Comments on: Who rules the roost?

By: Bedd Gelert

Bedd Gelert — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:14:10 +0000

This demonisation of Phil Woolas is just fatuous nonsense. Trying to portray him as ‘nasty’ when he is just dealing with pragmatic reality, and trying to stop the moral hazard of creating another ‘pull factor’ to suck in more immigrants who don’t have a right to be here is just helping to manage their expectations.

The alternative is that they risk life and limb by paying snakeheads and people traffickers to get them here when they won’t be allowed to stay.

By: leigh richards

leigh richards — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:45:30 +0000

well every opinion poll conducted in the last 10 years – and i mean EVERY opinion poll – has shown a majority of the welsh electorate support the National Assembly having greater powers than it currently has. If that is not a measure of the support for a ‘YES’ vote then i’d like to know what is?

By: Marcus Warner

Marcus Warner — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:55:11 +0000

My understanding is that the ratified One Wales agreement says this

“both parties will then take account of the success of the bedding down of the use of the new legislative powers (which came in after last May’s election) already available and, by monitoring the state of public opinion, will need to assess the levels of support for full law-making powers necessary to trigger the referendum”.

There is a conditionality and additional qualifications that lend itself to it being called an aspiration. I wouldn’t have used that word myself, but you are either not reading the same One Wales agreement I am, or just trying to score points. 2011 means nothing in many respects, because it is an artificial timetable if there is not clear support for a ‘yes’ vote.

So there is a two simple questions to answer;

If there is not sufficient support for a ‘yes’ vote, would you demand a referendum before 2011 anyway?

Where in One Wales does it say that a referendum has to be held before 2011? – the aspiration is in the fact that sufficient support needs to be there to proceed.

Your leader is a man with legal training, anyone with a modicum of legal insight can spot the loophole in that wording a mile off – it is exactly why the leadership in Plaid is keeping schtum.