Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%
  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%

  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
Just like Ken Clarke (a deluded fool over the EU for years and years) you think that the public can't be trusted to deliver the right decision. Better to dictate to them like in the old Soviet Union etc eh?
Democracy eh? What a pisser!

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QPR Oslo
Just like Ken Clarke (a deluded fool over the EU for years and years) you think that the public can't be trusted to deliver the right decision. Better to dictate to them like in the old Soviet Union etc eh?
Democracy eh? What a pisser!

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?
 
Fair enough. I don't claim to understand it all. However, the fact that many remain MPs are saying that it needs to be debated in parliament with ammendments means that the governments negotiations will be severely hampered. I know you think this is a good thing because it will result in a soft brexit but I don't.
One other thing - could you explain from your font of all knowing, why judges in N Ireland came to exactly the opposite decision?
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
".........Only when parts are incorporated into law by Act of Parliament does Parliament become involved, and the courts have jurisdiction over their application."

You've answered your own question. We signed up for the Treaty of Rome because Parliament voted to join by an Act of Parliament. We had to do so because of the giving up of sovereignty. We did not join the EU in the first place by an exercise of royal prerogative. It is necessary therefore for another Act of Parliament to undo it. The so-called giving up of sovereignty was never irrevocable. Parliament was supreme and always retained the right/power to reverse the position. Ask yourself this. Would it have been lawful or the act of a dictator to pass Article 50 in the aftermath of the European Communities Act 1972. Do you remember that? I ask because you omitted to mention it.

I don't know enough about the constitutional principles to say what the decision of the Supreme Court will be but from my limited grasp, having studied Constitutional law some 37 years ago, the decision was not political or an affront to democracy - it was the obvious legal answer to the constitutional legal arguments put before it.

For a country that prides itself on its parliamentary democracy, it is staggering how so many are willing to ignore those principles when the result does not go their way. Will the Brexiteers please stop moaning and just get on with doing it properly and lawfully.

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol
Ah, that old capital punishment chestnut squeezed in there, eh? I would humbly suggest that Parliament ignoring the will of the Great British Public was 'right' in your opinion, and that of a great many others, but remains 'wrong' in my opinion and that of a great many others.
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.
 
You must log in or register to see media
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.
 
Fair enough. I don't claim to understand it all. However, the fact that many remain MPs are saying that it needs to be debated in parliament with ammendments means that the governments negotiations will be severely hampered. I know you think this is a good thing because it will result in a soft brexit but I don't.
One other thing - could you explain from your font of all knowing, why judges in N Ireland came to exactly the opposite decision?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sb_73 and rangercol
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'.


Can you not set up a search engine of your own called "ask stan "(never wrong)?
That would make things a lot easier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
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.

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).
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol and sb_73
Can you not set up a search engine of your own called "ask stan "(never wrong)?
That would make things a lot easier.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Tory MP Stephen Phillips (a Leave voter) has resigned over the May government's approach to Brexit.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol
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.
 
Last edited: