politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB gets within 10% of its GE17 Lewisham vote it’ll be a vi

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB gets within 10% of its GE17 Lewisham vote it’ll be a vindication for Corbyn’s Brexit approach

At the General Election the strongly anti-Brexit LAB MP, Heidi Alexander, came out with a share of 67.9% and a margin of 44.8% over the second place Conservatives in Lewisham East. The question, on which Ladbrokes have a market, is how the party will do on votes in the by-election two weeks on Thursday.

Read the full story here

RobD

First

Slackbladder

I doubt a safe by-election of no consquence will mean much of anything at all.

rkrkrk

Are there any odds on next country to leave the euro/Italy to leave?

Pulpstar

I didn't know Heidi was strongly anti-Brexit, and I doubt the voters of Lewisham did either. I'm on the 60-70 and 70+ bands at longer odds than those shown here as per TSE's tip.

Tissue_Price

OGH said:

...and would be backing it if I wasn’t in Spain where I’m barred from accessing my Ladbrokes account.

So much for the single market, eh?

brendan16

Pulpstar said:

I didn't know Heidi was strongly anti-Brexit, and I doubt the voters of Lewisham did either. I'm on the 60-70 and 70+ bands at longer odds than those shown here as per TSE's tip.

Bar the shadow Chancellor, Labour Leader, Kate Hoey and John Cryer isn't every London Labour MP strongly opposed to Brexit - even if many go along with the party line of accepting the result but delivering a BINO.

Cyclefree

FPT - on assisted dying.

A mistake to assume that it is only the religious lobby which is against this.

There is nothing stopping anyone taking their own life. What is at issue is when a person is unable to do so and needs someone else to put an end to their life.

In those circumstances it is not just about the rights of the person suffering but about the obligations that a society would be placing on others to, let's be blunt, kill someone. Now people, including doctors, have been "mercy" killing for years and a very few people have ever been charged let alone convicted. Given the recent CPS guidelines I would be surprised if this were to change.

But once you create a right to be killed by others, you create an obligation on a third party, you have to define the circumstances in which that obligation can be carried out & when it can't, you have to deal with actual & potential conflicts of interest - should someone who benefits financially from the death of the person concerned ever be involved in the decision, for instance?, you have to deal with those who make money out of such a business & you have to deal with subtle & not so subtle pressure on those who are suffering to take the easy way out / save others' money. These are not easy questions & there are good reasons why all civilised societies have had a taboo about the deliberate taking of a life, particularly of the most vulnerable.

So it trivialises the issue to turn it into some priest stopping someone ending their own life & that's all there is to it.

I don't know what the answer is. I have had people in my own family suffer in such a way. If I were to end up in such a position I would refuse to have pointless medical interventions & simply seek palliative care & if that meant that strong drugs hastened my end so much the better. Living wills may be one answer.

This is a difficult & delicate topic. Those who for all sorts of compassionate reasons think that assisted dying should be made legal need to accept that it crosses a boundary which can lead to all sorts of unforeseen consequences, some of which will not be desirable & which may make matters worse for some. A compassionate society is one which looks properly after the weakest & most vulnerable, not one which places cost above other factors and sees only the strong and sentient as worthy. We do not need to look far into our own history to know what happens when such views take hold.

I am a great supporter of the hospice movement & have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

Sandpit

Cyclefree said:

FPT - on assisted dying.

A mistake to assume that it is only the religious lobby which is against this.

There is nothing stopping anyone taking their own life. What is at issue is when a person is unable to do so and needs someone else to put an end to their life.

In those circumstances it is not just about the rights of the person suffering but about the obligations that a society would be placing on others to, let's be blunt, kill someone. Now people, including doctors, have been "mercy" killing for years and a very few people have ever been charged let alone convicted. Given the recent CPS guidelines I would be surprised if this were to change.

But once you create a right to be killed by others, you create an obligation on a third party, you have to define the circumstances in which that obligation can be carried out & when it can't, you have to deal with actual & potential conflicts of interest - should someone who benefits financially from the death of the person concerned ever be involved in the decision, for instance?, you have to deal with those who make money out of such a business & you have to deal with subtle & not so subtle pressure on those who are suffering to take the easy way out / save others' money. These are not easy questions & there are good reasons why all civilised societies have had a taboo about the deliberate taking of a life, particularly of the most vulnerable.

So it trivialises the issue to turn it into some priest stopping someone ending their own life & that's all there is to it.

I don't know what the answer is. I have had people in my own family suffer in such a way. If I were to end up in such a position I would refuse to have pointless medical interventions & simply seek palliative care & if that meant that strong drugs hastened my end so much the better. Living wills may be one answer.

This is a difficult & delicate topic. Those who for all sorts of compassionate reasons think that assisted dying should be made legal need to accept that it crosses a boundary which can lead to all sorts of unforeseen consequences, some of which will not be desirable & which may make matters worse for some. A compassionate society is one which looks properly after the weakest & most vulnerable, not one which places cost above other factors and sees only the strong and sentient as worthy. We do not need to look far into our own history to know what happens when such views take hold.

I am a great supporter of the hospice movement & have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

+1

I still think that future societies will be appalled that we ever legalised abortion.

AndyJS

Memo to Starbucks in the United States:

https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1001442853002805251

anothernick

The Lib Dems were decimated in Labour-inclined areas of South London during the coalition years. They have only a handful of Council seats in Southwark and none at all in Lambeth, Lewisham or Greenwich. In Lewisham they got 12% of the vote on May 3rd - Labour got more than 60%.

It's very hard to see a close result, let alone a by-election upset, on these numbers.

DavidL

I am really struggling to get excited about this bye-election. I don't see it changing anything.

Let's suppose the Labour vote goes down by 20%. So what? Still an ultra safe seat.

MikeSmithson

Pulpstar said:

I didn't know Heidi was strongly anti-Brexit, and I doubt the voters of Lewisham did either. I'm on the 60-70 and 70+ bands at longer odds than those shown here as per TSE's tip.

