#politicslive

[Burnley Ace]

Given your answres, you clearly have no knowledge of the history of how democracy works.

That’s a bit hypocritical from someone who is constantly confused by the difference between “to represent” directly and “to represent” in a Representative Democracy. You seem quite content to ignore the Rule of Law andyears of Parliamentary procedure re: the drafting of Acts.

[dsr]

This membership of the EU (as it is now) has been an issue for decades.
If we are going to start asking the Leavers what type of leave they want,
why are we not trying to iron out future problems by asking the Remainers
what type of Remain they want?

You might ask Remainers what they think about the proposed abolition of the veto re. domestic taxes, too. Remember the proposed financial transaction tax from a few years back? That's one of the targets - to reintroduce that, with no UK veto. They also have eyes set on low Corporation Tax rates.

[aggi]

You might ask Remainers what they think about the proposed abolition of the veto re. domestic taxes, too. Remember the proposed financial transaction tax from a few years back? That's one of the targets - to reintroduce that, with no UK veto. They also have eyes set on low Corporation Tax rates.

I've seen mentions of this but nothing on the mechanics. How were they planning to get the UK to surrender the veto? Any more detail on this?

I'm somewhat torn re: the financial transaction tax, I'm not convinced that HFT (which it mainly targets) and speculative trading adds much to the market but it is a tax that would damage a few nations disproportionately.

I have less of an issue re: low corporation tax rates. I seem to remember you're an accountant so I'm sure you've seen stuff like the Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich and you're aware of issues like Facebook, Starbucks, et al paying minimal taxes through shifting profits to low tax regimes. The only way to really combat this is through a unified front rather than a race to the bottom with countries offering lower and lower tax rates to tempt businesses to base themselves there.

[Lancasterclaret]

There was some murmerings about getting rid of the veto for some minor things to speed up parliamentary stuff, but nothing major. Still have to be passed with a vote though.

It does continue to amuse me that everyone thinks that all those other 26 countries are hell bent on political integration and its just little old us that don't want it.

Course that won't matter to those who call it the EUSSR

[nil_desperandum]

This membership of the EU (as it is now) has been an issue for decades.
If we are going to start asking the Leavers what type of leave they want,
why are we not trying to iron out future problems by asking the Remainers
what type of Remain they want?

I don't really understand your logic in arguing this point.
Assuming you are a "leaver", why wouldn't you want to express a choice for either "no deal" or whatever deal goes on the table?
Surely you have a preference? - or would you prefer to leave it to the MPs?

[Lancasterclaret]

Anyone want to guess on the timescale of Dyson removing the last of his operations out of the UK?

[dsr]

I've seen mentions of this but nothing on the mechanics. How were they planning to get the UK to surrender the veto? Any more detail on this?

I'm somewhat torn re: the financial transaction tax, I'm not convinced that HFT (which it mainly targets) and speculative trading adds much to the market but it is a tax that would damage a few nations disproportionately.

I have less of an issue re: low corporation tax rates. I seem to remember you're an accountant so I'm sure you've seen stuff like the Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich and you're aware of issues like Facebook, Starbucks, et al paying minimal taxes through shifting profits to low tax regimes. The only way to really combat this is through a unified front rather than a race to the bottom with countries offering lower and lower tax rates to tempt businesses to base themselves there.

https://www.accountancydaily.co/commiss ... -tax-votes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/s ... icy_en.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The second one is the official EU document, but the first is a professional precis.

I'm not at all fond of Corporation Tax. I'd rather see it abolished altogether and replaced with a dividend tax; that way the owners still have to pay the taxes on their profits taken out, but profits which are reinvested are not taxed, and (crucially) profits which are paid out to employees are paid out of gross income, not post-tax income. How it would work in practice, is a tricky one - no doubt there would be ways to dodge the payment of tax on dividends just as there are to dodge paying tax on profits.

[aggi]

https://www.accountancydaily.co/commiss ... -tax-votes
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/s ... icy_en.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The second one is the official EU document, but the first is a professional precis.

I'm not at all fond of Corporation Tax. I'd rather see it abolished altogether and replaced with a dividend tax; that way the owners still have to pay the taxes on their profits taken out, but profits which are reinvested are not taxed, and (crucially) profits which are paid out to employees are paid out of gross income, not post-tax income. How it would work in practice, is a tricky one - no doubt there would be ways to dodge the payment of tax on dividends just as there are to dodge paying tax on profits.

