IntenseDebate - Verdaderamente

5 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Nick Hargrave: Yes, I ... · 0 replies · +1 points

This talk is very interesting on the importance of nationhood and globalisation. The speaker, N Y Harari is an historian and anthropologist, not a politician.
https://youtu.be/VenomHl4D5k

5 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Martin Howe: Misunders... · 0 replies · +1 points

‘The later is a killer for trade deals with major partners because it stops us agreeing mutual recognition of standards which deviate in any way from the EU rulebook’

It would be helpful to have an example of a ‘major partner’. Would such a major partner also be a major partner in a trade deal with the EU? If so, can we have an example of what kind of item would be advantageous to this major partner to sell in the UK with a different standard to that applied when selling in the EU? If the major partner with whom we wish to do a trade deal does not have/plan to have a trade deal with the EU, what sort of product does it wish to sell us that would only be worthwhile if it knows it does not need to apply EU standards? Some concrete examples, even if speculative, would be useful.

6 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - There will be no Brexi... · 1 reply · +1 points

I understand George Soros was born in 1930.

6 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Iain Duncan Smith: The... · 2 replies · +1 points

As I understand it, what you've just described is the Council (Government appointed ministers) acting as the Executive by proposing legislation. After various forms of scrutiny etc, this is voted on by the European Parliament which is the Legislature.

The difference with the bill in question is that the UK government ministers would be able to act as Executive and Legislature, with little if any opportunity for scrutiny by parliament. This is 'normal' but only in limited well defined circumstances, whereas the bill seriously loosens these criteria.

EU law has been subjected to the principles of the separation of powers, and then adopted into UK law according to the terms of our membership. Obviously the UK no longer wants this arrangement. The objection to yesterday's bill seems to me a different question.

6 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Peter Lilley: Don't lo... · 3 replies · +1 points

Peter Lilley is not MP for Hitchin and Harpenden.

6 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Tory MPs, the Repeal B... · 2 replies · +1 points

The letter versus the spirit of Brexit is crucial. However, the spirit - what we meant when we narrowly voted to Leave - will always be subjective. It doesn't matter how many surveys Lord Ashcroft produces, or how many claims are made about what campaigners on both sides said. The only democratic mandate is Leave, and as Paul Goodman says here, this can be achieved in many ways. If that makes a mockery of Leavers' motives for leaving as often protested on this site, then should we not have the opportunity in a second referendum to vote for a properly spelt out unambiguous future?

6 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Daniel Hannan: A year ... · 4 replies · +1 points

I think it is an extremely important to grasp that the 'official' Leave and Remain campaigns were not accountable to anyone for anything they said. It is true that a party manifesto is not legally enforceable, but in this case, the parties know that the voter will have the opportunity to judge them at another election.
The referendum question was Leave or Remain in the EU. What any voter was thinking in terms of motives at the time he cast his vote, is constitutionally irrelevant. To enact the wish of the people it is only necessary to Leave. Claiming that Leave voters wanted 'sovereignty', reduced immigration, etc, may or may not be true, but is irrelevant! So, since Norway and Switzerland are not members of the EU, an agreement like theirs will fulfill the 'will of the people'. Rather than everyone arguing about who promised what to whom and what voters were thinking, we should all be looking to debate the issues in terms of the possible 'Brexits' available right now.

6 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - James Frayne: Back to ... · 1 reply · +1 points

'Anyone who took a public role in the referendum is inherently divisive.' Thinking of the major political figures on both sides of the referendum; David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osborne, Ruth Davidson, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Andrea Leadsom etc. Whichever side you were on, there is a prominent Tory considered to be a liar.

Boris Johnson and Michael Gove washed the Party's linen in public. They are no better than they ought to be. Respectability is an old fashioned virtue beloved of conservatives.

Why did Michael Gove's condemnation of Boris Johnson stop his leadership bid? Is there some rule requiring Gove's approval above all others? Gove's treachery was a get out of gaol free card for Boris Johnson. The leadership at that point, for anyone but a Brexit fanatic, was always a hospital pass. Prime Minister is on Boris Johnson's bucket list, no doubt, but not self-sacrifice for the greater good. Theresa May, for all her potentially disastrous faults, is guided by the purest motives

6 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Ashley Fox: The electi... · 2 replies · +1 points

It would be nice to know exactly where Labour expressly committed to leave the SM/CU. Conservatives have been saying this for a while and I took it as read, but the Labour manifesto does look vague on this.

6 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Sarah Ingham: After th... · 0 replies · +1 points

'What has the European Convention on Human Rights ever done for us?'
You do have to watch till the end.
https://youtu.be/ptfmAY6M6aA

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Verdaderamente

People I'm following

Verdaderamente