There would be nothing undemocratic in Parliament deciding that a referendum that was pretty inconclusive in terms of the size of the majority and which was non-binding anyway can be ignored.
Stick it to the man Colin is a banana Straight I believe The stays have this General election required as they are law breakers All leavers will be shot
There used to be another person considered a "deluded fool" by the general public once. Funnily enough, the general public couldn't actually explain why they felt that way. He was vilified by the right wing, fascist-supporting press (Express and Mail) and ridiculed for his drinking and 'weird views". His name was Winston Churchill. In other news... Just when I thought the Daily Mail couldn't stoop any lower, they attack the very people who explain the law, look after the interests of the general public and make sure the powers-that-be act within the law. Whose interests are served by this attack, I wonder?
Lest we all forget, this judgement wasn't about the pros and cons of Brexit. It was a legal judgement on whether Mrs Mays government is acting legally or not in trying to avoid a vote in Parliament on triggering Article 50. Just read what they wrote, FFS. Are we going to stand by and watch the Mail and Express diss British law?
Yep. It's because the (2) Northern Irish cases were attempting to exempt Northern Ireland from being part of a Brexit, one on the basis of the Good Friday Agreement the other because 56% of those who voted there wanted to stay. The 'English' case was not a challenge to Brexit, but a request for parliament to be involved. Whatever the motivation, for democracy the result is a good thing. There can be no amendments yet because there is no proposal to amend at the moment. This also would give the opportunity for MPs to say 'the deal you want is not tough enough on immigration' (which would sit well for many of their voters) so it may be a safeguard both ways - especially as May has pulled back from her conference bombast on immigration. Of course the negotiators need to have some leeway, but the broad objectives/ 'heads of agreement' must be shared and supported. The best way to do this would be through a General Election, which I think May would win. My 'font of all knowing' is called 'Internet search engine (many are available) plus critical eye'.
What a mess but at least the UK may wake up to the fact that they are all bullshitters How anyone believes that May has any rights to do what she wants is deluded ... Shame on her Then again this whole thing may just be an exercise to twist the opinion poll I truly believe if it goes again Then the remains will push through as if it goes to MPs then the surge of remain lobbies will be massive No problem either way but at least we won't see the disgraceful stuff Boris and that Gove served up ... Both should be jailed Ask yourself how a government could handle a growing leave campaign opinion ... Manufacturer a win at all costs only knowing that they had cards to prevent the exit all along Could be very clever stuff and crazy it has been swallowed IMO The U.K. then has also increased its say in a reformed Europe if it stays Topics like immigration will be then toughened etc I maintain this is all just a kick up the arse
First, you attribute the quote to me. As I made clear, it comes from a "Leave" MEP. As I read it what he's saying is that the concluded negotiations for Brexit will form a Treaty. Previous treaties have been entered into using Royal Prerogative without prior vote by Act of Parliament Parliament and the courts become involved thereafter. There will need to be an act of Parliament, and thus Parliamentary debate, once the Government comes back with the Deal/Treaty after the Brexit negotiations
But not a majority, support for capital punishment dropped below 50% last year. Perhaps we can have a halfway house, and particularly nasty offender get a Chinese burn. You and Col now seem to be arguing for a much more direct form of democracy than we currently have, where the 'majority' of those who vote get their own way on everything. While this sounds excellent we all know that people would soon get bored and the result would depend on how motivated and organised the hard left and hard right were. Plus the public cannot apparently cope with anything other than oversimplified yes/no choices. And the key principle of representative government, that the majority has an obligation to look after the interests of the minority, would be unworkable. Ending capital punishment, liberalisation of abortion and divorce laws (I.e. giving women some control over their lives), and homosexuality, plus (I think) softer obscenity laws all passed in the face of public opinion by the liberal elite in the Sixties.
Excellent! The majority running the Brexit campaign and the Government now clearly don't know enough about our democracy, it's laws, or what they are doing. Cameron obviously didn't look at it properly either. Hard to believe people who voted Leave could have known what they were really voting for, when Brexit leaders or the Government still don't have a shared view of what it means.
You don't need to undersand it. It was clear enough when we voted. It's just another excuse to try and derail the vote. Both sides will argue the point again. In some cases they are right and in others, wrong. You see how quickly the remain polititions cry Brexit if it comes to a General Election just to keep their seats. As someone who voted Brexit I am sad how the whole thing has been handled (from both sides). We voted to leave so we should, however we voted to leave but didn't have a plan. As Tooting said, you can blame cameron for that.
Can you not set up a search engine of your own called "ask stan "(never wrong)? That would make things a lot easier.
I'm not aware that I've been arguing for anything on the thread for yonks, Stan. On the basis that it's largely going round and around in circles I've gotten a bit bored, so I tend to restrict my contributions to crap (which admittedly is not discernible from any of my contributions).
Ok Col, ask me. No claim to infallibility. Or you could put a bit of effort in yourself. Do you understand the difference between the Northern Irish and the English cases now? About a minute to look it up.
I hope the election is about the plan, not a horrible rehash of the misleading shambles (both sides) of the referendum campaign. The government needs a mandate to get on with it, and May needs a personal mandate to lead. As I have said above I am sure she will win and at least we will know what we are trying to achieve. But even that will be surrounded by lies (both sides) about the possible consequences.
Never heard of him, but fair shout. Regrettably just seen some of the abuse (death and rape threats) received by Tina Miller because she brought the court case. Man we are in a bad way.
Balanced by the woman last night on QT who said she worked for Great Ormond Street Hospital and hoped that the children of Brexit voters contracted terminal illnesses http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ing-brexit-speech-on-question-time/ar-AAjS8GS
Yes I heard her. Digusting woman and shameful that she says that while working for the NHS. Nothing like staying neutral and put a human being before his beliefs?
Hopefully, she'll be identified. If she is an employee, her extremist views (that would do credit to the Islamic State) will be doing her hospital no favours. She's in the wrong job.
