And Even More Good News From Labour.
News1 min ago
Enemies Of Democracy?
Not unexpectedly, The farce that was the EU Referendum Bill has run of time in the Lords meaning it will not become law - yet. If was stopped by Labour and LibDem Peers who the Conservatives have called Enemies of Democracy.
However, they plan to perpetuate the farce even longer
// The Tory leadership instead plans to ask its MPs who come in the top four places in the private member's bill ballot in the early summer after the Queen's speech to retable the Wharton bill in the form it left the Commons. If the bill is not amended by MPs, the Parliament Act would be triggered, meaning it would pass into law without returning to the Lords. But it would have to be designated as a "money bill" on the grounds that a referendum would have to be paid for out of public funds. The Speaker, John Bercow, would have to certify it as a money bill. //
Which sounds rather undemocratic.
// The prime minister told the BBC: "We will use every tactic possible to give the British people a referendum. We have another session of parliament starting, there's every opportunity for another private member's bill and another debate." //
http://
So the whole nonsense will perpetuate all year. Probably the same result - Nothing.
Why do we need this bill?
Why can't the Conservatives say now to the British people, "Vote for a Conservative Government in the General Election and you will get an in/out referendum in 2016" and leave it at that?
However, they plan to perpetuate the farce even longer
// The Tory leadership instead plans to ask its MPs who come in the top four places in the private member's bill ballot in the early summer after the Queen's speech to retable the Wharton bill in the form it left the Commons. If the bill is not amended by MPs, the Parliament Act would be triggered, meaning it would pass into law without returning to the Lords. But it would have to be designated as a "money bill" on the grounds that a referendum would have to be paid for out of public funds. The Speaker, John Bercow, would have to certify it as a money bill. //
Which sounds rather undemocratic.
// The prime minister told the BBC: "We will use every tactic possible to give the British people a referendum. We have another session of parliament starting, there's every opportunity for another private member's bill and another debate." //
http://
So the whole nonsense will perpetuate all year. Probably the same result - Nothing.
Why do we need this bill?
Why can't the Conservatives say now to the British people, "Vote for a Conservative Government in the General Election and you will get an in/out referendum in 2016" and leave it at that?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Which sounds rather undemocratic..." The Parliament Act was passed over 100 years ago to give the elected Commons the power to push bills through against opposition from the unelected Lords. In the case of bills concerning the Budget and other 'money bills', the House of Lords cannot reject them or delay them; it would be very inconvenient if the annual Budget was held up or rejected by the Upper House
I was referring to the ploy of labelling it a money bill when it clearly isn't.
When the Bill does come back to parliament it will not pass because the LibDems, Labour and many Conservatives (and many of the others MPs) will not support it. The Conservatives do not have a majority.
The charade is designed to ameliorate the threat UKiP pose to the Conservatives. Cameron can claim to have worked hard to get a referendum but has been thwarted by the lefties. The truth is, he must have known from day one, that a referendum was never going to get passed by either house of parliament.
When the Bill does come back to parliament it will not pass because the LibDems, Labour and many Conservatives (and many of the others MPs) will not support it. The Conservatives do not have a majority.
The charade is designed to ameliorate the threat UKiP pose to the Conservatives. Cameron can claim to have worked hard to get a referendum but has been thwarted by the lefties. The truth is, he must have known from day one, that a referendum was never going to get passed by either house of parliament.
2016 ! 2017 ! It's all a farce . We won't get what we want . Hollande
more or less said so yesterday. We might get a couple of minor concessions which no doubt Dave would claim as a great victory. If Dave had the bottle to set out NOW our minimum requirements, for staying in . We would know what we are voting for . As it is he is saying
'Trust Me ' ! We don't !
The only thing that is saving him at the moment with regards to Europe, is it would be far worse with Labour. They are wedded to the EU.
more or less said so yesterday. We might get a couple of minor concessions which no doubt Dave would claim as a great victory. If Dave had the bottle to set out NOW our minimum requirements, for staying in . We would know what we are voting for . As it is he is saying
'Trust Me ' ! We don't !