Cheers. As I suspected the process could be vetoed by us and obviously other countries like Luxembourg would be pretty wary. The FTT has been going on for 10 years or so now and been repeatedly blocked (not just by the UK) so I'm not sure if this would gain much traction.

[RingoMcCartney]

An advisory referendum isn’t. It’s just a glorified opinion poll.

So the 1975 referendum that was won by Remain was "Just a glorified opinion poll" was it? That was advisory too.

But because the establishment got the result it wanted, it was ENACTED......

General elections are "advisory" until they receive Royal Consent.

You up for not implementing the result of a general election and having another one to see if your side wins a majority in that as well ?!

Good luck with this "ignoring democracy and let's have another go till my side wins" idea......

[RingoMcCartney]

That’s a bit hypocritical from someone who is constantly confused by the difference between “to represent” directly and “to represent” in a Representative Democracy. You seem quite content to ignore the Rule of Law andyears of Parliamentary procedure re: the drafting of Acts.

I'll let John Bercow usurp hundreds of years of parliamentary procedural protocol.

If our "representatives" are going to ignore the biggest single expression of democracy the nation has ever witnessed, the 2016 Peoples Vote, which voted to Leave.

If our "representatives" are going to ignore their constituencies. The majority of which (approximately 420) voted Leave.

And if our "representatives" are going to ignore the manifestos on which they were democratically elected. Both labour and conservatives manifestos pledged to leave the European Union, end free movement of people, leave the single market and customs union and end the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Then they are choosing to sever the party political connection they were elected on and they should have stood as INDEPENDENT candidates. 

Parliament passed sovereignty to the People when it delegated the decision whether or not to leave the European Union in the referendum. A referendum is direct democracy. MPs votes were worth exactly the same as yours and mine.

Then when the decision went against what the majority of MPs wanted they, and those who couldn't accept the result decided they wanted to move the goalposts and start to claim that MPs are back to being our "democratic representatives. 

Your claim that we live in a Representative Democracy is bang on. When you're referring to a general election which is based on labour manifestos, tory manifestos. We send our constituency MPs to parliament to represent us. And we know that they may vote with their conscious which may be at odds with their constituents or even their manifesto. 

The referendum was entirely different. The ballot paper did not have a "labour leave " or "labour remain" option. Nor did it have a "tory leave" or a "tory remain". It didn't even take place on a constituency basis. It took place on a "voting area" basis. So the roll of MPS was irrelevant. 

But if you want to mix direct and representative democracy up. Then as said previously, the majority of constituencies ( according to a electoral Oxford university expert) 420 of the 650, voted Leave and around 84% of voters chose a party committed to leaving the EU at the 2017 general election.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.accountancydaily.co/commiss ... -tax-votes
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/s ... icy_en.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The second one is the official EU document, but the first is a professional precis.

I'm not at all fond of Corporation Tax. I'd rather see it abolished altogether and replaced with a dividend tax; that way the owners still have to pay the taxes on their profits taken out, but profits which are reinvested are not taxed, and (crucially) profits which are paid out to employees are paid out of gross income, not post-tax income. How it would work in practice, is a tricky one - no doubt there would be ways to dodge the payment of tax on dividends just as there are to dodge paying tax on profits.

I know a fair number of people who set themselves up as limited companies, and changed from contracted employees to being consultants. They all love the ever lowering corporate tax rate, though none lobbied for it. Put the wife and kids on the payroll - everyone on minimal salaries, and tax goes down even further. Pay out in dividends as well and it’s all legit, and a very decent six figure income ends up paying as much as someone earning half as much. I know this pales in comparison with multinationals or the super rich, but it still makes a mockery of any reason to scrap corporate income tax.

[AndrewJB]

Anyone want to guess on the timescale of Dyson removing the last of his operations out of the UK?

Once we’re truly sovereign and can make up our own trade policy we could embargoe Dyson products in the U.K.

[Greenmile]

So the 1975 referendum that was won by Remain was "Just a glorified opinion poll" was it? That was advisory too...

