BS: Brexit again

Subject: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 12:21 PM

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.

The establishment elite are determined to get their way regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 12:29 PM

Gotta love all this belligerent militant pro brexit tory rhetoric founded on "The people have spoken"...

...But If the shoe was on the other foot and they'd lost by the same slender percentage vote margin....????

Somehow I suspect they would not have been such good losers,
quietly & respectfully accepting 'the will of the people'.....

David Davis.. what a tosser...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 12:32 PM

Professor, what you were told was bullshit- if you chose to believe it, that is YOUR problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 12:46 PM

No, we were told long beforehand that the referendum was advisory. And we were also told many times by the Leave promoters that "the day after the vote nothing will change" because the all the rules and agreements would remain in place until they we renogotiated.


But worry not, Keith, it will go through in some form compatible with the vote. Just probably not how you - or anyone else - imagined.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 01:18 PM

I second that. I knew for months beforehand that the referendum was only advisory. And, apart from what the judges said, I don't know how May can claim an unconditional mandate predicated on such a tight result in which she has the explicit backing of just over one-third of the electorate, not to speak of the extremely unsatisfactory campaign that yielded that result.

The judges were at great pains to separate political from constitutional considerations in their judgement, yet they have been vilified. The Daily Mail called them "enemies of the people." The only people who can't recognise that the judges were trying to protect parliamentary sovereignty are the self-same brexiteers who were bleating a little while ago,about how the EU undermines our sovereignty and how we need to "take back control." Good to see them getting their knickers in a twist. Makes a nice change from all that crowing.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raedwulf
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 02:17 PM

With all due respect, Keith, you're a bloody idiot. Sorry, but... It was said repeatedly BEFORE the Ref that it was NOT LEGALLY BINDING. It really was just a glorified opinion poll. Hard luck if you didn't realise, but it absolutely is NOT the case that "Now we are told..."

I knew before the Ref took place that it was NLB, so why didn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 02:48 PM

I'm afraid that hat Keith is not the most truthful person you've ever encountered, Raedwulf.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 02:49 PM

Keith is no hat.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raedwulf
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 03:07 PM

I've actually been here rather longer than you, Steve. If not so prolifically! ;-) I know Keith for what he is. Sincere, but never in possession of all the facts. Mostly because he is one of those who ignore those that are inconvenient to his point of view...

And yes, Keith, I realise you won't like that comment. But, if you remember my name, when have I ever been less than honest in the years I've been here? I've sided with you occasionally. I've been against you occasionally. What you too often don't do is produce a decent, well-researched, well-thought out argument, alas...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 03:17 PM

And he's not very good at taking off his blinkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Mr Red
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 06:14 PM

Consider.
The SNP probably relish the thought of having Labour by the s&c.
And there avowed aim is?

That's the problem with referenda - they beget referenda.

Half the country would welcome another EU one and fear a Scottish one.

France became almost ungovernable with a spate of them.

And now look at what we face.

Analogous shenanigans over the pond, with the same kind of rhetoric.

We have become too soft, we don't want wars and the downside of peace is the enemy within!

It doesn't have to be so. But it is!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: bobad
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 07:00 PM

A government acting against the will of the majority does so at it's own peril.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 07:24 PM

Well we managed to abolish capital punishment in spite of 84% of the population being in favour of keeping it. We elect governments to be better experts then we are and to be brave enough to make unpopular decisions. David Cameron didn't seem to realise that, which is why we're in this bloody mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 07:31 PM

I now see how little information or future plans were available from the government. The populace was left high and dry.
government
Everyone including the government seems to be making it up as they go along.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 07:58 PM

Say good night, Bubo. Thomas Paine you're not.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 08:01 PM

"A government acting against the will of the majority does so at it's own peril.2

fair enough... the majority didn't vote for brexit.... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 08:17 PM

I don't vote for governments that I think will support the will of the majority. I vote, hopefully, for governments that I think will be a damn sight more up to speed about economics, welfare, jobs, education, defence, filling potholes, emptying the bins, making clean water flow out of my taps, policing and foreign policy than I am, and that is the least likely to waste my money or wage useless wars. I will vote for the one that I feel will carry out those assignments the best. If they do a rotten job, I can vote to have them kicked out next time. Absolutely none of this applies to the referendum. The decision as to whether or not we should leave the EU was put in the hands of a public who, whilst not necessarily ignorant en masse, were not, on the whole, in any position to make a judgement on the crucial criteria. The campaign on both sides of the argument did nothing to put that right. By June 23, the electorate were in no better position to judge than they had been for months before. That is not democracy. That is a dereliction of democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 09:09 PM

It was perfectly clear, and repeatedly stated that this referendum was advisory. I don't think it would be constitutionally possible in fact to have a binding referendum.

And the only question asked on it was, should we leave the EU. Absolutely nothing about ending free movement or immigration. Even if it is treated as a done number that we should leave the EU, it would be perfectly possible to reach an arrangement in which current free movement was retained. That would in no way be out of line of the vote to leave the EU. That's what I'd like to see happen, and I'm pretty sure that if we had a referendum offering the chouce of EU exit with an end to free movement on the one. hand and EU exit with existing arrangements retained on the other, the latter would get more votes.

It is no more undemocratic to ask for a second referendum after a relatively close result than it would be to call for a papid fresh general election in similar circumstances. The flaw in logic of those who sneer about "neverendums" is that, in a sense, the system of democracy under which we live is based on a series of neverendums, but we call them General Elections.

It is absolutely selfevident that, if the vote in June had gone the other way, advocates of Brexit would have continued to fight for what they beieved in, and pushed as hard as they could for another referendum. They would have been perfectly entitled to do so, and it would have been absurd to suggest that that was an antidemocratic demand.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 09:44 PM

I agree with all that. But if we remoaners were to clamour for a second referendum, all we have is the time between now and the day that Article 50 is invoked. That alone makes the referendum skewed. We have a strict time limit, the brexiteers don't.   That just can't be right.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 03:39 AM

Bobad, in this case it is not "the government" which is acting against the will of the people, but a sundry collection of self serving MPs and unelected peers.

There does not appear to be any people of principle involved in this attempted coup.....just the usual suspects who do not have to deal with the consequences of a flawed economic policy; "free movement of labour" within the steeply sloping playing field of the EU.

You think America has social problems, if the remoamers get their way the words of Mr Powell may yet come back to haunt us.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Senoufou
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 03:46 AM

I'm sure I'm putting my head in the lion's mouth even trying to post on this thread. It's like a box of wasps (mixed metaphor). But here goes anyway (dons tin helmet):-

What really annoys me about the Remainers is their assumption about us Brexiteers that we are:-

thick
racist
ignorant
ill-informed
right-wing
old-fashioned
ancient
UKIP supporters
                and so on and on and on.

I only admit to one of those presumptions (being ancient) Ditto all my friends who voted as I did. Just because people have a different political stance to oneself is no need whatsoever to insult and deride them. But that seems to be the norm here on Mudcat nowadays...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: BobL
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 04:29 AM

It's the usual problem I'm afraid, Eliza: the empty-barrel effect. Stories of rational people making sensible decisions don't sell newspapers, stories of the thick, racist etc minority acting unreasonably, however non-representative, do.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 05:03 AM

But Steve's point, Sen, which I totally agree with, is that we were all uninformed, leavers and remainders alike. The subject is so complex it needs people to study it for years considering all the implications to have a chance. And that's one reason we employ politicians and government departments to take these decisions. None of us "lay people" have the time or resources to really understand it. Yes, you or I might make every effort to do so. It would not be enough to be truly informed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 05:25 AM

I agree, by the way, that assuming people are 'thick" is a charge too easily bandied about. I expect the degree of "thickness' is pretty much the same throughout the entire population so there were about as many "thick" remainders as leavers.

My thickness test would be to see how many people asked themselves the "what if I am wrong" questions.   If I am a Remainer, for example, and believe the dire economic forecasts I need to ask myself if and why I would still vote remain if the forecasts turned out to be entirely wrong. Or if I was a leaver who was very concerned with immigration, I would need to ask myself if I would still vote leave if it turned out to be impossible to meaningfully restrict immigration.

I doubt if many people on either side reflected very long challenging their own assumptions like that, though undoubtedly there are those who did in both camps.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 05:49 AM

To all those who claimed to know beforehand that the referendum was only advisory, how did you know this and why did none of you mention it when you were expecting to win?

The government issued a booklet explaining why we should vote to remain.
It said this, "The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.

The government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.

This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK's economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.

This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk

What I said in the OP was a factual and accurate description of what the people were told by their government about the referendum.

Cameron even said that if we voted out, article 50 would be invoked the next day.

Raedwulf,
With all due respect, Keith, you're a bloody idiot. Sorry, but... It was said repeatedly BEFORE the Ref that it was NOT LEGALLY BINDING.

By who? Reference please.


I'm afraid that hat Keith is not the most truthful person you've ever encountered, Raedwulf.

Please justify that nasty and personal smear.

Sincere, but never in possession of all the facts.

I have shown the facts that I am in possession of. Now show your "facts."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stu
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 05:55 AM

The language used by both sides is becoming increasingly unpleasant, and attitudes are hardening. Remainers are as tired of being told to "get over it" as if their voice is now unwelcome and we should all cow-tow to the sort of people organising Brexit, none of whom are very nice at all.

There is some justification for younger voters to feel aggrevied, as they voted resoundingly to remain only to have their future pulled from under them by the over 50's, who voted to leave. Partly this is their fault for not turning out in numbers might have swung the vote to remain, but also these are people used to open borders and less parochial and nationalistic thinking. They are not hankering after the little Britain of a fallen empire, and they are the better for it.

Either way, we're stuck with it and have to get on with the job of leaving. However, that shouldn't mean we abandon the rule of law or let proven liars speak for us at every turn.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:00 AM

I'm sorry, Keith, but you do not get to oblige us to demonstrate your ignorance. It's up to you to go back quietly to check the facts. The referendum was advisory and not "legally binding." The deficit in your knowledge is your problem, not ours. You're chewing away at this to try to save your dignity. Your modus operandi, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:06 AM

Steve,
I'm sorry, Keith, but you do not get to oblige us to demonstrate your ignorance. It's up to you to go back quietly to check the facts.

I just did. I produced hard facts and now it is your turn.
I quoted the booklet that the government delivered to every household in the country so that no-one could be in any doubt of the facts.

"The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union."

This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."

Nothing about it only being advisory.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:19 AM

The MPs sat in the house are voted there democratically. It is their job to decide on the future of Britain in the EU. They abdicated that responsibility and asked the population what they thought in an undemocratic and very flawed referendum. That shambolic process saw the worst excesses of the press driving the people into a frenzy that culminated in the death of a young woman, MP and mother. What this court ruling has done is restore the status quo and will show those MPs that they need to take responsibility for their actions.

In my opinion.

And Eliza - I voted to remain but in the same way you are not thick, racist, ignorant etc. I am not unpatriotic, traitorous or an enemy of the people. We have all been treated shamefully by the government and its media. Or should that be the other way round..?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:24 AM

The problem with the referendum was that Parliament reigns supreme.
The legislation should have been put in place, prior to the event, in order that the decision could be implemented without dispute. That this was not done suggests a deliberate cop out should the vote have gone for exit.
We now have a situation where a high turnout of voters had a clear majority vote to leave. The judges, and politicians are clearly defying the will of the people. Where this will lead long term is anybodies guess. Parliament is in danger of losing it's mandate to rule. Letting the masses eat cake did not work in France, and there is no guarantee that endless soaps and cheap lager will work in Britain.
Trying to split the vote as young against old is also a fallacious argument. The counter argument is that younger members of society had a highly debased education compared to earlier times. Education today consists of instilling lemming like behaviour so everyone is a willing little cypher and would never dream of questioning whatever the mainstream media throws at them. The ability to think and question is a distinct no-no in today's brave new world.
I would also add that in its early days the european economic union was just that. Then it changed to the EU and a dash to federalism. That is what sticks in many peoples craw. Many of the EU institutions are a power for good- others are definitely not.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:30 AM

It appears to me that the referendum was not binding, because it was not explained to the electorate that it was advisory and that Parliament had the final decision.
David Cameron should have explained that to the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:32 AM

The (in)famous booklet that 'gave us the facts' did not, in fact, give us the facts. The simple fact remains that this referendum was not legally binding and was never described by anyone as such. "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." is as close as you will get to it but even that statement is not legally binding. It is an empty promise. 'The Government' is a mixture of parties and any one single party cannot promise that it will implement anything. The recent court ruling has underlined that parliamentary principle and confirms that any such decision must be comprised of a majority vote in both houses.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:47 AM

Very good article in The Week and there are no examples anywhere of anyone saying anything different. I love the last section -

"The conventional wisdom is that, of course, a vote for Brexit would have to be respected," says the FT.

However, the newspaper also points out that conventional wisdom predicted Jeremy Corbyn would not be Labour leader and Donald Trump would never become the presumptive Republican nominee for US president.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Senoufou
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:56 AM

Dave, I would never accuse anyone of being 'unpatriotic, traitorous or an enemy of the people' merely because of the way they voted in a referendum.
My sister felt very wary up in Scotland because of the vicious attitude of the Independence voters. In fact, windows were broken and abuse hurled in the street. She lives alone and said it was a bit like Kristallnacht in 1938.

I concede that the whole remain/leave issue is complicated and open to many interpretations. But neither side should be adopting this ugly and potentially verbally abusive attitude towards the other. 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)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 07:01 AM

There was indeed, in England and Wales, a majority for leaving the European Union. There was no majority for leaving the single market, or taking away our right to move and work in other countries which remain in the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 07:08 AM

I was just redressing the balance, Eliza. Your post gives the impression that it is only the brexiteers that are getting flack. I know it is not what you meant but others may have got that idea. Hope it helps.

D.

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'.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Stanron
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 10:34 AM

Iains wrote: Parliament reigns supreme

I 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 - 10:43 AM

Steve - "04 Nov 16 - 08:17 PM" Absolutely on the nail. Not bad for Yorkshire! ;-)

Senoufou - "What really annoys me about the Remainers Leavers is their assumption about us Brexiteers Stayers"... That we automatically label the individual with the tags are all too bloody obviously true on average. If you see what I mean. There are a lot of Leavers perfectly capable of putting up a good argument for their point of view. There are a lot who also deserve one / many / all of the adjectives you used.

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: 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: 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: Greg F.
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 11:06 AM

Could be worse - could be Trump!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:44 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: 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: DMcG
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 12:58 PM

2010. They were not that forward thinking!

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: 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 - 01:50 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:10 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 - 03:12 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: 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 - 03:26 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:27 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: 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: 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 - 06:43 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.

You did.
I will transcribe their statements if you like, but it is all available on BBC iPlayer.
It is the first question, and the first two respondents.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:48 PM

Steve,
Fantasy. Entertaining fantasy.

No Steve. Facts that you can not challenge.

Prove me wrong by identifying any falsehood in my posts.
Good luck with that Steve.
You might have to stick to lying personal attacks on me.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:54 PM

Winning the EU Election when most people didn't vote was no guide for what could happen in a General Election.

All that is interesting, Keith, but it didn't happen. It wasn't a binding referendum, no matter what any MPs or journalists might have said.

However, no need to worry. MPs who were against Brexit will of course vote for it, especially where their constituencies voted for it. They'll present that as being because it's the democratic thing to do, but in reality it's because they think voting for what they believe would put their re-election in danger.

And I suspect that would also mean they'll vote to take away our right to freedom of movement, even though that wasn't in the referendum, because they'll assume that the Brexiters would want that.

So all in all I suspect this will all end up as a storm in a teacup.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:54 PM

You have had every conceivable fact laid out for you already in this thread. We've been very patient with you. When you get someone like you who claims that UKIP might have won the last election, well I do wonder what planet you're on. Fantasy, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 07:17 PM

Ok, I have now listened to the first part of question time again. The first speaker, Sajid Javid, immediately changed the question from whether it was legally binding to whether it was morally binding, and the second didn't say anything about the legal side but that because of the result most mp would vote in accordance with the result. Javid also said that when MPs voted for it most thought it was binding but left vague whether he meant legally or morally.

Which leaves us in the same position, I think. MPs may consider themselves bound for reasons of personal morality and conviction. That is quite a different thing to whether they are bound in law.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 07:26 PM

Javid was absolutely all over the place in Question Time. Very unprofessional. Totally unprepared for the inevitable questions of the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 07:37 PM

I knew it was non binding because many sources told me it was so. I then read the legislation that was open, free and available to everyone and confirmed it was an advisory referendum only. I have known from day 1 that it was so and I am surprised that anyone thought otherwise. If any MPs thought it was legally binding then they are fools. I suspect that, like many other politicians, they are not fools but are lying. Although that is merely my opinion but born out of experience.

I am not talking about campaign slogans when I speak of promises. I am talking about what politicians said. Or lied about. They said they would stop immigration. They said they would spend our EU contribution on the NHS. They said they would abide by the results of the referendum. Which of these lies anyone believes is their own business. From my point of view, I believe none.

If anyone believes one and not the others, I am suspicious of their reasoning.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 07:44 PM

I am suspicious of their reasoning

Or lack thereof....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 08:29 PM

Hey, Keith, get a load of this. From the Daily Mail, two weeks before the referendum.

MPs will block Brexit even if we vote to leave the EU in the referendum, according to David Cameron's father-in-law.

Lord Astor said he did not believe there would be a majority in the House of Commons to repeal the legislation that underpins our membership of the bloc.

The bizarre scenario is possible because the national ballot is only advisory - and most politicians support staying inside the EU.

There has already been speculation that MPs could prevent us quitting the European single market, as Brexit campaigners have suggested should happen if there is an Out vote on June 23.

Lord Astor - a Tory peer and Samantha Cameron's stepfather - made the prediction as he set out his support for keeping ties with Brussels, despite delivering a devastating critique of the way it functions.

From the DAILY BLOODY MAIL, Keith. Samcam's dad, Keith! Only advisory! Well whaddya know. The Mail knew it, Samcam's dad knew it (therefore Cameron knew it), we all knew it. Just poor ol' Keith in this big, wide world didn't know it. You should get out more, Keith! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 09:20 PM

Just poor ol' Keith in this big, wide world didn't know it.

And that's only the tip of the cornucopia of things The Professor doesn't know - even after he's been repeatedly told.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 09:23 PM

Mates.. draw back...

you've let Keith drag you into his game on his terms of combat....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 09:32 PM

I haven't. That road leads to madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 09:56 PM

Are you listening, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 09:57 PM

💯!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 04:05 AM

Ah! the mob is re-forming.......same tactics same people....same bullshit.

Never mind the old pals in the pub act, grow up and address the issues. Try to listen occasionally...and maybe learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 04:31 AM

I wonder which bigot will spit out their dummy and hurl their toys out of the pram next?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 04:32 AM

The issues have been addressed, and the facts laid out. It's your mate who's incapable of understanding the structure of UK Democracy, and the European Union Referendum Act, 2015.

Address your sarcasm to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 04:34 AM

That was for Ake. Iains comment isn't even worthy of a response.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 04:39 AM

And that's my final contribution to this thread. There's no joy in trying to educate pork.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 05:25 AM

An interesting summary of referendums in the UK and their legal status, especially pre legislative and post legislative referendums.

One is left with the feeling that a) the result would be ignored.
b) the vote would overwhelmingly be to remain. The fact that the people voted to leave is the only explanation for camoron scuttling off into the wilderness. This is because a leave vote would have to be ratified by Parliament, and there is no way this could be guaranteed.
The entire exercise was a sham, but the government bluff was called when the majority voted for exit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom

(It is dangerous to use wikipedia as a source, but in this case I believe it is a clear summary)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 05:53 AM

As far as I can see the issues have been addressed clearly and concisely. The facts have been presented and because they do not concur with certain preconceptions some members are beginning to cry 'foul' even where no foul has been committed. I will ignore this diversionary tactic and I urge others to see it for what it is. I will follow BWMs lead and exit from the thread with a final summary

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.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 06:02 AM

DtG.
   well said!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 06:24 AM

Steve, my only claim in the OP was that we were promised a binding referendum.
For that I was vilified, insulted and abused but we were, by the government and in a document delivered at tax payers expense to every home in the country.

As ever, I was right and you were wrong.

In this post Steve, you show that you believed the referendum to be binding, so when did you learn the truth?

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 06:22 AM

What rubbish. You want the whole population to make an irrevocable decision on an extremely complex matter that will affect the country for many decades (including - especially including - people who are too young to vote). That was a bad choice to begin with, all the worse because that choice was made by Cameron for all the wrong reasons. The very least that should have happened was a huge education programme. Well pigs might fly. With politicians on two opposing sides that was simply never going to happen. The country was peddled lies from both sides and the thresholds for turnout and voting outcome were set way too low. Just over one third of those eligible to vote are dragging us out of the EU. Unconscionable. Indefensible. And lopsided, in that one choice put before the public was irrevocable whereas the other was reversible

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 06:40 AM

McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 21 Jun 16 - 01:38 PM

But of course that means not taking the irrevocable gamble of voting for out this week.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 06:43 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 10:29 AM

An in vote could easily have been overturned by another referendum (and it's a good bet that you'd have been calling for one). The out vote, once buttons have been pushed, is irrevocable.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 06:44 AM

Where is your written proof professor that "we were promised a binding referendum"

Not your interpretation of what was written but show us what was actually written.

Like almost everyone else on this thread I understood the referendum to be merely advisory.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 06:47 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 05 Jul 16 - 08:44 PM

The thing is, Teribus, less than 38% of the total electorate, about 17 million out of 46.5 million entitied to vote, have forced an irrevocable decision on this country.

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 06 Jul 16 - 06:42 AM

Well that response doesn't surprise me in the least, Teribus. But this is not a game. This is an irrevocable, once-and-for-all decision. It is far more serious even then a general election in many regards. It is also lopsided in that a leave vote is irrevocable

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 02:26 PM

We have allowed less than 38% of the electorate to make a irrevocable decision based on fear and ignorance

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 06:50 AM

Rag,
See my post 05 Nov 16 - 05:49 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 07:08 AM

I'll ask again.


Where does it say the referendum is legally binding?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 07:14 AM

"Once buttons have been pushed," Keith. The button is Article 50. No going back once that has been kick-started, despite what Teribus sez. Irrevocable. As far as I can see from here, that is a rock-solid cert. This is not about not doing it. It's about doing it properly. Rule of law, Keith. In fact, to all intents and purposes, the "decision of the people" (all 37% of them) was always intended to be irrevocable. I can't see that anything that's happened so far has changed that, certainly not the court judgement, which had nothing to do with whether brexit happens or not. The referendum was advisory but the government was, and still is, determined to be driven by it. There is, sadly, no political groundswell for overturning it. In effect, as soon as the result was known, the decision was irrevocable. Nothing to do with "advisory" or not, everything to do with politics. The government simply decided, ahead of the vote, to take the advice, whatever it was. Sorry you felt you had to waste all that time nitpicking. Keeps you off the streets, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 08:45 AM

I think Mr Shaw is wriggling like a fish on a hook Keith, as you have shown he stated that the vote was irrevocable, not the decision when to press the button. :0)

Most people thought that the vote was important....otherwise why bother with a referendum at all? Why not leave it to corrupt and self serving MP's to carve the matter up to their satisfaction.

The crux of the matter is "free movement", that must be abandoned above all else. It is an exploitative "economic" policy which is wrong on all levels, touted by snake oil salesman Blair as a remedy for all of our economic ills......need I say more.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 09:29 AM

Calm down.

It's very simple. It was never going to be a legally binding referendum. The government put out promises about it being binding which were legally meaningless. The formal decision to comply with the advice given by the public lies with parliament. However it is virtually certain that this decision will be to comply.

The actual referendum only dealt with membership of the EU, not with any other issues, such as whether free movement will be preserved. However it is likely that MPs will in fact vote to deprive us of this right, so there is no real need for advocates of removing free movement to get in a tizzy. It

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 09:41 AM

The government was entitled to promise that it would be bound by the advisory result. What it could not promise is that it would be legally bound. Well, we know what politicians' promises amount to, but in this instance they are actually, so far at least, honouring their promise to be bound. They don't have to honour it and there's still a small chance that they will have to renege. Cameron was not entitled to promise that article 50 would be invoked immediately in the event of a leave vote. Had he for one second thought that he might have to deliver on that promise, he would never have made it. Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 12:57 PM

And the other thing is, none of those promises included anything about an end to free movement or to membership of the single market. Neither of those are necessarily implied in leaving the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 01:08 PM

The referendum has to adopt the same criteria as any General Election - his has to serve the interests of the entire population, not the first-past-the-post winners, those who voted for, those who voted against and those who didn't vote.
It effects us all so how it is brought about about should be decided by all - or their elected representatives.
That is what the Law Courts decided and that's what makes sense.
Let's see what happens with the appeal - so far we have only had the outraged squeals of the winners.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 05:27 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 06:22 PM

Neither Liz Truss nor Theresa May will condemn the newspapers that slagged off the judges. It took both of them ages even to "support" the judiciary at all. Bloody disgraceful. Running scared of alienating the right-wing sewer press. No guts, no principles, no honesty. Well I did try to warn people against voting Tory...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 08:22 PM

BWM - please don't use this phrase again "There's no joy in trying to educate pork." I absolutely tore into Muppet, sorry, Musket, sorry self-proclaimed Dr Ian Mather for using it a couple of years back. And you know what? Several catters criticised ME for MY language without the slightest comment on his remark. Which left me... surprised, let's say. They couldn't see what was wrong with the phrase whilst bitching at me for using some crude language?


I think Keith is both stupid & ignorant. Not least because he gives a very good impression of being narrow-minded, alongside never, ever, ever, ever, ever admitting he's in the wrong. But "educating pork"? That's vile. It supercilious, pretentious & condescending. If he argues like an idiot, call him an idiot. But don't stoop to "educating pork".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: bobad
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 08:58 PM

Thus spake Porky.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 09:09 PM

But "educating pork"? That's vile.

But demonstrably more successful than attempting to educate The Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 09:26 PM

But the fact is that you can't educate pork. We had a pair of Donald Russell pork chops for tea tonight and they wouldn't listen to a word I said. The potential problem comes with whether you're equating people on the forum with unspecified cuts of pork. One of my early girlfriends called me, affectionately, "sausage" all the time and I didn't mind at all. And when I told Mrs Steve that she was having pork belly on Monday night, her eyes fair lit up... Dunno really. It's not such a bad expression...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 03:02 AM

Thank you for your, no doubt well-meant, advice Raedwulf.

I'm fairly sure it will come as little or no surprise when I tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and mind your own business.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 05:19 AM

"I think Mr Shaw is wriggling like a fish on a hook Keith, "
A bit rich from# someone who never ever responds put to him - both of you make a point of not doing so (or, in Keith's case, accusing the poster of "made up shit" - a favourite phrase of his)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 05:32 AM

http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/damning-letter-from-lord-kilmuir-the-lord-chancellor-to-edward-heath-2/

Have we all been betrayed? Do we actually need Brexit?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 06:56 AM

Well I hear this morning that May is contemplating trying to force Article 50 through with a "simple vote," bypassing legislation. I sincerely hope that MPs don't fall for that one. If anything needs a proper debate, this does. The other parties should be saying, a proper debate or we'll vote against Article 50. Bloody Tories don't seem to like a good dose of parliamentary democracy up 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 08:36 AM

Ha Ha, that is exactly what they said about Mr Corbyn and the membership of the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 08:54 AM

Jim, I often respond to points made by other members, I don't respond if I either don't think the post is sincere, or if the post is abusive.   Sometimes the posts are not worthy of response, if they are simply parroting the same old hackneyed ideology.

On a personal note, you give the impression of always being up for a fight, why don't you calm down and start behaving like one old friend who disagrees with another? Perhaps that would encourage more responses?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 09:18 AM

"I don't respond if I either don't think the post is sincere,"
I've not long posted four links which directly contradict your persistent claims of the negative effects of immigration - they are neither "insincere nor abusive" - they are the views of experts in the field - along with collected data - you have not responded to any and no doubt you will repeat your spurious claims a later date.
This is common and long-standing practice with you and your accusation of "wiggling" echoes somewhat hollowly when your own behaviour is placed next to Steve's
"why don't you calm down and start behaving like one old friend"
Sorry ake - don't have many extremist right wing friends - can't think of one (though I do have a number of homosxuals and a few immgrants I count as friends).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 12:30 PM

Rag,
Where does it say the referendum is legally binding?

Where have I said the referendum is legally binding?

Steve, in these posts you describe the vote itself as irrevocable.
We now know that it can be revoked by Parliament.
You dishonestly claimed to know that all along.

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 05 Jul 16 - 08:44 PM

The thing is, Teribus, less than 38% of the total electorate, about 17 million out of 46.5 million entitied to vote, have forced an irrevocable decision on this country.

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 06 Jul 16 - 06:42 AM

Well that response doesn't surprise me in the least, Teribus. But this is not a game. This is an irrevocable, once-and-for-all decision. It is far more serious even then a general election in many regards. It is also lopsided in that a leave vote is irrevocable

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 02:26 PM

We have allowed less than 38% of the electorate to make a irrevocable decision based on fear and ignorance

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 12:32 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.

Thanks for saving me the time and effort of responding to you in the future.
If I had hatred for any member of this forum I certainly would not be looking for responses from them.....There are about half a dozen members who have shown aggression to me, they no longer figure in any discussions I may have here.

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.

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:53 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Donuel
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 07:32 PM

Can Parliament provide a do over ?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:10 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 - 07:11 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 - 07:16 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 - 07:17 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 - 07:33 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:48 PM

You're an exceptionally gracious man, Mike, and I'm over the moon to tell you that you're 110% correct! 😊

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 05:03 PM

Whether before or after election, government pledges are equally disposable. They keep them because it's convenient, break them if that's convenient. No different from the way most people behave when it comes to promises or pledges, even when those were sincerely meant at the time. Consider the divorce statistics...

But the actual point isn't whether the referendum outcome will be treated as binding. It's whether that should be taken as meaning anything more than was actually contained in that referendum question.

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

So how much responsibility should each individual voter have for recognising the complications underlying that simple question? I do agree with you, but I'm being devil's advocate in saying that because it's a point that has been vehemently made by the leave camp. Yes it was a simple yes-no question, but, they say, only a complete numpty wouldn't understand that the arguments underlying it were not black and white. My own view is in accord with yours, that we shouldn't read any more into the electorate's response to that question than the simple yes-no. I think that it was the responsibility of the campaign to inform people (both sides being in complete dereliction of that duty, in my view). Many people have claimed that the result reflected in large part a racist campaign agenda, or that the immigration issue was key. I think that they are valid claims, but, as you maintain, we simply can't say for sure because those questions were not asked.

What a mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:36 PM

I wasn't suggesting that it might be accurate to read more into the vote than the vote actually said. It was that it is not justifiable to claim that "the British people" have voted for those things.

There will undoubtedly have been people who voted for Brexit because of sovereignty and democracy issues, without necessarily having any particular concerns about immigrattion and so forth.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:50 PM

But the thing is, we just don't know. We know that some people would have had this, that or the other in mind when they voted, but we don't know how many. I think that it's valid to argue for another referendum once the this, that and the other have been clarified in the negotiations. Mind you, I don't agree with referendums anyway under any circumstances at all, but, as Julius Caesar might have said, we do find ourselves in medias res...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 08:04 PM

And Jim, it was not an election pledge.
The referendum was an election and both the winners and the loses set out their stalls as to why they should get the people's vote - those who voted for a change proposed to control the incoming of foreigners - it was an election pledge.
Unfortunastely, they forgot to mention the fact that, by law, that pledge has to be passed by parliament and since that has now been made clear the Government and the media have attempted to ride roughshod over British law - and have been forced to back down.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:17 AM

There is much discussion about Parliament having to ratify any proposed legislation. It is also said that Parliament cannot give up any of these rights or bind future Parliaments.
I would ask are we actually in the EU. IF so those that voted us in are guilty of treason and bound the future to legislation that should have been challenged at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:21 AM

That old chestnut has been done to death Iains. Magna Carta and all that. No parliament has given up any rights.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:48 AM

D the G

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6198513/EU-is-Britain-still-a-sovereign-state.html


Another point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:57 AM

I presume you did actually read the article, Iains? If so you must have noticed this very significant sentence early on

The shorthand description of these as "laws from Brussels" is slightly misleading: the bureaucrats of the European Commission may well set many laws in motion by promulgating new directives; but they still need to be agreed by politicians from each member state, even if some are outvoted under the rules.

To answer the question posed in the article header. Yes, Britain is still a sovereign state.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 04:18 AM

D the G
I will beg to differ with you. However should Brexit ever occur(that I doubt) I will accept your argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 07:01 AM

Dave,
"The shorthand description of these as "laws from Brussels" is slightly misleading: the bureaucrats of the European Commission may well set many laws in motion by promulgating new directives; but they still need to be agreed by politicians from each member state, even if some are outvoted under the rules. "

Those "politicians from each member state" would be the EU Parliament.
Our members could not outvote all the others, so in what sense does that give us sovereignty?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 07:16 AM

"Those "politicians from each member state" would be the EU Parliament."
Sort of like Britain being ruled from London - by elected representatives from all parts of the Country (or in the case of the E.U., from the continent)
Can't see anything wrong with either
One thing's certain - we'll have s.f.a. say in what goes on in Europe now we're and the ordinary person will have as much say in what goes on in Britain as we've always had - precisely none.
Once their elected, they're untouchable for five years, and so on, ad infinitum.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 07:44 AM

Silly, Keith. First, we have accepted without demur all but a handful of EU laws, enshrining them into our own domestic laws. Second, it isn't us versus 27 of them. That's just you being a little Englander. It a collaboration among 28 states in which we have a significant voice. Third, our "sovereignty" is permanently compromised by big corporations which have a massive hold over us. Fourthly, we will still have to abide by a huge tranche

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 07:46 AM

Sorry! ...of EU rules if we wish to to trade with the EU, rules in which we will no longer have a say.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 09:43 AM

We have our laws made for us by unelected bureaucrats, and our Parliament has no say in them.
It is no kind of sovereignty, and many people found it unsatisfactory.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 09:54 AM

Hmm --- "unelected bureaucrats" Professor? How does one become a member of the House of Lords?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 10:04 AM

Total rubbish. Our laws are made either by our parliament or by the elected European Parliament in which we have members. A democratic say. EU laws are enshrined in our domestic laws and the overwhelming majority of them are accepted without demur. When we leave the EU we will still have to abide by many EU rules and laws if we wish to trade with the EU. And have no say in those rules and laws. Don't talk such bloody twaddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 10:04 AM

Does anyone have any examples of laws currently applicable in the UK that have been not been agreed by our own government or our own elected representatives?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 10:33 AM

From the ITV website.