Did you win on Witney and Richmond Park?

BannedInParis

AndyJS said:

Memo to Starbucks in the United States:

https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1001442853002805251

And we've had that lass from NHS Birmingham doing the rounds today, to tedious effect.

Alanbrooke

BannedInParis said:

AndyJS said:

Memo to Starbucks in the United States:

https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1001442853002805251

And we've had that lass from NHS Birmingham doing the rounds today, to tedious effect.

the one who is married to the former head of the NHS and who cant control budgets ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550282/Wife-scandal-hit-NHS-chief-overpaid-hospital-staff-1-3m-634-overpayments-handed-Birmingham-Childrens-Hospital.html

Barnesian

If I were canvassing in Lewisham (and I might be) my pitch on the door step won't be send a message to Corbyn. It will be "Labour is bound to win here. So you can safely vote libdem to give the Tories a kick in the teeth by relegating them to third place"

Sean_F

Cyclefree said:

FPT - on assisted dying.

A mistake to assume that it is only the religious lobby which is against this.

There is nothing stopping anyone taking their own life. What is at issue is when a person is unable to do so and needs someone else to put an end to their life.

In those circumstances it is not just about the rights of the person suffering but about the obligations that a society would be placing on others to, let's be blunt, kill someone. Now people, including doctors, have been "mercy" killing for years and a very few people have ever been charged let alone convicted. Given the recent CPS guidelines I would be surprised if this were to change.



So it trivialises the issue to turn it into some priest stopping someone ending their own life & that's all there is to it.

I don't know what the answer is. I have had people in my own family suffer in such a way. If I were to end up in such a position I would refuse to have pointless medical interventions & simply seek palliative care & if that meant that strong drugs hastened my end so much the better. Living wills may be one answer.

This is a difficult & delicate topic. Those who for all sorts of compassionate reasons think that assisted dying should be made legal need to accept that it crosses a boundary which can lead to all sorts of unforeseen consequences, some of which will not be desirable & which may make matters worse for some. A compassionate society is one which looks properly after the weakest & most vulnerable, not one which places cost above other factors and sees only the strong and sentient as worthy. We do not need to look far into our own history to know what happens when such views take hold.

I am a great supporter of the hospice movement & have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

The "slippery slope" argument is not always a good one, but I think it is here.

Wherever you draw the line on assisted dying, there will always be hard cases on the other side of it. So, there will always be pressure to water down the limitations, until you reach the position of Belgium, where euthanasia is available for children.

Barnesian

Cyclefree said:

FPT - on assisted dying.

A mistake to assume that it is only the religious lobby which is against this.

There is nothing stopping anyone taking their own life. What is at issue is when a person is unable to do so and needs someone else to put an end to their life.

In those circumstances it is not just about the rights of the person suffering but about the obligations that a society would be placing on others to, let's be blunt, kill someone. Now people, including doctors, have been "mercy" killing for years and a very few people have ever been charged let alone convicted. Given the recent CPS guidelines I would be surprised if this were to change.

But once you create a right to be killed by others, you create an obligation on a third party, you have to define the circumstances in which that obligation can be carried out & when it can't, you have to deal with actual & potential conflicts of interest - should someone who benefits financially from the death of the person concerned ever be involved in the decision, for instance?, you have to deal with those who make money out of such a business & you have to deal with subtle & not so subtle pressure on those who are suffering to take the easy way out / save others' money. These are not easy questions & there are good reasons why all civilised societies have had a taboo about the deliberate taking of a life, particularly of the most vulnerable.

So it trivialises the issue to turn it into some priest stopping someone ending their own life & that's all there is to it.

I don't know what the answer is. I have had people in my own family suffer in such a way. If I were to end up in such a position I would refuse to have pointless medical interventions & simply seek palliative care & if that meant that strong drugs hastened my end so much the better. Living wills may be one answer.

This is a difficult & delicate topic. Those who for all sorts of compassionate reasons think that assisted dying should be made legal need to accept that it crosses a boundary which can lead to all sorts of unforeseen consequences, some of which will not be desirable & which may make matters worse for some. A compassionate society is one which looks properly after the weakest & most vulnerable, not one which places cost above other factors and sees only the strong and sentient as worthy. We do not need to look far into our own history to know what happens when such views take hold.

I am a great supporter of the hospice movement & have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

Fudge. You don't create any obligations.

AndyJS

It's just like 2012 all over again, having to keep a check on this page:

https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GBTPGR10:IND

Alanbrooke

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT - on assisted dying.

A mistake to assume that it is only the religious lobby which is against this.

There is nothing stopping anyone taking their own life. What is at issue is when a person is unable to do so and needs someone else to put an end to their life.

In those circumstances it is not just about the rights of the person suffering but about the obligations that a society would be placing on others to, let's be blunt, kill someone. Now people, including doctors, have been "mercy" killing for years and a very few people have ever been charged let alone convicted. Given the recent CPS guidelines I would be surprised if this were to change.



So it trivialises the issue to turn it into some priest stopping someone ending their own life & that's all there is to it.

I don't know what the answer is. I ha have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

The "slippery slope" argument is not always a good one, but I think it is here.

Wherever you draw the line on assisted dying, there will always be hard cases on the other side of it. So, there will always be pressure to water down the limitations, until you reach the position of Belgium, where euthanasia is available for children.

I suspect the issue is less one of hard cases as once it is in familiarity breeds contempt. It becomes a default and as a couple of generations of doctors move on the safeguards get observed in the round but not in practice. I suspect that's why we have the highest abortion rate in W Europe.

For the record I'm for assisted dying but have reservations on how it will pan out in practice.

Cyclefree

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT - on assisted dying.

A mistake to assume that it is only the religious lobby which is against this.

There is nothing stopping anyone taking their own life. What is at issue is when a person is unable to do so and needs someone else to put an end to their life.

