FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Triumph for Parliamentary Sovereignty! Part 2
Triumph for Parliamentary Sovereignty! Part 2
Jump to: Newest in thread
"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." Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown." This has been an entertaining thread. I believe the term it's all politics is true here. Looking forward to the next chapter of British politics. It's also funny to hear the anti left talking about revolution, civil war and giving power to the people. I'd label those BREXITers (minority not all) loony lefties now. I have to say this forum is so confusing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. This has been an entertaining thread. I believe the term it's all politics is true here. Looking forward to the next chapter of British politics. It's also funny to hear the anti left talking about revolution, civil war and giving power to the people. I'd label those BREXITers (minority not all) loony lefties now. I have to say this forum is so confusing." Probably not loony lefties, just those who want to take a parliament backwards to a republic/give mob rule without consultation to the other valuable members of an electorate. Sounds like the start of fascism to me. | |||
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) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown." Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexiter: We want to reclaim the sovereignty of parliament High: ok here you go Brexiter: NO NO NO not like that!!!!!"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"talk is cheap ... despite their hollow words, the right wing invertabrate wets just havn't got the gonads or any kind of backbone to involve themselves in civil war or revolution "Although that's so unlikely as to be impossible, it would be quite interesting if the demographics of the vote are accurate. I've heard it said that a large part of the brexiters were, shall we say, rather advanced in years whereas the remainers had the benefit of youth ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a right/left argument,it is an in/out of Europe argument.The people have voted and now polititions of both sides must therefore obey the wishes of the people. They do not want to do this because it is not in there personal interests.The same applies to the judiciary etc as they do well out of Europe. If polititions do not wish to aid the wishes of the people they should resign and be barred from holding any public office. If we have an election then MP'S on both sides,labour or tory should only be allowed to stand if the are Brexiters. " Another good grasp of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty then! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a right/left argument,it is an in/out of Europe argument.The people have voted and now polititions of both sides must therefore obey the wishes of the people. They do not want to do this because it is not in there personal interests.The same applies to the judiciary etc as they do well out of Europe. If polititions do not wish to aid the wishes of the people they should resign and be barred from holding any public office. If we have an election then MP'S on both sides,labour or tory should only be allowed to stand if the are Brexiters. Another good grasp of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty then!" I grasp of democracy Parliament exists to represent the people it is simple otherwise it is just another form of dictatorship.A bit like elections in Russia or China | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a right/left argument,it is an in/out of Europe argument.The people have voted and now polititions of both sides must therefore obey the wishes of the people. They do not want to do this because it is not in there personal interests.The same applies to the judiciary etc as they do well out of Europe. If polititions do not wish to aid the wishes of the people they should resign and be barred from holding any public office. If we have an election then MP'S on both sides,labour or tory should only be allowed to stand if the are Brexiters. " How do the Judicuary do well out of Europe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a right/left argument,it is an in/out of Europe argument.The people have voted and now polititions of both sides must therefore obey the wishes of the people. They do not want to do this because it is not in there personal interests.The same applies to the judiciary etc as they do well out of Europe. If polititions do not wish to aid the wishes of the people they should resign and be barred from holding any public office. If we have an election then MP'S on both sides,labour or tory should only be allowed to stand if the are Brexiters. Another good grasp of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty then!I grasp of democracy Parliament exists to represent the people it is simple otherwise it is just another form of dictatorship.A bit like elections in Russia or China" I did watch a video Rules for Rulers by CG GREY on YouTube. He also explains about the fault in elections in the US. It has made me question political leaders. https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I knew this was coming, Libtards crowing from the rooftops. Smarmy little bastards, it will end in tears, mark my words..." I don't hear anyone crowing. I just hear pragmatic people commenting that it is ironic how parliamentary democracy has been brought to the fore. If people were crowing they would be saying things like... " You lost in Court, get over it and quit moaning." They can't do that because you actually won in Court. You got the Parliamentary democracy that you demanded and now you want a civil war. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a right/left argument,it is an in/out of Europe argument.The people have voted and now polititions of both sides must therefore obey the wishes of the people. They do not want to do this because it is not in there personal interests.The same applies to the judiciary etc as they do well out of Europe. If polititions do not wish to aid the wishes of the people they should resign and be barred from holding any public office. If we have an election then MP'S on both sides,labour or tory should only be allowed to stand if the are Brexiters. Another good grasp of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty then!I grasp of democracy Parliament exists to represent the people it is simple otherwise it is just another form of dictatorship.A bit like elections in Russia or China" It already is, every single one of them are in the House of Treason for a reason remember, and that reason is greed. The EU has been their gravy train for decades, and the thought of losing the connection is scaring them to death. The people of this country are here only to line their stinking pockets, that is why the elderly are treated like shit, they are no longer paying income tax. They expected us to vote remain like good little pet animals, but we didn't and the charade has been playing itself out ever since. We are stupid for ever believing that our leave vote was anything more than an inconvenience to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a right/left argument,it is an in/out of Europe argument.The people have voted and now polititions of both sides must therefore obey the wishes of the people. They do not want to do this because it is not in there personal interests.The same applies to the judiciary etc as they do well out of Europe. If polititions do not wish to aid the wishes of the people they should resign and be barred from holding any public office. If we have an election then MP'S on both sides,labour or tory should only be allowed to stand if the are Brexiters. " So only 52% are allowed representation? And only the English and Welsh? Bollocks to that let's have a vote on the UK as well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a right/left argument,it is an in/out of Europe argument.The people have voted and now polititions of both sides must therefore obey the wishes of the people. They do not want to do this because it is not in there personal interests.The same applies to the judiciary etc as they do well out of Europe. If polititions do not wish to aid the wishes of the people they should resign and be barred from holding any public office. If we have an election then MP'S on both sides,labour or tory should only be allowed to stand if the are Brexiters. So only 52% are allowed representation? And only the English and Welsh? Bollocks to that let's have a vote on the UK as well" It is high time that the UK split, we are poles apart in so many ways, no longer united it is all fantasy. Let the Scotts go it alone and try to rejoin the EU. We can do without their votes if we really do have to have another referendum. I'm a little more upset about the Northern Ireland situation, seems that old IRA scum are ruling the roost over there. Can't see the loyalists supporting remain, so perhaps they have been outbred by the fenians. A sad day for Ulster 
I always supported the Union, but today I have changed my mind. England is better off on her own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I knew this was coming, Libtards crowing from the rooftops. Smarmy little bastards, it will end in tears, mark my words..." 'Libtards' Pretty disgusting choice of insult. It's not your disdain for liberals that i object to, but your disdain and ridicule of people born with a mental disability. What a doofus. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I knew this was coming, Libtards crowing from the rooftops. Smarmy little bastards, it will end in tears, mark my words... 'Libtards' Pretty disgusting choice of insult. It's not your disdain for liberals that i object to, but your disdain and ridicule of people born with a mental disability. What a doofus. " Oh "doofus" again! Libtards is a description of pathetic liberals, and not in anyway a derision of people with mental disabilities. But you carry on with your rediculous accusations, it doesn't bother me. I know how this is supposed to play out, but I also know that nobody with a modicum of sense will fail to understand what I was getting at, and ignore your stupid narrative. Libralism and PC is killing this country, it is time to fight back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. " the problem with that argunent is that the EU is neither tolerant, progressive or embracing the modern world, its ideas are outdated, tried and tested proven failures and they are failing again, its not fit for purpose in a new technological world so I'm not exactly sure what the 'young' think it is that they are embracing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum?" Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. the problem with that argunent is that the EU is neither tolerant, progressive or embracing the modern world, its ideas are outdated, tried and tested proven failures and they are failing again, its not fit for purpose in a new technological world so I'm not exactly sure what the 'young' think it is that they are embracing" 1) the person you quoted wasn’t talking about the EU 2) the EU doesn’t go around calling people “libtards" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. the problem with that argunent is that the EU is neither tolerant, progressive or embracing the modern world, its ideas are outdated, tried and tested proven failures and they are failing again, its not fit for purpose in a new technological world so I'm not exactly sure what the 'young' think it is that they are embracing 1) the person you quoted wasn’t talking about the EU 2) the EU doesn’t go around calling people “libtards"" 1) the person I quoted referenced Brexit, which has everything to do with the EU. 2) maybe not, but it calls people ignorant and xenophobic if they have a different point of view | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Previously I was only joking about the state of the DM's front page today but they've outdone anything my imagination could possibly come up with http://i.imgur.com/KIycklp.jpg" Spectacular. And bordering on incitement to violence, IMO. I hope those judges have ample security details because the number of angry, twisted little dickheads threatening violence just on these forums alone makes it a concern. All the calm, reasoned and rational Brexit voices seem to have gone quiet...all I'm hearing is the rage and fury of the ignorant ones who don't understand how parliamentary democracy works and voted out for reasons that were nothing to do with the actual EU. Hopefully, if nothing else, this entire debacle will kill off referenda forever more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding." are you sure about that? There are some lawyers who argue that constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Previously I was only joking about the state of the DM's front page today but they've outdone anything my imagination could possibly come up with http://i.imgur.com/KIycklp.jpg Spectacular. And bordering on incitement to violence, IMO. I hope those judges have ample security details because the number of angry, twisted little dickheads threatening violence just on these forums alone makes it a concern. All the calm, reasoned and rational Brexit voices seem to have gone quiet...all I'm hearing is the rage and fury of the ignorant ones who don't understand how parliamentary democracy works and voted out for reasons that were nothing to do with the actual EU. Hopefully, if nothing else, this entire debacle will kill off referenda forever more. " Do you ever re read your posts? Do you think you come across as reasoned and rational? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Previously I was only joking about the state of the DM's front page today but they've outdone anything my imagination could possibly come up with http://i.imgur.com/KIycklp.jpg Spectacular. And bordering on incitement to violence, IMO. I hope those judges have ample security details because the number of angry, twisted little dickheads threatening violence just on these forums alone makes it a concern. All the calm, reasoned and rational Brexit voices seem to have gone quiet...all I'm hearing is the rage and fury of the ignorant ones who don't understand how parliamentary democracy works and voted out for reasons that were nothing to do with the actual EU. Hopefully, if nothing else, this entire debacle will kill off referenda forever more. " Has the daily mail always been this bad, or is it getting worse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding. are you sure about that? There are some lawyers who argue that constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. " Read the Act and tell me which part of it say that it is binding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Previously I was only joking about the state of the DM's front page today but they've outdone anything my imagination could possibly come up with http://i.imgur.com/KIycklp.jpg Spectacular. And bordering on incitement to violence, IMO. I hope those judges have ample security details because the number of angry, twisted little dickheads threatening violence just on these forums alone makes it a concern. All the calm, reasoned and rational Brexit voices seem to have gone quiet...all I'm hearing is the rage and fury of the ignorant ones who don't understand how parliamentary democracy works and voted out for reasons that were nothing to do with the actual EU. Hopefully, if nothing else, this entire debacle will kill off referenda forever more. Do you ever re read your posts? Do you think you come across as reasoned and rational?" Yes, perfectly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding. are you sure about that? There are some lawyers who argue that constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. Read the Act and tell me which part of it say that it is binding. " well you could argue that with the lawyers then. But what it does say is that in the event of a leave vote the GOVERNMENT would decide whether, when and under what circumstances the UK would invoke article 50. Does it not? Not Parliament. So the judges have gone against a sovereign Parliamentary decision have they not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding. are you sure about that? There are some lawyers who argue that constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. Read the Act and tell me which part of it say that it is binding. well you could argue that with the lawyers then. But what it does say is that in the event of a leave vote the GOVERNMENT would decide whether, when and under what circumstances the UK would invoke article 50. Does it not? Not Parliament. So the judges have gone against a sovereign Parliamentary decision have they not?" No, it does not. That is a complete lie. The Act makes not a single reference to Article 50. If you don’t like being called a LIAR then please quote the section to the Act that supports your claim and I will apologise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding. are you sure about that? There are some lawyers who argue that constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. Read the Act and tell me which part of it say that it is binding. well you could argue that with the lawyers then. But what it does say is that in the event of a leave vote the GOVERNMENT would decide whether, when and under what circumstances the UK would invoke article 50. Does it not? Not Parliament. So the judges have gone against a sovereign Parliamentary decision have they not? No, it does not. That is a complete lie. The Act makes not a single reference to Article 50. If you don’t like being called a LIAR then please quote the section to the Act that supports your claim and I will apologise." I am not going to trawl through it all but I have already quoted what it says. I would simply say look up the European Referendum Act 2015 on Wikipedia and if you read far enough down you come to the bit on article 50. You can shove your apology up your arse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding. are you sure about that? There are some lawyers who argue that constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. Read the Act and tell me which part of it say that it is binding. well you could argue that with the lawyers then. But what it does say is that in the event of a leave vote the GOVERNMENT would decide whether, when and under what circumstances the UK would invoke article 50. Does it not? Not Parliament. So the judges have gone against a sovereign Parliamentary decision have they not? No, it does not. That is a complete lie. The Act makes not a single reference to Article 50. If you don’t like being called a LIAR then please quote the section to the Act that supports your claim and I will apologise. I am not going to trawl through it all but I have already quoted what it says. I would simply say look up the European Referendum Act 2015 on Wikipedia and if you read far enough down you come to the bit on article 50. You can shove your apology up your arse" You said the Act, which is a fixed text that was voted on in Parliament, not something that can be changed by the public like wikipedia. The Act makes no reference to Article 50, so you are completely wrong. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were just ignorant of what it said, rather than being deliberately misleading. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding. are you sure about that? There are some lawyers who argue that constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. Read the Act and tell me which part of it say that it is binding. well you could argue that with the lawyers then. But what it does say is that in the event of a leave vote the GOVERNMENT would decide whether, when and under what circumstances the UK would invoke article 50. Does it not? Not Parliament. So the judges have gone against a sovereign Parliamentary decision have they not? No, it does not. That is a complete lie. The Act makes not a single reference to Article 50. If you don’t like being called a LIAR then please quote the section to the Act that supports your claim and I will apologise. I am not going to trawl through it all but I have already quoted what it says. I would simply say look up the European Referendum Act 2015 on Wikipedia and if you read far enough down you come to the bit on article 50. You can shove your apology up your arse You said the Act, which is a fixed text that was voted on in Parliament, not something that can be changed by the public like wikipedia. The Act makes no reference to Article 50, so you are completely wrong. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were just ignorant of what it said, rather than being deliberately misleading." jeez. So where is this fixed text that you have read? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding. are you sure about that? There are some lawyers who argue that constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. Read the Act and tell me which part of it say that it is binding. well you could argue that with the lawyers then. But what it does say is that in the event of a leave vote the GOVERNMENT would decide whether, when and under what circumstances the UK would invoke article 50. Does it not? Not Parliament. So the judges have gone against a sovereign Parliamentary decision have they not? No, it does not. That is a complete lie. The Act makes not a single reference to Article 50. If you don’t like being called a LIAR then please quote the section to the Act that supports your claim and I will apologise. I am not going to trawl through it all but I have already quoted what it says. I would simply say look up the European Referendum Act 2015 on Wikipedia and if you read far enough down you come to the bit on article 50. You can shove your apology up your arse You said the Act, which is a fixed text that was voted on in Parliament, not something that can be changed by the public like wikipedia. The Act makes no reference to Article 50, so you are completely wrong. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were just ignorant of what it said, rather than being deliberately misleading. jeez. So where is this fixed text that you have read?" European Union Referendum Act 2015 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding. are you sure about that? There are some lawyers who argue that constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. Read the Act and tell me which part of it say that it is binding. well you could argue that with the lawyers then. But what it does say is that in the event of a leave vote the GOVERNMENT would decide whether, when and under what circumstances the UK would invoke article 50. Does it not? Not Parliament. So the judges have gone against a sovereign Parliamentary decision have they not? No, it does not. That is a complete lie. The Act makes not a single reference to Article 50. If you don’t like being called a LIAR then please quote the section to the Act that supports your claim and I will apologise. I am not going to trawl through it all but I have already quoted what it says. I would simply say look up the European Referendum Act 2015 on Wikipedia and if you read far enough down you come to the bit on article 50. You can shove your apology up your arse You said the Act, which is a fixed text that was voted on in Parliament, not something that can be changed by the public like wikipedia. The Act makes no reference to Article 50, so you are completely wrong. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were just ignorant of what it said, rather than being deliberately misleading. jeez. So where is this fixed text that you have read? European Union Referendum Act 2015" and where is that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding. are you sure about that? There are some lawyers who argue that constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. Read the Act and tell me which part of it say that it is binding. well you could argue that with the lawyers then. But what it does say is that in the event of a leave vote the GOVERNMENT would decide whether, when and under what circumstances the UK would invoke article 50. Does it not? Not Parliament. So the judges have gone against a sovereign Parliamentary decision have they not? No, it does not. That is a complete lie. The Act makes not a single reference to Article 50. If you don’t like being called a LIAR then please quote the section to the Act that supports your claim and I will apologise. I am not going to trawl through it all but I have already quoted what it says. I would simply say look up the European Referendum Act 2015 on Wikipedia and if you read far enough down you come to the bit on article 50. You can shove your apology up your arse You said the Act, which is a fixed text that was voted on in Parliament, not something that can be changed by the public like wikipedia. The Act makes no reference to Article 50, so you are completely wrong. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were just ignorant of what it said, rather than being deliberately misleading. jeez. So where is this fixed text that you have read? European Union Referendum Act 2015 and where is that?" Well its printed on vellum in the house of commons library, but its also available on the government website, which as you know, forum rules prevent us from linking to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the last thread: 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. Question: How can the upholding of parliamentary sovereignty be in any way a disgrace? The issue is not if we do or don't leave the EU, the issue is who has the power to invoke article 50. The fact is that that prerogative is held by parliaments not the Crown. Question: Is it upholding Parliamentary sovereignty though or simply trying to change a decision already made? Didn't Parliament already make the decision that the government should invoke article 50 in the event of a vote to leave the EU when they voted in favour of a referendum? Parliament deliberately decided to hold a non-binding, advisory referendum. If they had wanted it to be binding, they would have made it binding. are you sure about that? There are some lawyers who argue that constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory. Read the Act and tell me which part of it say that it is binding. well you could argue that with the lawyers then. But what it does say is that in the event of a leave vote the GOVERNMENT would decide whether, when and under what circumstances the UK would invoke article 50. Does it not? Not Parliament. So the judges have gone against a sovereign Parliamentary decision have they not? No, it does not. That is a complete lie. The Act makes not a single reference to Article 50. If you don’t like being called a LIAR then please quote the section to the Act that supports your claim and I will apologise. I am not going to trawl through it all but I have already quoted what it says. I would simply say look up the European Referendum Act 2015 on Wikipedia and if you read far enough down you come to the bit on article 50. You can shove your apology up your arse You said the Act, which is a fixed text that was voted on in Parliament, not something that can be changed by the public like wikipedia. The Act makes no reference to Article 50, so you are completely wrong. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were just ignorant of what it said, rather than being deliberately misleading. jeez. So where is this fixed text that you have read? European Union Referendum Act 2015 and where is that? Well its printed on vellum in the house of commons library, but its also available on the government website, which as you know, forum rules prevent us from linking to." and you've read it all have you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Previously I was only joking about the state of the DM's front page today but they've outdone anything my imagination could possibly come up with http://i.imgur.com/KIycklp.jpg Spectacular. And bordering on incitement to violence, IMO. I hope those judges have ample security details because the number of angry, twisted little dickheads threatening violence just on these forums alone makes it a concern. All the calm, reasoned and rational Brexit voices seem to have gone quiet...all I'm hearing is the rage and fury of the ignorant ones who don't understand how parliamentary democracy works and voted out for reasons that were nothing to do with the actual EU. Hopefully, if nothing else, this entire debacle will kill off referenda forever more. " Kill off referenda? And while we're at it let's make Tony Blair Prime minister for life!? The problem with the Court's decision as we all know is that in handing back the ball to Parliament it has given the Remainers (and slime like Blair and Mandelslime, Heseltine and co. in the background) endless opportunities at obfuscation and tabling numerous amendments which could go on for years! And there was no reference to subsequent Parliamentary approval in the Referendum Question that I'm aware of!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"talk is cheap ... despite their hollow words, the right wing invertabrate wets just havn't got the gonads or any kind of backbone to involve themselves in civil war or revolution
Although that's so unlikely as to be impossible, it would be quite interesting if the demographics of the vote are accurate. I've heard it said that a large part of the brexiters were, shall we say, rather advanced in years whereas the remainers had the benefit of youth ?"I'd rather have the generation that fought in ww2 behind me than the Facebook generation! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"talk is cheap ... despite their hollow words, the right wing invertabrate wets just havn't got the gonads or any kind of backbone to involve themselves in civil war or revolution
Although that's so unlikely as to be impossible, it would be quite interesting if the demographics of the vote are accurate. I've heard it said that a large part of the brexiters were, shall we say, rather advanced in years whereas the remainers had the benefit of youth ?
I'd rather have the generation that fought in ww2 behind me than the Facebook generation!"The generation who fought in Iraq and Afghan? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem with the Court's decision as we all know is that in handing back the ball to Parliament it has given the Remainers (and slime like Blair and Mandelslime, Heseltine and co. in the background) endless opportunities at obfuscation and tabling numerous amendments which could go on for years! And there was no reference to subsequent Parliamentary approval in the Referendum Question that I'm aware of!!! " No, the problem is that Ms May and her government have attempted to circumvent parliament and in doing so have caused this issue to be taken to the courts for a decision and now others are attempting to turn it into a constitutional crisis in order to strip power from the judiciary and parliament and transfer it to the Crown. And in doing so make the executive more powerful than it is. What I find interesting is that at the moment the courts seem to ruling against the government every on everything from clean air to junior doctors contracts and in all cases the ruling is that the government does not have powers it is giving itself, and I hear no outcry about any of those rulings. What makes this different? Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After a bit more digging about, parliament has to be involved because brexit will require law changes and you cannot do that without acts of parlement. So the court could PD not really come to any other descision than to had it to parlement. On the subject of face book generation arnt they the ones currently running around trying to catch imaginary figures with thier mobile phones ? "Yeah very grown up are,nt they.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I knew this was coming, Libtards crowing from the rooftops. Smarmy little bastards, it will end in tears, mark my words... I don't hear anyone crowing. I just hear pragmatic people commenting that it is ironic how parliamentary democracy has been brought to the fore. If people were crowing they would be saying things like... " You lost in Court, get over it and quit moaning." They can't do that because you actually won in Court. You got the Parliamentary democracy that you demanded and now you want a civil war. " this.. Brightonish, read the threads since this happened and there is none or very little.. what there has been is an obvious failure by some on the Brexit side to patently grasp what the High Court decision is and what it actually means.. its been the majority of those on the remain side who have been trying to explain it but some like you don't seem to comprehend or it doesn't suit your 'its the new world order' behind it all.. its only you who has been talking about civil war and revolution which is puzzling given the position of leaving still stands.. so keep polishing your boots by all means, but maybe look at what has actually happened and not what you think is more conspiracy.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I knew this was coming, Libtards crowing from the rooftops. Smarmy little bastards, it will end in tears, mark my words... I don't hear anyone crowing. I just hear pragmatic people commenting that it is ironic how parliamentary democracy has been brought to the fore. If people were crowing they would be saying things like... " You lost in Court, get over it and quit moaning." They can't do that because you actually won in Court. You got the Parliamentary democracy that you demanded and now you want a civil war. this.. Brightonish, read the threads since this happened and there is none or very little.. what there has been is an obvious failure by some on the Brexit side to patently grasp what the High Court decision is and what it actually means.. its been the majority of those on the remain side who have been trying to explain it but some like you don't seem to comprehend or it doesn't suit your 'its the new world order' behind it all.. its only you who has been talking about civil war and revolution which is puzzling given the position of leaving still stands.. so keep polishing your boots by all means, but maybe look at what has actually happened and not what you think is more conspiracy.. " I think you,ll find a lot of people are thinking that the house of Lords will block Brexit given the chance, MPs know they can be voted out but the Lords can not be voted out so will do whats best for them and not what the people voted for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"talk is cheap ... despite their hollow words, the right wing invertabrate wets just havn't got the gonads or any kind of backbone to involve themselves in civil war or revolution
Although that's so unlikely as to be impossible, it would be quite interesting if the demographics of the vote are accurate. I've heard it said that a large part of the brexiters were, shall we say, rather advanced in years whereas the remainers had the benefit of youth ?