Official EU voting records show that the British government has voted 'No' to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted 'Yes' 2,466 times since 1999.

In other words, UK ministers were on the "winning side" 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

This is counting votes in the EU Council of Ministers, which passes most EU laws jointly with the European Parliament.

("Being on tbe losing side" has increased in frequency since we got a bunch of Eurosceptics in power in 2010).

The EU is a collaboration of 28 states. I reckon that record reflects a good deal of harmony. There are people here railing against the EU who don't care much for some of our own domestic laws that have nothing to do with the EU, such as the one making referendums advisory only. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 12:22 PM

Our laws are made either by our parliament or by the elected European Parliament in which we have members.

Any single state is heavily outvoted by the other states in both the Council of Ministers and the EU Parliament.

There is no sovereign right for any state to reject laws dictated by Brussels.
Many of us do not care, but many find that unacceptable.

The British electorate were never consulted on this diminution in national sovereignty.

Some care, some don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 12:29 PM

Steve, your ITV page goes on to say,

"But in recent years the UK has been more often on the losing side of these votes.

Between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.

That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.


The UK is outvoted at the Council of Ministers more than any other country - we also win 95% of the time."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 12:35 PM

States will be outvoted only if they vote differently to everyone else in a process in which they have had their say. We have been outvoted in 2% of the EU laws passed since 1999. That's democracy for you. I've been outvoted in every general election since I was 18 in the constituencies I've lived in. Democracy. Get real, Keith. "Unelected bureaucrats making our laws" has been a lie for over forty years. Shed the little Englander stuff for once.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 12:39 PM

Yes, Keith. I did tell you that, didn't I, straight after the bit I quoted. I put that down to the right wing Eurosceptics in Cameron's cabinet. Just my theory. Go on, prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 12:53 PM

Greg F. - 09 Nov 16 - 09:54 AM

Hmm --- "unelected bureaucrats" Professor? How does one become a member of the House of Lords?

Care to tell us how any member of the House of Lords can introduce any legislation in the UK Greg F. Fact is he or she cannot - it is impossible. It is impossible for the House of Lords to prevent any Bill from becoming Law after it's third reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 01:12 PM

As I understand the situation, PARLIAMENT obtained extra power as a result of Oliver Cromwell.
The irony here is that some Brexit supporters objected to European Parliamentary power[ perhaps they were right], but now object when The Westminster parliament exercises its power.
The Westminster parliament has every legal and moral right to exercise that power, Cameron pulled a fast one, in the true manner of Dodgy Dave, he did not explain that the referendum was not binding but advisory dependent on parliaments approval, rather like a second hand car salesman who doesnt tell you that he interfered with the mileages on the speedometer.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 01:36 PM

A pretty good analogy, Dick. As I said earlier, my only surprise is that people seem shocked that they were lied to. Is it a question of just believing the things they wanted to be true I wonder?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 01:44 PM

Had dodgy dave any inkling that the peasants would revolt, I have no doubt the referendum would have been kicked into very long grass.
As had been said by many the referendum was very poorly explained.
Not only was it's true status glossed over(advisory) but also the implications of a leave vote were not even up for discussion. The media merely regurgitated a bunch of fairy tales/horror stories put out by the Powers that Be. No analysis just bullsh**t.
Just like the pre election coverage in the States constantly demonising Trump and putting angel wings on Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 02:06 PM

Not only was it's true status glossed over(advisory)

No. Although referenda are only advisory the government made it clear to everyone that this referendum would be implemented immediately.
Next day in fact.

but also the implications of a leave vote were not even up for discussion.

There was lots of discussion about implications and likely effects of voting leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:01 PM

How can you tell when a politician is lying?

His lips move.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:04 PM

There was a lot of hot air, grandstanding, exaggeration, fearmongering, racism and outright lying. That might be your idea of a basis for "discussion" but it wasn't mine. As for the government undertaking to enact brexit the very next day, well we now know that it wasn't entitled to make that promise. Drop it, Keith. You have nowhere to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:22 PM

"No. Although referenda are only advisory the government made it clear to everyone that this referendum would be implemented immediately."
If the government did that they were misleading people.
The government knew that it could not be implemented immediately because it had to be approved by parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 04:27 PM

Yebbut you can't tell Keith that, Dick. And we've tried. God, how we've tried!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 04:39 PM

It's his OCD. He can't help himself, that's why I've stopped arguing with him.

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

well we now know that it wasn't entitled to make that promise. Drop it, Keith. You have nowhere to go.

Yes we do know now, but we did not then.
It formed no part of the debate.
Look at our Brexit thread on 24th June.
Lots of you bemoaning the result, but not one of you said not to worry because it has to go to Parliament first.

And, we still do not know for sure. The decision is disputed will go to appeal.

What must I drop?
What have I said in this thread that is wrong?
What specifically do you challenge?

BWM, you very unfairly called me a cunt for pointing out, with Kevin, that your link was to the start of the Bill.
Now you say insulting things about me and OCD.
Why are you being so personal and nasty?
Again, what have I ever said here that is wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 16 - 07:36 AM

Don't tell 'im, Pike...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 16 - 07:43 AM

Good one Steve, but you admit you are unable to find anything to challenge in what I have actually said.
It is just personal with some of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 16 - 08:24 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Oor7fAmmiQ

WHAT HAS THE EU DONE FOR US? monty python

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Nov 16 - 08:57 AM

The only individual who makes everything personal is yourself professor.

You take everything personally, it's one of your many faults.

Don't bother to respond, I really have much better things to do with my time.













PS I know you will respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 16 - 11:27 AM

How can I not take personally being called ignorant, cunt, not truthful and suffering OCD, and all without a single challenge to anything I have actually said?
It is just personal and nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Nov 16 - 02:44 PM

True to form I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 05:29 AM

Not exactly a groundswell (yet?), but the LibDems, the SDLP and a good few Labour MPs are willing to vote against Article 50 unless there's going to be a referendum on the final exit terms agreed with the EU. The SNP may well join them. While the blocking of Article 50 is as likely as a duff bottle of Hirondelle, I'm with them. And I vehemently disagree with people who bleat that were being "undemocratic" in going after a "second referendum." It would be a different referendum altogether, with a different question, and there's nothing undemocratic in asking people to reconsider a decision in the light of new information.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:07 AM

What new information?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:29 AM

The possibly pitfalls have obviously not been mentioned in the Daily Mail Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:44 AM

God, Keith, what's the matter with you? Information regarding the terms of our leaving, of course. What kind of deals on the single market, free movement, etc. we will have. What tariff barriers. What laws we will have to unpick. You know, unimportant stuff like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:58 AM

Information regarding the terms of our leaving, of course.

What new information do we have on that?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:13 AM

Jaysus, chaps, is it me or him? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:34 AM

Ignore it Steve, it's really not worth it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:37 AM

If it quacks like a duck....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 11:25 AM

"Not exactly a groundswell (yet?), but the LibDems, the SDLP and a good few Labour MPs are willing to vote against Article 50 unless there's going to be a referendum on the final exit terms agreed with the EU."

Well of course there are a number of things wrong with that little scheme if we play according to what is stated in the Treaty of Lisbon and what Jean-Claude Juncker has clearly stated:

1: No negotiations or talks BEFORE Article 50 has been triggered. So our lads in Parliament have got the cart before the horse

2: So no final exit terms will be known until Article 50 has been triggered.

3: Once article 50 has been triggered the process is irreversible so what have our chaps got to talk about? What prats we have been to throw away our rebate and currency to shackle ourselves to the Euro?

4: If the referendum we've just had was not binding, why go through the rather expensive and apparently pointless exercise again? Salve consciences, or just the desire to waste taxpayers money?

So the Government have got to formulate in detail what we want out of our departure, then that must be debated at length in the House of Commons and reported fully in the world's press. Once that lot has been decided upon, if Article 50 is given the OK (Not a hope in Hell really - Our professional politicians have a vested interest in keeping their pathway open to the greatest "gravy train" in the world), our team then toddle over to negotiate with the EU Commission who have by now had months to counter all our points and gain maximum advantage. If our elected members of Parliament vote against Article 50 then basically Parliament has just told 17,410,742 members of the electorate to basically go fuck themselves - hope they enjoy that, because they will only have until 2020 at the outside to savour it as those 17,410,742 voters will take their revenge at the next General Election.

The vote in Parliament will be on Party lines and the Conservatives have stated that post referendum they are for Brexit respecting the result, now all the LibDems with their 8 seats + the 3 SDLP + all 56 SNP members + all 232 Labour members will not outvote 330 Conservative MPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 11:38 AM

Exactly correct Mr T, but the poor sods have to say something after their unexpected defeat.

Personal attacks are all they have left in the locker, over the years I have come to recognise the cycle.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 11:44 AM

Steve, Rag and BWM, instead of ridicule please answer the question.
What new information do we have on what kind of deals on the single market, free movement, etc. we will have? What tariff barriers? What laws we will have to unpick?

Is there any yet?
Rag, you clearly know of some because you ridiculed me for not knowing of any.
Or, is it just personal with you three?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 11:45 AM

Say good night, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 11:54 AM

Why Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:23 PM

All that is completely irrelevant, Teribus. The LibDems, in demanding a referendum on the deals we make, are not putting any other conditions on whether they will vote for Article 50. They are quite properly saying that that the people should have the chance to revisit the question once the exit terms are known. You argue that a blunt-instrument yes/no question should be the final arbiter. I argue that the referendum was undemocratic in so many ways that it's hard to know where to start - forced on the government by UKIP and a bunch of unreconstructed right-wing backwoodsmen on the Tory backbenches, asked a question that almost everybody in the country was unqualified to answer, lied to about how binding it was, lied to about how quickly it was going to be implemented, lied to about the money, lied to about the single market and people movement and, not least, a referendum which was skewed towards our leaving by dint of the winning post having been set way too far back. Now we're being told that it was undemocratic for someone to make the government abide by laws that were fought for over centuries, and that judges who assert the rule of law are enemies of the people, etc. Finally, we are told that we can't know the government's negotiating plans, which must be kept secret from us because "we mustn't show our hand." Well that's the biggest lie of all. The people who "we mustn't show our hand" to are not the ones in Brussels, who already know full well what cards we hold, but the people in this country, who might make life inconvenient for the government once they see the fudges, compromises and back-pedalling that they'll have to make. We are fully entitled in a democracy to see exactly what is going on. After that, we should be fully entitled to be asked whether we think it's good enough for us or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:32 PM

Ah so the LibDems and apparently you want to pay for "Neverendums" until you get the result you want, until then any other result is meaningless - any idea what a nationwide referendum costs? The Scottish Independence one cost £13 million, the EU Referendum cost £142.4 million - how many of those do you want to pay for, they are not cheaper by the dozen.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:44 PM

What price democracy? You've just illustrated nicely one of those inconveniences the government would rather not confront. And we wouldn't be here wasting money in any case had the government done the right thing in the first place and not held a referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:26 PM

The electorate of this country called for a referendum on EU Membership and fully expected to get one on the back of promises made by the Conservatives in 2010. That fell through as part of the deal to form the coalition with the LibDems, so automatically was on the agenda next time round.

Highest voter turnout in UK political history, and our professional political elite are now doing their best to overturn the result of that referendum - downright shoddy.

The political elite and establishment didn't pay any heed at all to the concerns of those they termed the "deplorables" with the result that Donald J Trump is now the President Elect of the United States of America. If the Commons ensure that Brexit does not happen then established political parties in the UK and those who vote against the will of their constituents then stand by for even bigger shocks in the UK as they will not be forgiven.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:28 PM

" a bunch of unreconstructed right-wing backwoodsmen

Take back that gross insult sirrah, or my seconds will discuss the terms of a duel with your men.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 02:24 PM

Oh dear, sorry. Troglodytes? Worms crawling out of the woodwork? A few years ago I got into horrible trouble with the yanks for using the word "hillbillies" a bit too slackly. You can't be too careful!

Nice bit of revisionism there, by the way, Teribus. The only clamour for a referendum in this country was the phoney clamour that the idiots in UKIP and the, er, crawlers out of the woodwork on the Tory benches tried to whip up.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 02:44 PM

"political elite are now doing their best to overturn the result of that referendum"
Er nno - the politcal elite are trying to overturn the rule of law and have been reprimanded for doing so (and have backed down)
Trump won the election by appealing to the basest instincts of sections the American population - he did so crudely and sold that crudeness on teh basis of it being how Americans are ("locker room banter" to explain away obscene misogyny, for instance)
Britain was sold Brexit on the basis of a mixture of crude nationalism and xenophobia - no problem when tou weigh up the number of Britons who have admitted to being racist.
We should have realised by now that because a majority of people are in favour of something doesn't automatically make it just, fair or teh right thing to do - the Nazis were elected into power.
I sincerely hope that the American protests against Trump's presidency swell to a such a proportion that they cannot be ignored
That would be true democracy at work
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 03:00 PM

You will find professor, if you care to read my post correctly, it was addressed to Steve and not yourself.

There's a bit of a clue for you in the post, I specifically mentioned "Steve" in my post.

Once again you are falling back to your usual default position "it is all about me".

It's not about you because you are really an insignificant little man who, quite frankly, is a pain in the arse.

Please don't trouble yourself to reply, I truly am not interested in you.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 03:56 PM

Rag, your post 09:07 AM was about my post 09:29 AM whoever you addressed it to.

Do tell us what new information about pitfalls you are aware of?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 04:11 PM

No, professor.

My post was specifically addressed to STEVE.

STEVE, not you, was named in particular as it was to him that my post was addressed, nor to anyone else.

You, in your perverted little bubble, think it's all about you.

It's not, you are just an insignificant little oik who also happens to be a persistent pain in the arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 04:30 PM

....and if it walks like a duck....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 04:43 PM

"I sincerely hope that the American protests against Trump's presidency swell to a such a proportion that they cannot be ignored
That would be true democracy at work"

Please TRY to retain some sense of proportion Jim.....a few hundred demonstrators even swelling to let's say for arguments sake 10'000, would be as nothing compared to the numbers who voted to make Mr Trump president.      You are certainly NOT a democrat sir!

"liberals" don't do street fighting en masse, they prefer social Fascism, innuendo and personal insult.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 04:46 PM

Handbags at Dawn? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 04:57 PM

akenaton wrote: "liberals" don't do street fighting en masse, they prefer social Fascism, innuendo and personal insult.

Plus reality denial, plus gathering together on fora to agree with themselves and abuse the few who are foolish enough to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:07 PM

Well I for one do not engage in conspiracies on forums. Ask Jim, Musket, Dave and Raggytash how many private messages we have ever exchanged (well I might confess to exchanging the odd one with Dave about my mum and pubs in Lancashire and with Raggytash about folkie venues in Cornwall...) Such an easy accusation to make about people you don't know. And say "fora" if you want to be affected and pretentious. Otherwise, join the human race and say "forums."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:20 PM

It doesn't require a conspiracy for like minded people to post in support of one another on a forum. My point is that you all agree with each other, apparently in denial with a range of actual events, and the people who disagree with you get abused vigorously.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:33 PM

The people who get "abused" by us dreadful lefties tend to be the people who display bigotry, who make unsupportable claims and who lie. No need to name the four or five of you. Of course, we lefties don't accuse them of conspiracy because they're generally too bloody thick to conspire. If the cap fits and all that. Instead of moaning, as you seem to do quite a lot, just put up a vigorous and well-considered argument and take us on. It's good fun, sometimes. But whatever you do just drop the nonsensical accusations of conspiracy and stop making yourself look ridiculous. Musket and I often crossed swords, civilly, and we never exchanged messages. I love Jim and he loves me but we bloody well keep each other at arm's length. Go on, ask him!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 03:54 AM

Steve, for years "liberals" here have been bombarded with facts on many different subjects, they start off in debate but whenever they find themselves unable to find a sensible response, they retreat into either outright abuse in an attempt to have the thread shut down, or into a faux humorous dialogue between themselves which usually has no bearing on the subject under discussion.
This of course is a tactic to derail the discussion, their expressed "offence" is another tactic which demands discussion be curtailed.

I has become clear to me over the years, that "liberals" in general do not like to hear inconvenient facts, all their views are strongly based on how they think the world should be, not how it actually is.

Why do conservatives not suffer from this affliction? I can only suppose that their views are built on more sturdy foundations.
The media must share a large part of the blame as "liberal" views are propagated constantly to huge sections of the community by misinformation, quoting out of context and a warped view of morality.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 03:59 AM

"would be as nothing compared to the numbers who voted to make Mr Trump president"
Do you know how many Germans voted Hitler into power Ake - would you have howled as loudly if good Germans had taken to the streets to protest that "democratic"victory - a rhetorical question - I know the answer to that one) ?
This "democratic" victory will have repercussions world wide - not only do I hope this display of opposition continues and spreads in the U.S., but I hope it takes on over here - in fact, I hope it becomes a worldwide movement.
America has elected a racist, antisemitic, homophobic, misogynistic, hate-spreading thug as president - none of this description is disputed - we watched him proving it throughout the election campaign.
A man who has suggested at least six times that nuclear weapons are the answer to many of today's problems now has his finger on the nuclear trigger.
Democracy my arse - the safety and well being of the people are far more important than the sham democracy that enables a man like Trump - a man with no track record or obvious ability - to buy his way into office.
Our governments will appease this man, no matter whether he restricts his actions to his election promises or adds to them tenfold - he is now CiC of the world's most powerful state.
This persistent swing to the extreme right has to be stopped or the Holocaust will look like a minor traffic accident in comparison to what might happen.
Trump, May, Netanyahu, Putin..... and possibly LePen - not a world I hoped to have left to those who follow me.
I hope to see them out on the streets in their millions before these monsters infect the world with their diseased minds.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 04:17 AM

"Faux-humorous dialogue?" There's nothing faux about it. Typical of all lefties, we have magnificent senses of humour and find our intra-leftie banter hugely amusing. Just another arrow in our quiver. I'm so glad it annoys you. 😎

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 04:18 AM

Apologies for entering a little lucidity:

The current entry from the Oxford Dictionary says: The plural of forum is usually spelled forums; the plural fora (as in the original Latin) is chiefly used when talking about a public square in an ancient Roman city.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 04:36 AM

That's it. Nothing technically wrong with "fora" except that when you're referring to Internet forums it's bumptious and pretentious and quite likely to elicit a double-take from the more sensible if used in conversation. "Fora" doesn't even have the amusement potential of, say, "hippopotami" or "octopi." Usage is the main driver. "Forums" is normal whereas "phenomenons" isn't. When the English language nicks words from elsewhere we can do what we like with 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 05:17 AM

Good heavens Shaw you do get your knickers in a twist when somebody marks your card and those of your friends as succinctly as Stanron has done - why is that?

Your post - Steve Shaw - 11 Nov 16 - 09:33 PM - is a bit bloody rich coming from a member of a group on this forum who have legendary reputations and track records of casting out baseless accusations and allegations yet never ever substantiating your claims. When confronted with facts not once have you ever countered with facts of your own to back your case, instead you resort to personal insult.

Want to put it to the test Shaw? Then come up with one lie to substantiate your claims.

Bet we don't hear another word about it.

Typical "leftie", trades unionist activist and bully-boy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 05:24 AM

Ah Steve, he must mean personal insults like "leftie, trades unionist activist bully boy"


PS Do you really require two "ists" in that sentence?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 05:47 AM

"Good heavens Shaw you do get your knickers in a twist "
Talking down from your mental hole in the ground again
"Then come up with one lie to substantiate your claims."
Every posting you make and refuse to substantiate with proof is almost certainly a lie - otherwise you would wipe us out by substantiating them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 06:18 AM

Returning to the subject,
Steve and Rag, what new information?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 06:49 AM

How about finding out for yourself professor, try reading a different newspaper than the Daily Mail, although I would suppose even they have had articles relating to the subject since June.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 06:52 AM

Well, ignoring Little and Large for a minute (don't they waste their emotional energy!), it now seems that the government, scared of a Supreme Court adverse judgement, are thinking of getting their lawyers to make the case that Article 50, after all they've said, wouldn't be irrevocable after all! That being so, they say that MPs wouldn't then be entitled to a vote in the Commons as the High Court ruled because triggering Article 50 wouldn't inevitably mean that domestic laws and EU rights would be changed. So they're going to the Supreme Court to tell the Justices that they lied about Article 50 and that brexit may not mean brexit after all! Talk about government by shower...

By the way, Teribus, you were whingeing only yesterday about how we remoaners should consider how much public dough these referendums cost. Made me wonder how much public dough the government's lawyers and these judges are getting paid for all this "let's do our best to subvert democracy" malarkey. Bet they're having a field day!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 06:56 AM

From my point of view the new information that has come to light after the referendum is that A) It was only advisory, B) should the vote go to exit the EU, there was no clear plan on how to go about it and C) many of the things said by both sides were blatantly untrue. I was well aware of all these points from the start but I appreciate that not everyone is as cynical as me and many accepted what 'call me Dave' said at face value. Personally I think to accept what any politician says at face value, even if it is portrayed as an official position, is foolish but that is just me.

Given that information and the fact that things like spending money on the NHS instead of the EU and restricting immigration were blatant lies, I think the referendum may have had a different outcome.

However, due to all the problems and bad feeling it stirred up last time I would not advocate a new referendum. I think the government should do what they are paid for and make the decision. Whether they will go with the wishes of the 38% who want to leave or whether they will vote with their own party whips is up to them and yet to be seen.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:17 AM

D the G
a vote in which everyone (or nearly everyone) of voting age can take part - was held on Thursday 23 June, to decide whether the UK should leave or remain in the European Union. Leave won by 52% to 48%. The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting.
Where does the mythical 38% come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:25 AM

Well I would never advocate any referendums as I regard them as tremendously undemocratic and a dereliction of duty by the government we elected to run the country and to have far more of the expert knowledge so to do than the ordinary people. But we now find ourselves hostage to a referendum result predicated on a question that, it's becoming clear, was far more complex in its implications than the people were told, and about which even the government are getting tied up in knots about. When it comes clear what the "deal" is, and what the adverse implications of our leaving are, the decision must be revisited. If it becomes plain, as I think it will, that the brexit decision is taking us to hell in a handcart, someone has to decide whether we should continue on that road or not. As a referendum triggered this mess, it may take another one, with a different question, to attempt to get us out of it. And we need to know what the government is saying in its negotiations. We must resist the lie that "we mustn't show our negotiating hand." Yes they must. Democracy demands it. I understand that urgent matters of national security may require secrecy. We are not in that ball game here. The powers that be in Europe are all too aware of our hand already. The only conceivable reason for keeping negotiations secret from the British people is that we may not like seeing the embarrassing compromises that the government will have to air in public. Heaven forfend that we might even want to change our minds!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:32 AM

Let me help you, Iains. Slightly under 38% of eligible voters voted leave. Yes, 52% of the people who turned out to vote voted leave, but 28% of the eligible electorate didn't turn out to vote at all. You do the maths. You can Google the overall voting figures versus turnout. 38% of eligible voters voted to take us out of the EU. Not making any points in this post save to give you the numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:34 AM

The 38% Iains comes from the percentage of the total electorate of the United Kingdom who voted to leave (Actually 37.4%).

Now with the same turn out and a reversed result of exactly the same numbers and the result being for the UK to remain within the EU - you would not have heard a peep from those "remoaners" who are incessantly whinging now.

The electorate of the UK were given an extended period in which to register, they were given every opportunity by every means possible to vote. the result as you correctly state was 52% voted to leave and 48% voted to remain - a victory for those wishing to leave - them as could not be bothered or arsed to vote do not feature either way, they had their chance and threw it away they cannot complain now.

It is called democracy some can live with it others cannot.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:34 AM

38% is 52% of 71.8%. Well, it is actualy 37.336% but I have rounded up.

Nothing mythical about simple arithmetic.

In simple terms it means that of those who could vote, 38% voted to leave, 35% voted to remain and 27% abstained. I have never commented on the reasons for abstention as neither I now anyone else can possibly know. The simple fact of the matter remains that a mathematical as opposed to mythical 38% of the population voted to leave the EU and it is now up to our MPs to determine whether to follow the 38% or try to decipher what proportion of the abstentions would back whatever decision they make. Not an easy job.

Hope this helps

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:43 AM

Any comments on what would have happened had the vote been different are simply fantasy. The vote happened as it did. It is known fact that 38% of the voting population voted to leave, 35% voted to remain and 27% abstained for a multitude of reasons. No amount of discussion will change that.

I have stated that I do not want another referendum. I doubt if anyone does. What I, and many others, want is an adherence to parliamentary procedure and rule of law.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:44 AM

Of course you'd be hearing a peep from us, because you lot would be crying foul, with that holder of the £350 million-a-day sword of truth Farage at the helm, and you would very likely get another referendum. That would be much easier for the leave side as there's nothing irrevocable about voting for the status quo. On the other hand, we've been told that the vote to leave was irrevocable (a lie, as we all now know, and the government are still wriggling on that hook). A seriously skewed referendum, and a disgraceful campaign on both sides. Yet you call that democracy just because you managed to squeak ahead. Well I call it the opposite of democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:46 AM

No Gnome 38% of the population did not vote to "leave" - 38% of the electorate voted to leave.

26.8% of the population voted to leave and even less voted to remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 08:04 AM

I am pretty sure that I said "In simple terms it means that of those who could vote, 38% voted to leave" and then backed that up with "38% of the voting population voted to leave". I did, in a moment of laziness, say "a mathematical as opposed to mythical 38% of the population voted to leave" and I apologise for any missing out the word 'voting'. I thought that seeing as I had specified 'voting population' (aka electorate) twice people may have realised that is what I meant. I was obviously wrong. Still, as misleading statements go I suppose it does not have a patch on making people believe that article 50 would be triggered the next day, money put into the EU would be spent on the health service or immigration would be curtailed.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 08:54 AM

"Faux-humorous dialogue?" There's nothing faux about it. Typical of all lefties, we have magnificent senses of humour and find our intra-leftie banter hugely amusing. Just another arrow in our quiver. I'm so glad it annoys you. 😎 "

It doesn't annoy me Steve it just bores me. I come here for discussion and open debate it was always a wonderful forum for exchange of views......until the "liberal fascists" arrived, the majority of whom are from the UK

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 09:06 AM

Bit of an oxymoron there Akenaton. A bit far fetched, even by the standards of the Right Wing on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 10:26 AM

I'm starting to get the feeling, from the majority of his latest posts that Ake is channelling BeardedBS, or has at least taken him on board as an advisor, rather like Trump & Giuliani.

Anyone else notice this?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 10:27 AM

"Typical of all lefties, "
Seems like the "I am a socialist" mask has been totally discarded - not before time
You were giving us all a bad name.
A gentle reminder
The misogynist, racist, anti-semitic thug that has just been elected to the White House is a "rightie"
Margaret Thatcher who, by her own indirect admission, led the nearest thing Britain ever had to a Fascist administration, was a "righty".
Her friend, Augusto Pinochet, who oversaw the mass rape, torture and murder of his opponents, was a "rightie".
Adolph Hitler, whos administration shepherded many millions of human beings, including six million Jews into the gas chambers, was a "rightie".
Basshir Assad, who has been massacring his own people and using chemical weapons on them for several years, is a "rightie".
Some of the most brutal leaders of the 20th century have been "righties".
So when you lay into "lefties" *a real Freudian slip that one Ake) - youi are disassociating us from all these monsters, as you.
You do say the nicest things Ake - whose knickers are you trying to get into now?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 11:29 AM

"Typical of all lefties" doesn't sound like me there Jim shurley shome mishtake?

I don't accept that "liberals" are lefties or even that "lefties" are socialists.
I don't accept that people like you are of the serious left at all, simply woolly minded "liberals" masquerading as socialists. Tied up in the tangle of non issues promoted by the media as "of some importance".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 11:35 AM

Greg, Bruce and I are pretty far apart on the politics front, but he does appear to have an excellent handle on the "liberal elite" and the Fascism they attempt to promote.
He also deals in facts which is a big plus as far as I am concerned, even if the facts are inconvenient to my argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 11:43 AM

"I don't accept that "liberals" are lefties or even that "lefties" are socialists."
You really do have oyur own private language, don't you?
'Course you don't - neither would I if I had just blown my cover.
You get more and more desperate as you try to justify your extreme right views
Nobody mentioned "liberals" - socialists are 'left' by definition.
"Socialist
a person who advocates or practises socialism.
"she was a lifelong socialist"
synonyms: left-wing, Fabian, syndicalist, utopian socialist"
Given your input to this forum, there is no doubt whatever as to where you register on the political scale.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 01:03 PM

For a start Jim you have issued a false quote.
Where have I said "typical of all lefties" and in what context?

You make things up Jim, I would be within my rights to accuse you of being a liar, but I don't believe in being personally abusive on a discussion forum, but I feel it is my duty as a member to point out behaviour which falls below the standards we should expect.

Try to engage brain before taking off please.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 01:43 PM

The 27% that could not be bothered to vote can hardly bleat about the result not being to their liking. The possession of a vote rather underpins democracy and retention of democracy does carry with it certain responsibilities for the electorate. i.e. the obligation to participate and vote.

IF one does not vote then the government you deserve will arrive by next post or shortly thereafter.

Thus endeth the lesson!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 02:06 PM

Please not that I have always referred to the 27% that did not vote as abstentions. There are many reasons for not voting and while 'could not be bothered' may be a reason for some it is not so for all of them. In the house of commons itself there are many reasons that an MP may abstain from voting and to carry that through to the electorate is only proper. No lesson can be taught to people you believe just cannot be bothered. Out of interest 'here endeth the lesson' is the traditional way to end a bible reading. It means that you have been taught an idisputable truth. The truth in this case is that we cannot make assumptions about why people did not vote.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 02:23 PM

I really do not think it is worth arguing about why people did not vote.
It is of zero interest. The only significant fact is that they did not
vote and lost a valuable part to play in the democratic process.
If I had my way voting would be compulsory.
You can hardly equate an mp abstaining with a member of the electorate abstaining. A private individual abstaining is showing a wilful dereliction of duty in my opinion.
Democracy was fought for-maintaining it by casting a vote is not some insurmountable task.
and D the G please do not try to lecture me. It irritates.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 02:57 PM

Someone brings up that people 'cannot be bothered' to vote, yet when it is pointed out that there are many reasons not to vote, it is of zero interest. Someone who lectures that voting should be mandatory and ends their post with a phrase that indictaes they are speaking God's truth is annoyed by others lecturing. Funny old world init?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 03:23 PM

The only point I wish to make is that voting is a democratic right and I feel the individual should exercise that right. That is why I have no interest in whatever reason a person would wish to surrender that right.
In many countries voting is compulsory. I feel that is too the good.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/04/voterapathy.uk

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 03:58 PM

Voting is a democratic right and so is the right not to vote. Until such a time as it become mandatory everyone can make their own choice and should not expect to be abused for making that choice. Whatever it is.

I always use my vote even if it is to spoil the ballot paper but I would never assume that someone is lazy or apathetic because they chose not to. To deem that 27% of the population just 'can't be bothered' is quite a sweeping statement and one that, quite frankly, I view with cynicism.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 05:07 PM

Oh dear Gnome, someone who disagrees with you - how annoying for you.

I too couldn't give a toss why those who didn't vote - fact is they chose not to vote and that does not give the right to anybody to declare the intentions of those who did not vote. FACT is more people voted to "LEAVE" than voted to "Remain" therefore our elected representatives should respect that decision even although it does cut them off from becoming part of the "gravy train" they'd all like to bury their snouts in.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 09:13 PM

No they shouldn't. The referendum was advisory.

Several,things, Iains. First, the fact that you choose not to vote, or even that you couldn't be arsed to vote, does not mean that you no longer have a say. That's the system, like it or loathe it. Second, I haven't heard anything about non-voters whingeing about the result. Third, abstaining can be an honourable thing to do, and it isn't for you to prejudge anyone's motives for not voting. You simply can't assume that non-voters are in dereliction of their duty. They HAVE no duty under our system, in case you haven't noticed. Fourth, we don't have compulsory voting, so just drop that one. Get a grip, Iains.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 10:47 PM

I rarely get annoyed nowadays. Certainly not by anything or anyone on Mudat. Life is too short. The fact certainly is that more people voted to leave than to remain. The fact certainly is that parliament has to vote whether to implement that decision. The fact certainly is that they have not yet done so yet. A lot of other comments have simply been speculation, bluster and invective by people who do seem to be rather annoyed by something. I would rather not get involved in that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 03:39 AM

First, the fact that you choose not to vote, or even that you couldn't be arsed to vote, does not mean that you no longer have a say.