In those circumstances it is not just about the rights of the person suffering but about the obligations that a society would be placing on others to, let's be blunt, kill someone. Now people, including doctors, have been "mercy" killing for years and a very few people have ever been charged let alone convicted. Given the recent CPS guidelines I would be surprised if this were to change.



So it trivialises the issue to turn it into some priest stopping someone ending their own life & that's all there is to it.

I don't know what the answer is. I have had people in my own family suffer in such a way. If I were to end up in such a position I would refuse to have pointless medical interventions & simply seek palliative care & if that meant that strong drugs hastened my end so much the better. Living wills may be one answer.

This is a difficult & delicate topic. Those who for all sorts of compassionate reasons think that assisted dying should be made legal need to accept that it crosses a boundary which can lead to all sorts of unforeseen consequences, some of which will not be desirable & which may make matters worse for some. A compassionate society is one which looks properly after the weakest & most vulnerable, not one which places cost above other factors and sees only the strong and sentient as worthy. We do not need to look far into our own history to know what happens when such views take hold.

I am a great supporter of the hospice movement & have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

The "slippery slope" argument is not always a good one, but I think it is here.

Wherever you draw the line on assisted dying, there will always be hard cases on the other side of it. So, there will always be pressure to water down the limitations, until you reach the position of Belgium, where euthanasia is available for children.

Or you get to the position where, whatever the law says, the reality is different. As is the case with abortion law in the UK where, in effect, there is abortion on demand, even though that is not strictly the law. The proposed Irish law is more honest in that respect. One irony of it is that it means that a woman could get an abortion because she does not want to have a girl baby, a sadly ironic consequence of a movement motivated by feminism.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Cyclefree

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT - on assisted dying.



In those circumstances it is not just about the rights of the person suffering but about the obligations that a society would be placing on others to, let's be blunt, kill someone. Now people, including doctors, have been "mercy" killing for years and a very few people have ever been charged let alone convicted. Given the recent CPS guidelines I would be surprised if this were to change.

But once you create a right to be killed by others, you create an obligation on a third party, you have to define the circumstances in which that obligation can be carried out & when it can't, you have to deal with actual & potential conflicts of interest - should someone who benefits financially from the death of the person concerned ever be involved in the decision, for instance?, you have to deal with those who make money out of such a business & you have to deal with subtle & not so subtle pressure on those who are suffering to take the easy way out / save others' money. These are not easy questions & there are good reasons why all civilised societies have had a taboo about the deliberate taking of a life, particularly of the most vulnerable.

So it trivialises the issue to turn it into some priest stopping someone ending their own life & that's all there is to it.

I don't know what the answer is. I have had people in my own family suffer in such a way. If I were to end up in such a position I would refuse to have pointless medical interventions & simply seek palliative care & if that meant that strong drugs hastened my end so much the better. Living wills may be one answer.

This is a difficult & delicate topic. Those who for all sorts of compassionate reasons think that assisted dying should be made legal need to accept that it crosses a boundary which can lead to all sorts of unforeseen consequences, some of which will not be desirable & which may make matters worse for some. A compassionate society is one which looks properly after the weakest & most vulnerable, not one which places cost above other factors and sees only the strong and sentient as worthy. We do not need to look far into our own history to know what happens when such views take hold.

I am a great supporter of the hospice movement & have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

Fudge. You don't create any obligations.

Yes you do. If I have a legal right to help to end my life, that right is meaningless unless someone else has the obligation to assist me.

There is a difference between saying that the state will not (generally) prosecute someone who helps a person who wants to die to do so and creating a legal right for someone to get a doctor or other health professional to end their life. Rights and obligations go together.

Indigo1

Cyclefree said:

Yes you do. If I have a legal right to help to end my life, that right is meaningless unless someone else has the obligation to assist me.

There is a difference between saying that the state will not (generally) prosecute someone who helps a person who wants to die to do so and creating a legal right for someone to get a doctor or other health professional to end their life. Rights and obligations go together.

So don't make it a right, make it an acceptable option. If you want to buy a kilo of apples, you may do so, if someone is willing to sell to you, without imposing the duty on anyone to sell you a fruit of your choice. Surely a middle way is to allow closely regulated organisations such as Dignitas to emerge to fulfil a need, which might be funded by payment, or run as a charitable institution. If they are unhappy to help you end your life, other providers will be available, if none of them want to do it, maybe your case is such that a doctor would be unlikely to approve your request anyway.

Pulpstar

brendan16 said:

Pulpstar said:

I didn't know Heidi was strongly anti-Brexit, and I doubt the voters of Lewisham did either. I'm on the 60-70 and 70+ bands at longer odds than those shown here as per TSE's tip.

Bar the shadow Chancellor, Labour Leader, Kate Hoey and John Cryer isn't every London Labour MP strongly opposed to Brexit - even if many go along with the party line of accepting the result but delivering a BINO.

Hoey only added 3.5% onto the Labour score in 2017. Staggeringly bad when you consider how remain the constituency was.

Every other constituency around this point is either
a) A Lib Dem/Tory marginal (+ Brighton)
b) A place where Labour is very weak (Often coincides with A)
c) A constituency with a large Jewish population (Well Finchley)
d) Clegg's Tories heading home to hand Labour victory in Sheffield Hallam.

The closest normal Lab/Con constituency is Battersea

https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1001458627985670144

Tissue_Price

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Good for Tusk. His background as a nationally-elected politician shows.

Pulpstar

The Tory correlation is much stronger, which one could take to imply that generally people generally vote FOR the Tories, or AGAINST the Tories.

Tissue_Price

Pulpstar said:

The Tory correlation is much stronger, which one could take to imply that generally people generally vote FOR the Tories, or AGAINST the Tories.

Indeed. Except in Scotland.

AlastairMeeks

Tissue_Price said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Good for Tusk. His background as a nationally-elected politician shows.

Has the point been reached where it's impermissible to draw attention to external economic realities?

Pulpstar

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

The Tory correlation is much stronger, which one could take to imply that generally people generally vote FOR the Tories, or AGAINST the Tories.

