In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 03/11/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty' actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other
such ****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to
know - or have been told - long before now.


A lot of MPs will be mindful of their jobs come the next general
election if the brexit vote is reversed.

I don't expect the vote to be reversed. But would rather like to know -
and have MPs vote on - what BREXIT actually means. Not have it left to a
few incompetent ministers.

If those who actually voted to leave were unanimous in what they wanted,
it would be clearer. But you'll get as many versions from them as there
are days in the year.

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 03/11/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty' actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other
such ****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to
know - or have been told - long before now.


A lot of MPs will be mindful of their jobs come the next general
election if the brexit vote is reversed.

I don't expect the vote to be reversed. But would rather like to know -
and have MPs vote on - what BREXIT actually means. Not have it left to a
few incompetent ministers.

If those who actually voted to leave were unanimous in what they wanted,
it would be clearer. But you'll get as many versions from them as there
are days in the year.

That's all that is ever possible when it is impossible to
know what the EU will agree to with Britain out of the EU.

And is just as true of what will happen if Britain stays in the EU too.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:19:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It should'nt cost a lot ;-)

We wouldn't postal vote if we had to use a stamp.

--
Every time I sink ten pints, I turn into a woman. I start talking ******** and can't drive.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:19:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It should'nt cost a lot ;-)

We wouldn't postal vote if we had to use a stamp.

Even you lot should be able to work out how to allow that to
not require a stamp, if someone was actually stupid enough
to lend you lot a seeing eye dog and a white cane, again.

On 03/11/16 17:36, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

NO, it was supposed to be binding.

Otherwise WTF was the point of it?

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 03/11/16 18:41, alan_m wrote:
On 03/11/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


A lot of MPs will be mindful of their jobs come the next general
election if the brexit vote is reversed.


Really? With Labour party dead, Libdems 100% europhile and UKIP in
tatters, who are you going to vote for except conservatives?

BNP?

This is the end of democracy and the takeover by the Party.


There is only one Party, it has many faces, but in the end its all one .



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

in 1536085 20161103 150505 whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, a=
nd
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) M=
Ps
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margi=
n)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesti=
ng
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs o=
r
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again=
?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are not=
=20
legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views of
the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the guvmint wan=
ted to go against the peoples vote they could, as the vote was only advisor=
y to the guvmint of what *voters* wanted, but how would that look in a so =
called democratic country might look a bit odd to say the least.

Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the voters are allo=
wed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing for the general public.

So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the guvmint
which is what I think happened.

If the guvmint gave us what the public wanted there would be no taxes and
the death penalty would come back.
We elect representatives who we trust to do the right thing for everyone.

in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.

On 04/11/2016 07:42, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536085 20161103 150505 whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, a=
nd
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) M=
Ps
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margi=
n)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesti=
ng
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs o=
r
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again=
?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are not=
=20
legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views of
the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the guvmint wan=
ted to go against the peoples vote they could, as the vote was only advisor=
y to the guvmint of what *voters* wanted, but how would that look in a so =
called democratic country might look a bit odd to say the least.

Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the voters are allo=
wed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing for the general public.

So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the guvmint
which is what I think happened.

If the guvmint gave us what the public wanted there would be no taxes and
the death penalty would come back.
We elect representatives who we trust to do the right thing for everyone.

It was our government that asked us the question. Why ask it if they
won't accept the answer. A pointless question.

in 1536167 20161103 195230 bert wrote:
In article , Huge
writes
On 2016-11-03, Tim Streater wrote:

[34 lines snipped]

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.

Governments routinely ignore manifesto pledges.

You asked for Parliamentary sovereignty. Hopefully you'll now get it good
and hard.


Sovereignty belongs to the people. We transfer sovereignty to parliament
every 5 years by way of an election.
In this particular instance parliament transferred that sovereignty back
to the people and the people have spoken. I prefer this system to being
ruled by judges.

Get a grip, Bert. Whatever the Daily Mail said, you are not being ruled by
judges. They were asked to clarify the law as it stands and that's what they did.

in 1536170 20161103 195654 bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.

Look up "advisory" in a dictionary and get back to us.

in 1536222 20161104 004224 "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 03/11/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty' actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other
such ****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to
know - or have been told - long before now.


A lot of MPs will be mindful of their jobs come the next general
election if the brexit vote is reversed.