I'd rather have the generation that fought in ww2 behind me than the Facebook generation!"yes those brave people fought a dictator who did what he wanted not what a parliament wanted. history does repeat itself lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I knew this was coming, Libtards crowing from the rooftops. Smarmy little bastards, it will end in tears, mark my words... I don't hear anyone crowing. I just hear pragmatic people commenting that it is ironic how parliamentary democracy has been brought to the fore. If people were crowing they would be saying things like... " You lost in Court, get over it and quit moaning." They can't do that because you actually won in Court. You got the Parliamentary democracy that you demanded and now you want a civil war. this.. Brightonish, read the threads since this happened and there is none or very little.. what there has been is an obvious failure by some on the Brexit side to patently grasp what the High Court decision is and what it actually means.. its been the majority of those on the remain side who have been trying to explain it but some like you don't seem to comprehend or it doesn't suit your 'its the new world order' behind it all.. its only you who has been talking about civil war and revolution which is puzzling given the position of leaving still stands.. so keep polishing your boots by all means, but maybe look at what has actually happened and not what you think is more conspiracy.. I think you,ll find a lot of people are thinking that the house of Lords will block Brexit given the chance, MPs know they can be voted out but the Lords can not be voted out so will do whats best for them and not what the people voted for." I think if the lower house is massively in favour of it then yes there will be some who may amend or try to amend.. I think if they were to obstruct for the sake of it given the decision has been taken and there wont be a 2nd referendum then they will only be playing into the hands of those who seek to reduce their numbers or even have them elected and not chosen by parties, privilege or that they got to the top in a religion.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My father now 81 years old bangs on about brexit and voted out. He's 81! and Made a very comfortable life for himself and family while in the E.U. His grandchildren (the ones that it will affect )all voted stay. " Have you ever thought he may know something you don't, the EU has changed a lot in 40 years when the UK joined there were only 8 members now there are 28. They ALL have to agree on everything before anything gets done and as you should know they will not compromise as David Cameron found out. The leaders of the EU are unelected so cannot be removed just like the house of Lords they make a lot of our laws and I think in maybe 20 years time they will rule with an iron fist just like a dictator. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The venom coming from the leave side has been way out of proportion to the actual decision... attacks on the judges, death threats to the complainant The right wing media has whipped up a storm... I am sure they must be sailing very close to the wind to some sort of inciting a riot or violence charge How anyone could defend the mail, express and telegraph today is mad" what's frightening is that we've already had an MP killed during this process by a political extremist and there are plenty more of that ilk out there.. sad days for this country.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think you,ll find a lot of people are thinking that the house of Lords will block Brexit given the chance, MPs know they can be voted out but the Lords can not be voted out so will do whats best for them and not what the people voted for." But there would be no point in doing that because this ruling only relates to the start of negotiations..... Now they could send it back with the amendment added that we all again get a say or parliament does at the final deal stage.... but any MP could do that! I am glad a Tory out MP has resigned because it shows that different people want different sorts of brexit! And that is why I believe parliament should get a say in what sort of exit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The venom coming from the leave side has been way out of proportion to the actual decision... attacks on the judges, death threats to the complainant The right wing media has whipped up a storm... I am sure they must be sailing very close to the wind to some sort of inciting a riot or violence charge How anyone could defend the mail, express and telegraph today is mad what's frightening is that we've already had an MP killed during this process by a political extremist and there are plenty more of that ilk out there.. sad days for this country.. " No I think you,ll find Jo Cox was killed by a man with mental health problems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think you,ll find a lot of people are thinking that the house of Lords will block Brexit given the chance, MPs know they can be voted out but the Lords can not be voted out so will do whats best for them and not what the people voted for. But there would be no point in doing that because this ruling only relates to the start of negotiations..... Now they could send it back with the amendment added that we all again get a say or parliament does at the final deal stage.... but any MP could do that! I am glad a Tory out MP has resigned because it shows that different people want different sorts of brexit! And that is why I believe parliament should get a say in what sort of exit " Yes but it could go on for years you know as well as I do you cant suit everyone all of the time. Someone needs to be able to say enough is enough this is the deal we are going with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? " But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The venom coming from the leave side has been way out of proportion to the actual decision... attacks on the judges, death threats to the complainant The right wing media has whipped up a storm... I am sure they must be sailing very close to the wind to some sort of inciting a riot or violence charge How anyone could defend the mail, express and telegraph today is mad what's frightening is that we've already had an MP killed during this process by a political extremist and there are plenty more of that ilk out there.. sad days for this country.. No I think you,ll find Jo Cox was killed by a man with mental health problems." who had for many years been associated with the far right in the US.. putting the vile murder of Jo Cox to one side, would sincerely hope that people exercising their right to use the laws of the land and those who sit in judgement of such laws receiving death threats is to be roundly condemned by all sides as not acceptable in this country.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My father now 81 years old bangs on about brexit and voted out. He's 81! and Made a very comfortable life for himself and family while in the E.U. His grandchildren (the ones that it will affect )all voted stay. " he was 58 before the EU existed though. How did he manage before? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place!" ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The venom coming from the leave side has been way out of proportion to the actual decision... attacks on the judges, death threats to the complainant The right wing media has whipped up a storm... I am sure they must be sailing very close to the wind to some sort of inciting a riot or violence charge How anyone could defend the mail, express and telegraph today is mad what's frightening is that we've already had an MP killed during this process by a political extremist and there are plenty more of that ilk out there.. sad days for this country.. No I think you,ll find Jo Cox was killed by a man with mental health problems. who had for many years been associated with the far right in the US.. putting the vile murder of Jo Cox to one side, would sincerely hope that people exercising their right to use the laws of the land and those who sit in judgement of such laws receiving death threats is to be roundly condemned by all sides as not acceptable in this country.. " Does,nt mean her murder was politically motivated your making assumption that it was, people that knew him said he had mental problems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The venom coming from the leave side has been way out of proportion to the actual decision... attacks on the judges, death threats to the complainant The right wing media has whipped up a storm... I am sure they must be sailing very close to the wind to some sort of inciting a riot or violence charge How anyone could defend the mail, express and telegraph today is mad what's frightening is that we've already had an MP killed during this process by a political extremist and there are plenty more of that ilk out there.. sad days for this country.. No I think you,ll find Jo Cox was killed by a man with mental health problems. who had for many years been associated with the far right in the US.. putting the vile murder of Jo Cox to one side, would sincerely hope that people exercising their right to use the laws of the land and those who sit in judgement of such laws receiving death threats is to be roundly condemned by all sides as not acceptable in this country.. Does,nt mean her murder was politically motivated your making assumption that it was, people that knew him said he had mental problems." and his defence team for the trial, meant to be this month have stated in court that following assessment his mental health will not form part of any defence.. his mental health is not an issue.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The venom coming from the leave side has been way out of proportion to the actual decision... attacks on the judges, death threats to the complainant The right wing media has whipped up a storm... I am sure they must be sailing very close to the wind to some sort of inciting a riot or violence charge How anyone could defend the mail, express and telegraph today is mad what's frightening is that we've already had an MP killed during this process by a political extremist and there are plenty more of that ilk out there.. sad days for this country.. No I think you,ll find Jo Cox was killed by a man with mental health problems. who had for many years been associated with the far right in the US.. putting the vile murder of Jo Cox to one side, would sincerely hope that people exercising their right to use the laws of the land and those who sit in judgement of such laws receiving death threats is to be roundly condemned by all sides as not acceptable in this country.. Does,nt mean her murder was politically motivated your making assumption that it was, people that knew him said he had mental problems. and his defence team for the trial, meant to be this month have stated in court that following assessment his mental health will not form part of any defence.. his mental health is not an issue.." Of course he has no mental health issues. He is a terrorist, and that's why he's being tried as a terrorist, with no medical issues being raised. Of course, people who are ashamed of what other people of their own political persuasion have done will try any way of pretending the truth is anything other than it is. It's second nature for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The venom coming from the leave side has been way out of proportion to the actual decision... attacks on the judges, death threats to the complainant The right wing media has whipped up a storm... I am sure they must be sailing very close to the wind to some sort of inciting a riot or violence charge How anyone could defend the mail, express and telegraph today is mad what's frightening is that we've already had an MP killed during this process by a political extremist and there are plenty more of that ilk out there.. sad days for this country.. No I think you,ll find Jo Cox was killed by a man with mental health problems. who had for many years been associated with the far right in the US.. putting the vile murder of Jo Cox to one side, would sincerely hope that people exercising their right to use the laws of the land and those who sit in judgement of such laws receiving death threats is to be roundly condemned by all sides as not acceptable in this country.. Does,nt mean her murder was politically motivated your making assumption that it was, people that knew him said he had mental problems. and his defence team for the trial, meant to be this month have stated in court that following assessment his mental health will not form part of any defence.. his mental health is not an issue.. Of course he has no mental health issues. He is a terrorist, and that's why he's being tried as a terrorist, with no medical issues being raised. Of course, people who are ashamed of what other people of their own political persuasion have done will try any way of pretending the truth is anything other than it is. It's second nature for them." I am ashamed of nothing I live 10 miles away from where JO Cox was killed he was said at the time of her death he had mental issues true of not I have heard no evidence that it was politically motivated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The venom coming from the leave side has been way out of proportion to the actual decision... attacks on the judges, death threats to the complainant The right wing media has whipped up a storm... I am sure they must be sailing very close to the wind to some sort of inciting a riot or violence charge How anyone could defend the mail, express and telegraph today is mad" it's obscene, but I'm not surprised given the storm that was whipped up during the referendum campaign. A lot of people fell for it then (or used it as an excuse to release all their pent up anger and frustration at having shit lives/not being able to deal with change in the world - delete as appropriate); I just hope it doesn't have the same impact now  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted?" Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The venom coming from the leave side has been way out of proportion to the actual decision... attacks on the judges, death threats to the complainant The right wing media has whipped up a storm... I am sure they must be sailing very close to the wind to some sort of inciting a riot or violence charge How anyone could defend the mail, express and telegraph today is mad what's frightening is that we've already had an MP killed during this process by a political extremist and there are plenty more of that ilk out there.. sad days for this country.. No I think you,ll find Jo Cox was killed by a man with mental health problems. who had for many years been associated with the far right in the US.. putting the vile murder of Jo Cox to one side, would sincerely hope that people exercising their right to use the laws of the land and those who sit in judgement of such laws receiving death threats is to be roundly condemned by all sides as not acceptable in this country.. Does,nt mean her murder was politically motivated your making assumption that it was, people that knew him said he had mental problems. and his defence team for the trial, meant to be this month have stated in court that following assessment his mental health will not form part of any defence.. his mental health is not an issue.. Of course he has no mental health issues. He is a terrorist, and that's why he's being tried as a terrorist, with no medical issues being raised. Of course, people who are ashamed of what other people of their own political persuasion have done will try any way of pretending the truth is anything other than it is. It's second nature for them. I am ashamed of nothing I live 10 miles away from where JO Cox was killed he was said at the time of her death he had mental issues true of not I have heard no evidence that it was politically motivated." See if you can follow this: He is being tried as a terrorist, for terrorist offences, with no medical issues being raised. That is all the evidence you need. Whatever you read on Facebook at the time if her death is irrelevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."?" Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."?" What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud! "no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people"Except that wasn't what the referendum was on. Perhaps he misunderstood the ballot paper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people"Very happy indeed for you to point out on the ballot paper where it says that, naturally! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
Except that wasn't what the referendum was on. Perhaps he misunderstood the ballot paper."of course it was. Maybe you didn't understand it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
Except that wasn't what the referendum was on. Perhaps he misunderstood the ballot paper."I bet he remembered to take his own pen so they couldn't rub his X out though!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
Very happy indeed for you to point out on the ballot paper where it says that, naturally! "thought everyone knew that. There was no need to put it there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
Very happy indeed for you to point out on the ballot paper where it says that, naturally!