Indeed. Except in Scotland.

Yep :

https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1001460989244727296

MaxPB

Tissue_Price said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Good for Tusk. His background as a nationally-elected politician shows.

Indeed it does. I also think he recognises why the EU is losing popularity at such a fast pace and it will eventually start losing more countries as a result.

Sean_F

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT - on assisted dying.



In those circumstances it is not just about the rights of the person suffering but about the obligations that a society would be placing on others to, let's be blunt, kill someone. Now people, including doctors, have been "mercy" killing for years and a very few people have ever been charged let alone convicted. Given the recent CPS guidelines I would be surprised if this were to change.



So it trivialises the issue to turn it into some priest stopping someone ending their own life & that's all there is to it.

I don't know what the answer is. I have had people in my own family suffer in such a way. If I were to end up in such a position I would refuse to have pointless medical interventions & simply seek palliative care & if that meant that strong drugs hastened my end so much the better. Living wills may be one answer.

This is a difficult & delicate topic. Those who for all sorts of compassionate reasons think that assisted dying should be made legal need to accept that it crosses a boundary which can lead to all sorts of unforeseen consequences, some of which will not be desirable & which may make matters worse for some. A compassionate society is one which looks properly after the weakest & most vulnerable, not one which places cost above other factors and sees only the strong and sentient as worthy. We do not need to look far into our own history to know what happens when such views take hold.

I am a great supporter of the hospice movement & have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

Fudge. You don't create any obligations.

Yes you do. If I have a legal right to help to end my life, that right is meaningless unless someone else has the obligation to assist me.

There is a difference between saying that the state will not (generally) prosecute someone who helps a person who wants to die to do so and creating a legal right for someone to get a doctor or other health professional to end their life. Rights and obligations go together.

Nor do I think a right to conscientious objection gets around that.

I may consider that in principle there are circumstances in which I would assist someone to end their own life, but disagree with the particular decision that I'm being asked to assist with.

Sandpit

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

A timely reminder. Not that the EU institutions themselves are going to be the ones openly critisising the Italian electorate - they’ve plenty of stooges in Italy to do that job for them, starting with the President.

FrancisUrquhart

Some sense....banning the media from reporting this was totally wrong (and pointless in the modern age).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5782667/EDL-founder-Tommy-Robinson-jailed-13-months.html

Pulpstar

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Good for Tusk. His background as a nationally-elected politician shows.

Has the point been reached where it's impermissible to draw attention to external economic realities?

I think there would (quite rightly) be uproar if Corbyn was blocked from becoming PM if he had the confidence of the house, even if the blockers had our economic interests at heart.

Tissue_Price

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Good for Tusk. His background as a nationally-elected politician shows.

Has the point been reached where it's impermissible to draw attention to external economic realities?

Of course not. But the EU isn't addressing its internal economic realities either (the Target2 imbalances &c.) At some point countries will have to leave the Euro or commit to a complete political union (which I don't think their electorates want).

That said, I sympathise with the Italian President's logic: this shouldn't be done by stealth. Though I think he is probably making a political mistake.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Glenn, not for the first time, Tusk shows more perceptiveness than some of his fellow EU leaders.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1001446571874144257

Pulpstar

A bit of a sideshow in Lewisham but it could be the ABSOLUTE deathknell for UKIP if they are beaten by Waters.
If they can't do that feat in the wake of the recent Tommy Robinson jailing then I guess UKIP is destined to live on as the zombie far right party of choice.

SandyRentool

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Does that apply to British voters too?

The fact he needs to make this comment tells us all we need to know about the mindset in Brussels.

MaxPB

SandyRentool said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Does that apply to British voters too?

The fact he needs to make this comment tells us all we need to know about the mindset in Brussels.

Also true. The EU feels that voters need to be taught a lesson if they vote against the interests of the EU. That much has been clear for a very long time.

AndyJS

Rolf Degen again:

https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1001456056864718848

williamglenn

MaxPB said:

SandyRentool said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Does that apply to British voters too?

The fact he needs to make this comment tells us all we need to know about the mindset in Brussels.

Also true. The EU feels that voters need to be taught a lesson if they vote against the interests of the EU. That much has been clear for a very long time.

Can you define 'the EU' in this context? Which interests exactly do you mean?

RobD

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1001446571874144257

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/JoeWatts_/status/1001465932299071488

MaxPB

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

SandyRentool said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Does that apply to British voters too?

The fact he needs to make this comment tells us all we need to know about the mindset in Brussels.

Also true. The EU feels that voters need to be taught a lesson if they vote against the interests of the EU. That much has been clear for a very long time.

Can you define 'the EU' in this context? Which interests exactly do you mean?

Anyone who works for, has worked for or supports them.

Barnesian

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT - on assisted dying.



In those circumstances it is not just about the rights of the person suffering but about the obligations that a society would be placing on others to, let's be blunt, kill someone. Now people, including doctors, have been "mercy" killing for years and a very few people have ever been charged let alone convicted. Given the recent CPS guidelines I would be surprised if this were to change.

But once you create a right to be killed by others, you create an obligation on a third party, you have to define the circumstances in which that obligation can be carried out & when it can't, you have to deal with actual & potential conflicts of interest - should someone who benefits financially from the death of the person concerned ever be involved in the decision, for instance?, you have to deal with those who make money out of such a business & you have to deal with subtle & not so subtle pressure on those who are suffering to take the easy way out / save others' money. These are not easy questions & there are good reasons why all civilised societies have had a taboo about the deliberate taking of a life, particularly of the most vulnerable.

So it trivialises the issue to turn it into some priest stopping someone ending their own life & that's all there is to it.

snip

I am a great supporter of the hospice movement & have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

Fudge. You don't create any obligations.

Yes you do. If I have a legal right to help to end my life, that right is meaningless unless someone else has the obligation to assist me.