Yes. It was. It just happens the govt followed the advice provided on that occasion. That doesn’t oblige them to this time.

To be clear, I wasn’t suggesting the referendum result shouldn’t be honoured. I was just correcting your misconceptions re representative vs direct democracy.

[Burnley Ace]

I'll let John Bercow usurp hundreds of years of parliamentary procedural protocol.

What written rule did he usurp?

Tory manifesto (page 31) “we want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership”
(Page 35) only the Conservative Party can negotiates the best possible deal.
(Page 36) we will seek a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement.

Labour manifesto - strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union.

Labour recognised that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain.

So that’s 90% of the electorate voting for parties that promised a negotiated deal and were rejecting “no deal”

[Greenmile]

I'll let John Bercow usurp hundreds of years of parliamentary procedural protocol.

If our "representatives" are going to ignore the biggest single expression of democracy the nation has ever witnessed, the 2016 Peoples Vote, which voted to Leave.

If our "representatives" are going to ignore their constituencies. The majority of which (approximately 420) voted Leave.

And if our "representatives" are going to ignore the manifestos on which they were democratically elected. Both labour and conservatives manifestos pledged to leave the European Union, end free movement of people, leave the single market and customs union and end the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Then they are choosing to sever the party political connection they were elected on and they should have stood as INDEPENDENT candidates. 

Parliament passed sovereignty to the People when it delegated the decision whether or not to leave the European Union in the referendum. A referendum is direct democracy. MPs votes were worth exactly the same as yours and mine.

Then when the decision went against what the majority of MPs wanted they, and those who couldn't accept the result decided they wanted to move the goalposts and start to claim that MPs are back to being our "democratic representatives. 

Your claim that we live in a Representative Democracy is bang on. When you're referring to a general election which is based on labour manifestos, tory manifestos. We send our constituency MPs to parliament to represent us. And we know that they may vote with their conscious which may be at odds with their constituents or even their manifesto. 

The referendum was entirely different. The ballot paper did not have a "labour leave " or "labour remain" option. Nor did it have a "tory leave" or a "tory remain". It didn't even take place on a constituency basis. It took place on a "voting area" basis. So the roll of MPS was irrelevant. 

But if you want to mix direct and representative democracy up. Then as said previously, the majority of constituencies ( according to a electoral Oxford university expert) 420 of the 650, voted Leave and around 84% of voters chose a party committed to leaving the EU at the 2017 general election.

An advisory referendum isn’t.

You keep getting it wrong / lying, and I’ll keep correcting you.

[Burnley Ace]

Oh and Ringo Parliament DID NOT pass sovereignty to the people! It wasn’t in the Act and is not backed up by case law. What bit do you not understand?

[RingoMcCartney]

Oh and Ringo Parliament DID NOT pass sovereignty to the people! It wasn’t in the Act and is not backed up by case law. What bit do you not understand?

For sovereignty to pass to the People, it does not need to be formally written in any Act. You clearly don't understand the concept of sovereignty.

[summitclaret]

The conservative party does NOT want no deal. It does however want the best deal possible and won't get that if it lets go of the main weapon it has left before the EU starts being reasonable. The Uk establishment is aiding and abetting the EU ans has been from day 1.

The government recently won a vote if confidence. The HOC should support getting the best possible leave deal.

[martin_p]

For sovereignty to pass to the People, it does not need to be formally written in any Act. You clearly don't understand the concept of sovereignty.

Go on then Wrongo, educate him!

[Greenmile]

Oh and Ringo Parliament DID NOT pass sovereignty to the people! It wasn’t in the Act and is not backed up by case law. What bit do you not understand?

Sovereignty is whatever Ringo wants it to be at any given moment, it seems.

[Test User]

How many times has Wrongo told someone else they "clearly don't understand" something and then never bothered to even attempt to give an explanation?

It seems like all he does is tell people they're wrong but never explains why. Maybe it's because he can't.

[martin_p]

The conservative party does NOT want no deal. It does however want the best deal possible and won't get that if it lets go of the main weapon it has left before the EU starts being reasonable. The Uk establishment is aiding and abetting the EU ans has been from day 1.

The government recently won a vote if confidence. The HOC should support getting the best possible leave deal.

