Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2162 of 2586 < 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 >

Topic Locked

Matov 24 Sep 19 10.47pm
Originally posted by silvertop An equally valid point. We are in a mess. I stand by a straight no deal versus remain vote. At least it can be justified on the basis of a population standing firm or changing its mind. Labours new deal stitch up will just drag us through more st1t for years. And the lib dems revoke art 50 will poison democracy UNLESS (some hope) they win a GE majority. Remain should not be on the ballot box I understand but it offers no answer where parliament which is supreme is predominantly remain. Then Parliament should step up and take full responsibility. It has the right to ignore the result of June 23rd. That damages its credibility with absolute justification for our anger at it but at least it is taking the blame. But to then go back to us with another referendum makes no sense what so ever. Because if it refuses to implement the first, why on earth would a second one have the slightest shred of credibility? In fact, there should be no more referendums full stop. However there is the option of a GE. Let the partys declare their positions (and both Labour and the Lib-Dems have dramatically changed their stances) and put themselves to the scrutiny of the electorate in a manner that is binding in terms how the HoC is made up. I genuinely struggle to understand why anybody would object to that in these circumstances. We had a referendum on our future in the EU. Parliament has refused to implement it and parties representing a huge part of its members have changed their stance. Defend that at the ballot box. Let us see Parliamentary democracy in action. Let it regain some credibility. Surely that is the most positive option available. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

24 Sep 19 10.47pm

Originally posted by silvertop

An equally valid point. We are in a mess. I stand by a straight no deal versus remain vote. At least it can be justified on the basis of a population standing firm or changing its mind. Labours new deal stitch up will just drag us through more st1t for years. And the lib dems revoke art 50 will poison democracy UNLESS (some hope) they win a GE majority.

Remain should not be on the ballot box I understand but it offers no answer where parliament which is supreme is predominantly remain.

Then Parliament should step up and take full responsibility. It has the right to ignore the result of June 23rd. That damages its credibility with absolute justification for our anger at it but at least it is taking the blame.

But to then go back to us with another referendum makes no sense what so ever. Because if it refuses to implement the first, why on earth would a second one have the slightest shred of credibility? In fact, there should be no more referendums full stop.

However there is the option of a GE. Let the partys declare their positions (and both Labour and the Lib-Dems have dramatically changed their stances) and put themselves to the scrutiny of the electorate in a manner that is binding in terms how the HoC is made up.

I genuinely struggle to understand why anybody would object to that in these circumstances.

We had a referendum on our future in the EU. Parliament has refused to implement it and parties representing a huge part of its members have changed their stance. Defend that at the ballot box. Let us see Parliamentary democracy in action. Let it regain some credibility. Surely that is the most positive option available.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 24 Sep 19 10.49pm
Originally posted by DanH If there’s a sensible and coherent, fully formed plan, yes. But neither the referendum or Article 50 was predecated on that requirement. Lets assume that is not going to happen. Surely then Parliament has a duty to revoke? "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

24 Sep 19 10.49pm

Originally posted by DanH

If there’s a sensible and coherent, fully formed plan, yes.

But neither the referendum or Article 50 was predecated on that requirement.

Lets assume that is not going to happen. Surely then Parliament has a duty to revoke?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 25 Sep 19 12.15am
Originally posted by Matov Then Parliament should step up and take full responsibility. It has the right to ignore the result of June 23rd. That damages its credibility with absolute justification for our anger at it but at least it is taking the blame. But to then go back to us with another referendum makes no sense what so ever. Because if it refuses to implement the first, why on earth would a second one have the slightest shred of credibility? In fact, there should be no more referendums full stop. However there is the option of a GE. Let the partys declare their positions (and both Labour and the Lib-Dems have dramatically changed their stances) and put themselves to the scrutiny of the electorate in a manner that is binding in terms how the HoC is made up. I genuinely struggle to understand why anybody would object to that in these circumstances. We had a referendum on our future in the EU. Parliament has refused to implement it and parties representing a huge part of its members have changed their stance. Defend that at the ballot box. Let us see Parliamentary democracy in action. Let it regain some credibility. Surely that is the most positive option available. Here, here. Since we have unelected judges deciding over our actual PM as to when parliament can be prorogued and second guessing his motives....something I find extremely iffy and for me something beyond their remit. I suppose we have to move on.....But personally I think this has to come with consequences. We now have an Attorney General and Queen willing to be regarded as idiots by the supreme court. We literally have a zombie Queen.....what's the point when judges get to decide for her what she already has the power to approve or reject. The parliament needs to be prorogued for the government to prepare its Queen Speech anyway and so let these clowns sit and waffle away until Johnson....apparently seeks the approval of....I don't know....what more than the Queen now? Does he have to ask the lawyers as well now? It's a joke. Whichever way they try to paint it the Queen has been made an embarrassment of. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Sep 2019 12.28am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