There is a difference between saying that the state will not (generally) prosecute someone who helps a person who wants to die to do so and creating a legal right for someone to get a doctor or other health professional to end their life. Rights and obligations go together.

You have fundamentally misunderstood the issue.

No-one is talking about someone having a legal right to help end their life and demanding it of their doctor or friend. "You must kill me or you will be prosecuted". Ridiculous!

We are talking about someone having the legal right to help someone else end their life (subject to myriad safeguards). There is no obligation. Rights and obligations do not always go together. That is a clique that is often trotted out and it is rubbish.

FrancisUrquhart

When the BBC report on these things they always make it sound like the individuals merely misplaced the required paperwork on their way to France....

Today there are hundreds of thousands of young men in France who - like Mr Gassama - arrived after a long and dangerous journey, have no proper papers and survive (just about) by working in the black economy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44291810

Alanbrooke

What happens if there's nothing left to Brexit from ?

NickPalmer

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1001446571874144257

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

What is this assembly of which you speak? The assembly that is not actually functioning? It's a view.

Indigo1

NickPalmer said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1001446571874144257

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

The assembly that is not actually functioning? It's a view.

Perhaps it should be seen as an incentive to get it functioning then!

RobD

NickPalmer said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1001446571874144257

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

What is this assembly of which you speak? The assembly that is not actually functioning? It's a view.

Don’t all sides want power to be returned to the assembly?

Alanbrooke

NickPalmer said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1001446571874144257

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

What is this assembly of which you speak? The assembly that is not actually functioning? It's a view.

Given your deep interest in the matter perhaps you could refer me to the Labour candidate's manifesto in the recent West Tyrone by-election

Scott_P

RobD said:

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1001470261953253376

Sandpit

RobD said:

NickPalmer said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1001446571874144257

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

What is this assembly of which you speak? The assembly that is not actually functioning? It's a view.

Don’t all sides want power to be returned to the assembly?

And there’s a billion reasons on the table for the politicians of NI to reopen the Assembly.

Alanbrooke

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1001470261953253376

posh English bird wants to play colonial mem sahib

that'll end well

RobD

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1001470261953253376

Some people are so impatient. The decision would be far more legitimate if it wasn’t forced upon them.

anothernick

RobD said:

NickPalmer said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1001446571874144257

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

What is this assembly of which you speak? The assembly that is not actually functioning? It's a view.

Don’t all sides want power to be returned to the assembly?

In theory perhaps. In practice I think the DUP rather enjoys holding the UK government to ransom. A much more powerful position than its role in the NI assembly.

ydoethur

RobD said:

NickPalmer said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1001446571874144257

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

What is this assembly of which you speak? The assembly that is not actually functioning? It's a view.

Don’t all sides want power to be returned to the assembly?

The key concern I have with this argument (which is otherwise bluntly unanswerable and Corbyn was even more than usually unwise to try and slide past it) is that it gives Foster yet another reason to hang on to the DUP leadership, when what's really needed to unclog matters is her resignation.

If her supporters get it fixed into her head that she resigns = abortion is legalised they'll be even more determined not to let her quit.

RobD

anothernick said:

RobD said:

NickPalmer said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1001446571874144257

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

What is this assembly of which you speak? The assembly that is not actually functioning? It's a view.

Don’t all sides want power to be returned to the assembly?

In theory perhaps. In practice I think the DUP rather enjoys holding the UK government to ransom. A much more powerful position than its role in the NI assembly.

They can do that with or without the assembly!

rcs1000

Tissue_Price said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Good for Tusk. His background as a nationally-elected politician shows.

Has the point been reached where it's impermissible to draw attention to external economic realities?

Of course not. But the EU isn't addressing its internal economic realities either (the Target2 imbalances &c.) At some point countries will have to leave the Euro or commit to a complete political union (which I don't think their electorates want).

That said, I sympathise with the Italian President's logic: this shouldn't be done by stealth. Though I think he is probably making a political mistake.

Target 2 imbalances are the consequence of capital fight, not because Germany is running a surplus and the periphery a deficit.

logical_song

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

SandyRentool said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Does that apply to British voters too?

The fact he needs to make this comment tells us all we need to know about the mindset in Brussels.

Also true. The EU feels that voters need to be taught a lesson if they vote against the interests of the EU. That much has been clear for a very long time.

Can you define 'the EU' in this context? Which interests exactly do you mean?

Look, it's been clear for a long time, Max says so.
He should know as he also knows how the EU feels.

Slackbladder

SandyRentool said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Does that apply to British voters too?

The fact he needs to make this comment tells us all we need to know about the mindset in Brussels.

Yes very interesting... They may be trouble ahead.


Wait, it's already here.

Alanbrooke

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1001470261953253376

Some people are so impatient. The decision would be far more legitimate if it wasn’t forced upon them.

all that will happen is the local politicos will do their usual blame the brits instead of facing up to their own responsibilities. If NI is to return to normalised politics it's poiliticians cant continually be let off the hook for not doing the job their electors asked them to.

Tissue_Price

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1001470261953253376

Not forever, agreed. But 16 months' suspension is nowhere near long enough to start legislating for substantial social change over the wishes of the area's representatives (if not the area's electorate). That way lies permanent resentment and potential rebellion, along the lines of Roe v Wade. I write as someone who supported the result in the Republic last week.

The NI electorate will of course have their say via their future choice of representatives.

Indigo1

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1001470261953253376

Some people are so impatient. The decision would be far more legitimate if it wasn’t forced upon them.

It wouldn't be up to MPs anyway, NI devolved legislation when the assembly is suspended is made by Orders-In-Council. But it will be very easy to point the finger at the PM for any disagreeable measures as seen from under a bowler hat.

Richard_Nabavi

It's ironic to see neo-colonialists arguing that we should force the backward natives of Ulster to accept abortion whether they like it or not.

Pulpstar

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1001470261953253376

Some people are so impatient. The decision would be far more legitimate if it wasn’t forced upon them.