Interesting viewpoint! your grasp of logic must exist in another paradigm compared to mine. I suppose you have a voice when not voting by utilisation of subterfuges such as ventriloquism, telepathy or perhaps use of a ouija board.
Get a grip man!

In some rose tinted, treehugging, everyone is a sandal wearing teacher type world your view may have credence. However in the real world(of which I have worked in over 40 countries over 5 continents) I think you would find that if everyone gave up their vote the ensuing government would quickly become an Orwellian nightmare

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 03:49 AM

"Oh dear Gnome, someone who disagrees with you - how annoying for you."
Oh dear Teribus - your bout of insecurity seems to be dragging on this time, doesn't it.
Having lived under a P.R. system for nearly twenty years now, the first past the post system appears as totally undemocratic and excluding compared to the one we have here - archaic, in fact.
The last election brought a hung result which went on for some time - the Government finally took office having been forced to remove most of its its repressive and elitist-favouring policies - it now has to negotiate carefully with all the other people's elected representatives - nearer to true democracy that Britain could dream of.
The saddest aspect of the contest was that a Labour Party led by opportunists who put seats in office before the interests of those they are supposed to represent, were wiped off the face of the political map for the foreseeable future - a hard lesson but democracy at work again.
Would that our careerist British politicians could be taught the same lessons.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:01 AM

We have a democratic voting system and yet we are still on the road to an Orwellian nightmare. Disabled people being denied benefit. Fracking being brought in regardless of the views of people. Newspeak where do-gooder, peace loving and tree hugger have become insults...

Why all the invective anyway? There is no need. As the modern spate of parodied WW2 slogans tell us, calm down and hug a tree:-) You may find it more pleasant than getting annoyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:39 AM

Dth G
Treehugging is not meant as an insult. It is more a definition of a world view most adequately defined by the content of the Gruniard and the BBC. Those lucky enough to have had a career spanning countries and continents almost inevitably end up with a different perspective on events and a radically different world view. Inevitably it clashes.
Darwinism does exist and it can be brutal. Darwin awards also exist. Who collects on what is part of life's rich tapestry.


Anyway to make you feel good. If you study the logistics of fracking and also well life expectancy and well pad design, I think you will appreciate that for vast tracts of the UK it simply ain't going to happen, that is apart from the economic model being dead at the present price of crude.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:58 AM

"Treehugging is not meant as an insult."
Leeds (or maybe it was Sheffield) University once had a very fine Folklore Department.
Way back, a new administration, closed it, dismissing the participants as "a bunch of tree huggers" - an intellectual view of the definition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 06:13 AM

The fact remains that, in many circles, both tree hugging and do gooding are used as terms of abuse so they seem to have succumbed to newspeak, which rather than being decided by a totalitarian state, is being devised by the popular press.

The point about fracking is not so much about where it will happen but the simple fact that it is being forced through, against the will of many people, bypassing the very democracy that we seem to be discussing. Adding insult to injury, even though it seems to be a very bad idea in many ways, we are being told it is for our own good.

It appears that it will be of most benefit to those doing the fracking and those approving it to me and so 'the good of society' also seems to have become newspeak for 'lining the pockets of the rich'. But, as I have said before, I am a cynic when it comes to politicians and I am drifting too far from the point of this thread.

One final point on our so called democracy. When you have Conservative neoliberal policies and Labour neoliberal policies that both benefit the super rich and are difficult to insert a cigarette paper between it is little wonder that people use either a protest vote or do not vote at all. The time for voting for the lesser of two evils must be replaced by a better option if we are to survive.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 06:47 AM

Perhaps another thread on democracy is required. We are allowed to vote for the candidates but in reality who selects them and parades them before us?
Is it deep state, puppet masters, or our own stupidity?
To reclaim democracy we need to reclaim candidate selection.
Do we want or need professional politicians? Is their function to serve
those that elected them, the party whips, or the hordes of vampires (lobbyists) employed by the military industrial complex?
For politicians we need men of honour - instead we get snake oil salesmen and grubby little men that can be bought.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 06:48 AM

So, Iains, if I don't vote in this democracy of ours, in which voting is voluntary, I somehow need to shut up and have no cause for complaint, etc., eh, when things go wrong, or stand by when I'm accused of "not being arsed?"

Well, a couple of things. First, no-one has the right to know why I didn't vote. Suppose I just couldn't decide. Suppose I thought that none of the candidates were worthy of office. How would you know? What justification would you have for assuming that I simply hadn't been arsed? And why are those kinds of decisions any less honourable than voting for someone I'd be extremely reluctant see in office? I actually think that it's far more honourable to not vote because you admit that you don't understand politics. An awful lot of people who do vote don't have a clue about politics. In a democracy, that should worry us, big-time.

Next, the money that the government spends comes from the taxes, equally, of people who vote and people who don't vote. I have no choice but to pay that tax (though some multimillionaires seem to have a choice). I think that gives me exactly the same right to whinge, moan and hold the government to account whether I voted for them, against them or not at all. Absolutely no-one has the right to criticise non-voters or to make unjustifiable assumptions as to why they didn't.

As for The Guardian being the repository for softie sandal-wearing liberal treehugging pinkos, etc., you are simply demonstrating your ignorance. Unlike the tabloids, the Guardian does not mix news reporting with comment. The Guardian fearlessly invites contributors from the full range of the political spectrum, including occasionally one or two who I regard as detestable scumbags. There's a lot wrong with the Guardian. But you really should read it some time instead of ignorantly parading your prejudices. If you want to live in a real fantasy world, read the Mail (maybe you already do). And I do read the Mail fairly frequently, when I can pick up a free copy. I do have to hold my nose.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 07:08 AM

Steve Shaw

I always skim the Guardian along with multiple other online sources.
Unfortunately all MSM have an agenda and the first casualty is truth.
Having seen news events unfold first hand a few times and seen the subsequent news coverage, I am left wondering if the events occurred on the same planet. Therefore I have a very low confidence level in anything reported unless the main gist of it is supported from both sides of the spectrum and that is a rare event. You have your views on the world as portrayed by the Gruniard and I have mine. It is rare they will find common ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

You are very good at making unjustified assumptions, for example about non-voters. Now you think that my world view is predicated on what I read in The Guardian. All I can say about you is that, wherever you've been in this big, wide wonderful world of ours, you seem to have taken your prejudices with you and based your world view on how they fit what you see. Let's do a little quiz:

"From what you've seen in thousands of Steve's posts on Mudcat, would you say that his world view is predicated on:

(a) the Daily Mail,

(b) the Guardian,

(c) Socialist Worker,

(d) Dawkins,

(e) wot Musket sez?"

Arrogant twit! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 08:05 AM

I guess you got kicked out of the debating society at school. I wonder why?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 08:08 AM

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 08:28 AM

Many people fought long and hard over centuries to win sufferage. It was only in 1918, less than one hundred years ago that men over 21 and women over 30 eventually won the right to vote. Prior to that millions of people had no right to vote at all. The Representation of the People Act 1918 TRIPLED the electorate.

Not to exercise that right, to my mind is a travesty. If you go to the polls and spoil the paper fine, that's your choice and your right, but not to take part is frankly appalling.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:10 AM

It can be argued that both WW1 and WWII were fought for the preservation of democracy.
One epitaph for the fallen States:
   
         "When you go Home, tell them of us and say,
For your Tomorrow, we gave our Today"

Many many thousands died to preserve democracy and yet, now tomorrow has arrived, there are some who cannot be bothered to participate in the preservation of that right they died for.
         i.e. the right to vote.

Throwing away that right shows precious little respect for the fallen in my view and precious little respect for democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:16 AM

Well you can make a conscious decision NOT to exercise that right if you feel you don't know enough about the issues or the candidates or if you feel that none of them deserve to be elected. Shortly after we moved here we had council elections and I hadn't heard of any of the candidates, nor knew much about the local political setup. The brief bits of information about themselves they gave us gave little or no clue as to where they were on the political spectrum. They tend to be unaligned to the major parties round here. I wasn't going to vote on the strength of nice-sounding names. That was the only time in my whole life that I haven't voted. As for spoiling my ballot paper, well the only person who's going to see that is the poor bugger doing the counting at three in the morning in a draughty village hall. It isn't really much of a statement unless people do it in droves, which almost never happens. I accept that there are people who don't give a sod even though they should give a sod, but, on the whole, we can't say who they are (unless they tell us), so it's best not to be too quick to judge people who choose not to vote. They still pay their taxes. Let's face it, political education is a shambles in this country and in the US and is a stain on democracy. That leaves people easy prey to populists such as Trump and the brexiteers and the right in general. You can easily see the effect on some otherwise quite articulate people who post on this forum. Not likely to change any time soon either, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:17 AM

Unaligned with

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:33 AM

Well I'll be dammed. We have common ground in your last 4 sentences.
You almost gave me a funny turn!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:39 AM

It can also be argued that that's not what the wars were fought for. Your very judgemental take on people not voting is rather reminiscent of the flak some people get for not wearing a poppy. Instead of getting all hoity-toity about people quite legally not voting, why not argue for better political education and a change to make voting compulsory? I wouldn't support the latter myself without a good dose of the former. People not voting en masse is a symptom of political failure to engage people. Then, when they do turn out, they vote for an ignorant, xenophobic, bigoted big-mouth in the US and for a bunch of racist liars in the UK. I think that should concern you far more than bleating about non-voters "throwing away their rights." Which, incidentally, they haven't. They are exercising their rights, within the current laws, in a way that you happen to disapprove of.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 02:35 AM

You have the right to vote - whether you do, or whether you don't again is entirely up to the individual.

What you cannot do however is make the idiotic declaration that those who did not vote actually sided with any of those who did vote, as you and your pas have done. If you elect not to vote you have in effect ruled yourself out of the equation and you have absolutely no right at all to criticise the outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 03:56 AM

I repeat my previous comment in case anyone misunderstood. 38% of the electorate voted to leave. 35% voted to remain. 27% abstained. Nowhere in there are any assumptions made about who the 27% would have voted for or why they abstained. Previously a number of people have stated that the abstainers 'could not be bothered'. That is an invalid assumption. The MPs who will vote on this will have to try and make a guess about the 27%. I do not envy them but they brought it on themselves.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 04:15 AM

"Nowhere in there are any assumptions made about who the 27% would have voted for or why they abstained"

Really Gnome? Now which one of your pals came out with this then:

"34% percent voted to leave 66% didn't"

Had to point out of course that it wasn't 34% it was 37% and that was 37% of the total electorate, which in turn is irrelevant because it is only the percentage of the electorate that exercises their right to vote that count in any election and in the case of the recent EU Referendum that was the highest turn out of voters that there has ever been in the UK so the only result that counts is that 52% of the voters who voted elected to Leave and only 48% of the voters who voted elected to Remain - The Leave vote won - now tell us why the declared wishes of the electorate of the UK who voted should be ignored and overturned by Members of Parliament, who are after all elected to represent the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 04:41 AM

I am not responsible for what anyone else posts. I have re-iterated my statement and if anyone wishes to address what I said to me I would be happy to respond.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 05:02 AM

Very true and a good point Gnome - So - "The Leave vote won - now tell us why the declared wishes of the electorate of the UK who voted should be ignored and overturned by Members of Parliament, who are after all elected to represent the people." - A question addressed to you directly.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 05:23 AM

I am happy with direct questions. I don't have an answer to it though. MPs should vote with the wishes of their constituents. If most of their constituents want to leave the EU, that is the way they should vote. If most of their constituents want to remain, they should vote to remain. If they wish to try to estimate the views of those who abstained, that is up to them.

I have no idea how the individual members of the house would vote and what the majority in the house would be if they were to follow those guidelines. I do know that there is an extra factor in the party line and I hope that in this case the party whip does not apply and members are given a free vote.

Does anyone have the figures by constituency of how the referendum went and how a vote in the house would go if the MPs were guided by their own constituents?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 05:38 AM

I should also point out that I have, on many occasions both here and real life, suggested that party politics is not a good way to govern. In my opinion. if MPs voted with their own conscience and the approval of their constituents we would have a much fairer system. As has been pointed out there was a lot of misinformation from both sides in the referendum campaign. Working with the model I suggest, it would be in the members interest to inform his or her constituents of the facts and if anyone wanted to dispute the facts as laid out by the member it should be a matter of public record. The constituents can then decide if their MP has served their opinions fairly. If not the consequences are obvious.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 05:43 AM

" now tell us why the declared wishes of the electorate of the UK who voted should be ignored and overturned by Members of Parliament, who are after all elected to represent the people."
How about - because that's how the constitution works
Politicians can make all the promises they want at election time but, should they decide to carry them out, they have to be possessed by a Parliamentary vote.
You might also add that this is what those who make and administer our laws have ruled - whether the appeal changes anything remains to0 be seen.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 06:19 AM

I draw your attention to the regional vote at the bottom of the entry. and also the fact that only about 133 constituency boundaries match the electoral division boundaries for the referendum. This makes isolating how the constituency vote aligned a little problematical in most cases. Rather muddies the waters for making an MP accountable for the popular vote when the issue finally gets to Parliament -if ever!

Courtesy of Wikipedia:
Under the provisions of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 there were a total of 382 voting areas across twelve regions using the same boundaries as used in European Parliamentary elections since 1999 under the provisions of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 with votes counted at local authority level: in England the 326 Local districts were used as the voting areas; these consist of all unitary authorities, all metropolitan boroughs, all shire districts, the London boroughs, the City of London and the Isles of Scilly.[3] The nine regions of England were then also used to count the votes at the regional level with Gibraltar being a part of South West England. Northern Ireland was a single voting area, as well as being a regional count although local totals by Westminster parliamentary constituency area were announced.[3] In Scotland the 32 Scottish councils were used as voting areas and a single national count.[3] In Wales the 22 Welsh Councils were used as the voting areas and a single national count.[3]

Counting began as soon as the polls closed on June 23 from 2200 BST onwards making it the first UK-wide referendum to be counted overnight and took nine hours and twenty minutes to complete.

On 23 June 2016 the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, by 51.9% for Leave, and 48.1% for the Remain campaign with 263 voting areas voting to "Leave the European Union" to 119 voting areas who voted to "Remain a member of the European Union".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 06:33 AM

I was not aware that the figures were not available by parliamentary constituency. It does make things difficult but not impossible. It would be a very poor representative that did not know the wishes of the people that voted for him or her. If they do know, they should vote the way their constituents want them to. If they do not know, maybe they should talk to their constituents more.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 06:50 AM

Apologies.
I meant to link this above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 07:21 PM

Members of Parliament are not our delegates. We elect them in order to make responsible decisions on our behalf, but not necessarily according to the wishes of the masses. The concept is that we give them, hopefully, full-time jobs in which they will become far more expert in matters of running the country than we are. We don't impose conditionality on them when we elect them. They have free rein, subject only to such things as party whips. If we don't like what they do, or think that someone else can do a better job, or if we think they are not paying sufficient regard to the concerns of their constituents, we can boot them out.

With regard to the referendum, Iain, MPs are not accountable for the popular vote (your expression). The referendum was advisory only. It was undemocratic for Cameron to make promises about implementation that were illegal. "Advisory" means that MPs may take into consideration what 38% of the electorate asked them to do ("asked" being the operative word). But it does not mean that they have to carry it out. I suspect that most of them will, but, if they don't, make no mistake - they won't have done anything illegal or unconstitutional. They will, of course, have to answer to their constituents.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 03:41 AM

UK EU Referendum 72.1% voter turn out (Highest voter turn out ever in the UK's history) votes to LEAVE totalled 17,410,742 (51.9%), votes to REMAIN totalled 16,141,241 (48.1%) - This somehow is not good enough for Shaw YET in the US Presidential Election with a voter turn out of just 58.1% 61,047,207 votes for Hillary Clinton versus 60,375,962 votes for Trump represents a win for Hillary Clinton and I'd agree with him on that - pity that it is the Electoral College in the USA that elects the President. By the way if the EU Referendum had been based on voter district result detailed in Iain's post then it would have been 68.85% LEAVE against 31.15% REMAIN.

The two can be compared because they are both EITHER, OR decisions.

If politicians are not bound by the results thrown up by Referenda then why on earth should we have them? Should Brexit be blocked or overturned by Parliament then our self-serving, trough guzzling, "professional politicians" in the UK will see exactly what an electorate whose wishes have been ignored can do come the next election (The backlash against the establishment in the US that saw Trump elected will be as nothing in comparison).

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 04:10 AM

The result of this referendum has always been known to be advisory. As were previous referendums (It has been explained). It is the job of MPs to implement policies depending on a number of factors including the wishes of the people but the whole point is they must adhere to parliamentary procedure, which is all the latest ruling says. The promises made by the government to implement the decision unilaterally were false as were a lot of promises made by both sides of the campaign.

We now seem to be going round in circles again. :-(

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 04:19 AM

Just for the record, voter turn out has been higher than 72% in several election since WW2. See the chart below.

Voter Turnout Since 1945

In fact it has been higher than 72% in 13 of the 19 elections held since 1945.

Yet more bluster I fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 04:27 AM

Thanks for that correction Raggy, my apologies, I stand corrected

There Raggy like the last time, that admission took days of tortuous invective to extract didn't it.

Interesting pattern in those election turn outs Raggy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 04:43 AM

Steve Shaw:
The concept is that we give them,(MP's) hopefully, full-time jobs in which they will become far more expert in matters of running the country than we are.

Wouch! I nearly got hit by a flying pig!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 04:52 AM

Bit more difficult to avoid such when you know everyone is watching, isn't it T.

But yes, the turnout has dropped significantly in the last 5 elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 06:06 AM

The same everyone was watching the last time Raggy and my response was only slightly slower as I do not sit at my computer all day, I have other far better things to do, yet even on that last occasion you got your apology and my admission of error on the same day.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 07:13 AM

I said it was the concept, Iains, not the reality.


"If politicians are not bound by the results thrown up by Referenda then why on earth should we have them? Should Brexit be blocked or overturned by Parliament..."

Why indeed. But I don't see your problem with referendums being advisory. The government should have made that crystal clear at the outset instead of triggering a pointless dispute about it for months after. It's perfectly posssible to ask what people think and to say that we'll pay close attention to what you say but the constitution doesn't allow us to be bound by it. Brexit won't be "blocked" by anybody because it isn't even beginning to be underway and May hasn't a clue as to how to proceed. And you can't overturn something that doesn't even exist. If you have an argument with our constitution, that's for a new thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 07:43 AM

This is all rather tedious but yet again we are subject to bluff and bluster.

I first mentioned the Field General Court Martial on the 7th May. Firstly you told me to toddle off and do some googling about General Court Martials and Field Court Martials. The next day the 8th you stated there was no such animal as a Field General Court Martial. The day after that the 9th you again stated there is no such thing as a Field General Court Martial.

Later that same day, after Joe Offer's intervention you reluctantly admitted you were in error to Joe, the admission of error to me came later that day after I had pushed the issue.

So it wasn't the same day at all, was it.


Like I have said earlier you were Kow-towing to perceived authority. Your submission to authority rings clear in your posts, it's really quite pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 09:58 AM

The result of this referendum has always been known to be advisory.

By whom Dave? It was not reported during the campaign.
After the result it had to be taken to court to decide, so how could it be known before it had even been tested?
We still will not know for sure until the appeal is heard next month.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:04 AM

That fact that it was advisory is written into the act detailing the referendum for anyone who wants to look. The ruling was not whether the referendum was advisory or not but whether parliamentary procedure could be overruled. I do not see the point of going over what I have already said any further. It will not make the results any different.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:22 AM

The ruling was not whether the referendum was advisory or not but whether parliamentary procedure could be overruled

They are the same thing Dave.
If it was advisory, it would have to go to Parliament.
If not, the result would be binding and Parliament would have no say.

It will not be finally established until the appeal is heard

If only someone had made the challenge before the referendum.
I wonder why they did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:30 AM

It was advisory. There is no 'if' about it. The court ruled on a point of parliamentary procedure only. Once again I do not see the point of going over what I have already said any further.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:41 AM

If the appeal succeeds, the result will have been binding and not advisory.
No-one can know which it was until it is decided in law.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:46 AM

"If it was advisory, it would have to go to Parliament.
If not, the result would be binding and Parliament would have no say."

Then there's the third possibility, that an incompetent Tory government that had given the public an undertaking that the law of the land did not entitle them to make tried to bulldoze the thing through in the hope that sufficient hubris would overwhelm their cockup. And let's not forget how they must have been keeping their fingers crossed that we'd vote remain so that none of this would come out and they'd all live happily ever after.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:59 AM

A leaked memo claims that the Government has no planned strategy for leaving Europe
They have said they don't recognise the memo
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 11:01 AM

No Steve. That is just another way of putting the second possibility.
I remind you that Labour also promised a binding referendum, and never questioned the legality of the government pledge to the people that their decision would be binding.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 11:02 AM

I can only, once more, repeat that the referendum was advisory and was known to be advisory by anyone who had read the act. I recommend that anyone who is interested reads it. Anyone who has not read it cannot know the contents. If any MP had not read it, that borders on criminally negligent. In my opinion.

Whether the result can now be made binding without the approval of parliament is yet to be seen. My main point is that the referendum, at the time it was taken, was advisory and I hope this is the last time I need to repeat myself.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 11:23 AM

We know about the Act Dave, but the people were told that this referendum would be accepted as binding, and no-one challenged that pledge until after the result was announced.

That challenge may or may not succeed.
Until then, no-one knows if it was advisory or binding.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 11:38 AM

Not really all that fussed about it as long as Brexit goes ahead. For our "professional politicians" do anything else then, as the result of the EU Referendum still stands, the next election will be fought on one single issue Brexit and the party that guarantees to get us out of Europe will win it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 12:09 PM

There is another important factor to bear in mind as the delays accumulate. After March 31st 2017, Article 50 processes cease to be based on simple majority voting. Thereafter the process becomes much slower.
Prevarication and delay can be guaranteed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 01:01 PM

People were told all sorts of things that were not true. I think I have addressed all the points on multiple occasions and have given nothing but the facts. There is nothing else I can do so, unless anyone has a question of me that I have not already answered, I am happy to leave the thread to continue going round in circles until it falls over, dizzy.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 01:08 PM

Ah, but I put it far better than you did, Keith. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to be nice to Tories. And yes the pledge was challenged, or discussed, before the result. I knew months before that the vote was advisory only, and a number of other people here also knew. That was even a pre-vote discussion programme on the Beeb about just that, though for the life of me I can't remember who it was or when it was on - I was in my car coming back from somewhere or other at the time. You just weren't keeping up. There was no outcry because almost every man and almost all his dogs thought we were staying, in which case there was no squabble to be had. Then, as we all know, Cameron woke up dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 10:52 AM

Steve, if you knew it was only advisory, why did you post these?

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 05 Jul 16 - 08:44 PM

The thing is, Teribus, less than 38% of the total electorate, about 17 million out of 46.5 million entitied to vote, have forced an irrevocable decision on this country.

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 06 Jul 16 - 06:42 AM

Well that response doesn't surprise me in the least, Teribus. But this is not a game. This is an irrevocable, once-and-for-all decision. It is far more serious even then a general election in many regards. It is also lopsided in that a leave vote is irrevocable

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 02:26 PM

We have allowed less than 38% of the electorate to make a irrevocable decision based on fear and ignorance

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 11:13 AM

I percieve the Professor is having difficulty, one again, with understanding the English language. Perhaps a reading comprehension refresher course is in order.

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

It could be the 38% just wanted to leave! Do not try to increase the strength of you argument by making crass assumptions about fear and ignorance.

Leave won the vote: Get over it!

We shall see if it ever gets to Parliament to be voted on.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 05:10 AM

If the elected government of the day promises to get us out of the EU come hell or high water if we tell them that's what we want, they are telling the voters that they are voting for an irrevocable decision. That is the covenant they made. The fact that they "forgot" to tell us that parliament may have to debate Article 50 first is a sideshow to that substantive matter. If you have a problem with that, Keith, get your old cobber Teribus to 'ave a word in your shell-like. He's been saying exactly that for months. Whether Cameron was entitled to make that promise is another matter. One part of it, "Article 50 tomorrow," has already been dishonoured. But we're coming out, aren't we, Keith. Whatever further screw-ups come to light. irrevocable. We knew what we were voting for regardless of the legal status of the referendum. Now don't ask me again, you clown, otherwise I might have to try to get you to rearrange a couple of choice words into a well-known phrase or saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 06:39 AM

Steve,
If the elected government of the day promises to get us out of the EU come hell or high water if we tell them that's what we want, they are telling the voters that they are voting for an irrevocable decision. That is the covenant they made. The fact that they "forgot" to tell us that parliament may have to debate Article 50 first is a sideshow to that substantive matter. If you have a problem with that, Keith,

I do not have a problem with that. It is a fair description of the situation.
My problem was that you claimed to know all along that it was not an irrevocable decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 06:51 AM

I don't use the worst swear-words online to you'll just have to guess what the initials stand for.


Ahem.


"FOUTC"

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 07:07 AM

You once again resort to abuse because you have no other response.

You said, " I knew months before that the vote was advisory."

You clearly did not, because you were still calling it "irrevocable" long after the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 07:44 AM

Well whether Steve knew of not, it's a fact that the legislation makes it perfectly clear that the referendum result was advisory. And it's a fact that I knew it was advisory, months before the vote took place.

But I don't blindly believe everything that comes from the mouths of politicians, especially Tory politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 08:09 AM

I disagree with Steve Shaw in just about everything except beer and pubs in Manchester, but in this case even I can see the difference between saying that the act of leaving the EU would be irrevocable and saying that the verdict of the referendum was irrevocable.

I understood him to be saying say that having left the EU getting back in would be nigh on impossible. I had also heard, before the vote, that a referendum was 'advisory'. I also understood that the government was committed to implementing the result, although that was when they expected the result to be 'Remain'.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 08:15 AM

I know I said I had done but, in case anyone has any issues with comprehension. Do they still do that at school BTW? Anyway, just in case...

Your vote was irrevocable. Once cast it cannot be undone. If you did not check out the implications, more fool you.
The decision was advisory whichever way it went. That was set in stone.
Once article 50 is invoked, it is irrevocable. That is set in stone.
Once we are out of the EU it is irrevocable. That may or may not be true. No one has ever tried re-joining.
The Government said they would implement article 50 based on the decision.
The Government lied

End of story until we know whether the government is entitled to act without a full vote in the house and, if not, how that vote will go. What is the argument about and why is this thread still going?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 08:48 AM

Yep. Everything that all three of you have said. Keith is monkeying around with words again. Trying to pin me down with shades of meaning. Pity he couldn't pin himself down a bit better with his Geoffrey Wheatcroft fiasco.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 09:23 AM

In fact there is nothing irrevocable about "triggering Brexit". We shouldn't be fooled by a metaphor like 'triggering". All Article 50 means is giving notice of an intention to leave the EU, with at least a two year period of negotiations, which can only begin at that point. That two years can be extended if that is agreed by both sides.

But there is nothing to stop a government which has given such notice of its intention from anandoning it, and cancelling the whole thing. There is no need to seek permission from the rest of the EU for doing that. It seems pretty evident that one reason for insisting on at least two years delay is to give time forsecond thoughts, or a change of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 09:28 AM

Thank you, Kevin. I was not aware of that and I will amend my mind's eye view of what happens post Article 50 from 'irrevocable' to 'negotiable' :-) I hope others do the same.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 10:00 AM

"But there is nothing to stop a government which has given such notice of its intention from abandoning it, and cancelling the whole thing." - MGOH

Once Article 50 has been "triggered" there is no going back:

Article 50


1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 10:29 AM

It may be theoretically possible to reverse article 50 but Teribus is correct. Once Article 50 is triggered we're coming out. There will be no political will, or bravery, to reverse the thing either here or, especially, in the other major EU countries, who do not want to see anyone pissing around with this lest it triggers a landslide. If there's a fight to be had at all, it will have to be before Article 50 is triggered. Realpolitik, je pense.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 11:36 AM

Well whether Steve knew of not, it's a fact that the legislation makes it perfectly clear that the referendum result was advisory. And it's a fact that I knew it was advisory, months before the vote took place.

How very clever of you to know that before it has even been established in law!
How could you know the outcome before even the first hearing, never mind the appeal that has yet to be heard?

The legislation says that referenda are advisory but it is yet to be decided if a government has the power to make one binding.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 11:42 AM

'Referendums' is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.

in or out ain't a plurality!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 01:42 PM

We are agreed that the referendum was advisory
We are agreed that the government said it would abide by it's results
We are agreed that the government lied about that
We are agreed that the court case will decide if the government can or cannot break its own rules
We are agreed that we do not yet know the outcome of that yet
There was a slight hiccup in what was agreed about article 5o but Teribus has kindly made that clear by posting the legislation so,
We are agreed that, once triggered, Article 50 takes us out of the EU
We are agreed, I hope, that this is a very major issue with serious consequences whatever happens

If we are agreed on all the major points, what is the argument about? Whatever it is must be pretty trivial. Surely something to settle on another thread or by private communication?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 02:07 PM

Keith, I've linked to the legislation that was put in place to set the referendum in motion, and I've linked to the explanatory notes. It's perfectly clear to anyone with even half a brain that the referendum is advisory, and it was stated in the media on a number of occasions prior to the referendum that the referendum was advisory.

The only person on this thread who seems to be completely incapable of understanding this perfectly straightforward principle is you.

You need help.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 02:25 PM

If the result of the referendum had been to remain in the EU, that would have been the end of the matter........we can all be agreed on THAT.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 02:48 PM

Well, Iains, I've been discussing just that on several forumses recently.

Had the result been to stay in, especially had the result been as narrow that way as it was in fact, there would have been clamours for a rerun, and it would have happened eventually. The idea that brexiteers would have been far better losers that we are is laughable. Farage would have had us all in court by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 03:24 PM

It would certainly have been the end of the matter on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 04:09 PM

Close run votes generally tend to a contentious outcome. Whatever the vote was on, the losing side would argue the toss. But a majority is a majority.
It is lucky we do not have an electoral college to give the regions more say because regionally the vote was around 60+% for out.
This would cause even more strife and whining that it is not fair.
For myself voting was not a straight issue. Many aspects of the EU are of benefit. Many are not, especially the race to federalism and the holy trinity of france , germany and stupidity trying hard to alienate the majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 04:13 PM

It would have been the end of the matter for now simply because the government would not have had to break any rules to stay in.

D

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 07:02 PM

"But a majority is a majority."
Trump - a misogynist, racist, antisemitic fascist achieved a majority - do we accept that without comment?
THE WORLD ACCEPTED THIS MAJORITY - LOOK WHAT HAPPENED

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 07:19 PM

Not much of a majority, in fact. Clinton is projected to win the popular vote by about two million. The archaic electoral college system is wot got Trump elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 05:12 AM

Jim Carroll
You may feel Trump is the Devil Incarnate, others feel Killary Klingon
would likely have caused a massive extinction event with WW3

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 06:16 AM

"You may feel Trump is the Devil Incarnate, others feel Killary Klingon"
We only have Trumps own words and actions to go on - and your, it would appear
Do you believe him to be a misogynist, racist, hate monger or not - if not, why not, if he is, why are you supporting him, unless you are a misoginist.....?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:18 AM

We are agreed that the referendum was advisory

No we are not. It is disputed.
It had to be challenged in court, and the appeal is yet to be heard.

The government believes it had the right to call a referendum that would be binding, and so did Labour and the Lib Dems.

The court case was brought by private individuals, not any organisation or political group.

During the campaign, neither side disputed that it would be binding, and the electorate were told it would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:30 AM

We are agreed that the referendum was advisory

No we are not. It is disputed.
It had to be challenged in court, and the appeal is yet to be heard

Keith, surely you have understood by now that the cases are nothing to do with whether the referendum was advisory and entirely to do with who is authorised to invoke Article 50: the government or Parliament?

What would it take to demonstrate this, as neither the official documents nor discussion appears to be enough. You can even read the transcript of the hearing which is perfectly clear what they were ruling on.(page 2, line 19 and following)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:38 AM

The government believes it can invoke Article 50 because the referendum was binding not advisory.
That is the disputed case now being decided at law.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:48 AM

You're wrong. Read the legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:56 AM

BBC on the High Court action,
"But Mr Wright, the government's most senior legal officer, said it was clear Parliament had had "multiple opportunities" in recent years to circumscribe the government's prerogative powers with regard to EU exit, most recently in last year's act authorising the referendum, and had chosen not to do so.

The power to activate Article 50, he told the court, was a "classic example of the proper and well established use of royal prerogative" with regard to treaty making and breaking.

The use of executive powers to give effect to the will of the British people in respect of the referendum result, he added, was "wholly within the expectation of Parliament".

And he suggested that those now urging Parliament to be given a veto on the removal of specific rights and their subsequent retention risked transgressing on the referendum verdict itself by asking Parliament "the same question as put to the people".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37704117

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:59 AM

BWM, you are wrong.
The validity of the legislation is disputed.
Read the government case to the High Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:25 AM

When asked to decide on whether something is so, and I have the court proceedings, legislation, and the grounds on which the government is appealing the case - all available on government websites - on the one hand, and on the other a BBC report of what the government legal advisor said during an interview, I am more inclined to regard the former as more reliable.

And since you quoted the BBC news pages, why not quote www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37864983 (hope I have typed that correctly) where there is a paragraph entitled "Was the referendum result mandatory or advisory?" Care to guess what it says?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:25 AM

Mr Carroll
If you have to resort to insults to further your debate you are pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:44 AM

At the time the referendum was taken the legislation stated quite clearly that is was advisory. That cannot be disputed. It is a fact. I am surprised that the courts have not already ruled that the government were in breach of promise knowing that the leaflet they put out was a lie but I am no lawyer. I suspect the that the government is desperately trying to find an agreement with the judiciary to save face. Just my opinion of course.

