On Monday, 27 June 2016 17:23:51 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:23:11 +0100, pamela wrote:

But leaving theb EU does not have the "return" option.

There's not really anything to stop the UK rejoining the EU at any time
although the poorer terms on offer might be enough to put us off.

Except the possibility of one of the 27 vetoing us.

Would it require only one veto, because if that;s teh case no wonder things take so long if all 27 countries have to agree.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 07:33:40 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

But leaving theb EU does not have the "return" option.

There's not really anything to stop the UK rejoining the EU at any
time although the poorer terms on offer might be enough to put us
off.

Except the possibility of one of the 27 vetoing us.

Would it require only one veto

Yes. Any country looking to join the EU needs only be vetoed by one
existing member, and they don't get to join.

"TimW" wrote in message
...
On 28/06/16 07:18, Rod Speed wrote:


"TimW" wrote in message


A general election might produce a government with a mandate and
authority to invoke article 50.

Then again the new government may declare the referendum to be the
ill-conceived nonsense that it clearly is.

If they are stupid enough to try that, the voters will **** them over
very comprehensively indeed the next time they get to vote and will
elect quite a few UKIP MPs and any party but Corbyn's knows that.
And since Corbyn hates the EU, even he wouldn’t be that stupid.
It is certainly possible that his replacement might be tho. Boris
aint that stupid.

Things are not a clear as you make out. people voted leave for a lot of
different reasons, and depending on what happens in the next weeks and
months they will change their minds:

Voted for immediate departure? that isn't going to happen
Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed
Voted to end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.
Voted to fund the NHS with the mystery billions? You were had.
Voted because you are patriotic and royalist and believe in the UK? You
made a big mistake.
Voted because you want to strengthen democracy? Now watch someone else
choose a new government

Voted because you thought Boris and Nigel were honest and trustworthy and
could deliver on their promises? You may realise you have been made to
look a right Charlie and you may want to hold them to account in the
coming general election.

See?

You have 2 hopes of that - no hope and Bob Hope.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
It'll be a bit like currency decimalisation
or the temperature conversion to centigrade, i.e. it'll take a good
while for people, industry and trading to get used to the new state of
affairs, but it's the right thing to do.

How long would you give it before admitting it was a mistake?

--
*Not all men are annoying. Some are dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:03:37 +0100, TimW wrote:

Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed
Voted to end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.

Both are, in the context of EU membership, exactly the same thing. And -
yes, it can be done. But only at the expense of leaving the single
market, and shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

Some think that's a price worth paying to be rid of too many foreigners.

I'd call those people xenophobic.

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't speak
English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class) is xenophobic
is it?

tim

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:05:32 +0100, tim... wrote:

Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed Voted to
end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.

Both are, in the context of EU membership, exactly the same thing. And
- yes, it can be done. But only at the expense of leaving the single
market, and shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

Some think that's a price worth paying to be rid of too many
foreigners.

I'd call those people xenophobic.

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class) is
xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't speak
English?

Although quite what that has to do with migration statistics, since
there's absolutely no stats on language skills of migrants, let alone
their school-age children, I have no idea...

On 28/06/2016 19:11, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:05:32 +0100, tim... wrote:

Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed Voted to
end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.

Both are, in the context of EU membership, exactly the same thing. And
- yes, it can be done. But only at the expense of leaving the single
market, and shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

Some think that's a price worth paying to be rid of too many
foreigners.

I'd call those people xenophobic.

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class) is
xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't speak
English?

There are some where a significant proportion can't, I doubt there are
any where the number is 90%

Although quite what that has to do with migration statistics, since
there's absolutely no stats on language skills of migrants, let alone
their school-age children, I have no idea...

Perhaps there ought to be?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Rod wrote:

You know for once I almost agree with you. Yet when you
get what appears to be an honest man with at least some
principles not involving money - even if you think them
misguided - like Corbyn, he becomes the subject of derision.