The frequent use of Irish referendums combined with their PR-STV method of elections to the Dail means that it is IMHO just about the most democratic country in the world. And so 'progressive' changes there are accepted even though the country is obviously very catholic.

Maybe we should have started with a smaller referendum, say on the Lisbon Treaty rather than going the whole hog with a forced in/out of the EU question ?

Slackbladder

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1001446571874144257

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

I agree with that assessment. If Westminster tried interferring with say devolved areas of Holyrood, there would be rightly be huge uproar.

It's perfectly possible to be pro-abortion rights, yet want any change to be done in the right way, and May should make this clear.

Cyclefree

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT - on assisted dying.






I am a great supporter of the hospice movement & have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

Fudge. You don't create any obligations.

Yes you do. If I have a legal right to help to end my life, that right is meaningless unless someone else has the obligation to assist me.

There is a difference between saying that the state will not (generally) prosecute someone who helps a person who wants to die to do so and creating a legal right for someone to get a doctor or other health professional to end their life. Rights and obligations go together.

You have fundamentally misunderstood the issue.

No-one is talking about someone having a legal right to help end their life and demanding it of their doctor or friend. "You must kill me or you will be prosecuted". Ridiculous!

We are talking about someone having the legal right to help someone else end their life (subject to myriad safeguards). There is no obligation. Rights and obligations do not always go together. That is a clique that is often trotted out and it is rubbish.

Well maybe I have misunderstood. From what I have seen on the news, it is always people who are in a distressing situation who want to be helped by others to bring their suffering to an end. The various court cases have been people asking for an assurance that their loved one not be prosecuted for helping them. That is what has led to the recent CPS guidelines, though there is no absolute guarantee that someone might not be prosecuted if the evidence were there to suggest that this was not about help but something more sinister

Beyond such cases I have not seen people saying that they want to go round generally helping others to end their lives. In the UK anyway.

There is Dignitas, of course. Do they make a profit from what they do?

Tissue_Price

rcs1000 said:

Tissue_Price said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1001456134761472000

Good for Tusk. His background as a nationally-elected politician shows.

Has the point been reached where it's impermissible to draw attention to external economic realities?

Of course not. But the EU isn't addressing its internal economic realities either (the Target2 imbalances &c.) At some point countries will have to leave the Euro or commit to a complete political union (which I don't think their electorates want).

That said, I sympathise with the Italian President's logic: this shouldn't be done by stealth. Though I think he is probably making a political mistake.

Target 2 imbalances are the consequence of capital fight, not because Germany is running a surplus and the periphery a deficit.

It's both, isn't it? With the latter leading to the former (which has become the more important driver).

Pulpstar

I note the Irish had referendums on Joining, Maastricht, single European act, Amsterdam, Nice (Twice), Lisbon and the European fiscal compact !

8 referendums on various aspects of Europe.

Tissue_Price

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's ironic to see neo-colonialists arguing that we should force the backward natives of Ulster to accept abortion whether they like it or not.

I think their case for it is made by opinion polling, which in its way is even more troubling.

RobD

Indigo1 said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1001470261953253376

Some people are so impatient. The decision would be far more legitimate if it wasn’t forced upon them.

It wouldn't be up to MPs anyway, NI devolved legislation when the assembly is suspended is made by Orders-In-Council. But it will be very easy to point the finger at the PM for any disagreeable measures as seen from under a bowler hat.

It can't be done by an act? Or can it be done by both? I thought there was a Labour MP trying to amend a current bill to introduce the change.

Alanbrooke

Indigo1 said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1001470261953253376

Some people are so impatient. The decision would be far more legitimate if it wasn’t forced upon them.

It wouldn't be up to MPs anyway, NI devolved legislation when the assembly is suspended is made by Orders-In-Council. But it will be very easy to point the finger at the PM for any disagreeable measures as seen from under a bowler hat.

The DUP is simply the whipping boy for Labour and Remainers, but don't kid yourself the nationalist community is all pro abortion. The SDLP is split on the issue and will probably go matter of conscience and if Mick Fealty on Slugger OToole is correct SF policy in NI is still officially anti despite being pro in RoI.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Price, my thoughts exactly.

Foxy

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT - on assisted dying.






I am a great supporter of the hospice movement & have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

Fudge. You don't create any obligations.

Yes you do. If I have a legal right to help to end my life, that right is meaningless unless someone else has the obligation to assist me.

There is a difference between saying that the state will not (generally) prosecute someone who helps a person who wants to die to do so and creating a legal right for someone to get a doctor or other health professional to end their life. Rights and obligations go together.

You have fundamentally misunderstood the issue.

No-one is talking about someone having a legal right to help end their life and demanding it of their doctor or friend. "You must kill me or you will be prosecuted". Ridiculous!

We are talking about someone having the legal right to help someone else end their life (subject to myriad safeguards). There is no obligation. Rights and obligations do not always go together. That is a clique that is often trotted out and it is rubbish.

Well maybe I have misunderstood. From what I have seen on the news, it is always people who are in a distressing situation who want to be helped by others to bring their suffering to an end. The various court cases have been people asking for an assurance that their loved one not be prosecuted for helping them. That is what has led to the recent CPS guidelines, though there is no absolute guarantee that someone might not be prosecuted if the evidence were there to suggest that this was not about help but something more sinister

Beyond such cases I have not seen people saying that they want to go round generally helping others to end their lives. In the UK anyway.

There is Dignitas, of course. Do they make a profit from what they do?

Technically, they are Non-profit, but their finances are a bit impenetrable:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/7851615/Dignitas-founder-is-millionaire.html

tlg86

Pulpstar said:

I note the Irish had referendums on Joining, Maastricht, single European act, Amsterdam, Nice (Twice), Lisbon and the European fiscal compact !

8 referendums on various aspects of Europe.

Many senior politicians, including I think George Osborne, were worried that the first chance the Brits got to vote on the EU, they'd vote against it.