I don't expect the vote to be reversed. But would rather like to know -
and have MPs vote on - what BREXIT actually means. Not have it left to a
few incompetent ministers.

If those who actually voted to leave were unanimous in what they wanted,
it would be clearer. But you'll get as many versions from them as there
are days in the year.

It's a pity it took a private citizen to achieve what should have happened anyway.
Theresa May sounds as if she thinks she can ignore the judgement.

in 1536247 20161104 041526 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/11/16 17:36, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

NO, it was supposed to be binding.

Otherwise WTF was the point of it?

No 'supposed' about it, if it was legally binding it would have said so.
It didn't.

On Thursday, 3 November 2016 17:39:55 UTC, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

No it wasn't.
It said on the £9m leaflet that the government will implement whatever the outcome of the referendum is.

On Thursday, 3 November 2016 16:17:05 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 03/11/16 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


If MPs are to make the decision, there must be a General Election first,
because this issue was not on the table at the last election.

Oh yes it was.
Camoron thought he could swing it to remain.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 1536085 20161103 150505 whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so,
a=
nd
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has
a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative)
M=
Ps
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow
margi=
n)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an
interesti=
ng
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs
o=
r
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it
again=
?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are not=
=20
legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views of
the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the guvmint
wan=
ted to go against the peoples vote they could, as the vote was only
advisor=
y to the guvmint of what *voters* wanted, but how would that look in a so
=
called democratic country might look a bit odd to say the least.

Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the voters are
allo=
wed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing for the general public.

So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the guvmint
which is what I think happened.

If the guvmint gave us what the public wanted there would be no taxes

Most wouldn’t be that stupid.

and the death penalty would come back.

Yes.

We elect representatives who we trust to do the right thing for everyone.

Nope, we elect who we elect because there is no other viable alternative.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Have fun listing any examples of that.

Power has obviously gone to her head.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 04/11/2016 07:42, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536085 20161103 150505 whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so,
a=
nd
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has
a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative)
M=
Ps
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow
margi=
n)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an
interesti=
ng
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs
o=
r
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it
again=
?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are
not=
=20
legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views of
the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the guvmint
wan=
ted to go against the peoples vote they could, as the vote was only
advisor=
y to the guvmint of what *voters* wanted, but how would that look in a
so =
called democratic country might look a bit odd to say the least.

Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the voters are
allo=
wed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing for the general public.

So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the guvmint
which is what I think happened.

If the guvmint gave us what the public wanted there would be no taxes and
the death penalty would come back.
We elect representatives who we trust to do the right thing for everyone.

It was our government that asked us the question.

Yes.

Why ask it if they won't accept the answer.

Because that fool Cameron thought he would get a vote to remain.

A pointless question.

Not if he had got the result he thought he would.

That would have let him make an obscene gesture in
the general direction of the BRexiters in his own party.

It didn’t actually work out the way he thought it would.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...

Theresa May sounds as if she thinks she can ignore the judgement.

Au contraire, (IMHO).

At a guess the people breathing the biggest sigh of relief at this
judgement were people like May, who never thought Brexit was a
good idea in the first place but found themselves stuck with
trying to bring it about. Possibly David Davis and a few others
thought and still thinks its a practical possibility, but at a
guess they're in a very small minority among those who who've
studied the actual detail. Not that they necessarily have
themselves.

Its noticeable that they're all, May included, still paying lip
service to this "Will of the People" nonsense, when as professional
politicians they'll have realised early on in their careers that
around 80% of "ordinary voters" don't have a clue when it comes
to understanding serious issues. Basically a lot of them were
looking for something to get them off the hook.

Its difficult to believe that May wasn't advised early on of
potential constitutional problems with invoking the Royal Prerogative
to take away citizens rights, as invoking Article 50 would have done.
And that if this particular person hadn't fronted a private action
somebody else would somehow have "emerged".

On 04/11/16 07:42, Bob Martin wrote:
..

If the guvmint gave us what the public wanted there would be no taxes and
the death penalty would come back.

There speaks a true remoaner, full of contempt for the electorate.

We elect representatives who we trust to do the right thing for everyone.

Yes, take us out of the EU.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 04/11/16 07:58, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536247 20161104 041526 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/11/16 17:36, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

NO, it was supposed to be binding.

