Article 50 Discussion

[tobyjugg2]

Then vote against who you honestly see as the worst liars (whomever that might be, and however wrong you might be).

Not voting is a free pass for them all and is only of benefit to those with the most fanatical of supporters.

 

THE number 1 item in my list.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[Conniff]

It's a shame that national politics and if you like or dislike an MP influences local elections so much.

[tobyjugg2]

Perhaps, but is a person who promises local goodies on behalf of a arch liar who wont, and who supports that liar - worth anything?

So (despite your comment on 'dishonesty) did you vote for arch liar Johnsons' party then conniff? or was Farages your choice if available?

 

I voted for a local people who I believed would do the local job best

- and a significant part of that is that they aint Corbynisto-ssas' or Johnsona'rse or Farages'phincters ...whos basic values commonly do not present as mine - and whos loyalties commonly 'lie elsewhere

 

(that leads to a point - has Derbyshires Police commissioner been voted out for overseeing Derbyshire cops going out mob handed to oppress and enforce NOT covid NOT law)

Edited May 8, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

David Allen Green has a new legal blog out on why he thinks there's a mandate for Scottish independence. He's using the same maths as the Westminster pro-Brexit parties did.

 

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/05/the-mandate-for-a-scottish-independence-referendum/

[London1971]

As a Canadian / Brit nationality, after witnessing Quebec separation referendum number 2 in November 1995, I can honestly say that indyref 2is a massive gamble for the SNP. There was a huge movement towards a 'free Quebec' in the early 90's which let to a sense of bullish confidence that Parti Quebecois would finally get their idealistic way on attempt number 2 and wrench Quebec away from Greater Canada. Turned out that on the day of their precious referendum, a few thousand more people voted against separation. it was 0.1%.  

 

Cue shrill accusations of fraud and , lots of anti semitism, the Jewish Community in Montreal, got their vote out on this one, along with other ethnic minorities. But in historical context it was the end of the Quebec  nation dream. Sure there were some death throes, but looking at my second home of Quebec now, millenials couldn't care a flying walrus.  

 

What I'm saying is, by all means have a second referendum, but if independence loses, it's gone for ever!

[tobyjugg2]

1 hour ago, honeybee13 said:

David Allen Green has a new legal blog out on why he thinks there's a mandate for Scottish independence. He's using the same maths as the Westminster pro-Brexit parties did.

 

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/05/the-mandate-for-a-scottish-independence-referendum/

 

50 minutes ago, London1971 said:

What I'm saying is, by all means have a second referendum, but if independence loses, it's gone for ever!

 

Interesting the Torys on telly burbling about the scots dont want independence, they want to rebuild jobs and their economy

... err yes they do - to all three - thats WHY they are voting SNP in their droves despite the Tories best efforts (lol)

 

.... and a small majority is enough as defined by Brexit.

 

I personally wouldn't try to define that a second inderef whatever the results would be he last - thats up to the Scots,

... but it surely would start to seem almost as fascicle as Johnson being PM .... eventually ... after quite a few

[unclebulgaria67]

@London1971
 Agree that it would be risky for SNP to hold a second referendum, so they would need to be sure that there was a good majority currently in favour of Independence.   

 

If I remember correctly, one of the biggest arguments in the first referendum was over the financial forecasts that were issued by the SNP.  If they stand any chance of winning Indyref2 they need to clearly establish how an Independent Scotland would be able to provide the revenues to maintain public spending levels required. 

[honeybee13]

Priti Useless's new plan for returning asylum seekers to mainland Europe isn't going well as not one country has agreed to take migrants back.

 

The UN think it damages the UK's international reputation.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/09/eu-countries-snub-priti-patels-plans-to-return-asylum-seekers

[tobyjugg2]

10 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

@London1971
 Agree that it would be risky for SNP to hold a second referendum, so they would need to be sure that there was a good majority currently in favour of Independence.   

 

If I remember correctly, one of the biggest arguments in the first referendum was over the financial forecasts that were issued by the SNP.  If they stand any chance of winning Indyref2 they need to clearly establish how an Independent Scotland would be able to provide the revenues to maintain public spending levels required. 

 

The bigger arguments were

 

You need to stay in the UK to stay in the EU

- and the UK would veto Scotlands entry

- they cant now

 

Currency

- you cant use the UKP

- many arguments contrary to that and Scotalnd could easily choose dual currency - rather like the english and scottish fivers

 

Finance -

For starters:

* Kick the nuclear subs out and access the gas and oil and fish in those Scottish waters for a 10 year plus boom with no England interference and bleeding dry - as Scotland gets established in the EU

* Fishing (in agreement with the EU and Norway etc was always more important to scotland and the tocks are moving North

* Become the route from Ireland and the US to the EU - ask Dover etc how profitable that was

*** Demand a full breakdown and legitimacy of the part of the UKs debt they might be expected to share - including the 100billion chumocracy payments .. if England dare ask

 

Hows that for starters?