And at what point do we admit this great ‘weapon’ hasn’t worked, because in terms of getting a deal organised and the legislation in place before 29th March we’re already well into injury time. The plan was to have all this sorted by October 2018 to give enough time to implement if you remember.

[summitclaret]

That's my point. The EU won't budge because it thinks we will change our mind.

[Burnley Ace]

For sovereignty to pass to the People, it does not need to be formally written in any Act. You clearly don't understand the concept of sovereignty.

Of course it does! The concept of Sovereignty isn’t fluid it’s fixed. It’s the “full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources” That’s why, for example, this referendum was advisory (I’ve even told you were to look in the Millar case to get an explanation!)

Section 8 of The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 “The minister must make an order bringing into force s9 if more votes are cast in favour of the answer “yes” than in favour of the answer “no”

That section made the result of the referendum binding and is the only way that Parliament conceded power. Where is that section in the Tefetendum Act?

[Lancasterclaret]

Or the EU won't budge because it knows that we will be hit harder than they will?

Its a game of chicken that we can't win.

We need to accept that and get rid of the "No Deal", then Brexit can move forward.

Otherwise.......

[Lancasterclaret]

Just so you know, the three most quoted backer of business for Brexit are in this thread

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status ... 4541789184" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

That's my point. The EU won't budge because it thinks we will change our mind.

If I were a Brexiteer I’d push for Britain to stay in the customs union and single market, because that would be the “price worth paying” to get us out. Once out, and stable, and after sufficient time has gone by to develop the kind of border technology required to have a soft border with Ireland while allowing Britain to leave the CU and SM then plan to leave these elements too. The danger for leavers is that in stubbornly holding to us leaving these straight away, they could force parliament into a seconded referendum, and lose Brexit completely.

[nil_desperandum]

That's my point. The EU won't budge because it thinks we will change our mind.

Or maybe as people on the remain side have been correctly reminding leavers since before the referendum, the EU can't under any circumstances offer us a better deal outside the EU than it can if we remain. That much should be obvious, but 3 years on that message still isn't being taken on board because apparently blind faith and belief will ultimately triumph over reality.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I know a fair number of people who set themselves up as limited companies, and changed from contracted employees to being consultants. They all love the ever lowering corporate tax rate, though none lobbied for it. Put the wife and kids on the payroll - everyone on minimal salaries, and tax goes down even further. Pay out in dividends as well and it’s all legit, and a very decent six figure income ends up paying as much as someone earning half as much. I know this pales in comparison with multinationals or the super rich, but it still makes a mockery of any reason to scrap corporate income tax.

That isn’t what it may seem.

I run a one man band limited company and I’m taxed once in CT on profits and then again via dividend tax on money withdrawn, so now there is little difference to being an employee, especially when you consider that sickness, holidays, administration, marketing, training and overtime are all unpaid. Plus risk is huge and there is no pension.

Then you factor in that little old me has to compete for work with billion pound firms and that these firms lobby the EU and U.K. for a set of rules to favour the big firms, such as “framework agreements” - which basically means unless you have a huge bid team you are unlikely to be able to tick all the boxes to get on the frameworks and win work. I could spend all year writing bids, unpaid, with no time for paid work.

That big firm bias is one reason for me being a Brexiteer. The little man has no chance. Not overly relevant to this thread but a small EU link that reinforces the big business lobbying problem that many complain about.

I do fine currently, I’m not crying about it, but the system is rigged and unfair, and much of the talent is in the small firms frozen out. Local decision making with devolved administrations will make it much easier for smaller local businesses to thrive.

(The exception, which I guess you were alluding to, are the folk paid via a LC but who are in a long term interim job and who should be treated as an employee - that isn’t my market, I do specialist consultancy).

I guess the point I am making here, as well as adding context to your post, is that these huge firms are so powerful they get what they want. That’s why we won’t end up properly leaving the EU. The politicians won’t allow it.

[dsr]

I know a fair number of people who set themselves up as limited companies, and changed from contracted employees to being consultants. They all love the ever lowering corporate tax rate, though none lobbied for it. Put the wife and kids on the payroll - everyone on minimal salaries, and tax goes down even further. Pay out in dividends as well and it’s all legit, and a very decent six figure income ends up paying as much as someone earning half as much. I know this pales in comparison with multinationals or the super rich, but it still makes a mockery of any reason to scrap corporate income tax.