I really don't know how many different ways this can be put and I am not at all sure I want to :-(

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 11:03 AM

"If you have to resort to insults to further your debate you are pathetic."
My respone to yuo was two questions - not an insult, unless of course, you believe my recognizing you as a Trump supporter is insulting
Only you can answer that by responding to my points
Are you a Trump supporter?
If you are, where have I insulted you and tell us why you are?
If you are not, say so, stop supporting him and join in the condemnation
Your attempts to dodge questions by describing them as insults are every bit as "pathetic" as Ake's - and about as played out.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 11:49 AM

Once again, and As usual, you're wrong, KAoH. The validity of the Referendum legislation is disputed.

What is disputed is the procedure required to enact the result of the Referendum. The government wish to trigger Art. 50 by Royal Prerogative, but the High Court says (correctly) that parliament is sovereign, and trumps RP - therefore a debate and vote is required before Art. 50 can be enacted.

What's the weather like up there on Planet Zog?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 11:51 AM

Mr Carroll misogynist is insulting. Go and blather elsewhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 11:55 AM

"The validity of the Referendum legislation is disputed."

Correction - should have read "The validity of the Referendum legislation is NOT disputed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 12:32 PM

"Mr Carroll misogynist is insulting. "
Have I called you a misogynist?
I didn't call you an misogynist - I asked why you were supporting Trump and suggested that, if you were you were supporting his misogyny
Take your cowardly lying elsewhere.
You people are all the same - all bluff - no backbone to face the consequences of the monsters you support.
Trump is a racist, misogynist hate monger and that is what those wo support him are condoning
Doesn't get more complicated than that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 12:38 PM

Mr Carroll you obviously have issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 12:53 PM

Mr Carroll why do you throw your toys out of the pram whenever someone has the audacity to argue with you. Is it your extremme arrogance, or lack of medication?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 01:11 PM

"Mr Carroll why do you throw your toys out of the pram whenever someone has the audacity to argue with you."
Why do you refuse to respond to straightforward questions?
I have no problem with argument - I just hate hypocrites and dishonest people is the answer to your question
Any supporter of Trump has "issues" - with common decency and humanity
The man is a hate-mongering fascist.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 02:15 PM

At the time the referendum was taken the legislation stated quite clearly that is was advisory. That cannot be disputed. It is a fact.

The government believed it had the authority to be bound by the result of that referendum, and their belief was never questioned by Parliament.
The electorate were told the result would be binding, and were given no guidance by any political party or campaign group that it was not.

and on the other a BBC report of what the government legal advisor said during an interview, I am more inclined to regard the former as more reliable.

Read it again. It is not from an interview it is the government's case as put to the High Court.

BWM,
but the High Court says (correctly) that parliament is sovereign,

Clever of you again to know they were correct when the appeal has yet to be heard!

The government wish to trigger Art. 50 by Royal Prerogative,

Yes. That is how they intended to make the referendum binding despite the legislation you keep on about.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 03:00 PM

At the time the referendum was taken the legislation stated quite clearly that is was advisory. That cannot be disputed. It is a fact.

Yes, exactly. No qualifications. No excuses. What the government may or may not have believed and what it conned people who did not appraise themselves of the facts into is of no consequence.

At the time the referendum was taken the legislation stated quite clearly that is was advisory. That cannot be disputed. It is a fact.

Is anyone disputing that as a fact?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:09 PM

Clearly it was an advisory referendum - that's what the legislation made crystal clear. The fact that the government had indicated that it intended to act in accordance with the referendum result, whatever that might be, made absolutely no difference to that legal position.

The court case wasn't about that at all. It was about whether the Prime Minister has the legal authority to act in accord with that advisory referendum by virttue of her constitutional role as "Crown in Parliament", or whether that authority lies with Parliament. So far the ruling has been that the Prime Minister does not have that authority. The Supreme Court might decide differently, though it is hard to see how that could be justified.

But the decision as to whether and when to "trigger Brexit" depends on a choice to be the made by politicians, either by the PM or by her fellow MPs. The referendum vote provides a context within which that choice has to be made. It would be perfectly legally possible to reject the advice given by that referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:31 PM

Not according to The Professor, The All-Knowing. He says that the government is challenging the legislation.

Very odd that the government would challenge, via the High Court and Supreme Court, the very legislation that they themselves introduced.

But, of course, it's all in his fevered, OCD imagination....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:53 PM

The government is challenging the court ruling. The outcome of the Supreme Court hearing will determine whether the Prime Minister (who is for these purposes "the government" ) has to get the agreement of parliament in order to trigger Brexit.

If the Supreme Court determines that under existing law she does not have that authority then parliament's approval has to be obtained. It would of course in theory be possible to introduce legislation that would change existing law, and give her that authority, but that would require parliamentary approval in itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 03:01 AM

Precisely, Kevin. You understand that, I understand that, almost everyone else on here understands that. There's just one person who doesn't 'get it', despite having been told umpteen times by those of us who do understand it.

I've had battles with the Muskets, Jim, Steve, et al, where I stood up for him and told them they were being unfair. I'm beginning to understand where they're coming from now.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 03:06 AM

and on the other a BBC report of what the government legal advisor said during an interview, I am more inclined to regard the former as more reliable.

Read it again. It is not from an interview it is the government's case as put to the High Court.

Yes, I made a mistake. I misread it as the BBC interviewing the government lawyer and him explaining his case, rather than a BBC report of what was said in court. My error, fully admitted.

Which does not change one iota that the argument was about who had the right to invoke Article 50, and not a claim the referendum is binding.

We could go further: exactly the same issue would arise even if there had not been any thought of a referendum. It would still be necessary to clarify who invokes Article 50.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 04:12 AM

Is anyone disputing that as a fact?

Yes, it is disputed.

Not according to The Professor, The All-Knowing. He says that the government is challenging the legislation.

Not all knowing. Not being a constitutional lawyer I do not even have an opinion on the possible outcome, and am in awe of those who knew for certain even before there was any question of a court case.

I did not say what the government was challenging, I quoted their actual case as put to the hearing.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 04:46 AM

Give it a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 05:56 AM

Absolutely no one said or even intimated that they knew that there was any question of a court case. The only thing that people have said they knew is that the referendum was advisory. Which is was. If anyone can provide a link to anywhere where anyone stated that they knew there was a question of a court case I suggest they provide it. Otherwise it is incorrect to say that anyone did such a thing.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 06:03 AM

A difference that makes no difference isn't really a difference in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 07:59 AM

BTW - I am no constitutional lawyer either but, before I 'dropped out' of higher education I was studying history, economics and British constitution and government. While being far from expert in any of the subjects I have retained an interest and grounding in all.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:02 PM

We do not disagree on any facts.
Yes it is a fact that referenda are deemed advisory in the legislation, but this one was offered as binding in that Parliament would have no veto. The legitimacy of that is now being tested.

I can not remember the SNP position, but the 3 main parties plus UKIP all offered a binding, in/out referendum in their manifestos.
Parliament did not challenge their exclusion from the decision in the year leading up to the referendum, and even the current challenge is not from Parliamentarians.

No-one was given any reason to suspect that the vote would not be binding and without Parliament being involved.
They were given an undertaking that it would be binding, by the government, in an official document delivered to every home in the UK at public expense.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:04 PM

...so yes it was advisory, but the government undertook to accept the advice and Parliament never demurred.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:11 PM

Yes, it is disputed.

You appear to be saying that there are people who dispute the existence of the words of the legislation setting up the referendum, which specifically state that it is advisory. And you seem to imply that this is a rational view, and that you are willing to entertain it.

No one questions that the government stated that its fixed intention was to accept the outcome of this advisory referendum, and that this remains its intention. The court case has nothing whatsoever with that, it is purely about whether, under currently existing legislation, it has the ability to do that without the approval of Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:21 PM

You appear to be saying that there are people who dispute the existence of the words of the legislation setting up the referendum

Why would I dispute something so easily verifiable?
It is disputed that THIS referendum was advisory because it was pledged that the "advice," i.e. the result, would be accepted whatever it was and without Parliament having a say.

The court case has nothing whatsoever with that,

Of course it has!

it is purely about whether, under currently existing legislation, it has the ability to do that without the approval of Parliament.

That was the pledge given for this referendum, that the advice would be taken and Parliament would have no say about it.
There was no objection to that until the result came in.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:29 PM

So, I think it is now agreed that the referendum (Plural referendums) at the time it was taken was advisory. There is no doubt about that from anyone now.

We do not disagree on any facts.
Yes it is a fact that referenda are deemed advisory in the legislation, but this one was offered as binding in that Parliament would have no veto. The legitimacy of that is now being tested.

It is the legitimacy of the promise that is being tested. Not the referendum itself. As per my point many posts ago. The government lied.

That was the last sticking point. It has now been removed. Just what is the argument about?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 01:40 PM

A fuller Lewis Carroll explanation

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 01:46 PM

I think it is now agreed that the referendum (Plural referendums) at the time it was taken was advisory. There is no doubt about that from anyone now.

No. If the "advice" was guaranteed to be acted on, it becomes binding and not advisory.

It is the legitimacy of the promise that is being tested. Not the referendum itself. As per my point many posts ago. The government lied.

No. The government believed, and still believes, it had the right to make that promise, and Parliament did not challenge it.
So not a lie.
It has yet to be decided at law if they were right to do that or not.

So not a lie and not even proven wrong yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 01:48 PM

I love it McG :-) Perfect example of a Mudcat thread...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 02:19 PM

It is not a lie that the referendum at the time it was taken was advisory. It is a proven and agreed fact. The government are now trying to make retrospective legislation because they have been caught telling porkies. I really don't know what else this argument is about. Have I got it right?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 03:39 PM

So what on earth were you talking about, keith, when you said, in reference to precisely that point, that "Yes, it is disputed"?

Whatever "pledge" might have been given by the government in advance of the referendum, that can have no legal force. Laws don't work like that.

Even if the government had said "parliament will have no say in this" - which it did nor - that would legally have no effect whatsoever. What determines whether parliament has a say or not - which still has to be determined - is whatever legislation is in force at present, as interpreted by the highest court.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 04:43 PM

So what on earth were you talking about, keith,

The professor does not, and never has had, the vaguest idea what he was, or is, rabbiting on about.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 05:08 PM

A "pledge" is merely a prediction. Predictions are by definition speculative.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 05:35 PM

A pledge is not a prediction. It is a declaration of intent, a promise with connotations of sacred or honour based validity. A promise on steroids.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 05:43 PM

What was that about a "veto?" 😂😂😂

Just leave Keith alone. If you feel like continuing this conversation with Keith, do yourself a favour and question your own sanity first.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 03:17 AM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 04:46 AM

So what on earth were you talking about, keith, when you said, in reference to precisely that point, that "Yes, it is disputed"?

It is disputed that the referendum was only advisory.
It was sold by all the main parties as a binding decision.
The people would decide, not Parliament.
No-one disputed the legitimacy of that pledge until the result came in.

Whatever "pledge" might have been given by the government in advance of the referendum, that can have no legal force. Laws don't work like that.

Not being a constitutional lawyer, I can not argue that point.
You may be right, but I would remind you that until the appeal it is still in dispute.
Do you have inside information?
Do any of you?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 04:52 AM

What could be, should be, would be is a rather meaningless discussion until the government appeal is heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 05:10 AM

I find the governments position rather akin to a used car salesman who has been found out clocking his vehicles. He is taken to court for misleading people but his argument is that the mileage on the car is what he promised it to be, regardless of the truth. It would be laughable if it wasn't going on at such a high level.

But, yes Steve, there is nothing more we can do or say. I'm out as well.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 05:16 AM

Steve, Dave, see you in the bar. Diet coke for me....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:40 PM

All I have said on this has been factual.
You can not challenge anything I say.
Your only response has been abuse, insult, and now walking away.

Cabinet Office, 6th April, sent to every household.
"A once in a generation decision
The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union."

"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."

No-one here or in Parliament or the media challenged that statement until the result came in.
Parliament did not question it and all the main parties made the same promises in their manifestos.

Parliament still has not challenged it. The legal challenge was brought by private individuals.

I predict that the appeal will fail. Whatever the legality, the Judiciary will be determined to demonstrate their independence from government and media pressure.

Whatever the outcome, we all voted in the belief that our decision would be binding.
If our "advice" in or out was decreed to be enforceable and to be enforced either way, it is no longer advice.
It is binding.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 02:22 PM

All I have said has been factual.
The referendum was advisory.

You cannot challenge anything I say.
The plain black and white legislation is that it was advisory. Cannot be disputed.

"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."
That was a lie by dodgy Dave and his mates.

Whatever the outcome, we all voted in the belief that our decision would be binding.
I certainly didn't. My belief was that it was advisory.

As to walking away. Yes, I would have, had I not been challenged otherwise.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 02:37 PM

Well done, BTW. I was suckered into responding good and proper :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 04:08 PM

No one is denying that the government said it would accept the referendum, keith. it was a promise, and one of the defining features of a promise is that it can be broken.

It was a promise to accept advice. The question before the courts is not about whether the referendum was advisory - that has been accepted to be the legal position. The question is whether the government has the ability to fulfil that promise without seeking and obtaining the agreement of parliament.

It would in fact have been possible to make the referendum binding - that had been done in the case of the previous referendum, on the voting system. But it wasn't done this time, and that was stated in the referendum bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 06:44 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:13 AM

May wants to use the power of 'Royal Prerogative' to invoke Art. 50. The High Court has judged that a law passed by parliament cannot be trumped by Royal Prerogative. That's the fundamental principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty on which our entire constitution is based, and rightly so.

The legislation clearly stated that the referendum was 'advisory' only. A promise made by the Prime Minister cannot, and does not, change that piece of legislation. Only parliament can do that.

You were lied to by Cameron, he made a promise he could not legally fulfill - just one of a long sequence of lies and broken promises by him - because he was fighting for his political life, and he expected to win and not have to fulfill that promise.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:17 AM

And, of course, Parliamentary Sovereignty (a.k.a. 'Taking Back Control') was one of the things Brexiteers voted for, wasn't it? Along with £350 million a week for the NHS, and kicking the immigrants out?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:26 AM

And, having been gormless enough to be sucked in by the lies of Cameron, Bozo, Fararse and the Little Scottish Viper, you're now being even more gormless by allowing yourself to be sucked in by the lies of May who, despite her weasel-words, is a staunch Bremainer, and is seeking a means of defeating and abandoning Brexit in a way that will leave her and her allies with clean hands, and without egg on their faces.

Watch this space...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 07:01 AM

Never mind, Toxic tony blair is riding in to save us all, as we are not judged capable of voting on such important issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 07:05 AM


Never mind, Toxic tony blair is riding in to save us all

I noticed that as well. Presumably because he feels there are not enough people involved who are certain only they have all the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 07:21 AM

With his vastly inflated ego there is room for no others.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stu
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 09:13 AM

If Blair weighs in we're fucked. He's precisely the sort of person no-one wants involved in Brexit at all.

By the way, what happened to Farige the Garige's idea we could be like Norway and keep access to the single market? The Brexiteers seem to have developed an objection to the single market now. Was that more bullshit?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 01:02 PM

Backwoodsman, I think you are spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 02:03 PM

Thanks, Dick! I hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 02:38 PM

Advice that must be enforced is no longer just advice.

You were lied to by Cameron,

It was not a lie if it was believed to be true.
And, it was not just Cameron. The entire ruling establishment including all the political parties were complicit.
Despite what you say, no-one doubted or challenged it until the result, and then it was private individuals not politicians who made the challenge.

Parliament was not to be consulted.
That is what the legal case is about, and despite your assertions, it has yet to be settled.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 03:00 PM

Nice observation from Micheal Martin - not someone I would take much notice of (apart from his miraculous achievement ing making our pubs smoker-free zones
Jim Carroll

MARTIN CRITICISES BREXIT BRAND OF NATIONALISM
FF Leader calls for greater urgency to tackle Britain's departure from EU
We will not join them in their right-wing ideology
TIM O'BRIEN

Micheál Martin has claimed Ireland will not fall into the trap of "backward-looking nationalism" as the British did over Brexit.
Vowing the Irish "are not going to join the English in their desire to repeal the 20th century", the Fianna Fáil leader used the occasion of the commemoration of former IRA man and later government minister Seán Moylan yesterday to claim "a hard Brexit is already under way".
Mr Martin said Britain had become "suspicious of outsiders and committed to the historically false idea that you don't need strong international bodies to secure lasting cooperation and prosperity between nations".
"We will not join them in their right-wing ideology of trade rules with no social dimension and no enforceable laws," he said.
But he also acknowledged Brexit could be tough on Irish industries which rely on Britain as a key export market.
He called for the EU to allow Ireland to suspend rules on State aid to support industries which take a hit as a result of Brexit.
"In the five months since the UK's Brexit vote the only things which are clear are that their policy is a shambles and that it is already causing real damage on this island. Brexit is not something which is happening in two [years' time], it is happening now."
Mr Martin said Ireland desperately needed a new urgency and ambition in Government to deal with the fallout of Brexit and other rising threats internationally.
"The unprecedented decline in sterling may soon be followed by new barriers to trade," he said. "We can't stand by and;let this slow-motion crash happen."
Mr Martin said the Irish nationalism evident in the commemorations held this year was "open and generous".
"[The events] respected diversity and promoted the idea of reconciliation," he said.
He said, the people of Ireland had shown "how to look to the past in order to help understand who we are and to draw inspiration for our future".
"This has been a powerful testimony to the fact that patriotism can be the mark of an inclusive, modern republic.
"At this grave, dark moment in world affairs we should never stop reminding ourselves of the republican spirit which has defined our modern history and should define how we face the future."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 03:20 PM

Keith, I once had a row with Musket on a thread, and berated him for calling you 'Thick Cunt'.

I'm starting to wonder why I was so stupid as to defend you.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 03:24 PM

Cameron knew very well that the referendum was advisory. If he did not he would surely be the most ill informed prime minister in history, which I do not believe. It was, therefore, a lie told at the highest level and the establishment were indeed complicit. Non of them predicted the outcome of the referendum correctly. What they did was take a gamble on people voting to remain and, yes, the question would not have arisen if that happened because no one would have had to do anything. They severely miscalculated and what we are now seeing is the result of this major blunder. If they had proved to be right, it would have shut people like Farage and his cronies down and they would have now been saying that the referendum was only advisory so the government should leave the EU anyway.

In my opinion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 05:07 AM

THIS sums up the Brexit buffoons' arguments spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 05:13 AM

"It was not a lie if it was believed to be true."
You mean a lie ceases to be a lie if it succeeds in fooling people?
Extraordinary what you learn if you live long enough!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 07:45 AM

Yes, Jim, that was the bit that convinced me that Musket was, conceivably, correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 08:07 AM

BWM
Keith, I once had a row with Musket on a thread, and berated him for calling you 'Thick Cunt'.
I'm starting to wonder why I was so stupid as to defend you.

I must have said something really silly and wrong then.

Please identify what it is, or take back the insult and the obscenity.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 08:21 AM

Dave,
Cameron knew very well that the referendum was advisory. If he did not he would surely be the most ill informed prime minister in history, which I do not believe.

The legal case on whether it was advice or a decision is not yet finished, so Cameron might yet prove to be right.

And it was not just Cameron.

Corbyn,
"The referendum has taken place, a decision has been made, I think we have got to respect that decision and work out our relationship with Europe in the future."
("Decision" not "advice.")

The Independent 23 June.
"For now, both sides are, officially at least, working on the assumption that the British people's decision on 23 June will indeed be final."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/what-is-brexit-why-is-there-an-eu-referendum-a7042791.html

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 08:23 AM

Jim and BWM
"It was not a lie if it was believed to be true."
You mean a lie ceases to be a lie if it succeeds in fooling people?

If a statement is made in good faith in the belief it is true, it is a mistake not a lie.

The law has yet to decide if it was a mistake or the actual truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: gillymor
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 08:27 AM

George Costanza agrees:

Art imitates life

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 08:31 AM

Cameron is already right. He knew the referendum was advisory as did all the other politicians. What he was wrong about was judging the peoples feelings and making promises he could not keep within the framework of current constitutional procedure. What the court case is about is trying to get that constitutional procedure changed. Those are facts.

I do not believe that they should be allowed to change the law just to suit justify that promise and I would have said that regardless of the outcome. The government are now desperately trying to find a way out of the mess they have got themselves in. Those are my opinions.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 08:51 AM

That is correct, Dave. Over-interpreting what Corbyn said (which was full of caveats in any case) and giving us the opinion of a newspaper is all very well but we live by the rule of law in this country. Nothing about the setting up or execution of this referendum seems to me, (or to the High Court) to trump the 2010 legislation. Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't bow to the rest of the establishment like Lord Denning did over the Birmingham Six. You can bet your life the screws are on.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 08:51 AM

"If a statement is made in good faith in the belief it is true, it is a mistake not a lie."
If a Prime Minister is incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction on such a serious subject he should not have been appointed to office in the first place
Most of our politicians have long ceased considering truth to be part of their remit, the few who might do end up being accused of antisemitism by unscrupulous colleagues and people like yourself, who have little regard for truth.
The Government's stated appeal on this matter is, I believe, in the hope that they find members of the judiciary who have as little disregard for the law as they do.
Political disregard for the law was displayed brilliantly by the refusal to hold an open enquiry into Orgreave - and look how long it took to have honest enquiries into Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday
Feckin' ridiculous that we are governed by untried criminals.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 10:15 AM

Cameron is already right. He knew the referendum was advisory as did all the other politicians.

How do you know this?
They all said it was binding as did both campaigns.

After the results some individuals challenged it in court, but it has yet to be decided!

The government lawyers say they have a strong case and are confident of winning.

If a Prime Minister is incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction on such a serious subject he should not have been appointed to office in the first place

Corbyn too then.
And every other politician because they all agreed the referendum decision would be final.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 10:27 AM

True. I do not know for certain. But if Cameron, or any serving member of the house, was not aware that the referendum was advisory then they were fools. The possibility that they were unaware is just that, a possibility and, in my opinion, a slim one. The far more likely probability is that they all knew and chose to ignore that fact because they also 'knew' that the vote would be to remain and the promise to take us out would never have to be fulfilled. And yes, this is politicians from both sides of the house and from both camps of the referendum.

I believe that they knew and either lied or chose to hope for the best. It is a far more likely scenario than the one being put forward that they did not know the legislation that they themselves had drafted and were stupid enough to put it to the country anyway.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 10:28 AM

"And every other politician because they all agreed the referendum decision would be final."
Sighhhhhhhh!
Whether it is final or not - it still has to be passed by parliament and every politician is aware of this from the shite they give us as promises and then renege on
How often have they used the excuse of not being able to get it through Parliament for not coming up with what they promised.
It is basic parliamentary procedure.
Why on earth should anybody wish to spend time and effort to claim that politicians haven't lied - their trade is lying in what passes for 'democracy'?
Corbyn, as far as I know, has never been PM - one of the valid criticisms of him is his lack of experience.
If Parliament can't draw in inexperienced leaders and allow them to develop we may as well bow our necks to rising unemployment, increasing poverty, a continued widening off the haves and have nots gap and no industry to make Britain as self-sufficient as the Brexiters claim it needs to be.
The shambolic leadership we ahve at present are quite happy that things should continue as they are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 11:16 AM

Of course it is binding on the Government if the Prime Minister says so. That does not prevent Parliament debating it, nor does it prevent the Government from enforcing a three line whip to ensure that the Government uses its majority in the House of Commons to get the result it wants, and in this particular case that means Brexit.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 11:50 AM

The court case isn't about whether the government wants to be bound by the result. Constitutionally, they can say that if they want, like Trump and his Mexican wall, but it has no legal force. The government can say they're bound, then change their minds, foolish but not illegal. The court case is about whether May is entitled to exercise prerogative to trigger Article 50 (the implication of this being that British law would certainly have to be modified, which can only be done by parliament) or whether that should be subject to parliamentary approval. Hope this helps Keith to clear the fudge from his brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 12:11 PM

I've already told them that, several times, Steve.
Unfortunately, they seem not to have sufficient wick in their lamps to understand even as simple a concept as Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 01:06 PM

"Of course it is binding on the Government if the Prime Minister says so. "
Yeah - sure it is - or would be, if Britain was a dictatorship
Early days yet - fortunatelt 'Rule of Law' still prevails
Now if Maggie had hung on a bit longer....!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 01:15 PM

Quite so, Jim. And even a three line whip does not guarantee how your members will vote vide 10 July 2012

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 02:17 AM

Unlikely DMcG but true. I say unlikely because our self-serving professional politicians know the threat that awaits them if they decide to ignore the Referendum result.

Here is how the tale could unfold:

Version 1:

Parliament debates the triggering of Article 50, the Conservatives enforce a three line whip and everybody stays on-side. Result the Conservatives win the vote and Brexit goes ahead having been debated in Parliament.

Version 2:

Parliament debates the triggering of article 50, the Conservatives enforce a three line whip but do not win the vote. Result Theresa May resigns and goes to the country. In the ensuing General Election there is only one issue - Brexit - the Labour Party under Corbyn will be massacred, the only people who will stand any chance of being returned will be those who make cast iron promises to trigger Article 50 will be returned. My reason for stating that? Take a look at the results of the EU Referendum in terms of voting districts who voted to Leave - it was roughly 67% for Leave versus 23% for Remain. Constituency voting, I believe would be along similar lines in an election brought about by Parliament sticking two fingers up to the wishes of the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 02:50 AM

I would agree with Teribus' analysis but for a couple of things. The massacre would not be limited to the Labour party. Any standing member that does not offer that cast iron promise will suffer. I am also not so sure about the constituency voting. As the referendum was not on constituency lines that is a tough one to be so sure about. Yes, chances are the voting would be along the same lines but that does not take into account party and member loyalty.

One good thing that will come out of it if the appeal goes against the government. The MPs will actually be forced to do what they are paid for. The referendum, as far as I am concerned, was a huge abdication of responsibility. We pay these people to make this type of decision and they wimped out of it. I hope the courts do tell them to do their job and stop whinging!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 03:37 AM

If the Referendum showed anything at all DtG it showed how ill-informed and clueless our elected representatives were on both sides of the argument.

As to "party loyalty", I believe that our "professional politicians" of all shades, who have f****d up right royally over the last couple of decades can no longer take the electorate for granted.

Like it or not the British electorate in the EU Referendum made a choice, if that is not respected by Parliament then the next General Election in the UK will absolutely astound the political establishment of this country and shake it to its very foundations, and who knows maybe they will deserve it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 04:59 AM

I agree, but sadly it seems to be partly because we have become a nation of 'reality show' politics. The major issues are as dictated by the media barons and they seem to love the mavericks and popular one trick wonders of the political world. The referendum was a single issue but a general election should never be fought on that basis. I know, given the earlier scenario, that is what would happen but I cannot help be saddened by the fact that people have become so disenchanted with politics that they are no longer voting for what is best, but what is the lesser of the evils. Even worse, when all major parties are viewed in those terms, they vote for an alternative, no matter how harmful that may be in the long term.

I believe it is what has happened in the US and it is why Farage is so popular here. I know we will never agree on Corbyn but I genuinely hope that, unlike Sanders in the US, he will provide a real viable alternative to the current scourge of neolibralism. But maybe we are now getting too far from Brexit :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 07:17 AM

If the Referendum showed anything at all DtG it showed how ill-informed and clueless our elected representatives were on both sides of the argument.

...our "professional politicians" of all shades, who have f****d up right royally over the last couple of decades...

Well you say all this but you persist in telling us that we must respect the democratic will of the people wot have spoken, etc. So you don't mind that the referendum was a charade predicated on a bunch of lies from one side and wholesale scaremongering from the other, all appealing to the lowest instincts of the people, with good information scarcely getting a look-in. When you're ready, do tell us what all this has to do with real democracy and how it legitimises the referendum.

In my view Article 50 should not be triggered until the people of this country are presented honestly with the terms of our leaving. They should be asked the question "In light of the negotiated terms for brexit, should the government still go ahead and start the process of leaving the EU, or should we remain a member of the EU?"

(And please don't give me the old guff about "not showing our hand." The EU knows full well already what our hand is. The only reason May doesn't want to show her hand is that she doesn't want the people of this country to see the embarrassing fudges and compromises she's going to have to make. We saw the EU getting very hawkish yesterday during the visit of the farcical buffoon David Davis. Quite right too. Pour encourager les autres).

That would be far closer to my idea of democracy. I don't believe in referendums, but we are where we are to coin a cliche, and I also don't believe that this issue has been addressed according to best practice within our democracy, and a single issue general election (how's that for an oxymoron...) would be even worse. If there's anything especially undemocratic about asking people if they want to change their minds in the light of vital new information, well I'm waiting for you to tell me what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 07:54 AM

Absolutely spot-on in all respects, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 09:27 AM

"I like the idea of democracy. You have to have someone everyone distrusts," said Brutha. "That way, everyone's happy."

― Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 10:04 AM

Cheers, John. I'm just waiting now to be told now that I'm a whingeing, sore-loser remoaner.

What we need a damn sight more of in this country is decent political education. When we activists talked about this in the 70s and 80s we were shot down as militant bloody trots trying to start a revolution. But politics is what runs us, an integral part of everyone's lives. Like religion, it can't be dealt with without bringing the partisan nature of it into the frame. If a trade unionist addresses senior pupils in a school he's hardly going to deprive and corrupt 'em. Similarly with a Tory or Labour or Scots Nat speaker. We can't afford to sideline politics to the safe confines of carefully-scripted history and geography syllabuses. But shock horror at the very thought, eh? The thing is, keeping people ignorant about politics (and just listen to some of the dismal vox pop stuff you have to endure on the Beeb news) just leaves them wide open to manipulation by cynical politicians like Farage. How does that fit with the virtuous concept we call democracy? Given a well-educated public, that bloke wouldn't get a single bloody vote. Well I'm exaggerating, but you know what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 10:05 AM

Deprave

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 10:08 AM

Parliament was not intended to have the final decision on article 50.
That was the whole point of the referendum.
Everyone knew that Parliament would overwhelmingly oppose its being triggered.

The decision to leave was to be taken or rejected by the people and not Parliament.
All the parties and all politicians and both campaign groups accepted that.
The legal challenge on May's right to act on the decision was brought by private individuals.

The government lawyers say they have a strong case and are confident of winning.
It will be decided on fine points of obscure constitutional law.
It has not been decided yet.

I made a prediction not based on law.
I am in awe of all you so versed in constitutional law that you can pre-empt the judges whose decision it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 10:17 AM

The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP said: "The country voted to leave the European Union, in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to re-join it through the back door, and no second referendum. We do not believe this case has legal merit. The result should be respected and the Government intends to do just that."

The Attorney will appear at the hearings in the High Court on 13 and 17th October.

Background

The detailed grounds filed with the court by the Secretary of State assert: "The Government intends to give effect to the outcome of the referendum by bringing about the exit of the UK from the EU. That is a proper constitutional and lawful step to take in light of the referendum result."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/attorney-general-to-defend-brexit-legal-challenge

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 10:23 AM

Say good night, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 10:29 AM

I have not pre-empted anyone or anything. I have given the facts as we know them. I have repeated them multiple times before so there is little point in doing so again. As far as I remember no one else has pre-empted anything and all have said we will have to await the outcome of the appeal. Are there any examples of such pre-emptive behavior that I have missed?

I have also clearly stated that while I am no expert in constitutional law it is quite apparent that the government lied and is now desperately trying to save face. That is not a fact, simply my opinion but, on the balance of probabilities, I don't believe anyone can dismiss that view out of hand.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 10:44 AM

Yes Keith, and Jeremy Wright, Tory MP and dodgy expenses claims dealer, didn't do very well in putting the government's case to the High Court, did he? Better luck next time, Jezza! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 10:49 AM

"Everyone knew that Parliament would overwhelmingly oppose its being triggered."

Everyone knew no such thing, because before the referendum there was no prospect on the horizon whatsoever of a parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50, clown. Never in the offing.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 10:50 AM

I would not dismiss anyone's views out of hand, though mine have been by many and I have been subjected to ridicule and abuse just for stating facts.

I could soon find examples of unequivocal assertions made here that the government has no case.
The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP says they have.
I am not qualified to judge, unlike many here apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 10:57 AM

Everyone knew no such thing, because before the referendum there was no prospect on the horizon whatsoever of a parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50, clown. Never in the offing.

Speak for yourself Steve.
All the established parties are pro EU membership, and always have been.
That is why Farage felt the need for a new one.

That new party won the last EU election and with their promise of a referendum posed a real risk to the big 3 in 2015.
Suddenly they all supported a referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:01 AM

I could soon find examples of unequivocal assertions made here that the government has no case.

In which case, please do so. It is unfair to imply that all who have argued against your case should be subject to the sarcastic comments made at the end of the 23 Nov 16 - 10:08 AM and 23 Nov 16 - 10:50 AM posts. I think it unlikely that you will find that anyone has stated that their opinions are unequivocal. If there are any please call them out so we can decide if there are 'many here' after all.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:04 AM

Alternatively we could stop quibbling about semantics and who said what but that would need the co-operation of all parties concerned. Something less likely than reaching a major decision in the EU parliament...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:09 AM

all who have argued against your case

Ah, but then, the Professor HAS no case, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Demonstrating it yet again surely will not convince him he's spouting rubbish, will it?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:58 AM

I'm sorry, Keith, but that is a deliberate misreading of what I said. Everybody DIDN'T know what a parliamentary vote would have yielded because there had never been any prospect before the referendum of either a debate or vote on triggering Article 50. Utterly and pointlessly hypothetical. Talking past people is your modus operandi, but do not tell me while you're doing it to "speak for myself" when I'm telling you the plain facts of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 10:10 PM

Steve, it is a fact that there was no anti-EU party until UKIP.
Ukip was a one issue party. Anti-EU.
With only one UKIP MP, Parliament could only vote Remain.
Everyone knows that.
The referendum may have changed that as MPs may fear to go against their electors.

giving us the opinion of a newspaper is all very well but we live by the rule of law in this country.

