 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Brexit again
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:39 PM Fantasy. Entertaining fantasy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:36 PM It's not a question of our elected MPs being wiser than the electorate. It's a question of what the legislation says, and the Sovreignty of Parliament! Parliament has always been overwhelmingly pro EU. All three parties have always been pro EU. That is why the people demanded a referendum and Cameron had to concede one or UKIP would have taken a huge swathe of their votes and maybe even won the General Election as they had already won the EU election. Had it been revealed that a legal challenge was likely, UKIP would have promised a binding referendum by changing laws as necessary, and again hammered the big three. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:27 PM Dave again, Are we to assume then that every other promise made during the referendum campaign is binding as well? We are not talking about campaign slogans. This was a pledge from the government about the referendum itself. Raedwulf, I didn't believe that. I knew it wasn't true. So did Steve, Kevin, BWM, Dave... Look at Question Time from last Thursday. Both the Labour and Conservative MPs said that Parliamentarians voted six to one for a referendum in the belief it would be binding. How clever of you to be better informed than all our MPs. If I am ignorant, they must all be too! Not fit to decide on the issue in that case. Why will you not tell us who informed you, but failed to inform the rest of the country? Why did none of you once mention that snippet od knowledge in any of the discussion here before the referendum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Greg F. Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:24 PM Say good night, Professor. Its almost 22:30 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:21 PM Dave, Thank you, BWM, but you need not have. Every single source from the ardently pro-EU lobby to the rabidly anti-EU media have never said it was legally binding. It seems that the only people who did not know that fact are right here on Mudcat I quoted a Labour and a Conservative MP who stated that MPs voted 6 to 1 for a referendum believing it to be binding. So not just Mudcatters. Those Mudcatters who claim they did know are unable to say how they knew. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:16 PM But it's the LEGISLATION that sets the rules. You know - the Sovreignty of the U.K. Parliament that you Brexiteers said you were voting for. Or were you all lying in your fucking teeth about that too? Sad that you can not make a point without swearing. There were lots of lawyers involved in setting up the referendum. They told us it would be binding, but knew a legal challenge would be possible. They decided to keep it quiet in case, unthinkably, the people did not vote as they were supposed to. They could have repealed those medieval laws to make their promises true, but safer to keep them as a get out clause. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:07 PM It's what politicians do for a living. The exception being Jeremy Corbyn, and he gets put down for not being a proper politician because he's doesn't act that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Stanron Date: 05 Nov 16 - 05:57 PM I do love a good conspiracy theory. Not only the Remainiacs lied to us, but the Disbe-leavers lied to us as well. They all lied to us. Infamy! Infamy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Nov 16 - 05:22 PM David Cameron didn't imagine for one second that he would ever have to deliver on his "Article 50 Tomorrow" promise. When he lost the vote he was totally stuffed, and that was one of the main reasons. He couldn't deliver, so he buggered off dead quick like. He lied to us, just like Gove, Johnson and Farage lied to us. What a bloody shambles. But never mind, because "the British people have spoken." All 37% of 'em. After months of being fed a pack of lies. Still, we mustn't think of overturning the result, must we? Far too undemocratic! Never ever thought I'd find meself on the same side as Ken Clarke... 🙁 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Greg F. Date: 05 Nov 16 - 04:45 PM Ya mean Trump's NOT gonna build that wall, and Mexico AIN'T gonna pay for it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Nov 16 - 04:24 PM No promise made by a politician has any legal force whatsoever. I'd have thought that people would have taken on board that elementary constitutional principle by now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Nov 16 - 03:26 PM It's intended to work like a hammer, to drive it into a few thick skulls. The two points aren't debateable, THEY ARE FACT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Iains Date: 05 Nov 16 - 03:14 PM Using capitals and underlining items does not add to your debating skills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Nov 16 - 03:12 PM And, as a rabid spelling-pedant, I offer my heartfelt apologies for my constant mis-spelling of Sovereignty throughout this thread, and perhaps others. 😜😎 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: DMcG Date: 05 Nov 16 - 03:10 PM I haven't rewatched Question Time and I admit I wasn't giving it my full attention but while I remember the statement that the vote for the referendum bill was 6:1 in favour of the bill, I don't recall them mentioned they believed it was binding. I may have missed it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Nov 16 - 03:06 PM It's not a question of our elected MPs being wiser than the electorate. It's a question of what the legislation says, and the Sovreignty of Parliament! Give me fuckin' strength! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: DMcG Date: 05 Nov 16 - 03:04 PM Add me as another Dave who knew it was advisory, as in my first post in this thread... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Iains Date: 05 Nov 16 - 03:00 PM As there was no legislation in place to make the referendum result binding it would appear to have been a very expensive, worthless fiasco. Also the argument posed by some that our elected mps must be wiser that the electorate also takes some believing. It would seem that to have high office then being a former member of the bullington bully boys is regarded as an asset for males. The CV's of many of our members of Parliament would seem extremely lightweight in terms of having a real qualification for the job. Camoron was a typical example-a vastly overpaid member of the meedjah circus prior to becoming elected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Raedwulf Date: 05 Nov 16 - 02:57 PM "Many people KNEW that before the Ref. YOUR ignorance is YOUR problem. No need to be abusive, unless that is all you can manage." Oh, do tell, Keith! What is "abusive" about pointing out that you were not in possession of all of the facts (ignorant) when you repeatedly admit it? Am I being abusive when I say you display stupidity because you insist on claiming stupid things like "It does not say it would not be binding, but that is what the people and the Parliament were led to believe." I didn't believe that. I knew it wasn't true. So did Steve, Kevin, BWM, Dave... At the moment, a random Mudcat poll says the 5 out of 6 UK voters knew that the Ref was NLB. But, apparently, 83% of UK voters are liars or deluded or something, because KeithA didn't know what the rest of us know... Could you offer better proof of everything I've been saying about you than this, Keith? Oh, and that's never mind the "fact" that you cherry pick one quote out of my post that you think (wrongly) that you can argue with whilst ignoring the rest (because if Keith ignores it, it isn't real, it doesn't exist, nobody could possibly think those nasty things about that nice Mr Acheson...) Sorry, Keith. I really don't mean to get on your case, and I don't doubt you are a nice bloke. I'm sure I'd quite happily buy you a pint if we wound up in the same pub / beer tent / whatever (no, you will not promptly pour it over my head because that would be Sacrilege!!! ;-) ). But you are cheating / being a rotten debater again. You are talking tripe, insisting that you are right, and ignoring everything that several people are pointing out to you that are dead, flat wrong about. Still, at least you seem to have stopped declaring that you are providing "facts" and demanding that the rest of us produce them! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Nov 16 - 02:33 PM Are we to assume then that every other promise made during the referendum campaign is binding as well? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Nov 16 - 02:27 PM Thank you, BWM, but you need not have. Every single source from the ardently pro-EU lobby to the rabidly anti-EU media have never said it was legally binding. It seems that the only people who did not know that fact are right here on Mudcat. Fancy that! :-) Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Nov 16 - 02:25 PM But it's the LEGISLATION that sets the rules. You know - the Sovreignty of the U.K. Parliament that you Brexiteers said you were voting for. Or were you all lying in your fucking teeth about that too? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 16 - 02:20 PM Keith, it doesn't matter what the confounded leaflet said. Yes it does, because it was a pledge to every person in the land that the referendum would be binding. It was never an issue until the people voted the wrong way, according to their betters. Many people KNEW that before the Ref. YOUR ignorance is YOUR problem. No need to be abusive, unless that is all you can manage. Look at Question Time from last Thursday. Both the Labour and Conservative MPs said that Parliamentarians voted six to one for a referendum in the belief it would be binding. How clever of you to be better informed than all our MPs. If I am ignorant, they must all be too! Not fit to decide on the issue in that case. Why will you not tell us who informed you, but failed to inform the rest of the country? I took the time and trouble to read the EU Referendum Legislation today - heavy reading indeed. Nowhere does it say that the result of the referendum will be binding. It does not say it would not be binding, but that is what the people and the Parliament were led to believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Nov 16 - 01:58 PM I took the time and trouble to read the EU Referendum Legislation today - heavy reading indeed. Nowhere does it say that the result of the referendum will be binding. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted QED. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Raedwulf Date: 05 Nov 16 - 01:56 PM You have, as almost always, produced fuck all, Keith. Many people KNEW that before the Ref. YOUR ignorance is YOUR problem. As per bleeding usual, of course, it's not you, it's everyone else, etcetera, etcetera. Because YOU didn't know... Your ignorance is either everyone else's fault. Or a lie. Because you couldn't possibly be "not in possession of all of the facts", could you? Not Keith Acheson, no.... Yes, seen it all before; me & many others. We knew. Did you not know? Or did you just not WANT to know? And, typical KeithA, keep trying to pretend that your main point is a "fact" when it isn't. The fact, the VERY REAL fact, is that an election pamphlet isn't a legal document. Which is all, and no more, that the judiciary have pointed out this week (alright, they didn't precisely, but you keep trying to raise the matter of "der grubbimint promissid..." what they weren't entitled to promise. In a pamphlet. Which you, apparently & stupidly, took as gospel. Because you wanted to, presumably.). A "fact" you sadly can't let go of... No, Keith. You demand "facts", but you quote facts that aren't facts, you ignore facts that are facts. You always have done. A fact is only a fact if it supports the argument YOU want to make. If it doesn't, it can be ignored or dismissed. This isn't "an untrue personal attack" on you, it's a statement of opinion, based on personal experience. An opinion that, I do no doubt, many other Catters down the years who have tried to debate with you would agree with. My opinion of you is that, whilst you are sometimes right, and whilst I have sometimes spoken on the same side of an argument, you are mostly stupid (incapable of understanding) & ignorant (not in possession of the necessary information to be able to form a balanced opinion). That is not an "attack". It's an opinion based on too many years of reading the shit that you shovel onto Mudcat. I don't like thinking ill of anyone, so don't imagine I take any pleasure in writing this. I'm just being "honest Injin". Sometimes you are right. Sometimes you are wrong. But, mostly, you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag and, sadly, you don't even realise how poor a debater you are. There's no way of making you understand it either, because all criticism will be dismissed; "untrue personal attack", QED. Which is a shame, because you are capable of putting together a good argument. It's just that it's usually based on a purblind, narrow-minded, "only the facts I like" foundation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Nov 16 - 01:56 PM The promise in the leaflet is as valid as the promise to stop immigration and spend the money that we give to the EU on the NHS. Not worth the paper it is printed on. It is nothing like hard evidence. Hard evidence is what Steve provides by way of what the actual referendum act states. It is freely available and always has been. It has always been known that the referendum was purely advisory and to state otherwise is misleading. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Nov 16 - 01:50 PM The leaflet was and is the elephant in the room, Greg, as was Cameron's impossible promise. But leaflets don't make laws. Lawmakers make laws, and in this country we calls 'em MPs and peers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Greg F. Date: 05 Nov 16 - 01:44 PM Now there ya go again Steve, confusing The Professor with facts...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Nov 16 - 01:24 PM Keith, it doesn't matter what the confounded leaflet said. Actually, the problem is more with what it should have said but didn't. And Cameron was not entitled to promise what he promised about Article 50, end of. He would have been overriding the sovereignty of parliament had he done so and would probably have had his head cut off. The problem here is that he made that promise hubristically, certain in the knowledge that he would win the referendum. What a twat. And just look what he's brought on us. Chaos. Have a little read: From Wiki (which must be accurate because I sent Jimmy Wales my annual ten quid yesterday). Yes the bloody leaflet, mentioned below, muddies the waters and is currently giving succour to panic-stricken brexiteers, but that's only because it was badly drafted. The Act The act legislated for a referendum to be held in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on whether to remain a member of the EU, to be conducted by the Electoral Commission and overseen by an appointed "Chief Counting Officer" (CCO) and a "Deputy chief counting officer" (DCCO) who will declare the final result for the United Kingdom and by regulation orders the Secretary of State to appoint a date for the holding of the referendum under the following circumstances: The Referendum must be held no later than 31 December 2017. The Referendum cannot be held on 5 May 2016 or 4 May 2017. The Electoral Commission is the public body under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 that was given the task to raise public awareness ahead of polling day, and to oversee the conduct of the referendum. The act made no provision for the result to be legally binding on the government or on any future government.The result of the referendum was to be a single majority vote of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar with no super majorities, double majorities of the constituent countries or any minimum turnout threshold required for the vote to pass. The act did not specify any specific consequences that would follow the result of the referendum. In the event of a "Leave" vote, the government would decide whether, when, and under what circumstances, the UK would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to begin a two-year process of negotiations for Britain to leave the EU.European Union law would remain enforceable in the United Kingdom until or unless the European Communities Act 1972 were