thought everyone knew that. There was no need to put it there"The Brexiteers' Delusion, encapsulated beautifully. Thank you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
Except that wasn't what the referendum was on. Perhaps he misunderstood the ballot paper.
I bet he remembered to take his own pen so they couldn't rub his X out though! "I know, the bastards. I spent hours at the count trying rub all those leave votes out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
Very happy indeed for you to point out on the ballot paper where it says that, naturally!
thought everyone knew that. There was no need to put it there
The Brexiteers' Delusion, encapsulated beautifully. Thank you! "there is only one side of this debte that is deluded and fortunately that was the losing side | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. " Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people"trying to rewrite history doesn't change where we are and also given how badly set out the referendum was as in not binding and open to such a challenge as it has been, maybe the sovereign people should address their concerns to one Dave Cameron..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
Very happy indeed for you to point out on the ballot paper where it says that, naturally!
thought everyone knew that. There was no need to put it there
The Brexiteers' Delusion, encapsulated beautifully. Thank you!
there is only one side of this debte that is deluded and fortunately that was the losing side "You just admitted in your own words you didn't know what you were voting for! Don't worry, you're not alone...there are around 17 million of you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
trying to rewrite history doesn't change where we are and also given how badly set out the referendum was as in not binding and open to such a challenge as it has been, maybe the sovereign people should address their concerns to one Dave Cameron..?
How can we,he,s already done one
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
Very happy indeed for you to point out on the ballot paper where it says that, naturally!
thought everyone knew that. There was no need to put it there
The Brexiteers' Delusion, encapsulated beautifully. Thank you!
there is only one side of this debte that is deluded and fortunately that was the losing side
You just admitted in your own words you didn't know what you were voting for!
Don't worry, you're not alone...there are around 17 million of you! "Exactly, there was nothing in the referendum about getting rid of parliamentary democracy and replacing it with a direct democracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
trying to rewrite history doesn't change where we are and also given how badly set out the referendum was as in not binding and open to such a challenge as it has been, maybe the sovereign people should address their concerns to one Dave Cameron..?
How can we,he,s already done one
"pretty sure the Palace of Westminster will have a forwarding address.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. " If PC was just about equal rights for women gays and ethnic minorities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But anyone with even only half a brain knows that it goes much further than that. I believe that everybody, regardless of what they believe should have the right to say what they like. We are living in a society where everything is controlled by one section of society to the detriment of all others, and that is wrong. Argue with someone or something and out come the same tired old accusations, racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. It is much the same as calling all swingers perverts, sluts, or whatever other accusation others could make. Perhaps some are, it doesn't mean we all are. I saw a thread on one of these forums where someone was complaining about people who don't want to meet black or Asian people. That is their sexual preference, but he was saying that they are racist. Nobody complains about people specifying they want bbc only, and rightly so, if that is what floats their boat then good luck to them. Each and everyone to their own, if others don't like it they can block you easily. Political so called "correctness" is hypocritical and laden with double standards. Nothing to do with equality if one group is more equal than another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. If PC was just about equal rights for women gays and ethnic minorities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But anyone with even only half a brain knows that it goes much further than that. I believe that everybody, regardless of what they believe should have the right to say what they like. We are living in a society where everything is controlled by one section of society to the detriment of all others, and that is wrong. Argue with someone or something and out come the same tired old accusations, racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. " No. Those accusations only tend to come out if someone is being racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. It's surprisingly easy to avoid those accusations really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. If PC was just about equal rights for women gays and ethnic minorities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But anyone with even only half a brain knows that it goes much further than that. I believe that everybody, regardless of what they believe should have the right to say what they like. We are living in a society where everything is controlled by one section of society to the detriment of all others, and that is wrong. Argue with someone or something and out come the same tired old accusations, racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. No. Those accusations only tend to come out if someone is being racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. It's surprisingly easy to avoid those accusations really." So the accusation that a white woman who only wants to have sex with white men is racist is right? And similar to those who say there are enough people here and they don't want millions more immigrants, they are saying that because they are racist? That is the mantra, and I for one will never buy it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. If PC was just about equal rights for women gays and ethnic minorities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But anyone with even only half a brain knows that it goes much further than that. I believe that everybody, regardless of what they believe should have the right to say what they like. We are living in a society where everything is controlled by one section of society to the detriment of all others, and that is wrong. Argue with someone or something and out come the same tired old accusations, racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. No. Those accusations only tend to come out if someone is being racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. It's surprisingly easy to avoid those accusations really. So the accusation that a white woman who only wants to have sex with white men is racist is right? And similar to those who say there are enough people here and they don't want millions more immigrants, they are saying that because they are racist? That is the mantra, and I for one will never buy it!" The mantra is in your head. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
Very happy indeed for you to point out on the ballot paper where it says that, naturally!
thought everyone knew that. There was no need to put it there
The Brexiteers' Delusion, encapsulated beautifully. Thank you!
there is only one side of this debte that is deluded and fortunately that was the losing side
You just admitted in your own words you didn't know what you were voting for!
Don't worry, you're not alone...there are around 17 million of you! "how do you work that one out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. If PC was just about equal rights for women gays and ethnic minorities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But anyone with even only half a brain knows that it goes much further than that. I believe that everybody, regardless of what they believe should have the right to say what they like. We are living in a society where everything is controlled by one section of society to the detriment of all others, and that is wrong. Argue with someone or something and out come the same tired old accusations, racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. No. Those accusations only tend to come out if someone is being racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. It's surprisingly easy to avoid those accusations really." No they don't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? Well, you voted for the 'return of sovereignty'. Sovereignty is pretty much the definition of the decisions of rich fuckers being adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich fuckers. You must feel very proud!
no, he voted for a return to the sovereignty of the people
Very happy indeed for you to point out on the ballot paper where it says that, naturally!
thought everyone knew that. There was no need to put it there
The Brexiteers' Delusion, encapsulated beautifully. Thank you!
there is only one side of this debte that is deluded and fortunately that was the losing side
You just admitted in your own words you didn't know what you were voting for!
Don't worry, you're not alone...there are around 17 million of you!
