Today's Brexit vote

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Clarets4me
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
Been Liked: 2307 times
Has Liked: 1033 times
Location: Ightenhill,Burnley

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Clarets4me » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:38 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Mencsh and Farage

If the audience is full of people like them its going to be like the Nuremburg rallies
Equating the Conservative party and UKIP to " Fascists " is utterly ridiculous, and just cheapens the word to the point that it has little meaning.

Silly comment ....

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2207
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by JohnMcGreal » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:40 pm

Being a member of the EU has absolutely nothing to do with this year being pants, dom.

Ambrose
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:10 pm
Been Liked: 272 times
Has Liked: 109 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Ambrose » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:44 pm

Spijed wrote:Isn't it wonderful that we'll be free of all EU red tape when we leave.

We'll be able to import toys which are death traps for example:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 59336.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All legislation made by the EU remains law in this country until we choose to repeal it, in our Parliament . Are you suggesting this law is one we will choose to repeal? If so that will be the failure of Parliament not the people who voted leave.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:45 pm

Bacchus wrote:Take the blinkers off for a moment, would you? No bank is moving yet, that's why nobody is reporting that a bank is moving yet. If (still a big if) we lose the ability to freely move capital around the EU a lot of banks will give it serious consideration. Will they stay or go? Who knows, but it's a massive risk (banks contribute something like 6% of our GDP) and to dismiss it as baseless scaremongering is just daft.
There is no economic or business policy in the world that does not carry risk. Whether you like it or not, being in the EU is a risk, being out of it is a risk. If the EU was a stable and successful economic bloc with sensible and consistent policies, then the economic argument may well be to stay. (The political argument wouldn't. Not for me.) But the EU is a basket case that lurches from crisis to crisis - if it's going to ultimately implode or explode, then we're better off out. Is it going to implode or explode? You tell me.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:46 pm

Not been keeping up with current news then Clarets4me then?

Independance of the judiciary trashed, opposition laughed at when they mention that stuff is getting a bit worrying?

But its ok, blue passports! Taking back control from the bureaucrats! More investment in the NHS! More tax cuts! Nothing to see here! Move along!

Clarets4me
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
Been Liked: 2307 times
Has Liked: 1033 times
Location: Ightenhill,Burnley

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Clarets4me » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:56 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:It's fantastic trolling from the beeb. What better way to cap off a ghastly year like 2016 than to invite two of the most ghastly people in British politics onto the panel at the same time. I'm surprised they didn't get Hopkins on to complete the hat-trick of loathsome arse holes.
To provide some balance, left wing ex-druggie public schoolboy Will Self and one of Jeremy Corbyn's useful idiots, Richard Burgon are also on the panel. Completing the line up is Sarah Woolaston, of the Conservatives who I'm sure is very nice... ;)
Last edited by Clarets4me on Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:56 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Not been keeping up with current news then Clarets4me then?

Independance of the judiciary trashed, opposition laughed at when they mention that stuff is getting a bit worrying?

But its ok, blue passports! Taking back control from the bureaucrats! More investment in the NHS! More tax cuts! Nothing to see here! Move along!
I don't think it's the independence of the judiciary that's being trashed, it's the judiciary's claimed supremacy over Parliament. Parliament (in the European Communities (Amendment) Act of 2008) set out the parts of EU law that had to be put to Parliament rather than the decision being made by the Cabinet, and Article 50 wasn't one of them. Also Parliament could perfectly well have discussed Article 50 if they'd wanted to - it's not that the Courts are giving Parliament permission to discuss Article 50, it's that the courts are forcing Parliament to do it. Can the judiciary give orders to Parlliament to change the law? Apparently yes.

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2207
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by JohnMcGreal » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:16 pm

Clarets4me wrote:To provide some balance, left wing ex-druggie public schoolboy Will Self and one of Jeremy Corbyn's useful idiots, Richard Burgon are also on the panel. Completing the line up is Sarah Woolaston, of the Liberal Democrats who I'm sure is very nice... ;)
Sarah Wollaston is the Conservative MP for Totnes.

