PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Brexit process
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 121, 122, 123 ... 126, 127, 128  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10672
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
The problem with allowing natural decline, Ken, is that it is uneven. That is to say, there are some uncomfortable truths about radically different fertility rates across different ethnic groups in this country that need taking into account. So, for example, the white, middle and upper middle class have a fertility rate below replacement. The white working class are on or just below replacement. But, other ethic groups are typically above replacement level and, in the case of specific ones, such as the Middle Eastern and northern African Muslim ethic group, well above replacement. Therefore, in order to avoid racial and ethnic tensions becoming inflamed, a family planning policy, irrespective of race or culture, would need to be applied.


The thinking on this that I have seen is that after the first generation all racial and religious groups tend towards the norm of the indigenous population. Yes, there might be outliers but the average tend towards the norm. It is something that could be watched and policy adjusted accordingly. Even Irish Catholic families, which were notorious in my youth, and backed by the Pope, for having large families, now usually (on average) conform to this.

Do you count orthodox Jews in you Middle Eastern category as their interpretation of their religion requires(?)/encourages large families.
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6314
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
Little John wrote:
The problem with allowing natural decline, Ken, is that it is uneven. That is to say, there are some uncomfortable truths about radically different fertility rates across different ethnic groups in this country that need taking into account. So, for example, the white, middle and upper middle class have a fertility rate below replacement. The white working class are on or just below replacement. But, other ethic groups are typically above replacement level and, in the case of specific ones, such as the Middle Eastern and northern African Muslim ethic group, well above replacement. Therefore, in order to avoid racial and ethnic tensions becoming inflamed, a family planning policy, irrespective of race or culture, would need to be applied.


The thinking on this that I have seen is that after the first generation all racial and religious groups tend towards the norm of the indigenous population. Yes, there might be outliers but the average tend towards the norm. It is something that could be watched and policy adjusted accordingly. Even Irish Catholic families, which were notorious in my youth, and backed by the Pope, for having large families, now usually (on average) conform to this.

Do you count orthodox Jews in you Middle Eastern category as their interpretation of their religion requires(?)/encourages large families.
I do yes. Both orthodox Judaism and Islam actively exhort high fertility rates in their followers. I am less acquainted with the number on orthodox Judaism. Bit, on Islam I am do have some knowledge. It is relatively distinct in that it's followers do not reduce in fertility, to any significant extent, even after existing in a given country for several generations. And that is definitely going to be a problem in terms of racial/ethnic/cultural tensions as both resources get tighter and reductions in populations, overall, become necessary or, even, inevitable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
RevdTess



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2765
Location: Newquay

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's pretty unnerving the way you guys are casually discussing population control with reference to particular religions and ethnicities. I mean, what next, selective euthanasia of undesirable minorities? I agree that populations are too high and we need to be much more self-sufficient, but taking away fundamental human rights to have children is certainly far more than I could stomach. Far too authoritarian. And I speak as someone who has no children.

By the way, many evangelical Christian groups also encourage large families. It comes from God's apparent commandment to be fruitful and fill the earth, which probably made sense 4000 years ago, but he never said what 'fill' actually meant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6314
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RevdTess wrote:
It's pretty unnerving the way you guys are casually discussing population control with reference to particular religions and ethnicities. I mean, what next, selective euthanasia of undesirable minorities? I agree that populations are too high and we need to be much more self-sufficient, but taking away fundamental human rights to have children is certainly far more than I could stomach. Far too authoritarian. And I speak as someone who has no children.

By the way, many evangelical Christian groups also encourage large families. It comes from God's apparent commandment to be fruitful and fill the earth, which probably made sense 4000 years ago, but he never said what 'fill' actually meant.
No it is not unnerving if you actually read what was written instead of superimposing your own ideological prejudices on what you assume was written. Especially given that the one child family planning policy I proposed expressly does not account for differences of ethnicity or religious/cultural affiliation. That's the point of it. It would be applied irrespective of race, colour or creed.

And, of course it is more than you can stomach since your "morality" only extends so far as you not actually having to face any real moral dilemmas. You have already demonstrated that recently. So, it is little surprise here that, despite your own acknowledgement that population size on a finite planet is unsustainable, you do not wish to actually engage in the morally messy business of doing something about it or, even, of discussing it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Lord Beria3



Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 4374
Location: Moscow Russia

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well said Little John.

I would add that most of European is or will be seeing contracting populations soon so we may not need any one child policy anyway.