Exactly, there was nothing in the referendum about getting rid of parliamentary democracy and replacing it with a direct democracy."well did you read the whole of the EU referendum act 2015 or are you just ignoring that question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them!" well what will they be if the Supreme Court overturns their decision? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them! well what will they be if the Supreme Court overturns their decision?" Will the judiciary still be "enemies of the people" if they overturn it? Or will that depend on their personal wealth, sexuality, whether they've ever been an Olympic fencer and whether they've a hint of a tan? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. If PC was just about equal rights for women gays and ethnic minorities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But anyone with even only half a brain knows that it goes much further than that. I believe that everybody, regardless of what they believe should have the right to say what they like. We are living in a society where everything is controlled by one section of society to the detriment of all others, and that is wrong. Argue with someone or something and out come the same tired old accusations, racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. No. Those accusations only tend to come out if someone is being racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. It's surprisingly easy to avoid those accusations really. So the accusation that a white woman who only wants to have sex with white men is racist is right? And similar to those who say there are enough people here and they don't want millions more immigrants, they are saying that because they are racist? That is the mantra, and I for one will never buy it! The mantra is in your head." Where else would it be? If it wasn't in my mind I wouldn't be thinking about it. Yes thinking about it, instead of just blindly following it and insisting that everyone else does... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them! well what will they be if the Supreme Court overturns their decision?" Not going to happen.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them! well what will they be if the Supreme Court overturns their decision? Not going to happen.." Surprising Brightonish I agree with you. No the supreme court are going to overrule the high court decision and allow the executive to repeal parliamentary legislation without consulting parliament. We were given rights by parliament in the European Communities Act, and only parliament can take those rights away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them! well what will they be if the Supreme Court overturns their decision? Will the judiciary still be "enemies of the people" if they overturn it? Or will that depend on their personal wealth, sexuality, whether they've ever been an Olympic fencer and whether they've a hint of a tan?" you tell me? I haven't said the original ruling was wrong. Just made a point why it might be | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them! well what will they be if the Supreme Court overturns their decision? Not going to happen.. Surprising Brightonish I agree with you. No the supreme court are going to overrule the high court decision and allow the executive to repeal parliamentary legislation without consulting parliament. We were given rights by parliament in the European Communities Act, and only parliament can take those rights away." I don't know either way but why are the government confident it will be? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them! well what will they be if the Supreme Court overturns their decision? Not going to happen.. Surprising Brightonish I agree with you. No the supreme court are going to overrule the high court decision and allow the executive to repeal parliamentary legislation without consulting parliament. We were given rights by parliament in the European Communities Act, and only parliament can take those rights away. I don't know either way but why are the government confident it will be?" May doesnt even know if the leader of the opposition has had a grandchild or not, she's not exactly well briefed. But anyone with a basic understanding of the British parliamentary system knows that the government can't repeal acts of parliament. May would have been told this, and to be honest has been made to look foolish and dictatorial and her approach has also cost her one MP already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them! well what will they be if the Supreme Court overturns their decision? Not going to happen.. Surprising Brightonish I agree with you. No the supreme court are going to overrule the high court decision and allow the executive to repeal parliamentary legislation without consulting parliament. We were given rights by parliament in the European Communities Act, and only parliament can take those rights away. I don't know either way but why are the government confident it will be?" The government know they will lose the appeal too. They are going through the motions so when your average Johnny Brexiter starts crying again over not understanding the law of the land he pretends to hold so sacrosanct, the Tories can call it a disgrace to freedom and blame the judges instead of underlining yet another example of their mismanagement of this whole fiasco. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them! well what will they be if the Supreme Court overturns their decision? Not going to happen.. Surprising Brightonish I agree with you. No the supreme court are going to overrule the high court decision and allow the executive to repeal parliamentary legislation without consulting parliament. We were given rights by parliament in the European Communities Act, and only parliament can take those rights away. I don't know either way but why are the government confident it will be? The government know they will lose the appeal too. They are going through the motions so when your average Johnny Brexiter starts crying again over not understanding the law of the land he pretends to hold so sacrosanct, the Tories can call it a disgrace to freedom and blame the judges instead of underlining yet another example of their mismanagement of this whole fiasco." Although it would suit my politics for it not to be appealed, I do think that the supreme court with all 11 justices sitting is the best place for such a monumental decision to be made. On another point, if the government lose at the supreme court, the BBC said that the government can take it to the European courts, would any Brexitiers want to see that happen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them! well what will they be if the Supreme Court overturns their decision? Not going to happen.. Surprising Brightonish I agree with you. No the supreme court are going to overrule the high court decision and allow the executive to repeal parliamentary legislation without consulting parliament. We were given rights by parliament in the European Communities Act, and only parliament can take those rights away. I don't know either way but why are the government confident it will be? The government know they will lose the appeal too. They are going through the motions so when your average Johnny Brexiter starts crying again over not understanding the law of the land he pretends to hold so sacrosanct, the Tories can call it a disgrace to freedom and blame the judges instead of underlining yet another example of their mismanagement of this whole fiasco." I agree, but also believe the mismanagement to have been deliberate. That is why I don't believe our exit from the EU (BREXIT) will ever actually take place. It's all wind and piss, we have been taken on an extremely extravagant ride by a bunch of crooked politicians. In other words it's situation normal, I always knew deep down it was too good to be true. | |||
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) | |||
"My father now 81 years old bangs on about brexit and voted out. He's 81! and Made a very comfortable life for himself and family while in the E.U. His grandchildren (the ones that it will affect )all voted stay. he was 58 before the EU existed though. How did he manage before? "we were signed up to the european common market way before that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The venom coming from the leave side has been way out of proportion to the actual decision... attacks on the judges, death threats to the complainant The right wing media has whipped up a storm... I am sure they must be sailing very close to the wind to some sort of inciting a riot or violence charge How anyone could defend the mail, express and telegraph today is mad what's frightening is that we've already had an MP killed during this process by a political extremist and there are plenty more of that ilk out there.. sad days for this country.. No I think you,ll find Jo Cox was killed by a man with mental health problems." But he did say Britain First and call we her a traitor to her country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My father now 81 years old bangs on about brexit and voted out. He's 81! and Made a very comfortable life for himself and family while in the E.U. His grandchildren (the ones that it will affect )all voted stay. " If we were not in the EU his standard of living might have been even better . His grand children can look forward to a better standard of living outside the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My father now 81 years old bangs on about brexit and voted out. He's 81! and Made a very comfortable life for himself and family while in the E.U. His grandchildren (the ones that it will affect )all voted stay. If we were not in the EU his standard of living might have been even better . His grand children can look forward to a better standard of living outside the EU. " This last statement is just total rubbish! No one, unless we postulate the existence of an omniscient deity, can say this! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly, there was nothing in the referendum about getting rid of parliamentary democracy and replacing it with a direct democracy." Gods, imagine how bad that would be! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My father now 81 years old bangs on about brexit and voted out. He's 81! and Made a very comfortable life for himself and family while in the E.U. His grandchildren (the ones that it will affect )all voted stay. If we were not in the EU his standard of living might have been even better . His grand children can look forward to a better standard of living outside the EU. " opinion or fact Pat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could it be that the government and it's backers think that they can use this decisive issue to sideline parliament and turn it into a talking shop that has no real power? But that is exactly what has happened under the last 20 years of EU membership wherein laws are made (and have supremacy) in Brussels and hardly ever debated in Parliament...one of the reasons for having a Referendum in the first place! ....and yesterday you got u.k judges deciding about U.K. Law in a U.K. Court Isn't that what you wanted? Er no. Yesterday was an exercise in a bunch of rich (and some foreign-born) cunts taking an expensive case to another bunch of rich cunts called judges and potentially temporarily or permanently side-lining the wishes of 17.4 million people. Point me to the section on the ballot paper where it says ..."decision to be reviewed by rich fuckers who don't like the outcome and adjudicated upon by another bunch of rich PC fuckers."? What does wealth or nationality have to do with whether a ruling is valid or not? They ruled on a matter of law, and the people who made the ruling were eminently qualified to do so. You've got more chips than Whitby, chill out. Eminently qualified sound an awful lot like expert to me, and we know how Brexiters feel about them! well what will they be if the Supreme Court overturns their decision? Will the judiciary still be "enemies of the people" if they overturn it? Or will that depend on their personal wealth, sexuality, whether they've ever been an Olympic fencer and whether they've a hint of a tan?" I think it's extremely unlikely that the decision will be over turned by the Supreme Court. I never had any doubt in my mind that the legal situation was clear. Parliament agreed to a non-binding referendum. It is now the job of parliament to implement that referendum result,or not, as it chooses. The government does have a mandate from the referendum to take the UK out of the EU but this must be done following law and due process. That due process unquestionably involves parliament. The government should put this before parliament now and not waste more time arguing about it. The longer the time from the referendum the weaker and less valid the referendum mandate becomes. If those who want BREXIT really want BREXIT then stop arguing about the process and get on with using the correct processes that are in place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a right/left argument,it is an in/out of Europe argument.The people have voted and now polititions of both sides must therefore obey the wishes of the people. They do not want to do this because it is not in there personal interests.The same applies to the judiciary etc as they do well out of Europe. If polititions do not wish to aid the wishes of the people they should resign and be barred from holding any public office. If we have an election then MP'S on both sides,labour or tory should only be allowed to stand if the are Brexiters. How do the Judicuary do well out of Europe? " every case that gos to the European courts they make a fortune,also crazy human right cases that happen in the UK,Lawers make millions out of the EU and there laws | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is not a right/left argument,it is an in/out of Europe argument.The people have voted and now polititions of both sides must therefore obey the wishes of the people. They do not want to do this because it is not in there personal interests.The same applies to the judiciary etc as they do well out of Europe. If polititions do not wish to aid the wishes of the people they should resign and be barred from holding any public office. If we have an election then MP'S on both sides,labour or tory should only be allowed to stand if the are Brexiters. How do the Judicuary do well out of Europe? every case that gos to the European courts they make a fortune,also crazy human right cases that happen in the UK,Lawers make millions out of the EU and there laws" It's worrying how people talk about 'crazy human rights cases'. It's ridiculous how poeple talk about the rule of law as if it is a bad thing. Do these people really want to live without law? Or just to pick the law that suits them? Yet on here we have loads of people for whom protection by the law should, surely, be lauded as one of Britain's true strengths. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My father now 81 years old bangs on about brexit and voted out. He's 81! and Made a very comfortable life for himself and family while in the E.U. His grandchildren (the ones that it will affect )all voted stay. he was 58 before the EU existed though. How did he manage before?
