FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Triumph for Parliamentary Sovereignty!
Triumph for Parliamentary Sovereignty!
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today! "There is no result yet is there ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today!
There is no result yet is there ?"High court have ruled that parliament will have to have a say. Of course its subject to another legal challenge to take to the supreme court, and after than even the European courts! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
it makes no difference | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" it makes no difference"Weren't you saying just a few days ago that it wasn't subject to legal challenge? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today!
There is no result yet is there ?"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785 cat well and truely amongst the pigeons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" it makes no difference
Weren't you saying just a few days ago that it wasn't subject to legal challenge? "no, you said leaving the EU was up for legal challenge, this is fuck all to do with leaving | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Parliament has to vote? WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY???" You mean our PARLIAMENTARY democracy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" it makes no difference
Weren't you saying just a few days ago that it wasn't subject to legal challenge?
no, you said leaving the EU was up for legal challenge, this is fuck all to do with leaving"And what if Parliament votes to remain in the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today!
There is no result yet is there ?
High court have ruled that parliament will have to have a say. Of course its subject to another legal challenge to take to the supreme court, and after than even the European courts! "MP's will have to tread and speak very carefully, they all may speak and vote their way out of a job | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Parliament has to vote? WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY??? You mean our PARLIAMENTARY democracy?" ok I'll ask you the question again that you keep refusing to answer. Should the Scottish Parliament have ignored the referendum in Scotland and had a vote to leave the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Parliament has to vote? WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY??? You mean our PARLIAMENTARY democracy? ok I'll ask you the question again that you keep refusing to answer. Should the Scottish Parliament have ignored the referendum in Scotland and had a vote to leave the UK?" The Scottish parliament isn't supreme, so it doesn't fall within their remit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Parliament has to vote? WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY??? You mean our PARLIAMENTARY democracy?" People didn't vote for a sovereign government to exert parliamentary sovereignty! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today!
There is no result yet is there ?
High court have ruled that parliament will have to have a say. Of course its subject to another legal challenge to take to the supreme court, and after than even the European courts!
MP's will have to tread and speak very carefully, they all may speak and vote their way out of a job"Do you think that MPs should vote the same way as their constituents? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Parliament has to vote? WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY??? You mean our PARLIAMENTARY democracy? ok I'll ask you the question again that you keep refusing to answer. Should the Scottish Parliament have ignored the referendum in Scotland and had a vote to leave the UK? The Scottish parliament isn't supreme, so it doesn't fall within their remit." thats not what I asked. Do you think it should have if it could? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Parliament has to vote? WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY??? You mean our PARLIAMENTARY democracy? ok I'll ask you the question again that you keep refusing to answer. Should the Scottish Parliament have ignored the referendum in Scotland and had a vote to leave the UK? The Scottish parliament isn't supreme, so it doesn't fall within their remit. thats not what I asked. Do you think it should have if it could?" What would be the point of it holding a vote? The Westminster parliament is supreme and always has been. The decision today supports that view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Parliament has to vote? WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY??? You mean our PARLIAMENTARY democracy? ok I'll ask you the question again that you keep refusing to answer. Should the Scottish Parliament have ignored the referendum in Scotland and had a vote to leave the UK? The Scottish parliament isn't supreme, so it doesn't fall within their remit. thats not what I asked. Do you think it should have if it could? What would be the point of it holding a vote? The Westminster parliament is supreme and always has been. The decision today supports that view. " You won't answer because that would be double standards wouldn't it? So do you think that the Westminster parliament should have ignored the will of the Scottish people and had a vote for them to leave? And ignore the will of the UK people and have a vote to remain or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever this turns out to be, it won't be a victory for democracy. Just for a lot of sad little toss pots who only care about what they can take from this country. Nevermind future generations, they won't be here to see what happens to them. But it is not over, because if BREXIT is overturned then there will be violence. We have spoken before and will speak again. ""There will be violence"?.......I don't think so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever this turns out to be, it won't be a victory for democracy. Just for a lot of sad little toss pots who only care about what they can take from this country. Nevermind future generations, they won't be here to see what happens to them. But it is not over, because if BREXIT is overturned then there will be violence. We have spoken before and will speak again. "It is because if attitudes like this that we have Parliamentary democracy. There are people out there folks who would use violence to force others into ceding their rights as a free citizen. What place has violence in our society when parliament is there to protect the hard earned rights and privileges of the population as a whole? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today!
There is no result yet is there ?
High court have ruled that parliament will have to have a say. Of course its subject to another legal challenge to take to the supreme court, and after than even the European courts!
MP's will have to tread and speak very carefully, they all may speak and vote their way out of a job
Do you think that MPs should vote the same way as their constituents? "Yes of course they shoul it what they are there to do nicky jordan has already said that despite voting remain the majority in her constituency and more importantly the country voted leave so she would vote for triggering article 50 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Parliament has to vote? WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY??? You mean our PARLIAMENTARY democracy? ok I'll ask you the question again that you keep refusing to answer. Should the Scottish Parliament have ignored the referendum in Scotland and had a vote to leave the UK? The Scottish parliament isn't supreme, so it doesn't fall within their remit. thats not what I asked. Do you think it should have if it could? What would be the point of it holding a vote? The Westminster parliament is supreme and always has been. The decision today supports that view. You won't answer because that would be double standards wouldn't it? So do you think that the Westminster parliament should have ignored the will of the Scottish people and had a vote for them to leave? And ignore the will of the UK people and have a vote to remain or not?" Westminster parliament is supreme in our democracy. People complained about EU supremacy, but this is proved to be fallacy by the very fact that countries can leave the EU without legal challenge from the EU. The Scottish parliament and the NI and Welsh Assemblies have been granted powers by Westminster, but these could also be revoked by Westminster. So many Leavers said during the campaign that they were passionately supportive of parliamentary sovereignty, yet don't really seem to understand it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Parliament has to vote? WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY??? You mean our PARLIAMENTARY democracy? ok I'll ask you the question again that you keep refusing to answer. Should the Scottish Parliament have ignored the referendum in Scotland and had a vote to leave the UK? The Scottish parliament isn't supreme, so it doesn't fall within their remit. thats not what I asked. Do you think it should have if it could? What would be the point of it holding a vote? The Westminster parliament is supreme and always has been. The decision today supports that view. You won't answer because that would be double standards wouldn't it? So do you think that the Westminster parliament should have ignored the will of the Scottish people and had a vote for them to leave? And ignore the will of the UK people and have a vote to remain or not? Westminster parliament is supreme in our democracy. People complained about EU supremacy, but this is proved to be fallacy by the very fact that countries can leave the EU without legal challenge from the EU. The Scottish parliament and the NI and Welsh Assemblies have been granted powers by Westminster, but these could also be revoked by Westminster. So many Leavers said during the campaign that they were passionately supportive of parliamentary sovereignty, yet don't really seem to understand it." no, you don't. Can you explain the referendum bill? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today!
There is no result yet is there ?
High court have ruled that parliament will have to have a say. Of course its subject to another legal challenge to take to the supreme court, and after than even the European courts!
MP's will have to tread and speak very carefully, they all may speak and vote their way out of a job
Do you think that MPs should vote the same way as their constituents?
Yes of course they shoul it what they are there to do nicky jordan has already said that despite voting remain the majority in her constituency and more importantly the country voted leave so she would vote for triggering article 50"But that's what I mean, should they vote what their constituents voted for, what their country voted for, or what the whole of the UK voted for? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We used our democratic vote in a national referendum, a referendum that would have gone unchallenged if it had gone the other way. The democratic process was observed, but the Libtards and their fellow travelers couldn't accept it. So yes, if it comes down to it, my boots are polished and ready." Look back to mid June. Your Supreme Leader Farage the Omnipotent said that a narrow remain victory would not be accepted and would be regarded as "unfinished business". You voted to bring laws that you thought had been lost to the EU back to the UK and now you get all hissy and childish threatening violence because the High Court of the UK has made a decision about U.K. Law. Perhaps you need to think things through a little before adopting the thought process of a skinhead hooligan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today!
There is no result yet is there ?
High court have ruled that parliament will have to have a say. Of course its subject to another legal challenge to take to the supreme court, and after than even the European courts!
MP's will have to tread and speak very carefully, they all may speak and vote their way out of a job
Do you think that MPs should vote the same way as their constituents?
Yes of course they shoul it what they are there to do nicky jordan has already said that despite voting remain the majority in her constituency and more importantly the country voted leave so she would vote for triggering article 50
But that's what I mean, should they vote what their constituents voted for, what their country voted for, or what the whole of the UK voted for? "Sorry to tell you this but if it was done on a first past post system constituency by constituency leave would still win | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We used our democratic vote in a national referendum, a referendum that would have gone unchallenged if it had gone the other way. The democratic process was observed, but the Libtards and their fellow travelers couldn't accept it. So yes, if it comes down to it, my boots are polished and ready. Look back to mid June. Your Supreme Leader Farage the Omnipotent said that a narrow remain victory would not be accepted and would be regarded as "unfinished business". You voted to bring laws that you thought had been lost to the EU back to the UK and now you get all hissy and childish threatening violence because the High Court of the UK has made a decision about U.K. Law. Perhaps you need to think things through a little before adopting the thought process of a skinhead hooligan." Absolutely fuck all to do with skinheads or hooligans. The overturning of a national referendum is cause for civil unrest, and that can quickly turn into riots. I hope that we still get BREXIT, but I don't trust politicians, especially not the liberal shower of shit. If our victory is replaces, then I don't care who leads the march on Whitehall, I will be there. If it gets ugly, then sobeit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know how many constituencies voted to Leave and how many constituencies voted to Remain? " Leave... A lot. Remain...A few. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know how many constituencies voted to Leave and how many constituencies voted to Remain? Leave... A lot. Remain...A few." 70 - 30 I think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We used our democratic vote in a national referendum, a referendum that would have gone unchallenged if it had gone the other way. The democratic process was observed, but the Libtards and their fellow travelers couldn't accept it. So yes, if it comes down to it, my boots are polished and ready. Look back to mid June. Your Supreme Leader Farage the Omnipotent said that a narrow remain victory would not be accepted and would be regarded as "unfinished business". You voted to bring laws that you thought had been lost to the EU back to the UK and now you get all hissy and childish threatening violence because the High Court of the UK has made a decision about U.K. Law. Perhaps you need to think things through a little before adopting the thought process of a skinhead hooligan. Absolutely fuck all to do with skinheads or hooligans. The overturning of a national referendum is cause for civil unrest, and that can quickly turn into riots. I hope that we still get BREXIT, but I don't trust politicians, especially not the liberal shower of shit. If our victory is replaces, then I don't care who leads the march on Whitehall, I will be there. If it gets ugly, then sobeit." Good luck with that. Brexiteers complain that they are labelled idiots and then one comes up with a plan for riots when the very thing he voted for is enacted. UK law is in process, it is being shown to be working, this is what you wanted. I am sure that demonstrating the caricature of a Brexit hooligan will help your cause. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever this turns out to be, it won't be a victory for democracy. Just for a lot of sad little toss pots who only care about what they can take from this country. Nevermind future generations, they won't be here to see what happens to them. But it is not over, because if BREXIT is overturned then there will be violence. We have spoken before and will speak again. "that you even mention violence says much about you, thankfully the likes of you across the political spectrum are a tiny minority.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is there going to be violence I voted to leave but not feeling violent Bloody stupid statement to make " but that is only u lol.there has been violent riots for far less.there are 1000 people capable of violence to every nice person like yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever this turns out to be, it won't be a victory for democracy. Just for a lot of sad little toss pots who only care about what they can take from this country. Nevermind future generations, they won't be here to see what happens to them. But it is not over, because if BREXIT is overturned then there will be violence. We have spoken before and will speak again.
It is because if attitudes like this that we have Parliamentary democracy.
There are people out there folks who would use violence to force others into ceding their rights as a free citizen.
What place has violence in our society when parliament is there to protect the hard earned rights and privileges of the population as a whole?"Agreed, up until 300-200 years ago many nation states, Empires, and Republics exercised a basic form of democracy where the 'winning' vote was all that mattered. Funnily enough this attitude eventually led to violent civil war or social revolution. Its almost as if ignoring a certain part of the demographic will lead to fascism or political extremes. If Brexit were to be overturned, and I don't think it will be or should be - I can imagine there'd be some violence from the malicious members of the leave group, but nothing our riot police couldnt handle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We used our democratic vote in a national referendum, a referendum that would have gone unchallenged if it had gone the other way. The democratic process was observed, but the Libtards and their fellow travelers couldn't accept it. So yes, if it comes down to it, my boots are polished and ready. Look back to mid June. Your Supreme Leader Farage the Omnipotent said that a narrow remain victory would not be accepted and would be regarded as "unfinished business". You voted to bring laws that you thought had been lost to the EU back to the UK and now you get all hissy and childish threatening violence because the High Court of the UK has made a decision about U.K. Law. Perhaps you need to think things through a little before adopting the thought process of a skinhead hooligan. Absolutely fuck all to do with skinheads or hooligans. The overturning of a national referendum is cause for civil unrest, and that can quickly turn into riots. I hope that we still get BREXIT, but I don't trust politicians, especially not the liberal shower of shit. If our victory is replaces, then I don't care who leads the march on Whitehall, I will be there. If it gets ugly, then sobeit. Good luck with that. Brexiteers complain that they are labelled idiots and then one comes up with a plan for riots when the very thing he voted for is enacted. UK law is in process, it is being shown to be working, this is what you wanted. I am sure that demonstrating the caricature of a Brexit hooligan will help your cause." A "BREXIT hooligan?" Do you make this garbage up as you go along?? I voted leave for a lot of reasons, national sovereignty was one of them, so was the so called "freedom of movement." Another reason was because it was supposed to be a serious in out referendum, with the result being respected whichever way it went. I also voted even though I didn't expect leave to win, just so the govt would know there was opposition to the remain campaign, who were favourite to win in all polls and even at the bookies. I said my boots were polished ready to march, and I meant that. I said nothing about planning violence. Just that I would not be surprised, and if it happens sobeit. Someone somewhere will have to pay if our votes meant nothing in the end, it would be great if it was politicians this time and not the poor old police. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day" with respect you need to read what has been said by the High court.. all they have said is that the decision must be taken by Parliament and not the PM as to do so would be unconstitutional.. there probably will be a delay past the date that May plucked from the air yes, but what is wrong with the sovereign body making that decision? it was a core point of the Brexit campaign in any case.. it will still happen and there will not be a 2nd referendum but given where we were 4 months ago with literally no negotiators and the task which is massive and massively important for our kids and their kids futures.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day" Perhaps you should read the ruling. The ruling is not that The referendum result is being ignored but that one person cannot take responsibility for removing the rights and privileges of a whole nation. In practice it means that Prime Minister May and her little team of C rate politicians cannot do what they have been doing and making it up as they go along. They will have to be accountable and their motives and plans will be scrutinised and voted on so that any Brexit deal agreed will be carried by the majority of parliament and therefore by definition, the majority of the country. This is all about UK law being recognised as having supremacy above all else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever this turns out to be, it won't be a victory for democracy. Just for a lot of sad little toss pots who only care about what they can take from this country. Nevermind future generations, they won't be here to see what happens to them. But it is not over, because if BREXIT is overturned then there will be violence. We have spoken before and will speak again.
that you even mention violence says much about you, thankfully the likes of you across the political spectrum are a tiny minority.."What it says is that there are people who will not accept that they won a referendum for nothing, and there will be protests on the streets. I expect that the popliticians will order the police to try to kettle the protesters in, but there will be too many and that will lead to violence. This is what can happen when a bunch of toffee nosed tossers offer something to the working classes and then take it away. Personally I'd prefer civil war to potentially violent protests, but it is obviously not my shout. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We used our democratic vote in a national referendum, a referendum that would have gone unchallenged if it had gone the other way. The democratic process was observed, but the Libtards and their fellow travelers couldn't accept it. So yes, if it comes down to it, my boots are polished and ready. Look back to mid June. Your Supreme Leader Farage the Omnipotent said that a narrow remain victory would not be accepted and would be regarded as "unfinished business". You voted to bring laws that you thought had been lost to the EU back to the UK and now you get all hissy and childish threatening violence because the High Court of the UK has made a decision about U.K. Law. Perhaps you need to think things through a little before adopting the thought process of a skinhead hooligan. Absolutely fuck all to do with skinheads or hooligans. The overturning of a national referendum is cause for civil unrest, and that can quickly turn into riots. I hope that we still get BREXIT, but I don't trust politicians, especially not the liberal shower of shit. If our victory is replaces, then I don't care who leads the march on Whitehall, I will be there. If it gets ugly, then sobeit. Good luck with that. Brexiteers complain that they are labelled idiots and then one comes up with a plan for riots when the very thing he voted for is enacted. UK law is in process, it is being shown to be working, this is what you wanted. I am sure that demonstrating the caricature of a Brexit hooligan will help your cause. A "BREXIT hooligan?" Do you make this garbage up as you go along?? I voted leave for a lot of reasons, national sovereignty was one of them, so was the so called "freedom of movement." Another reason was because it was supposed to be a serious in out referendum, with the result being respected whichever way it went. I also voted even though I didn't expect leave to win, just so the govt would know there was opposition to the remain campaign, who were favourite to win in all polls and even at the bookies. I said my boots were polished ready to march, and I meant that. I said nothing about planning violence. Just that I would not be surprised, and if it happens sobeit. Someone somewhere will have to pay if our votes meant nothing in the end, it would be great if it was politicians this time and not the poor old police." You voted Brexit because you wanted UK law to be the ultimate supremacy. UK law is being enacted on core United Kingdom constitutional issues and because you don't like the result you threaten violence. Grow up. Why would anyone want any kind of Brexit process that was not constitutionally bullet proof? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Personally I'd prefer civil war to potentially violent protests, but it is obviously not my shout."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever this turns out to be, it won't be a victory for democracy. Just for a lot of sad little toss pots who only care about what they can take from this country. Nevermind future generations, they won't be here to see what happens to them. But it is not over, because if BREXIT is overturned then there will be violence. We have spoken before and will speak again.
that you even mention violence says much about you, thankfully the likes of you across the political spectrum are a tiny minority..
What it says is that there are people who will not accept that they won a referendum for nothing, and there will be protests on the streets. I expect that the popliticians will order the police to try to kettle the protesters in, but there will be too many and that will lead to violence.
This is what can happen when a bunch of toffee nosed tossers offer something to the working classes and then take it away.
Personally I'd prefer civil war to potentially violent protests, but it is obviously not my shout."you do know that Brexit is still the accepted democratic viewpoint, it hasn't changed with todays ruling.. there will be no 2nd referendum which some like yourself keep saying that those who voted to remain are after.. there will be a delay yes but if that allows the sovereign body which is Parliament to ensure that the deal is the best for the country in the long term then that's fine surely as we all benefit.. when I hear such vacuous drivel from people I just think wind and piss, we are a democratic country we don't sort issues out with revolution.. any such talk is on par with IS and their vile rhetoric so do yourself a favour and stop it.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever this turns out to be, it won't be a victory for democracy. Just for a lot of sad little toss pots who only care about what they can take from this country. Nevermind future generations, they won't be here to see what happens to them. But it is not over, because if BREXIT is overturned then there will be violence. We have spoken before and will speak again.
that you even mention violence says much about you, thankfully the likes of you across the political spectrum are a tiny minority..