Tissue_Price

tlg86 said:

Pulpstar said:

I note the Irish had referendums on Joining, Maastricht, single European act, Amsterdam, Nice (Twice), Lisbon and the European fiscal compact !

8 referendums on various aspects of Europe.

Many senior politicians, including I think George Osborne, were worried that the first chance the Brits got to vote on the EU, they'd vote against it.

I think that's pretty obvious in retrospect, given that we voted against the whole shooting match.

Foxy

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's ironic to see neo-colonialists arguing that we should force the backward natives of Ulster to accept abortion whether they like it or not.

Though it does seem as if NI politicians are out of step with their voters:

https://twitter.com/LucidTalk/status/1000433763611041792?s=19

AlastairMeeks

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's ironic to see neo-colonialists arguing that we should force the backward natives of Ulster to accept abortion whether they like it or not.

This particular colony has handed its decision-making back to the empire. Social policy can't go by default because Northern Ireland's politicians have abrogated their responsibilities. If they were incentivised to see some downsides of disengaging from real world politics, that would do no harm at all.

Alanbrooke

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's ironic to see neo-colonialists arguing that we should force the backward natives of Ulster to accept abortion whether they like it or not.

This particular colony has handed its decision-making back to the empire. Social policy can't go by default because Northern Ireland's politicians have abrogated their responsibilities. If they were incentivised to see some downsides of disengaging from real world politics, that would do no harm at all.

stop paying the MLAs

TGOHF

Does the population of NI want to have a referendum on abortion ?

welshowl

tlg86 said:

Pulpstar said:

I note the Irish had referendums on Joining, Maastricht, single European act, Amsterdam, Nice (Twice), Lisbon and the European fiscal compact !

8 referendums on various aspects of Europe.

Many senior politicians, including I think George Osborne, were worried that the first chance the Brits got to vote on the EU, they'd vote against it.

Well partly because the Irish has had eight (!) consultations since 1972 to our zero. Oh that we had been as wise as the Irish in getting consent of the governed at each step along the road. Now I’m sure the huge dollops of net cash year after year decade after decade have helped Irish sentiment too, but there might’ve been more acceptance of the EU if we’d been bloody consulted along the way.

O/T I see Oerttinger’s petrol on the fire comments are being widely reported on Italian sites. What a plonker. He’s just written 5 Star’s slogan for the (presumed) upcoming elections. All they need is a bus.

AlastairMeeks

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's ironic to see neo-colonialists arguing that we should force the backward natives of Ulster to accept abortion whether they like it or not.

This particular colony has handed its decision-making back to the empire. Social policy can't go by default because Northern Ireland's politicians have abrogated their responsibilities. If they were incentivised to see some downsides of disengaging from real world politics, that would do no harm at all.

stop paying the MLAs

Hell yes. That should have happened months ago.

williamglenn

TGOHF said:

Does the population of NI want to have a referendum on abortion ?

It might be a good way to open a debate about what kind of future NI wants to have without it being as consequential as a border poll.

TGOHF

williamglenn said:

TGOHF said:

Does the population of NI want to have a referendum on abortion ?

It might be a good way to open a debate about what kind of future NI wants to have without it being as consequential as a border poll.

Perhaps some sort of devolved assembly could sort out these regional religious matters - I believe the Scotch council has recently brought in some puritan inspired taxes and tariffs for example.

Barnesian

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT - on assisted dying.






I am a great supporter of the hospice movement & have raised money for it. It is one charitable endeavour which needs far more support than it gets.

Fudge. You don't create any obligations.

Yes you do. If I have a legal right to help to end my life, that right is meaningless unless someone else has the obligation to assist me.

There is a difference between saying that the state will not (generally) prosecute someone who helps a person who wants to die to do so and creating a legal right for someone to get a doctor or other health professional to end their life. Rights and obligations go together.

You have fundamentally misunderstood the issue.

No-one is talking about someone having a legal right to help end their life and demanding it of their doctor or friend. "You must kill me or you will be prosecuted". Ridiculous!

We are talking about someone having the legal right to help someone else end their life (subject to myriad safeguards). There is no obligation. Rights and obligations do not always go together. That is a clique that is often trotted out and it is rubbish.

Well maybe I have misunderstood. From what I have seen on the news, it is always people who are in a distressing situation who want to be helped by others to bring their suffering to an end. The various court cases have been people asking for an assurance that their loved one not be prosecuted for helping them. That is what has led to the recent CPS guidelines, though there is no absolute guarantee that someone might not be prosecuted if the evidence were there to suggest that this was not about help but something more sinister

Beyond such cases I have not seen people saying that they want to go round generally helping others to end their lives. In the UK anyway.

There is Dignitas, of course. Do they make a profit from what they do?

Dignitas is a not-for-profit members society.

http://www.dignitas.ch/?lang=en

"I have not seen people saying that they want to go round generally helping others to end their lives". Nor have I. They would be a bit sinister I think.

The usual case is someone with a terminal illness living in pain who wants to die and needs help to die but their relative or doctor feels threatened with prosecution if they help. There is a case reported just a few hours ago on the bbc website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-44285111

The danger is if it becomes generally accepted that there will be no prosecutions yet there is no legal provision of the necessary safeguards. We may already be at that stage.

Rhubarb

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's ironic to see neo-colonialists arguing that we should force the backward natives of Ulster to accept abortion whether they like it or not.

This particular colony has handed its decision-making back to the empire. Social policy can't go by default because Northern Ireland's politicians have abrogated their responsibilities. If they were incentivised to see some downsides of disengaging from real world politics, that would do no harm at all.

If the MLAs are evading their responsibilities then the power to make the big decisions should go down and not up.

Let N.I. vote.

Richard_Nabavi

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's ironic to see neo-colonialists arguing that we should force the backward natives of Ulster to accept abortion whether they like it or not.

This particular colony has handed its decision-making back to the empire. Social policy can't go by default because Northern Ireland's politicians have abrogated their responsibilities. If they were incentivised to see some downsides of disengaging from real world politics, that would do no harm at all.