He's subject to derision because he's a dinosaur who wants to
renationalise everything.

Given so much of our vital infrastructure is foreign owned, he may just
have predicted what will happen anyway. No one with sense invests in an
economy which is failing. As ours most certainly will without a deal with
the EU.



As your leader is now apparently in favour of Brexit and limited
immigration, when do you change sides?

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:37:00 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class) is
xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't
speak English?

There are some where a significant proportion can't

Are you getting "second language" confused with "can't speak"?

Although quite what that has to do with migration statistics, since
there's absolutely no stats on language skills of migrants, let alone
their school-age children, I have no idea...

Perhaps there ought to be?

D'you know what I'd _really_ love to see...? That, mapped against the
language proficiency of British immigrants to Spain, France, Italy...

I know which I think'll be the FAR higher %age.

TimW wrote
Rod Speed wrote
TimW wrote

A general election might produce a government with a mandate and
authority to invoke article 50.

Then again the new government may declare the referendum to be the
ill-conceived nonsense that it clearly is.

If they are stupid enough to try that, the voters will **** them over
very comprehensively indeed the next time they get to vote and will elect
quite a few UKIP MPs and any party but Corbyn's knows that. And since
Corbyn hates the EU, even he wouldn’t be that stupid. It is certainly
possible that his replacement might be tho. Boris aint that stupid.

Things are not a clear as you make out.

It is on what the voters would do if any government was
actually stupid enough to do that. And there is no possibility
what so ever that the new govt would be a Labour govt given
that it is currently ripping itself to shred much more dramatically
than it ever has before in living memory. So we are talking about
a new Tory govt, because there is no possibility of UKIP getting
any new MPs in the HoC now that Britain is leaving the EU. And
very little possibility that Boris will call a general election unless
he decides that with Labour ripping itself to shred so spectacularly,
he might well end up with a massive majority. But he certainly
wouldn’t be stupid enough to ignore the referendum given that
he does want Britain to leave the EU. I can't see that there is any
real possibility that if someone else replaces Cameron and hates
the idea of leaving the EU, would call a general election with
Boris having missed out on the leadership and still campaigning
for BRexit, and then proclaim that the referendum will be ignored
and if someone was actually that stupid, the voters would punish
them very severely indeed because they are already comprehensively
****ed off about arrogant politicians and the system.

I can't even see enough to matter voting no confidence
and bringing on a general election that way. Labour isnt
going to do that given that they are currently ripping
themselves to shreds and the Torys arent going to
either. I guess it might be possible for enough Torys
who say want Boris to replace Cameron who don’t get
that and end up with some fool like May instead, to
be that ****ed off to do that, but that is very unlikely
indeed IMO and even if they did, they certainly wouldn’t
be campaigning to stay in the EU if they did that.

people voted leave for a lot of different reasons,

Most they were primarily concerned about two
of them, immigration and the EU telling Britain
what to do policy wise, usually called sovereignty.

and depending on what happens in the next weeks and months they will
change their minds:

Bet they don’t on leaving the EU, particularly if any govt
is actually arrogant enough to ignore the referendum.

Voted for immediate departure? that isn't going to happen
Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed

No one has proposed stopping immigration. The most that has
ever been proposed is that Britain is free to decide for itself who
is allowed to move to Britain and who is not, just like Britain has
decided that ever since the war and before that with non EU citizens.

Voted to end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.

Of course it can.

Voted to fund the NHS with the mystery billions? You were had.

No reason why Britain cant choose to spend all or part
of what it currently sends to the EU on the NHS instead.

Voted because you are patriotic and royalist and believe in the UK? You
made a big mistake.

Have fun convincing them who voted to leave for that reason that they did.

Voted because you want to strengthen democracy? Now watch someone else
choose a new government

There is only one group that decides that, the British voter.
Not even the EU gets any say what so ever on that.

Voted because you thought Boris and Nigel were honest and trustworthy and
could deliver on their promises?