What it says is that there are people who will not accept that they won a referendum for nothing, and there will be protests on the streets. I expect that the popliticians will order the police to try to kettle the protesters in, but there will be too many and that will lead to violence.
This is what can happen when a bunch of toffee nosed tossers offer something to the working classes and then take it away.
Personally I'd prefer civil war to potentially violent protests, but it is obviously not my shout."I didn't realise Assad had a swinging account. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We used our democratic vote in a national referendum, a referendum that would have gone unchallenged if it had gone the other way. The democratic process was observed, but the Libtards and their fellow travelers couldn't accept it. So yes, if it comes down to it, my boots are polished and ready. Look back to mid June. Your Supreme Leader Farage the Omnipotent said that a narrow remain victory would not be accepted and would be regarded as "unfinished business". You voted to bring laws that you thought had been lost to the EU back to the UK and now you get all hissy and childish threatening violence because the High Court of the UK has made a decision about U.K. Law. Perhaps you need to think things through a little before adopting the thought process of a skinhead hooligan. Absolutely fuck all to do with skinheads or hooligans. The overturning of a national referendum is cause for civil unrest, and that can quickly turn into riots. I hope that we still get BREXIT, but I don't trust politicians, especially not the liberal shower of shit. If our victory is replaces, then I don't care who leads the march on Whitehall, I will be there. If it gets ugly, then sobeit. Good luck with that. Brexiteers complain that they are labelled idiots and then one comes up with a plan for riots when the very thing he voted for is enacted. UK law is in process, it is being shown to be working, this is what you wanted. I am sure that demonstrating the caricature of a Brexit hooligan will help your cause. A "BREXIT hooligan?" Do you make this garbage up as you go along?? I voted leave for a lot of reasons, national sovereignty was one of them, so was the so called "freedom of movement." Another reason was because it was supposed to be a serious in out referendum, with the result being respected whichever way it went. I also voted even though I didn't expect leave to win, just so the govt would know there was opposition to the remain campaign, who were favourite to win in all polls and even at the bookies. I said my boots were polished ready to march, and I meant that. I said nothing about planning violence. Just that I would not be surprised, and if it happens sobeit. Someone somewhere will have to pay if our votes meant nothing in the end, it would be great if it was politicians this time and not the poor old police. You voted Brexit because you wanted UK law to be the ultimate supremacy. UK law is being enacted on core United Kingdom constitutional issues and because you don't like the result you threaten violence. Grow up. Why would anyone want any kind of Brexit process that was not constitutionally bullet proof? " It is BREXIT itself that should be bullet proof, the wig wearing wankers in the high court have just put it out there to be shot at, and I have no doubt that despite her bluster May had a hand in this. Also I doubt if this will only lead to transparency in how leaving the EU is dealt with, that is just a ploy. They are trying to keep the masses quiet while pulling the rug out from under our feet. As the Discharge classic went, we're being shit on far too long... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever this turns out to be, it won't be a victory for democracy. Just for a lot of sad little toss pots who only care about what they can take from this country. Nevermind future generations, they won't be here to see what happens to them. But it is not over, because if BREXIT is overturned then there will be violence. We have spoken before and will speak again.
that you even mention violence says much about you, thankfully the likes of you across the political spectrum are a tiny minority..
What it says is that there are people who will not accept that they won a referendum for nothing, and there will be protests on the streets. I expect that the popliticians will order the police to try to kettle the protesters in, but there will be too many and that will lead to violence.
This is what can happen when a bunch of toffee nosed tossers offer something to the working classes and then take it away.
Personally I'd prefer civil war to potentially violent protests, but it is obviously not my shout.
I didn't realise Assad had a swinging account."I didn't realise Kermit had one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day" You realise that one of the people holding our PM to account in our British Law Courts Supported Brexit. Right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" it makes no difference"You are right... it doesn't make any difference, which is why I was so surprised the government and so many leavers were fighting this.... After all... wasn't the case being made to leave is that it would give parliament more power over decisions? And yet many wanted that power taken away from them.... the irony At this stage the government have nothing to lose by having a debate over the opening negotiation position... in fact it may help people realise what the vision of brexit actually is... I still maintain that parliament or ref 2 at the final deal stage should be some sort of vote... but at the moment this is a storm in a teacup | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" it makes no difference
You are right... it doesn't make any difference, which is why I was so surprised the government and so many leavers were fighting this....
After all... wasn't the case being made to leave is that it would give parliament more power over decisions? And yet many wanted that power taken away from them.... the irony
At this stage the government have nothing to lose by having a debate over the opening negotiation position... in fact it may help people realise what the vision of brexit actually is...
I still maintain that parliament or ref 2 at the final deal stage should be some sort of vote... but at the moment this is a storm in a teacup "blimey, we're in agreement  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever this turns out to be, it won't be a victory for democracy. Just for a lot of sad little toss pots who only care about what they can take from this country. Nevermind future generations, they won't be here to see what happens to them. But it is not over, because if BREXIT is overturned then there will be violence. We have spoken before and will speak again.
that you even mention violence says much about you, thankfully the likes of you across the political spectrum are a tiny minority..
What it says is that there are people who will not accept that they won a referendum for nothing, and there will be protests on the streets. I expect that the popliticians will order the police to try to kettle the protesters in, but there will be too many and that will lead to violence.
This is what can happen when a bunch of toffee nosed tossers offer something to the working classes and then take it away.
Personally I'd prefer civil war to potentially violent protests, but it is obviously not my shout.
I didn't realise Assad had a swinging account.
I didn't realise Kermit had one."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUGlOKsJGuI | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever this turns out to be, it won't be a victory for democracy. Just for a lot of sad little toss pots who only care about what they can take from this country. Nevermind future generations, they won't be here to see what happens to them. But it is not over, because if BREXIT is overturned then there will be violence. We have spoken before and will speak again. "Is that your 'rivers of blood' speech? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" it makes no difference
You are right... it doesn't make any difference, which is why I was so surprised the government and so many leavers were fighting this....
After all... wasn't the case being made to leave is that it would give parliament more power over decisions? And yet many wanted that power taken away from them.... the irony
At this stage the government have nothing to lose by having a debate over the opening negotiation position... in fact it may help people realise what the vision of brexit actually is...
I still maintain that parliament or ref 2 at the final deal stage should be some sort of vote... but at the moment this is a storm in a teacup "I think some of the people who are looking at the amount of work needed may well welcome any delay, May seemed to pick the date of before March next year out of the air to give some sections of the media and the more strident voices in the EU who want to get it done soonish lest it spreads etc.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever this turns out to be, it won't be a victory for democracy. Just for a lot of sad little toss pots who only care about what they can take from this country. Nevermind future generations, they won't be here to see what happens to them. But it is not over, because if BREXIT is overturned then there will be violence. We have spoken before and will speak again.
Is that your 'rivers of blood' speech?"Oh dear, the nasty wiberwal accused me of being like Enoch Powel! What am I going to do?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ruling gives the power to start article 50 to parliament There is no compulsion for mp's to vote the same way as their constituents. If parliament decides against enacting article 50 we will not leave the EU. If parliament decides to enact article 50 we will leave the EU. The opinion of the hoi poloi, or those who could be bothered to vote is already known but is only advisory in that parliament will make up it's own mind whether we leave or not, we cannot leave if parliament decide not to enact article 50. I stand by what i said, it is a bad day for democracy. Whether the decision is right or wrong it was made democraticaly." If Parliament has the last word...wtf is the point of having a referendum...any referendum, if Parliament can override the will of the majority!? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ruling gives the power to start article 50 to parliament There is no compulsion for mp's to vote the same way as their constituents. If parliament decides against enacting article 50 we will not leave the EU. If parliament decides to enact article 50 we will leave the EU. The opinion of the hoi poloi, or those who could be bothered to vote is already known but is only advisory in that parliament will make up it's own mind whether we leave or not, we cannot leave if parliament decide not to enact article 50. I stand by what i said, it is a bad day for democracy. Whether the decision is right or wrong it was made democraticaly. If Parliament has the last word...wtf is the point of having a referendum...any referendum, if Parliament can override the will of the majority!? " It won't be overriding the will of the majority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ruling gives the power to start article 50 to parliament There is no compulsion for mp's to vote the same way as their constituents. If parliament decides against enacting article 50 we will not leave the EU. If parliament decides to enact article 50 we will leave the EU. The opinion of the hoi poloi, or those who could be bothered to vote is already known but is only advisory in that parliament will make up it's own mind whether we leave or not, we cannot leave if parliament decide not to enact article 50. I stand by what i said, it is a bad day for democracy. Whether the decision is right or wrong it was made democraticaly. If Parliament has the last word...wtf is the point of having a referendum...any referendum, if Parliament can override the will of the majority!? " For goodness sake. You voted for Brexit.... you got it. Now, your elected representatives will discuss how to implement it. Better that than a small group of c grade Tories deciding the fate of the nation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If Parliament has the last word...wtf is the point of having a referendum...any referendum, if Parliament can override the will of the majority!? " . It can't we don't have a written constitution as such BUT as unwritten rule, constitutional changes are put to the people via a referendum or a general election and then parliament is meant to legally enact them..... That's how it's meant to work anyhow, the reality is power holds power, we the people have no power except the power to civil unrest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fille, excuse me for not quoting your post. It is long. You seem to assume that the 12 million who did not vote would have preferred to remain. I would prefer to think that they did not care either way, otherwise they would have voted to express their opinion. As for polls, well, you know how reliable they are. The referendum result was Brexit. You would have preferred a method different to a referendum?" Preferably for a huge decision like this, a higher threshold than a simple majority would normally be required for a referendum to be binding. It was precisely why this should be advisory. However I personally would settle for a second referendum with only a 50.1% vote. A second vote to leave, even by 0.1% is final. However, I would want it to be after a proper lengthy debate, following a proposed new vision of the future the government believe they can deliver (best and worst scenario's perhaps) properly scrutinised and fact checked by the media. Not a rushed campaign full of lies and with one side merely arguing against what we have now, rather than giving us a realistic alternative, while the media focused on the drama of internal party politics of the Tory Party. This is such a big issue, how were we so immature? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day" Well said  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day with respect you need to read what has been said by the High court.. all they have said is that the decision must be taken by Parliament and not the PM as to do so would be unconstitutional.. there probably will be a delay past the date that May plucked from the air yes, but what is wrong with the sovereign body making that decision? it was a core point of the Brexit campaign in any case.. it will still happen and there will not be a 2nd referendum but given where we were 4 months ago with literally no negotiators and the task which is massive and massively important for our kids and their kids futures.. " So if David Cameron had the balls to do what he said he would do if the vote was leave and trigger Article 50 the next day he would have been breaking the law then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day with respect you need to read what has been said by the High court.. all they have said is that the decision must be taken by Parliament and not the PM as to do so would be unconstitutional.. there probably will be a delay past the date that May plucked from the air yes, but what is wrong with the sovereign body making that decision? it was a core point of the Brexit campaign in any case.. it will still happen and there will not be a 2nd referendum but given where we were 4 months ago with literally no negotiators and the task which is massive and massively important for our kids and their kids futures.. So if David Cameron had the balls to do what he said he would do if the vote was leave and trigger Article 50 the next day he would have been breaking the law then. " Yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fille, excuse me for not quoting your post. It is long. You seem to assume that the 12 million who did not vote would have preferred to remain. I would prefer to think that they did not care either way, otherwise they would have voted to express their opinion. As for polls, well, you know how reliable they are. The referendum result was Brexit. You would have preferred a method different to a referendum? Preferably for a huge decision like this, a higher threshold than a simple majority would normally be required for a referendum to be binding. It was precisely why this should be advisory. However I personally would settle for a second referendum with only a 50.1% vote. A second vote to leave, even by 0.1% is final. However, I would want it to be after a proper lengthy debate, following a proposed new vision of the future the government believe they can deliver (best and worst scenario's perhaps) properly scrutinised and fact checked by the media. Not a rushed campaign full of lies and with one side merely arguing against what we have now, rather than giving us a realistic alternative, while the media focused on the drama of internal party politics of the Tory Party. This is such a big issue, how were we so immature?" I certainly do not recall it as a rushed campain, nor do I think that the voters were immature. It sounds as if you simply did not like the result. So how many referendums on the issue would you like to hold? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day with respect you need to read what has been said by the High court.. all they have said is that the decision must be taken by Parliament and not the PM as to do so would be unconstitutional.. there probably will be a delay past the date that May plucked from the air yes, but what is wrong with the sovereign body making that decision? it was a core point of the Brexit campaign in any case.. it will still happen and there will not be a 2nd referendum but given where we were 4 months ago with literally no negotiators and the task which is massive and massively important for our kids and their kids futures.. So if David Cameron had the balls to do what he said he would do if the vote was leave and trigger Article 50 the next day he would have been breaking the law then. " Theresa May is complicit in that she delayed A50 for months, imo deliberately allowing time for this so called "legal challenge." This betrayal will be remembered by historians as one of, if not the very worst of all time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ruling gives the power to start article 50 to parliament There is no compulsion for mp's to vote the same way as their constituents. If parliament decides against enacting article 50 we will not leave the EU. If parliament decides to enact article 50 we will leave the EU. The opinion of the hoi poloi, or those who could be bothered to vote is already known but is only advisory in that parliament will make up it's own mind whether we leave or not, we cannot leave if parliament decide not to enact article 50. I stand by what i said, it is a bad day for democracy. Whether the decision is right or wrong it was made democraticaly. If Parliament has the last word...wtf is the point of having a referendum...any referendum, if Parliament can override the will of the majority!? It won't be overriding the will of the majority." You quoted poll after poll which only askatiny percent of those eligble to vote the ONLY poll that counts is the official one, everyone who is of age to vote can the majority that bothered to vote voted out, surely even you can pretend that isnt the case. I am sure that on the day of the vote (if the sumpreme court doesnt overturn todays decision) there will be the biggest public assembly in our history outside parliament demanding MP's abide by the publics decision, if they do vote to remain then when we have an election UKIP will wipe the board and we will leave anyway. While I support the view that the courts are a protection against government tyranny if parliament go against the vote they are destroying the very democracy todays decicison is meant to protect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day with respect you need to read what has been said by the High court.. all they have said is that the decision must be taken by Parliament and not the PM as to do so would be unconstitutional.. there probably will be a delay past the date that May plucked from the air yes, but what is wrong with the sovereign body making that decision? it was a core point of the Brexit campaign in any case.. it will still happen and there will not be a 2nd referendum but given where we were 4 months ago with literally no negotiators and the task which is massive and massively important for our kids and their kids futures.. So if David Cameron had the balls to do what he said he would do if the vote was leave and trigger Article 50 the next day he would have been breaking the law then. " not sure about breaking the law as there probably isn't a specific law in the statute in relation to that scenario, what the judgement is about is that its not in the powers of the PM to do so and that Parliament is sovereign .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day with respect you need to read what has been said by the High court.. all they have said is that the decision must be taken by Parliament and not the PM as to do so would be unconstitutional.. there probably will be a delay past the date that May plucked from the air yes, but what is wrong with the sovereign body making that decision? it was a core point of the Brexit campaign in any case.. it will still happen and there will not be a 2nd referendum but given where we were 4 months ago with literally no negotiators and the task which is massive and massively important for our kids and their kids futures.. So if David Cameron had the balls to do what he said he would do if the vote was leave and trigger Article 50 the next day he would have been breaking the law then. Theresa May is complicit in that she delayed A50 for months, imo deliberately allowing time for this so called "legal challenge." This betrayal will be remembered by historians as one of, if not the very worst of all time." There was no plan.. let alone any structure for actually implementing the plan at that time.. to have triggered it the day after when we did not have the trained negotiators would have been not the most sensible idea.. Cameron knew it and bailed out, Boris and Gove both knew it and ducked the job of Tory leader.. what we have is the equivalent of sitting in our dry and warm house and someone says lets go for a walk and its pissing down.. by all means yes lets go for a walk but lets put on our waterproofs rather than walk out and get wet.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually it is the people who are Sovereign not Parliament" yes and the people know full well that they will be held to account by their constituents if they don't vote it through if its the best deal for us.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has anyone considered the other member states could they get impatient and for their own stability trigger article 50 for us ie throw us out?" . No they can't, it can only be enacted by the UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ruling gives the power to start article 50 to parliament There is no compulsion for mp's to vote the same way as their constituents. If parliament decides against enacting article 50 we will not leave the EU. If parliament decides to enact article 50 we will leave the EU. The opinion of the hoi poloi, or those who could be bothered to vote is already known but is only advisory in that parliament will make up it's own mind whether we leave or not, we cannot leave if parliament decide not to enact article 50. I stand by what i said, it is a bad day for democracy. Whether the decision is right or wrong it was made democraticaly. If Parliament has the last word...wtf is the point of having a referendum...any referendum, if Parliament can override the will of the majority!? It won't be overriding the will of the majority. You quoted poll after poll which only askatiny percent of those eligble to vote the ONLY poll that counts is the official one, everyone who is of age to vote can the majority that bothered to vote voted out, surely even you can pretend that isnt the case. I am sure that on the day of the vote (if the sumpreme court doesnt overturn todays decision) there will be the biggest public assembly in our history outside parliament demanding MP's abide by the publics decision, if they do vote to remain then when we have an election UKIP will wipe the board and we will leave anyway. While I support the view that the courts are a protection against government tyranny if parliament go against the vote they are destroying the very democracy todays decicison is meant to protect " . You think people will turn off Jeremy and get off the sofa??. I think your asking to much of most folk there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today! "No, a very short sighted mess. The ultimate result MPs vote to allow the PM to trigger article 50. Theresa May triggers it in March then MPs cannot agree on the broad details to negotiate; the result nothing is agreed and we end up exiting the EU under WTO terms. Parliament is supreme, remainers are smug as we end up with tarrifs, poor trading terms and the UK loses out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If Parliament has the last word...wtf is the point of having a referendum...any referendum, if Parliament can override the will of the majority!? . It can't we don't have a written constitution as such BUT as unwritten rule, constitutional changes are put to the people via a referendum or a general election and then parliament is meant to legally enact them..... That's how it's meant to work anyhow, the reality is power holds power, we the people have no power except the power to civil unrest?" Actually we have an uncodified constitution. It is not unwritten. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is interesting on this and the other thread in the lounge is that a lot of those who clearly voted to leave are screaming foul and its been stopped etc and have clearly not looked at what was the question at the high court and what the actual answer was and what is going to happen now.. it seems and I know its not scientific that its mainly but not all those on the remain side who are trying to explain it and calm them down.. all a bit bizarre.. " The angry Brexiters are simply reverting to type and not caring to read the ruling or try to understand what it means. It is unfortunate really because it just reinforces the stereotype that many of the Brexit voters did not consider the wider implications of their vote. By not reading or even trying to understand the ruling and simply shouting foul, demonstrates a poor sense of political, cosntitutional and legal awareness. There are no Remainers jumping up and down shouting "You lost in Court, get over it." On the contrary, they are telling you that you won in Court. Parliamentary democracy has prevailed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I certainly do not recall it as a rushed campain, nor do I think that the voters were immature. It sounds as if you simply did not like the result. So how many referendums on the issue would you like to hold?" Of course it was rushed. If it wasn't how come we STILL don't have a clue what we want to move TO? The people weren't immature, the campaigns and the media coverage were. The people throughout were screaming for all the issues to be presented to them properly so they could make an informed decision. Instead we had '£350m to the NHS' and 'everyone will be £4k worse off immediately after a Leave vote'. We also had one side actively excluding experts. I didn't like the result though, you are right. It sounds as if you can't believe your luck and know a second campaign, free of the lies and sideshow Tory infighting would highlight the weakness of many of the Leave arguments and reverse the result. The people had their protest, now it is getting real for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If Parliament has the last word...wtf is the point of having a referendum...any referendum, if Parliament can override the will of the majority!? . It can't we don't have a written constitution as such BUT as unwritten rule, constitutional changes are put to the people via a referendum or a general election and then parliament is meant to legally enact them..... That's how it's meant to work anyhow, the reality is power holds power, we the people have no power except the power to civil unrest? Actually we have an uncodified constitution. It is not unwritten." . Ahh right,i didn't know that. I'd love to read it where can I find it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If Parliament has the last word...wtf is the point of having a referendum...any referendum, if Parliament can override the will of the majority!? . It can't we don't have a written constitution as such BUT as unwritten rule, constitutional changes are put to the people via a referendum or a general election and then parliament is meant to legally enact them..... That's how it's meant to work anyhow, the reality is power holds power, we the people have no power except the power to civil unrest? Actually we have an uncodified constitution. It is not unwritten.. Ahh right,i didn't know that. I'd love to read it where can I find it?" Acts of parliament and Hansard mainly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If Parliament has the last word...wtf is the point of having a referendum...any referendum, if Parliament can override the will of the majority!? . It can't we don't have a written constitution as such BUT as unwritten rule, constitutional changes are put to the people via a referendum or a general election and then parliament is meant to legally enact them..... That's how it's meant to work anyhow, the reality is power holds power, we the people have no power except the power to civil unrest? Actually we have an uncodified constitution. It is not unwritten.. Ahh right,i didn't know that. I'd love to read it where can I find it? Acts of parliament and Hansard mainly."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I certainly do not recall it as a rushed campain, nor do I think that the voters were immature. It sounds as if you simply did not like the result. So how many referendums on the issue would you like to hold? Of course it was rushed. If it wasn't how come we STILL don't have a clue what we want to move TO? The people weren't immature, the campaigns and the media coverage were. The people throughout were screaming for all the issues to be presented to them properly so they could make an informed decision. Instead we had '£350m to the NHS' and 'everyone will be £4k worse off immediately after a Leave vote'. We also had one side actively excluding experts. I didn't like the result though, you are right. It sounds as if you can't believe your luck and know a second campaign, free of the lies and sideshow Tory infighting would highlight the weakness of many of the Leave arguments and reverse the result. The people had their protest, now it is getting real for them. " That would be because the referendum question was to stay or to leave. How else could it possibly have been phrased? Were you taken in by the extreme claims? I wasn't. Why do you think others were? The campaigns went on for many months. How many referendums would satisfy you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Goes to show that ukip still has a purpose and a job to do. If the will of the people is overturned there will be hell to pay. Parliament gave the authority for the people to decide in a referendum and now judges have ruled against that. What purpose was the original parliamentary decision to let British people decide??" That's not what it means it means the whole of Parliament decides when Article 50 is triggered not the PM. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know how many constituencies voted to Leave and how many constituencies voted to Remain? " Yes, I've answered this before - If the Brexit vote had been carried out on an FTPT basis, then there would have been a majority in favour of leaving the EU of 192 seats - larger than the largest ever landslide win by any party in a general election. Leave would have got 421 seats, with remain on 229. This from Buzzfeed news. Political scientist Chris Hanretty also did a more scientific and complex study, across England and Wales only, which came out with 421 seats out of 574 voting leave. In either case, no-one would be moaning about the result as such. Hope that's answered your query. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Goes to show that ukip still has a purpose and a job to do. If the will of the people is overturned there will be hell to pay. Parliament gave the authority for the people to decide in a referendum and now judges have ruled against that. What purpose was the original parliamentary decision to let British people decide?? That's not what it means it means the whole of Parliament decides when Article 50 is triggered not the PM." No, it means that MP's must give their go-ahead before article 50 is triggered. It has enormous problems as this could effectively go on for a very very long time. As I said, UKIP still have a job to do. I will be telling my (Conservative) MP that she won't get my vote in future unless she supports the PM in any debate on triggering article 50. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That would be because the referendum question was to stay or to leave. How else could it possibly have been phrased? Were you taken in by the extreme claims? I wasn't. Why do you think others were? The campaigns went on for many months. How many referendums would satisfy you?" Many were taken in. Some were unable to make any decision. One more referendum would satisfy me. As for the phrasing, Well, if you had an evening meal of beef for many years and were presented with a vote to have something different, you are probably going to vote to change. However if when you look at what the new chef is going to give you you find him preparing you a plate of dog shit, you just might be inclined to want another vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That would be because the referendum question was to stay or to leave. How else could it possibly have been phrased? Were you taken in by the extreme claims? I wasn't. Why do you think others were? The campaigns went on for many months. How many referendums would satisfy you? Many were taken in. Some were unable to make any decision. One more referendum would satisfy me. As for the phrasing, Well, if you had an evening meal of beef for many years and were presented with a vote to have something different, you are probably going to vote to change. However if when you look at what the new chef is going to give you you find him preparing you a plate of dog shit, you just might be inclined to want another vote. " but we've had dogshit for years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That would be because the referendum question was to stay or to leave. How else could it possibly have been phrased? Were you taken in by the extreme claims? I wasn't. Why do you think others were? The campaigns went on for many months. How many referendums would satisfy you? Many were taken in. Some were unable to make any decision. One more referendum would satisfy me. As for the phrasing, Well, if you had an evening meal of beef for many years and were presented with a vote to have something different, you are probably going to vote to change. However if when you look at what the new chef is going to give you you find him preparing you a plate of dog shit, you just might be inclined to want another vote. " The existing chef was already serving that. I didn't fancy it. "Taken in." I assume that you mean, "Did not agree with your view." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We used our democratic vote in a national referendum, a referendum that would have gone unchallenged if it had gone the other way. The democratic process was observed, but the Libtards and their fellow travelers couldn't accept it. So yes, if it comes down to it, my boots are polished and ready. Look back to mid June. Your Supreme Leader Farage the Omnipotent said that a narrow remain victory would not be accepted and would be regarded as "unfinished business". You voted to bring laws that you thought had been lost to the EU back to the UK and now you get all hissy and childish threatening violence because the High Court of the UK has made a decision about U.K. Law. Perhaps you need to think things through a little before adopting the thought process of a skinhead hooligan. Absolutely fuck all to do with skinheads or hooligans. The overturning of a national referendum is cause for civil unrest, and that can quickly turn into riots. I hope that we still get BREXIT, but I don't trust politicians, especially not the liberal shower of shit. If our victory is replaces, then I don't care who leads the march on Whitehall, I will be there. If it gets ugly, then sobeit. Good luck with that. Brexiteers complain that they are labelled idiots and then one comes up with a plan for riots when the very thing he voted for is enacted. UK law is in process, it is being shown to be working, this is what you wanted. I am sure that demonstrating the caricature of a Brexit hooligan will help your cause. A "BREXIT hooligan?" Do you make this garbage up as you go along?? I voted leave for a lot of reasons, national sovereignty was one of them, so was the so called "freedom of movement." Another reason was because it was supposed to be a serious in out referendum, with the result being respected whichever way it went. I also voted even though I didn't expect leave to win, just so the govt would know there was opposition to the remain campaign, who were favourite to win in all polls and even at the bookies. I said my boots were polished ready to march, and I meant that. I said nothing about planning violence. Just that I would not be surprised, and if it happens sobeit. Someone somewhere will have to pay if our votes meant nothing in the end, it would be great if it was politicians this time and not the poor old police." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today! "It is treason simple as,the judges and most MP's put there own self interest before the will of the people IT IS DISCUSTING FILTHY TRAITOROUS PIGS. DEMOCRACY MUST PREVAIL | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It always was a preposterous suggestion that Prime Minister May alone had the sole right to remove all the privileges and rights of EU Membership of 65,000,000 people. A third runway at Heathrow detrimentally affects a couple of million people and parliament had to debate it. Brexit will detrimentally affect 65,000,000 people and so of course Parliament should debate it. What do we expect from the debates and votes in a Parliament?... That the UK Govt must have a viable and working Brexit plan that is good for the country. No matter that the Brexit referendum was a narrow win, Parliament will not vote to make the country poorer." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" it makes no difference
You are right... it doesn't make any difference, which is why I was so surprised the government and so many leavers were fighting this....
After all... wasn't the case being made to leave is that it would give parliament more power over decisions? And yet many wanted that power taken away from them.... the irony
At this stage the government have nothing to lose by having a debate over the opening negotiation position... in fact it may help people realise what the vision of brexit actually is...
