Sovereignty and 'take back control'

Who said people who oppose Brexit are the far left? Are all the people wishing to leave the far right? For my self I would consider I am left of centre and always have been.

Some people see things very simplistically whitewave. We currently have splits along the lines of: rich and poor, north and south, in and out, left and right. Belonging to one group is no predictor or belonging to another.

Politicians from all parties tell lies!

I have found that most politicians want to be honest but, in my experience it is the 'toffs' in the Tories who seem to think they have a right to rule and that lying is okay if it gets them what they want. No, that doesn't mean others don't lie but my experience in life is that those who come from privilege background have a different culture - mainly about about hanging on to what they have. Not all of them of course but there are far to many in the current Conservative party.

How do you know it was far left, niggly?
Skinner called the centre left MPs who voted to get rid of Corbyn scabs. Maybe it was that lot getting their own back.
Do you have any names?

Jen these are the only Conservatives I could find who didn't vote. No surprise with Ken Clarke and I don't think he will spare them from now on.

David Amess (Conservative - Southend West)
Nick Boles (Conservative - Grantham and Stamford)
Ken Clarke (Conservative - Rushcliffe)
Johnny Mercer (Conservative - Plymouth Moor View)
Gary Streeter (Conservative - South West Devon)

Niggly always criticises Corbyn. She doesn't need a reason.

Not another one!

Nick Boles is ill, so he was partner to Anna Turley.
I am surprised at Johnny Mercer. He's always very gung-ho.
He's the ex-army bloke who supports his leader whatever.

Apparently it was Corbynistas, or however you spell it, who were calling for his deselection. It's all on Google. When you think Corbyn spent a lot of his political life defying Labour whips, its strange that he is so insistent on squashing any freedom of thought now he's in a position of power. I'd have thought that he would have been sympathetic to individual points of view. Another example of power overruling a dearly held point of view. Politicians the world over seem expert at that! No wonder they are all held in such low esteem.

It was discussed on The Daily Politics and the conclusion was that Corbyn was being opportunistic in trying to defeat the Government, when in fact he agrees that we need to get on with things.

That's a ... well I will not say what it is but it is not the truth. The whole point about DP is that they ask people of different OPINIONS on and they did not agree as you suggest. I cannot find such a comment on the recording of the programme. You are reading too much gutter press and putting forward view as they do - just to suit what you want to have happened. Absolutely no 'conclusion' was drawn.

If you are going to have a go at someone could you try using the truth or no one will believe anything you post.

Corbyn hasn't taken the whip away from anyone who voted against or abstained, has he?
You can't deselect an 80 year old, who is as far left as Corbyn.
They are good friends.
You're making things up about the far left, niggly, as usual.

No dj I'm not making it up. You clearly haven't done your usual thorough homework. Look on line and read all about it and you will see that there is a lot of anger towards Dennis Skinner from the left in particular.

If you are using this to back your argument niggly you need to provide a reference (link would do). Otherwise ... who is to know if you have made it up or not.

The only person I can see who says what you do is Guido Fawkes, that well-known far right blogger.
All other links lead to him. He doesn't say where he got his information from.
I don't use google; I do go on labour party websites, and can't see anything like that on there. All I have seen is that people were bemused, as was I, as I didn't expect his name to be on that list, but understand now he has explained.

Unlike you, of course, who believe the first thing you read from a right-wing blogger.

The only other person I have seen say that is John Rentoul, who made his money from writing a book about Blair, so not exactly reliable. He links to Guido Fawkes.

Parliament will debate all important laws.

leongrove Like many other Leavers (and probably some Remainers) you are completely missing the point of the objections to this Bill. Which is that, if it goes through unchanged, the government has given itself sweeping powers to amend and make any laws it pleases without the scrutiny of Parliament. This is a direct attack on the sovereignty of parliament. It is an direct attack on the democratic process of law making which has been developed over 100s of years. The adverse implications for the future are horrendous.

I started this thread in order to discover if anyone understood how our lawmaking process works and how we avoid a dictatorship. It is very clear that very few people understand our Constitution and the checks within it which are designed to limit the power of the monarchy (as exercised by HM government). It's very worrying and depressing. What is even more depressing is that on the whole they don't actually care. Not only are we about to destroy the British economy but we are also en route to becoming a dictatorship; Leavers don't give a toss.

