Posted on 10/13/2014 7:13:04 PM PDT by Olog-hai
stupid Brits
they will pay a terrible cost for their sniveling appeasement the great and vile scourge of islamism
the Pals have done NOTHING to earn any statehood , they are only the worst trouble makers in the Middle East . and that’s saying something !
If only they’d recognize the pre-born child.
If they’ve gone this far, hopes for that are as slim as spider silk.
I hope there is a way for Israel to retaliate...
no ZMapp for you or something
It would have to be a proper Act of Parliament, that went through all the correct procedures (full debate and multiple readings) in both Houses and the received the Royal Assent (which would be automatic if it had followed the other procedures). This doesn't even come close.
It's what is referred to in the British system as a Backbench Business Debate which are designed to allow 'backbench' MPs (ie, non Ministers or Shadow Minister) the occasional opportunity to raise an issue they regard as important. Seniors members of the government and opposition, by definition, do not involve themselves in these matters - they have other opportunities to outline their policies.
In essence, Labor (currently in opposition) supports the idea of the recognition of Palestine and this was a way for them to put that on record. The government (the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and assorted smaller groups) generally does not - and most didn't even bother to turn up for the debate on that basis which is a reason the No vote was so low.
The Yes vote was 274 - if it had reached over 300, then Labor would have been able to try and use it to put pressure on the government for a full debate - there's no formal rules on that but as the House of Commons has 649 voting members (650 total, but the Speaker only votes in the event of a tie), by convention, an issue that attracted 300 votes in such a motion is one a government could be pressured to settle one way or the other. It didn't, so it really does nothing.
Understand - there are 650 members of the House of Commons.
This vote - non binding - got 274 votes or about 42% - and it only got that because Labor required its members to vote for it under party discipline and some of them would have done so only because they knew it wouldn’t actually have any effect.
The actual government of the United Kingdom, for the most part, didn’t even dignify the debate by attending - which is why the No vote was so low. Again, if the vote had meant something, about 300 MPs would have turned up to vote no, but with this type of debate, it’s generally considered better to treat it as irrelevant rather than dignify it with a response - you just put enough MPs into the House to require a counted vote, not just a voice vote.
The Westminster system is quite arcane and complex in its traditions, which makes this look like a bigger deal than it actually is to those who don’t know the system well.
Then why did the majority run away from it and even allow it?
You Jews voted for this.
What do you want me to say?
So if you disagree and you know it has no chance of succeeding in changing anything, you don't try and block the debate. You simply treat it as an irrelevancy and don't turn up. Which is what has been done in this case. Only enough no votes turned up to require a recorded vote, rather than just a voice vote (a lot of votes in the House of Commons are simply voice votes where the Speaker judges Aye or Nay by hear - any vote can be forced to a count but a lot aren't). If that hadn't happened, Labor could try and claim that they, say, got 300 votes instead of 274 and nobody could say for certain that they didn't. With a recorded vote, it's clear they didn't. If 300 conservatives had turned up to vote against it (which they would have if there had been any chance of the vote in favour getting that high) it would have looked like the government was panicking. They would have been panicking - because the vote wasn't that high.
What’s this “you Jews” business?
Liberals of all stripes have abandoned their faith and backgrounds. You going to move onto “you Christians” too?
To whom would it have seemed that “the government was panicking”? especially versus standing on principle?
To people who understand and follow the Westminster system and British politics in detail, and know what the normal response to such debates is - which is not to dignify them by responding to them.
This vote does matter in a sense - it shows that the Labor Party has a lot of support within it for recognising Palestine as a state. That's significant, because Labor could win government at the next election.
But it doesn't say anything about the stance of the current British government, or about current British policy.
Some in the media - especially those who would like to stir up trouble for David Cameron and his party (for whatever reason) are trying to paint this as more significant than it is. And it's not that hard to do, because most people don't understand the system that well. They hear 'Parliamentary Vote' and think they are all important. A lot of them aren't (Early Day Motions, Adjournments Motions, and Backbench Business among them).
That’s not an answer. Who would judge the government as “panicking” if they moved to suppress a vote on the state of Palestine?
Letting the Labour Party run amuck bespeaks an abandonment of rule of law. The significance is not lost on Britain’s allies.
I've given you my answer. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is my answer.
People who understand the British Parliamentary system like me, for example, would see the government as panicking. Because they would be treating this vote as if it was important when it actually means virtually nothing substantive at all. The only reason I could see them doing that was if David Cameron had lost his marbles and nobody in his Cabinet was daring to try and stop him. It would be a sign of a government in disarray that didn't have a clue how to do its job.
Letting the Labour Party run amuck
The Labor Party is the Opposition. They don't have the right to set policy. They certainly have the right to raise matters in Parliament. Doing so is not running amuck. It's what they are supposed to do.
And letting them in this case, sends a clear message to the British voters that Labor is pro-Palestinian. They can't hide from that. They can't deny it. And the voters can make their own decision as to whether or not they want to vote for that.
I think Labor has just reduced its chance of winning the next General Election. I certainly hope they have.
Actually, I'll address this just a little further.
It is a feature of the British system - deliberately built into it - that Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition (the formal term) gets twenty days a session in Parliament to present its ideas for discussion. This reflects the fact that a large number of people did vote for them and deserve representation. And Labor didn't use those days for that debate. That's because the Labor Party leadership didn't want this debate.
Instead, it's come up in one of the "Backbench day" when Backbench MPs from any party who can't get their leaders to support them in raising an issue have the chance to do so. And that's forced Labor into taking a stand on the issue that they really didn't want to take electorally. I'm not saying the Government wanted this debate - but politically, there's a lot of advantages in it for the supporters of Israel, because Labor has had to nail its colours to the mast and shown that they cannot be trusted on that issue.
Tzimisce writes:
“You Jews voted for this.
What do you want me to say?”
In fact, in the UK and Canada an outright majority of Jews voted for right-wing political parties in the last national elections, a higher percentage indeed than in the general populations. Roman Catholics overwhelmingly voted for left-wing parties in both countries (in Canada in large numbers for a party from the hard left, in fact).
The same is true of Jews in Australia and France.
As for your “you Jews” comment, it is beyond despicable.
What do we want you to say? That you are a fool and a bigot, of course. You won’t, but decent people will be thinking it all the same.
..................
Wonder if the Brits plan on sending troops to evict Jews from their homes. Might not be that easy. Needless to say this trend will significantly change the President's "peace process". Related threads
British Parliament votes in favor of Palestinian state recognition
Israel-Palestine: UK Parliament's vote for terrorism (The mother of stupidity & friend of terrorism)
See: This is the type of snide, holier than thou type of lectures I’m talking about.
Israel will be gone, but at least you’ll have the moral high ground eh? And that’s all that really matters right? :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.