On 27 Feb 2017 at 2:13pm New European wrote:
One of the toughest charges to answer for those of us who voted against triggering Article 50 is that of being anti-democratic.If we respected democracy, so the argument runs, we would just shut up and enact the will of the 51.9%, without question or constraint. It’s the argument that many Labour colleagues have made to me when explaining their decision to reluctantly trigger Brexit, and I fully respect their motives and the good faith in which they hold this view. But I respectfully disagree, because in this democrat’s opinion it is our democracy itself, our British, liberal democracy, that is as much at risk under Brexit as is the economic security of our country.It’s now twenty years since the American journalist, Fareed Zakaria, first coined the term “illiberal democracy”. He used it to describe the rise of states from across the globe where democracy, free elections and majority rule, were taking hold, but without the counter-weights of the rule of law – the separation of powers, the freedom of speech and the press – that are necessary to protect the rights of individuals and minorities from the tyranny of the majority faction. The need for those checks and balances in any democracy has been understood for several centuries, a shared understanding across the Atlantic, from Madison to Rousseau.They are what make us liberal or constitutional democracies, in which the right of the dissenting minority, whether it’s 4.8% or 48%, to representation and free expression is not just tolerated but celebrated, as the very hallmark of our democratic freedom.Zakaria’s observation that many emerging states were democratising without these essential checks and balances was accompanied by a warning that governments in our older, liberal democracies might soon tire themselves of the hard work of forging consensus from division and succumb, instead, to the easy charms of populist policies, “in the name of the people”, but not necessarily in their interest.Of course, it would be Trumpian hyperbole to suggest that Brexit Britain has become an “illiberal democracy” overnight. But when our Government accuses the independent judiciary of “unacceptably frustrating the will of the people”, or threatens to abolish the reforming chamber if they propose any reforms, then our liberal democracy is certainly under challenge. And true democrats have to rally to its aid.Just as we must rally to respect the rights of the 16 million who voted to remain. A minority, yes, but only just. And with an unarguable, inalienable, right to speak in the debate and to expect consideration from their government. Their voices must be heard and their concerns respected, not shouted down with threat and bombast. The principle of majority rule does not by itself constitute democracy and a pure, populist majoritarianism cannot simply overrule the protections built over generations in our parliamentary democracy. Parliament can be informed and advised by the direct, democratic expression of a referendum, but we cannot be absolved of one of our duties to act in the national interest, or to give voice to the minority.In practice that means that throughout the passage of the Brexit Bill, in the Lords this week and back at the Commons for March 13, we must continue to ask questions of the Government: about the impact on trade and free movement and free speech. But our task will not be finished when the Bill is passed. Though its grudging two paragraphs, dragged through the courts, were a perfect example of our Government flirting with illiberal democracy, the Great Repeal Bill that will follow them should, by contrast, be a paragon of patriotic and democratic challenge, as the 80,000 pages of EU legislation, on everything from workers’ rights to environmental standards, are considered for adoption in our own statutes.The Government says, of course, that they will all be adopted, lock, stock and barrel, and be ready for when we leave. But they also say we’ll have a trade deal after Brexit with the “exact same benefits” as we have as part of the single market, and not even David Davis can surely believe that fantasy might come true.So our task will be to check every jot and comma, to fight for every right and to call out every loss. We must challenge every dodgy promise and point to every benefit we’re missing out on as Europe reforms and advances. Whether it’s the cheaper and more secure energy that will emerge from a single market for its supply, or the EU clamp down on tax havens that the British people will be “protected from” by Brexit, our job will be to point to what we could have won, and what we still might lose.In doing so, we should stand tall, not as deniers of democracy, but in its defence. Defenders of the liberal, British democracy that has been an inspiration to so many societies across the world, and which we must now safeguard for our own.. Owen Smith.
On 27 Feb 2017 at 2:29pm Disrespect wrote:
"you respectfully disagree", that's your right, doesn't change that you're wrong though does it...
Please don't think I voted for Brexit either (I didn't), but the rules were set, numbers were set (over half wins), the people voted and we lost.
The EU is just as corrupt as every other official body (politicians, sportsmen, sports bodies, corporates, banks, police, councils, governing bodies, HMRC - the list goes on).
Whether we in or out we're getting shafted, I'm surprised you don't realise it already...