Bacchus
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:07 pm
Been Liked: 599 times
Has Liked: 171 times
Contact:

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Bacchus » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:19 pm

dsr wrote:There is no economic or business policy in the world that does not carry risk. Whether you like it or not, being in the EU is a risk, being out of it is a risk. If the EU was a stable and successful economic bloc with sensible and consistent policies, then the economic argument may well be to stay. (The political argument wouldn't. Not for me.) But the EU is a basket case that lurches from crisis to crisis - if it's going to ultimately implode or explode, then we're better off out. Is it going to implode or explode? You tell me.
Of course there is risk and opportunity in everything. Dismissing risk, as you appeared to be in this instance, because it doesn't suit your narrative isn't really the way to deal with it though, and banks leaving the UK is a real, significant and imminent risk depending on what Brexit turns out to mean.

Bacchus
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:07 pm
Been Liked: 599 times
Has Liked: 171 times
Contact:

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Bacchus » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:20 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:Sarah Wollaston is the Conservative MP for Totnes.
She's one of the better Tories though. Actually has a pulse, I'm told.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:23 pm

Lots out there saying something completely different, and pretending that the EU and UK law divide is as simple as that is very disingenuous.

The way certain govt ministers, certain newspapers and lots of people (well meaning I'm sure but no idea how this can play out) are attacking the judiciary is nothing sort of scandalous.

An independent judiciary is absolutely essential to a valid parliamentary democracy.

If they can't stop parliament when they are not following the laws correctly, then who can?

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:37 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Lots out there saying something completely different, and pretending that the EU and UK law divide is as simple as that is very disingenuous.

The way certain govt ministers, certain newspapers and lots of people (well meaning I'm sure but no idea how this can play out) are attacking the judiciary is nothing sort of scandalous.

An independent judiciary is absolutely essential to a valid parliamentary democracy.

If they can't stop parliament when they are not following the laws correctly, then who can?
One of the reasons some people object to this court case is that the ceding of powers to the Executive is a matter for Parliament and only for Parliament. Parliament can discuss anything the Executive chooses to do, and in this case Parliament has chosen not to discuss Article 50. Should the Court have the power to order Parliament how to conduct its business?

The Courts appear to be trying to argue that the powers ceded by Parliament to the Executive over the years should not have been so ceded, and that it's not in Parliament's power to do it. Because the Executive for years has been negotiating with the EEC/EU without anyone saying anything, least of all Parliament.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5231
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:55 pm

Ultimately this is all smoke and mirrors, but what can't be denied is that the forces that Mark Carney talked about in his speech 2 days ago regarding globalisation affecting the UK working class could be viewed as Europeisation (yes, I've invented a new word) affecting the UK working class.

1. Facebook can open a head office in Ireland, who can choose to be a tax haven, and then using two of the four freedoms (goods and services) Facebook can supply goods all over the EU, paying little tax on it. This affects our tax take.

2. A Polish manufacturing company can start up and with a low cost base supply goods all over Europe, again with no restrictions. This affects our GDP, employment figures and our competitiveness.

3. Low cost workers can come here freely, work at a pittance, claim benefits too, then worsen the effect on the UK by sending money back home instead of spending it here.

There are tons of other types of example. It is, along with wider globalisation, wrecking working class British prospects. Wrecking rather than damaging is the appropriate level of rhetoric.

That's the main reason why the EU is a busted flush, and why those who voted to leave were in all probability correct to do so (I'm not saying those voting Remain were not also correct, those above issues may be deemed not to affect them).

The debate is slowly getting onto the real issues, and when it does, that's when the EU will fold in on itself and a new relationship between Europeans can take hold. Hopefully.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:06 pm

1)You do realise that if we go for a "hard" brexit, one of the solutions on the table is for us to go for option 1?

