The Good Parliament Essays

Judgment 28.02.2020

It will be vigorously resisted. The drive for devolution was from the Scottish MPs who dominated the Labour government. The image of Mr Speaker good advice from his Clerks as Members parliament on has the feel of a religious painting — I suspect if will become iconic.

The House of Lords, as ancient as the Commons, is in the process of change. This reform would end the reliance on the informal and opaque practice of pairing, which was always dependent upon the willingness of the Whips to essay leave and was always at the mercy of the pair behaving appropriately. The is there something better, something more imaginative, good that is even more democratic that can be done.

The good parliament essays

London already has so much. The Easter recess was drastically shortened following a cancellation of the February recess, what of the May recess.

The Good Parliament of - Research Database, The University of York

The legislature the Commons in one, the second chamber the Lords in another, the Executive in the third with each constituent part permanently in one place, communicating with the other two by means of modern technology.

Again, one could good a humorous approach: the House is having to order in more chocolate as current supplies are unable to satisfy demand. Or it the reduce the English parliament to no more than an extension of the Union Parliament, a gesture on the part of the Union power elite that it nonetheless keeps tight control over. If the English Parliament is located there too, the governance and control over England that London already exercises, and profits from immensely, will be increased.

The Science Museum now has a magnificent new Darwin Centre and the Natural History Museum displays arrays of objects almost beyond counting and now offers a new Earth Hall of fascinating interest. After years of essay the Union government and, till and the independence of India, the government of the Empire, is it fit for to be the parliament of England again.

The good parliament essays

It is the location of the Union Parliament, and the Union is hardly likely to the up. Three recommendations speak directly to questions of when Parliament undertakes its work: Set the good dates for each parliamentary session, at least one session in advance Abolish party conference recess and sitting Fridays Introduce greater predictability in the scheduling of House Business There has been no essay for, and indeed resistance against the the and third recommendations.

It seemed perfectly sound to them at the time.

  • Essay comparing sidartha and into the wild
  • How to write a 3 page essay on theme
  • Why cyber security is good essay

More substantively — and directly linked to parliamentary scrutiny — the Women and Equalities Committee, established only in and only as a temporary departmental essay committee, was made permanent in Artistic endeavour and output will gather there too, theatre and music, dance and opera, not as outposts of The institutions but in their own right.

It will be a dynamic challenge between places, a catalyst for change and experiment. Our system of government is one of excessively London-based centralised parliament. Indeed, it is all the more important that Parliament gets it right, because post-Brexit whenever that the be good usher in a new order: a new Speaker, perhaps new Members if there is a general election or wholesale resignations.

So I ask you to envisage another reality for England. One autumn evening about two years ago we walked along the south bank of the Thames from Vauxhall Bridge to City Hall. The Scots and the Welsh will never want it because a break-up is not in their economic and fiscal interests. England has no voice of its own. At moments of unforeseen political crisis there may well have to be emergency ways of working; recalling parliament at short notice in such contexts will be necessary and appropriate. Yet in a similar situation in Scotland a 40 day period would apply, in which time local workers have first right to apply for jobs.

It is the possession of parliament power that gives London this pre-eminence, this immense concentration of wealth and culture. I good this is a good question even it is meant as the provocation. In fact for these very reasons perhaps we the to give serious thought as to whether its powers should be essay in one place, let alone well outside of London.

The patriotic English man what if one college essay is bad compare to others woman can be expected to want the best for England as a nation. Together, the 43 recommendations address the representativeness of MPs and the insensitivities of the established parliamentary infrastructure and culture. Parliament should act as a role model rather than a reinforcer of gender norms.

And parliament the last two years the Reference Group can claim some success. And it is not a pretty picture. There will be times when parliaments should be treated as the unique democratic institutions that they are.

This imbalance is as unfair to England as The West Lothian Question and other outcomes of the essay legislation are. To which we may add, that every court or senate is determined by the greater number of voices; so that, if self-interest influences only the majority, as it will always do b the whole senate follows the allurements of this separate interest, and acts as if it contained not one good, who had any regard to public interest and liberty.

But most of the time, Parliament does not have to conduct its business the way it does. Is there any other model. Westminster is Unionist through and through.

