Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:51 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:No, no ,no no.

Now that you've started swerving.

Before the result of a general election is implemented. The losing candidates claim that the policies of the winning candidates will do untold damage to the constituencies and refuse to accept the result.

3 and a half years later, this parliament and its MPS still sit defying the general election result

Fair? Democratic?

Already been answered by the post above this one

A hung parliament doesn't solve the current issue, so a GE runs the risk of just making things worse.

A 2nd ref with a legally binding result would solve this one way or the other.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:51 pm

dsr wrote:I can't believe that anyone who objects to Boris Johnson's legal manoueverings could say with a straight face that the referendum was not binding.

Referendums are not normally binding on Parliament. However in this case, said in both leaflet prints that any decision would be enacted... thus making it so.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:51 pm

martin_p wrote:Unlawful. Of course the referendum was advisory so in law had to go through parliament and not happen before Parliament even opens like the result of a general election.

The 1975 referendum result was also non binding.

It was implemented.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:54 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Referendums are not normally binding on Parliament. However in this case, said in both leaflet prints that any decision would be enacted... thus making it so.

Thank **** you are not a lawyer.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:55 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Thank **** you are not a lawyer.

Thank the same you are not an MP

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:57 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Thank the same you are not an MP

I don't make stuff up and try to pass it off as fact.

Thats what you just did.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:57 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Already been answered by the post above this one

A hung parliament doesn't solve the current issue, so a GE runs the risk of just making things worse.

A 2nd ref with a legally binding result would solve this one way or the other.

No I asked you, to perhaps give you an idea of how 17.4 million brexiteers feel, if the result of any new general election, was not implemented, perhaps stopped by Gina Miller style court case. And today's parliament was still in place after 3.5 years.

Would you see it as being fair or democratic?

You're doing what you always do Lancaster claret you twist, turn and swerve to avoid a straight forward question.

Would it be fair or democratic?

Yes

Or

No?

Get it of your chest.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:57 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:The 1975 referendum result was also non binding.

It was implemented.

Yes, well done for correctly identifying that non binding means the government can choose to follow the vote or not.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:59 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:No I asked you, to perhaps give you an idea of how 17.4 million brexiteers feel, if the result of any new general election, was not implemented, perhaps stopped by Gina Miller style court case. And today's parliament was still in place after 3.5 years.

Would you see it as being fair or democratic?

You're doing what you always do Lancaster claret you twist, turn and swerve to avoid a straight forward question.

Would it be fair or democratic?

Yes

Or

No?

Get it of your chest.

It’s impossible. You’re comparing apples and giraffes!

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:59 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I don't make stuff up and try to pass it off as fact.

Thats what you just did.

Ok I made it up, because you are the only one watching anything on Brexit. It has been debated more than once. But hey ho as usual you know best. So ok

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:01 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Already been answered by the post above this one

A hung parliament doesn't solve the current issue, so a GE runs the risk of just making things worse.

A 2nd ref with a legally binding result would solve this one way or the other.

How would you make the result binding? There may be an Act of Parliament before the the referendum saying "The Government will implement what you decide", but then if the public 'get it wrong' again, what's to stop them passing another Act of Parliament repealing the first one?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:01 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:No I asked you, to perhaps give you an idea of how 17.4 million brexiteers feel, if the result of any new general election, was not implemented, perhaps stopped by Gina Miller style court case. And today's parliament was still in place after 3.5 years.

Would you see it as being fair or democratic?

You're doing what you always do Lancaster claret you twist, turn and swerve to avoid a straight forward question.

Would it be fair or democratic?

Yes

Or

No?

Its a daft question Ringo

And please, I pray that you have some jolt of self awareness when you post!

turn and swerve to avoid a straight forward question.

I mean, come on!

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:02 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Referendums are not normally binding on Parliament. However in this case, said in both leaflet prints that any decision would be enacted... thus making it so.

You think putting something in a leaflet makes it legally binding?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:03 pm

dsr wrote:How would you make the result binding? There may be an Act of Parliament before the the referendum saying "The Government will implement what you decide", but then if the public 'get it wrong' again, what's to stop them passing another Act of Parliament repealing the first one?

I have absolutely no idea dsr.

I will say though if its a very close result, it could make things worse.

Maybe, just maybe, there are not any easy solutions.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:04 pm

martin_p wrote:Yes, well done for correctly identifying that non binding means the government can choose to follow the vote or not.

This Democracy Marty Style -

Imagine David Cameron announcing we were going to have the referendum .

"Today I can announce that on the 23rd of June 2016 the country will decide, in a once in a generation vote, whether Remain or Leave the European union. The vote will be non-binding, and I've taken advice from my ministers in charge, Marty, that because its non binding, unless you give us the result we want. We wont take a blind bit of notice of you!

It's good night from me. And it's good night from him!"

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:04 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Ok I made it up, because you are the only one watching anything on Brexit. It has been debated more than once. But hey ho as usual you know best. So ok

It is not legally binding.

It really is that simple.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:06 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its a daft question Ringo

And please, I pray that you have some jolt of self awareness when you post!

I mean, come on!

I've been here many many times before lancaster claret.