2) How the hell are tariffs going to help us get around that? it will makes us even less competitive

3) I have to be honest, this is not my area of expertise or knowledge, but it does sound suspiciously like a Daily mail editorial, so I'm sceptical? If someone is on benefits, and low wages and can still send money home, then either they live like a monk or the story needs some work!

If its immigration, then you know as well as i do that the govt have had the power to restrict non-EU immigration for decades, and haven't been able to do anything about it.

If its regaining control of our courts etc etc, then we are still in the ECHR, so that isnt going to happen either

If its to rebuild a Britain that we can all be proud of, then yeah, we might get there, but its going to be one without at least one if not two of the parts of it, and why can't we build that Britain in the EU?

I need enlightening on what the "real issues" are and how pulling out of the EU will sort them out

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:19 pm

dsr wrote:There is a big political change coming, so the banks are looking into the options. You think that's big news? Banks looking into options isn't news any more than the sun coming up tomorrow will be news. It'll only be news if they decide to move, not if they look at the options.
By that logic Brexit isn't news until it happens. Britain looking into it's options therefore isn't news.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:33 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:By that logic Brexit isn't news until it happens. Britain looking into it's options therefore isn't news.
That's not logic, Turtle.

Clarets4me
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
Been Liked: 2307 times
Has Liked: 1033 times
Location: Ightenhill,Burnley

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Clarets4me » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:34 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:Sarah Wollaston is the Conservative MP for Totnes.
Sorry John, you right...I'd taken the info off the BBC page which has now been corrected....

claretandy
Posts: 4751
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 953 times
Has Liked: 238 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by claretandy » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:50 pm

Clarets4me wrote:Sorry John, you right...I'd taken the info off the BBC page which has now been corrected....
You wouldn't know she wasn't a lib dem anyway.

Clarets4me
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
Been Liked: 2307 times
Has Liked: 1033 times
Location: Ightenhill,Burnley

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Clarets4me » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:59 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Not been keeping up with current news then Clarets4me then?

Independance of the judiciary trashed, opposition laughed at when they mention that stuff is getting a bit worrying?

But its ok, blue passports! Taking back control from the bureaucrats! More investment in the NHS! More tax cuts! Nothing to see here! Move along!
As dsr and others have pointed out, this case is about the ability of Parliament to operate without the intervention of the Judiciary..

The Labour opposition are being laughed at because of their lack of direction, unity and any realistic policies. You don't need a totalitarian state to destroy this particular opposition, they're doing it all by themselves, led by a 1970's throwback and his fellow-travellers.

You might have missed this current development Lancs.... ;)

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Spiral » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:57 pm

The High Court case had nothing to do with judiciary intervention. It was about clarifying the right of the legislative branch to scrutinise the executive branch.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:58 pm

Clarets4me wrote:As dsr and others have pointed out, this case is about the ability of Parliament to operate without the intervention of the Judiciary..

The Daily Mail and It's would be delighted to know they have got you hook, line and sinker with that nonsense but that's not what the case is about at all. It's about whether the Prime Minister can unilaterally take the UK out of the European Union, without once consulting parliament.

The case is about ensuring Parliament has a say in what the Prime Minster does, which is pretty much the opposite of what you this this case is about since the government is arguing that Parliament should not get a say in the matter.

The Judiciary, should they reject the appeal, would be upholding parliamentary sovereignty, not subverting it. Subverting it is what May is trying to do and that's why the likes of the Daily Mail are hoping for even though they spent the entire Brexit campaign arguing the exact opposite.

HatfieldClaret
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:29 pm
Been Liked: 605 times
Has Liked: 346 times
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by HatfieldClaret » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:48 pm

Farage v Will Self & Sarah Woollaston QT tonight

Should be entertaining.




This thing about the Royal Prerogative, wasn't that to stop the monarchy riding roughshod over parliament, not the people riding roughshod over parliament...

