The EU debate - Part III

They are going to act on the result, only they're going to have to do so by adhering to the correct democratic process.

Leavers crying about 'democracy' when the Govt was trying to circumvent the democratic process is beyond stupid.

 

But you want the Govt to appeal which means you must think that the Executive legally has the power to remove laws without an Act of Parliament.

 

Most if not all leavers on here accept the result, and are just considering what the next constructive move should be. That's far from 'crying'.

 

hahaha, what ever your reading material is, it didn't provide you with the facts, and you made a completely false assumption about the motives of those who brought the case.

You've made yourself look a **** again as a result, and are now trying your usual brand of deflection and semantics to deflect away from your latest **** up.

Saying you made a false assumption and were therefore wrong in your assessment of the motives would have ended it like, but that's not how you roll

 

You don't seem to understand how it works. If you vote in order of your preference then your vote counts in favour of your preferred candidates until they have been eliminated.

 

Yeah looks like it.

The people bringing the case were not doing on constitutional or democratic principles, it was purely self serving



The Tory rags are fuming, todays headlines are a complete embarrassment.

 

Yes, because I think a vote involving many millions is better than a vote involving 650.

 

Given I've held my hands up when I was wrong, it's just another daft diversion from you.

You've made an inaccurate claim about me on a small part of a larger issue and are now trying to labour the point. It's a standard tactic of yours.

We disagree on their motives, but the we are where we are, and the discussion is on what happens next. Your diversions don't change that.

 

I'm not crying, it's my opinion and has little effect on the rest of the discussion. It's a piss poor diversion even by your low standards.

I'll take your word on what the papers you describe as tory rags are saying. They seem to be your choice of reading, but they're not mine.

 

Then the Law of the land needs to be changed and the executive made a mistake in the Act

 

Agreed.

 

Here's a classic example of a Leave voter who has been shouting "We won get over it, it's democracy" for months, and now advocates the democratic process being shoved to one side.

You couldn't make this **** up.

 

Not on this one you haven't, so the only diversion is yours love x

Their motives were spelt out by them after the case yesterday, you obviously couldn't be bothered to read / listen to them and just lept to a completely wrong conclusion.

What happens next is the Govt wasting another month with a futile trip to the Supreme Court and then they'll have to come up with a Bill that both Houses agree with and sets out where Brexit is actually going to take us. Or in other words add some actual substance to the meaningless soundbite that they've been hiding behind since May arrived at No.10

 

Say there is a hard left candidate, first choice of 34% of the electors, a hard right candidate first choice of 34% and a centrist first choice of 32%. AV will eliminate the centrist candidate in the first round when most likely 66% of the electorate would prefer her to the person actually elected. So if my main objective is not to have say the hard left candidate win I have to have a guess on which candidate is most likely to beat her. It's even more complicated if there a lots of candidates.

 

Public opinion shifts and the majority now want to Remain

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...cle-50-second-referendum-latest-a7395811.html

Too late now you dozy melts

 

Sorry Spain but they did vote for a hard Brexit as Cameron said that he would evoke article 50 the next day, if the result was to leave.

 

Sorry, you do understand!
Surely the point is with voting for who you want to win. Less people want the centrist to win. The people who voted for them would then have their second choice. The way that would satisfy you would be to choose people you don't want to win. That's a rather strange way of doing it.

 

No who i want to win is irrelevant - I want the election to elect the candidate who can best represent the wishes of their electorate. I don't think any simple voting system delivers that very well. We've got a much more sophisticated system for choosing the winner of the X-Factor or Strictly Come Dancing than we have for the people who make our laws which I think is crazy.

 

The timescale of invoking article 50 is nothing to do with what constitutes hard or soft brexit though.

What NSIS means is that people voted out, they didn't vote on what the end destination was going to look like. Had many known that this Govts approach would be to potentially put immigration before the economy for example, would the result have been different? Who knows, but they now need to spell out what their plans are and the House and the people (via giving their views across the spectrum) can have their say on them, and mould what Brexit is actually going to look like when we emerge at the other end of it.

 

So shouldn't you do that by voting for who you think can "best represent the wishes of the electorate"?
I don't watch X-Factor or Strictly Come Dancing so don't have a clue how they elect anybody.