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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 2221 of 2586 < 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 >

Topic Locked

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Oct 19 11.50pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle So if parliament decided “crash out with no deal” was the solution then everybody should be happy? I cannot speak for everybody or insist they be happy, but they ought to accept it because that's Parliament's job. The current Parliament isn't though so stupid is it? So your hypothetical situation isn't going to become real just yet. After a GE it might and then I would accept that that was the will of the people, although I would not be the least surprised if we saw a few MPs start getting cold feet once they got to Westminster and were exposed every day to the reality of what their civil servants told them. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 01 Oct 19 11.50pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

So if parliament decided “crash out with no deal” was the solution then everybody should be happy?

I cannot speak for everybody or insist they be happy, but they ought to accept it because that's Parliament's job.

The current Parliament isn't though so stupid is it? So your hypothetical situation isn't going to become real just yet.

After a GE it might and then I would accept that that was the will of the people, although I would not be the least surprised if we saw a few MPs start getting cold feet once they got to Westminster and were exposed every day to the reality of what their civil servants told them.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 01 Oct 19 11.55pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I cannot speak for everybody or insist they be happy, but they ought to accept it because that's Parliament's job. The current Parliament isn't though so stupid is it? So your hypothetical situation isn't going to become real just yet. After a GE it might and then I would accept that that was the will of the people, although I would not be the least surprised if we saw a few MPs start getting cold feet once they got to Westminster and were exposed every day to the reality of what their civil servants told them. Who’s to say it would be stupid? If they’ve decided it then the rest of us have to accept it. That is, after all, their job.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

01 Oct 19 11.55pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I cannot speak for everybody or insist they be happy, but they ought to accept it because that's Parliament's job.

The current Parliament isn't though so stupid is it? So your hypothetical situation isn't going to become real just yet.

Who’s to say it would be stupid? If they’ve decided it then the rest of us have to accept it. That is, after all, their job.

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 01 Oct 19 11.57pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle . As I don't think you have grasped why I think a referendum with 3 options, and a single transferable vote, could enable everyone to have a stake in the result and therefore begin to bring about the much needed healing may I suggest you read it again, with an open objective mind. I am not trying to score points. I am genuinely trying to find a route to a compromise. Not to win. Just so that we can all accept something and move on. But why should Leavers compromise? I hate to labour the point but we won. 'Compromise' might be between different views of how our future relationship with the EU pans out but that future has to be outside of it. One less star on the flag. No more MEP's. And I fully understand your constant point about our Parliamentary democracy. Hence why I struggle to comprehend why you seem to ignore the reality that Parliament voted in huge numbers to give us this vote in the first place and then voted in huge numbers to start the process off, with nothing in that about the necessity of a deal. And then, in the 2017, 80% of votes cast for political parties promising to honour it. If Parliament wants to revoke A50 then that is their right. Let them do it. Let them s*** all over us. Or, and this is the simplest option, give us another GE. But there is no compromise over Remain. That option lost. Was rejected on June 23rd. We only move on as a nation once we have left. Until then, nothing other than anger from those of us voted Leave and expect that to be honoured, just as we were promised. "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

01 Oct 19 11.57pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

As I don't think you have grasped why I think a referendum with 3 options, and a single transferable vote, could enable everyone to have a stake in the result and therefore begin to bring about the much needed healing may I suggest you read it again, with an open objective mind. I am not trying to score points. I am genuinely trying to find a route to a compromise. Not to win. Just so that we can all accept something and move on.

But why should Leavers compromise? I hate to labour the point but we won. 'Compromise' might be between different views of how our future relationship with the EU pans out but that future has to be outside of it. One less star on the flag. No more MEP's.

And I fully understand your constant point about our Parliamentary democracy. Hence why I struggle to comprehend why you seem to ignore the reality that Parliament voted in huge numbers to give us this vote in the first place and then voted in huge numbers to start the process off, with nothing in that about the necessity of a deal. And then, in the 2017, 80% of votes cast for political parties promising to honour it.