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:15 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The case is about ensuring Parliament has a say in what the Prime Minster does, which is pretty much the opposite of what you this this case is about since the government is arguing that Parliament should not get a say in the matter.
No it isn't. This case is about ensuring thatr the courts have a say in what Parliament does. Parliament has already had the chance or chances to debate Article 50 and the PM's tactics, and Parliament has persistently chosen not to.

There are 650 MPs, any one of whom could have put down some sort of motion for Parliament to consider, even if only an Early Day motion. Then assuming they get support of their colleagues, a debate on the PM's right to invoke Article 50 as provided for by the European Communities Amendments Act 2008 could be held. Parliament, in its wisdom or otherwise, appears to have decided that the ECA 2008 Act is sufficient to allow the PM to get on with it. The Courts, it seems do not.

The Government isn't saying that Parliament can't have a say, because the Executive branch can't stop Parliament from having a say. What the Executive is saying is that this thing can go ahead without Parliament having a say, if that's what Parliament collectively chooses to do.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:26 pm

dsr wrote:No it isn't. This case is about ensuring thatr the courts have a say in what Parliament does.

I honestly don't know how to discuss things with you when you're this wrong.

The government is saying that parliament shouldn't be involved. The courts are saying that Parliament must be involved. The judiciary doesn't give a **** what Parliament decides with regards to Brexit, all they're saying is that Parliament must decide, not just the Prime Minister.
This isn't difficult.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:28 pm

A six year old could understand it

Thats what the QC was saying today.

I'll say it again, DSR is so Brexit that he's prepared to argue absolutely anything, even the independance of the judiciary to get it.

Its not like this even stops Brexit, which makes the arguments against it even more daft.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 pm

By what means have the Executive prevented Parliament from debating this matter?

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:42 pm

Even the govt QC said there was nothing wrong with bringing the case to the court.

Why can't you see that its a procedural case that clarifies the route to Brexit?

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:53 pm

dsr wrote:By what means have the Executive prevented Parliament from debating this matter?

No one is saying they've prevented parliament debating it.

What we're saying is the Executive has tried to claim the power that what Parliament debates/decides is irrelevent. She's claiming that she can do a specific thing without Parliament's approval, the judiciary is saying that is not true. That's all.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:57 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Even the govt QC said there was nothing wrong with bringing the case to the court.

Why can't you see that its a procedural case that clarifies the route to Brexit?
It's not just my opinion. How many MPs brought this case? They didn't have a problem with the procedure - as far as MPs were concerned, they voted to hold a referendum in the belief that the result would be implemented. That is the procedure as planned. It's the Courts who are being asked to judge whether Parliament should be allowed to have that procedure or whether Parliament should be told to have a different procedure.

It seems from last night's vote that MPs are willing to accept the referendum result as per plan, so as far as the House of Commons is concerned, it shouldn't be a problem - a one-line bill will settle it. Let's hope the House of Lords is as sensible. All this is doing at the moment is delaying the start of negotiations, or at least threatening to delay it.

Why was this never brought up before the referendum, anyway? Cameron said that if the vote was to leave, he would invoke Article 50 immediately, next day. Obviously he was either lying or he changed his mind between 5 am and 8 am; but surely this should have been raised at the time? Prefereably by one of the 650 MPs who ought to have realised they were being ignored in favour of the popular vote?

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:58 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No one is saying they've prevented parliament debating it.

What we're saying is the Executive has tried to claim the power that what Parliament debates/decides is irrelevent. She's claiming that she can do a specific thing without Parliament's approval, the judiciary is saying that is not true. That's all.
If Parliament voted that the PM could not invoke Article 50, then she wouldn't be able to invoke it. But Parliament hasn't shown any interest in doing that, so why is it an issue?