Otherwise WTF was the point of it?

No 'supposed' about it, if it was legally binding it would have said so.
It didn't.

So it was all a public relations exercise eh?

And the Tories knew all along it didn't mean diddly squat eh?

So all the kerfuffle about it was just meaningless hot air, because we
couldn't leave the EU if 90% of the electorate voted to ?

Right.

Now we know EXACTLY what kind of utter ****s we voted against.




--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 04/11/16 08:24, Moron Watch wrote:
Its noticeable that they're all, May included, still paying lip
service to this "Will of the People" nonsense, when as professional
politicians they'll have realised early on in their careers that
around 80% of "ordinary voters" don't have a clue when it comes
to understanding serious issues.


This is the sort of **** you voted against.



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 04/11/2016 07:34, Tim Streater wrote:


There hasn't been a referendum on those two matters.


There doesn't need to be everyone knows the results.

The big problem with the brexit vote is it has torn the UK down the
middle. Neither side has enough of a majority for the others to be happy
with the outcome.

About the worst thing that has happened so far is that the racist bigots
now think they are the majority and can do what they like.

Its going to take years to sort out and we will need more prison space too.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 04/11/16 08:24, Moron Watch wrote:
Its noticeable that they're all, May included, still paying lip
service to this "Will of the People" nonsense, when as professional
politicians they'll have realised early on in their careers that
around 80% of "ordinary voters" don't have a clue when it comes
to understanding serious issues.


This is the sort of **** you voted against.


Those capable of understanding the issues at stake, produce evidence and argue their
case.

Whereas those like yourself who don't have a clue, but don't want to feel left out,
resort to name calling instead.

****, remoaner etc. etc.

All very impressive I must say.

QED

On 04/11/2016 07:46, Bod wrote:

It was our government that asked us the question. Why ask it if they
won't accept the answer. A pointless question.

The government isn't parliament and as the judges have stated its
parliament that has to pass the law not the government. This is the way
the UK works and is what the sovereignty voters want.
The government can do things like change tax rates without putting it to
parliament but they can't add or remove laws that affect the
constitution. If they coud then they could just remove the vote from the
opposition and become a one party state and Corbin might do that if he
could.

On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:14:06 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 03/11/2016 14:01, Tim Streater wrote:
snip

The manifesto this govt was elected on said there'd be a referendum,
and that the govt would implement the people's decision.


So no legal obligation then.

Nope. They asked the country what they *thought* and the county came
back close to 50:50. Hardly a resounding indication that the 'country'
wanted one thing or the other and hardly surprising considering the
lack of real information, schedule or plan.

So what we have since found out is that many of the fanatics here
didn't vote for us the simply 'Leave the EU', they had other agenda
(like bringing the whole EU down).

I wonder how many of those who voted leave because of 'immigration who
have since learned just what little difference it will make because of
how much the UK relies on immigrant workers.

The only people who try to defend the fact that the referendum was
(actually / legally) just an opinion poll (irrespective of what anyone
'promised' as we know such promises are bs) just want it to carry on
and everyone to keep quiet because they realise just how bogus the
whole this is.

Democracy is all about discussing all avenues (old and new) and we
shouldn't carry on marching into the unknown if it's anything other
than 100% positive the outcome will also be positive for the majority.

Cheers, T i m

On 04/11/16 09:22, Moron Watch wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 04/11/16 08:24, Moron Watch wrote:
Its noticeable that they're all, May included, still paying lip
service to this "Will of the People" nonsense, when as professional
politicians they'll have realised early on in their careers that
around 80% of "ordinary voters" don't have a clue when it comes
to understanding serious issues.


This is the sort of **** you voted against.


Those capable of understanding the issues at stake, produce evidence and argue their
case.

#
Indeed they do.

Whereas those like yourself who don't have a clue, but don't want to feel left out,
resort to name calling instead.

No they resort to making a decision against the will of the people
because they lost their case.

****, remoaner etc. etc.


Accurate description.

Produce a pack of lies to try and get the result you want, when that
doesn't work bribe a judge or three instead.



All very impressive I must say.

QED


Exactly.



--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to think that
she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote in the house of commons.

--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to think that
she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote in the house of commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other
such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to think that
she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote in the house of
commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.