[tobyjugg2]

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Priti Useless's new plan for returning asylum seekers to mainland Europe isn't going well as not one country has agreed to take migrants back.

 

The UN think it damages the UK's international reputation.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/09/eu-countries-snub-priti-patels-plans-to-return-asylum-seekers

 

"It follows reports last week that hundreds of people seeking asylum in the UK have already been warned they could be removed to other countries in Europe – despite Brexit removing Britain’s power to make such transfers and the fact it has no legal agreement with EU nations to take these people back."

 

Her and Johnsons utter arrogance still astounds afresh.

[tobyjugg2]

heres the Johnsons trumpesque plan to disenfranchise those who commonly dont vote for him

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/10/queens-speech-photo-id-future-elections-social-care

"Queen’s speech: voters will need photo ID for general elections

Government’s legislative agenda is unlikely to include long-awaited reforms to adult social care"

[Conniff]

Why will it deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.??

[honeybee13]

Because poorer people and younger people often don't have photo ID, Conniff.

 

Link to the article fixed, TJ.

[Conniff]

If you have read that article properly HB you will also have read "people would be able to apply for a voting ID card from their local council".

So not having any is not an excuse.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Conniff

[honeybee13]

I did read the article actually.

 

It goes on to say that people who are involved with the groups in question won't necessarily go and get a council card. 

[Conniff]

Then that's their problem.

If they are too lazy to get off their backsides they have no right to complain.

[tobyjugg2]

4 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Because poorer people and younger people often don't have photo ID, Conniff.

 

Link to the article fixed, TJ.

TY HB

 

Loads of people dont have photo ID and many object to it

 

Besides its a problem that simply doesn't exist in any real way - just like trumps lying about 'widespread' voter fraud which was systematically debunked

- Its Johnson the liar simply trying to disenfranchise people who don't vote for him, Just like the changes he wants to make to the mayoral elections

 

Johnson the Liar aka trump mini-me

Edited May 10, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

So conniff, care to give some reputable evidence of confirmed and in any way significantly consequential voter fraud .. other than Trumps disreputable twitter feed replacement  .. that justifies the population being required to carry photo id ?

especially as they dont even require you to show the voting card they send you.

Edited May 11, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[Conniff]

I haven't mentioned anything about vote fraud, only you have so you show us the proof there has never been any fraudulent votes cast 'ever' ?

Ah, I didn't think you could.

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Conniff

[honeybee13]

Data from the Electoral Commission.

 

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/electoral-fraud-data

 

And more from FullFact about fraud and people not managing to vote.

 

https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/

[tobyjugg2]

Lets not forget that voter fraud is the justification claimed by the Tories for the need for compulsory voter photo id

(although they of course carfully word it 'potential' to avoid being outright liars rather than simply being 'disingenuous)

 

Cabinet Office: "Showing identification to vote is a reasonable approach to combat the inexcusable potential for voter fraud in our current system and strengthen its integrity."

 

From the links above:

"In 2018, there was no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud.

Of the 266 cases that were investigated by the police, one led to a conviction, and two suspects accepted police cautions.

 

In 2017, there was one conviction and eight suspects accepted police cautions."

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[Conniff]

So now you are admitting that there is voter fraud and so we need photo id to prevent it. Make up you mind.

[tobyjugg2]

 

No voter fraud in any significant amount at all and most certainly nothing warranting any changes to the existing clearly very effective process and mechanisms, let alone a compulsory requirment for photo id being imposed upon the nation.

 

else by your disingenuous illogic connniff, you should present such photo ID to buy an ice cream - due to the insignificant 'potential' for fraud in that process.

 

and of course as you support it - also present your fully Johnson validated photo id before each posting on a forum ... due to the far more likely event of disingenuous and/or false/fraudulent statements by you.

Edited May 11, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[Conniff]

There is voter fraud, you have said so and sorry but you are nothing so your opinion doesn't count for anything.

 

You just carry on reading the super left-wing Guardian and doing your whinging.

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

10 minutes ago, Conniff said:

 

 

Drivel not repeated

So present your photo ID before posting Con, as it clearly seems that proportional theres demonstrably far more dubious activity from you here than there is at the poll booths

 

Our own 'little Trump' .. which would make you a ...?

Edited May 11, 2021 by tobyjugg2