we were signed up to the european common market way before that.
"Ye but that wasn't the EU. The EU didn't exist until 1993 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"in other news the £ has risen following yesterdays ruling so that has to be good.. yes? " no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My father now 81 years old bangs on about brexit and voted out. He's 81! and Made a very comfortable life for himself and family while in the E.U. His grandchildren (the ones that it will affect )all voted stay. If we were not in the EU his standard of living might have been even better . His grand children can look forward to a better standard of living outside the EU. opinion or fact Pat?" Anyone talking about the future can only express an opinion. It is however based on how business will perform outside the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My father now 81 years old bangs on about brexit and voted out. He's 81! and Made a very comfortable life for himself and family while in the E.U. His grandchildren (the ones that it will affect )all voted stay. If we were not in the EU his standard of living might have been even better . His grand children can look forward to a better standard of living outside the EU. This last statement is just total rubbish! No one, unless we postulate the existence of an omniscient deity, can say this!" Or maybe speak to various exporting businesses . In addition we will be paying less subsidies . What would being in the EU help?. Maybe check the re ent performance of the stock market . . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us ." Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. If PC was just about equal rights for women gays and ethnic minorities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But anyone with even only half a brain knows that it goes much further than that. I believe that everybody, regardless of what they believe should have the right to say what they like. We are living in a society where everything is controlled by one section of society to the detriment of all others, and that is wrong. Argue with someone or something and out come the same tired old accusations, racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. It is much the same as calling all swingers perverts, sluts, or whatever other accusation others could make. Perhaps some are, it doesn't mean we all are. I saw a thread on one of these forums where someone was complaining about people who don't want to meet black or Asian people. That is their sexual preference, but he was saying that they are racist. Nobody complains about people specifying they want bbc only, and rightly so, if that is what floats their boat then good luck to them. Each and everyone to their own, if others don't like it they can block you easily. Political so called "correctness" is hypocritical and laden with double standards. Nothing to do with equality if one group is more equal than another." There is a good example on this forum. One poster wanted to let in any person from any country outside the Uk , yet had the cheek to refer to over 60s as being a drain on the health service . I considered his remarks about the 60 year olds as being a drain on the health service to be highly offensive and objectional. If ever there was a clear indication of double standards this was it . The reality is that the anti racist brigade are probably the most bigoted of all people and for some reason best known to themselves seem to think that certain people are unable to stand up for themselves . The attitudes of some of the the anti racist brigade are patronising and condescending . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? " No . My point is it would force us into getting our act together | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. If PC was just about equal rights for women gays and ethnic minorities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But anyone with even only half a brain knows that it goes much further than that. I believe that everybody, regardless of what they believe should have the right to say what they like. We are living in a society where everything is controlled by one section of society to the detriment of all others, and that is wrong. Argue with someone or something and out come the same tired old accusations, racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. It is much the same as calling all swingers perverts, sluts, or whatever other accusation others could make. Perhaps some are, it doesn't mean we all are. I saw a thread on one of these forums where someone was complaining about people who don't want to meet black or Asian people. That is their sexual preference, but he was saying that they are racist. Nobody complains about people specifying they want bbc only, and rightly so, if that is what floats their boat then good luck to them. Each and everyone to their own, if others don't like it they can block you easily. Political so called "correctness" is hypocritical and laden with double standards. Nothing to do with equality if one group is more equal than another. There is a good example on this forum. One poster wanted to let in any person from any country outside the Uk , yet had the cheek to refer to over 60s as being a drain on the health service . I considered his remarks about the 60 year olds as being a drain on the health service to be highly offensive and objectional. If ever there was a clear indication of double standards this was it . The reality is that the anti racist brigade are probably the most bigoted of all people and for some reason best known to themselves seem to think that certain people are unable to stand up for themselves . The attitudes of some of the the anti racist brigade are patronising and condescending ." totally agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? No . My point is it would force us into getting our act together "Do you think we could do that in time before our economy tanks? And in what areas? And whilst continuing to pay current wage levels? I don't think we have anything really to offer that people can't get elsewhere and often cheaper. So, if we don't have trade agreements first, then our economy fails. And pretty darn I suspect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? " JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers " None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. " But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. " No ! It means we start to train people now ! We can if we really want to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. " Who said that immigration of highly skilled specialists would be restricted ? I cannot see any of our Pharma companies leaving the uk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. No ! It means we start to train people now ! We can if we really want to "How? Who does the training? Who examines it, sets standards, etc? Where? How do we pay for it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. No ! It means we start to train people now ! We can if we really want to "My thoughts exactly . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. Who said that immigration of highly skilled specialists would be restricted ? I cannot see any of our Pharma companies leaving the uk. " But why would they stay? What would keep them here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. Who said that immigration of highly skilled specialists would be restricted ? I cannot see any of our Pharma companies leaving the uk. " The government's manifesto committment is to reduce it to less than 100,000. Do you want them to work in the NHS? In research? Footballers? Banking? Insurance? Legal services? Engineering? IT? You cant limit immigration and not have an impact on industry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. Who said that immigration of highly skilled specialists would be restricted ? I cannot see any of our Pharma companies leaving the uk. The government's manifesto committment is to reduce it to less than 100,000. Do you want them to work in the NHS? In research? Footballers? Banking? Insurance? Legal services? Engineering? IT? You cant limit immigration and not have an impact on industry. " But that 100 000 is like the £350m per week, flexible and applied to a whole range of argument points! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. Who said that immigration of highly skilled specialists would be restricted ? I cannot see any of our Pharma companies leaving the uk. The government's manifesto committment is to reduce it to less than 100,000. Do you want them to work in the NHS? In research? Footballers? Banking? Insurance? Legal services? Engineering? IT? You cant limit immigration and not have an impact on industry. " With limits being placed , it will encourage automation of some of the more menial tasks . 100, 000 still seems a high number . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. Who said that immigration of highly skilled specialists would be restricted ? I cannot see any of our Pharma companies leaving the uk. " But Brexit means Brexit so we're not having any of that immigration nonsense thank you! Oh, now we are going to have some free movement? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. Who said that immigration of highly skilled specialists would be restricted ? I cannot see any of our Pharma companies leaving the uk. The government's manifesto committment is to reduce it to less than 100,000. Do you want them to work in the NHS? In research? Footballers? Banking? Insurance? Legal services? Engineering? IT? You cant limit immigration and not have an impact on industry. With limits being placed , it will encourage automation of some of the more menial tasks . 100, 000 still seems a high number . " Hold on, automation of more menial tasks? Isn't the whole immigration 'issue' about cheap labour taking our jobs? Now you, a Brexiter, want to use automation instead? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. Who said that immigration of highly skilled specialists would be restricted ? I cannot see any of our Pharma companies leaving the uk. The government's manifesto committment is to reduce it to less than 100,000. Do you want them to work in the NHS? In research? Footballers? Banking? Insurance? Legal services? Engineering? IT? You cant limit immigration and not have an impact on industry. With limits being placed , it will encourage automation of some of the more menial tasks . 100, 000 still seems a high number . " Oh, so it won't actually create more jobs for British workers then? I thought that was the whole point? Either way a worker (foreign or domestic) pays income taxes (thresholds apply) and NI contributions that fund vital services, a robot does not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds a bit like a " what did the romans do for us debate" ""He's not the foreign secretary, he's a very naughty boy!