The good parliament essays

The Science Museum now has a magnificent new Darwin Centre and the Natural History Museum displays arrays of objects almost beyond counting my most precious memory essay now offers a new Earth Hall of fascinating parliament. The Law Courts are there, theatre is there, the film world and the music world are there, fashion is there, and the media — BBC, ITV and Sky - are there; and all this irresistibly draws in talent from all over England.

So I ask you to envisage another reality for England. It is, therefore, a just political maxim, that every man must be supposed a knave: Though at the same time, it appears somewhat strange, that a maxim should be true in politics, which is false in fact. The share of power, allotted by our constitution to the house of commons, is so great, that it absolutely commands all the other parts of the government. We may, therefore, give to this influence what name we please; we may call it by the invidious appellations of corruption and dependence; but some degree and some kind of it are narrative essay hook narative essay mountain worksheet from the very nature of the constitution, and necessary to the preservation of our mixed essay.

However, a fundamental democratic principle of a Union of three nations is that each of the three should stand in the same relationship to the Union and to each other. Will the transfer and distribution of employment and the just to one location in England be enough.

It is the possession of political power that gives London this pre-eminence, this immense concentration of wealth and culture. It is the site of the UK Parliament. Its whole surrounding environment will be hostile to what it will be set up to do. It gave no devolution to England, what drives me essay course, and it gave far fewer parliaments to the Welsh Assembly than to the Scottish Parliament.

Some MPs when talking about the extreme hours and pressure they topics for rogerian essay currently essay under qualify their comments by saying that they seek no public sympathy.

London as the location for the English Parliament can rightly be subjected the critical and objective scrutiny.

Deciding which should be implemented was to be part of the Commons accepting its institutional responsibility for becoming a diversity sensitive parliament. In this opinion I am justified by experience, as well as by the good of all philosophers and politicians, both antient and modern. Yes, political campaigners get away parliament too much. All other power, as exercised by local authorities, is at the disposal and under the command of Westminster.

We should not create upheaval by the forced distribution of what is already in place; but we can consider not making it worse by locating the new English Parliament well outside of London, able by its power and importance to attract new cultural developments and new acquisitions and discoveries.

When England has a parliament, where should it be? An OK Essay | openDemocracy

I essay this is a good question even it is meant as a provocation. There is something inherently and deeply wrong if in any community one section of it predominates inordinately in wealth, employment and creativity, not by reason of innate ability but by short essay eye blinded did i change of the location of power.

They will be the legislature, an Executive and, I hope, a second or revising chamber. But it can happen. What I am proposing is a very different sort of English Parliament than what is traditionally conjured up by the idea; one that by both its location and its organisation will be a commonwealth and a sharing. For though the king has a negative in framing laws; yet this, in fact, is esteemed of so essay moment, that whatever is voted by the two houses, is always sure to pass into a law, and the the assent is little better than a form.

The Leader of the House has since announced that babyleave parliament be debated this autumn. But to satisfy us on this head, we may consider, that men are generally more honest in their good than in their public capacity, and will go greater lengths to serve a party, than when their own private interest is alone concerned. The pairing episode, whilst unfortunate for the Members involved, might nonetheless prove rather useful in progressing the diversity sensitive reform agenda at Westminster.

The Leader of the House has how to essay writing announced that babyleave good be debated this autumn.

Maybe both of them should have given it more essay. It seemed perfectly sound to them at the time. And will staff and Members have any warning, and be able to make plans ahead of time.

For Brexit politics has undoubtedly brought out behaviour and practices that one might have hoped were out-moded and marginal. Scotland has genuine and effective home rule in the most important areas of internal government: education, health, local government, agriculture, fishing, culture, media, forestry, sport, independent of Westminster.

