Consequences of Brexit [part 7] Read first post before posting

[Dardandec]

17 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Satisfaction.

 

Angel1.

Childish.

[ANGELFIRE1]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

 

 

Bad news for the Brextremists.

 

No deal and unicorns motions have not been not selected for debate.

 

• Motion 😄 Customs union - Proposer: Ken Clarke, Conservative
• Motion 😧 'Common Market 2.0' - Proposer: Nick Boles, Conservative
• Motion E: Confirmatory public vote - Proposers: Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, Labour

• Motion G: Parliamentary supremacy - Proposer: Joanna Cherry, Scottish National Party

 

 

 

Thank goodness they mean nothing in law.

 

Angel1.

1 minute ago, Dardandec said:

Childish.

Childish Satisfaction if you like that better. Have a nice evening.

 

Angel1.

[ez8004]

3 hours ago, Car Boot said:

On 19 October 2016 Heidi Allen voted in favour of having fewer MPs but against reducing the number of members in the House of Lords. (House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons, Division number 70).

 

Heidi Allen voted against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords on this date. This passionate Remainer MP has also consistently voted against laws to promote equality and human rights.

 

Trade Union Bill — Third Reading, Division number 121 – in the House of Commons 10 November 2015. Heidi Allen voted to require a 50% turnout in order to make a strike ballot valid, and for other aspects of increased regulation of trade union activity.

 

Are you going to persist in claiming that I post rubbish when I can so easily prove you wrong?

Hang on a minute. Being totally misleading why not.  That vote had no legal weight whatsoever. It had no government support or it would have been sponsored as such as a bill. Was it?

 

The last time there was a genuine attempt to reform the Lords was back in 2012. Nothing of any significance has since happened. 

 

So yes, you’re still talking rubbish. 

 

As I said before, if your only claimed example of her curtailing trade unions powers is the trade union bill then you must be bonkers. What is really so unreasonable that a 50% turnout is required for a strike to be valid. This is still stupidly generous because even assuming a 100% unionised employee population, you only need 25% of that plus one for a strike to happen if the minimum voted. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by ez8004

[Top Cats Hat]

10 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Thank goodness they mean nothing in law.

Not yet but if any of them manage majority support, it will then be in poll position to become the basis of any extension agreed with the EU.

[Car Boot]

27 minutes ago, ez8004 said:

Hang on a minute. Being totally misleading why not.  That vote had no legal weight whatsoever. It had no government support or it would have been sponsored as such as a bill. Was it?

 

The last time there was a genuine attempt to reform the Lords was back in 2012. Nothing of any significance has since happened. 

 

So yes, you’re still talking rubbish. 

 

As I said before, if your only claimed example of her curtailing trade unions powers is the trade union bill then you must be bonkers. What is really so unreasonable that a 50% turnout is required for a strike to be valid. This is still stupidly generous because even assuming a 100% unionised employee population, you only need 25% of that plus one for a strike to happen if the minimum voted. 

I refer you to the voting record of Heidi Allen MP. 

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25348/heidi_allen/south_cambridgeshire/votes

 

She voted against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords, this is fact. Protest all you like, you can't change that. 

 

What is unreasonable about requiring a 50 per cent turnout for a strike to be valid is that there is no similar requirement for the election of politicians, many of whom would fail such a criteria.

 

Heidi Allen also voted for a bill which would have made strikes on the railways, buses, trams and underground railways, the NHS and fire and ambulance services illegal unless a union could demonstrate to a High Court judge that the action was reasonable.

 

Such wonderful people these out of touch Remainers.

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Car Boot

[Car Boot]

1 hour ago, ez8004 said:

As I said before, if your only claimed example of her curtailing trade unions powers is the trade union bill then you must be bonkers. What is really so unreasonable that a 50% turnout is required for a strike to be valid. This is still stupidly generous because even assuming a 100% unionised employee population, you only need 25% of that plus one for a strike to happen if the minimum voted. 

Assuming a 100 per cent unionised workplace, a 50 per cent turnout of union member workers needed to validate a strike ballot would mean 50 per cent (half) of the workplace (minimum) would be required.

 

Heidi Allen voted for a 50 per cent turnout of union members threshold to make a strike ballot valid. No democracy anywhere in the world has this kind of restriction on industrial action. It is not surprising that Remainers support this attack upon democracy and freedom.

 

"Stupidly generous" indeed! Spoken like one of the bosses!

Edited April 1, 2019 by Car Boot

[hauxwell]

1 hour ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Satisfaction.

 

Angel1.

Good for you, as I said a few people I have spoken to are going to do the same?

 

I’ll get my satisfaction from knowing I haven’t wasted my shoe leather going to the voting station if there isn’t a candidate worth voting for, but I will just have to wait and see first, there may be someone worth voting for, in fact I’d be very surprised if there isn’t.

 

 

[Penistone999]

1 hour ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Thank goodness they mean nothing in law.

 

Angel1.

Childish Satisfaction if you like that better. Have a nice evening.

 

Angel1.

Exactly .........

3 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

 

 

Bad news for the Brextremists.

 

No deal and unicorns motions have not been not selected for debate.

 

• Motion 😄 Customs union - Proposer: Ken Clarke, Conservative
• Motion 😧 'Common Market 2.0' - Proposer: Nick Boles, Conservative
• Motion E: Confirmatory public vote - Proposers: Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, Labour

• Motion G: Parliamentary supremacy - Proposer: Joanna Cherry, Scottish National Party

 

 

 

Meaningless votes as none of them are binding. The ONLY thing that is binding in law is No Deal on 12th April.  Anything else is just MP`s throwing their toys out of their pram.  

[Dardandec]

7 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

Exactly .........

Meaningless votes as none of them are binding. The ONLY thing that is binding in law is No Deal on 12th April.  Anything else is just MP`s throwing their toys out of their pram.  

Revoking article 50 or getting a further extension would be binding too.   

[Top Cats Hat]

10 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

The ONLY thing that is binding in law is No Deal on 12th April.  

You are seriously clutching at straws now! 😂