Brexit is bad enough without the addition of the undermining of our democratic institutions. Brexiters haven't 'brought back control', they've lost it.

As I said Google it and there you'll find it. I'm not that interested in Labour politics to make it up, I just think it's a bit rich for Corbyn to be so intolerant of his MP's bearing in mind his own 30 year track record of rebellion. Apart from that I couldn't care less about Corbyn or Labour.

My grandson understands it, Maizie. He read it in Andrew Marr's book on politics. Maybe others should, too.

Corbyn isn't intolerant. They are best friends.
Who told you Corbyn was intolerant? Has he sacked anyone for going against a three line whip?
Has he told Skinner it's time he retired?
You really do believe anything you read, don't you?

By the way, talking about Skinner, does anyone know when the film about him is out? Hope I haven't missed it.

skwawkbox.org/2017/09/12/exclusive-dennis-skinner-on-his-euw-vote/

An interview with Skinner on why he voted the way he did.
I doubt that Guido Fawkes has read it, or John Rentoul.

Ian Dunt on the threat to democracy posed by this Bill:

Start

Of particular concern are clauses seven, eight, nine and 17, which effectively turn ministers into mini-parliaments, able to change law at will or, as the bill puts it, enact regulations which "may make any provision that could be made by an Act of parliament". Clause nine includes the ability to amend the withdrawal bill itself in this manner, meaning that any of its safeguards against improper use can themselves be magicked out of existence by ministerial fiat.

As the House of Lords constitution committee warned last March, in a report which Theresa May later falsely claimed had supported her, "the bill weaves a tapestry of delegated powers that are breath-taking in..scope and potency".

That was last night. This morning a new assault on parliament is on the way. Andrea Leadsom - leader of the Commons and proud mother - is tabling a motion to give the government a locked-in majority on public bill committees. These out-of-the-way bodies, which can be attacked with relative impunity because no-one outside Westminster knows what they are, are tasked with going through legislation line-by-line. Previously they reflected the make-up of the Commons. Now they will be seemingly unaffected by the public vote. It is an extraordinary constitutional power grab intended to wipe out the election result. As long as Tory committee members stay loyal, they can dismiss any opposition amendment.

Taken as a pincer movement, you can see the process quite clearly. This is an assault on parliamentary scrutiny the likes of which we have not seen in a very long time.

The idea that Brexit was in some way a mechanism to enhance and protect British parliamentary sovereignty must now be considered as laughable as the notion that May is strong and stable. Quite the opposite is true. It is an affront to parliamentary democracy.

End

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09/12/this-is-the-just-the-start-of-the-brexit-attack-on-democracy

MaizieD since the same thing was done by the Labour Party in the 1970's, the precedent has already been set.
It wasn't the end of Parliamentary democracy then and it won't be now.

As I said Google it and there you'll find it.

That is just ignorant Niggly. If you put forward an argument and you try to evidence it with something from the internet it is up to you to reference it not just direct people to Google. Who on earth is going to accept what you say as a fact when you cannot evidence it?

This is an interesting list.

www.politico.eu/list/brexit-40-troublemakers-ranking/

Niggly's quite safe telling me to google anything, GracesGran, as she knows I don't use google.

Anyway, Skinner's just getting on with his job. He was talking about waspi women today, and the edm on the subject.

lemongrove, you still don't get it, do you? Whatever Labour did in the 1970s they did not pass legislation enabling them to make and amend legislation without the scrutiny of parliament. The packing of committees is a minor issue (though it gains in significance by the very fact that it enhances the 'power grab' effect of the Henry VIII clauses in the repeal Bill). By not putting any time limit on these powers, or restricting them to matters relating to bringing EU legislation into British law, the government gives itself the ability to do anything it likes, at any time, without the consent of parliament.

It's just really bad manners Jen whether or not you will look. Either that or there is actually nothing to back her argument and, rather than admit it, Niggly would prefer to be seen as a very rude person. I'm shocked