The Independent is a respectable and respected publication.
It is not known for editorial ignorance or being partisan.
On the day of the refendum it said, "But for now, both sides are, officially at least, working on the assumption that the British people's decision on 23 June will indeed be final."

I quoted to show that it is a reasonable and widely held view.
You and BWM call me "thick cunt" for offering it.
Why so confrontational and nasty?
Why can you not exchange views without obscenity, insult and aggression?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 02:09 AM

I would not dismiss anyone's views out of hand, though mine have been by many and I have been subjected to ridicule and abuse just for stating facts."

Complete bollocks. You don't state 'facts', you state your own, highly-spun, interpretation of 'facts'. You have been presented with the referendum legislation - not someone's opinion of the legislation, but the actual legislation from the goverment's website - and the explanatory note from the legislation, which clearly states that the referendum is advisory only, yet you continue to deny that it was advisory, even to the point where you tried to claim that the PM's 'promise' to enact the result of the referendum somehow over-ruled the legislation itself.

When you speak poppycock, it should come as no surprise that you get called out on it. When you continue with the poppycock, it's hardly surprising that people begin to doubt your intelligence, your sanity, or both.

You and BWM call me "thick cunt" for offering it.

Nowhere in n this thread, or any other for that matter, have I called you "thick cunt". More evidence of your inability to read and comprehend what is written. My comment referred to Musket's habit of calling you by that term, which I had publicly and privately remonstrated with him for using, but I said that I was beginning to understand how your behaviour had provoked him into calling by that epithet.

So, your claim is made either because of your lack of comprehension skills, or it's a barefaced lie.

Either way, I refuse to be baited and provoked by a notorious troll, so this will be my final communication with you. Feel free to continue with your ludicrous rants. You'll be talking to the hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 02:50 AM

We still await "examples of unequivocal assertions made here that the government has no case". I am very concerned that by making such assertions it is implied that a number of people, who have done no such thing, have been unjustly accused. If there is a case for anyone to answer please make the allegations more specific so we know who is supposed to be guilty of such unequivocal assertions.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Howard Jones
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:14 AM

Brexit supporters should be equally concerned to establish at an early stage that Article 50 is exercised in a lawful way. If it is not, it may be of no effect, and raises the possibility of further legal challenges further down the process. Article 50 itself refers to the decision to withdraw being made in accordance with a country's constitution, which suggests that if it is not done properly and lawfully then it is not a valid decision and Article 50 cannot effectively be exercised.

The referendum itself is not sufficient. It is well-established that referenda are not binding, because of the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament could have made the EU referendum binding when it passed the Act authorising it, but did not. Whether or not the referendum should be binding was not an issue before the High Court, the Government acknowledged it was not, and this will not be an issue for the Supreme Court.

However, the Government is politically committed to accepting the result, because of statements made both before and after the referendum. The legal question now is whether it can do so using prerogative powers. We should all, regardless of political persuasion or our views on any particular issue, be very waryof extending the powers of any government to do whatever it wishes without any oversight.

Legal clarity is essential. If that means getting Parliamentary approval then that is a hoop which must be jumped through. I understand Brexiteers' concerns about this, but if Parliament were to reject Brexit in the face of the referendum there would be an immediate political and constitutional crisis, and very possibly civil unrest. I think it is more likely that Parliament would (perhaps reluctantly) support Brexit, and concentrate on ensuring that we leave in a way which is in the best interests of the country (if we can ever agree what these are)..

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:21 AM

Very well explained, Howard. Thank you.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:43 AM

Thanks Howard, that's what the sensible ones of us have been trying to explain right through this thread. Unfortunately, the trolls and the ones lacking intellect seem utterly incapable of grasping what is actually fact v. what is the product of their own delusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stu
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 09:00 AM

Great explanation. Thanks Howard.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 09:19 AM

With the news on the economy we've just been getting I think that brexit would be national suicide. Our politicians need to grow big balls so that we can readdress the whole thing. I still think that the right thing would be to give people a chance to change their minds. Can't shut our eyes to the looming disaster just because 38% of the electorate were hoodwinked into making a bloody stupid decision. Even Teribus accepts that the campaign was a farce. Read the papers today. This country is in big trouble. We need to stay put.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:29 AM

Dave,
We still await "examples of unequivocal assertions made here that the government has no case".

Sorry, but three minutes after asking for examples you said, "Alternatively we could stop quibbling about semantics and who said what."

Here are the first two I came across.

"May wants to use the power of 'Royal Prerogative' to invoke Art. 50. The High Court has judged that a law passed by parliament cannot be trumped by Royal Prerogative. That's the fundamental principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty on which our entire constitution is based, and rightly so.
The legislation clearly stated that the referendum was 'advisory' only. A promise made by the Prime Minister cannot, and does not, change that piece of legislation. Only parliament can do that."

"I find the governments position rather akin to a used car salesman who has been found out clocking his vehicles. He is taken to court for misleading people but his argument is that the mileage on the car is what he promised it to be, regardless of the truth. It would be laughable if it wasn't going on at such a high level."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:39 AM

The Independent said that both sides assumed the referendum result would be final.
Steve said that the result was "irrevocable."

Cameron said throughout the campaign that article 50 would be triggered the day after a leave vote.
That precluded any intervention by Parliament.

No-one on Mudcat took issue with that.
No-one in the media took issue with that.
No-one in Parliament took issue with that.
No-one brought a legal case to prove it illegal to do that.

He was expected to do that without consulting Parliament.
No-one expected him to resign instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:42 AM

And those are unequivocal assertions in what way, Keith? Yes, I still think we could stop quibbling about semantics but it is you who seem to be saying that I have asserted something as the unequivocal when I have obviously not.

For the record

unequivocal
ʌnɪˈkwɪvək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: unequivocal

    leaving no doubt; unambiguous.
    "an unequivocal answer"
    synonyms:        unambiguous, unmistakable, indisputable, incontrovertible, indubitable, undeniable;

None of the statements I have made, one of which you quote above, has been unequivocal. The example you give above is purely illustrative, clearly demonstrated in the opening words 'I find the governments position rather akin to...'

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:44 AM

Also,


Corbyn,
"The referendum has taken place, a decision has been made, I think we have got to respect that decision and work out our relationship with Europe in the future."
("Decision" not "advice.")
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36628305

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:46 AM

Dave, both quotes are unequivocal assertions that the government has no case.
You choose to deny that clear and obvious fact, as is your perfect right.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 11:02 AM

Keith seems to be going in his ever-decreasing circles again
I suggest that, for the sake of sanity at least,nobody allows themselves to get caught in the undertow.
Whoever thought that the result was final without Parliamentary consent was wrong and has been proved so by a court decision
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 11:12 AM

Dave, there is another unequivocal assertion that the government has no case!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 01:23 PM

Ref 10:46 AM. Only by different definitions of unequivocal, Keith, and I have given the dictionary definition above. Not being patronising here but the only other way I can think of explaining is is by example.

1. The government has no case to answer. Unequivocal. Leaves the reader in no doubt. Stated as a fact.
2. I believe the government has no case to answer. Equivocal. Ambiguous in that it is merely a belief and beliefs can change. Uncertain and questionable.

I have always tended toward the latter and have even been upbraided on here for being too vague.

Jim's assertion that whoever thought etc. was proved wrong is unequivocal but it also happens to be correct. The current court decision has proved the government wrong in their assumption. The appeal may overturn that at which point the statement becomes false but, at present, it is a fact. No one is prediction the outcome of the appeal.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:36 PM

Dave,
Jim's assertion that whoever thought etc. was proved wrong is unequivocal but it also happens to be correct.

Then you are both asserting unequivocally, that the government has no case!

Whoever thought that the result was final without Parliamentary consent was wrong and has been proved so by a court decision

The High Court gave its interpretation of the law, which the government disputes.
The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether, in their opinion, the interpretation was correct.
It is about interpretation, not "proof," and the final decision is not yet made.

I have no opinion at all, not ever having studied obscure and ancient constitutional laws. If I had to bet, I would bet they decide against the government but just a hunch and not based on law.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:37 PM

I offer 500 as a gift to anyone who wants it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 05:02 PM

It's all mine!!! :-)

Not only Jim and I assert that it is true but the judge also decreed it. He ruled that the government could not do what they said they would without taking it to the house. The judge in the appeal mat rescind that ruling but no one knows what the outcome of that will be as yet.

I don't understand what the issue is here. Unequivocal - Not ambiguous. Judges make a living out clarifying ambiguity and the judge at the high court said that in his opinion the government did not answer the case satisfactorily. An appeal has been allowed and that may change things.

Can I make a suggestion? Until the appeal is ruled on can we call it a day? I am sure everyone is getting bored with this argument anyway. Maybe continue by PM?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 04:36 AM

Keith, you are mixing up politics and law. Whilst the referendum result was a political decision which Cameron, May and Corbyn all feel politically obliged to accept, in legal terms it was not a decision made in accordance with the country's constitution, which is required for Article 80 to be triggered. We are awaiting clarification of whether the constitutional decision can be made by the government alone or by Parliament. That clarification is essential if Article 50 is to be correctly and successfully invoked.

Whatever was said by politicians during the campaign, or afterwards, about accepting the result or immediately implementing Article 50 were simply politicians' promises and we all know what those are worth. They were not the only misleading statements and promises made. But in any event, even where politicians intend to keep their promises they can only act within the law, as the courts frequently have to remind them.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 04:40 AM

Once again, Howard, thank you for a clear explanation.

Some good points made by A C Grayling, here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 06:04 AM

Thanks for that, Dave. Read and digest these remarks of Tony Grayling from that piece, Keith et al.:

First, earlier in your letter you say, 'The Government's position is clear that invoking Article 50 is a prerogative power…' We have seen that the Chief Justice and his colleagues in the Divisional Court do not agree with the Government on this, and we await the Supreme Court's view too. Should the justices of the Supreme Court concur, you have the delicate irony of a possibility: that of making a further appeal to the European Court of Justice. It will however be a matter of surprise if any panel of justices were to think that the UK Government has a prerogative power which would have enabled it to take the UK out of the EU even without a referendum, and whenever it wished; which is the clear – and absurd – implication of the Government's position.

...as to the larger sense of sovereignty you wish to imply, namely the sovereignty of the UK as a state: well! we are members of NATO, the WTO, the UN, we have obligations under international law, we have duties to allies; we have constraints as a result of treaties, trade deals, and internationally-binding contracts; and we exist in a tightly globalized world economy. In light of this the concept of the 'sovereignty' of any state is an empty piece of rhetoric. So talk of 'sovereignty' in this connection it is the kind of waffling cant used by politicians in elections and referendums which signifies little.

The government's position is that it has the prerogative to invoke Article 50. As the referendum was advisory and not legally-binding, the implication is that it wasn't actually necessary to hold one at all in order to gain that prerogative. The result is simply being taken by the government as non-legal support for that already-existing prerogative. An advisory referendum can't alone accord prerogative to the government. The government's position is that it can trump constitutional requirements. Well I think we need to remind them that we are still a democracy. The second bit I quoted is a solid argument for saying that all the "taking back control" talk by the brexit side was just another pack of lies. "Sovereignty" as a concept for the nation is in disrepute as a consequence of the term's serial misuse by little Englanders. We should make sure that the Tories are not allowed to bring the word into disrepute with regard to parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:06 AM

Grayling has his opinions.
Others including the government do not share them.

"On 23 June, the country voted to leave the European Union and it is the duty of the Government to make sure we do so. The Government's position is clear that invoking Article 50 is a prerogative power and one that can be exercised by the Government. Parliament legislated for the Referendum, which it did by large majorities in both Houses, and with cross-party support.
Although the Act itself does not include provisions that make the result of the referendum legally binding, the Government made repeated and clear statements that the outcome of the referendum would be acted upon. Indeed, the manifesto on which the Conservative Party was elected in 2015 stated "we will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome." The arrangements for the referendum were also supported by Parliament."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:18 AM

Howard,
Keith, you are mixing up politics and law.
No I am not.

Whilst the referendum result was a political decision which Cameron, May and Corbyn all feel politically obliged to accept, in legal terms it was not a decision made in accordance with the country's constitution, which is required for Article 80(sic) to be triggered.

That is just an assertion and it is disputed.

We are awaiting clarification of whether the constitutional decision can be made by the government alone or by Parliament. That clarification is essential if Article 50 is to be correctly and successfully invoked.

Yes. As I have said all along.

Whatever was said by politicians during the campaign, or afterwards, about accepting the result or immediately implementing Article 50 were simply politicians' promises and we all know what those are worth

It may transpire that they were right to make those promises.
The government holds that they were, as they explained to Grayling in the link.

But in any event, even where politicians intend to keep their promises they can only act within the law, as the courts frequently have to remind them.

Yes of course.

The only case I am making here is that it is wrong to state unequivocally that the government lawyers have all got it wrong.
I am sure you agree with me on that Howard.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:26 AM

Grayling has no more legal training than I have!
" His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic.[1] He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement,[4] and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'.[5] He appears in the British media discussing philosophy."

So just an opinion piece from someone with no relevant expertise at all.
Was it worth a link?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

Yes, it was certainly worth a link. As a prominent academic and philosopher his arguments are always worth considering as well as being quite readable and entertaining at times. As has already been said, until the appeal is settled, all views on the subject are just opinions on the possible outcomes. I would not dream of simply deferring to authority but some opinions do carry more weight than others.

As the governments defense has already been dismissed once but an appeal has been allowed we can safely say that legal opinion about the outcome is divided.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 08:33 AM

It is quite clear from your last post here posts, Keith, that you wish to twist things to fit your own predilections. In fact, you appear to know very little about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 09:21 AM

In reply to Keith:

"Whilst the referendum result was a political decision which Cameron, May and Corbyn all feel politically obliged to accept, in legal terms it was not a decision made in accordance with the country's constitution, which is required for Article 80(sic) to be triggered.

That is just an assertion and it is disputed."

I accept it is disputed, but you can find a lawyer to argue the opposite of every legal position. I think the majority of informed opinion is that it is not binding, but I recognise that some experts have argued otherwise. I don't claim to be an expert. The Government itself seems to think that is a political commitment rather than a legal obligation, since this was not an issue before the High Court, or the appeal to the Supreme Court.

It now falls to the Government to exercise Article 50 and the question is how to do this lawfully. I'm not saying the government is right or wrong to claim this can be done under prerogative powers. That will be decided by the Supreme Court.

What tends to be overlooked is that it is not the role of the courts to consider the will of the people. Their job is to interpret the law. In our system the will of the people is expressed through Parliament, and if Parliament doesn't like how the courts interpret law it has the power to change the law. Referenda don't sit easily in this system, which is why they are usually advisory rather than binding. The problem in this case is the referendum has raised very high expectations whilst lacking any agreement on what Brexit actually means, and with only a slim majority.

The legal question is necessary and will bring necessary certainty to the legal process, which both sides should welcome. However even if the Supreme Court decides the government can use prerogative powers it would be naive to think that the process won't be anything other than highly political. We are in for a rough ride.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 01:10 PM

Howard,
I think the majority of informed opinion is that it is not binding,

What makes you think that?
All we know for sure is that it is disputed.

The Government itself seems to think that is a political commitment rather than a legal obligation, since this was not an issue before the High Court, or the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The courts only consider legal issues, never political ones, so your statement must be untrue.

In our system the will of the people is expressed through Parliament,

No. In our system the will of the people is usually expressed through Parliament but sometimes, rarely, by referenda.
In this specific case it was expressed through a referendum.

Because the role of the court is to interpret the law, there will never be certainty.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 01:15 PM

Steve,
It is quite clear from your last post here posts, Keith, that you wish to twist things to fit your own predilections.

I do not have any predilections on this Steve, and unless you can produce a specific example, which you can't because it is a lie, this is just another baseless personal attack in lieu of actual debate.

In fact, you appear to know very little about anything.

Then give a specific example of a statement from me that is wrong.

You can't because that too is a lie and another of your baseless personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 01:20 PM

Can we rewind a bit. I have lost track of what the argument is about again. Is it as first stated in the opening post? If not, what have we moved on to and what is it now? It is rather difficult to hold a debate when we have lost sight of just what we are debating over.

Thanks.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 02:13 PM

If it's down to prerogative power, the government (ie the Prime Minister) has the power to ignore the result of the referendum entirely. In the light of increasing evidence of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country that would be perfectly correct constitutionally.

She won't of course. She lacks the courage to do so. It's not a matter of respecting the result on principle as being democratically necessary. A second referendum, a binding one this time preferably, would be perfectly consistent with democratic principles.

As has been pointed out, when you buy something, in most circumstances you have the right to take it back to the shop if it proves unsatisfactory, or if you change your mind. Any time a couple get divorced there is a decree nisi before the final decree, to give a chance for thinking twice.

And there are plenty of examples where referendum results which have been widely seen as unwise have resulted in repeat referendums which have gone the other way. It happened in Ireland in respect of the EU Treaty of Nice, which was rejected in 2001, and then carried the following year with modifications, by a larger majority on an increased turnout. Ireland has if anything a better record as being true to democratic principles than the UK.

In the same way, when Denmark voted in 1992, there was a narrow majority to reject the Treaty of Maastricht, on a large turnout, very analogous to what happened with our referendum. The following year there was a second referendum, with a few modifications to the terms, and it was accepted by a significantly larger majority, on an even larger turnout. Would anybody suggest that Denmark is not a model of democracy?

And does anybody believe that if the referendum had gone the other way the Brexiters would not have fought energetically for another referendum to reverse its results? Nigel Farage in fact promised that, on the eve of the result, when he thought the vote would go the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: MikeL2
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 02:50 PM

Hi Steve

<" With the news on the economy we've just been getting I think that brexit would be national suicide ">

May I remind you that the news of which you speak are just forecasts with no real knowledge of what will actually happen. Furthermore these forecasts are largely made by the very people who are the most determined " Remoaners".

Recent forecasts show that nobody really knows what is really happening. The forecast result of the Referendum proves this.

Regards Mike

PS Just heard about Steven Gerrard's retirement from playing.

I wish him well in whatever he decides to do. As a Man United supporter I seen many great players and Steven IMHO stands at the top.
I saw him several times and each time I yearned for him to come to Old Trafford, but he is Liverpool through and through.I wish him well

Sorry for going off the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:16 PM

I agree with everything you say, Kevin, except for this:

"If it's down to prerogative power, the government (ie the Prime Minister) has the power to ignore the result of the referendum entirely. In the light of increasing evidence of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country that would be perfectly correct constitutionally."

Prerogative doesn't come into this as the referendum was advisory. If she decided not to accept the result she would merely be declining the "advice" of 37% of the electorate. There is no constitutional issue there. Prerogative, on the other hand, IS a constitutional issue, fought for in a civil war to stop ignorant kings and queens ruling by diktat and successfully defended for hundreds of years. Hence the court case. If she decided to reject the result (the right thing to do, though politically suicidal), no doubt somebody or other would pursue it in the courts but they would have their case thrown out. As the referendum was advisory, remainers would have just as strong a case as brexiteers for complaining about her decision on the advice given to her by the referendum, as they could argue that only just over one-third of the electorate advised her to leave, all of which would lead to an absurd situation. Advisory means that the government asked for advice. There is nothing in our constitution that says that advice MUST be followed, regardless of what "promises" about it were made in advance of the vote. But there are safeguards in our constitution that protect parliamentary sovereignty. It would be beyond amazing if the Supreme Court overrode the High Court - worse, it would be downright suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:18 PM

I meant fought over, not fought for.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 08:17 PM

Well, Mike, I know that forecasts can end up being wide of the mark, but the ones this week in the budget statement and subsequently were generally those born of independent bodies, not remoaners. Like it or not, economic forecasts have to be listened to and acted on by the government. They are ignored at our peril. The lowest-paid in this country are in for a tough time on top of the tough time they've had over the last decade, that's a certainty, and the NHS is going to struggle through lack of funding, another certainty.

Stevie is a scouser and dyed-in-the-wool Liverpool FC man to his core. I hope his move into coaching will be gradual and measured. Seen too many footballing greats fall at the first hurdle in management. Not least Bobby Charlton, eh!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:42 AM

"In the light of increasing evidence of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country" - MGOH

What evidence? So far we've had a catalogue of predictions of which none have come to pass.

Yesterday it was reported that Angela Merkel is now being told that Germany must make a deal with the UK and ignore calls from France to "make Britain pay" for having the temerity to vote to leave the EU. At the moment it is basically the German economy that is keeping the Eurozone afloat and Merkel has been warned that if Germany loses her trade with the UK then Germany will no longer be capable of keeping the Euro afloat.

Simple fact is there are a number of "hawkish" leaders of European countries who have to face elections before Brexit happens, Merkel and Hollande are but two of them. Somehow Jean-Claude Juncker has to keep the wheels on the bus because after those national elections in Europe there might be a queue of countries triggering Article 50.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 04:13 AM

The economy is currently the best performing of all developed countries, and the predicted fall in growth is to the predicted level of Germany, and higher than France and every other EU country.

Steve, are you gong to produce examples of my ignorance or twisting of facts, or was that just a baseless smear in place of actual debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 06:01 AM

You'll have to make your own mind up. I've given up playing your stupid games.

It's true thst Merkel doesn't want us to leave, but it's equally true that the EU csn survive without us and that we will not get many favours. That stream of Article 50 triggerers you refer to will emanate from us getting an easy brexit, not the results of elections in Europe. Anyone thinking that we'll keep the single market without allowing free movement, for example, is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 06:03 AM

I really must start to type only when I'm wearing my reading glasses. 🤓

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 07:08 AM

What Merkel wants or doesn't want is irrelevant, we are leaving the EU, that is what the electorate of the UK voted for and, at the politicians peril, that is what they are going to have to deliver (Just the fact that Blair wants us to remain in the EU is a good enough reason for us to leave).

Now German finance ministers are warning Merkel of the danger to the German economy which is the powerhouse of the EU. They are stating that Germany, Note that - Germany, NOT the EU, must have deal with the UK after we leave as we are their biggest and best customer in Europe. Simply put they cannot afford to lose us without them catching a cold and at present post-Brexit vote our economy is performing better than theirs. Anybody ignoring those facts, Merkel included, proves that they are the ones living in cloud cuckoo-land.

Still no evidence, let alone increasing evidence, of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Howard Jones
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 07:27 AM

Keith, from what I have read it is fairly settled law that referenda are not binding because this conflicts with the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament can choose to make a particular referendum binding, but in this case it did not do so. Nevertheless some have argued that its being binding was implied because of statements made by the Government.

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say if that claim has merit. It does seem to overturn the usual presumption, however the Government did not seek in the case before the High Court to argue that it is legally bound by the result. That suggests to me that the Government chose to accept the result of the referendum not because it believed it was legally bound to do so but because it felt it was the right thing to do. Indeed, the point of the referendum was to "let the people decide". I call that a political decision.

Let me be clear that, although I am unhappy with the result of the referendum, I agree that the Government has no real choice but to accept it. To ignore it would be unthinkable (politically, not legally). The issue now is to see that it is done properly and lawfully. This is in both sides' interest, but I keep making the point that Brexiteers should want this even more than Remainers, if they don't want the process to be disrupted by further legal challenges in both the UK and European courts.

I think it is important that in this the Government is subject to proper Parliamentary oversight, not because I think this offers a hope of overturning the result (I believe this is wishful thinking) but because the country is so divided over this and because there is still no clear idea of what success looks like.

Everyone who voted to leave seems to have their own priorities: for some it was simply to leave and damn the consequences, others want to have varying degrees of free trade with Europe, some will accept some movement of people while others won't have any. That's before you factor in the views of the only slightly smaller number who voted to remain, and those who for whatever reason didn't vote but have now woken up to the fact this affects them too. We need a clear strategy for leaving, and in a representative democracy it is the role of Parliament to help frame that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 08:46 AM

Well I don't agree with a lot of that. There are implications to our leaving that were obviously not clear before the vote to politicians, let alone the public. There is bad news on the future of the economy, especially for the low-paid, that was not clear in June. There are very hawkish noises from the EU that want us out quickly and with very few concessions. The government had no plan for brexit and the vote took them by surprise. There is an extra £59 billion brexit black hole that has nobbled future investment in the NHS and social care that we either didn't know about in June or were lied to about. We can't stop people movement because we need the people to do our jobs. All this is before we have even the faintest clue about any deal that the government will make, a government that is fearful of letting the people know what they are negotiating. We must have a chance to change our minds when we know the full implications of leaving, BEFORE Article 50 is invoked. That would be democracy. Turkeys voting for Christmas are lied to less than we were lied to, and we are in the same boat as them.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 09:18 AM

Steve,
. I've given up playing your stupid games.

It is not a stupid game to ask you to justify your claims.
Don't make them if you can't.

Howard, yes.
We never really disagreed on this.
FWIW, my opinion is that Parliament chose not to have a say as the government states.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 09:25 AM

You will not give me orders, Keith. Do be clear on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 09:35 AM

Orders Steve? Where did that come from??

You made more of your wild assertions, and as usual were unable to justify them.

I just asked you to justify them as is normal and expected in discussion.

Just days ago you even (falsely) attacked someone else for the same thing!

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 07:47 PM

... You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 10:33 AM

Go away. A suggestion, not an order.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:23 PM

"You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it. "

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:26 PM

Indeed you do, Professor. Thanks for admitting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:32 PM

Indeed I don't Greg.
You are just joining in the lying and smearing.

Will you produce an example of what you claim?
No. How could you?
It is just lies because you people have no reply to what I actually say.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:59 PM

"There are implications to our leaving that were obviously not clear before the vote to politicians, let alone the public. There is bad news on the future of the economy, especially for the low-paid, that was not clear in June. There are very hawkish noises from the EU that want us out quickly and with very few concessions. The government had no plan for brexit and the vote took them by surprise. There is an extra £59 billion brexit black hole that has nobbled future investment in the NHS and social care that we either didn't know about in June or were lied to about. We can't stop people movement because we need the people to do our jobs. All this is before we have even the faintest clue about any deal that the government will make, a government that is fearful of letting the people know what they are negotiating. We must have a chance to change our minds when we know the full implications of leaving, BEFORE Article 50 is invoked. That would be democracy. Turkeys voting for Christmas are lied to less than we were lied to, and we are in the same boat as them."

Correct on all points. IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:02 PM

I don't suppose there will be another referendum, but that is nothing to do with democratic principle, or "accepting the verdict of the British people" - it is because of cowardice on the part of politicians. Far more truthful to call it a retreat from democracy.

A fresh referendum could determine whether there is in fact a general wish to get out of the single marketplace, as well as the EU, and whether there is actually a majority for ending the free movement arrangements under which all of us have the right to live and work in whichever EU country suits us. The referendum we had did not soecify anything like that. And of course it could be made binding rather than advisory.

Brexiters should welcome that - but of course they are too scared of the result.

Cowards all round.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:05 PM

May I just point out that the last few posts seem to have been a personal argument that has no relevance whatsoever to the point in question. Not that I really know what the point in question is any more. As I said earlier, I seem to have lost the plot. Does anyone know or we now just arguing for arguments sake?

DtG

PS - Checking my post and auto correct had changed a misspelling of arguing to gunrunning. How odd!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 05:07 PM

It does seem to be turning a bit pre-school.

"You're telling lies"
"No I'm not . You're telling lies. And you stink."
"Yes you are telling lies. And no one likes you..."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 03:45 AM

MGOH:

Such a turn in discussions would not occur if those responsible for throwing allegations and accusations about actually provided evidence to substantiate their claims.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 05:15 AM

Would it not be better though to refute those allegations once, preferably with strong evidence, and then let others decide who is right? Or even if it warrants a long argument between two or three people how about conducting it by PM so it does not derail an otherwise interesting thread?

I have been as guilty as others in dragging out personal feuds in the past but decided a few months ago that life was just to short to keep up petty squabbles. I am not trying to be holier than thou or anything and I am sure it is not for everyone but it seems far healthier for all concerned just to move on.

Hope this helps.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 06:17 AM


Would it not be better though to refute those allegations once, preferably with strong evidence, and then let others decide who is right?

The allegation was of twisting facts and ignorance.
Why put the onus on the victim to refute the allegations and prove the negative?

Why not demand that those making the allegations substantiate them, preferably with strong evidence and actual examples?

Even better, let them leave the thread to reasoned discussion and put all their personal attacks and name calling in a PM.
I would promise to read every word, before laughing at their pathetic inadequacy and deleting it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 07:02 AM

Utterly laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 07:04 AM

" have been as guilty as others in dragging out personal feuds in the past "
Having been a long term victim of Keith's in this predilection for turning these discussions into exercises in 'personal best' competitiveness, I sincerely suggest that you do not allow yourself to be dragged into his whirlpool
You are a respected member of this forum - he is not - don't get your hands dirty with his particular brand of trollism.
From one of the walking wounded.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 07:43 AM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 12:39 PM

"Steve, are you gong to produce examples of my ignorance or twisting of facts, or was that just a baseless smear in place of actual debate. "

Just a baseless smear in place of actual debate then.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 01:16 PM

Your twisting of fact professor has become legendary. With the exception of Teri and occasionally Akenaton everybody on this site treats your posts with derision. Basically you provide nothing of any worth, apart from a few giggles now and again.

To the vast majority you are a joke, but please don't stop posting, we all need a laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 01:42 PM

But you can not actually produce a single example either.

Just a baseless smear in place of actual debate then.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 02:23 PM

To the vast majority you are a joke, but please don't stop posting, we all need a laugh.

The Professor may at one time been mildly amusing/entertaiing but repetition ad nauseum has made him simply boring, if not disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 03:28 PM

I have made no suggestion that the onus is anyone to do anything. I simply said that if someone makes allegations, refute them and leave it at that. Surely that is better than either letting the allegations stand without denying them or going into a protracted war of words. It is wrong to make untrue or unjust allegations but, sadly, people do it it. It is what happens after that I am talking about. The choices, as far as I can see, are: Let it stand; Refute it; Provide evidence to the contrary; Make a counter allegation or start a war of attrition. I am not saying which is best. It is entirely up to the person who is having the allegation made against them but I think if a strong case is made against the allegation then others can make up their own minds.

Seemples.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 07:01 PM

Or you could just move on and talk to sensible, non-obsessed people.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 07:13 PM

Such a turn in discussions would not occur if those responsible for throwing allegations and accusations about actually provided evidence to substantiate their claims.

I'm afraid it would. Some people seem to respond to irritations that way. Fortunately most peple don't, but it only takes a few to wreck a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 03:01 AM

Dave the Gnome - 27 Nov 16 - 03:28 PM

"It is wrong to make untrue or unjust allegations but, sadly, people do it. It is what happens after that I am talking about. The choices, as far as I can see, are: Let it stand; Refute it; Provide evidence to the contrary; Make a counter allegation or start a war of attrition."

If it is wrong to make untrue or unjust allegations DtG then criticise those who make those allegations and challenge them as accusers to provide evidence - if they cannot, or if they won't - then they can be reasonably judged by their omission and the allegations made will have been proved false and unjust and the poster rightly condemned for making them.

On another thread you quoted the recent words of a Professor Timothy Snyder. I draw your attention to these in particular:

"7. Stand out. Someone has to. It is easy, in words and deeds, to follow along. It can feel strange to do or say something different. But without that unease, there is no freedom. And the moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.

8. Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.

9. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your screen is there to harm you. Bookmark PropOrNot or other sites that investigate foreign propaganda pushes."

I am fully aware of those on this forum who "stand-out", who believe in presenting the truth and base their arguments on fact instead of emotion or ideology and those who when confronted with disingenuous, biased and untrue claims do investigate and confront those who would present a lie as the truth.

At the same time I am also aware of those on this forum who do just "follow along", who deliberately misrepresent and abandon facts. And those who, by their own admission, are prepared to argue at length from a position of lack of knowledge and what at times seems like total ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 03:45 AM

I agree absolutely, Teribus, and I have made just such a a criticism in the very statement you have quoted, IE "It is wrong to make untrue or unjust allegations but, sadly, people do it." That is a criticism.

What I will not do is get embroiled in taking sides where the parties concerned are perfectly capable of handling the situation themselves. If it is an allegation against someone who cannot defend themselves or, worse still, an allegation against a whole group of people then, yes, I will criticise that action and have done so on another thread. On the same thread I have also robustly defended myself against scurrilous accusations against me and would not thank anyone for getting involved in my own affairs.