Germany and most of central eastern Europe already have Labour shortages due to low birth rate.
_________________
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fuzzy



Joined: 29 Nov 2013
Posts: 805
Location: The Marches, UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Beria3 wrote:
Well said Little John.

I would add that most of European is or will be seeing contracting populations soon so we may not need any one child policy anyway.

Germany and most of central eastern Europe already have Labour shortages due to low birth rate.


That doesn't help the UK. Due to the baywatch effect, most immigrants are english speakers and will not be interested in other countries. They already have large ghetto communities in the UK.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 992
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

HMG (Amber Rudd) bottle it.....

Universal credit - U-turn on two-child cap on benefit:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46827301
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fuzzy



Joined: 29 Nov 2013
Posts: 805
Location: The Marches, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It sounds like she has bottled on applying the tax on already mothers rather than new ones. This is arguably right. If people should not be paid to copulate, they should at least know what their financial outcome is. But there are plenty of examples of gov victims to retrospective changes. The Tories seem to enjoy doing it. The state pension and means tested benefits have savagely altered.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 9048
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From this morning's Sunday Times. This is massive.

Quote:

Theresa May has been warned that her government “will lose its ability to govern” after Downing Street uncovered a bombshell plot by senior MPs to seize control of Brexit negotiations and sideline the prime minister.

A cross-party group of senior backbenchers — including former Tory ministers — plan what one senior figure branded a “very British coup” if May loses the crunch vote on her Brexit deal on Tuesday.

At least two groups of rebel MPs are plotting to change Commons rules so motions proposed by backbenchers take precedence over government business, upending the centuries-old relationship between executive and legislature.

Downing Street believes that would enable MPs to suspend article 50, putting Brexit on hold, and could even lead to the referendum result being overturned — a move that would plunge the country into a constitutional crisis.

May’s team got wind of the plot on Thursday evening when one of the conspirators — a former cabinet minister — was overheard by the government chief whip Julian Smith discussing the plan in the MPs’ cloakroom. He commissioned written advice from legal experts, who warned May her government’s future was at stake.

Smith briefed May on Friday on the explosive document, which says: “Such an attempt represents a clear and present danger to all government business.

“Without control of the order paper, the government has no control over the House of Commons and the parliamentary business and legislation necessary to progress government policies. The government would lose its ability to govern.”

Dominic Grieve: rebel ringleader Dominic Grieve: rebel ringleader BEN STANSALL/AFP/GETTY IMAGES A senior government source said that May and her aides were “shellshocked” and declared: “This could be game over for Brexit.” Another added: “This sounds very like a very British coup — and one that has profound implications for democracy.”

Crucially, Commons sources say the Speaker, John Bercow, is likely to allow the gambit to proceed. It can now be revealed that one of the rebel ringleaders, the former attorney general Dominic Grieve, visited Bercow in his official residence on Tuesday, the day before the Speaker tore up Commons rules to help remainer MPs.

Last night, Grieve refused to deny he was examining plans to seize control of the Commons timetable. He said: “I have no doubt that lots of people may be looking at all sorts of ideas since we are in a deepening national political crisis.”

Britain will leave the EU on March 29 unless there is a new act of parliament overturning existing Brexit legislation. Senior Brexiteers assume this is not possible as the government controls the timetable of Commons business. The plot, which May’s aides believe is being orchestrated by Sir Oliver Letwin, an ally of David Cameron, would torpedo that assumption.

If, as expected, May loses the crunch vote on Tuesday evening, she must table a new plan by the following Monday. Tory whips believe plotters would then table an amendment to May’s plan (or the business motion that precedes it), proposing that future motions setting out the business of the House could be tabled by non-government members. If that passes, MPs, not ministers, could shape the future of Brexit.

Tomorrow night, members of the “Norway group”, which backs membership of the single market, will meet to discuss their plans. That group includes Letwin, Nick Boles, Nicky Morgan and Labour’s Stephen Kinnock.

Boles last night confirmed he wants to make it illegal to leave with no deal. He said: “We have a mechanism which will give parliament control of the Brexit negotiations and ensure we do not leave the EU without a deal on March 29. To change a law you need to pass a law. I am working on ways to achieve that outcome. We will be publishing it on Tuesday.”

