BS: Brexit again

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: MikeL2
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 02:35 PM

Hi Steve

<"That's right, Mike. The government said that it would be bound by the result. A political promise (which should be seen in that context). Not legally binding. That's not what they said and it's not what they could have said. It's perfectly possible to hold an advisory referendum and promise in advance that you'll stick to the result. What you can't promise is that you'll change the law without consulting parliament. Invoking Article 50 inevitably means changes in the law. That's what the judges decided">

Many thanks for the explanation. Now in my 80's I don't keep abreast of politics and things that go with it. I don't try to worry about things they I can't effect.

As to your Coutino comment - I do know a good footballer when I see one and in today's arena he is one hell of a player. He is just one in the current Liverpool team. I have watched them (on TV) many times this year and I believe they are in their rightful place at the top of the League. They are going to take some stopping. I went to see them play United and although the result was good for United I was mortified to see them play a totally negative game.

Not only are Liverpool the best team at the moment they are playing very attractive football to watch.

regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 02:27 PM

The government can't "accept advice" from the public that would involve its changing laws without consulting parliament first. Parliament is not the government. That should have been made crystal clear at the outset. Not only was it not, but Theresa May appeared to be ignorant of the constitutional law when she tried to get Article 50 through by the back door.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 02:23 PM

And Jim, it was not an election pledge.
It was a pledge made by the elected government, after the election, about the referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 02:19 PM

BWM,
Kevin, the public did not 'instruct' the government about anything. The referendum was advisory

Yes, but the government made it clear that they would accept the advice whatever it was.
They made it clear that the result would be taken as an instruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 01:08 PM

MG of H
I would not disagree with you. There were many rabid articles for and against Brexit. However I cannot recall seeing any of the real issues concerning Brexit ever being discussed.I get the impression the entire process was wheezed up in a 3rd form common room for all the care that was taken. A shambolic process from start to end. Hardly a recommendation for the party in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 01:01 PM

Yes we were asked a simple question and were, in general, and not unreasonably, expected to realise that there were implications whichever way we went. The whole point of the campaign should have been to educate the electorate as to the issues and to inform it of their intricacies and complications. This did not happen. All we got was over-simplified populist grandstanding, sloganising, fearmongering, racism and a pack of lies. The electorate were grossly patronised and insulted yet most of them didn't realise it. We ended up no better educated by polling day than we were before it all kicked off. It's almost as if both sides had decided that they couldn't educate pork but they could convince it that it was beef. The whole thing was a total disgrace and made a mockery of democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 01:01 PM

Interesting Radio 4 "Law in Action" today talking about the extent of complications involved. Passing the Great Repeal Act is only the start of the process and there are an unknown number of laws that will still be linked to EU processes and procedures, so it could well take - my interpretation here - a decade or more to sort the bulk of it, not including various EU standards we agree to for practical reasons, not because we bound to by agreement. It is worth a listen for anyone who thinks the exit from EU law is easy, or even just moderately complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 12:44 PM

As you said "anybody's guess".

There's an old saying, "Never buy a pig in a poke". Naturally, if you do so and the pig isn,t there you might get upset. But there's another saying "Cave emptor" - buyer beware.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 12:06 PM

Mg of H
If you go buy a box of chocolates you don't just buy the pretty box- hopefully there are chocolates inside. Same with exit from the EU. Since first joining a lot of EU legislation has been put in place.
How much of that needs review and/or repeal, modification is anybodies guess.
The whole procedure has been reduced to farce because the Tories were so confident the remain vote would win that the implications and procedures that would follow an exit vote obviously were not even considered.
As many have already stated in british law there is no provision for a legally binding referendum. For this to occur Parliament would have to become subordinate. As I understand it even with our unwritten constitution, Parliament cannot abrogate it's responsibilities to enact legislation.
What the Tories have managed to create is potentially a constitutional nightmare. By giving the people a referendum and then not confirming that vote in Parliament seriously questions their legitimacy. Forcing through a vote with a majority at this time is an unlikely scenario. Interesting times!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 11:46 AM

For exit from the EU, not for or against anything else.

And in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, against that as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 11:31 AM

the Brexiteer 37% Leave-voters have foisted their will on the vast majority who didn't vote Leave.

