On October 29, the British House of Commons voted to hold a general parliamentary election on December 12, 2019. See this story. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
On October 29, the British House of Commons voted to hold a general parliamentary election on December 12, 2019. See this story. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
Brit HC =
THE Mother of ALL *modern* ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander regimes since late 1200s.
Result – the monarch/oligarch chaos in many such ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander regimes – UK, USA, Canada, India, etc.
HC ZERO IQ MORONS NOT having a second Brexit vote on the same ballots.
IE – this may be the final rot end of the NOT united UK –
at least 4 new regimes coming ???
—
PR and Appv and TOTSOP
TOTAL END OF BRITISH EMPIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
END OF TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/world/2019/10/29/uk-moves-closer-december-election-st-time-since/40474515/
AP on the nonstop machinations by the UK HC gerrymander oligarchs.
OH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why would they need a second Brexit vote? What was wrong with the first one? “vote until desired results are obtained”?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When women’s suffrage was a big topic in the U.S., in several states the (male) voters defeated it when it was a ballot question the first time, but a few years later those voters changed their mind and passed it.
In California, which had very high property taxes fifty years ago, many initiatives to lower property taxes failed repeatedly, but finally in 1978 the idea was on the ballot again and it passed overwhelmingly. Prop. 13, June 1978.
If Brexit is really a good idea, the proponents of Brexit shouldn’t be afraid of another vote. Brexit supporters oppose a new vote because they suspect this time they would lose.
There’s a difference between your examples and this one, Richard. In your examples the question was one of making a change, and the default option was the status quo. Since public sentiment changes over time, it’s not necessarily wrong to vote more than once on imposing a NEW policy.
The Brexit vote however was to change something already in place and it did pass. Per that vote, the UK should have already been out of the EU by now. Had that happened, and proponents of being in the EU believed public sentiment had changed, it would have been legitimate to have another vote on whether to rejoin the EU.
But that’s not what happened. The people voted for a change. The politicians have played games and have yet to implement the change that the people voted for. Why should the people have to vote again, before what they voted for the first time has even been implemented?
I don’t have any strong feelings about whether the UK should be in the EU or not. I have no particular connections to either one. Neither does anyone in my family nor any of my close friends. My comments are solely related to the propriety of acting on a vote which already took place versus having a new one.
Let’s say for example the subject was marijuana legalization. In our example, the vote is held three times, gaining popularity each time, and on the third time it passes. That’s fine, because the people’s vote in each case is honored, whether they voted for a change or for the status quo.
Now suppose that it passes, but the politicians have other ideas. They play all sorts of games for years, then demand another vote of the people before it is made legal. The people’s vote that the policy be changed is ignored, and a new vote demanded. But what if the people vote to change the law again? Will they be required to hold a third vote, or a fourth, when there are no provisions for such?
UK Lib Dems had their chance to have PR in the 2010 Cons-LibDems coalition – but totally blew it.
See current Canada coalition machinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit
Daily updates / machinations.
Since NOOOOO written Const in the UK — each HC election is a major Crisis —
NOOOOO body is safe.
Ed, in the 1910’s decade, almost every state had a referendum on whether that state should pass the Prohibition amendment, the 18th amendment. It passed in most states. Nationwide 55% of the voters voted for it.
Does that mean it is somehow illegitimate for the voters, 15 years later, to vote on repealing it?
How many popular votes since 4 July 1776 on constitutions and laws and recall elections [latter – which won – hack recalled] ???
and later – to get NEW constitutions and to repeal or amend laws ???
Richard- where does one draw the line?
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7960
Brexit dates – updated often
It took mere about 2 years to get the USA-Brit Peace Treaty in 1782-1784-
FINAL separation after 8 plus years of WAR 1775-1784.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2019-0144
Election machinations in the monarch/oligarchs 1066 DARK AGE regime.
What are ballot access rules like in the UK?
MB
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/
SITE WILL BE SUPER-ACTIVE AFTER THE DEC 2019 ELECTION ACT IS ENACTED.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50242562
update
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49826655
650 gerrymander districts = 650 gerrymander oligarchs
326 minority rule oligarchs making more laws
NO written const in the 1066 DARK AGE regime of monarchs and oligarchs- so-called *fixed* election date law blown away.
At least 50 HACK incumbents NOT in new Election.
—
PR and Appv and TOTSOP — even in rotted to the core EVIL regimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
pictures of the top HACKS — who often pick other HACKS
@MB,
10 signatures on the nomination paper, consent of the candidate, and a deposit of £500£ ($647). If you are a party candidate you must have the authorization of the party.
The deposit is returned if you receive 5% of the vote.
authorization of the party = DICTATORSHIP/TYRANT control of candidates
Think Stalin and Hitler regimes.
What pct of the 650 winners will get 50 pct + 1 in their rigged districts ???
If even 25 pct do, then I will be a bit amazed —
due to rise in Lib Dems and Brexit parties-
major rot in both Cons and Labour.
@DR,
The authorization is to use the name or description of the party and its emblem in conjunction with a candidate’s candidacy, particularly on the ballot.
Think (period).
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8728
election time schedule
—
THINK UK –
NO primaries.
Top UK HACKS CONTROL who get nominated in the gerrymander districts the same as in a dictatorship.
UK DARK AGE regime – some party HACK Must OK any party hack nomination.
———-
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/UKPGE-Part-2b-Standing-as-a-party-candidate.pdf
The certificate of authorisation
1.17
Political parties authorise candidates to stand for them by
issuing a certificate of authorisation. This must state that the named candidate can stand on their behalf and allow them to use one of the following:
•
the exact party name as registered with the Commission
•
one of the party’s registered descriptions
•
your choice of either the registered party name or one of
the registered descriptions.
1.18
Particular care should be taken by the Nominating Officer
(or someone authorised to act on their behalf) when
completing the certificate of authorisation. If the certificate
explicitly authorises a particular party name/description and
this does not match the party name/description on the
nomination paper, the whole nomination will be invalid.
1.19
The certificate of authorisation must be signed by the
registered Nominating Officer of the political party or by
someone authorised by the Nominating Officer to act on their
behalf.
1.20
If you are standing on behalf of two or more
parties, you will need a certificate of authorisation from the Nominating Officer of each of the registered parties (or someone authorised to act on their behalf). Joint descriptions are listed on the Commission’s register of political parties on the registration page for the relevant parties.
@DR,
You are being silly.
The nomination is made by the nominator and seconder, and 10 subscribers on the petition, along with the £500 deposit.
The candidate files a consent form, accepting the nomination.
That is all that is needed to run as an independent.
If they want to have the party name appear next to theirs on the ballot, they have have the permission of the political party.
That permission is issued by a designated agent of the political party.
Imagine that you were the registered agent for the Demo Rep party, and Rashida Tlaib filed. She could not appear as the candidate of your party without your authorization.