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:05 pm

dsr wrote:If Parliament voted that the PM could not invoke Article 50, then she wouldn't be able to invoke it. But Parliament hasn't shown any interest in doing that, so why is it an issue?
Why do they have to do that if the judiciary decide that that's already the case? I'm sure you, being a small-government conservative, isn't advocating that parliament pass what might be a completely redundant piece of legislation, are you?

Clarets4me
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
Been Liked: 2307 times
Has Liked: 1033 times
Location: Ightenhill,Burnley

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Clarets4me » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:21 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No one is saying they've prevented parliament debating it.

What we're saying is the Executive has tried to claim the power that what Parliament debates/decides is irrelevent. She's claiming that she can do a specific thing without Parliament's approval, the judiciary is saying that is not true. That's all.
Are you seriously suggesting that Teresa May has claimed that a parliamentary vote against Brexit could be ignored by the Executive ??
Parliament, by the use of any number of devices, EDM's, Opposition days etc. could call a debate and a subsequent vote " That this House calls upon the Government to refute the result of the non-binding referendum, and continue our membership of the European Union ".
Should such a vote be carried, it would no doubt cause a " Constitutional crisis ", but that is not the point. That would be be for politicians to sort out, explaining to their Constituents why they defied the will of the majority. A General Election would probably follow and a new Parliament formed, which as we know, cannot be bound by it's predecessors ...

This attempt, by very wealthy vested interests, to derail/delay the Brexit process is a shameful affront to democracy...

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:26 pm

Lets say parliament did decide to debate her prerogative, what do you think would be stopping her from just triggering A50 before parliament votes on her right to trigger it? The courts perhaps? :lol:
This attempt, by very wealthy vested interests, to derail/delay the Brexit process is a shameful affront to democracy...
The attempt by the government and Leave voters to deminish the sovereignty of parliament and remove peoples rights without an act of parliament is a shameful affront to our legal system, to our freedoms and to democracy. And it's also an embarrassing about-turn on everything Vote Leave campaigned on to win the referendum. Parliamentary sovereignty and British laws in British Courts.

Saxoman
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:26 pm
Been Liked: 575 times
Has Liked: 147 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Saxoman » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:35 pm

I've seen some poor losers in my time, but turtle.. :(
These 2 users liked this post: RingoMcCartney biggles

biggles
Posts: 579
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:37 pm
Been Liked: 182 times
Has Liked: 156 times
Location: sat-at-my-computer

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by biggles » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:35 pm

some people are really shitting their pants over Brexit aren't they? i can't see a problem with the UK getting on with things outside the EU. the EU is disintegrating and it will be lucky to survive another 5 years. we'll be doing what we do best - trading with the world. all this nasty, vicious rubbish claiming that those who voted for Brexit are fascists and racist is scandalous. stop it. hitler was a fascist, as discussed above, he was a European who wanted to make Europe into an empire and run it from Berlin. Sounds familiar? History, as they say, has a habit of repeating itself. the UK wanted nothing to do with it then and nor do we now. keep ranting on about how unfair it all is if it makes you feel better.
These 3 users liked this post: Saxoman RingoMcCartney LeadBelly

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:39 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lets say parliament did decide to debate her prerogative, what do you think would be stopping her from just triggering A50 before parliament votes on her right to trigger it? The courts perhaps? :lol:

The attempt by the government and Leave voters to deminish the sovereignty of parliament and remove peoples rights without an act of parliament is a shameful affront to our legal system, to our freedoms and to democracy. And it's also an embarrassing about-turn on everything Vote Leave campaigned on to win the referendum. Parliamentary sovereignty and British laws in British Courts.
Britain's unwritten constitution, of course. The one you don't believe exists.

It's Humpty-Dumpty speak to say that the referendum was an attempt to remove people's rights. I read the referendum to be a way of increasing people's rights, of actually allowing the people to make this important decision. Are you now saying that enforcing the result of this referendum would be to reduce the people's rights?