I still maintain that parliament or ref 2 at the final deal stage should be some sort of vote... but at the moment this is a storm in a teacup "We had the vote the vote is OUT it is so simple,and long answers here are truly pathetic and do not change the facts OUT MEANS OUT | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It always was a preposterous suggestion that Prime Minister May alone had the sole right to remove all the privileges and rights of EU Membership of 65,000,000 people. A third runway at Heathrow detrimentally affects a couple of million people and parliament had to debate it. Brexit will detrimentally affect 65,000,000 people and so of course Parliament should debate it. What do we expect from the debates and votes in a Parliament?... That the UK Govt must have a viable and working Brexit plan that is good for the country. No matter that the Brexit referendum was a narrow win, Parliament will not vote to make the country poorer. "Yes they will every Labour government makes the country poorer and Corbyn would bankrupt us so your statement is incorrect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We used our democratic vote in a national referendum, a referendum that would have gone unchallenged if it had gone the other way. The democratic process was observed, but the Libtards and their fellow travelers couldn't accept it. So yes, if it comes down to it, my boots are polished and ready. Look back to mid June. Your Supreme Leader Farage the Omnipotent said that a narrow remain victory would not be accepted and would be regarded as "unfinished business". You voted to bring laws that you thought had been lost to the EU back to the UK and now you get all hissy and childish threatening violence because the High Court of the UK has made a decision about U.K. Law. Perhaps you need to think things through a little before adopting the thought process of a skinhead hooligan. Absolutely fuck all to do with skinheads or hooligans. The overturning of a national referendum is cause for civil unrest, and that can quickly turn into riots. I hope that we still get BREXIT, but I don't trust politicians, especially not the liberal shower of shit. If our victory is replaces, then I don't care who leads the march on Whitehall, I will be there. If it gets ugly, then sobeit." well i hope that if there are riots your home and car burns first! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We had the vote the vote is OUT it is so simple,and long answers here are truly pathetic and do not change the facts OUT MEANS OUT" Thank for the rant.... and out also mean transferring powers back from Brussels to the U.K. Parliament All this ruling does is make sure that this done by parliament and not by the pm on a whim! It doesn't mean anything else! You can tell the people who are the most angry are those who have no understanding of what the court verdict actually means... which is actually quite scary | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Mail is very upset because an ‘openly gay judge’ ruled on Brexit" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What truly is the matter with some of you people. You have spent months and months bangiing on about UK Law having supremacy and Parliamentary democracy being sacrosanct. The High Court Judges have not made some new shit up. They have applied constitutional law as it applies to parliamentary democracy. It is the law. I cant even remotely imagine why even a minority of people let alone a majority would be happy to let Maggie Mark 2 and a small number of marginally competant Tories be solely responsible for an event that will impact beyond our lifetimes. You voted for Brexit - that is not in question. Now the law as it applies in this country dictates that Parliament must now work out how best to enact your wishes for the benefit of the country. Why is that so wrong?" You are, in fact, a bit wrong. This was the High Court's interpretation of a very difficult and involved legal issue. As the interpretation of the law currently stands, Mrs May cannot invoke A50 on her own. The government are appealing to the Supreme Court. There is no suggestion that parliament must work out what is the best deal before invoking A50. Indeed, there is no way they could do that, as the EU will not start negotiating until it is invoked. So, as currently stands, MPs will be asked to vote to ratify or reject what the nation decided. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Goes to show that ukip still has a purpose and a job to do. If the will of the people is overturned there will be hell to pay. Parliament gave the authority for the people to decide in a referendum and now judges have ruled against that. What purpose was the original parliamentary decision to let British people decide?? That's not what it means it means the whole of Parliament decides when Article 50 is triggered not the PM. No, it means that MP's must give their go-ahead before article 50 is triggered. It has enormous problems as this could effectively go on for a very very long time. As I said, UKIP still have a job to do. I will be telling my (Conservative) MP that she won't get my vote in future unless she supports the PM in any debate on triggering article 50. " Why are you finding a problem where there isn't one? No matter what your overall political allegiances may be, I doubt that you would be supportive of a Dictatorship? Our democracy has been established over hundreds of years and it is far and just and has worked for our people to such a degree that it is the envy of the world. Parliament is there to hold the sitting Government to account and to ensure that the Govt acts on behalf of all of the UK. This has to be better than a small number of marginally competant Tories carte blanche to do whatever they want. Every MP will know what their constituents voted for and in that respect they cant be obstructive. I think that this will prevail into the most constructive bit of parliamentary activity that we will have seen for decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"........ This was the High Court's interpretation of a very difficult and involved legal issue. As the interpretation of the law currently stands, Mrs May cannot invoke A50 on her own. The government are appealing to the Supreme Court. There is no suggestion that parliament must work out what is the best deal before invoking A50. Indeed, there is no way they could do that, as the EU will not start negotiating until it is invoked. So, as currently stands, MPs will be asked to vote to ratify or reject what the nation decided." And on what grounds do you think any MP would be supportive or obstructive? Assuming the worst of others doesn't mean that they will comply. In my opinion, MP's will demand that the UK has a broadly positive Brexit strategy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding a small group of MP's to account over such a huge issue. It is the very least that we should expect - and demand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"........ This was the High Court's interpretation of a very difficult and involved legal issue. As the interpretation of the law currently stands, Mrs May cannot invoke A50 on her own. The government are appealing to the Supreme Court. There is no suggestion that parliament must work out what is the best deal before invoking A50. Indeed, there is no way they could do that, as the EU will not start negotiating until it is invoked. So, as currently stands, MPs will be asked to vote to ratify or reject what the nation decided. And on what grounds do you think any MP would be supportive or obstructive? Assuming the worst of others doesn't mean that they will comply. In my opinion, MP's will demand that the UK has a broadly positive Brexit strategy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding a small group of MP's to account over such a huge issue. It is the very least that we should expect - and demand." A broadly positive strategy? Erm ... I don't think anyone wants to go into this with a negative attitude. However, the least that we should demand is an exit that was voted for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? " Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'If' the MPs were had any principles they should vote in favour of allowing May to invoke A50, as that's all the judgement said was necessary. I find it concerning that some MPs including Corbyn are saying they want to debate the negotiating strategy. This would be disastrous. It's just 'showing all your cards' to the other party. I hope some common sense prevails and this is dealt with quickly." So many Brexit politicians have said that obvously we are a deeply divided nation. That we now need to pull together to make Brexit a success. If this is the case, then it shouldn't be a Tory vs Labour vs Lib Dem strategy. It should be the lot of them working together to find out what constituency wants what in terms of brext, then to balance it in a negotiating deal. As for the keep your cards to your chest, that's party politics, military and business competition/take over talk. Not how to determine the future of a nation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it?" So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As for the keep your cards to your chest, that's party politics, military and business competition/take over talk. Not how to determine the future of a nation." I mean showing your cards to EU negotiators. If only the starting point of the negotiation is discussed openly in Parliament, then maybe, but not fall-back positions, it just wrecks it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What truly is the matter with some of you people. You have spent months and months bangiing on about UK Law having supremacy and Parliamentary democracy being sacrosanct. The High Court Judges have not made some new shit up. They have applied constitutional law as it applies to parliamentary democracy. It is the law. I cant even remotely imagine why even a minority of people let alone a majority would be happy to let Maggie Mark 2 and a small number of marginally competant Tories be solely responsible for an event that will impact beyond our lifetimes. You voted for Brexit - that is not in question. Now the law as it applies in this country dictates that Parliament must now work out how best to enact your wishes for the benefit of the country. Why is that so wrong? You are, in fact, a bit wrong. This was the High Court's interpretation of a very difficult and involved legal issue. As the interpretation of the law currently stands, Mrs May cannot invoke A50 on her own. The government are appealing to the Supreme Court. There is no suggestion that parliament must work out what is the best deal before invoking A50. Indeed, there is no way they could do that, as the EU will not start negotiating until it is invoked. So, as currently stands, MPs will be asked to vote to ratify or reject what the nation decided." There was no interpretation, the judges' decision was based on clear constitutional law. A suspicious person might assume that the government knew their position was a losing one from the start (how could they not? The law is clear, and their lawyers would have told them so), but Theresa May is going through this charade so that she doesn't have to take the blame from the Brexit boneheads. But I fear that credits her with rather more savvy than she usually displays. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'If' the MPs were had any principles they should vote in favour of allowing May to invoke A50, as that's all the judgement said was necessary. I find it concerning that some MPs including Corbyn are saying they want to debate the negotiating strategy. This would be disastrous. It's just 'showing all your cards' to the other party. I hope some common sense prevails and this is dealt with quickly. So many Brexit politicians have said that obvously we are a deeply divided nation. That we now need to pull together to make Brexit a success. If this is the case, then it shouldn't be a Tory vs Labour vs Lib Dem strategy. It should be the lot of them working together to find out what constituency wants what in terms of brext, then to balance it in a negotiating deal. As for the keep your cards to your chest, that's party politics, military and business competition/take over talk. Not how to determine the future of a nation." but as someone mentioned earlier I think, once article 50 is invoked you have 2 years to negotiate the terms on exit, now what point is there in 2 years of squabbling if at the end of it people can't agree? Because we're out anyway. Gone. Without any deal. It should be up to the elected government alone to negotiate the best deal, everyone knew there was going to be a referendum and that the elected government would have to do. That is what they were elected to do. That is democracy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? " It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be." Try answering the question if parliament goes against the referendum result do you consider that good or bad for democracy,a simple yes or no will do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be." Do you want Parliament to vote against A50 being invoked? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What truly is the matter with some of you people. You have spent months and months bangiing on about UK Law having supremacy and Parliamentary democracy being sacrosanct. The High Court Judges have not made some new shit up. They have applied constitutional law as it applies to parliamentary democracy. It is the law. I cant even remotely imagine why even a minority of people let alone a majority would be happy to let Maggie Mark 2 and a small number of marginally competant Tories be solely responsible for an event that will impact beyond our lifetimes. You voted for Brexit - that is not in question. Now the law as it applies in this country dictates that Parliament must now work out how best to enact your wishes for the benefit of the country. Why is that so wrong? You are, in fact, a bit wrong. This was the High Court's interpretation of a very difficult and involved legal issue. As the interpretation of the law currently stands, Mrs May cannot invoke A50 on her own. The government are appealing to the Supreme Court. There is no suggestion that parliament must work out what is the best deal before invoking A50. Indeed, there is no way they could do that, as the EU will not start negotiating until it is invoked. So, as currently stands, MPs will be asked to vote to ratify or reject what the nation decided. There was no interpretation, the judges' decision was based on clear constitutional law. A suspicious person might assume that the government knew their position was a losing one from the start (how could they not? The law is clear, and their lawyers would have told them so), but Theresa May is going through this charade so that she doesn't have to take the blame from the Brexit boneheads. But I fear that credits her with rather more savvy than she usually displays. " ............Your clutching at straw's again....could you handle the disappointment again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As for the keep your cards to your chest, that's party politics, military and business competition/take over talk. Not how to determine the future of a nation. I mean showing your cards to EU negotiators. If only the starting point of the negotiation is discussed openly in Parliament, then maybe, but not fall-back positions, it just wrecks it." Refusing to discuss the negotiating stance has NOTHING to do with “keeping your cards close to your chest” and EVERYTHING about trying to hold the Tory party together. The Brexit voter and campaigners were a broad church, the fewer details of what Brexit actually will be, the more that church stays together, the more details, the quicker it will fracture. The referendum result was 132 days ago. What do we know for definite about what Brexit will look like, that we didn’t know on June 24? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be." wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed" ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As for the keep your cards to your chest, that's party politics, military and business competition/take over talk. Not how to determine the future of a nation. I mean showing your cards to EU negotiators. If only the starting point of the negotiation is discussed openly in Parliament, then maybe, but not fall-back positions, it just wrecks it. Refusing to discuss the negotiating stance has NOTHING to do with “keeping your cards close to your chest” and EVERYTHING about trying to hold the Tory party together. The Brexit voter and campaigners were a broad church, the fewer details of what Brexit actually will be, the more that church stays together, the more details, the quicker it will fracture. The referendum result was 132 days ago. What do we know for definite about what Brexit will look like, that we didn’t know on June 24?" what is there to know until the day we leave? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today! "Excellent! One that both pro Brexit and pro Remain can only applaud! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. Try answering the question if parliament goes against the referendum result do you consider that good or bad for democracy,a simple yes or no will do" We have a parliamentary democracy. The country elected a Tory government with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. The government introduced legislation on the referendum, parliament could have made this a binding referendum, but they deliberately decided to make it an advisory referendum. We had the non-binding, advisory referendum, and now Parliament will have to have a say on what happens next. That is the parliamentary democracy that we have. We do not have a direct democracy. If you don’t like the system we have, you are within your rights to campaign for constitutional change, but this is the system that we have today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Parliament has to vote? WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY???" Exactly! That's why parliament has to vote. Democracy in action! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Parliament has to vote? WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY??? You mean our PARLIAMENTARY democracy? People didn't vote for a sovereign government to exert parliamentary sovereignty!" Well, whether they did or not is irrelevant. Parliament is sovereign, that's how it works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed" The people are not sovereign in this country, or any other country. I mean feel free to prove me wrong, and name me one law that has been passed by the people of this country and not by parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed The people are not sovereign in this country, or any other country. I mean feel free to prove me wrong, and name me one law that has been passed by the people of this country and not by parliament." what do you think parliament is?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. Try answering the question if parliament goes against the referendum result do you consider that good or bad for democracy,a simple yes or no will do We have a parliamentary democracy. The country elected a Tory government with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. The government introduced legislation on the referendum, parliament could have made this a binding referendum, but they deliberately decided to make it an advisory referendum. We had the non-binding, advisory referendum, and now Parliament will have to have a say on what happens next. That is the parliamentary democracy that we have. We do not have a direct democracy. If you don’t like the system we have, you are within your rights to campaign for constitutional change, but this is the system that we have today." You need toreadthe leaflet sent out by the government,it says the decision is YOURS and the government will implement it, that is democracy, plainly you dont believe in it at all,most mp's have said the result MUST stand even if they voted to remain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day" No, how can you say that? Surely the main thrust of Brexit is to return sovereignty to Britain? And in Britain sovereignty does not lie with the Crown, with the Executive or with the people, it lies with Parliament. Now, you may not like that (and be careful what you wish for as Parliament often acts to protect minorities), but that is how it works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it?" So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed" Wrong matey. Parliament is sovereign. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. Try answering the question if parliament goes against the referendum result do you consider that good or bad for democracy,a simple yes or no will do We have a parliamentary democracy. The country elected a Tory government with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. The government introduced legislation on the referendum, parliament could have made this a binding referendum, but they deliberately decided to make it an advisory referendum. We had the non-binding, advisory referendum, and now Parliament will have to have a say on what happens next. That is the parliamentary democracy that we have. We do not have a direct democracy. If you don’t like the system we have, you are within your rights to campaign for constitutional change, but this is the system that we have today. You need toreadthe leaflet sent out by the government,it says the decision is YOURS and the government will implement it, that is democracy, plainly you dont believe in it at all,most mp's have said the result MUST stand even if they voted to remain " The government is the executive. That is not where sovereignty lies but with parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed The people are not sovereign in this country, or any other country. I mean feel free to prove me wrong, and name me one law that has been passed by the people of this country and not by parliament. what do you think parliament is? "So are you saying that Parliament isn’t sovereign, the people are sovereign, and parliament is the people? That logic doesn’t work at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed Wrong matey. Parliament is sovereign." wrong matey, the people are sovereign, they can remove Parliament | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. Try answering the question if parliament goes against the referendum result do you consider that good or bad for democracy,a simple yes or no will do We have a parliamentary democracy. The country elected a Tory government with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. The government introduced legislation on the referendum, parliament could have made this a binding referendum, but they deliberately decided to make it an advisory referendum. We had the non-binding, advisory referendum, and now Parliament will have to have a say on what happens next. That is the parliamentary democracy that we have. We do not have a direct democracy. If you don’t like the system we have, you are within your rights to campaign for constitutional change, but this is the system that we have today. You need toreadthe leaflet sent out by the government,it says the decision is YOURS and the government will implement it, that is democracy, plainly you dont believe in it at all,most mp's have said the result MUST stand even if they voted to remain The government is the executive. That is not where sovereignty lies but with parliament." Sovereignty lies with the voter, the government is given the power to govern until the next election | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed The people are not sovereign in this country, or any other country. I mean feel free to prove me wrong, and name me one law that has been passed by the people of this country and not by parliament. what do you think parliament is?
So are you saying that Parliament isn’t sovereign, the people are sovereign, and parliament is the people? That logic doesn’t work at all."Parliament is sovereign. That's how it is. We can meander round this point as much as we like but it is irrelevant! And yes, if it votes against Brexit it is a victory for democracy, parliamentary democracy! We do not govern by plebiscite. The problem here is that many people don't seem to understand how our government works. Again, I fail to see that, given how the government of the UK works, hiw anyone can disagree; we should all be rejoicing this victory for parliamentary democracy! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed Wrong matey. Parliament is sovereign. wrong matey, the people are sovereign, they can remove Parliament" That is true but it doesn't mean that sovereignty rests with the people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. Try answering the question if parliament goes against the referendum result do you consider that good or bad for democracy,a simple yes or no will do We have a parliamentary democracy. The country elected a Tory government with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. The government introduced legislation on the referendum, parliament could have made this a binding referendum, but they deliberately decided to make it an advisory referendum. We had the non-binding, advisory referendum, and now Parliament will have to have a say on what happens next. That is the parliamentary democracy that we have. We do not have a direct democracy. If you don’t like the system we have, you are within your rights to campaign for constitutional change, but this is the system that we have today. You need toreadthe leaflet sent out by the government,it says the decision is YOURS and the government will implement it, that is democracy, plainly you dont believe in it at all,most mp's have said the result MUST stand even if they voted to remain The government is the executive. That is not where sovereignty lies but with parliament. Sovereignty lies with the voter, the government is given the power to govern until the next election" Until we have P R we haven't got a democracy ! A referendum is true Democracy ! And now people are trying to over rule it ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not !" I thought you meant if todays ruling had been the other way round. But yes, if the electorate had voted to remain, and there was a challenge regarding parliament having a say, yes I would still want parliament to vote on it? Because we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, as has been mentioned repeatedly by now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed The people are not sovereign in this country, or any other country. I mean feel free to prove me wrong, and name me one law that has been passed by the people of this country and not by parliament. what do you think parliament is?
So are you saying that Parliament isn’t sovereign, the people are sovereign, and parliament is the people? That logic doesn’t work at all."Still not answering the question again simple yes or no if parliament votes against leaving is that good or bad for democracy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. Try answering the question if parliament goes against the referendum result do you consider that good or bad for democracy,a simple yes or no will do We have a parliamentary democracy. The country elected a Tory government with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. The government introduced legislation on the referendum, parliament could have made this a binding referendum, but they deliberately decided to make it an advisory referendum. We had the non-binding, advisory referendum, and now Parliament will have to have a say on what happens next. That is the parliamentary democracy that we have. We do not have a direct democracy. If you don’t like the system we have, you are within your rights to campaign for constitutional change, but this is the system that we have today. You need toreadthe leaflet sent out by the government,it says the decision is YOURS and the government will implement it, that is democracy, plainly you dont believe in it at all,most mp's have said the result MUST stand even if they voted to remain The government is the executive. That is not where sovereignty lies but with parliament. Sovereignty lies with the voter, the government is given the power to govern until the next election" No, you are incorrect, this is why it is called parliamentary democracy. Yes, MPs can be removed but parliament as a body is sovereign. And, by the way, the government is not parliament, it's the executive and subordinate to parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed The people are not sovereign in this country, or any other country. I mean feel free to prove me wrong, and name me one law that has been passed by the people of this country and not by parliament. what do you think parliament is?