Wrong wrong wrong!
Those eligible to vote had the choice to vote or not to vote. Of those that voted the majority voted for exit. Whistle and moan as much as you like but just accept the majority vote. FOR EXIT

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 11:28 AM

"Dave, do you think we should placidly accept our government lying to us?
"Isn't that what Parliamentary democracy is based on?
No Government has ever adhered to its electoral promises - not ever
Even if they were intending to, any major actions carried out have to be agreed by Parliamentary vote - which is what the ruling pointed out.
The Government and the press have attempted to undermine the rule of law in Britain and have been exposed as openly doing so.
As Brexit was inveigled through on a racist ticket, the greatest dangers is that the more neanderthal of the population will take the law into their own hands and increase their pressure on immigrants and refugees to leave - this has been happening since the result of the referendum was announced.
"Keith Flett gets one in."
Ah, the golden days of The Guardian!!
Is he still writing?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 10:58 AM

Yep, good batch of letters this morning. I really must resurrect the golden days of my Guardian letter-writing. I think my first one was lamenting the first election of George Bush in combination with the threat of William Hague becoming PM. I suppose I needn't have worried on the latter score. My mum always goads me whenever Keith Flett gets one in.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 10:52 AM

As I said earlier in response to one of Steve's posts, "You couldn't make it up"!

The irony is that, if the result had been 52% Remain v. 48% Leave, the Brexiteers would have been protesting exactly the reverse direction to their current protests.

I'm in agreement with Steve - in exactly the same way that 25% Of voters foisted this obscene Tory government on the rest of the UK's electorate, the Brexiteer 37% Leave-voters have foisted their will on the vast majority who didn't vote Leave. I hope that our servants, the MPs, do the right thing and kick Brexit into touch.

But, sadly, I don't expect them to have the spine to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 10:25 AM

I'd tend to use the terms instruct and advise to mean essentially the same thing. If I buy some flatpack furniture it will contain instructions as to how to put it together. If I choose to ignore those instructions I can do so. They are only advisory.
...................

There's a letter in todays Guardian which very clearly indicates that in all this business with the court decision the government hasn't got a clue. Read the two bits in bold. Straight out of Yes, Prime Minister. But I'd challenge Sir Humphrey to reconcile those two sentences...:

• Neither your news reports nor letters from readers have made mention of perhaps the most relevant text on the referendum. This is a clear statement by government on parliament's role, found in the "Government response to the report on Referendums in the United Kingdom", comprising a report by the House of Lords select committee on the constitution (HL Paper 99), published on 30 September 2010, replying to the committee report issued on 7 April that year.

In a letter to the committee, Mark Harper MP wrote: "I welcome the report … and, given the profile and importance of the subject, the government has considered its response carefully in light of the recent introduction of the parliamentary voting system and constituencies bill."

In its substantive response to recommendations the government asserted: "Under the UK's constitutional arrangements parliament must be responsible for deciding whether or not to take action in response to a referendum result."

Yet Downing Street's response to the high court judgment was to say: "The government is disappointed by the court's judgment. The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by act of parliament. And the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum. We will appeal this judgment."
Dr David Lowry
Stoneleigh, Surrey

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 09:39 AM

Kevin, the public did not 'instruct' the government about anything. The referendum was advisory - the public simply expressed a wish, a preference if you will. An expression of preference is not the same thing as an instruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 09:22 AM

Your very last phrase there is the key one, Kevin. Very few MPs will have the guts to vote against brexit in the House even though most of them supported remain and know full well what a catastrophe faces us. They would lose their seats in droves and UKIP would have a field day. If the Supreme Court upholds the High Court and it comes to a vote, just observe the spectacle of a huge flock of turkeys all voting for Christmas. There really is very little room left for vision and principled judgement in all this. As Cameron had been so certain he'd win the vote, I'll have to put that down to unintended consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 08:19 AM

Once again I point out that the referendum said nothing about anything other than leaving the European Union. That is the only thing on which the public can be seen as having instructed parliament.

Issues such as whether we should stay in the single market or whether there should be any change to existing free movement were not addressed in the referendum, and parliament has been given no instructions by the referendum.

There is no kind of moral imperative on MPs to comply with the wishes of the government in regard to such issues, or see them as required by a proper respect of the popular vote. It is false to claim that "the British public has spoken" on such issues.Or even "the English people".

What determines events are political considerations, and worries by MPs about career prospects.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 08:03 AM

No one should ever accept anyone lying to them. Nor should they accept misrepresentations or ascribing unspoken sentiments. What people do about it is a matter of personal choice and the choice I make is just that. Personal. What other people do is entirely up to them.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:46 AM

Politicians and bingo halls. Whatever next? Ayes down for a full house of...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:45 AM

Dave, do you think we should placidly accept our government lying to us?
Is it wrong to challenge and complain about it?

Why should we let them get away with it?
Are you really saying that it does not matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:40 AM

Correct, Dave. It is all right if I speak to Keith only via you? Any chance of you telling him to bugger off? Do that and I promise to never mention those bingo balls ever again...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

Sorry to those who feel that the politicians lied to them. That is what they do for a living. Welcome to reality.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:33 AM

No Steve.
As ever, you ignore what I actually say and address what you would prefer to believe that I meant.