I doubt anyone who matters voted to leave for that reason.
Most would have enough of a clue to realise that Farage
would not be in any position to have any say what so
ever on anything at all policy wise. He couldn’t even
manage to get a seat in Westminster and once Britain
has chosen to leave the EU, is now completely and
utterly politically irrelevant and has no chance what
so ever of getting a seat in Westminster unless some
fool forms a new government and chooses to ignore
the referendum result and call a general election.

You may realise you have been made to look a right Charlie and you may
want to hold them to account in the coming general election.

I don’t believe that there will be a general
election until after Britain is out of the EU.

See?

Nothing to see IMO. You're just going to have
to accept that the voters have voted and will
get to wear the fact that they did vote to leave.

I guess it is possible that Boris might manage
to achieve Britain outside the EU with **** all
gained by leaving on the free movement of
EU citizens and what is paid to the EU, but
with Britain free to do what it likes policy
wise, and because Labour has committed
political suicide all over again, the voters
get stuck with that, but that’s about the
best you can hope for IMO. And that wouldn’t
be a bad result for those like you that don’t
want to leave the EU.

Whether a result like that would see UKIP
fade into obscurity is harder to say. Likely
it would IMO because they would no longer
have any funding because they wouldn’t
have any MEPs with their snouts in the EP
trough anymore. Maybe not tho if enough
of the voters stay as ****ed off as they are
about immigration from the EU with even
more dregs of the EU like Albanians and
Serbs etc pouring into Britain.

On 28/06/16 14:57, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:03:37 +0100, TimW wrote:

Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed
Voted to end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.

Both are, in the context of EU membership, exactly the same thing. And -
yes, it can be done. But only at the expense of leaving the single
market,

yes

and shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

No.


Some think that's a price worth paying to be rid of too many foreigners.

Yes.

I'd call those people xenophobic.

I'd call them sensible.


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 28/06/16 19:11, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:05:32 +0100, tim... wrote:

Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed Voted to
end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.

Both are, in the context of EU membership, exactly the same thing. And
- yes, it can be done. But only at the expense of leaving the single
market, and shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

Some think that's a price worth paying to be rid of too many
foreigners.

I'd call those people xenophobic.

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class) is
xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't speak
English?


Many

Although quite what that has to do with migration statistics, since
there's absolutely no stats on language skills of migrants, let alone
their school-age children, I have no idea...

You think?


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:37:00 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class) is
xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't
speak English?

There are some where a significant proportion can't

Are you getting "second language" confused with "can't speak"?

as 6-7 YOs

no

tim

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

You know for once I almost agree with you. Yet when you
get what appears to be an honest man with at least some
principles not involving money - even if you think them
misguided - like Corbyn, he becomes the subject of derision.

He's subject to derision because he's a dinosaur
who wants to renationalise everything.

Given so much of our vital infrastructure is foreign owned,

**** all of it is.

he may just have predicted what will happen anyway.

Not a chance.

No one with sense invests in an economy which is failing.

You haven't established that the British economy is failing.
It happens to have one of the lowest unemployment rates
of the majors in europe and even you should have noticed
the hordes of EU citizens showing up in Britain because its
economy is doing so much better than the country they
are coming from is. In fact the only economy that is arguably
doing any better of the majors in europe is Germany.

As ours most certainly will without a deal with the EU.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Have fun explaining
how come all of the US, Japan, China, Canada, Australia, India,
Taiwan etc etc etc are doing fine without any deal with the EU.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:57:58 +0100, tim... wrote:

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class)
is xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't
speak English?

There are some where a significant proportion can't

Are you getting "second language" confused with "can't speak"?

as 6-7 YOs

no

Thanks for the confirmation that you really, really are.

Unless you seriously think that 6-7yos can't be multilingual.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
pamela wrote
Charlie wrote

And UKIP is even more completely politically
irrelevant now that Britain is leaving the EU.

I wonder if support for UKIP at elections will diminish
now that its objective has been largely met.

