.. to be appalled by this news about Jacob Rees-Mogg on GMB today

No; I can't stand smug people either. Another reason why I loathe JRM....

Are you not interested in Keir Starmer's forensic examination of the repeal bill, then, any of you?

The repeal bill is giving powers to individual ministers that up til now only parliament as a whole could wield.
But that doesn't matter to you because Rees-Mogg is such a nice man that he wants to send black and Asian britons back where they came from.

Also Tom Watson and, and and...?

Agreed, Tegan.
It's a bit much when someone can like Rees-Mogg but dislike Dimbleby for being smug.

You have no idea what does or doesn't interest Gransnetters
durhamjen so give it a rest.

I have not said that I like JRM that is another of your regular
Errors.

What are you on about, lemongrove. You really ought to stop attacking everything I say. You are confusing yourself.

'After the Great Repeal Bill, the UK will become a de facto dictatorship in order to escape the dictators in the EU, and respect 'the will of the people';
...does that sum up what Keir Starmer has said?

More or less, Tegan.
The worrying clauses are clause 9 and 17

"Clause 9 of the Bill gives ministers the power to do anything which MPs can do when it comes to passing an Act of Parliament. The entire legislative authority of the Commons transferred to the signature of a Government minister, with the exception of taxes, making criminal offences and anything to do with the Human Rights Act.

Except ministers could give themselves the power to do all of those things – as under the terms of the Act they are able to change the very Act itself."

Ministers can give themselves all these powers, as they can change the Act.
I find that very scary.
Keir Starmer has obviously been through it line by line, unlike David Davis.

Easily done with your posts durhamjen they tend to be confusingly jumbled.
But it was me who said Dimbleby is smug ( he is) but have never said I liked JRM merely that his opinion is exactly that, his own opinion.
I dare say that your hero Corbyn may have ideas that you do not like ( and keeps under his hat) but he is equally entitled to his opinions as JRM is.
In an interview situation all MP's should be honest about their convictions but rarely are.

De facto dictatorship ?
What, like Venezuela?

Keir Starmer quoted this from the Hansard Society.

"Such an extensive power is hedged in by the fact that any provision must somehow relate to withdrawal from the EU, but given that this will arguably extend to every facet of national life, if granted it would, in effect, hand the government a legislative blank cheque."

Still not worried?

Nope!

Me neither.
I may or may not share his principles but at least he has some!

I am pretty sure that most of the people on here who would call themselves pro-choice and who disagree vehemently with Rees-Mogg, would be equally as critical of Corbyn or any other MP, were they to put forward the same views as JRM - I most certainly would.

Personally, I am strongly pro-choice.

To support Rees-Mogg's extreme position is to accept that the unborn child must in all cases take precedence over an existing child or adult, even if that unborn child is the result of rape/incest or is likely to be profoundly disabled - or the mother is at risk of serious physical damage/death or mental illness.

In the case of underage pregnancies, the physical, emotional and social consequences to a child of having a baby can be very significant. An American news website reporting on the case of an 11-year old Paraguayan girl raped by her step father and denied an abortion, concluded the article:

"According to a 2013 United Nations report, 2 million girls under age 14 give birth in developing countries every year, many of whom suffer resulting long-term or fatal health problems. It estimated that 70,000 adolescents die each year from complications from pregnancy or childbirth."

Unwanted pregnancies will always occur and prohibiting all abortions would result in desperate and dangerous solutions being sought - as has happened throughout the ages - leading to serious injuries and deaths.

Meanwhile, there is a huge shortage of people who are willing to adopt or foster many thousands of children. Additionally, there are families struggling to bring up their children in a secure and healthy environment - and who, ironically, receive only criticism for bringing those children into the world. My feeling is that, rather than force women to continue with unwanted pregnancies, the focus should be on caring for the many needy children who are already in existence.

If a person truly believes that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" should be rigidly adhered to in all circumstances then presumably they cannot support anything which is designed to take life. Apart from pacifists, the majority of people tend to re-interpret that principle if it conflicts with their belief in meeting aggression with aggression, even if that means using nuclear weapons. And quite a large number of people still believe in capital punishment, extra-judicial killings, etc. etc.

Durhamjen , you state:-

"He also belongs to a group that wants to repatriate black and Asian britons. Not sure where to."
-
"But that doesn't matter to you because Rees-Mogg is such a nice man that he wants to send black and Asian britons back where they came from"
---

You have made serious allegations , once again.

