• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Interesting Items...

It's not often that parliament decides it wants no say in a particularly momentous and life changing decision. I find that an interesting item.
 
Trev said:
They didn't. The Lords did. (For Lords, read political cronies)
Click to expand...
No, he (M0001) made one of those statements that needs a bit more thinking about.
He's actually right in a way. The commons is effectively saying "We're having a say now and don't want too much more choice in two years or so" which does sound odd, though it does make good sense to me.
 
As I understand it, which could well be wrong, is that what they seem to be saying in a roundabout sort of way is "We want to make the final decision". If this is correct, what's the point of the Commons?
 
I don't understand why neither of you understand this, it all makes perfect sense to me. The Lords say that whatever deal is hammered out after triggering Article 51 should be brought back to Parliament for approval. May & co don't want to risk Parliament saying "no, that's not good enough".

If May gets her way, Europe will know they can play hard ball. Having to bring the result of negotiations back to the representatives of the people will at least send a signal that it isn't going to be as easy (for the EU) as they would like.
 
But if the Commons were to say "Yes" and the Lords say "No" what happens then if the Lords have the veto. It seems to me that the Commons seem more willing to reflect the view of the majority (of those who could be bothered to vote. The rest deserve no say in the matter) more than the Lords.
 
Trev said:
They didn't. The Lords did. (For Lords, read political cronies)
Click to expand...
No, The Lords wants to give The Commons and Lords a say, but The Commons are trying to remove that right.

It's like having one party A achieving 52% in an election, which never happens, and the MPs all saying we don't want to vote on anything this term, do whatever you wish, PM. Even within parties there are divisions, plus public opinion changes rapidly. Suppose that party A were split 50-50 on some issue, and the other parties were all opposed. To deny a vote would be a travesty of democracy!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with this situation is that, unlike most things parliament processes, they only have a limited say in the outcome. This is going to be a negotiation between us and the EU with a two year deadline, and it won't be pretty. Any public disclosure of what we might or might not accept (and both these lords amendment play towards that) is akin to asking the military to discuss their tactics for an upcoming action in public.

On the other hand if BH's point is correct:
Black Hole said:
If May gets her way, Europe will know they can play hard ball. Having to bring the result of negotiations back to the representatives of the people will at least send a signal that it isn't going to be as easy (for the EU) as they would like
Click to expand...
... then it's a different matter. That's a way of looking at it that I haven't seen before. I need to ponder that. Definitely an interesting item.
 
I don't see there's much to negotiate.

Access to the single market without freedom of movement is vetoed by the EU. Out.

Any trade deals, the EU have a habit of taking years to agree those. Out, within a 2 year timescale.

Our debts for former agreements with the EU cease when we leave. Out.

That leaves ex-pats. Anything I missed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike0001 said:
I don't see there's much to negotiate.

Access to the single market without freedom of movement is vetoed by the EU. Out.

Any trade deals, the EU have a habit of taking years to agree those. Out, within a 2 year timescale.

Our debts for former agreements with the EU cease when we leave. Out.

That leaves ex-pats. Anything I missed?
Click to expand...

If all that is true we might as well skip the two year wait and leave now :)

Of course they (EU) are saying they'll give nothing; we are saying we want everything. But in any negotiation there is usually a polarised start and then a bit of give on each side. And two years is a long time in politics at the moment - the circumstances could change before the final deal and we end up with something unlike anything currently being suggested. It's really quite entertaining.
 
MikeSh said:
The problem with this situation is that, unlike most things parliament processes, they only have a limited say in the outcome. This is going to be a negotiation between us and the EU with a two year deadline, and it won't be pretty. Any public disclosure of what we might or might not accept (and both these lords amendment play towards that) is akin to asking the military to discuss their tactics for an upcoming action in public.
Click to expand...
I don't see that. The negotiations can be as in camera as they like, we just want scrutiny of the outcome before it is given the rubber stamp.

Mike0001 said:
I don't see there's much to negotiate.
Click to expand...
There is, but it's not the things people think. It's no good thinking we can keep any benefits of being in the club by leaving, on the other hand there is the divorce settlement to agree on.
 
Almost all new cars will soon be in the same VED band at £140pa. Is this interesting? If it isn't interesting then that, in itself, is interesting.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vehicle-excise-duty/vehicle-excise-duty

The rules mention zero emission vehicles, which do not, of course, exist, except in a SORN sense! Even the driver is not zero emissions, and the power stations emit plenty!

Nor is there any mention of diesels or NOx.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What may be interesting is that I foretold that low-emissions vehicles could not retain their preferential tax treatment when they made a significant inroad on the total car population, simply due to declining tax income.
 
Black Hole said:
What may be interesting is that I foretold that low-emissions vehicles could not retain their preferential tax treatment when they made a significant inroad on the total car population, simply due to declining tax income.
Click to expand...
I don't when you foretold it but it's been rattling around the press for several years. This change has surprised a lot of people, but they must have their heads stuck up their ... Facebook app :)
 
MikeSh said:
I don't when you foretold it but it's been rattling around the press for several years. This change has surprised a lot of people, but they must have their heads stuck up their ... Facebook app :)
Click to expand...
I agree, we all predicted that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top