Don't be silly. It's just a slightly upmarket version of the
BNP etc. The sort that never meets its true objective.

Its about to with Britain leaving the EU unless Boris is actually stupid
enough to agree to what the EU wants to get free trade with the EU.

Or rather let's hope so.

In the post-referendum euphoria, Nigel Farage hinted at
a possible new objective of dismantling the entire EU:

Of course. 'Taking back control' doesn't refer to the UK. It refers
to him and his like having control. Of everything they can.

Even sillier than you usually manage. With Britain out of the
EU with no agreement with the EU at all, because what the EU
requires to have an agreement is unacceptable, Farage would
have no control of anything at all, not even UKIP because it
would have become completely and utterly irrelevant.

"The E.U.'s dying. I hope we've knocked the first brick out of the wall."

Of course. He hates everything.

Even sillier than you usually manage. He clearly doesn't hate leaving the
EU.

Especially where even the slightest nod is given to human rights.

More of your flagrant dishonesty.

And there I was thinking his main idea was to limit immigration.

And that would only be the start.

Yeah, yeah, concentration camps, gas chamber and crematoria for sure.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:57:58 +0100, tim... wrote:

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class)
is xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't
speak English?

There are some where a significant proportion can't

Are you getting "second language" confused with "can't speak"?

as 6-7 YOs

no

Thanks for the confirmation that you really, really are.

Unless you seriously think that 6-7yos can't be multilingual.

well of course they "can"

but they aren't going to be if they have grown with in a, as an example, all
Polish speaking household and then are sent to school in the UK, are they?

tim

In article , pamela
writes
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

My question is whether a general election mandate could overturn a
referendum. There is a lack of full democracy about such an approach
but I wonder if it would be consitutionally valid.

The constitutional position would be even more secure if the
referendum is seen not as a mandate but as a consultation. Ignoring
the reply of such a consultation may be politically very unwise but
that does not make it unconstitutional.
From a constitutional or legal point of view the referendum was not
binding but was classified as advisory. Therefore in theory it could be
ignored with or without an election.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 13:19 27 Jun 2016, charles wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to
over rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

But leaving theb EU does not have the "return" option.

There's not really anything to stop the UK rejoining the EU at any
time although the poorer terms on offer might be enough to put us
off.

As per Article 50.

--
bert

In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Monday, 27 June 2016 17:23:51 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:23:11 +0100, pamela wrote:

But leaving theb EU does not have the "return" option.

There's not really anything to stop the UK rejoining the EU at any time
although the poorer terms on offer might be enough to put us off.

Except the possibility of one of the 27 vetoing us.

Would it require only one veto, because if that;s teh case no wonder
things take so long if all 27 countries have to agree.
It has to be unanimous. Article 49
--
bert

In article . com,
lid writes
On 27/06/2016 11:07, pamela wrote:
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

The referendum is not at all binding it is the government asking for
the peoples thoughts which they can then choose to ignore if they want.

I think there should be a judicial review to see who was telling the
truth and to decide if a rerun is needed based on facts rather than
lies. I can't see why its legal if its based on lies.
One man's lie is another man's opinion. (With apologies to Pamela)
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 14:33 27 Jun 2016, dennis@home wrote:

On 27/06/2016 11:07, pamela wrote:
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to
over rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

The referendum is not at all binding it is the government asking
for the peoples thoughts which they can then choose to ignore if
they want.

I think there should be a judicial review to see who was telling
the truth and to decide if a rerun is needed based on facts
rather than lies. I can't see why its legal if its based on
lies.

Claims made by various supporters in a referendum are probably not
bound by legalities in the same way as parties are in an election.
Nor by the Advertising Standards Agency And why does everyone trust a
judge to be impartial and have the wisdom of Solomon?
--
bert

whisky-dave wrote
Adrian wrote
pamela wrote

But leaving theb EU does not have the "return" option.

There's not really anything to stop the UK rejoining the EU at any time
although the poorer terms on offer might be enough to put us off.