But we are now taking too much of other peoples time in discussing the discussion itself where this should be a thread about the latest developments about the EU controversy. Feel free to PM me if you want to take it any further as I would prefer to detract too much from the main show!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 03:47 AM

...as I would prefer NOT to detract etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 05:59 AM

Not a lot of problems with Teribus's list - what I do have a problem with is the poster.
Most of his items refer directly to his own behaviour and we all would be beneficiaries if he read and digested them and applied them to himself
He is unarguably the most arrogantly unpleasant, bombastic and insulting poster on this site.
I have recently decided to list examples of his insulting arrogance and post it up each timee he adds to it - each time adding the new example
Rather than go back over the years he has behaved as he does, I started a few days ago - around ten examples on the first day
I will continue to do this and add a new example until he cleans his act up.
I know, from the few subjects I can claim any reasonable knowledge of, that he has little understanding of topics that he blusters and bullies his way through.
He refuses to offer proof of his claims, making them all opinions rather than being factually based.
To sum up - he argues on the basis of bombastic bullying rather than real understanding.
As he does this with everything he argues on, I have come to the conclusion that everything must be treated with suspicion until he is prepared to qualify it.
Nice list Teribus - why not read it carefully and apply it to your own behaviour.
I have little doubt that this forum would be a better and less unpleasant site if you did.
Sincerely
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 06:24 AM

On many a forum, discussions that turn inward like this are shut down. I'm not saying that that should happen, nor do I want it to. But I'd rather talk about brexit in a brexit thread, poppies in a poppy thread, cheese in a cheese thread, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 06:36 AM

Agreed, Steve. Jim - Please do not turn this thread into another Teri and Jim show! (Combination of Terry and June and Rosie and Jim - Sorry, couldn't resist it!)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 07:31 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 07:32 AM

Whoops
" Jim - Please do not turn this thread into another Teri and Jim show"
I have no intention of Dave, but people who go on at length being critical o others really do need a strong dose of self examination.
I have resolved to say what I have to say to people I have problems with and lave it at that, rather than participate in Jin and whoever shows, but it isn't easy with a couple of people.
To tell the truth, if fed up of being talked down to be one individual in particular, and I have no doubt I am not alone
Having said what I have to say, let's leave it there eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stu
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 07:38 AM

Shine on.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 02:01 PM

Now it seems Article 127 of the EEA treaty is set for a legal battle akin to Article 50. The relationship between a vote to leave the EU and the treaty to join the EEA appears - surprise, surprise - not to have been thought about beforehand.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 08:21 AM

AC Grayling again.

Just an opinion of course but, in my view, a very reasonable and considered one. I am no expert myself so I have trust that Grayling is well versed enough to form such an opinion. I would certainly trust his over that of Farage and his ilk.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 08:37 AM

In a couple of years, the EU will be history. We are getting out at the right time and should take advantage of that to negotiate the best trade deals available.
Freedom of movement was policy to attract "cheap labour" and so avoid the need for vocational training, we must stop behaving in such a parasitical fashion.....and as a country stand on our own feet.
This would enable all sectors of our society to prosper culturally.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 08:51 AM

"Freedom of movement was policy to attract "cheap labour" "
Is there no end to your idiocy Ake?
Free movement was one of the greatest opportunities to alleviate the problem of national unemployment - you are, once again, blaming a half-decent idea on those who would exploit it - the employers.
It would work perfectly in countries which had the decency to establish laws governing minimum levels of wages.
Your "if we have to go hungry, let's go hungry in our own country" is pathetic Little Englandism in the extreme.
Freedom of movement prevented another million Irish people from starving to death, thanks to British callous (and probably deliberate) mismanagement of a natural disaster in the 19th century.
Thanks to the fact that Britain is reneging on its responsibilities of Empire and wars it has been part of causing and has abandoned all pretence of humanity for the refugee crisis it is part of causing, it is not working for the refugees - we'd rather stand by and watch dead children acrried out of the sea.
Worth sayin agaain - if the Britain of the 1930s and 40s, had adopted the same callous insularit as is being shown now, there world have been far more dead Jews than there actually were.
We have become a cold, unfeeling and Xenophobic nation and Brexit has made that official.
Let's hope Britain is never desperately in need of help as these people are
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 09:44 AM

What worries me most about the migration of labour business is that when we do leave the EU (Yes, I think our politicians will do it just to save face) then any legislation that was EU wide to regulate pay and conditions will go out of the window. When we realise that there is a shortage of skilled labour we will look outside the EU to where labour laws are more lax and the result will be exploitation of poorer nations to an extent that we have not seen for a long time. Worse still, without the European commission on human rights to underline good practice in this country, we will also see exploitation of our own youngsters who will have then been deprived of the right to better employment in Europe and forced into accepting whatever pittance is being offered here. All speculative of course but a genuine concern for me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 10:09 AM

"Free movement was one of the greatest opportunities to alleviate the problem of national unemployment".....Where did you get that little gem from Jim?   Who's unemployment would that be then, I certainly don't see any improvement in the wages or job opportunities of young people in the towns left behind by globalisation.

You call me an idiot yet you fail to see how Freedom of Movement disadvantages our own young people who wish to put down roots and bring up a family.

Leaving the EU is the best thing the Tory Govt have done for years, even though they have been dragged kicking and screaming by Mr Farage.

You are not an idiot Jim....you are much worse, blinded by your ideology...it oozes out of every post.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 10:31 AM

"Where did you get that little gem from Jim?"
From the many thousands of preople who couldn't get work back home amnd moved to Europe to find it 1.2 million of them on the last count.
At ther present time there are 32 thousand Britons drawing unemployment benefit in the E.U.
Should all of these people descend on Britain because they are no longer welcome in Europe - what do think that will do to the economy?
And what a golden opportunity for ruthless companies to drive down wages and reduce workers rights even further.
What kind of a Coud Cuckoo Land do you inhabit Ake.
"Leaving the EU is the best thing the Tory Govt have done for years, "
Yeah - sure it is - you can tell by the effect is is having on our economy, let alone the social split and the increase in racist attacks since Br3exit
Fiine for you UKippers - a disaster for British people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stu
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 01:54 PM

"Freedom of movement was policy to attract "cheap labour""

No it wasn't. Scientific research is collaborative and benefitted massively from freedom of movement; I guess it's hard for people to understand that the borders men draw in the fusty rooms of Westminster can stifle the high level of scientific and technical research we do in this country.

The idea that in some way the ending of freedom of movement is not affecting or going to affect science is wrong. Of course, you can't tell that to the acolyte of fascism; to them scientists, artists, poets, writers and countless others are the enemy to their execrable ideology, because they think for themselves and won't bow to demagogues and liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 03:55 PM

""Freedom of movement was policy to attract "cheap labour""

Yes it was!......described by Mr Tony Blair Labour Prime minister as "a policy to make us more competitive in the Global Economy"   and who am I to disagree with an expert?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 04:14 PM

"The idea that in some way the ending of freedom of movement is not affecting or going to affect science is wrong. Of course, you can't tell that to the acolyte of fascism; to them scientists, artists, poets, writers and countless others are the enemy to their execrable ideology".......Now that is comical, what do scientists have in common with....artists, poets and writers?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 05:15 PM

"Yes it was!...."
No it wasn't, and if you belived what you claim you would respond to the number of Brits living in Europe by showing us why they didn't atter
ou are avoiding the fact that you know damn well that your stance is that you don't care as long as Britain gats rid os all these foreiigners.
That is exactly why Brexist was passed and the proof of that is the rise in racist attacks.
Chep labour is down to unscrupulous employers using immgrants and a government that refuses to introduce a living minimum wage - that is what you are defending
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 05:18 PM

Blair never mentioned 'cheap Labour anyway' that is solely your spin on what he said.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 05:24 PM

Why are you two arguing with this silly sod? The stupidest man that has ever disgraced this forum (and he has competition). Tell him how stupid he is then let it go.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 03:14 AM

Steve, if you don't wish to take part in the debate, why do you keep butting in with insult.....your last three posts have said absolutely nothing.
Jim and Stu are perfectly capable of engaging in debate without your dubious advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 03:43 AM

"Jim and Stu are perfectly capable of engaging in debate without your dubious advice."
And I am perfectly capable of responding for myself
Steve is right.
Arguing with someone who works to a dictionary that in no way relates to the rest of us, makes things up out of thin air and refuses to respond to challenges when argued with and then goes and repeats the same thing after a comfortable gap is a total waste of time.
I really think it's time we all cleaned up our acts and stopped shadow boxing with idiots.
If you want to qualify silly statements, like your makkie-ups about Blair or cheap labour with real evidence or logical argument - fine = if not, as far as I can see, you present no grounds for discussion, which is what we are here for.
You have been given an outline of the damage that has already been done and what is likely to happen in future to the British economy and the racial and social damage that is already happening and is likely to accelerate.
You want to respaond like a rational person - not to mention a human being - then let's argue on that.
I have always found Little-Briton flag-wagging the stuff of sit-coms, amusing for a time, then boring.
Let's talk about the real effects of Brexit - particulatly from the point of view of human beings and not the wild fantasies of supra nationalists
Otherwise, let's not talk at all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 04:03 AM

Let's talk about the real effects of Brexit - particulatly from the point of view of human beings and not the wild fantasies of supra nationalists"
I think a lot depend son whether the uk can remain in the EEA.
"Worse still, without the European commission on human rights to underline good practice in this country, we will also see exploitation of our own youngsters who will have then been deprived of the right to better employment in Europe and forced into accepting whatever pittance is being offered here. All speculative of course but a genuine concern for me."
reasonable enough comment, up to a point, but only part of the picture
What about all the young irish forced to leave ireland and go to work in australia or canada, fat feckin, use europe was then, in fact it was european policies imposed by brussels [the repayment of debt, caused by anglo irish bank]that cause a mass exodus.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 04:06 AM

I wouldn't bother too much with what Steve says Jim.....he has been pretty comprehensively demolished by Teribus on this and other threads.    "Stop talking to them" is an age old tactic of those with fuck all further to say.

Despite your torrent of insults, I thought you were a bit better than that. Regarding Blair's remarks, his meaning was accepted at the time by most commentators......unfortunately, the social effects of unregulated immigration were not taken into account, resulting in the current political earthquake.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 04:13 AM

"What about all the young irish forced to leave Ireland "
Thanks to centuries of British policy, the Irish have been forced to leave home in their millions for centuries - thatks to the state of the now non-indusrtial British Economy, without Europe, Ireland would have been in dire trouble
One of the dangers looming over Ireland at present is, thanks to the swing to the right led by Brexit, and confirmed by the election of a fascist to the White House, the Irish living in the U.S. without a green card - tolerated by previous administration who realised the part the Irish played in creating the United State, face deportation, along with the Mexicans, the Muslims and anybody else whose colour or religion doesn't suit him with the combover.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 05:09 AM

Have you read the AC Grayling link I posted earlier, Jim? Save you looking it up. I'll post it again. How to turn a lie into the truth. Makes some very valid points and provides a perfect explanation for what just happened above as well.

Enjoy

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 05:19 AM

Thanks Dave
I haven't read it but will do in full later
I have a tremendous respect for Grayling
"he has been pretty comprehensively demolished by Teribus on this and other threads."
You have to be jOking - Teribs?
Teribus is a blusteriing bullying thug who thinks he can win arguments by talking down to people - a true graduate of the Donald Trump School of Non-Thought.
He has never demoished anybody with yhese tactics and the fact he impresses you puts you where you are
Jim ar

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 05:19 AM

Jim, what happened before for which the brits were responsible does not alter the fact that Europe and government from brussels, forced a recession on ireland, and forced many irish people to leave in droves,it was europe that forced the present plight in greece those people who pretend otherwise are deluding them selves. brussels is just another puppet for multi natiuonal capitalism.
whether britains exit will be better or worse for ireland depends upon sense rather than revengebeing allowed to prevail and an allowing the uk to remain in the eea

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stu
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 07:16 AM

"brussels is just another puppet for multi national capitalism.

Who isn't in the political arena? Trump is a billionaire multinational capitalist that has fooled ordinary folk that he gives a stuff about them, even as he pisses all over the constitution and populace from the top of Trump Tower; the US isn't even making political decisions in the White House anymore.

Farage is about as establishment as you can get, an ex-city toff that hob-nobs with the likes of Murdoch and Dacre, the very people we should be railing against but who the poor, hard-done old white folk of the UK seem to believe even after their lies, deceits and costing up to dictators and demagogues.

The alt-right takeover is the biggest con-trick since the Nazis but still people are too stupid to see through it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 07:19 AM

Wasn't the Irish recession 2008-onwards the result of the world-wide financial crash, precipitated by reckless, toxic lending by banks in the US, UK and elsewhere?

That's a genuine question, BTW, I'm short on understanding of the problems in Ireland over the past ten years or so. Not trolling or flaming.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 07:30 AM

I have taken part fully in the debate in this thread, akenaton, thank you. The reason I find it impossible on most occasions to engage in discussion with you is that you rarely say anything to which it's possible to provide a civil and constructive response that would further the conversation. I find the bigotry expressed in some of your posts offensive. I find your interpretation of terms such as socialism and liberalism to be so wide of the mark as to be laughable, you appear to be afflicted with unthinking xenophobia bordering on racism, and you have a way of championing people who I find detestable. There are plenty of people here who disagree with me some or all the time, but very few people would agree that I have "nothing to say." I hope this helps to explain my earlier advice to people that engaging you in any kind of serious discussion is a waste of time and effort. And I don't need to get gratuitously sweary in my posts. Annoying, isn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 08:02 AM

Well Steve "don't talk to them" seems to be your default position, You tried the same tactic with Teribus and Keith when they illustrated your disingenuousness.

Exactly the same tactic as the late unlamented Muskets... "don't allow them the oxygen of publicity" when confronted by irrefutable facts.

I don't give a monkey's what you or anyone else thinks of me personally, but what I say on a lot of issues generates a lot of traffic on this forum. I don't expect to be agreed with on a forum like this but some of the debates here have been highly enjoyable....and illuminating to those with an ideology which allows them to see light.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 08:10 AM

Enough. I'll talk brexit in this thread from this point on.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 08:10 AM

"And I don't need to get gratuitously sweary in my posts. Annoying, isn't it?"

You should try it some time, Steve. It isn't funny, and it isn't clever but, trust me, it imparts a fuckin' wonderful feeling of release! 😜😄😎

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stu
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 08:13 AM

"...and illuminating to those with an ideology which allows them to see light"

With respect Ake, that's a bit rich coming from someone wholly dedicated to rolling back the enlightenment and consigning to the wastebasket of history all the freedoms and values our fathers and grandfathers fought for on our behalf.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 08:22 AM

I think I could probably generate a lot of traffic by parroting the controversial statements of right wing politicians and the sound bites generated by Murdoch and his ilk but I would prefer that type of traffic kept to a minimum. Quantity does not equate to quality and making unsubstantiated accusations, unqualified statements and refusing to back them up with evidence is far from a compelling case in anyone's eyes.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 08:51 AM

No, Backwoodsman.
Europe and the ECB did not allow anglo irish bond holders to be burned[ because they were people like goldman sachs], they impose punitive taxes on ireland which caused the economy to stagnate, and forced thousands of young irish people to emigrate.
this was imposed on ireland by the european central bank, the brussels parliament enforced it, so forget this crap about european multinational capitalists being any better than any non european capitalists, they are all people who are looking after their own interests[ mein fein, me myselfers]and who are hardhearted selfish people

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 09:46 AM

Jim Carroll - 30 Nov 16 - 05:19 AM

"Teribus is a blusteriing bullying thug who thinks he can win arguments by talking down to people - a true graduate of the Donald Trump School of Non-Thought.
He has never demoished anybody with yhese tactics"

WOOPS Jim maybe I will get up my own "Reminder List"

But as far as demolition jobs go this ol' Teribus has managed to point out and prove that you are a barefaced liar on two threads just recently. Not surprised really that A C Grayling impresses you - he deals in lies and misrepresentation exactly in the same way that you do.

1: confidently and frequently repeated untruths wrapped up in catchphrases will persuade, while sober analysis and discussion will not.

A tactic used by the "usual suspects" on every thread that they "contribute" to.

2: A senior BBC news editor – Ah yes the totally objective and impartial BBC – I wouldn't trust the BBC to report anything factually, impartially and objectively if my life depended upon it.

3: Having achieved a very small majority of votes cast on the day, actually constituting only 37% of the total electorate (26% of the British population), they have run with it as vigorously as they can, claiming it as an 'overwhelming' demand by 'the people' that both mandates and binds the Government to take the UK out of the EU."
The Banner for The New European proclaims that it is the voice of the 48% - 48% of what? The electorate? Nope. The 48% they are referring to amounts to a lesser percentage of the total electorate and an even lesser percentage of the British population than those who voted to Leave. So it would appear that A.C. Grayling is quite adept at colluding with those who seek to bamboozle and mislead.

4: UKIP and the minority of the Tory party in Parliament knew they would never get a Brexit by Parliamentary means or at a general election; but at long last, having made life hell for every Tory Prime Minister since Edward Heath, they succeeded in getting one of their leaders to promise a referendum.

A C Grayling conveniently forgets that the British electorate were lied to and fed " highly doubtful if not downright dishonest statements" in 1973 and again in 1975 that got us into and then kept us in the EU. From that time onward there have always been vocal Eurosceptics in every political party in the UK. The fiasco of introducing the Treaty of Lisbon by the back door by Gordon Brown was basically the straw that broke the camel's back. Cameron promised a Referendum on EU membership in 2010 but had to renege on that promise at the insistence of his coalition partners, the Lib-Dems. The firm promise to commit to an EU Referendum was one of the things that won the Conservatives their Parliamentary Majority in 2015.

One unassailable fact is that the result of the Referendum on the UK's EU Membership was that the 52% of electorate of the UK who could be bothered to vote, voted for the UK to leave the EU. And A C Grayling has the gall to witter on about a "Coup".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 10:39 AM

I don't think there were any lies in the article I linked to but would be willing to be shown otherwise. Without deferring to expert opinion, something very dangerous to do in a debate, I think his grounding as professor of humanities would convince me that he knows what he is talking about when it comes to politics and people.

I certainly agree that we were lied to in the past as well as recently but, of late, it seems to have become endemic. Not just both sides of the referendum with empty promises from the exit camp and scaremongering from the remainers, but it is very obvious in the recent US presidential campaign as well.   In my opinion anyway.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 10:42 AM

Thanks Dick, that's one very simple view I guess, and I wouldn't care to comment on it personally.

Patrick Honohan of Trinity College, Dublin sees it differently - in a nutshell, excessive growth in the 'Celtic Tiger' period leading up to the crash, the same property bubble that the US and UK suffered, the same injudicious bank-lending practices, and a collapse in tax revenue following the world-wide crash due to a move away from traditional tax sources and an over-dependence on 'fair-weather' taxes.

Paper by Patrick Honohan, Dublin University.

I confess I've only scan-read Honohan's paper, there's a huge amount of detailed analysis in there and I'll try to read it carefully when time permits, but that's the gist if I understand it correctly. If I've misunderstood what Honohan is saying, I apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 11:14 AM

"WOOPS Jim maybe I will get up my own "Reminder List""
Please do - happy to compare notes anytime
That's what you do and that's what you are (want me to put up the list again to prove it?
"Teribus has managed to point out and prove that you are a barefaced liar on two threads just recently"
No you7 haven't - but in order to show you have, you have counted in a few mistakes that have been acknowledged and withdrawn
THe rest is vacuous nonsense and unqualified with proof, which makes it your opinion only - as usual
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 11:18 AM

"the fact that Europe and government from brussels, forced a recession on ireland, and forced many irish people to leave in droves,"
Utter nonsense Dick
The recession was entirely forced on Ireland - as it was on Britain - by greedy, incompetent and dishonest bankers and a Govertnment that was prepared to bail them out to the tune of billions of the taxpayers money
It as an established part of Irish history as is The Famine and Easter Week.Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 12:53 PM

"Who could be bothered to vote."

And how do you know that all the people who didn't vote couldn't be bothered? What about the ones who wouldn't vote because they regarded the referendum as illegitimate? What about the ones who couldn't decide? The trouble with your attitude is that you're putting all the non-voters into the loser camp. Couldn't be bothered equals they've given themselves and the remain side a problem, so tuff titty. Well an awful lot of those non-voters would probably be able to give you a good run for your money over brexit down the pub. Very presumptuous of you to be so dismissive.

If you don't trust the BBC, well where do you get your information from? ITV? Channel 4? Which newspaper, please? Not Al Jazeera I suppose. How do you decide what to trust and what not to trust? How do you select, on what basis? Or do you charge around the world gleaning all your information first-hand? You purport to know so much that you can can demolish all your usual suspects on every thread in which they have the temerity to raise their heads, but you never give us the sources that make you such a fount of knowledge, do you? How do you know we were lied to in 1973 and 1975? Who told you that? If you worked it out for yourself, well who gave you the facts upon which you based your conclusion that you were lied to? How do you know that over a million Cubans fled in fear from Castro? Were you in Cuba at the time?

If you answer this at all, I predict that "Daily Mail" will not form part of the answer. I would never be so presumptuous as to suggest that some of us may secretly be harbouring a suspicion or two on that front, of course...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 01:08 PM

We have been down this road before about those that could not be bothered. It is getting repetitive.
Those that did not vote for whatever reason gave up their part in the democratic process and also their voice. What they may think is an irrelevance because the only way to express it was by voting. Babbling about it down at the pub achieves a big fat zero.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 01:15 PM

I couldn't disagree with you more. The people who didn't vote for whatever reason still pay their taxes. Some of them will be building the roads that you drive your car along or helping to run our hospitals or emptying your bins. To suggest that they have somehow given up their rights, or a right to a voice, is a dangerous and scurrilous notion.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 01:33 PM

You have a fine line in drivel. When are you going to say something sensible?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 01:57 PM

"The recession was entirely forced on Ireland - as it was on Britain - by greedy, incompetent and dishonest bankers"
correct, that of course includes the directors of Anglo irish bank, whoalong with their bond holders [goldman sachs]forced austerity upon ireland nd caused thousands of young people to emigrate, and who did the adminstering of this the EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK, ALONG WITH THE BRUSSELS GOVERNMENT.
anyone who thinks Europe is anything other than a government that represents the very rich, needs to cop on,and that includes JimCarroll, cop on, Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 03:09 PM

"Those that did not vote for whatever reason gave up their part in the democratic process and also their voice"
his presumes that the right to vote is 'democratic' in any way shape or form.
It is probably the greatest con trick ever perpetrated on society.
We have no say in what an elected politician does in any way shape or form.
They promises everything but are not bound to the promises they make.
Our Parliamentary is no more than paying lip-service to democracy - it is based on rhetoric - the ability of the most articulate and powerfully placed to sway the largest number of people at a certain point in time.
'Democracy' has altered little since it was part of the govenance of Rome and ancient Greece - Cicero, Caesar, Coreolanus....all that has changed is the method of persuading turkeys to vote for christmas
"You have a fine line in drivel. When are you going to say something sensible?"
And you have a fine line in talking down to people and ignoring what has been said - then doing a runner whan the going gets tough
"anyone who thinks Europe is anything other than a government that represents the very rich,"
Nobody has suggested otherwise Dick, but in the short term, it is best offer available to deal with the present situation - take a look at the mess that has developed since Brexit.
Society is desperately in need of change, but in the meantime, most of us have to take what we can get in order to stay with a roof over our heads.
What do you suggest as an alternative - Theresa May - Donald Trump - Marie LePen...... or even Nigel Farage?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 03:20 PM

an alternative that I would like is Jermy Corbyn. or better still TheBeast of Bolsover.
DenisSkinner speaks the truth, listen to Denis,Jim you should listen to Denis,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yINAvMtZ2BM

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 03:37 PM

and tony benn,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWnpbEMMsNw

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 04:22 PM

The vote is the only way the average person participates in Democracy. If you want to take it further you have every right to get involved with whatever political entity takes your fancy, either locally or,if selected, nationally.To say it is a con trick played on society is a refusal to take responsibility. If you seriously think it is a con why not do something about it and get involved. Bleating non stop on a forum like this will never achieve anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 04:52 PM

Have another half-bottle, Iains. You have joined the unenviable ranks of the usual convicts. Nighty night. You're not worth talking to.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 05:27 PM

I would suspect you are the one that has been on the juice if that is the best way you can counter my argument. Better sleep it off prior to responding.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 05:47 PM

Well, Dick, the EU was never going to be in the vanguard of bringing about revolutionary change among the 6/the 9/the 12/the 28. It was about creating a bunch of democracies that would never wage war again on the scale of the world wars and about creating a trading bloc that would operate without punitive tariffs. In the words of John Seymour, who I think was probably not an avid European, the disease of gigantism was inevitable. In that context there was always going to be daft bureaucracy and a gravy train to be exploited. We don't like it, but, as Jim says, if you know of a proven better alternative, let's be having it. And, let's face it, many of the member nations, including our own, suffer from the same absurdities. Coming out isn't going to cure that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 06:19 PM

As fine a bunch of idiots as you could muster GSS - there again neither yourself or Jim Carroll would have to live with the consequences of such clowns actually running the country living as you both do in the Republic of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 07:26 PM

"living as you both do in the Republic of Ireland."
A fine example of the Little Englander mentality so beloved by sit=com fans
How dare you criticise our country when you no longer live here.
I don't think I have ever encountered anybody who hates his nation as much as you do
Lazy, workers, unfit to have a say in their own lives - crap industry, not worth supporting, parasitic hangers on who should all get on their bikes...
God keep us safe from patriots.
WE tend to have the advantage of you people, having lived in both countries and in a position to see both sides of the picture.
Having had your aggressively arrogant behaviour placed before you in all its glory, you still can't resist talking down to people
It really does say what needs to be said about your state of mind.
"I would suspect you are the one that has been on the juice if that is the best way you can counter my argument."
What argument exactly?
I'm afraid we already have one of those already - that position is filled, as you may have noticed.
I would ask you to back up your point with a response to what has been said, but based on previous experience, that's not going to happen - is it?
You have put nothing but an opinion, somewhat ill manneredly and arrogantly. and ignored what has been said - debating forums don't work like that,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 07:48 PM

Perhaps this might work - worth a try if we don't want another Teribus on our hands
The World, according to poster Iains

I would suspect you are the one that has been on the juice
You have a fine line in drivel.
Babbling about it down at the pub achieves a big fat zero.
With his vastly inflated ego there is room for no others.
You do talk some absolute rubbish Jim.
Mr Carroll why do you throw your toys out of the pram whenever someone has the audacity to argue with you
Mr Carroll you obviously have issues.
Go and blather elsewhere!
you are pathetic.
I guess you got kicked out of the debating society at school. I wonder why?
Get a grip man!
Thus endeth the lesson!
Apologies for entering a little lucidity:
I wonder which bigot will spit out their dummy and hurl their toys out of the pram next?

Never heard the saying, "manners maketh man"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 16 - 08:09 PM

Unfortunately, Jim, the usual convicts have added one to their ranks in recent weeks, as you ably demonstrate. I think he may be Teribus's uncle...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 03:07 AM

Well Jim and Steve you both pontificate at great length on virtually every thread going on this forum. One of you cannot make a point without the need for red ink and capitals. Do you think that because the two of you have such sad lives that you have nothing better to do than scribble away all day on your keyboards that this gives you some extra credibility?

Sometimes you may have valid points to make but most of it is lost in a sea of verbiage. Do you seriously feel that blathering on at such length gives you some sort of hack status and we should all become your willing syncophants hanging on your every utterance?
Get real and try and act your ages.
A little less quantity and more quality would be nice.
Did the bard not say:
Brevity is the soul of wit.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 03:32 AM

Cherry-picking lines out of various posts to illustrate a point is a very simple exercise isn't it Jim. Provided you cut'n'paste them it means at least they are intelligible. Only thing that is lacking of course is context here is one example:

"I would suspect you are the one that has been on the juice"

That was Iains in response to this from Shaw:

Steve Shaw - 30 Nov 16 - 04:52 PM

"Have another half-bottle, Iains. You have joined the unenviable ranks of the usual convicts. Nighty night. You're not worth talking to."

Which just about sums up the debating skill of Steve Shaw in response to some perfectly put points made by Iains.

Now I assume by what is stated later that Shaw's "usual convicts" refer to myself, Keith A, Akenaton, Guest Gervase, Guest#, Lighter - well in fact anyone who has ever disagreed with him. But in truth it is just another example of a groundless accusation thrown out without any substantiation. So I will follow the advice of Dave the Gnome and challenge Shaw and give him the opportunity to make good his claim. If Shaw does not respond then we know that Shaw has made a false accusation and is deliberately lying.

What have I ever been "convicted" of Shaw? After all to be a "usual convict" I would first of all have to have been "convicted of something".

Convict - A person found guilty of a criminal offence and serving a sentence of imprisonment.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 04:36 AM

I don't think that phrases like I wonder which bigot will spit out their dummy and hurl their toys out of the pram next. You have a fine line in drivel. and Get real and try and act your ages. help too much in the debate either. But let's not get too bogged down into arguing about the argument. How about just saying that many people are hurling insults at each other and the rest of us are free to ignore them?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 04:46 AM

Well I suppose you're the last person I should have expected to have a sense of humour, old Bill. .

"Well Jim and Steve you both pontificate at great length on virtually every thread going on this forum. One of you cannot make a point without the need for red ink and capitals.""

I won't bother with the precise maths, but I estimate that I post on less than two percent of threads on this forum. As for Jim and his red ink, I estimate that Jim uses it in well under ten percent of his posts. I note that Teribus hasn't bothered to pick YOU up for making such a "baseless accusation". Why don't you try to see if you can get away with a "spittle-flecked rant" as well? 😂

If you say silly things on this board you'll be picked up. Isn't life such a learning curve, Iains?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 04:51 AM

"pontificate at great length on virtually every thread going on this forum."
Another example of your bad-mannered and dishonest behavior.
I become involved in the few subjects that interest me - if they interest me deeply, I become involved deeply
If I am spoken to reasonable, I respond reasonably - I do not talk down to people and I go out of my way to provide detailed information to my arguments.
Both you and your friend are serially insulting and act as if you possess a god-gifted knowledge of the subject you are incredibly bad-mannered on - neither of you provide linked information to your claims.
Teribus has been asked dozens of times - he refers to such requests by describing it as "pandering to us" - his god-complex fail;s to impress!
There is no need for this type of behaviour on a public discussion
Behaviour such as this hs no place on an open forum - it fouls it up for us all and leads to squabbling.
We all come to this forum with a degree of knowledge - some of us wish to add to it - others wish to display their supposed intellectual superiority and show us how clever they are.
If you care to glance at the examples of Teribus's strutting his stuff, dig out his list - it is the product of two or three days of his insulting and talking down to those who disagree with him.
You are behving the same, and should you continue, I will start gathering examples from you.
Why not just pretend we might - just might know as much as you do on these subjects and we might - just might be able to conduct a conversation in reasonable terms - and who knows, we might all learn something - that's why I'm on this forum - why not try it.
You might start by dropping such ill mannered statements such as this - which I have already added to your list for future ppsting
"but most of it is lost in a sea of verbiage."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 05:03 AM

What's wrong with just feeling contempt, and if need be, politely indicating that feeling, rather than choosing to reciprocate in kind?

It's not just a waste of time and energy, it also involved effectively cooperating in diverting the thread away from argument or discission into an escalating exchage of insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 05:06 AM

Jim 17357 posts since 2007
Steve 13357 posts 2007

That is a lot of posting on a few subjects!
Personally I do not care what threads you contribute too, but I do mind that whenever dissent is noticed you both try on occasions to bully down the opposition.
Reasoned argument is fine but both of you occasionally fail on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 05:32 AM

"That is a lot of posting on a few subjects!"
So?
Go count the subjects
Are you setting a limit on how many postings we can have on each subject?
"Personally I do not care what threads you contribute too,"
Whew - That's a relief!!
By the way - "TO" has only one O in the context you are using it - so you don't appear to be as knowlegeable as you thingk you are.
Not one for pointing out typos, make far too many myself, but this seems to be a repetitive mistake of yours.
"I do mind that whenever dissent is noticed you both try on occasions to bully down the opposition. "
I never "bully down the opposition" - I abhor the practice.
I always put as much linked information with arguments as I consider necessary and some subjects I believe to be important enough to persist with, but I never, ever bully - thugh I quite accept that some people regard providing information as bullying.
Please don't start adding lies to your list at this early stage of our relationship or our courtship will never get off the ground!!
Two more items for the list!
Now - unless you have anything fresh to add, I think we've naused up this thread enough with our little téte-a-téte, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 06:11 AM

"Well, Dick, the EU was never going to be in the vanguard of bringing about revolutionary change among the 6/the 9/the 12/the 28. It was about creating a bunch of democracies that would never wage war again on the scale of the world wars and about creating a trading bloc that would operate without punitive tariffs."
When we entered in 1973 it was about trade,it was a trading organisation, it is true that it has prevented war amongst its members, however it was useless at preventing war between serbia and croatia.      FROM Irelands point of view OVERALL it is better for the uk to remain in europe or alternatively remain in the EEA.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 07:29 AM

"FROM Irelands point of view OVERALL it is better for the uk to remain in europe or alternatively remain in the EEA." - GSS

Obvious but totally irrelevant as far as deciding what is in the best interests of the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 07:51 AM

"Obvious but totally irrelevant as far as deciding what is in the best interests of the UK."
Britain's exit very much affects Ireland - particularly the Northern counties, which voted to remain, as did Scotland.
Ireland stands to have its borders instituted, which will set the Peace Process back decades and almost certainly lead to further strive and possibly loss of life.
Britain is not an Island - it covers two separate national cultures, with the partitioning of Ireland.
The repercussions of this bigotry based decision are having side effects far beyond Britain's borders.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 08:22 AM

The UK referendum was a straightforward vote on either to remain or leave the EU. Whatever reasons drove people to vote or abstain from voting were known only to them.
Therefore to say it was a bigotry based decision is a total travesty.
It is purely your interpretation of events without a shred of evidence to prove or disprove the assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 08:46 AM

"Therefore to say it was a bigotry based decision is a total travesty."
No it isn't
Brexit was sold on the basis of stopping immigration - immediately the result were announced racial incidents and attacks escalated - within days, immigrants (including British citizens, were being aaastopped and asked when they were going " home"
The overwhelming economic advice that Brexit would be stabalising and detrimental to the economy was totally ignored.
Even this morning, Brexiters have greeeted the news that immigration has reached a new high, has been hailed by demands that Brexit must live up to its promise of stopping immigration - horse's mouth mouth evidence of its racist agenda
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 08:56 AM

As you well know immigration was but one of the myriad of factors determining the way a person voted. To call everyone that voted for out a bigot is a bit strong even for you. Just because they happen to dispute your worldview does not make them a bigot. Perhaps you should study the definition:
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 09:11 AM

I didn't call everybody any such thing - I believe emigration was a deciding factor and the evidence points to that - address the evifdence and don't be accusing me of things I am not saying.
My attitude to intolerance includes that which generates race hared cultural hatred
Perhaps that's a definition you should be studying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 09:18 AM

The repercussions of this bigotry based decision are having side effects far beyond Britain's borders.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 09:53 AM

Sorry - is your keyboard stuck?
Try a new one
I am not claiming that "everyone that voted for out" is bigot - that's your distorted spin on what I said.
The indications are that bigtry swung the vote in favour of Brexit
Britain has a reputation for racism - a survey indicated that one third of the popuaion hold and have expressed racist views
That's the feature that the Brixit campaign concentrated on and events indicate that side of the campaign won the day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 09:55 AM

Putting aside all the ragging, Jim raises an extremely serious issue
that illustrates the law of unintended consequences. The Brexit vote, as he rightly points out, potentially has serious consequences for Ireland.
There may have to be a hard border again between north and south and Ireland's trading position may be seriously compromised. Also politics may rear it's ugly sectarian head. Hopefully none of these events will occur, but it is yet another of the potential outcomes of Brexit that certainly had no public airing before the event.
    Had all the true issues surrounding Brexit been itemised and discussed prior to the vote It is a distinct possibility the outcome would have been very different.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: MikeL2
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 10:19 AM

Hi Jim

<" Brexit was sold on the basis of stopping immigration "

I think that is an overstatement Jim.