I said,
"We were told before the referendum that its result would be binding and its implementation immediate.
Now we are told that it is illegal to do that, and the referendum was only "advisory" anyway."

What part of that did I get wrong Steve?
Which bit was "ignorant" and not "truthful" Steve?

Remember that you too believed that the referendum decision would be irrevocable.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:17 AM

Your opening post was sour grapes and tendentiousness personified. You clearly intended to put across your view that the judgement is an irritating obstacle in the way of your getting what you want. Well some of us want to see our politicians subject to the rule of law, just like the rest of us are. Do try not to be so disingenuous and dishonest. The facts are the facts, words are words, but your sentiment stinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:16 AM

Steve,
There's a piece by Hugh Muir in today's Guardian (you'll have to google it as I don't know how to do links) which suggests that MPs, if they get to vote, should follow their instincts, not the party line or "the will of the people" and vote against brexit if they judge that it will be a disaster for the country. Why would they deliberately vote for a catastrophe to happen?

Watching the Sunday political shows, it seems that most MPs will not challenge Brexit. Labour has said that they won't.
It appears that my fears about the ruling elite were wrong.
Apart from some London MPs and SNP, the only challenge is likely to be from the unelected Lords.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:11 AM

You don't have to be qualified in order to be able to read their judgement, which is expressed in plain English. You just need to be able to read. I don't have to be any good at football to know what a great player Philippe Coutinho is, I don't have to be a fiddle virtuoso to know that the Pastoral Symphony is great music and I don't have to be a Wordsworth in order to appreciate the poems of John Donne. In other words, blow it out yo' ass, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:10 AM

My OP statements again.

"We were told before the referendum that its result would be binding and it implementation immediate.
Now we are told that it is illegal to do that, and the referendum was only "advisory" anyway."

After days of abusive and insulting replies, we find that none of you dispute those statements!
You now all agree with me!

I finished by saying, "The establishment elite are determined to get their way regardless. "

That was just my take on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:04 AM

There's a piece by Hugh Muir in today's Guardian (you'll have to google it as I don't know how to do links) which suggests that MPs, if they get to vote, should follow their instincts, not the party line or "the will of the people" and vote against brexit if they judge that it will be a disaster for the country. Why would they deliberately vote for a catastrophe to happen?

Who else would be expected to do that? Imagine an airline pilot instructed by unhappy passengers to crash the plane. Or a surgeon, convinced in a belief that an operation will kill the patient, being ordered to do it by family members. Which constructor would be told to erect a building they know will fall to earth? Which captain would be ordered to sea in a ship they feel sure will sink? It isn't elitist to acknowledge that – for all the populist disdain of experts – we still expect those we rely on to deploy good judgment on our behalf.

This of course leads to the question posed by Edmund Burke: are MPs delegates, elected to gauge and reflect the popular view; or individuals selected for their intellect and good judgment? It's a bit of both, for we know that parliament does act as a check on populist impulses. Without it – if one believes years of opinion polling – we would still be deploying the gallows.

Well I don't want my MP to be my delegate. I want him (mine's a "he," a Tory one unfortunately) to dedicate himself to being a damn sight more knowledgable about the intricacies of the issues of the day than I am so that he can come to better decisions than I could. That's his job, not to make relatively uninformed opinions his priority in judging how he should proceed. The referendum vote is a prime example of just that. People were asked to make an epoch-making decision regarding the EU when most of them don't even know the name of their MEP (they certainly didn't come out in droves to vote for him, did they?). It's like getting the villagers to vote to decide on whether or not to sack the bowling green keeper for doing a bad job when most of them don't play bowls, don't know the rules of the game and don't know where the bowling green is.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:03 AM

BWM, you call me a cunt for telling you that when I click on your link it takes me to the start page.
That is a fact and Kevin found the same. Is he a cunt too?

That was just a side issue anyway.
My point was and is that the government assured the country that it would implement the decision, even though the Bill you keep on about said it did not have to.
Labour also promised a binding in/out referendum.