If Parliament wants to revoke A50 then that is their right. Let them do it. Let them s*** all over us. Or, and this is the simplest option, give us another GE.

But there is no compromise over Remain. That option lost. Was rejected on June 23rd.

We only move on as a nation once we have left. Until then, nothing other than anger from those of us voted Leave and expect that to be honoured, just as we were promised.

"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

Teddy Eagle 01 Oct 19 11.59pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It was a triumph for the British system, both of democracy and of the judiciary. They compliment each other and demonstrated how well they work together. That the Supreme Court has evolved from the Law Lords has refined and improved the system but I have little doubt that had such a case been brought before it existed that the Law Lords would have reached the same verdict. The law is the law. Nothing has changed. It just happened to be the first time that such an event was brought before the law and a ruling requested. Now that such a ruling has been made a judgement is on the record and can be used in the future. How you conclude this has destroyed Parliamentary democracy beats me. Parliament is in full control and should they decide that the result is not what they want then they can legislate to change it. Indeed Johnson can propose new legislation immediately if he wants to. It wouldn't pass Parliament but they are in control, and not the Supreme Court. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (01 Oct 2019 11.42pm) I didn’t say it’s destroyed democracy. I said it’s destroyed parliamentary sovereignty. Unless you have a different definition of sovereignty.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

01 Oct 19 11.59pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It was a triumph for the British system, both of democracy and of the judiciary. They compliment each other and demonstrated how well they work together.

That the Supreme Court has evolved from the Law Lords has refined and improved the system but I have little doubt that had such a case been brought before it existed that the Law Lords would have reached the same verdict. The law is the law. Nothing has changed. It just happened to be the first time that such an event was brought before the law and a ruling requested. Now that such a ruling has been made a judgement is on the record and can be used in the future.

How you conclude this has destroyed Parliamentary democracy beats me. Parliament is in full control and should they decide that the result is not what they want then they can legislate to change it. Indeed Johnson can propose new legislation immediately if he wants to. It wouldn't pass Parliament but they are in control, and not the Supreme Court.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (01 Oct 2019 11.42pm)

I didn’t say it’s destroyed democracy. I said it’s destroyed parliamentary sovereignty. Unless you have a different definition of sovereignty.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 02 Oct 19 6.08am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Of course it isn't a card game. The only one playing childish games with our future is Johnson with his games of bluff and blame. He is truly pathetic with his totally transparent bs. It's getting really embarrassing to watch and listen to others try to defend the completely indefensible. This is really serious. Not for me or anyone of my age and in my position. But for my kids, grand kids and great grand kids. The future of my country depends on this and you think I regard it as a game? I don't want anyone to win! I want Parliament to find a solution. That's their job. Not the government's. Parliament. It's government's job to do the negotiations in line with the requirements given to them by Parliament on our behalf. They don't appear to be doing that. To you HOL seems like a game, a game of wind up. If you didnt have people with their POV you would be arguing about traffic lights out of sequence or the length of dog leads. To everyone involved it was about win or lose and some very clever people still term it as such. The news reports on 24th June all used the terminology. Remain lost and I voted for the losers but now suspect there is more at play. 300 or so of our 'chosen' high and mighty are preventing the winners getting what they won. And a few rich business people and lords or whichever they are called. The political terminology and 'how our politics work' analogies went out of the window. We dont have a written constitution as such. It is mainly done on the hoof. At least in the USA it is black and white. In the UK it is whomever shouts loudest. That something in play I said could well be a pride thing with some who are stopping brexit. Maybe the project fear was actually project 'we are getting torn one, when the public see we can be better on our own'. No actually proof of how bad it can be along with the fact we can ask to rejoin once we Brexit IF it goes south. Any rules we would have to accept to rejoin are coming our way in time anyhow.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 02 Oct 19 6.08am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Of course it isn't a card game.

The only one playing childish games with our future is Johnson with his games of bluff and blame. He is truly pathetic with his totally transparent bs. It's getting really embarrassing to watch and listen to others try to defend the completely indefensible.

This is really serious. Not for me or anyone of my age and in my position. But for my kids, grand kids and great grand kids. The future of my country depends on this and you think I regard it as a game?

