More Brexit lunacy

Who said democracy is not a democracy if we cannot change our minds?

Tom Brake, Brexit spokesman for the LibDems writes-

"We want to ensure that- the Government assess the impact of either an agreement or ‘no deal’ on the UK economy and the regions and publish the assessment before a vote in Parliament, if Parliament rejects the agreement or the ‘no deal’ option, the Government must revoke Article 50 and exit from Brexit or seek an extension to Article 50 to enable further negotiations with the EU to take place. Without these amendments, there can be no ‘meaningful’ vote in Parliament and Parliamentarians would be left with the PM’s ‘like it or lump it’ choice of a very bad deal or no deal at all."

But the Government doesn't 'do' impact assessments and they turn on others who do 'do' impact assessments, like the SNP's Impact Assessment for Scotland with that utterly stupid 'talking the country down' accusation. Well, they're not 'talking the country down', they're talking bl**dy Brexit down' with a realistic assessment of what it would mean to them.

I don't get any more reconciled to the whole idea as time passes; just more angry at the demonising of rational assessments and the people who are, justifiably, terrified of the implications for the UK.

How Theresa May manages to sleep at night I do not know. She must know that Brexit is bollocks...

www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/mayor-warns-hard-brexit-could-lead-lost-decade-growth-and-employment

She'll know now from the London Brexit assessment if she didn't realise before.
She might try to ignore Scotland, but she can't ignore London.

If at the end we do not leave the EU democracy will be dead in this country.

Yet another of those phrases chimed out. It is simply not true.

If we do not leave, because our system of representative democracy comes to the conclusion we should not, then that is our democracy working. I can't remember how many times this has been said but we do not have, because we have not chosen to have, Direct Democracy. That is why the referendum could only be advisory unless a law was passed to make it otherwise. That law was not passed and no other words uttered by you, me or any politician make that any different - it would need a law.

Politicians have decided, by a large majority, that they feel obliged to try find an agreement to leave the EU. They have to be representatives not delegates in this matter. If the outcomes of leaving do not seem to be in the countries interest they may, if they choose, perfectly democratically come to the conclusion we should not. I realise that, should this happen, we will have many more comments like the one above but that will still not make it right.

Why, oh why, do people not learn how their own democracy works instead of spouting Daily Mail style phrases?

Varian, Maizie, I wonder if there isn't some way the government - who are not parliament but only part of it - can be held to account for not doing an impact assessment?

I don't know if they can but it does seem wrong if they can't.

I can't believe they haven't done one.
I think they did, but the results were not what they wanted, so Davis was the fall guy for telling us they haven't.
All we need is a whistleblower.

After all, Davis said a democracy means we can change our minds, but he doesn't want to as he was all for Brexit.

Watching the Lords this morning - early walk with the dog, and they were discussing a report that seemed to show a great many major issues/economic decline after Brexit, but I don’t know what the report was as I came in the middle and left in the middle.

Graces Gran. I know exactly how our democracy works. /first past the post. A candidate can win a seat, the other parties combined can out number the winner by a large amount. Now you can call this democracy if you like but I don't. Other EU countries are amazed that we are allowed to get away with this. Like I've said in the past, many years ago the Labour party polled a million more votes than the Tories and still lost the election. Please don't say it produces strong government as strong government does not equal good government as the Germans have proved time and time again.

Well Wally, time to celebrate- I agree with you. The First Past the Post system is not democratic at all. Since I got British nationality in 73 - my vote has never ever counted. I voted every time, on principle, but knowing full well that, because of where I lived - it would go straight in the bin. Just like the ones of the people in the Council Estate next to us who didn't vote Labour ... This is a system which pushes for extremes and disenfranchises 1000s - and lead to swings and see-saws and so called 'strong' GVT.

Of course % system like in Italy, where you have 100s of small parties is ridiculous in the other way. The German one is much better- where you have to score a certain % of the vote to be electable.

Our local GVT here is made up of 2 parties on the right which include center, and 2 parties on the left- one of which is very left, the other includes centre, and the Greens. They don't all agree- but they listen to each other with respect- and work together to solve problems. Hurrah.

As for The Lords- it can't be more undemocratic, can it? Especially when you have automatic representation from the one Church- which no longer represents the population in any way, shape or form. If the Clergy is represented, it should have representiatives from all the major Churches and religions that represent the country, and Humanists too.

The system worked well for many years as there were only two candidates - Labour and Tories. It has become more complicated over more recent years with all the other parties/candidates participating in the elections.