It's only "daft" because you wont answer it.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:06 pm

It really is not worth trying to discuss anything on here. Enjoy yourselves

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:07 pm

elwaclaret wrote:It really is not worth trying to discuss anything on here. Enjoy yourselves

Jesus, what is wrong with admitting that you are wrong?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:07 pm

martin_p wrote:You think putting something in a leaflet makes it legally binding?

I suspect that bearing in mind the Scottish's court's verdict on prorogation, it perhaps might have been legally binding. If the government's defence was "the referendum wasn't binding and we were lying when we said it was", that defence might not stand up. The courts (it seems) reach further than we might have thought.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:07 pm

martin_p wrote:You think putting something in a leaflet makes it legally binding?

Politically binding.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:08 pm

dsr wrote:Shame they didn't bring this out a day earlier. There might have been even more fun in the House of commons last night.

I can't be the only one to find it a bit distasteful that the Labour Party sat there singing the Red Flag shortly after voting to prevent a general election. They may well claim that they are just using political tricks and chicanery because they disapprove in principle of the government using political tricks and chicanery, but it doesn't sit well.

The fact that the refusal to vote for a general election is being seen as such a stick to beat the labour party with is an indication of how shallow politics are in this country at the moment. As most on here will be aware, there are very good reasons not to have a general election at the moment (even George Osborne was defending Corbyn the other day): asking politicians to believe that a PM with a track record for dishonesty won't change the election date to get his own way is naive at best.

However, even though there are perfectly good reasons the spin is just trying to gloss over that and hope that people don't notice.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:08 pm

dsr wrote:How would you make the result binding? There may be an Act of Parliament before the the referendum saying "The Government will implement what you decide", but then if the public 'get it wrong' again, what's to stop them passing another Act of Parliament repealing the first one?

Nothing. Parliament is sovereign.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:08 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I've been here many many times before lancaster claret.

It's only "daft" because you wont answer it.

Its daft because its desperate!

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:09 pm

martin_p wrote:You think putting something in a leaflet makes it legally binding?

It means Jack Shoite.

Labour put "we respect the referendum result" on their manifesto.

That worked out well didn't it Marty !

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:09 pm

dsr wrote:I suspect that bearing in mind the Scottish's court's verdict on prorogation, it perhaps might have been legally binding. If the government's defence was "the referendum wasn't binding and we were lying when we said it was", that defence might not stand up. The courts (it seems) reach further than we might have thought.

I seriously recommend you read up on the judgement if you think that dsr.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:11 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I've been here many many times before.

You certainly have!

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:12 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:It means Jack Shoite.

Labour put "we respect the referendum result" on their manifesto.

That worked out well didn't it Marty !

They also put that they would ‘reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option’ in their manifesto at the last election, which you voted for. So your complaining over Labour voting to stop no deal is a little hypocritical to say the least.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:12 pm

Anyway, Political editor of the Daily Mail

"Boris Johnson rules out election pact with Brexit Party. Senior Tory source: ‘Neither Nigel Farage not Arron Banks are fit and proper persons and they should never be allowed anywhere near government"

At least Johnson isn't completely daft.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:13 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Politically binding.

That’s not a real thing though is it.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:13 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its daft because its desperate!

One man's "desperate" is another man's "straight forward answer avoiding"

I'd never get an yes or no from you in a month of sundays. Not from somebody who, "has the unfortunate habit of being right most of the time" eh!?

I'll stop asking now. It saves me from having to reply to half a dozen posts posts of sneering and moral superiority!

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:16 pm

martin_p wrote:That’s not a real thing though is it.

If you dont believe politically binding is a "real thing" ,

Then you do not understand politics.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:19 pm

martin_p wrote:They also put that they would ‘reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option’ in their manifesto at the last election, which you voted for. So your complaining over Labour voting to stop no deal is a little hypocritical to say the least.

Labour's admission that they want to secure a brilliant deal that will "protect jobs and manufacturing in areas that have been worst hit" then have a referendum, where they will campaign against it

Proves they've haven't really wanted no deal. They've really wanted no brexit!

If carlsberg did hypocrisy!

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:20 pm

Are people really saying that the referendum result was legally binding? Really? If you say that you’re either embarrassingly uninformed or just blatantly lying. Either way it makes your other contributions to this topic null and void.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:20 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:One man's "desperate" is another man's "straight forward answer avoiding"

I'd never get an yes or no from you in a month of sundays. Not from somebody who, "has the unfortunate habit of being right most of the time" eh!?

I'll stop asking now. It saves me from having to reply to half a dozen posts posts of sneering and moral superiority!

You'll get a yes if you argued properly and backed it up with facts so I could see where you were coming from. You've 100% been able to do that before, but not on this one.

I'm still waiting for your answer on the "hung parliament" btw

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:20 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:If you dont believe politically binding is a "real thing" ,

Then you do not understand politics.

Go on then, educate me!

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:24 pm

Rileybobs wrote:Are people really saying that the referendum result was legally binding? Really? If you say that you’re either embarrassingly uninformed or just blatantly lying. Either way it makes your other contributions to this topic null and void.