Steve,
The government said that it would be bound by the result. A political promise (which should be seen in that context). Not legally binding. That's not what they said and it's not what they could have said. It's perfectly possible to hold an advisory referendum and promise in advance that you'll stick to the result. What you can't promise is that you'll change the law without consulting parliament. Invoking Article 50 inevitably means changes in the law. That's what the judges decided

Spot on Steve, except that the decision is disputed and will be appealed. I am not qualified as you presumably are to know if they got it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 04:46 AM

"The government said that it would be bound by the result. A political promise (which should be seen in that context). Not legally binding. That's not what they said and it's not what they could have said. It's perfectly possible to hold an advisory referendum and promise in advance that you'll stick to the result. What you can't promise is that you'll change the law without consulting parliament. Invoking Article 50 inevitably means changes in the law. That's what the judges decided. The judges, far from being the enemies of the people, were protecting the people against the possibility of government by edict. We fought a civil war to stop that and have spent centuries establishing a democracy in which parliament has sovereignty. It's ironic to see angry brexiteers, who have complained for decades about our conceding sovereignty to the EU, attacking the very people who are now trying to defend it against politicians whose expediency drives them to undermine it."

Absolutely spot-on correct, Steve.
I have to smile that the Brexiteers and other sundry numpties are incapable of seeing the irony! You couldn't make it up!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Mr Red
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 04:07 AM

Don't ya just love it.
Getting what you wish for, and a whole lot more.
Theresa May talks trade to India. India talks immigration to May.

What do the Brexiters have to say this time?

Of course they aren't about immigration, well not this very moment. And certainly not racist. In a lexicographical sense anyway.

And you won't pin them down, except Farrage had to admit on TV when pressed that the referendum was only advisory. I calls that a pin.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 07:32 PM

Can Parliament provide a do over ?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 05:47 PM

I made perfectly clear in my post that there is a distinction between the legal situation, which has always meant that the referendum was purely advisory, and the political reality that it has been, and will be treated as binding. Evidently that's how you see it too. What's to argue about in that?

Where there is room for argument is about what that actually implies. The referendum merely asked about membership of the EU, nothing else. The outcome was that the UK should leave the EU.

However though a lot of people might have been motivated to vote that way by ideas about cutting out freedom of movement, that wasn't in the question. Nor was anything about leaving the single market.

If it came to a choice between staying in the single market and removing the right to freedom of movement, it would in no way be defying the result of the referendum if the choice was made to retain freedom of movement, and stay in the single market, while leaving the EU. (A Norway style solution). And the same would apply if that deal was arranged for the parts of the UK which voted against Brexit- Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The significant bit about the court decision is that, though it seems pretty likely that the government would be likely to see depriving us of free movement as the priority, rather than staying in the single market, it is by no means certain that they could get a majority of MPs to reliably back that. So it makes a difference whether Parliament makes that kind of decision or the "Crown in Parliament", ie the Prime Minister.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 05:35 PM

That's right, Mike. The government said that it would be bound by the result. A political promise (which should be seen in that context). Not legally binding. That's not what they said and it's not what they could have said. It's perfectly possible to hold an advisory referendum and promise in advance that you'll stick to the result. What you can't promise is that you'll change the law without consulting parliament. Invoking Article 50 inevitably means changes in the law. That's what the judges decided. The judges, far from being the enemies of the people, were protecting the people against the possibility of government by edict. We fought a civil war to stop that and have spent centuries establishing a democracy in which parliament has sovereignty. It's ironic to see angry brexiteers, who have complained for decades about our conceding sovereignty to the EU, attacking the very people who are now trying to defend it against politicians whose expediency drives them to undermine it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 03:57 PM

That should have read "I have already made my points" Sorry.

To remind those who cannot be bothered to look back the points were

1. The fact remains that the referendum was never legally binding.
2. The judges have ruled, quite correctly, that parliamentary procedure must be followed.
3. Many promises were made by politicians that have now been broken. The only surprise there is that some people seem shocked by this.

Whether parliament will override the result of the referendum is yet to be seen but there is no conspiracy by 'The elite' to keep us in the EU. Simply laws that have been enshrined for hundreds of years that cannot and should not be broken.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: MikeL2
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 03:33 PM

Hi

I do not know what descriptions are contained in any document about the the referendum, and I can't be really bothered to go and look.

What I do know is that the way the referendum was announced to the world by Cameron was that this was a once off opportunity for the country to vote on whether to stay or leave the EU. Furthermore right throughout the campaign he constantly warned the electorate that they should get out and vote because there would be no going back.

Neither I nor any of the many people I have discussed this with ever heard that the result of the referendum would not be binding...quite the opposite.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 03:32 PM

Professor,

If you cannot be bothered to go back through your interminable posts to actually read the things you have actually posted why on earth should I. I have far better things to do with my time.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 02:53 PM

I have already made but something else has come up that I need assistance with. The leaflet in question has been described as an 'official document'. I do not believe it is. There is a full list of true official documents here and I cannot find the said leaflet listed therein. I am sure it must be me not looking properly but, if it is not an official document, then why is being described as one?