What was said and understood was that immigration should be controlled.

I don't know what you saw this morning but the statement I saw on BBC did not advocate stopping immigration but control.

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 11:36 AM

"I think that is an overstatement Jim."
I don't think so Mike
Whatever the Government thinks/thought, it was Ukip who led the campaign to leave and it was immigration (conrol or stopping - moot point) that motivated their policy
It was this, I believe, that was the deciding factor
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 11:40 AM

You are a very confused man, Iains. You castigated non-voters because they couldn't be bothered. Then you said "Whatever reasons drove people to vote or abstain from voting were known only to them." Then you said "As you well know immigration was but one of the myriad of factors determining the way a person voted." You are having difficulties with consistency today, aren't you, Iains? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 11:57 AM

As far as the "Official" Leave campaign was concerned UKIP didn't even feature into it, they had no space at all on the "official" leave bandwagon.

The Party was established as a Eurosceptic, anti-federalist party in 1993, long before Labour's Anthony Charles Lynton Blair became leader became leader of the opposition, let alone the Prime Minister who screwed the country right, left and centre in many more ways than advocating and encouraging an open door immigration policy - a thing he latter was to declare his greatest mistake - the Iraq war on the other hand he'd do again in a heartbeat.

NO ONE in the range of political parties present amongst those advocating Leave ever said anything about STOPPING immigration, they did state quite clearly that immigration does require to be CONTROLLED - nothing "moot" about it, you can only go on what is actually said, not on what you think has been said.

Ordinary people up and down the country are apparently concerned that our welfare services, housing, education and labour markets are being swamped by the current level of immigration - that is why they voted as they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 12:26 PM

"Leave campaign was concerned UKIP didn't even feature into it"
Are you seriously suggesting it didn't have a majooor influence in the decision
"Vote Leave has focused on economic arguments against the European Union, while Leave.EU has made more of immigration-related issues. This has led to situations where Vote Leave and Leave.EU statements have contradicted each other, and sometimes to direct attacks by one pro-Brexit group against the other.[35] Infighting within Vote Leave and Leave.EU, as well as disillusion with Cummings, led to the formation of Grassroots Out (GO).[36] Nigel Farage is a key member of the organisation and of Leave.EU and UKIP donor Aaron Banks is a major donor to GO,[36] whereas Vote Leave is a mainly Conservative campaign.[37]"
The fact that "stopping immigration" was never mooted, didn't stop those who went around demanding to know whwhen those of a different colour - citizen orr otherwise, weer going home.
The effect it had was incitement, if it was not policy.
DIDN'T FEATURE - MY ARSE!!
Jim Carroll
Wiiki

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 12:39 PM

mr shaw are you trying to contribute to the thread or just being your usual self?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: MikeL2
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 02:32 PM

Hi Jim

I can't agree with your comment about the meanings of Control and Stopping with regard to Immigration.

Also <" The fact that "stopping immigration" was never mooted, didn't stop those who went around demanding to know whwhen those of a different colour - citizen orr otherwise, weer going home.
The effect it had was incitement, if it was not policy.">

You appear to be saying here that only "Brexit" voters are racists.
We both know that this isn't true.

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 04:07 PM

I contribute to threads a good deal, Iains, including this one. Today's contributions from you have involved you making a complete arse of yourself by saying one thing one minute and contradicting yourself the next. I'd far sooner be wrong all the time, like me!

Teribus, you won't be the first person to be accused of racism by claiming that "our welfare services, housing, education and labour markets are being swamped by the current level of immigration." It would be more honest to address the real causes of the pressures on those elements, namely under-investment, poor planning and low morale. Immigrants come here to work. They contribute massively to the economy. Tory types like you have a habit of blaming the wrong people and penalising tne wrong people, namely the poorest and the powerless in society.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 05:48 PM

"I'd far sooner be wrong all the time, like me!"

Well Steve you are certainly consistent.

You think that the present rates of immigration are sustainable?
That unregulated economic immigration don't drive down wages and pressurise our public services.

You think that we can get investment and high morale in a country full of whinging old men who try their hardest to do the UK down?

You see the status quo failing our young people yet are determined to hang on to a system which benefits the retired and comfortably off.

Aye you're "wrong", but you've got used to it ....and quite like it...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 06:06 PM

"I can't agree with your comment about the meanings of Control and Stopping with regard to Immigration."
Then you have to rip them to shreds with argument
"You appear to be saying here that only "Brexit" voters are racists."
Who said that?
I said Brexit inflamed the worst xenophobic instincts of a sufficient section of the population conditioned to treat foreigners as inferiors.
It was incitement to race hatred - pure and simple
Powell tried and failed decades ago - Brexit succeeded - the only difference between the two
"You think that the present rates of immigration are sustainable?"
As human beings responding to a situation we have helped to cause - it has to be.
You wipe up your own shit - not walk away from it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 07:44 PM

"As human beings responding to a situation we have helped to cause - it has to be."

Now there's a novel idea......how did the redundant workers who's jobs are no longer viable help to cause this situation?
And why do I ask?.....because they are the people most aversely affected by unregulated immigration!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 16 - 08:38 PM

"how did the redundant workers who's jobs are no longer viable help to cause this situation?"
They didn't - the dismantling of British industry by verious governments - started in earnest by Thatcher saw tto that.
Politicians destroyed British Industry while helping themselves to "expenses" from the nations purse.
Greedy bankers, with the assistance of equally greedy and incompetent politicians brought Britain to its knees through numerous crashes and recessions
Greedy employers, assisted by politicians, have taken away what little voice British workers had, done away with the right to notice by creating zero contracts and have operated a cheap labour scheme by employing as cheap as they can get
And you blame the Immigrants (while claiming to be a socialist)
Socialist my arse
You are every bit as supporter of exploitation of workers as any extremist riht wing Tebbittite
You said a little time ago that a good Goverment would be one that embraces Christian values - what values would they be?
You show not a shred of humanity toward people in trouble and wnat to stop them entering Britain ,and those who do scrape through, you are in favour of forcing them to wear armbands and live behind red-painted doors so the scummy racists can single them out - even after the British establishment had abandoned the idea.
Compassion for your fellow man? - I see only prejudice and hatred for those who don't meet your social and particularly your sexual standards.
You are an extremist, right wing mess Ake - probably the most far right individual I have ever come across, totally impervious to the suffering of others.
Christian my arse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 03:29 AM

As well as being a ranter Jim, you are completely missing the point.

The issue of WRISTBANDS   and the refurbishment of Local Authority housing has been explained to you several times.

I don't intend to go over any of your conspiracy theories on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 03:50 AM

"The issue of WRISTBANDS   and the refurbishment of Local Authority housing has been explained to you several times."
And still comes over as an act of absolute inhumanity comparable with forcing to forcing the Jews to wear yellow stars, as it wwas described even in the right wing British Press,
You continued to support the obscene practice long after the Right Wing British establishment outlawed it as being detrimental to the well-being of refugee families - making you righter than right in anybody's book.
As with other extremist right wingers on this forum, I don't give a tuppeny **** what you care to go over - you are what you are and we have nothing to say to each other - I'd probably better spend my time arguing with the B.N.P. - at least they they have a following.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 04:04 AM

Why don't you address the point about the redundant workers, whom you expect to welcome hoards of Eastern European immigrants with open arms because "we" created the situation?

Instead of bombarding other members with insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 04:12 AM

Oh Shaw please don't be so coy - Steve Shaw - 01 Dec 16 - 04:07 PM - quote the whole thing and concentrate your mind on the first bit:


"Ordinary people up and down the country are apparently concerned that our welfare services, housing, education and labour markets are being swamped by the current level of immigration - that is why they voted as they did." - Teribus

Now where in all of that have I said "THAT I THINK THAT"???

Liked your automatic hard left "socialist" mantra dictum - Never forget - It is always somebody else's fault.

"It would be more honest to address the real causes of the pressures on those elements, namely under-investment, poor planning and low morale." - Steve Shaw

Tell me Shaw when was the critical breakpoint for all the investment and planning to accommodate the influx of people our country has experienced since the expansion of the EU and the refugee crisis we see as a result of repression and crack downs by Governments in Eritrea, Libya, Syria? It takes time (years) to plan and build hospitals, schools, transport facilities and houses and normally those tasked with predicting and planning those things operate from models based on current situation and probable predictions. Now back in the 1980s none of those planners or Government economists had the slightest inkling at all that Anthony Charles Lynton Blair would get up one morning and introduce complete unrestricted access to the UK.

This paper by Professor Martin Ruhs Martin Ruhs (Associate Professor of Political Economy at the Oxford University Department for Continuing Education, a Fellow of Kellogg College) is quite interesting:

Is unrestricted immigration compatible with inclusive welfare states? The (un)sustainability of EU exceptionalism

Introduction

The economist Milton Friedman was one of the first to argue that there is a fundamental tension between what he called "free immigration to jobs" and "free immigration to welfare" (Friedman 1978). The political scientist Gary Freeman made a similar point in his widely cited article on 'Migration and the political economy of the welfare state', which concluded that "ultimately, national welfare states cannot coexist with the free movement of labor" (Freeman 1986, p.51). The implication of these arguments is that you can have large-scale labour immigration or an inclusive welfare state – but not both. However, under the 'free movement' rules of the European Union, EU workers have both the right to freely migrate and work in any EU member state and the right to full and equal access to that country's welfare state. Does the experience of the EU show that the alleged tension between large-scale labour immigration and inclusive welfare states does not exist or, if it exists, that it can be overcome? Or will the free movement of workers within the EU prove to be unsustainable? In this paper I argue and show why continuing to insist on both unrestricted migration and equal access to national welfare states for EU workers has the potential to undermine the political sustainability of 'free movement' because it does not take adequate account of important differences in the labour markets and welfare states across EU member states.

So like the precipitate introduction of the common currency the "Free Movement - both economic and welfare" seems to be another EU screw up brought about by those at the helm in the EU not thinking things through.

See Hollande is not even going to stand for re-election in France.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 04:14 AM

To be pedantic, it's 'hordes'. But however you spell it, it's a racist slur.

The problem isn't your 'hoards of Eastern European immigrants'. If workers are made redundant, there's a legal issue in that their jobs no longer exist, and they cannot legally be replaced. If British workers are, as you seem to be claiming, being made redundant in order to employ cheap foreign labour, then employers are wholly to blame for:-

a) breaking employment law
b) undercutting existing wage/salary rates by employing cheap labour.

You really need to get your head out of the Daily Heil and the Sun, and widen your reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 04:31 AM

No BWM I am not claiming that these workers were made redundant by immigrants...they were made redundant by globalisation, but they see immigrants happy to earn the minimum wage ,or less....because it is worth three or four times as much in Eastern Europe where much of it ends up. The playing field is not level, these locals could not survive on the minimum wage, most are better off on benefits with their rent paid......who can blame them being upset that their services are being overused while funding is being cut......and the money is simply not available to give these people proper retraining or ensure a decent life.

Taxing industry or "The rich" will simply exacerbate the situation under this capitalist system......that is a fact of life.

We require something more radical, but with you people masquerading as socialists, I wont hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 04:50 AM

"Why don't you address the point about the redundant workers,"
I have done - a dozen times
They are the result of ruthless employers hiring the cheapest and corrupt politicians letting them
I've even suggested a solution - a legally binding living minimum wage
Your blaming immigrants is inhumanly despicable and it's a confirmation of your 'Rightness'
No insults - just analytical argument which you refuse to respond to
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 04:59 AM

I didn't say anywhere that "you thought that..." Teribus. If you hadn't regarded your statement as fact you wouldn't have made it! The Tories hate the NHS and are dismantling it. Hospitals are closing, services are being cut back, there is a shortage of GPs, waiting lists are turning into a national disaster. Far from causing a crisis in the NHS, immigrants are propping it up. Next time you go into any hospital, open your eyes for once. As for housing, the house-building record of this and several previous administrations is pathetic. Immigrants are absolutely not to blame for that either. They make a great scapegoat covering up for government deficiencies of course. And we invest in transport links, of course, ignoring potholes whilst indulging in vanity projects like another runway for the southeast and a high-speed "rail link" that will make it easy for people to bomb down - guess where - to London, of course! that is already costing almost double its promised budget before a single bloody sleeper has been laid. "Blame someone else?" You go apeshit when we blame Thatcher for the things she actually did. Your latest obsession is to blame Blair for everything. Are you sure he didn't rape all our daughters and eat babies too?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 05:00 AM

Jim, I have never "blamed" immigrants they are only trying to better themselves financially.   I blame short sighted governance which introduced such an idiotic immigration policy. A policy which discriminates against our own people.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 05:12 AM

"...against our own people." So it's us and it's them. When you're down the pub, do you start your sentences with "I'm not a racist, but..."?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 05:36 AM

Wristbands?
Have you seen the sitcom Benidorm?
British tourists forced to wear wristbands in EU Spain.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 05:50 AM

"British tourists forced to wear wristbands in EU Spain."
For Christ's sake Keith - we've been through all this.
The wristbands and the painted doors were recognised as being detrimental to the well-being of the refugees - racist thugs were using them to target their victims - they were removed because of this.
Even the extremist right wing press accepted the dangers - it was the Daily Mail who compared them to Jewish yellow stars.
And you crowd go on defending them
What kind of Christians are you - more to the point - what kind of human beings are you?
"Jim, I have never "blamed" immigrants they are only trying to better themselves financially. "
That id belittling them in itself - many of them are just trying to stay alive, having fled war zones we have helped to cause.
They have come to Britain in the same way Britons and Irish and Scots went to America - and why so many British people went to Europe until you clowns closed the door - to earn a living.
We owe these people - we shaped their countries to serve an Empire that no longer exist, we support the people whose terrorism they are fleeing from, politically and by selling them arms, we fill our shops with goods produced in factory death-traps for pittance wages....
And you people want to wash our hands of the mass poverty we have helped to cause by turning them away
What kind of "Christian/Human Being are you.
And still you refuse to respond to the employers hiring cheap being a major cause of low wages and unemployment
Socialist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! my arse.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 06:52 AM

Steve Shaw - 02 Dec 16 - 04:59 AM

I didn't say anywhere that "you thought that..."

But you seem to be saying that I claimed it here:

"Teribus, you won't be the first person to be accused of racism by claiming that "our welfare services, housing, education and labour markets are being swamped by the current level of immigration."

The original version is perfectly true:

"Ordinary people up and down the country are apparently concerned that our welfare services, housing, education and labour markets are being swamped by the current level of immigration - that is why they voted as they did." - Teribus

Expressed in MSM reports and analysis of results by political commentators of the EU referendum to explain how traditional labour voters turned out in droves to Vote LEAVE (Sunderland IIRC over 70%).

Now then just for a change answer the question asked:

"When was the critical breakpoint for all the investment and planning to accommodate the influx of people our country has experienced since the expansion of the EU and the refugee crisis we see as a result of repression and crack downs by Governments in Eritrea, Libya, Syria? It takes time (years) to plan and build hospitals, schools, transport facilities and houses and normally those tasked with predicting and planning those things operate from models based on current situation and probable predictions. Now back in the 1980s none of those planners or Government economists had the slightest inkling at all that Anthony Charles Lynton Blair would get up one morning and introduce complete unrestricted access to the UK."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 07:00 AM

the daily mail is owned by a tax exile , some patriot.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 08:06 AM

Anyone inclined to talk about the impact of Brexit on the Richmond Park by-election? Given that voting against was a key part of her campaign it is at least plausible that she is bound by that rather than the referendum. That is not the case in general, I would say, but as she has been elected since the referendum I would say the position is genuinely different.

It makes the chances of an early election very remote, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 09:25 AM

"the daily mail is owned by a tax exile , some patriot."
And was once owned by a Hitler/Blackshirt supporter - a history to be proud of.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 09:30 AM

Thanks for backtracking, Teribus. Forcing you to greater accuracy is quite an achievement.

Sarah Olney is going to vote against the triggering of Article 50. We need a good few more like her who can see that triggering the damn thing is a turkey voting for Christmas. The people should never have been given a say in a referendum, and the way it was conducted by both sides is abundant confirmation of that. But now that we've had one, once the terms of exit are made clear to us, we should have not the same referendum again but a second one on whether the terms are good enough to give the government tbe go-ahead to invoke Article 50.

Goldsmith, the racist Trust Fund Kid, made the by-election his protest against a runway. What the idiot should have seen was that this is a non-issue in Richmond. Neither of the other main candidates disagreed with him. So the LibDems made it instead into a brexit issue - and wiped out one of the biggest Tory majorities in the country. That has changed the agenda on brexit. It will shift even more so as long as the Supreme Court does the right thing next month. We're getting nearer to seeing democracy over the horizon.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 12:11 PM

The Richmond election was in response to the expansion of Heathrow.
The Richmond voters, like most well off metropolitans, had voted remain and the Lib Dems cleverly chose to campaign on that not Heathrow.
It turned out that the voters of Richmond were less bothered about more planes and bulldozed villages than suppressing the uppity oiks.


Few constituencies voted remain, so this is not a game changer.

The people should never have been given a say in a referendum,

Spoken like a true democrat.
How would you have stopped UKIP offering one?
If only UKIP had, the election result would have been very different.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 01:12 PM

Well as a matter of fact I know Richmond very well and have spent many days there this year and last. Planes are a major issue there, but in this election all the main candidates were anti-runway so there was nothing to kick against. Sarah Olney is just as much against the airport expansion and bulldozing villages as the Trust Fund Kid, so your point falls flat on its face. Maybe the people of Richmond, rather than generally just wanting to have it back at the oiks, are better at spotting a racist, spoiled-brat charlatan than you are.

There is nothing democratic about a referendum in which millions of less-qualified people are asked to decide an issue that the more-qualified MPs that are elected to represent them should be deciding, a situation made far worse by a disgraceful campaign that did everything to lie and scare and nothing to inform. If that's your idea of democracy, I feel sorry for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 01:40 PM

... So this is not a game changer...

I am not sure I agree, for two reasons. At first glance they may sound contractors, but they aren't.

Firstly, imagine any by-election where the campaign focuses on Brexit. If the elected person supported leave, it has no overall effect: that is happening anyway, all other things being equal. But if the elected person is for leave, it does alter the balance. So the leave side can only lose in this process. There may not be enough by-elections to affect things, but that is the direction.

The second thing is that the government does have other concerns, not just Brexit. But this is a strong indication that the Brexit argument is likely to be more potent that traditional party lines. And a UKIP candidate can probably tell a stronger leave message than any other party. So this suggests - no more than that - that UKIP will be strengthened. And equally in some areas, the most pro remain is likely to do well, be it LibDem or Green.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 01:43 PM

Contradictory. Autocorrect again!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 02:19 PM

"There is nothing democratic about a referendum in which millions of less-qualified people are asked to decide an issue that the more-qualified MPs that are elected to represent them should be deciding"

Dying to hear what makes those Professional politicos "more-qualified"?

These like the more-qualified MPs who lied to the British public in taking us into what they knew in 1973 would become the Federalist EU?

These the more qualified MPs who would naturally wish to remain in the EU in the hope of access and self advancement in what is known to be the greatest gravy train in the world - the unaudited EU Commission. Want an example Shaw - Just take a look at Lords Kinnock.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 03:35 PM

"More qualified MP's" Now that is an interesting concept.
Would you care to flesh out just what these qualifications are Mr Shaw?
Trousering amounts from the public purse would appear one qualification,
but I fail to see how this aids the electorate and I could never understand paying for cleaning moats either. Perhaps that was in order to reintroduce the ducking stool.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 04:01 PM

They are also the "more qualified" MP's who thought THEY should decide who was to be leader of the Labour Party!!! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 07:08 PM

I really do think that MPs are 'more qualified'. After all, it is what they are supposed to do for a living. That are actualy paid a considerable amount of money to make these sort of decisions. They are certainly far more qualified than I am, than the bloke in the pub is and even more than the hack behind the sound bites in the stun and the daily heil.

Now, I am more than happy for people to call me naive for believing these things. Maybe I am. But, if we cannot trust the politicians to make make these decisions, just who can we trust?

Not that I trust them at all, but they seem to be the best we have...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 07:22 PM

Well, Iains, there are far better targets for you bile than MPs when it comes to pay. Let's take the bankers, for example, who wrecked this economy a few years ago despite taking home multi-millions in bonuses which, oddly, don't seem to have dried up. The damage ran to hundreds of billions. The expenses scandal cost us a million and a bit, very wrong of course, but let's keep a bit of perspective, shall we? Many a doctor, dentist and headteacher gets paid more than an MP, not to speak of telly celebrities, company bosses and those bankers. And an MP could be out on his ear after five years, lest we forget, no notice, no redundancy, no warning. Still, that is hardly the point of the attack from you and Teribus, which questions my comment that MPs are more qualified to make major policy decisions than the millions of ordinary people.

Almost all MPs are members of political parties, each of which has its own distinctive policies. I expect my MP to understand those policies and to be able to argue for them. I also expect my MP to be fully au fait with the workings of government and the implications of government policies and strategies. When they are first elected they will be on a steep learning curve which will come on top of the political work they have done in their pre-candidate life. That's their job. Members of the public do not have any of these obligations. MPs are, therefore, far more qualified than the general public to make decisions predicated on in-depth understanding of the issues at stake. I really don't know why I have to explain this to you.

Of course, if you're one of the "all these politicians are the bleedin' same and we should get rid of the lot of 'em" brigade, all this will go straight over your head. The worrying thing in that circumstance is that you have the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 08:20 PM

Oh, and Lord Kinnock isn't an MP, Teribus, not for over twenty years. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 08:36 PM

Come on Steve, you must know that both Lord and Lady Kinnock worked for the EU before retiring with an estimated £10 million pension pot. There's still lots of gravy on that train. That's why so many of our politicians were, and in some cases still are, so keen for us to remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 08:58 PM

The conversation here is about whether MPs are more qualified than the general public. Teribus doesn't really agree and he gave me an example of one to illustrate -- Neil Kinnock, who hasn't been an MP since 1995. Do try to keep up. Would it make you happy if I told you that I think Kinnock is a total pillock?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 09:36 PM

Are you suggesting that because he is no longer an MP he is no longer more qualified? Or that UK MPs are more qualified than MEPs? Perhaps if your posts made more sense I would be better able to keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 02:25 AM

Steve Shaw - 02 Dec 16 - 08:20 PM

"Oh, and Lord Kinnock isn't an MP, Teribus, not for over twenty years. 😂"

Perfectly true Shaw, but that was why I referred people to him and his wife (Both of whom are Lords drawing £150 and £300 per day). Both were elected as Labour representatives Neil as an MP and wife Glenys as an MEP, Neil proved unelectable as Leader of the Labour Party and never became Prime Minister. So he was then put forward without any election process to become a - EU COMMISSIONER - the first prize when it comes to the EU Gravy Train. Having both clambered aboard this "golden lunch ticket" my, my, how their fortunes have grown. They serve as an example to all our younger professional politicians who have never held a job outside of their own party's political machinery how to become a millionaire.

Got the point now Shaw 😂😂😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 03:01 AM

got the point now?

I don't know about Steve, but I certainly haven't.   The question was whether a practicing or retired MP should have a deeper understanding of the implications of leaving the EU than a general member of the public. Whether they are paragons of virtue or slime balls is not the point. Whether they leave impoverished or with vast sums in deposits in Luxembourg is not the point. Whether the EU is a gravy train or not is not the point - it may well be a reason to vote leave but has nothing whatever to do with the question. Now I admit Steve using the word "qualification" was not ideal, but it is obvious enough what he meant and it is plain silly to obsess about the word.

What strikes me most about this thread is it is fixated on the referendum that is in the past. There is a huge amount of future stuff about Brexit, characterised by hard or soft. There is the recent by-election and what it means for future elections. There is the recent discussion between May and Merkel about the status of ex pats on both sides. Why is this ignored to prattle on about Kinnoch and Co?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 04:23 AM

Dave,

Now, I am more than happy for people to call me naive for believing these things. Maybe I am. But, if we cannot trust the politicians to make make these decisions, just who can we trust?

That is somewhat different to your previously stated view!

" I am a cynic when it comes to politicians"

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

"If any MPs thought it was legally binding then they are fools. I suspect that, like many other politicians, they are not fools but are lying. Although that is merely my opinion but born out of experience."

"Many promises were made by politicians that have now been broken. The only surprise there is that some people seem shocked by this."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 04:30 AM

Catching up - probably missed a bit here and there
Jim Carroll
A reminder
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
"Oh Shaw please don't be so coy"
"Perfectly true Shaw,"
"Got the point now Shaw"
Probably because Carroll
Really Carroll
Keep floundering about Carroll
So all in all Christmas
For JOM:
Christmas
No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"
You really should read our own posts sometime - it would help avoid the foot-in-mouths - the "Rattle of an Simple Man", as the screenplay writer described it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 06:26 AM

Yes, you are right, Keith. I don't trust politicians and I didn't put that last point over very well. What I was trying to say is that maybe I am naive to believe we can trust them to do the job that they are well paid to do. I thought that is what I did say and the the last line, that you omitted, I thought clarified it completely IE Not that I trust them at all, but they seem to be the best we have... But maybe I am also naive to think that everyone will understand what I am trying to put across. I should know better by now I suppose :-(

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 06:45 AM

Cheers, DMcG. You saved me a bit of ink there. By the way, I don't think I used the word "qualification" with regard to MPs, implying that they've passed some sort of exam and grabbed themselves a certificate. My point is that we should expect our MPs to be a damn sight more knowledgeable when it comes to the economy and politics than the average voter by dint of their work experiences. On the whole I think they are, and whether or not they've cheated the expenses system or aspire to move onto the gravy train or get £300 per day for snoozing in the Lords has no bearing on that. Teribus is trying to wriggle out of his blunder by going on the attack instead of saying "oops!" Normal!

Saying that they're generally more knowledgeable, by the way, does not imply that they are all honest, trustworthy and not moneygrabbing, before I get accused of claiming that they're all paragons.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 06:50 AM

Glad you put that reminder up again Carroll (That is your name isn't it?) If those reading the thread read your posts and then read your reminder list they will fully understand what I have been on about for all these years. It will remind everyone that you are truly clueless and gormless to an astounding degree.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 07:01 AM

He was only quoting you. You are far and away the most aggressive, abrasive, arrogant and insulting poster on this forum. When you get things wrong you won't retract. These are descriptions of you, not insults. And I fully expect, within minutes, a riposte that describes me in, er, less than complimentary terms that will absolutely confirm what I've just said.


Fire away!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 07:20 AM

No need Shaw - you make a big enough fool of yourself without the need for embellishment by anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 08:36 AM

Good! Moving swiftly on...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 09:26 AM

I have found that conservatives are seldom wrong in debate they deal in verifiable facts whereas socialist, of whom I am one, are hardly ever right.


The reason of course is that conservatives see the world as it is and actually believe what they espouse, we on the other hand see the world as we would like it to be and only a tiny minority understand or truly believe in our stated views.

I admit to enjoying Teribus putting you all through the mincer...I know its a sin against "liberalism".......but I cant help it.

It's the desperation which takes over when you realise he has you cornered and there is nothing for it but turn tail and run.
That's when the attempts to get the thread closed start.....highly entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 09:44 AM

"what I have been on about for all these years. "
Whoops – nearly missed this – an actual admission that you are a loutish ill-mannered bullying thus
That was a close one!
Jim Carroll

A reminder
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
It will remind everyone that you are truly clueless and gormless to an astounding degree.
"Got the point now Shaw"
Probably because Carroll
Really Carroll
Keep floundering about Carroll
So all in all Christmas
For JOM:
Christmas
No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: bobad
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 09:52 AM

It's the desperation which takes over when you realise he has you cornered and there is nothing for it but turn tail and run.
That's when the attempts to get the thread closed start.....highly entertaining.

That is sure to launch some entertaining, brightly coloured, large font sputtering.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 10:10 AM

conservatives see the world as it is and actually believe what they espouse

Trump, Trumpists, and Trumpism immediatly destroy that argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 10:33 AM

Are some contributing to the Brexit debate or merely honing their skill set in cut and paste?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 11:12 AM

"The reason of course is that conservatives see the world as it is and actually believe what they espouse,"
Extraordinary
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/tories-have-forgotten-that-thatcher-wasnt-just-a-terrorist-sympathiser-but-close-friends-with-one-10507850.html
"whereas socialist, of whom I am one, "
Even more extraordinary
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 11:37 AM

Oh I still keep the faith Jim, it's like a religion really. I live more in hope than expectation these days, seen too many real socialists go to their graves.... their dreams unfulfilled.

I've stopped arguing the toss with Keith and Mr T....nowadays I'm on a learning curve and if we are going to change anything we need realists.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 12:31 PM

"Oh I still keep the faith Jim, it's like a religion really"
You are talking arogant contradictory nonsense
How ano earth can you claim to be a socialist - openly attack the left and espouse an extremist right-wing philosophy?
How is that "keeping the faith"
You would have to be a schizophrenic to do both.
Your views are racist, Islamophobic, totally intolerant of people you describe as disease carrying sexual deviants....
Your veiws are those that filled Nazi gas-chambers - with Socialists and Communists, among others.
Being something involves your actually standing up for what you believe and not taking the opposite stance and attacking what you claim to believe.
Your "socialism" is that of The Nation Socialists - one of hatred of other races, creeds and ideals.
You swing from one reactionary statement to another - armbands for refugees, fortress Britain, all Muslims are totally untrustworthy because of theirt religion, blanket support for a Fascist like Trump, working people are not fit to control their own destiny, Anders Behring Breivik was making points worth listening to...... the list of extremist right-wing causes you have supported - on occasion, even when the right have abandoned them as too extreme (Yellow-star type armbands)
When eve you aver disagreed with Keith and Teribus - two of the most persistent extremist right-wingers on this forum.
Your hatefully persistent attacks on homosexuality -even when the world has moved on from this oppressively harmful practice, is beyond belief - almost as beyond belief as your claim to be a Socialist.
You are not even consistent or honest about your statements
You attack the left, get huffy for being accused of doing so, then do it all over again, claiming you don't have to be of the left to be a socialist (left is a defining feature of socialism - go buy a dictionary)
Your cavalier use of the term "liberal" to express a hatred for all progressive ideas and ideals, sums your somewhat unstable approach to politics absolutely - you appear to exist on a different planet from the rest os us - The Planet Strange
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 03:06 PM

Ake
I've asked this before and got no answer
You constantly refer in abusive terms to 'The Benefit Culture'
You have put down the problems of the National Health Service and being abused by the users of that service.
You are disparaging of people's "rights"
You oppose the ownership and control of the means of production on the basis that we are not ready for it.
You recently say that "socialist, of whom I am one, are hardly ever right" and "conservatives see the world as it is"
As all of these more or less cover the aspirations of Socialism, which particular parts of socialism do you actually support?
I think the last time I asked this, you responded on the basis that you wouldn't respond to insults (though none were made)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 03:15 PM

A whole ream of misrepresentation and outright lies Jim, breath taking in their viciousness.

I have always stated that I am a social conservative, most real socialist that I have encountered have been so.
I am strongly opposed to the capitalist economic system which in my opinion must be scrapped and replaced by something sustainable.
I think our expectations have been pumped up by the system without providing the means to make these expectations achievable.

I stand up for change in the political and economic system, not the "liberal neverland" inhabited by you and your chums. Your ideology is actually an inhibitor to real change.

I disagree quite strongly with many political views expounded by K and T, but I have the quality that you do not seem to possess, in being able to process other views and amend my own where I think it necessary.