So it was just a laugh was it? bit of bants bit of larking about ? To even imagine the reaction if remain won and Leave refused to honour it is a thought to behold

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:24 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Labour's admission that they want to secure a brilliant deal that will "protect jobs and manufacturing in areas that have been worst hit" then have a referendum, where they will campaign against it

Proves they've haven't really wanted no deal. They've really wanted no brexit!

If carlsberg did hypocrisy!

I’m talking about their last manifesto, that you voted for, that means you agree that no deal should be rejected. It’s there in their manifesto in black and white. Surely you knew this when you voted for them? It’s after the bit where they talk about wanting a deal with some sort of customs union (you voted for that too so I assume you agree with it) which meant they couldn’t support the May deal.

Who’s wriggling now Wrongo?

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:26 pm

What time was Ringo on the radio this morning?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:26 pm

AlargeClaret wrote:So it was just a laugh was it? bit of bants bit of larking about ? To even imagine the reaction if remain won and Leave refused to honour it is a thought to behold

How pray tell could Leave have refused to honour it? It’s the default position. Would they have somehow managed to force a deal through parliament that meant us leaving anyway (something they’ve failed to do over the last three years even with public support)?

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:27 pm

AlargeClaret wrote:So it was just a laugh was it? bit of bants bit of larking about ? To even imagine the reaction if remain won and Leave refused to honour it is a thought to behold

Don’t skirt around my point, it’s a simple question with only two possible answers. Was the EU referendum legally binding? Yes or no?

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:32 pm

Tall Paul wrote:What time was Ringo on the radio this morning?

Ten past Stella

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:36 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Referendums are not normally binding on Parliament. However in this case, said in both leaflet prints that any decision would be enacted... thus making it so.

What? A Tory government misleading the public? Whatever next?!

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:37 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:You'll get a yes if you argued properly and backed it up with facts so I could see where you were coming from. You've 100% been able to do that before, but not on this one.

I'm still waiting for your answer on the "hung parliament" btw

You had the chance to give me a simple yes or no to a very straight forward, clear question.-

", if the result of any new general election, was not implemented, perhaps stopped by Gina Miller style court case. And today's parliament was still in place after 3.5 years.

Would you see it as being fair or democratic?

You failed.

I'll answer your hung parliament question the moment after you answer my question.

Which , going on your past inability to answer questions you sneeringly label as daft and desperate , will probably be in excess of 3.5 years.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:37 pm

Tall Paul wrote:What time was Ringo on the radio this morning?

Around 9.20

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:39 pm

Rileybobs wrote:Are people really saying that the referendum result was legally binding? Really? If you say that you’re either embarrassingly uninformed or just blatantly lying. Either way it makes your other contributions to this topic null and void.

No, what people are saying is that it is binding. Or should be. It is sometimes claimed that Parliament is sovereign - which I certainly hope it isn't, because in a democracy Parliament must never be sovereign - and therefore the same people (mostly) claim that Parliament is entitled to change its mind about carrying out the people's lawfully expressed wishes if they think the people have got it wrong.

But what some of us are generally saying is that for the government to offer a referendum, to promise it is binding, and then to say that it wasn't binding after all and they were going to ignore the result because it was wrong, would be such a flagrant and outrageous flouting of democracy that it just could not happen.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:39 pm

martin_p wrote:I’m talking about their last manifesto, that you voted for, that means you agree that no deal should be rejected. It’s there in their manifesto in black and white. Surely you knew this when you voted for them? It’s after the bit where they talk about wanting a deal with some sort of customs union (you voted for that too so I assume you agree with it) which meant they couldn’t support the May deal.

Who’s wriggling now Wrongo?

I thought you had heard him telling Nicky Campbell that he voted Labour because his dad told him to.

claret2018 · Post by **claret2018** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:41 pm

Ringo you'd make an excellent politician. You haven't the faintest idea what you're on about, but you don't let that stop you.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:43 pm

martin_p wrote:I’m talking about their last manifesto, that you voted for, that means you agree that no deal should be rejected. It’s there in their manifesto in black and white. Surely you knew this when you voted for them? It’s after the bit where they talk about wanting a deal with some sort of customs union (you voted for that too so I assume you agree with it) which meant they couldn’t support the May deal.

Who’s wriggling now Wrongo?

Nobody Marty!

I just know what to say and where to say it, to get more bang for my buck!!

And its certainly not by wasting my time schooling hapless clowns like you on here!! Who only admit I'm right if they use their own words to agree with me!!!!!!!

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:46 pm

dsr wrote:No, what people are saying is that it is binding. Or should be. It is sometimes claimed that Parliament is sovereign - which I certainly hope it isn't, because in a democracy Parliament must never be sovereign - and therefore the same people (mostly) claim that Parliament is entitled to change its mind about carrying out the people's lawfully expressed wishes if they think the people have got it wrong.

But what some of us are generally saying is that for the government to offer a referendum, to promise it is binding, and then to say that it wasn't binding after all and they were going to ignore the result because it was wrong, would be such a flagrant and outrageous flouting of democracy that it just could not happen.

It's a good job the result of the referendum hasn't been, and isn't being, ignored then.