Clarets4me
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
Been Liked: 2307 times
Has Liked: 1033 times
Location: Ightenhill,Burnley

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Clarets4me » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:39 pm

Spijed wrote:Quite a telling comment from Anna Soubry in the commons earlier:

Ms Soubry says that she, and other Remain supporters, have felt sidelined, ignored, and abused - "and we are sick and tired of it".
"We are entitled to our opinion, we are entitled to be heard, and entitled to express our opinion," she says.
She also warns of the anger of the younger generation on the referendum result, saying that many of them feel an older generation stole their future.
She answers the jeers that this comment draws by telling MPs "remember those 16 and 17-years-old will be your voters in 2020".

So is it really cut and dried that UKIP will do well at the next election, when those 16-17 year olds are mainly Labour supporters?
Result just in from Lancaster City Council by-election, ( University & Scotforth Rural ), 92% student population, all four candidates were students ( Con, Lab, LibDems, Green ), the turnout was 7.12%

That's some political involvement, it's hardly Paris '68 is it....FFS :roll: :roll:
This user liked this post: dsr

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:47 pm

dsr wrote:Britain's unwritten constitution, of course. The one you don't believe exists.
I've repeatedly said that we have a written constitution but that it's not written down all in one single document and that's why some people call it "unwritten", despite literally all of it being written. I've even provided the same opinion being shared from a ******* High Court judge to back this up.

So why are you trying to make people reading this thread think i don't believe we have a constitution?

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:50 pm

Saxoman wrote:I've seen some poor losers in my time, but turtle.. :(
I haven't lost anything. You haven't won anything. This isn't a ******* game :lol: I voted. You voted. Neither of us won or lost, we took part in a referendum.

Grow up.
This user liked this post: SammyBoy

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:51 pm

biggles wrote:all this nasty, vicious rubbish claiming that those who voted for Brexit are fascists and racist is scandalous. stop it.
Here it is again, idiots complaining that everyone's calling them racist when almost no one is. :lol:

You're so desperate to be victims it's actually funny.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:02 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I've repeatedly said that we have a written constitution but that it's not written down all in one single document and that's why some people call it "unwritten", despite literally all of it being written. I've even provided the same opinion being shared from a ******* High Court judge to back this up.

So why are you trying to make people reading this thread think i don't believe we have a constitution?
Where is it written that the Queen will not refuse to sign any legislation that has been passed by Parliament?

As for the rest of the comment, you misunderstood what I said. When I said "Britain's unwritten constitution, of course. The one you don't believe exists.",I meant that you don't believe that Britain has an unwritten constitution. Both words were relevant. It's a bit like if I say you don't believe there are blue cows, I wouldn't be saying that you don't believe in cows. Sorry for the confusion.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:10 am

dsr wrote:Where is it written that the Queen will not refuse to sign any legislation that has been passed by Parliament?

As for the rest of the comment, you misunderstood what I said. When I said "Britain's unwritten constitution, of course. The one you don't believe exists.",I meant that you don't believe that Britain has an unwritten constitution. Both words were relevant. It's a bit like if I say you don't believe there are blue cows, I wouldn't be saying that you don't believe in cows. Sorry for the confusion.
Read this slowly and repeatedly until you understand it.

Our constitution is called an "unwritten constitution" informally because it is not written down in a single document. It is instead written down across thousands of pieces of legislation. Therfore we do literally have a written constitution, just not all in one document.

Why is trying to get you to understand the most simple of things like pulling teeth? Are you trying to get me to think you're a moron?

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:22 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Read this slowly and repeatedly until you understand it.

Our constitution is called an "unwritten constitution" informally because it is not written down in a single document. It is instead written down across thousands of pieces of legislation. Therfore we do literally have a written constitution, just not all in one document.

Why is trying to get you to understand the most simple of things like pulling teeth? Are you trying to get me to think you're a moron?
That doesn't actually answer the question. I'll try and make it a bit simpler, though a bit more long winded.

Point 1 - the Queen will not refuse to sign an Act properly passed by Parliament. That is part of the UK's constitution.