On 27 Feb 2017 at 2:35pm Minor politician wrote:
Dash shame but had to pull out at the clubhouse. No point in getting wet if you know what I mean. I say Owen you seem a jolly interesting chap. What's your view on the manifestation of the lesser known Article 69. I'm not too keen myself.
On 27 Feb 2017 at 2:39pm Tom Pain wrote:
Well said, disrespect. I voted out for no other reason than: the smaller the system, the smaller the corruption.
On 27 Feb 2017 at 2:58pm Minor politician wrote:
Indeed. A smaller axis line on the numerical article of plan b would indeed be more preferable than the large bloated entity that is the association of countries signed to the helsinki declaration of 1875. I would think a reference to appendix 2b or not to be may result in the efficacy and safety being questioned in a higher legal structure. Hyperbole indeed although not a trump one as that is too extreme to contemplate. As i frequently tell my secretary, a large one is not always preferable.
On 27 Feb 2017 at 3:16pm Old European wrote:
One of the tgehuost crhages to aswner for thsoe of us who voted agnsait teiingrrgg Acrltie 50 is taht of being atni-dmtroiecac.If we recptesed decrcomay, so the amurgnet rnus, we wolud jsut suht up and enact the wlil of the 51.9%, wutihot qsueiton or csanitonrt. It’s the armgenut taht mnay Lbaour cealougles hvae mdae to me wehn elnnipxaig teihr dcioiesn to rlttcaluney tgrgier Breixt, and I fully rcpeest thier mitoevs and the good fiath in whcih tehy hlod tihs veiw. But I relpfelsctuy daegrise, bsecaue in tihs draocemt’s opnoiin it is our dcamceory iletsf, our Bitrsih, lbreial docrcmeay, taht is as mcuh at rsik under Brixet as is the emnioocc stureicy of our ctuonry.It’s now tewtny yaers sncie the Aceamirn jslnauoirt, Freaed Ziaakra, frsit cioend the trem “illbriael dorcmacey”. He uesd it to dirbsece the rsie of sttaes form asrocs the globe wrehe dmercocay, fere entoclies and mijotary rlue, wree tkiang hlod, but wuhitot the cuonetr-witehgs of the rlue of law – the saoateripn of peowrs, the fedeorm of scpeeh and the pesrs – taht are nesacersy to pretcot the rthgis of idlaidivuns and miirenotis form the tnayrny of the mtjroiay ftaoicn. The need for toshe ckches and balaencs in any doeacmrcy has been unortedosd for serveal cenruteis, a sreahd udrindntensag aocrss the Atailtnc, form Msadion to Rseuosau.Tehy are waht mkae us lirbeal or csiootantitunl dcecoaiemrs, in wichh the right of the desstniing motnriiy, wehehtr it’s 4.8% or 48%, to rnsateoreietpn and fere erisepsxon is not jsut trolteead but celreaebtd, as the vrey haamrllk of our dreimcaotc fedreom.Zairkaa’s orvbsteoian taht mnay emrgneig sttaes wree docmsitanerig wuithot these eestinasl cechks and balances was anicaemopcd by a wainnrg taht geeonrvmtns in our oedlr, lriaebl dcracoeeims mhgit soon trie tsehevemls of the hrad wrok of fgornig cuosnsnes form dsiivoin and scmucub, ieasntd, to the esay chamrs of pulposit ploiceis, “in the nmae of the ppoele”, but not nlareiscesy in their irtseent.Of cosrue, it wluod be Tarmipun hpyrebloe to ssgegut taht Bxreit Batirin has beocme an “ibilrelal dacroecmy” orgihenvt. But wehn our Goemvenrnt acucess the iddenneepnt jiracdiuy of “ucataeclpnby fnaurtrsitg the wlil of the ppleoe”, or ttahneers to aliobsh the reiormnfg cmhaber if tehy psroope any rmeorfs, tehn our learibl dccmaeory is cneritaly unedr cnelghlae. And ture dmoreacts hvae to rllay to its aid.Jsut as we msut rlaly to rpsceet the rgthis of the 16 miloiln who vetod to rmeian. A mtiirnoy, yes, but olny jsut. And wtih an ugbrauanle, illanenbaie, right to sapek in the dbeate and to eecpxt canorsioditen form tehir gonvrmneet. Thier vcoeis msut be herad and their ccronens rpetesced, not sthuoed dwon wtih teraht and bmoabst. The plpcnriie of mtoijary rlue deos not by ilestf csuoitttne draocemcy and a prue, pioslupt martnaiasoiirjm cnaont slipmy oleruvre the pttioecrons built oevr greitennoas in our ptmaararnliey