I don't want anyone to win! I want Parliament to find a solution. That's their job. Not the government's. Parliament. It's government's job to do the negotiations in line with the requirements given to them by Parliament on our behalf. They don't appear to be doing that.

To you HOL seems like a game, a game of wind up.
If you didnt have people with their POV you would be arguing about traffic lights out of sequence or the length of dog leads.
To everyone involved it was about win or lose and some very clever people still term it as such.
The news reports on 24th June all used the terminology. Remain lost and I voted for the losers but now suspect there is more at play.
300 or so of our 'chosen' high and mighty are preventing the winners getting what they won.
And a few rich business people and lords or whichever they are called.
The political terminology and 'how our politics work' analogies went out of the window. We dont have a written constitution as such. It is mainly done on the hoof. At least in the USA it is black and white.
In the UK it is whomever shouts loudest.
That something in play I said could well be a pride thing with some who are stopping brexit.
Maybe the project fear was actually project 'we are getting torn one, when the public see we can be better on our own'.
No actually proof of how bad it can be along with the fact we can ask to rejoin once we Brexit IF it goes south.
Any rules we would have to accept to rejoin are coming our way in time anyhow.

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 02 Oct 19 8.36am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle How on earth do you think you know how anyone voted in a secret ballot? This is the definition of to honour something, in the Cambridge Dictionary:- "to feel you must do something because it is morally right, even if you do not want to do it" The referendum has been honoured. Mrs May campaigned to remain, as did many other MP's, but she worked very hard to try to find an arrangement that Parliament could accept, thought she had but they then rejected it. 3 times, primarily not because of the "remainers" voting against it but because the "hardline" leavers did so. There is a big difference between honouring the result and implementing it at any cost. As the complexities of making a safe and secure exit weren't recognised in 2016, but are now, Parliament has had to react to that knowledge. This isn't a business deal with just the profit motive to guide you. People's futures, their security and possibly even their lives are at stake. You don't mess about with such things because of a referendum result. Some posters on here seem to know who voted which way in the referendum (or think they do)
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 02 Oct 19 8.36am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

How on earth do you think you know how anyone voted in a secret ballot?

This is the definition of to honour something, in the Cambridge Dictionary:-

"to feel you must do something because it is morally right, even if you do not want to do it"

The referendum has been honoured. Mrs May campaigned to remain, as did many other MP's, but she worked very hard to try to find an arrangement that Parliament could accept, thought she had but they then rejected it. 3 times, primarily not because of the "remainers" voting against it but because the "hardline" leavers did so.

There is a big difference between honouring the result and implementing it at any cost. As the complexities of making a safe and secure exit weren't recognised in 2016, but are now, Parliament has had to react to that knowledge.

This isn't a business deal with just the profit motive to guide you. People's futures, their security and possibly even their lives are at stake.

You don't mess about with such things because of a referendum result.

Some posters on here seem to know who voted which way in the referendum (or think they do)

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 02 Oct 19 8.49am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I am trying to make sense of your claims. That the Law Lords morphed into the Supreme Court doesn't effect what their duties are. I trust the independence of the Judiciary and their total obedience to the law. Having had a little personal experience of them I can vouch for their objectivity, thoroughness and complete impartiality. They are clever people. The law, whether common or statute, certainly applies to us all. The fixed-term Parliament Act 2011 now regulates precisely how and when an election can be called. Prior to that it was largely controlled by by the PM who could dissolve whenever it suited them. Unless they lost their majority. I can see no legal basis for your claims about precedent. It might be expedient to have a GE if a minority government arises but that is for Parliament as a whole to decide. What anyone else thinks is irrelevant. I don't get your point about Supreme Court. Is it because they are all educated, learned people with great experience of the law? I would rather have such people making high level legal decisions just as I would rather have a plumber fix a leak than have a Judge to do it. You've been told enough times about the Law Lords - after about 10 times you notice that the Supreme Court are just them. If you look at their backgrounds, you won't need to look too far in order to deduce what way they would be thinking. Perhaps, if you read each bio ten times you might get a grip on it. So we now advocate minority governments who cannot make decisions - or at least you do? We ignore all previous precedent, apparently. No wonder the country does not work. Any one of us may as well declare ourself 'leader' and do what we like. You are actually advocating Britain remain broken. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 02 Oct 19 8.49am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am trying to make sense of your claims. That the Law Lords morphed into the Supreme Court doesn't effect what their duties are. I trust the independence of the Judiciary and their total obedience to the law. Having had a little personal experience of them I can vouch for their objectivity, thoroughness and complete impartiality. They are clever people.