HMRC is catching up with this sort of thing. Christa Ackroyd is currently facing a £420k bill for the exact same fiddle, though in her case it wasn't her fault because it was the BBC who forced her into it. The BBC also saved tax by deciding that Ackroyd was not an employee of the BBC, and forced her to work via a limited company. It has now been proved that she was de facto employed by the BBC and she's got stung for a further fortune - though hopefully, the BBC, which practiced this sort of thing on a vast scale, will have to pay the penalties.

[RingoMcCartney]

What written rule did he usurp?

Tory manifesto (page 31) “we want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership”
(Page 35) only the Conservative Party can negotiates the best possible deal.
(Page 36) we will seek a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement.

Labour manifesto - strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union.

Labour recognised that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain.

So that’s 90% of the electorate voting for parties that promised a negotiated deal and were rejecting “no deal”

Who said anything about him usurping "written rules"

John Bercow ignored the clerks and has repeatedly refused to publish the advice they gave him as he overturned hundreds of years of parliamentary procedural protocol. He handed MPs a chance to change the Brexit timetable - and in doing so broke with centuries of historic precedent.

The previous speaker of the house described what he did as "disgusting"

The rest of your post simply confirms that labour and the Tories pledged to leave the European Union, end free movement of people, leave the single market and customs union and end the jurisdiction of the ECJ, in their manifestos they were elected on.

[RingoMcCartney]

Of course it does! The concept of Sovereignty isn’t fluid it’s fixed. It’s the “full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources” That’s why, for example, this referendum was advisory (I’ve even told you were to look in the Millar case to get an explanation!)

Section 8 of The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 “The minister must make an order bringing into force s9 if more votes are cast in favour of the answer “yes” than in favour of the answer “no”

That section made the result of the referendum binding and is the only way that Parliament conceded power. Where is that section in the Tefetendum Act?

You clearly have no idea of sovereignty. Particularly Popular Sovereignty.

[RingoMcCartney]

An advisory referendum isn’t.

You keep getting it wrong / lying, and I’ll keep correcting you.

Explain why a referendum, advisory or not, is not an example of direct democracy.

[dsr]

The big argument against Bercow isn't that he ignored all precedent and changed the rules; but that he did it because he is biased towards Remain. The Speaker, above all, has to be neutral. Betty Boothroyd, George Thomas, and Bernard Wetherall were all very much respected as Speaker because they were scrupulously fair, regardless of what their prior political views had been. Bercow is not.

[RingoMcCartney]

Go on then Wrongo, educate him!

Ringo McCartney-

"Bercow is being kept on place to "Stop Brexit". His role will be pivotal"

Martin p -

"You do know it's not Bercow that will define what the vote is don't you? He's just the the facilitator Ringo"

I said his role "will be pivotal " And he was only being kept in position to "Stop Brexit "

So there we have it. The majority of Remain voters on here acknowledged I've been proven right. And fair play to them. Most commentators in the media agree his role was "pivotal" 

The independent describing Bercows role as "pivotal"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/br" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 22691.html


The guardian describing Bercows role as "pivotal"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... rexit-bias

The spectator describing Bercows role as " pivotal"

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/j" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... or-labour/


And the former speaker of the house, Betty Boothroyd, who had and still has, universal respect in parliament. Described what Bercow did as , "disgusting"

Yet you marty, cannot and probably never will accept, with grace, you were wrong and I've been proven right.

Was his role "pivotal" or not?

Yes or no?

[Lancasterclaret]

Oh yeah, that Conservative MP who made a right tit of himself by accusing him of having a remain sticker in his car.

I remember now.

Guess there must be more evidence that that though, but you can't help thinking that the likes of Christopher Chope would be blaming the speaker for not having better control of his wife.

[Test User]

The big argument against Bercow isn't that he ignored all precedent and changed the rules; but that he did it because he is biased towards Remain. The Speaker, above all, has to be neutral. Betty Boothroyd, George Thomas, and Bernard Wetherall were all very much respected as Speaker because they were scrupulously fair, regardless of what their prior political views had been. Bercow is not.

