The EU debate - Part III

Britain: 'the fat man of Europe'

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweig...causes-of-the-obesity-epidemic-in-the-UK.aspx

 

Worth a read, explains a lot

Mitcham, 85% of businesses are fast food joints, kebab & fried chicken shops

http://www.ilivehere.co.uk/mitcham-surrey.html

 

The judges have decided, for better or for worse. A motion phrased in the right way can be brought to parliament and put this to bed so we can move on. It could make the outcome stronger, and MP's would be committing political suicide if they block it just to change the outcome.

The people bringing the case were not doing on constitutional or democratic principles, it was purely self serving, but it's there all the same.

If a consequence is a general election, they could have just put another nail in labours coffin, which would be to the detriment of democracy and to the constitution for quite some time, and not have kept us in the EU anyway. It could also end up threatening the House of Lords if they're not careful. I'd rather keep both labour and the house of lords.

The division and uncertainty is driven by remoaners not accepting a democratic choice. Accepting the court decision and running it through parliament could just be a way of putting a part of their whine to bed.

 

Yesterday you claimed that you didn't give a ****....now you're whining

 

Accepting the decision and trying to protect the labour party, the House of Lords and democracy is whining is it?

 

We should write referendums into our constitution. There's no point asking all electors something and then not acting on the result. MPs are a substitute for the people. When the people can give a decision it should be respected.

 

Yep, even when you said you weren't bothered you were whining. You wrap it up in your usual guff style but you're just a whiny bitch

 

You're a sore loser Pete. I recommend you get some qualifications, a job, lose 10 stone and then you may be happier.

 

They're already there, it just needs the question the referendum is about phrasing more clearly. In this case, there is room for doubt on what strength it has.

I'll stand corrected, but I'm sure that I read an article that broke the vote down into electoral wards, and it showed a much wider gap in favour of leave when counted in that format, so a decision by parliament should reflect that anyway.

 

Quite a few labour MPs said they will back the A50 even though they voted remain.

 

Do you have any views on brexit?

If not, and you're just hell bent on disrupting the discussion with ridiculous comments, why not take stuttering to task about his use of homophobic comments like cocksucker and expressing hypocritical indigence at receiving personal attacks? You could challenge him on not taking you to task for diverting discussions.


Off you pop.

 

Kustard, stop panicking. A50 will go through so you can still claim "victory" on an issue you never actually understood. However, the deal with the EU now won't be the bat ****, far right, isolationist suicide deal that an old **** like Pete wanted as he doesn't give a **** about the medium to long term future.

 

The government said they would act on the result but didn't put the decision into the referendum legislation. When the government tried to act on the result the court didn't think that the legislation and result of the referendum was sufficient.

 

Still whining then Dull. Post a straw man, that usually makes you feel better. Or post a very poorly researched article about Clinton and a KKK donor to deflect the conversation

 

Dont expect UB40 to offer anything, he is just here to try an wum us, but sadly he is not very good at it. add him to ignore and the thread runs quite well. Works well for Pete

 

I'll post you a nice meme Kustard style if you like

 

Absolute bullshit!

It's a point of constitutional law that needs to be decided, not only for the Brexit issue, but for any future instances of a PM trying to invoke Royal perogative to circumvent parliament.

 

One outcome could be a clarification of the demarcation of power between the state and the judiciary. It currently and historically serves as a protection to the will and freedom of the people, and in my view, generally works well, so anything that tips that power either way could end up being to our detriment.

 

You seem to say the same as me, yet call it bullshit.