Except the possibility of one of the 27 vetoing us.

Would it require only one veto,

On that question, yep.

because if that;s teh case no wonder things
take so long if all 27 countries have to agree.

Yes, that is the problem with plenty of EU stuff.

In article , Alan Dawes
writes
In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

My question is whether a general election mandate could overturn a
referendum. There is a lack of full democracy about such an approach
but I wonder if it would be consitutionally valid.

The constitutional position would be even more secure if the
referendum is seen not as a mandate but as a consultation. Ignoring
the reply of such a consultation may be politically very unwise but
that does not make it unconstitutional.

There is a well argued article from "UK Constituional Law Association" see

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016...-hickman-and-j
eff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

The only way that this or any future PM could justify triggering Article
50 without a statute voting for it passed by parliament would be by "royal
prerogative" but case law going back to "the case of proclamations of
1610" right through to the more recent "fire brigades union case of 1995"
limit the ability of the government or crown to use "royal prerogative"
and could not be used in this case.

"This case law forms a core part of the separation of powers in the
British Constitution: the Government cannot take away rights given by
Parliament and it cannot undermine a statute. For the courts to hold
otherwise would place the rights of British citizens at the mercy of the
Government and would be contrary to Parliamentary supremacy."

Read the article and the follow ups and make up your own mind as to what
the government can legally do.

Alan

One important omission was that worst case is that we leave the EU
reliant on WTO rules for trade tariffs and not with no deal at all.
--
bert

Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:05:32 +0100, tim... wrote:


Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed Voted to
end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.


Both are, in the context of EU membership, exactly the same thing. And
- yes, it can be done. But only at the expense of leaving the single
market, and shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

Some think that's a price worth paying to be rid of too many
foreigners.

I'd call those people xenophobic.


So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class) is
xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't speak
English?

Although quite what that has to do with migration statistics, since
there's absolutely no stats on language skills of migrants, let alone
their school-age children, I have no idea...


I understand there's one in Glasgow. Do Glaswegians speak english?!

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:49:59 +0100, Capitol wrote:

I understand there's one in Glasgow. Do Glaswegians speak english?!

It's English, Jimmy, but not as we know it.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

It'll be a bit like currency decimalisation or the temperature
conversion to centigrade, i.e. it'll take a good while for
people, industry and trading to get used to the new
state of affairs, but it's the right thing to do.

How long would you give it before admitting it was a mistake?

Never IMO. Politics doesn’t work like that.

I don’t expect another referendum on joining the EU again
any time soon unless the eurozone implodes spectacularly
and the EU comes to its senses and decides to return to a
purely free trade area with no longer the complete freedom
of movement of all EU citizens and a relentless march to
ever closer integration of european countys and **** all
in the way of real democracy.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 28/06/2016 19:11, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:05:32 +0100, tim... wrote:

Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed Voted to
end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.

Both are, in the context of EU membership, exactly the same thing. And
- yes, it can be done. But only at the expense of leaving the single
market, and shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

Some think that's a price worth paying to be rid of too many
foreigners.

I'd call those people xenophobic.

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class) is
xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't speak
English?

There are some where a significant proportion can't, I doubt there are any
where the number is 90%

Although quite what that has to do with migration statistics, since
there's absolutely no stats on language skills of migrants, let alone
their school-age children, I have no idea...

Perhaps there ought to be?

Impossible to do, particularly with the kids because
their language skill in english changes so quickly.

In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:03:37 +0100, TimW wrote:

Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed
Voted to end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.

Both are, in the context of EU membership, exactly the same thing. And
- yes, it can be done. But only at the expense of leaving the single
market, and shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

Some think that's a price worth paying to be rid of too many
foreigners.

I'd call those people xenophobic.

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class) is
xenophobic is it?

No. I'd call it the fault of the government. For not providing suitable
schooling for all. Immigration didn't happen overnight.