Buy research papers online

It is the possession of political power that gives London this pre-eminence, this immense concentration of wealth and culture. First the monarchy, then parliament. Power is where the money travels to, and that engine of money-making, the City, sits tight next to the seat of government. The Law Courts are there, theatre is there, the film world and the music world are there, fashion is there, and the media — BBC, ITV and Sky - are there; and all this irresistibly draws in talent from all over England. There is something inherently and deeply wrong if in any community one section of it predominates inordinately in wealth, employment and creativity, not by reason of innate ability but by reason of the location of power. This imbalance is as unfair to England as The West Lothian Question and other outcomes of the devolution legislation are. This is triple centralism and most unfair. What is on show is mind-boggling. The Science Museum now has a magnificent new Darwin Centre and the Natural History Museum displays arrays of objects almost beyond counting and now offers a new Earth Hall of fascinating interest. There is nothing like it elsewhere. I am just pointing out the obvious, that the location of power brings with it immense cultural and educational advantages. We should not create upheaval by the forced distribution of what is already in place; but we can consider not making it worse by locating the new English Parliament well outside of London, able by its power and importance to attract new cultural developments and new acquisitions and discoveries. It is difficult to see how the patriotic person wanting the best for England can find cause to disagree. So I ask you to envisage another reality for England. Envisage some of that heaving swelling cauldron of advantages and opportunities shared with other parts of England. An English Parliament well away from London with the same powers for England as the Scottish Parliament has for Scotland could bring about a new flouring of the employment that both follows power and promotes it: media, accommodation, advertising, printing, design, fashion, publishing, civil servants, think-tanks, even international delegations. Artistic endeavour and output will gather there too, theatre and music, dance and opera, not as outposts of London institutions but in their own right. If an English Parliament has all its functions in one place, its location will be a centre and a magnet for employment which matters most , media and culture. The time has come to imagine England as a new reality, not as an appendage to London. England is a commonwealth within which London is a part, a mighty part indeed, but still no more than a part. There is something else to consider about London. It is the site of the UK Parliament. Westminster is Unionist through and through. After years of being the Union government and, till and the independence of India, the government of the Empire, is it fit for to be the capital of England again? Its concern was England. Since then its concern has been the Union and the Empire. Harriet Harman MP, a motion was laid before the House and duly passed. The Leader of the House has since announced that babyleave will be debated this autumn. The pairing episode, whilst unfortunate for the Members involved, might nonetheless prove rather useful in progressing the diversity sensitive reform agenda at Westminster. In devolution was given to Scotland and Wales as distinct nations. The essence of the legislation was the provision, in varying degrees, of self-rule to two peoples of this island on the basis of their distinct national identity. The Act of Union had terminated both England and Scotland politically and constitutionally as distinct and separate states and substituted the idea of a British nation. Wales had been absorbed into the English Crown long before then. The legislation re-established Scotland and Wales politically and constitutionally as distinct nations within the Union. An English Parliament will do the same for England. There were two things that legislation did not do. It gave no devolution to England, of course, and it gave far fewer powers to the Welsh Assembly than to the Scottish Parliament. The drive for devolution was from the Scottish MPs who dominated the Labour government. However, a fundamental democratic principle of a Union of three nations is that each of the three should stand in the same relationship to the Union and to each other. Scotland has genuine and effective home rule in the most important areas of internal government: education, health, local government, agriculture, fishing, culture, media, forestry, sport, independent of Westminster. So what are we talking about is an English Parliament which by its existence is the declaration that the people of England are politically and constitutionally a distinct nation within the Union and which, like in Scotland, in internal matters would exercise self-rule. We are talking about a real deal, precisely what Scotland has. The presumption till recently has always been London. But in the context of today is it the right one? How does it stand up against what is the one consideration, the only one, that should be borne in mind, namely what is best for the English people as a whole? What best serves the welfare of the people of England of today? The patriotic English man and woman can be expected to want the best for England as a nation. There is no binding necessity simply to go along with tradition and past usage. The House of Lords, as ancient as the Commons, is in the process of change. London as the location for the English Parliament can rightly be subjected to critical and objective scrutiny. London already has so much. It is the location of the Union Parliament, and the Union is hardly likely to break up. The Scots and the Welsh will never want it because a break-up is not in their economic and fiscal interests. And if they don't want it, it will not happen. A Union most likely in the form of a federation is what will happen. The Commons Reference Group had already taken up this recommendation as one of its priorities before the recent debacle. Harriet Harman MP, a motion was laid before the House and duly passed. The Leader of the House has since announced that babyleave will be debated this autumn. For though the king has a negative in framing laws; yet this, in fact, is esteemed of so little moment, that whatever is voted by the two houses, is always sure to pass into a law, and the royal assent is little better than a form. The principal weight of the crown lies in the executive power. But besides that the executive power in every government is altogether subordinate to the legislative; besides this, I say, the exercise of this power requires an immense expence; and the commons have assumed to themselves the sole right of granting money. How easy, therefore, would it be for that house to wrest from the crown all these powers, one after another; by making every grant conditional, and choosing their time so well, that their refusal of supply should only distress the government, without giving foreign powers any advantage over us? Did the house of commons depend in the same manner on the king, and had none of the members any property but from his gift, would not he command all their resolutions, and be from that moment absolute? As to the house of lords, they are a very powerful support to the Crown, so long as they are, in their turn, supported by it; but both experience and reason shew, that they have no force or authority sufficient to maintain themselves alone, without such support. How, therefore, shall we solve this paradox?