25 Sep 19 12.15am

Originally posted by Matov

I genuinely struggle to understand why anybody would object to that in these circumstances.

Here, here.

Since we have unelected judges deciding over our actual PM as to when parliament can be prorogued and second guessing his motives....something I find extremely iffy and for me something beyond their remit. I suppose we have to move on.....But personally I think this has to come with consequences.

We now have an Attorney General and Queen willing to be regarded as idiots by the supreme court.

We literally have a zombie Queen.....what's the point when judges get to decide for her what she already has the power to approve or reject.

The parliament needs to be prorogued for the government to prepare its Queen Speech anyway and so let these clowns sit and waffle away until Johnson....apparently seeks the approval of....I don't know....what more than the Queen now? Does he have to ask the lawyers as well now?

It's a joke.

Whichever way they try to paint it the Queen has been made an embarrassment of.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Sep 2019 12.28am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 25 Sep 19 12.22am
So after yesterday’s decision where does sovereign power lie in the UK? Is it in parliament or the Supreme Court?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

25 Sep 19 12.22am

So after yesterday’s decision where does sovereign power lie in the UK? Is it in parliament or the Supreme Court?

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 25 Sep 19 12.37am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle So after yesterday’s decision where does sovereign power lie in the UK? Is it in parliament or the Supreme Court? It's a dog and pony show run by elites to ultimately stop Brexit via delay and frustration and warm worded BS. Lets see if we leave on the 31st of October. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Sep 2019 12.37am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

25 Sep 19 12.37am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

So after yesterday’s decision where does sovereign power lie in the UK? Is it in parliament or the Supreme Court?

It's a dog and pony show run by elites to ultimately stop Brexit via delay and frustration and warm worded BS.

Lets see if we leave on the 31st of October.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Sep 2019 12.37am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH SW2 25 Sep 19 12.54am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle So after yesterday’s decision where does sovereign power lie in the UK? Is it in parliament or the Supreme Court? Parliament, but they are not above the law. It’s really not that difficult.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 25 Sep 19 12.54am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

So after yesterday’s decision where does sovereign power lie in the UK? Is it in parliament or the Supreme Court?

Parliament, but they are not above the law. It’s really not that difficult.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 25 Sep 19 1.05am
Originally posted by DanH Parliament, but they are not above the law. It’s really not that difficult. The law is not meant to be involved in political decisions. This is unprecedenced. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

25 Sep 19 1.05am

Originally posted by DanH

Parliament, but they are not above the law. It’s really not that difficult.

The law is not meant to be involved in political decisions.

This is unprecedenced.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 25 Sep 19 1.18am
Originally posted by DanH Parliament, but they are not above the law. It’s really not that difficult. So what happened before 2009? Not trying to have a row - I just don’t know.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

25 Sep 19 1.18am

Originally posted by DanH

Parliament, but they are not above the law. It’s really not that difficult.

So what happened before 2009? Not trying to have a row - I just don’t know.

Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019 25 Sep 19 3.36am
The almost inevitable outcome is still an uninspiring deal that nobody is particularly keen on. All parties will gravitate towards it in sufficient numbers out of desperation to turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019

25 Sep 19 3.36am

The almost inevitable outcome is still an uninspiring deal that nobody is particularly keen on. All parties will gravitate towards it in sufficient numbers out of desperation to turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

tome Inner Tantalus Time. 25 Sep 19 5.11am
Originally posted by Matov What logic? How do you define 'semi-intellectual' people? You berated me for being unreasonable and I conceded the point? What does intellect have to do with the reality that Remain was an option in the first referendum and it lost. So therefore if you now want the decision from that first one to be more specific, were is the logic in offering the losing option again? We leave and then hold a referendum on rejoining, it is a fresh question being asked but all a second referendum is about is clarifying what type of leave people might want. If you want it re-run with the same question then fair enough but you don't. I think the reasoning is that as much as the first referendum could be seen as 'status quo' versus 'change', it could also be seen as 'reality' versus 'myth'. Because there was no specificity to what leave would look like, it was campaigned on with vagueness and pomp, all about patriotism and control without spelling out what any of that actually meant. It therefore seems fair to arrive at a choice where both scenarios are spelt out so that people can make a choice that's actually informed. A one and a two...
Alert a moderator to this post

tome

Inner Tantalus Time. 25 Sep 19 5.11am

Originally posted by Matov

What logic? How do you define 'semi-intellectual' people? You berated me for being unreasonable and I conceded the point?

What does intellect have to do with the reality that Remain was an option in the first referendum and it lost. So therefore if you now want the decision from that first one to be more specific, were is the logic in offering the losing option again?

We leave and then hold a referendum on rejoining, it is a fresh question being asked but all a second referendum is about is clarifying what type of leave people might want.

If you want it re-run with the same question then fair enough but you don't.

I think the reasoning is that as much as the first referendum could be seen as 'status quo' versus 'change', it could also be seen as 'reality' versus 'myth'.

Because there was no specificity to what leave would look like, it was campaigned on with vagueness and pomp, all about patriotism and control without spelling out what any of that actually meant.

It therefore seems fair to arrive at a choice where both scenarios are spelt out so that people can make a choice that's actually informed.

A one and a two...

Alert a moderator to this post

sickboy Deal or Croydon 25 Sep 19 6.55am
Originally posted by becky Not semantics at all: Black's Law Dictionary defines unlawful as "not authorized by law, illegal." Illegal is defined as "forbidden by law, unlawful" Since there is nothing on the statute books about prorogation, or what may be considered an acceptable period of prorogation, it cannot possibly be illegal. Since what Boris has done has not broken any Law, and given that HM the Queen gave her assent to his actions,and HM the Queen being above the Law as she IS the Law, one actually wonders whether the Supreme Court's judgement in this matter is enforceable. As always, eloquently put.
Alert a moderator to this post

sickboy

Deal or Croydon 25 Sep 19 6.55am

Originally posted by becky

Not semantics at all:

Black's Law Dictionary defines unlawful as "not authorized by law, illegal." Illegal is defined as "forbidden by law, unlawful"

Since there is nothing on the statute books about prorogation, or what may be considered an acceptable period of prorogation, it cannot possibly be illegal.

Since what Boris has done has not broken any Law, and given that HM the Queen gave her assent to his actions,and HM the Queen being above the Law as she IS the Law, one actually wonders whether the Supreme Court's judgement in this matter is enforceable.

As always, eloquently put.

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 25 Sep 19 7.32am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Here, here. Since we have unelected judges deciding over our actual PM as to when parliament can be prorogued and second guessing his motives....something I find extremely iffy and for me something beyond their remit. I suppose we have to move on.....But personally I think this has to come with consequences. We now have an Attorney General and Queen willing to be regarded as idiots by the supreme court. We literally have a zombie Queen.....what's the point when judges get to decide for her what she already has the power to approve or reject. The parliament needs to be prorogued for the government to prepare its Queen Speech anyway and so let these clowns sit and waffle away until Johnson....apparently seeks the approval of....I don't know....what more than the Queen now? Does he have to ask the lawyers as well now? It's a joke. Whichever way they try to paint it the Queen has been made an embarrassment of. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Sep 2019 12.28am) You can add three more - the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 25 Sep 19 7.32am