable alternative to accepting a democratic decision about it. That would be VERY different to the vague lies and promises that everyone had to deal with last time....

 

Neither campaign was run honestly, so I couldn't see a second one making much difference.

Neither campaign was run honestly, so I couldn't see a second one making much difference.

We're still waiting for an example of an actual lie from the Remain campaign. Just in case you've forgotten, a prediction cannot, by definition, be a lie unless it is clearly ridiculous.

Neither campaign was run honestly, so I couldn't see a second one making much difference.

 

This is the governments official statement pre-vote:

 

"Cost of living

If the UK voted to leave the EU, the resulting economic shock15 would put pressure on the value of the pound, which would risk higher prices of some household goods16 and damage living standards.17

 

Losing our full access to the EU’s single market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs.18

 

Travel abroad

Millions of UK citizens travel to Europe each year.19 The EU has made this easier and cheaper.

 

EU reforms in the 1990s have resulted in a drop in fares of over 40% for lower cost flights.20

 

From next year, mobile phone roaming charges will be abolished across the EU, saving UK customers up to 38p per minute on calls.21

 

EU membership also gives UK citizens travelling in other European countries the right to access free or cheaper public healthcare.22

 

Some argue little would change if we left the EU. But there are no guarantees UK customers would keep these benefits if we left.

 

Woman with shopping basket. Text on image reads: If the UK voted to leave the EU, the resulting economic shock would risk higher prices of some household goods

If the UK voted to leave the EU, the resulting economic shock would risk higher prices of some household goods 23

 

What happens if we leave?

Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.24

 

The government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world.25

 

Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market.

 

But the government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that – less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU.26

 

No other country has managed to secure significant access to the single market, without having to:

 

follow EU rules over which they have no real say

pay into the EU

accept EU citizens living and working in their country 27’28

A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the single market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy.29 For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services,30 it has so far been 7 years in the making and is still not in force. 31

 

Image of container port. Text on image reads: A vote to leave could mean a decade or more of uncertainity

Controlling immigration and securing our borders

Securing our borders

The UK is not part of the EU’s border-free zone – we control our own borders which gives us the right to check everyone, including EU nationals, arriving from continental Europe.32

 

Immigration

The government has negotiated a deal that will make our benefits system less of a draw for EU citizens. In future, new EU migrants will not have full access to certain benefits until they have worked here for up to 4 years. 33 The government will have greater powers to take action where there is abuse of our immigration system. 34

 

Some argue that leaving the EU would give us more freedom to limit immigration. But in return for the economic benefits of access to the EU’s single market, non-EU countries – such as Norway – have had to accept the right of all EU citizens to live and work in their country. 35

 

Keeping us safer

EU membership means UK police can use law enforcement intelligence from 27 EU countries, 36 and will have access to fingerprint and DNA information. 37

 

EU co-operation makes it easier to keep criminals and terrorists out of the UK. 38 Since 2004, using the European Arrest Warrant, over 1,000 suspects have faced justice in UK courts and over 7,000 have been extradited. 39

 

UK border sign. Text on image reads: The UK is not part of the European border-free zone. We control our own borders.

The benefits of EU membership

The UK is part of the EU, a group of 28 countries which exists to promote economic security, peace and stability. 40 The EU operates as a single, free trading market, without taxes between borders.41

 

The UK has secured a special status in the EU. The UK has kept the pound, will not join the euro and has kept control of UK borders. We have ensured that no UK powers can be transferred to the EU in the future without a referendum. 42 The UK will keep full access to the single market, with a say on its rules. For every £1 paid in tax, a little over 1p goes to the EU. 43 The government judges that what the UK gets back in opportunities, job creation and economic security from EU membership far outweighs the cost.

 

Opportunities for you and your children

EU membership means you and your family have the right to live, work or study abroad in any of the 27 other member countries. It also guarantees many employment rights.44

 

The UK as a leading force in the world

The UK is a strong, independent nation. Our EU membership magnifies the UK’s ability to get its way on the issues we care about.45 EU action helped prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons;46 and the EU is leading the world on tackling climate change.47"

 

Please point to areas here which are lies, and those statements which have been proven wrong by events.....

We're still waiting for an example of an actual lie from the Remain campaign. Just in case you've forgotten, a prediction cannot, by definition, be a lie unless it is clearly ridiculous.

 

That's why I didn't use the word 'lie' - after all, why lie when exaggeration will do the same job.

No. I need 66% and a high youth vote support % and 3/4 of nations before I consider rule by referenda as absolute.