Labour’s Chris Leslie is also developing plans to cut off the salaries of ministers unless Downing Street abides by the rulings of the Commons. Even before the plot was uncovered, The Sunday Times had learnt MPs were plotting to get Bercow to suspend Commons standing order 14, which says that “government business shall have precedence at every sitting”. It has been in place since Charles Stewart Parnell’s campaign of obstructionism for Irish nationalism in the 1880s.

Last week, the Speaker tore up parliamentary precedent to allow another amendment by Grieve that set May a short deadline to return with a plan B — in defiance of the advice of the clerk of the Commons, who is guardian of the rules.

A source close to Bercow said: “Tearing up the standing orders is what I would expect to happen. He is setting out to stop Brexit. He’s part of the rebel team.”

Details of the plot are now being shared by Tory whips with leading Brexiteers to try to persuade them to back May’s deal to save Brexit.

Meanwhile, the European Commission will shortly publish a letter to reassure MPs that the controversial Northern Ireland backstop is “temporary”. Yet insiders still expect the prime minister to lose by 100 or more votes.

Letwin did not respond to a request for comment. Bercow’s spokeswoman said: “We have no knowledge of backbench rule changes. The Speaker did meet Mr Grieve on Tuesday. He meets members from both sides of the House and all parties.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stumuz1



Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 160
Location: Anglesey

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If true then something smelly is definitely afoot.

Our constitutional law history is all about taking power from the Crown in accretions. The last really big one was Lloyd George’s 1908 Old Age Pension Act and later the 1911 National Insurance Act.

To pay for the 'popular' policy he effectively filleted the British aristocracy by introducing what is now inheritance tax.

So Lloyd George 'took power' from the Crown (Earls,Dukes, Barons etc) and gave it to Parliament.

So Parliament taking power for itself from the Crown ( the Government) is not new but very rare, but it is usually done under the cloak of populism.

If the Times article is correct, this power grab may well run into trouble. Because all power grabs usually have overwhelming support from the populace. This one may not have universal support from the retainers. It will be loathed by the Brexiteers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Beria3



Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 4374
Location: Moscow Russia

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plus it is not clear whether there is a majority within parliament for a plan b!

Parliament can only really take control if there is a majority for an alternative to the government's plan.

This times report could make the hard Brexit camp rethink their opposition to Mays plan.
_________________
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stumuz1



Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 160
Location: Anglesey

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Beria3 wrote:

Parliament can only really take control if there is a majority for an alternative to the government's plan.


No, Parliament can only make take power from the Crown if it is overwhelmingly popular with the people. The people are split. So a very difficult power grab.

Lord Beria3 wrote:

This times report could make the hard Brexit camp rethink their opposition to Mays plan.


Sorry, no again. A power grab by parliament only works when 80% of the people favour it.
Think of it. When Lloyd George introduced the pensions act, there were many more poor people dying in poverty, than hugely rich land owning Dukes.

Power grab was successful.

Do you really think 80% of the people favour cancelling Brexit?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vortex2



Joined: 13 Jan 2019
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heard on the radio today that 70% would prefer a clean break than May's option.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 9048
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stumuz1 wrote:

If the Times article is correct, this power grab may well run into trouble. Because all power grabs usually have overwhelming support from the populace. This one may not have universal support from the retainers. It will be loathed by the Brexiteers.


Judging by what is being said in both the mainstream media and social media, the article is indeed correct.

Will it run into trouble? Maybe, but I don't see how the government can fight back. May has no majority, the DUP won't back her deal and it looked like she was going to try to use delaying tactics to force parliament to choose between her deal and no deal. There is a majority in parliament to prevent her from doing that, even if it means major constitutional changes, and the speaker is on the side of parliament.

It's huge. This will forever change the way hung parliaments operate in the UK. In some ways it is bigger than brexit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 9048
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Beria3 wrote:

Parliament can only really take control if there is a majority for an alternative to the government's plan.


It can do that in stages. There is almost certainly a majority willing to vote to make no deal illegal, and revoking article 50 becoming the new default outcome, over-riding the relevant bits of the Withdrawal Bill. And now there is a mechanism for parliament to enact this as law without the co-operation of the government.

I think no deal just died. Grieve and Bercow have killed it.

Quote:

This times report could make the hard Brexit camp rethink their opposition to Mays plan.


It may well do, but that doesn't mean May's plan can be revived. Even if every tory MP supports it, she's still screwed. The DUP will vote against it, so she would need opposition support to get it passed. But if this were likely to happen, then the DUP would support a Labour VonC and bring the government down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 121, 122, 123 ... 126, 127, 128  Next
Page 122 of 128

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group