dmacoecry. Pmrlnaeiat can be ioenrfmd and aiedvsd by the dercit, dmitrceaoc eosxpersin of a rufeendrem, but we connat be albsoved of one of our duteis to act in the ntaianol itnesert, or to gvie vcoie to the mnoriity.In pcirtcae taht manes taht touohurhgt the psasage of the Beirxt Blil, in the Lords tihs week and bcak at the Coommns for Mcrah 13, we msut cntnoiue to ask qnseutios of the Gmoneenvrt: aoubt the icmpat on trade and fere mnevmoet and fere scepeh. But our tsak wlil not be fsinhied wehn the Blil is psaesd. Tghouh its gidugnrg two pphraraags, deagrgd trhgouh the courts, wree a peefcrt emxlpae of our Gronmeenvt flniitrg wtih ilbelrail dormcacey, the Gaert Reepal Blil taht wlil follow tehm shulod, by casrtnot, be a pargaon of pioattric and dimactorec cglenalhe, as the 80,000 pages of EU lsiiolegatn, on enrethivyg form wkerros’ rtgihs to eaoennmtnrivl sadantdrs, are ceonesrdid for adpooitn in our own steatuts.The Gornvenmet syas, of cousre, taht tehy wlil all be aptoedd, lcok, sotck and brearl, and be reday for wehn we lavee. But tehy aslo say we’ll hvae a trdae dael atfer Bxriet wtih the “eaxct smae benfties” as we hvae as prat of the sglnie mkreat, and not eevn Divad Dvias can seruly bevleie taht fasanty mhigt cmoe ture.So our tsak wlil be to cehck evrey jot and cmmoa, to fghit for eevry right and to clal out eervy lsos. We msut clehnlgae ervey dodgy psorime and ponit to every befient we’re misnisg out on as Euorpe rreofms and aacndevs. Wtheehr it’s the ceepahr and mroe suecre eergny taht wlil eregme form a slngie mkaret for its sulppy, or the EU cmlap dwon on tax hnvaes taht the Btiirsh pelpoe wlil be “peetoctrd form” by Bxerit, our job wlil be to ponit to waht we culod hvae won, and waht we slitl mihgt lsoe.In dniog so, we sulhod santd tlal, not as deriens of dcaemrocy, but in its decnfee. Derdefens of the liarbel, Btiisrh daercocmy taht has been an irnoaipsitn to so mnay seoetiics asocrs the world, and wihch we msut now saerguafd for our own.. Oewn Simth.
On 27 Feb 2017 at 3:28pm Katie Price wrote:
returns with this incredible new instalment of her life in the public eye.
But only now is she ready to tell her story.
After finding love with Kieran, Katie thought she had found the man of her dreams and that happy-ever-after was possible after all. But she soon finds that being in the perfect relationship isn't easy.
From her turbulent marriage, her difficult pregnancy and birth to her beautiful baby Bunny, to her time in the Big Brother House, and the continued challenges of looking after her disabled son, Katie finally lifts the lid on the trails and tribulations of the past few years.
Written with the fierce honesty and humour we've come to love, she tells us how she's carried on despite the heartbreak in her life, coming out the other side reborn and ready for whatever life throws at her while remaining positive, strong, and throughout it all, true to herself and her family.
On 27 Feb 2017 at 3:38pm Clifford wrote:
Well, Pail Newman, it's good to see you've sharpened your punctuation. Now you just have to go to paragraph classes.
On 27 Feb 2017 at 4:40pm Newm wrote:
On 27 Feb 2017 at 5:55pm Clifford wrote:
My apologies, Paul.
On 27 Feb 2017 at 8:50pm Mark wrote:
The OP is clearly Newms. Old European isnt, I'd guess. Old European might actually be a bit more weird than PN.
On 27 Feb 2017 at 9:17pm Taff wrote:
I wonder which party really will win the next general election? Based on these reactions to the Brexit result.
On 27 Feb 2017 at 9:29pm Old lewes wrote:
What utter tripe and drivel we get on this forum, day after day of political bores and liberal self opinionated egotistical twits. It's no wonder that old and familiar names have long since disappeared from here. The opening post is the perfect example of the utter sh#t that gets posted on here.
On 27 Feb 2017 at 10:46pm Clifford wrote:
Old Lewes, I resent being called 'liberal'. I think it may be actionable.