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If our goods and services are good enough ? Country's will come to us . Why? What us so special about our goods and services? I mean, really, what? What do we make here that we can't get as good elsewhere? Rolls Royces? Aston Martins? JCBs, Pharma research , engineering products for the oil industry , electronics , motor industry research , cars , lorry trailers None of which are such that you can't get them anywhere else. OK, maybe pharma, but the rest, good of course, but plenty of sources elsewhere for them. But things like pharma and research are so good in this country because we get the best people from around the world. If we limit immigration significantly we won't be able to do that in the future, and we dont train and educate enough people in STEM to fill those gaps domestically, which means those industries will have to relocate. Who said that immigration of highly skilled specialists would be restricted ? I cannot see any of our Pharma companies leaving the uk. The government's manifesto committment is to reduce it to less than 100,000. Do you want them to work in the NHS? In research? Footballers? Banking? Insurance? Legal services? Engineering? IT? You cant limit immigration and not have an impact on industry. With limits being placed , it will encourage automation of some of the more menial tasks . 100, 000 still seems a high number . Oh, so it won't actually create more jobs for British workers then? I thought that was the whole point? Either way a worker (foreign or domestic) pays income taxes (thresholds apply) and NI contributions that fund vital services, a robot does not. " For gods' sake, stop talking sense here would you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds a bit like a " what did the romans do for us debate"
"He's not the foreign secretary, he's a very naughty boy!" "Not the subject but I do love that Film | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why oh why can't we just be self sufficient ? Would it be that hard ? Are we that bad ? " Bad? No. Too many of us. Before the industrial revolution England could support 3 000 000 people, now we have industrialised farming but the number we can support is low. 30 million maybe? I don't have a figure but if we couldn't do it in WWII with the massive effort we made and stiringent rationing, there is no chance now. Simple arithmetic and real world! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why oh why can't we just be self sufficient ? Would it be that hard ? Are we that bad ? " Where was your phone made? Where was your laptop and TV made? Did you have a cup of tea or coffee today? Any chocolate? Did you have a banana today? Did you watch any American TV or movies in the last week? Do you have pepper in your house? Are your clothes made in the UK? Are they made from British grown cotton? Do you use Google? Still think it will be easy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the tard bit of libtard not a reference to retard then? So it is time to fight back against political correctness? Political correctness is simply people getting fed up of arseholes thinking women or gays or ethnic minorities or pretty much any other minority are somehow inferior and fair game to be insulted and have their sensibilities run roughshod over. Fight back? Ha. Enjoy perhaps a last short swan song. Like brexit, the young have no truck with your attitude. They embrace the modern world, they are tolerant and progressive. The days of the bigoted pig ignorant dinosaurs are numbered. If PC was just about equal rights for women gays and ethnic minorities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But anyone with even only half a brain knows that it goes much further than that. I believe that everybody, regardless of what they believe should have the right to say what they like. We are living in a society where everything is controlled by one section of society to the detriment of all others, and that is wrong. Argue with someone or something and out come the same tired old accusations, racist, xenophobe, bigot, sexist, homophobe, the lot. It is much the same as calling all swingers perverts, sluts, or whatever other accusation others could make. Perhaps some are, it doesn't mean we all are. I saw a thread on one of these forums where someone was complaining about people who don't want to meet black or Asian people. That is their sexual preference, but he was saying that they are racist. Nobody complains about people specifying they want bbc only, and rightly so, if that is what floats their boat then good luck to them. Each and everyone to their own, if others don't like it they can block you easily. Political so called "correctness" is hypocritical and laden with double standards. Nothing to do with equality if one group is more equal than another. There is a good example on this forum. One poster wanted to let in any person from any country outside the Uk , yet had the cheek to refer to over 60s as being a drain on the health service . I considered his remarks about the 60 year olds as being a drain on the health service to be highly offensive and objectional. If ever there was a clear indication of double standards this was it . The reality is that the anti racist brigade are probably the most bigoted of all people and for some reason best known to themselves seem to think that certain people are unable to stand up for themselves . The attitudes of some of the the anti racist brigade are patronising and condescending . I pulled him / her up on the "60 year old drains on the economy" comment. I got the impression that this person is in favour of retired people living in poverty, because they are no longer paying tax. But nevermind because immigrants are paying in now so they should be our priority. A shocking remark if ever there was." Correction the comment was "drain on the health service." Which is worse, they pay in all their working lives then get dismissed in this way. That is bigotry for you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why oh why can't we just be self sufficient ? Would it be that hard ? Are we that bad ? " In order: 1/ Because we cant feed ourselves (50% of all our food requirements are imported). 2/ That rather depends on the answer to this question: Are you willing to be put down along with 50% of the population to make us self sufficient? 3/ That is a very esoteric question, but if it relates to your first 2 questions and the implication that the problem is not that hard to solve I would suggest that you most certainly could easily be classed as extremely bad. However giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing your premise is based on lack of knowledge rather than deliberate ignorance, I would say it is not that we are bad just badly educated and informed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why oh why can't we just be self sufficient ? Would it be that hard ? Are we that bad ? Where was your phone made? Where was your laptop and TV made? Did you have a cup of tea or coffee today? Any chocolate? Did you have a banana today? Did you watch any American TV or movies in the last week? Do you have pepper in your house? Are your clothes made in the UK? Are they made from British grown cotton? Do you use Google? Still think it will be easy? " Very true. It is impossible to be self sufficient in food. Impossible in anything really, may be able to manage woad if we look hard enough?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'd rather have the generation that fought in ww2 behind me than the Facebook generation!" Given that we decided to join the European Union, or at least it's forerunner, for reasons of trade, prosperity and security, all of which have come to pass by the way, some 40 years ago, I'd say a lot more of that ww1 and ww2 generation were in favour of cooperation and integration rather than against European Union, wouldn't you? No, what you are doing is trying to claim something that isn't true to add some sort of argument from authority. The list of logical fallacies I see from Brexiters is endless. What is more true to say is that it is not the generations who sacrificed themselves but their children and grandchildren who have been the generations most looked after, beneficial, wealth hoarding, curmudgeonly, miserable, selfish, taking for granted, greedy in history that voted brexit. The generations you mention voted for atlees government, the welfare state, the NHS, and an integrated Europe. The generations who voted brexit are their spoilt children, who voted for thatcher and get greed culture. Not content with creating a society more unequal, they have also gathered more wealth to themselves than ever before and are the first to have a legacy where they are leaving the younger generations poorer than themselves. And then they do not wish to give due consideration to the wishes of the young for their future. By 2020 the brexit vote would be overturned on pure demographics ( Although it has already changed in the polls by many leavers realising they made a mistake) , but the deal we will get going back in will be much worse than our current one. Shame on us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'd rather have the generation that fought in ww2 behind me than the Facebook generation! Given that we decided to join the European Union, or at least it's forerunner, for reasons of trade, prosperity and security, all of which have come to pass by the way, some 40 years ago, I'd say a lot more of that ww1 and ww2 generation were in favour of cooperation and integration rather than against European Union, wouldn't you? No, what you are doing is trying to claim something that isn't true to add some sort of argument from authority. The list of logical fallacies I see from Brexiters is endless. What is more true to say is that it is not the generations who sacrificed themselves but their children and grandchildren who have been the generations most looked after, beneficial, wealth hoarding, curmudgeonly, miserable, selfish, taking for granted, greedy in history that voted brexit. The generations you mention voted for atlees government, the welfare state, the NHS, and an integrated Europe. The generations who voted brexit are their spoilt children, who voted for thatcher and get greed culture. Not content with creating a society more unequal, they have also gathered more wealth to themselves than ever before and are the first to have a legacy where they are leaving the younger generations poorer than themselves. And then they do not wish to give due consideration to the wishes of the young for their future. By 2020 the brexit vote would be overturned on pure demographics ( Although it has already changed in the polls by many leavers realising they made a mistake) , but the deal we will get going back in will be much worse than our current one. Shame on us. "
One of the best posts I have read on here.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