Has it been established that that's why he did it? Is there any evidence whatsoever that he changed the rules because of bias? Or is this just something the Brexiteers have repeated to themselves as if it was true and expect the rest of us to agree with their completely made-up and unsubstantiated accusation?

[dsr]

An advisory referendum isn’t.

You keep getting it wrong / lying, and I’ll keep correcting you.

I'm afraid you are suffering from the same delusion as some of the other Remainers on this board - you assume that you are so beyond question right, that anyone who disagrees must be lying. Not so.

The thing is, we have different ideas of democracy. It appears that your idea of democracy is that the PM can get elected on a manifesto of social reform and tax the rich to give the poor, and then after election he can abolish the dole and the pension and spend it all on nukes. After all, the manifesto was only advisory. If that was said to be anti-democratic, you could quite logically argue that it isn't. (The argument about an MP being a representative not a delegate may be useful, too.)

But in spite of your devastatingly logical view of democracy and advisory referendums, some of us disagree. The referendum wasn't advisory regardless of the fine print in the Act. The referendum was made under a promise that the result would be put into effect.

Obviously there is nothing to stop the current government and parliament from ignoring the promise, just as there would have been nothing preventing this or any other government or parliament from repealing the referendum act after the event so that the binding referendum would be overturned as well. But in practice, in the real world as opposed in an ivory tower, the referendum was binding.

[Test User]

I'm afraid you are suffering from the same delusion as some of the other Remainers on this board - you assume that you are so beyond question right, that anyone who disagrees must be lying. Not so.

If one person is consistently wrong about the same thing over and over, despite being corrected numerous times, it's perfectly reasonable to call them a liar.

[dsr]

If one person is consistently wrong about the same thing over and over, despite being corrected numerous times, it's perfectly reasonable to call them a liar.

That's exactly what I said to Greenmile - Remainers are so convinced of their own rightness about more or less everything, that they can onluy assume that anyone who disagrees is lying. They (and you) have no concept of the idea that there are two opinions.

[martin_p]

Ringo McCartney-

"Bercow is being kept on place to "Stop Brexit". His role will be pivotal"

Martin p -

"You do know it's not Bercow that will define what the vote is don't you? He's just the the facilitator Ringo"

I said his role "will be pivotal " And he was only being kept in position to "Stop Brexit "

So there we have it. The majority of Remain voters on here acknowledged I've been proven right. And fair play to them. Most commentators in the media agree his role was "pivotal" 

The independent describing Bercows role as "pivotal"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/br" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 22691.html


The guardian describing Bercows role as "pivotal"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... rexit-bias

The spectator describing Bercows role as " pivotal"

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/j" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... or-labour/


And the former speaker of the house, Betty Boothroyd, who had and still has, universal respect in parliament. Described what Bercow did as , "disgusting"

Yet you marty, cannot and probably never will accept, with grace, you were wrong and I've been proven right.

Was his role "pivotal" or not?

Yes or no?

No his role wasn’t pivotal. What has it changed? I asked you this once before and you didn’t answer. He acted within his remit, it’s his job to serve parliament not the government. And if you’re going to argue his role is pivotal then something has to ‘pivot’.

[Test User]

That's exactly what I said to Greenmile - Remainers are so convinced of their own rightness about more or less everything, that they can onluy assume that anyone who disagrees is lying. They (and you) have no concept of the idea that there are two opinions.

Are you this ridiculous on purpose? Facts are not opinions. When someone is told the facts and they continue to post non-facts in their stead then they are liars. He knows what he's posting is wrong, and yet he posts it anyway, that makes him a liar.

Is this getting through to you? Do i need to quote the dictionary definition of what a liar is, or would you dispute that too?

[martin_p]

That's exactly what I said to Greenmile - Remainers are so convinced of their own rightness about more or less everything, that they can onluy assume that anyone who disagrees is lying. They (and you) have no concept of the idea that there are two opinions.

But the referendum being advisory is a demonstrable fact. It’s not something you can disagree with because it’s an actual bona fide fact!

[RingoMcCartney]

No his role wasn’t pivotal. What has it changed? I asked you this once before and you didn’t answer. He acted within his remit. If you’re going to argue his role is pivotal then something has to ‘pivot’.

Marty, your vehement refusal to accept reality is making you sound increasingly silly.!