Will you provide evidence of membership please to substantiate your term 'he belongs to' a group that wants to repatriate black and Asian Britons .

You have made a declaration Rees-Mogg " wants to send black and Asian Britons back to where they come from".
Can you provide evidence that is his opinion and has stated this .

I am not asking for where or what you have felt confident to make these allegations because I believe you are making them on the back of his making a dinner speech. I am asking for evidence that what you have stated about Rees-Mogg is from the mouth of the man himself.

You may be correct for all I know but I have no knowledge he has been a 'member' of any group nor stated what you declare him to have said re repatronising anybody.

I agree Day6.

He was asked by Piers Morgan and he answered honestly that he believed that a child's life begins at conception. Some people disagree with this although I'm not sure when they believe a child's life starts. This is an important question as it influences views in what we might believe can be done if a mother doesn't wish to continue with a pregnancy which is a separate question and also under which circumstances some may feel exceptions can be made. These are ethical and moral questions. JRM because he believes that a child's life begins at birth believes that it's wrong to terminate that life. This view is a tenet of Catholicism, Islam and Hinduism and other religions with some qualifications. Ghandhi also belueved and expressed this view. Anyone including politicians can be asked about any individual views they hold and can either answer honestly, lie, say whatever they think will get them votes or obfuscate otherwise known as squirming on the head of a pin. JRM has also stated that it's his personal view and that the law will remain. It's important in s free society to respect difference and diversity. It's good to see a discussion here not accompanied by the usual hate, vitriol and abuse that people are subjected to on other social media platforms when they express different views. I notice that some of the hate is being whipped up by other politicians and factions for political reasons without considering that many of their constituents may also hold such personal views due to their religious beliefs in what is supposed to be a society tolerant of personal faith.

Why shouldn't a pregnant woman go to her MP for help Baggs? He is there to help his constituents and not to pick and choose what he advises them about she might have many problems, being pregnant just one of them, housing, other children etc but could raise her pregnancy whilst she was there. He would be unable to give her unbiased advice about her situation.
Annie you are welcome to your own opinions on marriage just stop trying to judge other people by them.

Why is it necessary for right wingers to constantly decry us lefties as worshipping Corbyn, but regard their own position on JRM as somehow balanced? Smacks of fear, that actually they know how wrong they are and so have to use smear and abuse to make their point.

As always a thoughtful post Eloethan. Thank you for bringing us back to the reasons why so many of decided we needed to be pro-choice even though it may not be an easy decision to make.

Thinking over the many posts on here, I wonder about those who think JRM is a worthy person simply because he told the truth. I think most of our MPs tell the truth although in any large group of people you may get the odd scoundrel. I think some will avoid questions which have nothing to do with politics. The idea that we are not told the truth comes much more from the very political stance taken by some who only chime out short, memorable (or tragically unforgettable) statements such as "strong and stable", "we want our country back", "hard-working people" which mean very little if anything when analysed. The suppression of information also makes us suspicious of those suppressing it.

Some of this is because our best paid journalists have become headless chickens, running around spending all their time on the wrong things and some of it is because of the cynical way some politicians view the public.

So, I find I feel that 'telling the truth' is nowhere near enough. Should this make me admire someone who tells us they are, for instance, a white supremacist, a fascist, a murderer even? Obviously not. Truth in the case of JRM is not enough. It is the facts and consequences of what he truthfully tells us he believes in that matters and how deeply he holds that truth. Anyone with such deep feeling and an allegiance he holds higher than anything else should be expected to do all he can to bring about what he believes and it is naïve, in my opinion, not to understand this.

many of us - not just many of

Trisher, you are in no position to criticise others for judging, you surely are the master judge

youtu.be/F8wKRg-1e6s

For Coco

A woman misses a period so goes to her MP?

I live in the next constituency to J R-M and from talking to friends, the general feeling is that while he's a bit of an upper-class twit (a bit!!), who has views they don't necessarily agree with, they respect him for being honest and straightforward. More importantly they trust him with their issues and appreciate that he does his best for them, even if his personal views differ from theirs. Surely that's the most important issue here.
He was put on the spot on GMB. He didn't volunteer his views and he was honest. He didn't say he would impose them on the rest of us, did he? He's in no position to anyway.
Although I am a LibDem, I actually respect him for standing his ground, unlike Fallon who seemingly was unable to do so while leading his party.