The EU debate - Part III

No, you don't, you slimy sack of ****!...

You'll need the ****ing sanatogen when I've finished with you!..

I'm going to rip your tiny cock off!..you mouthy piece of ****!..

 

My MP voted Leave, his constituents voted overwhelmingly to Remain. He's in a very safe seat so will get away with it but general consensus is that he should be replaced by a candidate who actually gives a **** about what their constituents want.

 

His vote at the referendum was his choice in fairness.

 

I don't disagree but he's shown that he's out of touch with the vast majority of his constituents so he's the wrong person to be the local MP.

 

Utter bollocks. I haven't been on line and your whining and bullshit still disrupts the thread.

 

Poor, Dull!

Even by your diversionary standards, very poor!..

 

Anyway, my take on the high court ruling that Parliament has to vote on article 50:

It seems that those who were banging the drum for sovereignty for parliament to decide on Europe are now complaining that parliament will decide on Europe.

Also, Theresa May is full of **** thinking she can use royal prerogative to force through such a profound constitutional change. England fought a civil war back in 1642 to ensure that parliament and not edicts from monarchy governed the country.

As for MP's votes should it come to that, when do they ever vote according to the wishes of their constituents ? The Iraq war, bombing Syria ? I'd wager that the majority of MP's constituents were against those campaigns, yet their MP's voted for it. I think MP's who voted to remain would probably vote accordingly if a similar motion is put before the house.

As for the referendum, again legally it was only advisory and has no binding effect. I have some sympathy for the leave voters to point as they thought they were voting for something that would be set in stone, but they were misled by the Govt, and they were misled by Farage and Boris over the details. Ultimately its up to parliament to decide whether we leave the EU and on what terms.

 

please log in to view this image

 

What about those who were saying that the UK should decide on UK matters?
I don't think there's any sense in having a referendum of all voters and then ignoring the result and having 650 people decide rather than 34 million.
The reason why some things are decided by parliament rather than the whole country is that the whole country cannot decide on the nuances. A referendum is perfect for a binary choice.
Only the people who don't want the democratic will of the people to decide are saying it is "advisory". Surely, it is a ridiculous concept to have a referendum and then ignore the result. Why did the government say that the people would be asked to decide and the result would be carried out?

 

It's a good job that this has got nothing to do with "edicts from monarchy" then. The people decided. You are undemocratic if you want to ignore a decision of the people.

 

How did Farage mislead anybody?

 

Except it's not a binary choice unless you're incredibly simple.

 

Q: Is two Kitchen Pete incredibly simple? This is a multiple choice question, please select one answer only.

1) Yes, he is so stupid he is unable to walk and chew gum at the same time.

2) No, he is capable of appreciating nuance and contradiction

3) Are you kidding? He has the brains of a rocking horse.

4) This man and his like is the backbone of Britain. Britain is in serious trouble.

 

Where have I backed him up? I said repeatedly I agreed with you.

Lying is just an unconscious habit with you isn't it.

 

You said once that you agreed, and then when on try and justify what that **** was doing because of the personal abuse Saxton has received.

So, no, I'm not lying. Personal abuse is one thing, personal insults aimed at their family is another.

 

I didn't try to justify what he did and I said I agreed with you more than once you liar.

I pointed out that you and others do the same, which makes you a hypocrite and your excuse about where the line is, is bollocks.

 

You tried to justify by saying that what was happening to Saxton was equivalent.

I'm not guilty of any hypocrisy. I have never abused another poster's family, so there cannot be any on my part. Please show me where I have, or shut the **** up!..

You're the ****ing hypocrite, as per usual. You could have just said that you agreed and left it at that. But, no, in typical Dull style you had to go on and try to somehow justify it.

 

In at least one post, I pointed out where it wasn't equivalent.

In several posts, I have said I agree with you.

My point is, you defend others when they abuse people, and you even join in. That makes you a hypocrite and a liar.

I did say many posts ago that the disagreement is where the line is drawn, and that we'll never agree so it's pointless.

It continues because you're trying to spin it away from the facts.

 

More total, bollocks. And yet another piss poor attempt to blur the distinction. And, as per usual again, you try to accuse others of exactly what you're doing yourself. That's hypocrisy!...

I am a participant in this open football forum. As such, I have accepted that Wumming and personal abuse is all part of what goes on here. I deal with it when it come at me as I see fit. If I didn't t like it, or was offended by it, I wouldn't willingly participate.

My lady is not a participant in this forum. She's a non combatant, if you like. If we are to accept the personal abuse of family members, where do we stop? Maybe a member's wife or child is disabled or dying. Is he or she to sit there and listen to some ****wit abuse them? Why not start abusing dead parents or grandparents too? Hell, it's all fair game!....

Now, as you clearly cannot show me where I have aimed any personal abuse at another poster's family, just drop it. I'm really not in the mood this morning.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...unds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html