It greatly reduced the Governments timetable which , in a situation where it already has limited time before we're due to leave was a pivotal moment.

Posters from both sides of the argument have acknowledged I was proven right.

Various newspapers have actually used the phrase "pivotal"

The former speaker Betty Boothroyd described his actions as "disgusting"

He literally made headline news on the BBC, SKY and I TV and on many newspapers front pages!

Now you may support his decision to tell one MP, a Brexiteer, that a motion was NOT AMENDABLE. Then tell another MP, a staunch remainer, it WAS. But just because you stubbornly cannot accept that John Bercow, handed MPs a chance to change the Brexit timetable - and in doing so, broke with centuries of historic precedent and parliamentary procedural protocol, was not "pivotal". Does not mean that those in the real world do.

[martin_p]

Marty, your vehement refusal to accept reality is making you sound increasingly silly.!

It greatly reduced the Governments timetable which , in a situation where it already has limited time before we're due to leave was a pivotal moment.

All it’s done is confirm in a shorter timescale what we already knew, the government doesn’t have a plan B. It hasn’t made any outcome more or less likely, just given everyone more time to look at alternatives. Given everyone agrees that May’s deal is dead I don’t see how anyone can see that as a bad thing. But it’s a long, long way from your original assertion that Bercow could force a second referendum.

It was such a pivotal moment that literally no one (apart from you) is still talking about it.

[RingoMcCartney]

All it’s done is confirm in a shorter timescale what we already knew, the government doesn’t have a plan B. It hasn’t made any outcome more or less likely, just given everyone more time to look at alternatives. Given everyone agrees that May’s deal is dead I don’t see how anyone can see that as a bad thing. But it’s a long, long way from your original assertion that Bercow could force a second referendum.

It was such a pivotal moment that literally no one (apart from you) is still talking about it.

You're inability to accept I've been proven right, is now just down to your inability to stop being wrong......

[dsr]

But the referendum being advisory is a demonstrable fact. It’s not something you can disagree with because it’s an actual bona fide fact!

No it isn't. Once again, you have taken your idea of what "advisory" means and used it at its most literal, refusing all other interpretations.

Here's an analogy. Suppose your boss told you, in writing, that if you completed a specific task within a certain time, he would pay you £1,000 bonus. You did the job in time. And then he told you that the bonus was only advisory because the paper wasn't signed, and he didn't have to pay it. Would you accept that he was right?

[Burnley Ace]

No it isn't. Once again, you have taken your idea of what "advisory" means and used it at its most literal, refusing all other interpretations.

Here's an analogy. Suppose your boss told you, in writing, that if you completed a specific task within a certain time, he would pay you £1,000 bonus. You did the job in time. And then he told you that the bonus was only advisory because the paper wasn't signed, and he didn't have to pay it. Would you accept that he was right?

Your analogy is missing a bit. If you knew that previously it had to be signed off by the senior partner and in the past the senior partner had refused to sign it off and in addition it was extremely rare for your company to give a bonus and the manager shouldn’t have really made the offer because he didn’t have the legal authority to do it, you might be able to shoehorn it in

[Greenmile]

I'm afraid you are suffering from the same delusion as some of the other Remainers on this board - you assume that you are so beyond question right, that anyone who disagrees must be lying. Not so.

The thing is, we have different ideas of democracy. It appears that your idea of democracy is that the PM can get elected on a manifesto of social reform and tax the rich to give the poor, and then after election he can abolish the dole and the pension and spend it all on nukes. After all, the manifesto was only advisory. If that was said to be anti-democratic, you could quite logically argue that it isn't. (The argument about an MP being a representative not a delegate may be useful, too.)

But in spite of your devastatingly logical view of democracy and advisory referendums, some of us disagree. The referendum wasn't advisory regardless of the fine print in the Act. The referendum was made under a promise that the result would be put into effect.

Obviously there is nothing to stop the current government and parliament from ignoring the promise, just as there would have been nothing preventing this or any other government or parliament from repealing the referendum act after the event so that the binding referendum would be overturned as well. But in practice, in the real world as opposed in an ivory tower, the referendum was binding.

Yes it was. Why are you lying?

[Greenmile]

Explain why a referendum, advisory or not, is not an example of direct democracy.

You explain what you think sovereignty is first.