Point 2 - that part of the UK's constitution is not written down in any legislation, in my opinion, and more reliably in the opinion of Charles Moore, political correspondent for the Daily Telegraph.

Point 3 - in your opinion, bith Mr Moore and I are wrong about either point 1 or point 2. What is your justification for thinking that?

Damo
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:04 pm
Been Liked: 1777 times
Has Liked: 2761 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Damo » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:28 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Read this slowly and repeatedly until you understand it.

Our constitution is called an "unwritten constitution" informally because it is not written down in a single document. It is instead written down across thousands of pieces of legislation. Therfore we do literally have a written constitution, just not all in one document.

Why is trying to get you to understand the most simple of things like pulling teeth? Are you trying to get me to think you're a moron?
I still can't decide if Turtle is a brilliant parody account, or a really, odd, confused person who spends his entire life questioning google
These 4 users liked this post: RingoMcCartney HatfieldClaret claretandy biggles

claretandy
Posts: 4751
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 953 times
Has Liked: 238 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by claretandy » Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:50 am

Damo wrote:I still can't decide if Turtle is a brilliant parody account, or a really, odd, confused person who spends his entire life questioning google

Definitely an oddball.
This user liked this post: biggles

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:34 am

dsr wrote:That doesn't actually answer the question. I'll try and make it a bit simpler, though a bit more long winded.

Point 1 - the Queen will not refuse to sign an Act properly passed by Parliament. That is part of the UK's constitution.

Point 2 - that part of the UK's constitution is not written down in any legislation, in my opinion, and more reliably in the opinion of Charles Moore, political correspondent for the Daily Telegraph.

Point 3 - in your opinion, bith Mr Moore and I are wrong about either point 1 or point 2. What is your justification for thinking that?

You have entirely fabricated an opinion that i have not expressed and now you're criticising me for it.

But since you've brought a Telegraph journalist as a source and expected me to bow to his knowledge i'll let you decide whether the expertise of a political correspondent for a newspaper trumps that of an actual High Court judge.

Image

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content ... 161122.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And here's a previous post on this section of the judgement so that I don't have to waste time explaining things a second time.
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... 00#p222510" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

biggles
Posts: 579
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:37 pm
Been Liked: 182 times
Has Liked: 156 times
Location: sat-at-my-computer

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by biggles » Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:59 am

Here it is again, idiots complaining that everyone's calling them racist when almost no one is. :lol:

You're so desperate to be victims it's actually funny.

Taking it well, then, turtle! not too much name calling from you on this thread; just about the usual amount.

i reckon turtle is 75 going on 13. he gets sooo wound up when he can't get his point across. poor, silly old sod :lol:

can you imagine him at a political debate in public? i bet he's been asked to leave many more debates than he's been invited too. what a total tool. :lol:
This user liked this post: RingoMcCartney

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by dsr » Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:11 am

I think it's just a matter of how we define words, turtle. And yours, as I said before, are very much like Humpty Dumpty - they mean whatever you want them to mean. Britain's constitution is almost universally described as unwritten because it's certainly not written down in a single document, and because parts of it aren't written down at all. Your quote from a High Court judge that says "Some of it is written" does not convince me that all of it is written. If it convinces you, then so be it.

What opinion have I fabricated? Is it your opinion that the UK constitution is entirely written down, or isn't it? Or does it depend on the wind direction?

Sidney1st
Posts: 15478
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:40 pm
Been Liked: 3547 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Sidney1st » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:58 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rexit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Supreme Court justices handed down their historic ruling at 9.30am
Judges decided that the PM cannot start Brexit without passing legislation
Defeat for Theresa May came by a margin of 8-3 and the court dismissed calls for the Scottish government to get a veto over Brexit deal
The case was brought by Remain campaigner and former model Gina Miller

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Today's Brexit vote

Post by Imploding Turtle » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:00 am

More "Enemies of the State", i assume.

Post Reply