So are you saying that Parliament isn’t sovereign, the people are sovereign, and parliament is the people? That logic doesn’t work at all."well it wouldn't with your brain. Once we are free of the EU the people are sovereign again. Check it out. Or there is a quote from Benjamin Franklin which applies to the UK too - 'In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed Wrong matey. Parliament is sovereign. wrong matey, the people are sovereign, they can remove Parliament" Nope, you are thinking of the Queen, she is the only one who can legally dissolve parliament. I mean unless you are talking about illegal measures? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not ! I thought you meant if todays ruling had been the other way round. But yes, if the electorate had voted to remain, and there was a challenge regarding parliament having a say, yes I would still want parliament to vote on it? Because we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, as has been mentioned repeatedly by now." Of course parliament is not supreme the voter puts them there and can remove them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. Try answering the question if parliament goes against the referendum result do you consider that good or bad for democracy,a simple yes or no will do We have a parliamentary democracy. The country elected a Tory government with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. The government introduced legislation on the referendum, parliament could have made this a binding referendum, but they deliberately decided to make it an advisory referendum. We had the non-binding, advisory referendum, and now Parliament will have to have a say on what happens next. That is the parliamentary democracy that we have. We do not have a direct democracy. If you don’t like the system we have, you are within your rights to campaign for constitutional change, but this is the system that we have today. You need toreadthe leaflet sent out by the government,it says the decision is YOURS and the government will implement it, that is democracy, plainly you dont believe in it at all,most mp's have said the result MUST stand even if they voted to remain The government is the executive. That is not where sovereignty lies but with parliament. Sovereignty lies with the voter, the government is given the power to govern until the next election Until we have P R we haven't got a democracy ! A referendum is true Democracy ! And now people are trying to over rule it ! " Who on earth said we had a true democracy? We have parliamentary democracy. Like it or lump it, that's what we have. As I said above, we do not govern the UK by plebiscite, again, like it or lump it that's how it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not ! I thought you meant if todays ruling had been the other way round. But yes, if the electorate had voted to remain, and there was a challenge regarding parliament having a say, yes I would still want parliament to vote on it? Because we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, as has been mentioned repeatedly by now. Of course parliament is not supreme the voter puts them there and can remove them " You don't seem to grasp this key point: the people can't remove parliament! They can change its make up but not remove it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not ! I thought you meant if todays ruling had been the other way round. But yes, if the electorate had voted to remain, and there was a challenge regarding parliament having a say, yes I would still want parliament to vote on it? Because we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, as has been mentioned repeatedly by now." I accept your word . I don't agree with a lot of what you say but I respect it as I think you are both genuine and intelligent . But we do need P R or Parliment will never be truly Democratic ! Where I live if you don't vote Labour you may aswell not vote ! This I wrong ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not ! I thought you meant if todays ruling had been the other way round. But yes, if the electorate had voted to remain, and there was a challenge regarding parliament having a say, yes I would still want parliament to vote on it? Because we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, as has been mentioned repeatedly by now. I accept your word . I don't agree with a lot of what you say but I respect it as I think you are both genuine and intelligent . But we do need P R or Parliment will never be truly Democratic ! Where I live if you don't vote Labour you may aswell not vote ! This I wrong ! " Well, that's another point! I also live in a labour stonghold and know what you mean! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not ! I thought you meant if todays ruling had been the other way round. But yes, if the electorate had voted to remain, and there was a challenge regarding parliament having a say, yes I would still want parliament to vote on it? Because we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, as has been mentioned repeatedly by now. Of course parliament is not supreme the voter puts them there and can remove them You don't seem to grasp this key point: the people can't remove parliament! They can change its make up but not remove it." Of course we cant "remove" parliament but the voters decide who the MP's are that makes the voter the sumpreme power, try writing to your MP and ask him/her who the supreme power in this country is and who puts the MP's in power | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So if the decision stands and we have a vote and it goes against brexit areyou going to say that is victory for democracy ? It would simply show that Parliament is sovereign, that it always has been, and always will be. wrong again. The people are sovereign, Parliament passed the EU decision omto the sovereign people and their instructions will be followed otherwise Parliament can be removed The people are not sovereign in this country, or any other country. I mean feel free to prove me wrong, and name me one law that has been passed by the people of this country and not by parliament. what do you think parliament is?
So are you saying that Parliament isn’t sovereign, the people are sovereign, and parliament is the people? That logic doesn’t work at all.
Still not answering the question again simple yes or no if parliament votes against leaving is that good or bad for democracy "See my post above: "And yes, if it votes against Brexit it is a victory for democracy, parliamentary democracy! We do not govern by plebiscite. The problem here is that many people don't seem to understand how our government works." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day" Parliament specifically handed over power to the voters to determine this issue. The Appeal Court has now returned that power to Parliament. Sturgeon has already said that the SNP will honour the vote of Scotland and NOT the UK decision while we can imagine the likes of toxic scum like Blair, Mandelson, Clegg, Heseltine and Major will be researching each and every way there is to delay and obfuscate. Yes, today is a bad day indeed! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a judge has decided that the majority decision (like it or not) of a democratic society is worthless. Does this not worry anyone? A precedent has been set that has put such a dent in our society and way of life that i fear the voice of the common man has once and for all had any weight it had taken away. You can have your say, you can even vote on it, but it is now only advisory. You may as well shout at the wind. Today is a bad day Parliament specifically handed over power to the voters to determine this issue. The Appeal Court has now returned that power to Parliament. Sturgeon has already said that the SNP will honour the vote of Scotland and NOT the UK decision while we can imagine the likes of toxic scum like Blair, Mandelson, Clegg, Heseltine and Major will be researching each and every way there is to delay and obfuscate. Yes, today is a bad day indeed!" I suggest that consitutionally parliament is not able to hand that power over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not ! I thought you meant if todays ruling had been the other way round. But yes, if the electorate had voted to remain, and there was a challenge regarding parliament having a say, yes I would still want parliament to vote on it? Because we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, as has been mentioned repeatedly by now. I accept your word . I don't agree with a lot of what you say but I respect it as I think you are both genuine and intelligent . But we do need P R or Parliment will never be truly Democratic ! Where I live if you don't vote Labour you may aswell not vote ! This I wrong ! Well, that's another point! I also live in a labour stonghold and know what you mean!" I would say the same if I was a labour support in a conservative area aswell ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not ! I thought you meant if todays ruling had been the other way round. But yes, if the electorate had voted to remain, and there was a challenge regarding parliament having a say, yes I would still want parliament to vote on it? Because we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, as has been mentioned repeatedly by now. Of course parliament is not supreme the voter puts them there and can remove them You don't seem to grasp this key point: the people can't remove parliament! They can change its make up but not remove it." it removes itself every 5 years, or in other words there is a dissolution of Parliament. So what happens then if the people refuse to vote or elect a representative? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not ! I thought you meant if todays ruling had been the other way round. But yes, if the electorate had voted to remain, and there was a challenge regarding parliament having a say, yes I would still want parliament to vote on it? Because we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, as has been mentioned repeatedly by now. Of course parliament is not supreme the voter puts them there and can remove them You don't seem to grasp this key point: the people can't remove parliament! They can change its make up but not remove it. it removes itself every 5 years, or in other words there is a dissolution of Parliament. So what happens then if the people refuse to vote or elect a representative?" Of course, Parliament doesn't remove itself. As noted above, the reigning monarch does. But you do raise an interesting point, one that is no doubt debated on Politics degree courses all over. No idea! But, of course, irrelevant to anything in the thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not ! I thought you meant if todays ruling had been the other way round. But yes, if the electorate had voted to remain, and there was a challenge regarding parliament having a say, yes I would still want parliament to vote on it? Because we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, as has been mentioned repeatedly by now. Of course parliament is not supreme the voter puts them there and can remove them You don't seem to grasp this key point: the people can't remove parliament! They can change its make up but not remove it. it removes itself every 5 years, or in other words there is a dissolution of Parliament. So what happens then if the people refuse to vote or elect a representative? Of course, Parliament doesn't remove itself. As noted above, the reigning monarch does. But you do raise an interesting point, one that is no doubt debated on Politics degree courses all over. No idea! But, of course, irrelevant to anything in the thread." Of course parliament removes itself the queens role is purely acedemic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I still don't know why leavers have blown a gasket over this... you wanted the UK Parliament to have power over making decisions... this is what you got isn't it? ... this is the result you wanted, no power from brussels! uk laws decided and intrepreted by uk courts!!! i don't see what problem is...." Got it spot on, why aren't they all cheering? Instead we've got a Brexiter threatening violence, classy! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant victory in the high court today! "I call it a disgrace considering Parliament voted 6 - 1 in favour of holding a referendum and the leave campaign won on a democratic vote. It will not change Brexit as the labour party and the Conservative party have said that they will both respect the referendum result, it would be electoral suicide for many mps to vote against the will of the people ie Labour MPs in the North for example, i do not believe the timetable for invoking article 50 will be affected at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brilliant Victory ? Would the remaindered have said that if it was the other way round ? Well it wouldn’t have been a victory for parliamentary sovereignty if the court had decided that parliament wasn’t required for the government to repeal acts of parliament unilaterally would it? So are you saying you would have been just as pleased with this ruling if we had voted to remain ? I really think not ! I thought you meant if todays ruling had been the other way round. But yes, if the electorate had voted to remain, and there was a challenge regarding parliament having a say, yes I would still want parliament to vote on it? Because we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, as has been mentioned repeatedly by now. Of course parliament is not supreme the voter puts them there and can remove them You don't seem to grasp this key point: the people can't remove parliament! They can change its make up but not remove it. it removes itself every 5 years, or in other words there is a dissolution of Parliament. So what happens then if the people refuse to vote or elect a representative? Of course, Parliament doesn't remove itself. As noted above, the reigning monarch does. But you do raise an interesting point, one that is no doubt debated on Politics degree courses all over. No idea! But, of course, irrelevant to anything in the thread." no idea? It's simple. There would be no Parliament. So at the end of the day Parliament is dependant upon the people and the people are sovereign. And now it's irrelevant because you were wrong . Fair enough | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