Surely, rather than being an official document, it is simply an advertising brochure laying out the governments reasons for wanting to stay in the EU.

Can anyone help?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 02:27 PM

It's a FACT that the second link (06 Nov 16 05:27 PM goes straight to Section 5 - Types of Referendum, when I click on it. I can't be held responsible for your IT deficiencies.

I used to defend you and your cronies when Jim, Steve, Musket(s) were ganging up and kicking your balls. I'm beginning to understand now why they found you such a deceitful, annoying little cunt.

Bye Porky.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 02:26 PM

"OK Jim, so I was right and you are up for a fight, your "debating" is influenced by perceived views that you disapprove of....personal dislike"
Sory - don't understand a word of that
My debating is based on my opposition to your extremist views - my personal dislike for you is your persistent habit of sprinting off into the sunset whenever you are presented with an uncomfortable set of facts - the ones presented to your continued claim of "adverse effects of immigration".
I have always answered your points directly - you make a point of never answering those can't handle - then repeating those point as if they hadn't been already shot down in flames.
"Will anyone of you produce a false statement or claim that I have made?"
This has reached the point of self harm.
Your dishonesty throughout the "antisemitism" thread beggars belief - you have lied and distorted the views of others consistently.
You first denied making statements and claimed we had made them up then, when you were presented with them you went on to defend them - all over again - hate-filled, brainwashed Irish schoolchildren being among them
When you found you had planted your foot firmly in your mouth you attempted to smear the rest of us with your own, openly-stated antisemitism.
For your own sake - give thi a raest before you do yourself further damage.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 01:53 PM

.. and a slice of camembert with a glass of wine was a real exotic continental treat
well worth dressing up at the weekend
to go on a bus to the new trendy wine bar in the next big town,
if we thought it might help persuade a girls knickers down later in the evening.... 😋

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 01:44 PM

BWM, here are the sentences you referred to,
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, but the government assured the people that they would implement it, and I, Kevin, Steve, and the rest of the country, assumed that is what would happen.

What is FACT (you do understand the concept of 'fact', do you?) is what is contained in the Referendum Bill, to which I have linked twice - once to the whole Bill, and again to the relevant section regarding the advisory nature only of the Bill.

It is a FACT that you failed to link to the relevant section, but I found it anyway.

It is a FACT that the government assured the country that it would implement the decision, even though the Bill you keep on about said it did not have to.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 01:40 PM

Back when I was a teenager in the 70s..
I never knew anybody who went abroad for holidays..

That was a luxury for the rich sophisticated jet set we saw on telly and in magazines..

We counted ourselves lucky to afford an off season september week in the rain in a holiday camp caravan in dorset or devon..

Nice to See Brexiteers are so nostalgic for bringing those times back again for all to enjoy.... 😎

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 01:32 PM

Keith, what you believed is irrelevant. What is FACT (you do understand the concept of 'fact', do you?) is what is contained in the Referendum Bill, to which I have linked twice - once to the whole Bill, and again to the relevant section regarding the advisory nature only of the Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 01:28 PM

Well that's odd, Kevin. The link I posted in a previous post goes to the whole bill. The link I posted 06 Nov 16 05:27 PM goes straight to the pertinent section - Section 5, Types of Referendum - when I click on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 01:07 PM

Kevin,
When Steve warned that it was irrevocable that was a perfectly valid and prediction.

He and I, and you, believed it was irrevocable.

However, when I said it here I was vilified and abused and accused of ignorance.

Will anyone of you produce a false statement or claim that I have made?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 12:55 PM

The fact that the referendum result is readily revocable in legal and constitutional terms doesn't alter the fact that in practical political terms it was irrevocable. When Steve warned that it was irrevocable that was a perfectly valid and prediction.

(Backwoodsman - Date: 06 Nov 16 - 05:27 PM - that link you gave is to the whole lengthy referendum bill. It might be useful to identify the sentences to which you were actually referring.)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 12:53 PM

Raedwulf,
I think Keith is both stupid & ignorant.

On what grounds?
Will you identify some false claims from me?
How about just one?
How about the most stupid and ignorant statement I have made?

If you can not do that, you reveal yourself as someone who indulges in gratuitous personal attacks and name calling because you are incapable of replying to what I say.

So, can you Raedwulf?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 12:46 PM

BWM,
Keith, Akenaton - read THIS, in particular the second and third sentences. The English used is simple enough for even you to understand.
When you've read it, shut up and go away.

No. Although it says that the government is not required to abide by the vote, the government did assure us that it would.
It did that in an official document and had it delivered, at public expense, to every home in the country.

That was my whole case, and it is correct.