Immigration is a way of getting plenty labour. Which the country needs.
Subsequent governments have done nothing to control it - and when they
could have cut it near in half with nothing the EU could do about it.
So it is the government's responsibility to provide proper schooling.

--
*How's my driving? Call 999*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class) is
xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't
speak English?

Even if there were - which of course there isn't - you could split up the
kids and provide decent language tuition, until they are up to standard.
It's hardly rocket science. And not a vast extra cost either.

--
*Half the people in the world are below average.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:57:58 +0100, tim... wrote:

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class)
is xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't
speak English?

There are some where a significant proportion can't

Are you getting "second language" confused with "can't speak"?

as 6-7 YOs

no

Thanks for the confirmation that you really, really are.

Unless you seriously think that 6-7yos can't be multilingual.

well of course they "can"

but they aren't going to be if they have grown with in a, as an example,
all Polish speaking household and then are sent to school in the UK, are
they?

They are actually. I know lots who have grown with an all Turkish speaking
household, with all they ever have anything to do with other Turkish
speaking
households, with the parents barely speaking any english at all, who do fine
in school where only english is spoken. I do get some quite surprising
questions
form one of them about what a particular word means, but otherwise their
english is excellent. And I know about 20+ of them in that situation.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
**** snipped

On 28/06/16 23:04, bert wrote:
In article , pamela
writes
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

My question is whether a general election mandate could overturn a
referendum. There is a lack of full democracy about such an approach
but I wonder if it would be consitutionally valid.

The constitutional position would be even more secure if the
referendum is seen not as a mandate but as a consultation. Ignoring
the reply of such a consultation may be politically very unwise but
that does not make it unconstitutional.
From a constitutional or legal point of view the referendum was not
binding but was classified as advisory. Therefore in theory it could be
ignored with or without an election.

Good luck with that in the world of realpolitik

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 28/06/16 22:04, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:57:58 +0100, tim... wrote:

So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class)
is xenophobic is it?

Is there one single school in the country where 90% of pupils don't
speak English?

There are some where a significant proportion can't

Are you getting "second language" confused with "can't speak"?

as 6-7 YOs

no

Thanks for the confirmation that you really, really are.


I am really having trouble in understaning how you think the one implies
the other.

Unless you seriously think that 6-7yos can't be multilingual.

Cant!=Aren't. Yet another bit of agitprop exposed.



--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 28/06/16 23:10, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 27/06/2016 11:07, pamela wrote:
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

The referendum is not at all binding it is the government asking for
the peoples thoughts which they can then choose to ignore if they want.

I think there should be a judicial review to see who was telling the
truth and to decide if a rerun is needed based on facts rather than
lies. I can't see why its legal if its based on lies.
One man's lie is another man's opinion. (With apologies to Pamela)

The hilarious thought of introducing te basic principle that nothing is
binding if its based on lies, would mean that we were ipso facto never
in the EEC to begin with!

That we were owed money on nearly every product we have ever bought, and
that Clive sinclair should be in jail, and have his knightood stripped,
along with at least half the house of lords 90% of the Commons, and Tony
Bliar.



--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:03:37 +0100, TimW wrote:


Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed
Voted to end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.

Both are, in the context of EU membership, exactly the same thing. And
- yes, it can be done. But only at the expense of leaving the single
market, and shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

Some think that's a price worth paying to be rid of too many
foreigners.

I'd call those people xenophobic.


So your kid suffering at school because 90% of the other kids don't
speak English (and hence slow down the learning level of the class) is
xenophobic is it?

No. I'd call it the fault of the government. For not providing suitable
schooling for all. Immigration didn't happen overnight.

Immigration is a way of getting plenty labour. Which the country needs.
Subsequent governments have done nothing to control it - and when they
could have cut it near in half with nothing the EU could do about it.
So it is the government's responsibility to provide proper schooling.



The county doesn't need labour. It needs investment in
productivity. Automation products. Necessity is the mother of invention.