This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Marine Le Pen
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Teddy Eagle  22 Apr 22 9.49pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Totally different circumstances. Elections are checked, every 5 years. Membership of the EU was last checked 40 years previously. When the vote was held in 2016 the difficulties in securing a "deal" were unknown to everyone. The Leave campaign had promised it could be done in a matter of days, with the EU desperate to make sure the UK market was secure for them. 4 years later, we knew better about that, and also about many aspects of us withdrawing. We needed to confirm given all we now knew. If you set off on a journey not knowing what lay around the first corner, but were promised a smooth road and sunshine, only to find lots of bumps and rain, would you not want to be asked if you wanted to continue, or choose another route? The totally different circumstance is that the EEC we voted to remain part of consisted of 8 other countries not the ever-expanding entity it has become.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 22 Apr 22 9.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
I doubt that the people at the top carrying out brexit due to the public wanting it; did it for a tick in the box. They clearly did it because they feel it is in the best interest of UK.plc. The "people at the top" are, or certainly ought to be, our representatives in Parliament. They were, by a significant majority, of the view it was in the best interests of the UK to remain. Chancers like Johnson decided to take advantage of the situation to satisfy his personal ambition. His lies back in 2016 landed us with Brexit. Now look at him. Today's lies will send him back to being a TV buffoon. Many parallels with Trump.
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 22 Apr 22 10.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The totally different circumstance is that the EEC we voted to remain part of consisted of 8 other countries not the ever-expanding entity it has become. That argument has some merit in asking Parliament to review our membership, and even to conduct a widespread consultation process. Nothing is ever cast in stone, so making sure our best interests continue to be served makes sense. It is not though an argument for throwing such an important decision to the winds of chance involved in a referendum. Unless a high bar for any change is set. It is also not an argument in the circumstances that embroiled Brexit and all the shenanigans that emerged between 2016 and 2020 for not seeking confirmation. It ought to have happened. I would have preferred Parliament to have done it, but can see why it would have had to be another referendum.
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 22 Apr 22 11.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That argument has some merit in asking Parliament to review our membership, and even to conduct a widespread consultation process. Nothing is ever cast in stone, so making sure our best interests continue to be served makes sense. It is not though an argument for throwing such an important decision to the winds of chance involved in a referendum. Unless a high bar for any change is set. It is also not an argument in the circumstances that embroiled Brexit and all the shenanigans that emerged between 2016 and 2020 for not seeking confirmation. It ought to have happened. I would have preferred Parliament to have done it, but can see why it would have had to be another referendum. That is what happened. Those we entrust to make decisions for us were asked to review our membership and the decision they made was to offer a referendum.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
HKOwen  Hong Kong 23 Apr 22 6.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Absolutely laughable coming from you. A man who wanted to overturn a democratic referendum because he didn't like the result. Ah , but the simplistic leave voters were misinformed and easily swayed unlike the super intelligence of some..... Well said HTG I don't agree with everything you post but you are spot on here
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| HKOwen Hong Kong 23 Apr 22 6.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The totally different circumstance is that the EEC we voted to remain part of consisted of 8 other countries not the ever-expanding entity it has become. TE, there is little point in engaging with ideologues, particularly those who are superior in intelligence. Lack of engagement and audience will hopefully reduce the amount of posts
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 23 Apr 22 6.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
The French are being offered a poor choice of representatives. Much like USA, UK and loads of others. If I were to vote, it would probably be for Le Pen, but only because Macron is vertically challenged and has "Short-man syndrome"
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 23 Apr 22 8.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
That is what happened. Those we entrust to make decisions for us were asked to review our membership and the decision they made was to offer a referendum. Exactly the argument that it should have been left to Parliament to decide doesn't fly. It was left to Parliament and they decided to offer the nation a referendum and after 3 years of nonsense agreed to implement the result. Apparently MPs are the "experts" and should be free to decide our best interests as long as they decide in the right way. When they don't they become party drones following the orders of Tory boy, Nigel Farage and the other white racists. Sigh.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 georgenorman 23 Apr 22 8.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No, because we had certainty on what the status quo involved, there would have been no need to negotiate a deal, so nothing to confirm. Decide to remain. We remain. So the EU was to be frozen in its status quo as at 23 June 2016. Edited by georgenorman (23 Apr 2022 8.27am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Apr 22 8.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
That is what happened. Those we entrust to make decisions for us were asked to review our membership and the decision they made was to offer a referendum. Then what happened? The referendum result was close. Our security forces confirmed interference. The promised easy-peasy "deal" with an EU desperate not to be cut off from our market proved to be political bs. It took 4 years of tortuous brinkmanship to stitch together a bureaucratic nightmare rag-bag of unworkable procedures and a government being sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Parliament then had the opportunity to step in and accept that their decision to set all this in motion had proved flawed and needed to be verified. Due to a government using marketing slogans instead of policy (Get Brexit done) and an opposition leader willing to put his own vanity above the national interest, Parliament bottled it. Despite some brave souls standing up for reason, and being thrown out of the Tory Party for their honesty. So whilst you can defend offering the initial referendum, which I oppose anyway, on the basis that isn't how we govern in our Parliamentary democracy, you cannot defend what happened subsequently. Parliament's responsibilities didn't cease when they decided to hold a referendum. If they needed to pass legislation to enact our withdrawal, then they had the responsibility, after all the unforeseen events, to double-check whether that remained the wish of the people before doing so. They failed us.
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 23 Apr 22 8.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HKOwen
Ah , but the simplistic leave voters were misinformed and easily swayed unlike the super intelligence of some..... Well said HTG I don't agree with everything you post but you are spot on here It had nothing to do with the voters. 48% of whom, never let it be forgotten, voted to remain anyway. It has only to do with the fact that we live in a Parliamentary democracy whose decisions are sovereign. No referendum can change that. They knew the situation needed to be revisited and that a confirmation vote was necessary, but political shenanigans stopped that happening. Parliament failed. History won't be kind to Johnson, Corbyn et al, when time allows a proper perspective.
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 23 Apr 22 8.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Then what happened? The referendum result was close. Our security forces confirmed interference. The promised easy-peasy "deal" with an EU desperate not to be cut off from our market proved to be political bs. It took 4 years of tortuous brinkmanship to stitch together a bureaucratic nightmare rag-bag of unworkable procedures and a government being sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Parliament then had the opportunity to step in and accept that their decision to set all this in motion had proved flawed and needed to be verified. Due to a government using marketing slogans instead of policy (Get Brexit done) and an opposition leader willing to put his own vanity above the national interest, Parliament bottled it. Despite some brave souls standing up for reason, and being thrown out of the Tory Party for their honesty. So whilst you can defend offering the initial referendum, which I oppose anyway, on the basis that isn't how we govern in our Parliamentary democracy, you cannot defend what happened subsequently. Parliament's responsibilities didn't cease when they decided to hold a referendum. If they needed to pass legislation to enact our withdrawal, then they had the responsibility, after all the unforeseen events, to double-check whether that remained the wish of the people before doing so. They failed us. If one referendum was wrong how can two be better? Or more until remain got the desired result?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.