The only thing that is saving him at the moment with regards to Europe, is it would be far worse with Labour. They are wedded to the EU.
/// If was stopped by Labour and LibDem Peers who the Conservatives have called Enemies of Democracy. ///
I think that is a pretty good description of them, seeing that they do not wish the British public to have a voice.
Woe, if either or both gained power, since they wouldn't give us a choice regarding 'Europe', wouldn't that then be a dictatorship?
I think that is a pretty good description of them, seeing that they do not wish the British public to have a voice.
Woe, if either or both gained power, since they wouldn't give us a choice regarding 'Europe', wouldn't that then be a dictatorship?
// if either or both [ Labour or LibDem ] gained power, since they wouldn't give us a choice regarding 'Europe', wouldn't that then be a dictatorship?
Of course not.
Both parties would not promise a referendum in their election manifestos. If the public then vote for them, then the public are saying they are not bothered. If Labour were to get a majority by NOT promising a referendum, then there shouldn't be one. They should not be forced to hold one due to some barmy Conservative backbencher's Bill.
If the Conservatives want a Referendum, they must put it in their manifesto and see if the public vote for it. If the public vote for a majority Conservative Government then they can hold a vote within a year of them getting elected.
Of course not.
Both parties would not promise a referendum in their election manifestos. If the public then vote for them, then the public are saying they are not bothered. If Labour were to get a majority by NOT promising a referendum, then there shouldn't be one. They should not be forced to hold one due to some barmy Conservative backbencher's Bill.
If the Conservatives want a Referendum, they must put it in their manifesto and see if the public vote for it. If the public vote for a majority Conservative Government then they can hold a vote within a year of them getting elected.
Must be a great relief to you gromit, now there is no chance of the public giving the "wrong" answer at a referendum.
"Why can't the Conservatives say now to the British people, "Vote for a Conservative Government in the General Election and you will get an in/out referendum in 2016" and leave it at that? " - wish I knew gromit, I'd even vote Labour if they id it.
"Why can't the Conservatives say now to the British people, "Vote for a Conservative Government in the General Election and you will get an in/out referendum in 2016" and leave it at that? " - wish I knew gromit, I'd even vote Labour if they id it.
Tora,
I'm getting to the stage where I think a referendum might be useful once and for all. There are enough people who seem to want it. And a definitive answer might be useful for the country going forward.
But I do not think it should be obligated on the winners of the next election if they have explicitly campaigned on not offering a referendum. I think forcing the following Government to roll out a policy the present Government were too inept or too insinere to roll out themselves is wrong.
I'm getting to the stage where I think a referendum might be useful once and for all. There are enough people who seem to want it. And a definitive answer might be useful for the country going forward.
But I do not think it should be obligated on the winners of the next election if they have explicitly campaigned on not offering a referendum. I think forcing the following Government to roll out a policy the present Government were too inept or too insinere to roll out themselves is wrong.
"Why do we need this bill?
Why can't the Conservatives say now to the British people, "Vote for a Conservative Government in the General Election and you will get an in/out referendum in 2016" and leave it at that? " - we need this bill because your buddies like Gina miller took it to court to try and thwart the democratic will of the majority. So we are going through parliament with it like YOU wanted. Why are you trying to nullify the referendum using some twisted general election logic? Are you seriously saying wait until 2020 then have another referendum? Ignore the last one? You are seriously deluded gromit.
Why can't the Conservatives say now to the British people, "Vote for a Conservative Government in the General Election and you will get an in/out referendum in 2016" and leave it at that? " - we need this bill because your buddies like Gina miller took it to court to try and thwart the democratic will of the majority. So we are going through parliament with it like YOU wanted. Why are you trying to nullify the referendum using some twisted general election logic? Are you seriously saying wait until 2020 then have another referendum? Ignore the last one? You are seriously deluded gromit.
-- answer removed --
1 to 14 of 14