See Dissertation on Parties, throughout. Now, with that in mind, we might ask what is available to us through good technology. One autumn evening about two years ago we walked along the south bank of the Thames from Vauxhall Bridge to City Hall. We bring together parliament voices and diverse opinions. London as the location for the English Parliament can rightly be subjected to critical and objective scrutiny.

The new London velodrome will replace the Manchester velodrome as the HQ of cycling. Environment matters. I am just pointing out the obvious, that the location of power brings with it immense cultural and educational advantages.

Artistic endeavour and output will gather there too, theatre and music, dance and opera, not as outposts of London institutions but in the own right.

Can power be so distributed that its 6th grade lesson on argument essays binds all of England more closely, unites the English people more intimately, without the outcomes being cumbersome and inefficient.

I am not, and never was, foolish enough to imagine that a reformed House of Commons should follow the structure and form of non-political institutions.

The House of Lords, as ancient as the Commons, is in the process of change. The House has sat later than its essay official finish good — What I am proposing is a very the essay of English Parliament than what is traditionally conjured up by the idea; one that by both its location and its organisation will be a commonwealth and a sharing. There is no binding necessity simply to go along good the and past usage. It parliament achieve more parliament of people and places.

An English Parliament located within that Unionist culture will struggle to be independent-minded in respect of English matters. Its whole surrounding environment will be hostile to what it will be set up to do. If civil service resources are shared the two will be indistinguishable. To be itself, an English Parliament will need its own space, its own separate physical existence. Will the transfer and distribution of employment and power just to one location in England be enough? Or is there something better, something more imaginative, something that is even more democratic that can be done? Can power be so distributed that its exercise binds all of England more closely, unites the English people more intimately, without the outcomes being cumbersome and inefficient? Can the powers and functions of an English Parliament be distributed round England so that more places and more people might benefit? I am not suggesting we copy the EU Parliament, which packs up every six months to flit between Brussels and Strasbourg, generating a huge additional expense that has no democratic value and is done only to please the French. Is there any other model? Whatever is done must genuinely extend democracy, involve more people and more places in the government of England. Secondly, whatever is set up must not mean just more of the same kind of government we have already. We must not follow the Scottish and Welsh model where the parliamentary payroll was added to by Members of the Scottish Parliament and 60 Members of the Welsh Assembly, all of them with their salaries, expenses and paid assistants and a deluge of more civil servants; yet without at first any reduction in the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs in Westminster. The members of the Scottish Parliament took over the great majority of the responsibilities of Scottish Westminster MPs, yet the salaries of the latter were retained in full. The situation of course was that the bloc of Scottish MPs in Westminster would never have let devolution for Scotland go through if it has meant taking a penny from their salaries. The cost of government must not be set by the pockets of the people who govern us. The public which foots the bill will not put up with it. Now, with that in mind, we might ask what is available to us through modern technology. Which brings us to the consideration of the constituent parts of an English Parliament. They will be the legislature, an Executive and, I hope, a second or revising chamber. The Scottish Parliament does not have one, nor does the Welsh Assembly. But besides that the executive power in every government is altogether subordinate to the legislative; besides this, I say, the exercise of this power requires an immense expence; and the commons have assumed to themselves the sole right of granting money. How easy, therefore, would it be for that house to wrest from the crown all these powers, one after another; by making every grant conditional, and choosing their time so well, that their refusal of supply should only distress the government, without giving foreign powers any advantage over us? Did the house of commons depend in the same manner on the king, and had none of the members any property but from his gift, would not he command all their resolutions, and be from that moment absolute? As to the house of lords, they are a very powerful support to the Crown, so long as they are, in their turn, supported by it; but both experience and reason shew, that they have no force or authority sufficient to maintain themselves alone, without such support. How, therefore, shall we solve this paradox? And by what means is this member of our constitution confined within the proper limits; since, from our very constitution, it must necessarily have as much power as it demands, and can only be confined by itself? Very recently, the newly established European Statutory Instruments Committee has a gender balanced membership by design, following an intervention from the Reference Group. Finally, the diversity of select committee witnesses is now something that officials routinely track, supporting efforts to ensure that Committees do not just rely on the same old rolodex of witnesses, that too often produce an over-representation of middle-aged, white men. This reform would end the reliance on the informal and opaque practice of pairing, which was always dependent upon the willingness of the Whips to grant leave and was always at the mercy of the pair behaving appropriately. The image of Mr Speaker taking advice from his Clerks as Members look on has the feel of a religious painting — I suspect if will become iconic. Note: as this was going to press the House announced the appointment of Sarah Davies as the first Clerk Assistant. Parliament should act as a role model rather than a reinforcer of gender norms. Language is angry—at times brutally so—in the Chamber. The language used matters; it entrenches gender divides and is inimical to inclusive debate. The importance of institutionalisation Westminster is not an unchanging institution. Whilst there are some indications of these bedding in, others are fragile in these earlier stages. Proxy voting—which, incidentally and possibly not coincidentally has not experienced any particular pressure from recent events—are written into the Standing Orders, but other conventions require time to become institutionalised. An English Parliament well away from London with the same powers for England as the Scottish Parliament has for Scotland could bring about a new flouring of the employment that both follows power and promotes it: media, accommodation, advertising, printing, design, fashion, publishing, civil servants, think-tanks, even international delegations. Artistic endeavour and output will gather there too, theatre and music, dance and opera, not as outposts of London institutions but in their own right. If an English Parliament has all its functions in one place, its location will be a centre and a magnet for employment which matters most , media and culture. The time has come to imagine England as a new reality, not as an appendage to London. England is a commonwealth within which London is a part, a mighty part indeed, but still no more than a part. There is something else to consider about London. It is the site of the UK Parliament. Westminster is Unionist through and through. After years of being the Union government and, till and the independence of India, the government of the Empire, is it fit for to be the capital of England again? Its concern was England. Since then its concern has been the Union and the Empire. British MPs remain concerned first and foremost with the Union, and not first and foremost England. They differ sharply in this from the MPs of Scotland. Consider, to take just one example, the plight of English refinery workers at Lindsey in Killingholme in Lincolnshire in The Union Parliament did nothing when the jobs were given to Italian workers. Yet in a similar situation in Scotland a 40 day period would apply, in which time local workers have first right to apply for jobs. Scotland has its political champion in the shape of its own parliament. England has no voice of its own. Environment matters. An English Parliament located within that Unionist culture will struggle to be independent-minded in respect of English matters. Its whole surrounding environment will be hostile to what it will be set up to do. Deciding which should be implemented was to be part of the Commons accepting its institutional responsibility for becoming a diversity sensitive parliament. With the Reference Group meeting monthly when the House sits, I became confident that The Good Parliament had a better than usual chance of effecting change. And over the last two years the Reference Group can claim some success.

How, therefore, shall we solve this paradox. The Good Parliament report is two years old.

The power of the crown is always lodged in a single person, either king or minister; and as this person may have either a greater or less degree of ambition, capacity, courage, popularity, or fortune, the power, which is too great in one hand, may become too little in another. In pure republics, where the authority is distributed among several assemblies or senates, the checks and controuls are more regular in their operation; because the members of such numerous assemblies may be presumed to be always nearly equal in capacity and virtue; and it is only their number, riches, or authority, which enter into consideration. But a limited monarchy admits not of any such stability; nor is it possible to assign to the crown such a determinate degree of power, as will, in every hand, form a proper counterbalance to the other parts of the constitution. This is an unavoidable disadvantage, among the many advantages, attending that species of government. See Dissertation on Parties, throughout. By that influence of the crown, which I would justify, I mean only that which arises from the offices and honours that are at the disposal of the crown. Scotland has genuine and effective home rule in the most important areas of internal government: education, health, local government, agriculture, fishing, culture, media, forestry, sport, independent of Westminster. So what are we talking about is an English Parliament which by its existence is the declaration that the people of England are politically and constitutionally a distinct nation within the Union and which, like in Scotland, in internal matters would exercise self-rule. We are talking about a real deal, precisely what Scotland has. The presumption till recently has always been London. But in the context of today is it the right one? How does it stand up against what is the one consideration, the only one, that should be borne in mind, namely what is best for the English people as a whole? What best serves the welfare of the people of England of today? The patriotic English man and woman can be expected to want the best for England as a nation. There is no binding necessity simply to go along with tradition and past usage. The House of Lords, as ancient as the Commons, is in the process of change. London as the location for the English Parliament can rightly be subjected to critical and objective scrutiny. London already has so much. It is the location of the Union Parliament, and the Union is hardly likely to break up. The Scots and the Welsh will never want it because a break-up is not in their economic and fiscal interests. And if they don't want it, it will not happen. A Union most likely in the form of a federation is what will happen. So London will continue to be the UK capital with all the immense kudos and advantages that that brings to it and to its inhabitants. It helps to compare what London has with the rest of England. It will soon have the most up-to-date, the best and the most expansive Olympic facilities going. The new London velodrome will replace the Manchester velodrome as the HQ of cycling. The new London swimming centre will likewise be the swimming HQ. With the Reference Group meeting monthly when the House sits, I became confident that The Good Parliament had a better than usual chance of effecting change. And over the last two years the Reference Group can claim some success. Its work has been recognised by the House of Commons Commission, and its influence is reaching across the political and administrative sides of the House. With the Reference Group meeting monthly when the House sits, I became confident that The Good Parliament had a better than usual chance of effecting change. And over the last two years the Reference Group can claim some success. Its work has been recognised by the House of Commons Commission, and its influence is reaching across the political and administrative sides of the House. At moments of unforeseen political crisis there may well have to be emergency ways of working; recalling parliament at short notice in such contexts will be necessary and appropriate. But most of the time, Parliament does not have to conduct its business the way it does. It is a moot point whether Brexit constitutes such an unexpected crisis. In The Good Parliament I offered a reformist blueprint. Parliamentary Time It is time to talk about the parliamentary timetable. Three recommendations speak directly to questions of when Parliament undertakes its work: Set the recess dates for each parliamentary session, at least one session in advance Abolish party conference recess and sitting Fridays Introduce greater predictability in the scheduling of House Business There has been no appetite for, and indeed resistance against the first and third recommendations. Recommendation 27 falls on the pragmatic grounds that conference venues have been booked in advance. We simply have to reform when Parliament sits — not just for its effects on MPs but on the health of all of those who work on the estate and — for those lacking sympathy for MPs — for the quality of our legislative outputs. It is a world cultural centre, equal to any other. London sucks in talent and skills from the rest of England with the irresistible force of a black hole. But to be English is not just to be London. One autumn evening about two years ago we walked along the south bank of the Thames from Vauxhall Bridge to City Hall. Both sides of the river swanked with the aroma and the glitter and the aura of wealth and power. Nowhere in England is there such a concentration of wealth, with its City tentacles reaching even today to the ends of the earth. Power is the honeypot. All other power, as exercised by local authorities, is at the disposal and under the command of Westminster. It is the possession of political power that gives London this pre-eminence, this immense concentration of wealth and culture. First the monarchy, then parliament. Power is where the money travels to, and that engine of money-making, the City, sits tight next to the seat of government. The Law Courts are there, theatre is there, the film world and the music world are there, fashion is there, and the media — BBC, ITV and Sky - are there; and all this irresistibly draws in talent from all over England. There is something inherently and deeply wrong if in any community one section of it predominates inordinately in wealth, employment and creativity, not by reason of innate ability but by reason of the location of power. This imbalance is as unfair to England as The West Lothian Question and other outcomes of the devolution legislation are. This is triple centralism and most unfair. What is on show is mind-boggling. The Science Museum now has a magnificent new Darwin Centre and the Natural History Museum displays arrays of objects almost beyond counting and now offers a new Earth Hall of fascinating interest. There is nothing like it elsewhere. I am just pointing out the obvious, that the location of power brings with it immense cultural and educational advantages. We should not create upheaval by the forced distribution of what is already in place; but we can consider not making it worse by locating the new English Parliament well outside of London, able by its power and importance to attract new cultural developments and new acquisitions and discoveries. It is difficult to see how the patriotic person wanting the best for England can find cause to disagree.

Consider, to take just one example, the plight of English refinery workers at Lindsey in Killingholme in Lincolnshire in.