The law, whether common or statute, certainly applies to us all. The fixed-term Parliament Act 2011 now regulates precisely how and when an election can be called. Prior to that it was largely controlled by by the PM who could dissolve whenever it suited them. Unless they lost their majority. I can see no legal basis for your claims about precedent. It might be expedient to have a GE if a minority government arises but that is for Parliament as a whole to decide. What anyone else thinks is irrelevant.

I don't get your point about Supreme Court. Is it because they are all educated, learned people with great experience of the law? I would rather have such people making high level legal decisions just as I would rather have a plumber fix a leak than have a Judge to do it.

You've been told enough times about the Law Lords - after about 10 times you notice that the Supreme Court are just them. If you look at their backgrounds, you won't need to look too far in order to deduce what way they would be thinking. Perhaps, if you read each bio ten times you might get a grip on it.
So we now advocate minority governments who cannot make decisions - or at least you do? We ignore all previous precedent, apparently. No wonder the country does not work. Any one of us may as well declare ourself 'leader' and do what we like. You are actually advocating Britain remain broken.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 02 Oct 19 9.59am
You've upset him now. We could call it wexit
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 02 Oct 19 9.59am

You've upset him now.
We could call it wexit

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 02 Oct 19 10.01am
This site never changes. Someone comes on with a different view to the one expressed in your echo chamber, and does so in a mature, reasonable way. Then you gang up and take the piss, like school kids. Then you complain when we leave and you have no one to rant at! Classic HOL If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 02 Oct 19 10.01am

Send a Private Message to serial thriller

This site never changes. Someone comes on with a different view to the one expressed in your echo chamber, and does so in a mature, reasonable way. Then you gang up and take the piss, like school kids. Then you complain when we leave and you have no one to rant at!

Classic HOL

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

palace_in_frogland In a broken dream 02 Oct 19 10.07am
Originally posted by serial thriller This site never changes. Someone comes on with a different view to the one expressed in your echo chamber, and does so in a mature, reasonable way. Then you gang up and take the piss, like school kids. Then you complain when we leave and you have no one to rant at! Classic HOL Perhaps if his posting style was a little less supercilious and condescending we would all be a touch more conciliatory? Just saying...
Alert a moderator to this post

palace_in_frogland

In a broken dream 02 Oct 19 10.07am

Send a Private Message to palace_in_frogland

Originally posted by serial thriller

Classic HOL

Perhaps if his posting style was a little less supercilious and condescending we would all be a touch more conciliatory?

Just saying...

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 02 Oct 19 10.10am
Originally posted by serial thriller This site never changes. Someone comes on with a different view to the one expressed in your echo chamber, and does so in a mature, reasonable way. Then you gang up and take the piss, like school kids. Then you complain when we leave and you have no one to rant at! Classic HOL Inevitable when one individual contradicts reason and then continues to argue with everyone day after day. He has made the same points 100 times knowing full well that 90% of HOL posters disagree. Is he hoping to change their minds? Is he a Remainer activist? Is he just on a wind up? Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (02 Oct 2019 10.11am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

02 Oct 19 10.10am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by serial thriller

Classic HOL

Inevitable when one individual contradicts reason and then continues to argue with everyone day after day. He has made the same points 100 times knowing full well that 90% of HOL posters disagree.

Is he hoping to change their minds?
Is he a Remainer activist?
Is he just on a wind up?

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (02 Oct 2019 10.11am)

Alert a moderator to this post