That argument would have some force if this were an urgent decision in response to developing events, but it isn't. Moreover the empire isn't taking control of lots of other issues: everything which is not an immediately unavoidable decision is being left until the natives have sorted themselves out. It is therefore impossible to reach any conclusion other than that this is a neo-colonialist attempt to impose values on the benighted natives (in their own interests, of course).

Alanbrooke

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's ironic to see neo-colonialists arguing that we should force the backward natives of Ulster to accept abortion whether they like it or not.

This particular colony has handed its decision-making back to the empire. Social policy can't go by default because Northern Ireland's politicians have abrogated their responsibilities. If they were incentivised to see some downsides of disengaging from real world politics, that would do no harm at all.

stop paying the MLAs

Hell yes. That should have happened months ago.

It was proposed but hasn't gone through from what I can make out

Sean_F

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's ironic to see neo-colonialists arguing that we should force the backward natives of Ulster to accept abortion whether they like it or not.

Though it does seem as if NI politicians are out of step with their voters:

https://twitter.com/LucidTalk/status/1000433763611041792?s=19

That suggests that a vote on the issue would be pretty close.

RoyalBlue

If Westminster wants to meddle they can call a referendum. The idea that Parliament should introduce a major social reform over the heads of NI’s elected representatives to its devolved institutions is absurd. The NI Assembly is only dormant because of Sinn Fein’s totally unreasonable request to give official status to a language spoken fluently by 1 in every 400 people in Northern Ireland.

SandyRentool

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's ironic to see neo-colonialists arguing that we should force the backward natives of Ulster to accept abortion whether they like it or not.

Though it does seem as if NI politicians are out of step with their voters:

https://twitter.com/LucidTalk/status/1000433763611041792?s=19

Why use the word 'liberalised' rather than 'changed'?

Alanbrooke

TGOHF said:

williamglenn said:

TGOHF said:

Does the population of NI want to have a referendum on abortion ?

It might be a good way to open a debate about what kind of future NI wants to have without it being as consequential as a border poll.

Perhaps some sort of devolved assembly could sort out these regional religious matters - I believe the Scotch council has recently brought in some puritan inspired taxes and tariffs for example.

we are obviously grateful to Wee Mrs McTurnip who has offered to abort all the paddies we send to Scotland, though clearly the bill will have to go to England.

Since NI has a protestant minority sub 35 this obviously will impact one community more than the other. No doubt the SNP will give it a zany topical name like No More Catholics.

Richard_Nabavi

Anyone who still holds betting slips on Gavin Williamson as next leader/PM should see the entries at 15:27 and 16:03 here:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/may/29/failing-to-prepare-for-no-deal-brexit-would-be-incompetent-and-weak-says-rees-mogg-politics-live

(I did try to warn y'all...)

williamglenn

Alanbrooke said:

TGOHF said:

williamglenn said:

TGOHF said:

Does the population of NI want to have a referendum on abortion ?

It might be a good way to open a debate about what kind of future NI wants to have without it being as consequential as a border poll.

Perhaps some sort of devolved assembly could sort out these regional religious matters - I believe the Scotch council has recently brought in some puritan inspired taxes and tariffs for example.

we are obviously grateful to Wee Mrs McTurnip who has offered to abort all the paddies we send to Scotland, though clearly the bill will have to go to England.

Since NI has a protestant minority sub 35 this obviously will impact one community more than the other. No doubt the SNP will give it a zany topical name like No More Catholics.

The case for English independence is strong (and I'm not talking about footing the bill). The kind of sectarian bigotry and neo-imperialistic hubris displayed by unionists has played a big part in leading us to Brexit.

Indigo1

RobD said:

Indigo1 said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

I thought th me DUP’s position on this was clear? If this area is within the competence of the assembly, May should leave it to them.

https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1001470261953253376

Some people are so impatient. The decision would be far more legitimate if it wasn’t forced upon them.

It wouldn't be up to MPs anyway, NI devolved legislation when the assembly is suspended is made by Orders-In-Council. But it will be very easy to point the finger at the PM for any disagreeable measures as seen from under a bowler hat.

It can't be done by an act? Or can it be done by both? I thought there was a Labour MP trying to amend a current bill to introduce the change.

To paraphrase RHon Mr James Hacker MP, an Enabling Act can enable anything, but mostly it enables you to lose the next election.

The current process is by order-in-council, I am sure that process can be changed by primary legislation, but at what cost.

Alanbrooke

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

TGOHF said:

williamglenn said:

TGOHF said:

Does the population of NI want to have a referendum on abortion ?

It might be a good way to open a debate about what kind of future NI wants to have without it being as consequential as a border poll.

Perhaps some sort of devolved assembly could sort out these regional religious matters - I believe the Scotch council has recently brought in some puritan inspired taxes and tariffs for example.

we are obviously grateful to Wee Mrs McTurnip who has offered to abort all the paddies we send to Scotland, though clearly the bill will have to go to England.

Since NI has a protestant minority sub 35 this obviously will impact one community more than the other. No doubt the SNP will give it a zany topical name like No More Catholics.

The case for English independence is strong (and I'm not talking about footing the bill). The kind of sectarian bigotry and neo-imperialistic hubris displayed by unionists has played a big part in leading us to Brexit.

yeah Billy Boy

not biting

ydoethur

RoyalBlue said:

The NI Assembly is only dormant because of Sinn Fein’s totally unreasonable request to give official status to a language spoken fluently by 1 in every 400 people in Northern Ireland.

Hmmmm...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38301428

This is the further problem for May, far more than some posturing by Labour and Sinn Fein over abortion. She can't even put pressure on Foster to go as she relies on her for a majority, but at the same time Stormont won't be reconvened while she might be in a position of power.

I am 90% sure a majority Tory government would have had devolution back up and running by now.

David_Evershed

AndyJS said:

Rolf Degen again:

https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1001456056864718848

Is implicit bias a thing?