repealed. The referendum In accordance with the Act and the public duty of the Electoral Commission, an impartial guide was posted to every household in the UK and Gibraltar in the week beginning of 16 May 2016. Limitation This Bill required a referendum to be held on the question of the UK's continued membership of the European Union before the end of 2017. The bill neither contained any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum (although the government advisory leaflet 'Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK' clearly states 'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.'), nor did it say explicitly that the referendum is only advisory. On November 3, 2016, the High Court in London ruled that the referendum is only advisory, also known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution. In interpreting the intent of the referendum to be advisory by default, the court considered the precedents of previous UK referendums. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of advisory referendums, where public opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act 2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority against any change. The 1975 referendum was held after the re-negotiated terms of the UK's EC membership had been agreed by all EC Member States and the terms set out in a command paper and agreed by both Houses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: DMcG Date: 05 Nov 16 - 12:58 PM 2010. They were not that forward thinking! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: DMcG Date: 05 Nov 16 - 12:55 PM Well according to this link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-senior-conservative-mps-seize-on-a-forgotten-government-pledge-to-let-parliament-decide-the-a7366316.html) Cameron said back in 210 it could not be binding. You don't have to believe the Independent of course. It will be recorded in Hansard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 16 - 12:44 PM Why Greg? Dood grief, it is not 5pm here yet. BTW, please identify any statement of mine you wish to challenge, and why. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Greg F. Date: 05 Nov 16 - 12:38 PM Say dood night, Professor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Nov 16 - 12:33 PM Raedwulf, leaving aside the untrue personal attack on me, you said, "So why should I waste my time looking for links? I knew that the Ref was NLB before it happened. Steve knew. Kevin knew. As Steve so accurately says, the fact that YOU did not is YOUR problem." The fact is that the government stated that the result would be binding, and delivered that statement to every household in the country to make sure that everyone knew that fact. Did the government confide in you three separately? You have all been abusive to me, but I have produced hard evidence for what I said, and none of you can support your claims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Raedwulf Date: 05 Nov 16 - 11:58 AM Nonono, Steve. North of Watford Gap, south of Scotland; it's all Yaaarkshuuure, remember? Mind you, 10:59. Nail, again. Remind not to make any Yorkshire remarks when you're holding a hammer, would you? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Greg F. Date: 05 Nov 16 - 11:47 AM but we are armed to the teeth.. we got conkers, water pistols.... And Marmite! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Nov 16 - 11:24 AM Raedwulf, I can only assume that you mistakenly assigned me to Yorkshire because I referred to not wasting money... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: punkfolkrocker Date: 05 Nov 16 - 11:24 AM but we are armed to the teeth.. we got conkers, water pistols, pea shooters, catapults, wet towels, shitty sticks... Some of the hardcore brexit thugs might even resort to cricket bats..... 😜 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Greg F. Date: 05 Nov 16 - 11:14 AM Well, Steve, I know I'm just an ignorant Yank, but your Remainders folk of the Stanron ilk are starting to remind me of anti-government ranters like Ammon Bundy and/or the group in Texas that is wittering on about nullification and seccession from the U.S. as if the Civil War had never taken place. But at least on your side of the pond they're not armed to the teeth like the Georgia "militia" discussed elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Greg F. Date: 05 Nov 16 - 11:06 AM Could be worse - could be Trump! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: punkfolkrocker Date: 05 Nov 16 - 11:04 AM yeah.. taking back control and immediately handing it to a tory dictator... !!! 😫 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Nov 16 - 10:59 AM We are not "subject to EU law" as though the EU is some malign foreign force that dictates to us. EU laws are our laws. Overwhelmingly, we agree with the laws made collectively in the EU by representatives of the member states, including ours. That is the way it is, whether you agree with all of it, some of it or none of it. When I say that EU laws are our laws, I say do advisedly. They are enshrined in our body of domestic laws, exactly as if they were laws made exclusively within the UK. That is the EU deal and that is where we are, like it or not. If you want to make a new law or repeal a law in this country, it has to be done through our parliament. There is no scope for prerogative. Leaving the EU inevitably involves repealing laws and making new laws. That will be triggered by Article 50 and that's why the judges came to the decision they did. Everything else is opinion, and expression of frustration is just bluster. If you think the judges were wrong, in effect you are attacking the sovereignty of parliament because you want to see it bypassed. You want Cameron's empty pre-referendum promises to trump the rule of law. That's a bit ironic when you consider that your fellow brexiteers have been braying for years about getting back our sovereignty, "taking back control," getting rid of the EU democratic deficit, etc., n'est-ce pas? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Raedwulf Date: 05 Nov 16 - 10:43 AM Steve - "04 Nov 16 - 08:17 PM" Absolutely on the nail. Not bad for Yorkshire! ;-) Senoufou - "What really annoys me about the So, if your object is to complain about being painted with a broad brush... why paint with a broad brush, hmmm? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Stanron Date: 05 Nov 16 - 10:34 AM Iains wrote: Parliament reigns supremeI love all this stuff about 'Parliament reigns supreme'. Parliament won't rule supreme until we have left the EU. In one of the treaties, was it the treaty of Rome?, Parliament voted to be subject to European law (and didn't bother to inform it's electorate at the time). Even when we activate article 50 it will still be subject to EU law and will continue to be so for however long it takes to complete the exit negotiations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Raedwulf Date: 05 Nov 16 - 10:33 AM Keith - no. Not playing that stupid game, not least because you're a cheat. You are well known on this forum. Amongst other things, you are well known for ignoring facts that you don't like, and for arguing the toss over tiny irrelevancies (when they are things that you feel you can safely argue the toss over). You are a bad debater, pure & simple, and many long-term Catters know you for what you are. So why should I waste my time looking for links? I knew that the Ref was NLB before it happened. Steve knew. Kevin knew. As Steve so accurately says, the fact that YOU did not is YOUR problem. Not ours. I don't follow you in any way, but I have seen your name & your comments in many threads. I cannot recall ever seeing you admit that you were wrong, or even just misinformed. So why should I bother to produce "facts"? A fact, to you, seems to be defined as "I agree with this". Sometimes you are right. Sometimes you are wrong. Sometimes the facts you produce genuinely are facts (Hint: a referendum pamphlet is not a legally binding document, and the fact that you try to present it as such is ample proof of what an utterly rotten debater you are). Often, you have your head shoved up for fundament. This is one of those times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Nov 16 - 08:18 AM Wonderful song by a couple of people you may know. Based on a Mudcat conversation so I believe. Very pertinent today Traitor's Love Enjoy DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: DMcG Date: 05 Nov 16 - 07:51 AM After all, if the Referendum was so complex, then both sides are equally guilty of 'voting in the dark'. But their points of view are thus logically equally valid/invalid (if under-informed) Not really, Elisa. True, neither side could actually say what would happen. But in all probability a vote to remain was a vote for "more of the same, for good or ill" whereas a vote to leave was a vote for something different, although we know not what. I don't think those two choices are equally "in the dark". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Nov 16 - 07:29 AM I'll say it again: a referendum in which the electorate was uninformed as to the issues at stake is completely undemocratic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Nov 16 - 07:25 AM The legal position is that changes to domestic laws can't be made by prerogative - only by our sovereign parliament. Invoking article 50, which triggers brexit, means that EU laws may be ditched (some would definitely have to be). But EU laws are enshrined in our domestic laws, so, de facto, they are our laws. That's the deal we signed up to when we became an EU member. They can be replaced or repealed only by parliament, not by prerogative. That's what the judges decided. The only way May can get the decision overturned is by persuading the Supreme Court that invoking Article 50 is a separate matter from changing EU laws. The High Court judges decided that they go hand in hand. I'm biased, but I agree with them. Cameron was not entitled to make his pre-referendum promises about Article 50, etc. To carry them out by prerogative would be to override the rule of law. Dunno about you, but I don't want our governments to be able to do that. We've spent centuries in this country restricting the rights of kings and queens, etc., to rule by edict/diktat. That's the democracy that the brexiteers moaned about like mad that we'd sacrificed by joining the EU, remember? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Nov 16 - 07:09 AM It's nothing to do with Bremainers trying to thwart the result of the advisory referendum, and everything to do with the Sovreignty of Parliament, the very root of our democracy, which the Brexiters loudly proclaimed they were voting for, and for which 10% of the male population of the nation died during the Civil War of 1642-1651. Please don't feel offended, Senoufou, you're the last person I'd wish to tick off (as I hope you know!) but, if the Brexiteers don't understand this, then the epithet 'thick' truly does apply to them, along with a four-letter word which refers to the female 'lady-bits'. |