If you remember, the Liberals were also very strong, and Churchill himself crossed the floor from one to t'other several times.

The First Past the Post is totally undemocratic as it ensures huge swathes of population do not have a vote, in reality.

In Ye Olde Days when workers and white colloar workers and bosses all lived in closed enclaves- where 99% of the people voted the same- it might have worked- but people now live in mixed areas. Where I lived in Leics- if you didn't vote Tory your vote would go straight to the bin, and 100 yards down the road, in the Council Estate, if people did not vote labour, the same would happen. See saw extreme politics, no cooperation. Not appropriate to our modern world.

UKIP would have 12 seats in Parliament with PR, as it is they have none.
www.indy100.com/article/uk-election-map-proportional-representation-system-2017-conservative-labour-7784956

Be careful what you wish for

Yes Jalima, I know- and it is of concern, I agree. But it is democracy.

I wrote a letter to Charles Kennedy some years ago, when he was Lib-Dem leader. To my surprise, he sent me a 3 page letter explaining why he felt that, despite UKIP, the FPP election system in the UK had to change, to be more democratic, to stop excluding anyone who feels different to the 'mass in their Constituency'- which are such polarised blocks due to the housing situation- etc. I am really sorry it ended up in the bin when we made the big move.

I think this makes an interesting, if depressing, contribution to any discussion of 'democracy'. I get from it the feeling that the 'ordinary' population is really quite indifferent to, or uninterested in, what goes on in the country which is beyond their experience and has a very hazy idea of what 'politics' is about.

Those of us who post on these threads are really quite a minority, I think.

www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/01/lord-ashcroft-there-are-more-rainy-days-than-sunny-days-my-new-year-focus-groups.html

And, wally, I agree with you about First Past the Post, too

I don't think my vote has ever counted in any election I've voted in since I was 21 (previous voting age). That's an awful lot of elections...

Wally you seem to have veered away from your original point about our constitutional form of democracy onto our voting system

If at the end we do not leave the EU democracy will be dead in this country. That is still not true whatever you think of the voting system. Under our constitution that could most certainly happen and be 'democratic' as our system is constructed.

You may want to change how it works; I may want to change how it works but currently it would allow parliament to decide as representatives - not delegates - of the people.

Agreed Maizie- I find it so bizarre when people say 'oh I don't like politics' or 'Oh I don't do politics' etc.

People so often confuse party politics- to 'politics' and the polarisation in the UK between Left and Right- a direct result of FPP system - means people want to avoid conflict. AndI totally get that.

But 'politics' decide everything, be it NHS, schools, social, human rights (how incredible that Parliament voted down the charter on human rights today btw ) animal rights, the environment,how we treat the sick and disabled, roads, transport, housing policy, and on and on.

I've met so many people, and yes, lets say it, mainly women- who work for charities, for the sick, the terminally ill, animal welfare, the environment, schools, etc, etc - and yet say 'oh I don't like politics' - when the above charities are there to fill the gap left by .... politics.

Yesterday I posted about Johnson lying about the figure on th3 bus again.

Starmer has reported Johnson to the statistical watchdog -

Yesterday more LIES

Well I think we can be certain that Article 50 can be revoked.

As all the impact assessment that hav3 been done have shown disaster post-brexit.

Twitter Jonathan Lis

It is a year ago that May promised certainty and clarity in the Brexit process. Now with 9 months to negotiate the most complex deal in history, she cant confirm the most basic details of what she wants or expects to be in it. She leads a Government not worthy of the name.

The health service is haemorrhaging nurses (BBC)

Did Brexiters vote for that?

10% have left recently- UK, EU and non EU.

Those keen to accept an American trade deal with their food might like to know the safety concerns of the Soil Association.

Bacon - ractopamine, a growth hormone is used in the USA but bannedby almost every other country.
It is fed to pigs in the weeks before slaughter and has been found to cause disability in the animal, including trembling, broken bones and lameness.

Chickens - chlorine washed

Chicken litter - recycled as animal feed including chicken faeces.

Beef- growth hormone treated

Crops - genetic modification

Atrazine- a herbicide used on sugar cane, enters the water supply and interferes with wildlife.

Brominatec vegetable oil- used in drinks

Potassium bromate - a dough conditioner linked to cancer in rats

Azodicarbonamide- a bleaching agent in flour linked to tumours in rats.

Food colourants banned in the EU