The rest of your post is simply a disgusting rant which I wont dignify with a response.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 03:24 PM

I must say, you must have bloody big balls to be able to post that utter rubbish. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 03:44 PM

As Teribus has amply proved, you have "no balls at all".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 04:04 PM

"Kinnock led the Labour Party to a surprise fourth consecutive defeat in the 1992 general election, despite the party being ahead in most opinion polls, after which he resigned as leader and from the House of Commons. Three years later he became a European Commissioner. He went on to become the Vice-President of the European Commission under Romano Prodi from 1999 to 2004. Until the summer of 2009, he was also the Chairman of the British Council and the President of Cardiff University."
      definitely getting his snout in to the european gravy train, in my opinion he is a disgrace and a traitor.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 04:55 AM

"A whole ream of misrepresentation and outright lies Jim, breath taking in their viciousness."
Then you put them up and I'll knock them down Ake - which of the things I have describe have you not subscribed to?
"I have always stated"
What you have stated is irrelevant if it does not coincide with what you actually say.
"I am strongly opposed to the capitalist economic system"
Yet yor arguments echoe those of the most right wing supporters of the system A reminder
"conservatives see the world as it is"
"socialist, of whom I am one, are hardly ever right."
Straight out of the Norman Tebbit Handbook of Class Politics
I ask again, what's your opinion on the public ownership of the means of production and distribution?
Let's see if you anser this time and is your answer ties up with other statements you have made on the subject.
Have you not used the term 'benefit culture"?
Have you not described the problems the Health Service is undergoing as being down to misuse by patients?
Did you not say that mass murderer Breivik had something to say worth listening to?
If nothing else, your continuing contempt for Liberalism puts you on the extreme right - yoiu are almost as obsessive on this as your hatred for homosexuality
These are all signs of your extreme political position and however you describe yourself, it's what you are.
You are like the old joke about the American who tried to avoid conscription by faking his eye test - until a young nurse in a very short skirt walked into the examination room and bent over the filing cabinet.
The examining doctor said, your eye test may be telling me one thing, but your prick's pointing strait to West Point
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 05:15 AM

"The reason of course is that conservatives see the world as it is and actually believe what they espouse, we on the other hand see the world as we would like it to be and only a tiny minority understand or truly believe in our stated views."

I Jim, am one of that tiny minority.....you as far as I can see are definitely not.
You strike me as a "committed liberal" believing exactly what the establishment want and expect you to believe.

Someone above, it may have been you, mentioned "caricature" and I suppose that just about covers it really.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 05:22 AM

Another thing Jim, I could go through your whole list of complaints and explain my meaning and my stance, but I don't write here for you alone. I expect a certain degree of comprehension from the membership of this illustrious forum.....a degree which you either do not possess or which you prefer not to use?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 05:50 AM

Your standpoint on almost everything you "write here about" (pompous sod) is ludicrously incomprehensible. You live in your own unprickable little bubble.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 05:58 AM

You fail to answer my questions and you fail to identify the lies you claim I have told
The game's up Ake
"Incomprehensive" to self-inflicted illiterates, maybe
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 10:41 AM

OK Jim, how about everything in the post "Jim Carroll 3 Dec 16...12:31 pm".......I have identified them you prove they are true.

Or even that I actually wrote them.   None of your crooked quotes either, if you please.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 10:44 AM

ludicrously incomprehensible.

I have never had any problem comprehending Ake.
Perhaps the deficiency is with you?

"Incomprehensive" to self-inflicted illiterates, maybe

I think you have it Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 10:47 AM

If so, it's a deficiency I shall treasure.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 10:53 AM

You are seriously suggesting that you said none of those things?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:17 AM

Your vociferous defence of forcing Asylum Seekers to wear identification bands – after the right-wing press had compared it to "Jewish Yellow Stars" and it had been abandoned as a dangerous practice.
The list is in reverse order - the last posing was the first you posted
Jim Carroll

08 Feb 16 - 04:28 PM
As far as I am concerned there was nothing wrong with the colour of the doors, the house number plates, or the wristbands.....these people are seeking asylum, they will be receiving benefits, food, and a newly refurbished house, something our own young people can only dream about.   Try to get a grip on reality, the media sniffed a human rights story and dived in feet first....rather than take them on as they should have done, the housing agencies backed down.

08 Feb 16 - 03:44 AM
Jim..."armbands" were wristbands, the difference has already been explained.
The "red plaques" were door numbers, why do you continue to call them "plaques"......does it sound more in keeping with your CT?
The "red doors" were company policy, just as the doors of our council houses were at painted green......of course the Rangers supporters thought that was a conspiracy too!! :0)
I am amazed that you can continue this nonsense.

30 Jan 16 - 06:52 AM

"It is a way of tagging people and it has been proven to have put people at risk yet our star super-rights continue to defend the use of compulsory markers to identify foreigners - why am I not surprised"
Rubbish! It is a way of identifying those who have entitlement not "foreigners"....the majority of immigrants don't have entitlement.
Get a grip, or give it a rest.

30 Jan 16 - 06:42 AM
The "red plaques" Jim,   You forgot to mention that they were house number plates newly fitted on specially refurbished property.
hat colour of number plate would be acceptable to you....the wristbands were pink by the way.
This whole pantomime carried out by the media is getting beyond a joke!......Who is actually running this country?

Jan 16 - 05:26 AM
Exactly.....Even! George Galloway on TV this morning was unable to condemn it, saying that it was common practice at Rock concerts and other public occasions to differentiate between those who had paid for entry and those who had not.

29 Jan 16 - 02:59 PM

Jim, don't you realise that this whole petty charade has been orchestrated by the media and they will make a meal of it.
Nothing they print on this non issue has any credibility.
For once in your life use your own brain to work things out.
Keith is perfectly correct, but the media hounds are on the scent of a story, politicians are running scared and truth and common sense are abandoned.

29 Jan 16 - 06:57 AM
It would seem to me that the wristbands were used in case of language difficulties, to aid communication?
That would seem the sensible answer to the dilemma.....but who cares about common sense when there is a political point to score!! :0)

28 Jan 16 - 06:56 AM
Jim, I know you are not stupid,
so I can only presume that you are being disingenuous.
Of course I don't support attacks on anyone, but I am not "surprised" when they happen under the circumstances and I do not believe that door colour has anything at all to do with it....I'm sure there are millions of red doors on letting property all over the country behind which dwell all sorts of people.

28 Jan 16 - 06:11 AM
I think a sense of perspective is required.
We assisted in the "democratisation" of the Middle East and North Africa so our government have a duty to clear up a part of the mess incurred......do not act so shocked or surprised if a large section of the population react against this, given the austerity they are being asked to suffer due to a failure of the current economic system.
The uniform painting of the exterior of rented property has never been a means of discrimination, simply business practice.
The response on this forum makes me shake my head in disbelief at the capacity of so many people to absorb media bullshit.

27 Jan 16 - 02:17 PM
On BBC last night, they were saying that there hade been no attacks on houses or persons in that vicinity.

27 Jan 16 - 02:14 PM
I don't believe for a minute that any commercial enterprise would deliberately encourage vandalism of their property Jim, that argument just doesn't make sense.
Additionally I'm sure everyone in the town knows where the ASs have been housed, they do not need to rely on door colour to find them.
Perhaps you are suggesting that foreign AS should be placed amongst local people one or two per street, but I'm sure that would be very difficult to organise and would involve the decamping of local families.....I don't think the AS would be very happy either as they would probably feel isolated.
As far as I can make out, the houses were empty, then bought and refurbished specially to accommodate these people, that is why there are so many AS housed together.
Do you believe in "bogey men" Jim?

27 Jan 16 - 11:06 AM
But why would they want their property damaged?

27 Jan 16 - 05:00 AM
Jim it pains me to say this, but you are acting in a deranged manner over this....no one is defending anything, there was a reason why letting agencies wanted all their property to remain uniform externally.    Public taste. Some people have weird ideas on how their houses should look, and if they are not in a conservation area and they own the property that is fine....however if they do not own the property they will normally not be allowed to tamper with the outside decoration or dictate what colour it should be.
Additionally what would be the purpose of "identifying asylum seekers", to the letting agencies? this could cause trouble and damage to the property.
Are you seriously contending that this was the letting agencies intentions?.......I think you are being disingenuous, you don't believe such a thing, but find promoting the idea as beneficial to your "liberal" agenda.
The whole episode is a nonsense a symptom of a society which no longer has any cohesion or belief in itself.....and I am sorry to say that it is people like you and others on this forum....who have made it so.
"The politics of the madhouse"

26 Jan 16 - 05:13 PM
If anyone painted their doors or walls another colour, they were censured and had to pay for repainting.
Tenants rights are confined to the inside of property in regard to decoration......Landlords are responsible for outside maintenance, unless tenants offer to do it at their own expense, then their request will be considered.

26 Jan 16 - 05:02 PM
I used to live in a council house, the doors a walls were painted every couple of years by council workers.
Tenants were not allowed to decorate the OUTSIDE of their houses.
There were no asylum seekers in our scheme.
Exterior decoration is probably covered in the terms of lease.

26 Jan 16 - 11:06 AM
Perhaps something to do with language difficulties? Was there any additional information on the wristbands?
If the people were from Syria or Libya I don't suppose racists would require wristbands to identify them.

6 Jan 16 - 10:28 AM
What a joke, they're painting the doors four different colours, but there is a problem ....they have only one colour of undercoat :0(
They'll need to slap the gloss on quick!!
You folks need to get a bloody life, the lady was right it's about economics.....the council used to paint all the doors green because they bought a bulk lot.

26 Jan 16 - 05:02 PM
I used to live in a council house, the doors a walls were painted every couple of years by council workers.
Tenants were not allowed to decorate the OUTSIDE of their houses.
There were no asylum seekers in our scheme.
Exterior decoration is probably covered in the terms of lease.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:22 AM

"the last posing was the first you posted"
The penultimate one was the one you first posted
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:31 AM

Your offerings on why Breivek murdered all those young people
Jim Carroll

24 Jul 11 - 12:19 PM
I think Teribus has it about right. To start with, the guy must have been seriously deranged to perpetrate such an atrocity.
Secondly he appears to be an extreme Nationalist who has been driven over the edge by the policies of the Norwegian govt.
(Please dont try to mis-represent that statement)
As western economies worsen and living standards, pension rights, public services come under further attack,expect to see a backlash against the policies pursued by goverments in Western Europe over the last couple of decades.
Perhaps we may yet see Mr Powells "rivers of blood".....I certainly hope not, but action needs to be taken now to reverse some of the policies which have created the "time bomb

24 Jul 11 - 02:42 PM
These are the actions which often occur when a people lose their voice, or are unable to make their feelings known.
Example the use of words like racist, homophobe, bigot here on Mudcat to shut down debate.....and most here are reasonable, intelligent, sane.
How do the less literate come to terms with these problems?
There are great numbers of people in our society and in the US who disagree strongly with the policies of parties which are to all intents and purposes indistiguishable from one another.
For years they have been ramming through poisonous policies against which the ordinary folk have no redress.
Example..a couple of years ago anyone who suggested a cap on immigration here was branded a racist and a bigot.....now this has been accepted by every party as necessary.
We now need to tackle the failed notion of "multiculturalism" along with many other social idiocies.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:33 AM

Yes I posted all these, nothing about racism, nothing about hatred, nothing about gas chambers.

Just a vain attempt to explain the situation to someone who had got the wrong end of the stick.

How can you be so foolish.
Next?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:40 AM

Regarding the "immigration" posts, what I said five years ago is exactly what has happened ....a backlash against the "liberal" elite.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:45 AM

I don't intend to waste any more time on your education Jim, some things you just have to work out for yourself, if you don't like it feel free to rant lie and misconstrue to your hearts content.

I'm sorry you feel so aggressive as you possibly have a good side, try to calm down we are old men we wont change anything at this juncture......the best we can do is be honest with ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 12:49 PM

"I don't intend to waste any more time on your education Jim,"
You don't have to Ake - you have already educated me as to what you are - and you have been proved to have lied.
I don't intend wasting my time on you either - other than to respond directly and honestly to your extremist right wing postings
"nothing about gas chambers.
Another lie
I didn't claim you did - I said your views are the same as those which filled gas chambers - which they are
The "hate" speaks for itself in many of your postings
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 16 - 02:25 AM

Interesting to see what the referendum result in Italy will lead to.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 16 - 03:51 AM

Interesting, and a sign of hope, that the extreme right got their arses kicked in Austria, after a second attempt.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:24 PM

Getting back to the question in hand. A rather worrying encounter with our PM in the New European

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:35 PM

I'm not surprised. She doesn't get on very well with other Tories either. Cameron regarded her as a whingeing pain in the arse. Bloody useless without the spinners by her side. Actually the full stop came six words too late in that sentence. And how long have we known all this?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:47 AM

What was worrying about that Dave?
Those questions have all been put many times before.
He should have known the answers and was just wasting her time.
There will have been constituents with real, pressing problems waiting.

Steve, you will have agreed with her about not being a delegate.
You have argued that here.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:10 AM

It is worrying to me that a person with so many people to advise her can just spout media sound bites and party line to answer genuine concerns. It is worrying that a person who wields such power can seem "petulant, defensive, tired and rattled" with the actions of a "Random Australian punter". It is worrying that a member of parliament is happy to use the phrase that she is "not obliged to be the voice of her constituents." It is worrying that the prime minister of a world power can lose her temper enough to point her finger into the face of a constituent and then try to excuse it by saying people do it to her.

There is plenty to worry about in the article itself but my final worry is that anyone would consider the questions as a waste of time and not being as pressing or real as anyone elses issues. BTW, for those who dismissed the article so quickly that they did not notice, it was by Louise Trethowan a "middle-aged family woman and lifetime Conservative voter".

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:18 AM

I can not agree.
Those were all old questions already thrashed out ad nauseum.
No wonder she grew impatient.

It was not the best use of her time.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:22 AM

It is worrying that a member of parliament is happy to use the phrase that she is "not obliged to be the voice of her constituents."

Then why did you not challenge Steve when he said,
"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. "

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:32 AM

The best use of any MPs time is serving his or her constituents. Speaking to one of them should never be considered a waste of time

Once again, I am not my brothers keeper. But I would point out that Mrs May is a very high powered MP who should be challenged over such statements while Mr Shaw is a sandal wearing, left wing, hippy ex teacher who has no power to affect my life in any way shape or form. Other than buying me too much beer. Chance would be a fine thing...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:42 AM

Speaking to one of them should never be considered a waste of time

Of course it can.
This one just wanted to rehash stuff that has been hashed(?) interminably everywhere for over a year.
That is not what MPs surgeries are for.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 06:26 AM

Most MPs hold surgeries in their constituency to give people an opportunity to meet them and discuss matters of concern. MPs usually hold surgeries once a week and advertise them locally or online. A MP may take up an issue on a constituent's behalf.

Taken from

MPs surgeries

I think it is traveling down a slippery slope when we begin to deem someone else's concerns as a waste of anyones time or less important than others. But that is just me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 06:26 AM

Does an MP not generally do what the whips tell him to?(something to do with the little black book the whips keep)
It saves them being torn between the wishes of their electorate and their lobbyists. Such is the true working of democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 06:37 AM

"Then why did you not challenge Steve when he said,"
Because they are different issues.
Being someone's "delegate" is a mile from representing all of the constituency, or the country.
May's 'Drumbeating" statement is little Englander writ large especially as she is in the forefront of the move to restrict travel for British people seeking work in Europe and the ending of uninterrupted passage across Europe that membership of the E.U. gave it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 06:38 AM

Not a lot of the time, Iains. Yes, the party whip can be used and should a party member vote against it they will be censured or punished in some way. There are many times when the party whip does not apply and, if I had my way, it be removed from parliamentary procedure altogether to allow the MPs to genuinely represent the wishes of their constituents.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:01 AM

If I was concerned about obscene cloud shapes and took my concerns to my MP, it would be a waste of their time.
Also if I took my concerns about Brexit to them.

Jim, May was anti-Brexit until the referendum.
She has responded to the will of the electorate.

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

There is no further point in boring other people with our discussion, Keith. I find the article worrying, you do not. I believe that MPs should listen to the concerns of their constituents, you do not. There is no common ground. If you wish to continue please feel free to PM me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:07 AM

Keith A of Hertford wrote: May was anti-Brexit until the referendum.

As I recall it May started on the leave side and then changed to remain after bus-poster-gate.

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

You recall wrongly Stanron.
Guardian 3 Feb.
"Theresa May has indicated that she is prepared to campaign in favour of Britain's membership of the EU, boosting David Cameron hours after Brussels tabled proposals for a new settlement following months of talks with the UK.
The home secretary, at one time considered as a possible leading figure in the no campaign, described the proposals as the "basis for a deal"."

That was before any campaigning and long before any buses.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:25 AM

Dave,
I believe that MPs should listen to the concerns of their constituents, you do not.

That is not true.
I consider it a jewel of our system that constituents can take relevant concerns to their MP even if it is the Prime Minister, but some concerns are just not worthy of any MPs time, e.g. obscene cloud shapes and old arguments about Brexit.

He could have got the answers to his questions from any one of us. We have been over it enough times and we do not have a country to run.
He could have gone to his local. Everyone has seen those questions put and answered many times. You do not need to waste any MPs time when others are waiting with real and relevant concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:34 AM

Who is the he that should have done all these things? Have I not already pointed out that the article was written by one Louise Trethowan a "middle-aged family woman and lifetime Conservative voter". She also mentions that she has "no history of political activism or agitation". I think she would rather get her information from her MP than any of those other sources anyway. Other than that quite significant point I really do think that I have nothing to add without repeating myself. Once again, to save the thread from terminal decline, I invite PMs.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:40 AM

"May was anti-Brexit until the referendum."
So what - she is now doing what I described she is doing - and doing it using little Englander terms.
"She has responded to the will of the electorate."
Since when has any politition had to respond to the will of the electorate and she doesn't have to do anything by humiliating the British people by using terms reminiscent of being on an Orange Lodge parade - such stuff are television comedies made of.
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:02 AM

Since when has any politition had to respond to the will of the electorate

Since always Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: daithi
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:12 AM

Seems to me that an honest and unbiased appraisal of the situation regarding the actual voting would be this:
37% of the electorate voted to leave. The other 67% majority might be said to favour the status quo, as they either voted for it or not at all. When such a large majority do not vote for change, the usual protocol is not to then rush off and implement that change.

As regards the Act which facilitated the referendum, section 5 does indeed indicate that it is advisory. Whether you agree with these objective points or not will, I expect, depend on whether you are in favour or not of Brexit. Therein lies the problem - mostly we are just trying to advance our own political preferences in these debates - not look for facts. Because if we don't like the facts, we ignore them. So truly impartial and honest debate seems impossible.... Just my two penn'orth :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:20 AM

The other 67% majority might be said to favour the status quo, as they either voted for it or not at all

Or, non voters might be fully in favour of leaving, or fully in favour of remaining.
Since they did not vote it is irrelevant anyway.

The referendum was held and a result achieved. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:25 AM

I think the voting percentages and what they mean have been done to death previously on this forum, unless there is something radically different to be said.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:32 AM

"Since always Jim."
You re joking - even you and your dozy mate have admitted the dishonesty of politicians
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:05 AM

MPs voted 461 to 89 to invoke article 50 before April.
Most were against Brexit.
Since always they must respond to the will of the electorate or lose their lovely jobs Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:21 AM

and more importantly their colours are nailed to the mast for when the main brexit vote occurs. That could cause embarrassment should they then defy the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 11:30 AM

MPs voted 461 to 89 to invoke article 50 before April.
Since when can you vote on something a couple of months before it was voted on?
More ****** nonsense - almost as stupid as honest politicians.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:15 PM

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:40 AM

Does anyone know what Jim meant?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:51 AM

Apparently not.
Please clarify Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 05:09 AM

Just knock it off, Keith. You're proving everything I'm saying about you. Sad bugger.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 06:33 AM

Sorry Keith A, no idea what he is on about. I am still trying to work this one of his out from the "best type of Government" thread:

"water taxes, which had been greeted with huge nation protests (totally unprecedented in Ireland) are being debated a year later (so far they have only been watered down (pun intended) and it is hopeful that they have been abandoned altogether and those (about 70who have paid them 61 per cent end of the third billing cycle, 55 per cent at the end of the second cycle and 44 per cent at the end of the first billing cycle), will be recompensed – people-power
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 07:01 AM

Jim's comments are quite clear if you know about the proposed water charges in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 07:06 AM

We have never had a government that has ever felt obliged to adhere to the wishes of the people who elected it - not in my lifetime and certainly not before
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:09 AM

You lot are surely not still remoaning.....the job's done as they say in racing circles. :0)

Mrs May will invoke article 50, tell parliament a few details then get on with it.

the one thing that is certain is that "freedom of movement" will be stopped, that will lead to exit from the single market, that will lead to a free trading nation with control of its borders, its laws and its trade.    Hoorah!!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 12:22 PM

Steve,

Just knock it off, Keith. You're proving everything I'm saying about you. Sad bugger.

Huh. I just asked for clarification because no-one understood Jim's post.
Do you?
Do you not want to know what Jim meant?
Do you not care what he says?

Why the personal abuse against me Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:10 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 07:06 AM

We have never had a government that has ever felt obliged to adhere to the wishes of the people who elected it - not in my lifetime and certainly not before
Jim Carroll
I understand it quite clearly, Jim means that governments do not represent the wishes of the majority of the people , governments represent a tiny minority who are very wealthy, those very wealthy people have power through their wealth to subvert democracy. Keith , you may not agree with that, but IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS IS WHAT HE MEANS

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 05:37 PM

OK Good Soldier, we know it's a game, but it's the only game in town at the moment and the game has rules.
Take away the rules and we get chaos, especially if are totally unprepared politically to install something better.

People like Jim are not revolutionaries...they are not even "evolutionaries".....they are tacit supporters of the establishment and the status quo. They have a niche in this system.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 05:54 PM

Jim is still fighting the battles that I fought in my teens and twenties, times have changed. Keith and Teribus are now more of a danger to this corrupt system than Jim has ever been, they understand political realities, the dangers of huge global federations, the worth of independent mind and traditional values.

We must stop this stupid squabbling, we have a common enemy these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 06:05 PM

Are you trying to make me die laughing?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 03:22 AM

Of course the funniest thing of the lot will be when the UK leave the EU, as they invariably will, Scotland will hold another referendum on independence and leave the UK to join the EU. Oh, how we will laugh and tell the Scotexiteers thet the job's done, that is democracy in action and they just need to stop moaning :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 03:31 AM

...of course it will give us (then) retired folk an excellent opportunity to buy cheap property up in Scotland and live there with our European neighbours while we rent out our English properties at inflated rents to disenfranchised Scotsmen who want to live in a country that will not allow immigrants to help man the failing health service :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 03:49 AM

I am wondering who will be the first to claim, if the judges rule only Parliament can authorise the government to invoke Article 50 that the vote that is just been held is such authorisation. I raise the point now because all parties currently agree it is not sufficient authorisation, and I wouldn't want anyone claiming nobody said so before it came to the crunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 04:04 AM

"People like Jim are not revolutionaries."
Can you please stop resurrecting long-lost battles
You are an extremist right winger, a homophobe, a supporter of forcing asylum seekers to wear identification tags, someone who suggested that mass murderer Breivik had something to say worth listening to and a supporter of America's first fascist President to the extent that you are now defending the part that Russia has been discovered to have played in getting him elected.....
I am hardly going to worry too much about how you describe my politics.
You have recently exposed of serially lying about what you have said and what you haven't - your latest effort appears to be an attempt to take revenge for my having exposed you
Leave it out Ake - you really are not very good at this and your past record says everything about what your politics are.
Let's talk about Brexit - not us eh?
It has recently been reported that Britain might lose 60% of its trade when Brexit is ACTIVATED , about half of what it is likely to be able to win back elsewhere.
How about chewing on them Little Englander apples?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stu
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 10:39 AM

"we have a common enemy these days."

THE PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA!

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

"THE PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA!"
Quite right Stu - what have they ever done for Britain?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:43 AM

GSS, thanks but that is not the post that no-one understood.
It was this one,

08 Dec 16 - 11:30 AM

MPs voted 461 to 89 to invoke article 50 before April.
Since when can you vote on something a couple of months before it was voted on?
More ****** nonsense - almost as stupid as honest politicians.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 12:49 PM

Are you trying to make me die laughing?

Crying, more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 01:17 PM

Thanks Akenaton

"Keith and Teribus are now more of a danger to this corrupt system than Jim has ever been"

Isn't it wonderful the things you can achieve with selective cut and pastes !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 01:24 PM

I thought I posted about Scotland leaving the UK and joining the EU? Maybe I dreamt it or maybe someone didn't like what I said? Ah well.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 01:35 PM

"We must stop this stupid squabbling, we have a common enemy these days."
You have declared your support for Trump - you are part of the common enemy
"Keith and Teribus "
The only enemy this air of comedians have is themselves - they appear to be hooked on self-humiliation
Whoops - that should read "the greatest" - the both have plenty of enemies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 03:06 AM

As an SNP member, I can reliably inform the membership that Scotland will not be leaving the UK any time soon. The Party hierarchy have settled in.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 10:08 AM

"The Party hierarchy have settled in."
Somewhat misleading doncha think?
"NICOLA Sturgeon's hopes of a separate Brexit deal for Scotland appear to have been dealt yet another blow - after the European Commission confirmed it would not be negotiating with Holyrood."
(two days ago)
The Scottish leaders have recognised that brexit will be a disaster for their country and have been blocked from doing something about it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 11:52 AM

Do you really think Sturgeon did not know that?

It's all window dressing, Scotland does not want to remain in Europe, the remain vote was linked to the support for independence.
As that independence vote wanes so will support for Europe.
The SNP made a huge mistake in tying themselves to support for the EU, the organisation is doomed.
We need complete independence and free trade, but unfortunately our politicians are running true to form and settling into their comfort zone in Hollyrood.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 12:38 PM

"Do you really think Sturgeon did not know that?"
I know it makes shit of your claim that "the party hierarchy have settled..."
You don't know what Strugeon knew any more than I do, so stop pretending you do.
What she does know is that Brexit is proving a disaster for the Scottish economy as it is for England and Ireland (both sides of the border) and we haven't started to feel the pinch yet
Brexit tops economic threat list
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:51 PM

"As an SNP member, I can reliably inform the membership that Scotland will not be leaving the UK any time soon."

As a Labour Party member, I can reliably inform the membership that Corbyn is the new Messiah and that I am the Queen of Sheba.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 10:14 AM

Heard this today             What will be different about Christmas dinner after Brexit ?          No Brussels !

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 12:16 PM

My God, call an ambulance somebody. Why, I seem to have not only split my corset laughing at that joke but my ribcage has ruptured as well. What shall I do?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:25 PM

One of my old work colleagues use to say "Laugh? I nearly got the cigs out"

Never understood it...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 02:41 PM

From the daily wail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4029342/Russian-hackers-probably-fixed-EU-referendum-vote-Brexit-says-Remoaner-MP-Ben-Br

According to a Labour MP those pesky ruskies soured the brexit vote.
Not a scrap of evidence of course, but I suppose it gives a good soundbite and the usual crowd will jump in to castigate the Russians.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 02:38 AM

Labour MP Ben Bradshaw I take it is an example of those "better informed" and "better qualified" people who should decide the fate of a nation - according to Steve Shaw and the "usual suspects".

Russian hackers fixing the result of the recent EU Referendum in the UK - begs the obvious question: How on earth can a cyber attack influence a ballot that relied exclusively on paper votes?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 03:10 AM

I think Ben got a bit carried away but it does not do to over-inflate what the papers reported which was already over inflated from what he said. There is a massive difference between influencing a result and fixing it. Of course cyber hacking to fix a paper count is daft. But he didn't claim it. He was talking about fake news articles on Facebook etc and how they could influence things. Of course the vast majority of fake news was generated by the campaigns themselves but there was also some articles by enthusiastic citizens on both sides on Facebook, some accurate, some wildly inaccurate. That Russia produced any of these for Brexit is a suggestion too far without evidence, in my opinion. But that fake news is a problem and that many people including Russia produce it is, I think, accurate enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 03:35 AM

By the way, the relevant speeches are now accessible on the Hansard pages, which are the formal record of the speeches made. Let's discuss how we understand those rather than how the Daily Mail does.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 03:48 AM

DMcg.

It is true that there is a lot of fake news about. But the problem is that much of it is spread by the mainstream media, and what is selected is carefully massaged before presentation. As an example do you really think there is much difference between events in Kabul and evenst in Aleppo? Yet there is a considerable difference in coverage.
If you wish to censor all news sources, who is to decide what is right and what is wrong? For myself I prefer to do my own sifting thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 04:13 AM

Certainly select your own. But whoever we choose for our sources needs checking. I didn't quote any newspaper account, though. It was all my own feeble work.

What Ben said was we underestimate the extent to which Russia is involved in cyber warfare. My mention of "Facebook etc" was my interpretation of part of what he was referring to. There's other kinds as well, but it does not need cyber hacking of paper counts.   Nor was there any mention of the EU or Brexit: that was a typical Daily Mail fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 04:19 AM

DMcg.
Thanks for confirming that the Mainstream media distorts news. I think it unlikely many would go to the aggravation of referring to Hansard.

"it does not do to over-inflate what the papers reported which was already over inflated from what he said"

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 04:36 AM

"I don't think many would go to the aggregation of checking Hansard."


True enough, unfortunately. That's how fake news works. I suspect, for example, Ben would not have appeared in this thread with our little diversion into how to hack sheets of paper if the Daily Mail's claim Bradshaw said anything about Brexit in that speech had been questioned.

As for confirming all media sources are distorted: of course. Get any two people to watch any event and give their interpretations and there will be differences, and in some court cases freedom or imprisonment rests on that difference. Media is the same: each has their own way of looking at events.

Which is why critically thinking about everything you read is (a) vital (b) damned hard work.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 04:42 AM

This phone keeps changing aggravation into aggregation. (It has been a fight this time as well) Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 04:59 AM

DMcG
The big danger is that when the propaganda ceases to have the required impact then censorship lies around the corner. Since the American Election went so spectacularly wrong we are seeing these conversations about false news, mainly presented by the most guilty.
We are on a slippery slope.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 07:32 AM

it is arguable whether censorship - by which I mean deliberate suppression of a truth, whether by a government or say Murdoch - is worse than getting people into a frame of mind where they neither know nor care whether a story is true, but it is, I think, outside the scope of this thread unless we are talking specific Brexit examples.

But there is one form of censorship I am very much in favour of: never share a Facebook post or newspaper link unless you are personally prepared to defend its accuracy. Any of us may receive fake news but if we pass it on, we are responsible for it, not the originator.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 02:24 PM

There is a world of difference between censorship of news and ensuring that the reported news is fair and honest. I have no knowledge of the events as I gave up on most newspapers many years ago but, if what DMcG says is true then that is a prime example of dishonestly reporting events. Rags like the Daily Heil and the Stun sail very close to the wind with things like this. They know that people will only read the headlines and go for the soundbites beneath. They get away with these dishonest tactics because, if taken to task, they will point out that the full story was reported in microprint on page 17 of the same paper, sandwiched between Strictly and X-Factor. It is this type of thing that is so frustrating and results in the 'dumbing down' of such serious issues as the EU to the level of the previously mentioned TV shows.

To be honest, I cannot blame the newspapers entirely. It is almost as if a huge chunk of the population has given up thinking for itself and relies on being told what to think by the media. They are fed a diet of 'reality' shows and get involved to such an extent that they can be told anything as long as it comes from the mouth of a celebrity. The government loves this, and I include the previous Labour administration, as it results in a simple method to control the views of the population. They have even begun to elevate some of their number to celebrity level as well, Probably starting with Tony Blair and culminating in Ed Balls prancing round the dance floor. Goebbels would have loved it if he could have achieved the same so effectively!

So, there you have it. The Gospel according to Dave the Gnome. Simon Cowell is to blame for everything...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 08:05 AM

Glad to see that the Supreme court have ruled that parliament must approve the triggering of article 50. I have no doubt that it will be done but at least it will now be done properly!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 08:44 AM

Even Trump has ACCEPTED that the Russians hacked into the U.S. election - his argument is that it didn't make any difference to the result - he would say that, wouldn't he?
It remains to be seen if the accusations that Trump was being blackmailed over perverted sexual activities
I can recall public figures losing their jobs due to their sexual activities, but I can't recall any being allowed to take office after having been found out.
"False news" nad now been preceded by "Alternative Truth" - the American establishment have always had an imaginative way with words - "friendly fire", "collateral damage" and "rendition" being prime examples
I was told this morning that our local parish priest has given Trump his blessing from the pulpit because he is against "Pro- choice" for women
Apparently Father Whatsit is happy that women are regarded as "pussy fodder"
Another great argument for disestablishmentarianism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 08:53 AM

Wouldn't mind betting that one or two people on this forum, having read your post, Jim, are now thinking antidisestablishmentarianistically...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 10:18 AM

I bet you've wanted to be able to use that word in context for decades!!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 11:00 AM

But arguably it isn't, since it refers to CofE and the monarch, and i suspect we are talking an RC priest! Close, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 11:36 AM

"antidisestablishmentarianistically..."
longest word in the English language, a schoolteacher once told us, but she declined to define it.
"and i suspect we are talking an RC priest!"
I am
I always associated it with sa separation of the state and the church - this is the definition I have
noun
1. opposition to the withdrawal of state support or recognition from an established church, especially the Anglican Church in 19th-century England.
I specifies the English Church but I believe it to be applicable and very relevant to Ireland, given recent and ongoing shenanigans
The church is rapidly changing here - just read a wonderful novel by one of Britain's great writers, where a Vatican Conclave inadvertently appoints a gay Pope - can't wait for the reaction - here locally and maybe from our serial whatsit on Mudcat
Jim Carroll