TNP is now resorting to threats it would appear.
Maybe he really is harry?

On Thursday, 3 November 2016 20:07:46 UTC, bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.

I thought that is what it was only slightly more offical than putting/leaking out a press relase about a possible new tax or something see how the public feel, see if you have oposition or a clear road ahead.
The problem is as mentioned on question time last night the closeness of the actual result.
If this was a decision about buying a car or a phomne or a house I doubt a 54% yes would spur us on to make a purchase, we'd rethink the questions.

Well I would.

It's a bit like going into a shot and buying lighting that you know will blow yuor dimmer and you'll have top replaxce the dimmer or get the traic replaced when a bulb blows.

On 04/11/2016 08:06, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 17:39:55 UTC, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

No it wasn't.
It said on the £9m leaflet that the government will implement whatever the outcome of the referendum is.


So they got it wrong and they can legally do so.
The PM has resigned so now parliament will have to clean up the mess and
they can only do that by passing a bill to do so.
Its sovereignty as we know it and have known it for a long time.
Its what a large portion of brexiteers voted for so they should be happy.
The rest that are just trying to undermine the EU or get rid of
immigrants will have to wait and see. Not that either will happen if we
leave anyway.

On 04/11/2016 08:08, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 16:17:05 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 03/11/16 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


If MPs are to make the decision, there must be a General Election first,
because this issue was not on the table at the last election.

Oh yes it was.
Camoron thought he could swing it to remain.


It doesn't matter its not the first promise made by a party that was
then defeated in parliament. In fact more than half the promises made
don't get through parliament.

On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other
such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to think that
she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote in the house of
commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted
to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences. It can not be used to
deprive us all of our liberties.


--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 04/11/2016 04:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/11/16 18:41, alan_m wrote:
On 03/11/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


A lot of MPs will be mindful of their jobs come the next general
election if the brexit vote is reversed.


Really? With Labour party dead, Libdems 100% europhile and UKIP in
tatters, who are you going to vote for except conservatives?

BNP?


This is the end of democracy and the takeover by the Party.

It is if May ignores the law and does what she wants without passing a
vote in parliament.

At least with BNP you know they are racist and aren't hiding under the
UKIP banner.

On Thursday, 3 November 2016 20:07:46 UTC, bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.
--

Have you never sort the advice of a particular thing you're not sure about like ask the wife and kids where they'd like to go on holiday.

PLenty of people ask advice aka advisory info here doesn;t mean you have to follow it, but if 70%+ say one thing and 30% say is an easier deciain than 54% and 46% split makes yuo wonder who is right.

On Friday, 4 November 2016 10:42:09 UTC, dennis@home wrote:


At least with BNP you know they are racist and aren't hiding under the
UKIP banner.

I only know of one person (to talk personally) that is a memebr of UKIP, I don;lt know what he thinks but he is married to a black women from the seychelles they have been marriedf about 12 years. I'm not sure I could accuse him of being a racist because he didnt chose a white wife, maybe you can.

On 04/11/16 10:39, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other
such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know
- or
have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to think that
she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote in the house of
commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted
to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences. It can not be used to
deprive us all of our liberties.

It does not.

I suppose you would have said the scots could not leave the UK if their
leave referendum had been 'yes'?

Filthy totalitarian.






--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:27:28 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.


TNP is now resorting to threats it would appear.

That's what happens when someone who has though they have got their
way (irrespective of anyone one else) learns it might not be the case.

Maybe he really is harry?

He's getting as strange that's for sure! ;-)

The fanatic 'it's over get on with it' leavers (who don't seem to
'get' democracy in the real world) are like people who have stumbled
over a tenner in the street and want to pick it up and walk off
quickly to minimise their risk of getting caught out.

Many of the remainders would rather see if anyone has lost a tenner
and be sure it was theirs before handing it back.

If leaving *is* the right thing to do (and I've never said it isn't)
then it will be what happens if / when we know better what the actual
pros and cons are.

Cheers, T i m

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I suppose you would have said the scots could not leave the UK if their
leave referendum had been 'yes'?

In my view a referendum should require a reasonably large majority,
maybe 60:40, to take effect, certainly if it affects the constitution.
I would apply that equally to the Scots referendum, and Brexit.

Otherwise they threaten to tear countries apart.



--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin