"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
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.

But those didnt have a referendum where the majority of
those who bothered to vote said what they wanted to happen.

It will be fascinating to see if the majority of MPs are
actually stupid enough to ignore that and what the
voters will do to them if they actually are that stupid.

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
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.

Just like with any election.

It can not be used to deprive us all of our liberties.

No one is being deprived of their libertys.

On 04/11/2016 15:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
The UK is torn down the middle by successive governments allowing the rich
to get richer while the poor got poorer.

The miners union and the car workers unions didn't/don't appear to care
much about what happens to others as long as they get paid more than the
average. The car workers unions didn't even care if the company was
going bust, they still wanted more than car workers in other plants.

Thus is capitalism. Each out for themselves. If a company seeks to get the
very best deal at that point in time for that company out of the
workforce, why expect the workforce to have some sort of public duty?

Nobody does, but why would a workforce try and put the firm into insolvency?



'We can buy coal cheaper from abroad than we can produce it outselves'
So close our coal industry and who cares about those thrown out of
work. They brought it on themselves for daring to take any action to
protect their jobs.

The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing down the
elected government and that can't be allowed to happen even if it does
leave them on the dole.

Did they actually bring down the government, then? Or was it just typical
scare tactics?

They stated that they were going to do so.
The government caved in but they then built up stocks so they couldn't
do it again. The idiots tried it again and lost big time.

Seems to be the predictions made by many unions at that time have largely
come true.

Mostly because they helped to cause the problems.

On 04/11/2016 16:28, Rod Speed wrote:

Leaving the EU does allow Britain to apply the same conditions on
immigrants
from the EU as it currently does to non EU immigrants, remoaner.

Most of the immigrants aren't from the EU so that will have a big effect
then!

"T i m" wrote in message
...
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.

That last is never going to be possible with something like this.

It is never going to be possible to know if the eurozone
will implode spectacularly or if it will survive fine.

Timothy Murphy wrote
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.

They tear countrys apart even if that sort of a majority is required.

That sort of decision always does.

alan_m wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

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.

The referendum was a simple leave/remain vote. If MPs wanted
a sensible discussion about what staying or leaving meant for the
public they would have engaged in a sensible debate before the
referendum. Instead we got project fear and lies from both sides.

Just as true of any election. Its how politics works.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 09:17 4 Nov 2016, dennis@home wrote:

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.

It would have been far better if there had been a clear majority like
the one in the 1975 EU referendum.

The margin was so narrow that recent swings against Brexit

You don’t know that there has been.

mean it's no longer a majority view.

Or that either.

What a mess.

There is no alternative with something like this.

Same with the Scottish referendum.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 04/11/2016 15:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
The UK is torn down the middle by successive governments allowing the rich
to get richer while the poor got poorer.

The miners union and the car workers unions didn't/don't appear to care
much about what happens to others as long as they get paid more than the
average. The car workers unions didn't even care if the company was
going bust, they still wanted more than car workers in other plants.

Thus is capitalism. Each out for themselves. If a company seeks to get
the very best deal at that point in time for that company out of the
workforce, why expect the workforce to have some sort of public duty?

Nobody does, but why would a workforce try and put the firm into
insolvency?

They didn't. BL failed through lack of investment and absolutely appalling
management. But all to easy to blame the workforce when it was poor design
development and penny pinching on materials etc that were to blame.
Oh - and treat your workforce like **** and you get ****s.



'We can buy coal cheaper from abroad than we can produce it
outselves' So close our coal industry and who cares about those
thrown out of work. They brought it on themselves for daring to take
any action to protect their jobs.

The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing down the
elected government and that can't be allowed to happen even if it
does leave them on the dole.

Did they actually bring down the government, then? Or was it just
typical scare tactics?

They stated that they were going to do so.
The government caved in but they then built up stocks so they couldn't
do it again. The idiots tried it again and lost big time.

The government can't have 'caved in' or there would have been no reason to
go on strike. Maggie was just spoiling for a fight. There as in so much
else.
And she certainly won that battle. The country lost the war.

Seems to be the predictions made by many unions at that time have
largely come true.

Mostly because they helped to cause the problems.

That'll be why wages are so high these days, then.

--
*Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire *

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 04/11/2016 16:28, Rod Speed wrote:

Leaving the EU does allow Britain to apply the same conditions on
immigrants
from the EU as it currently does to non EU immigrants, remoaner.

Most of the immigrants aren't from the EU so that will have a big effect
then!

Quite. Stop free movement from the EU tomorrow and immigration still won't
be down to a trickle. And many of those immigrants likely to be a burden
to the economy rather than a benefit.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

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

"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:50:47 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 04/11/2016 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.


The referendum was a simple leave/remain vote. If MPs wanted a sensible
discussion about what staying or leaving meant for the public they would
have engaged in a sensible debate before the referendum. Instead we got
project fear and lies from both sides.

I thought it was generally accepted that the remain pamphlet
(as the only bit of tangible hard info we were all given) was
actually reasonably honest and possibly understated

More fool you on the lies about economic doom alone.

and just the leave one that was full of BS (like the
money that would go to the NHS 'instead' etc)?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
of where your biases have always been.

As you say, the public really needed the facts,

There are no facts available. No one knows how much
industry will leave Britain if it leaves the EU, if any, or
what the EU will require to have a trade agreement
with Britain outside the EU, or what will happen to the
eurozone, or how many EU citizens who are currently
in Britain will go home if Britain leaves the EU and
what that would do to the economy or job prospects.

even if many wouldn't consider them.

Very few would. Most vote on what matters most to them
like immigration etc and it isnt even possible to know
what would happen with that with Britain outside the EU.

It isnt even possible to know if Britain outside the EU would
do worse economically than inside the EU and so even if the
EU does demand free movement of people and May is actually
stupid enough to agree to that, if that would see Britain no
longer as attractive to EU citizens and so do something about
the number of EU citizens choosing to move to Britain.

That's the way it is with such important political choices.

You get to like that or lump it.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 08:24 4 Nov 2016, Moron Watch wrote:


"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".

Interesting line of reasoning but I got the impression Theresa May
was beginning to show all the zealous enthusiasm of a convert.

More accurately she got the job because Cameron decided
he didn’t want it any longer and had enough of a clue to do
what the majority of the voters who bothered to vote said
they wanted done, as her party had said they would do after
the referendum. No zealous enthusiasm involved at all.

And some real skill in dealing with the more rabid
of the BRexiters in her party, shafting them with the
hardest ministerial jobs that leaving the EU involves.

If she actually was a convert, she'd have
taken full responsibility for leaving herself.

Her own views may not matter much because she doesn't
seem like a conviction politian who will stick to her beliefs.
She will probably say and do whatever it takes to stay in power.

We'll see...

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 12:06 4 Nov 2016, alan_m wrote:

On 04/11/2016 10:39, Michael Chare wrote:

There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the
electorate voted to leave the EU, but did not know the
consequences.

People are living with the consequences of being in the EU for
decades and that's perhaps why the vote was to leave.

It can not be used to deprive us all of our liberties.


What liberty are you going to lose as a result of the UK leaving
the EU? Or more importantly what liberty is 99% of the
population going to lose?

We would lose the Parliamentary Sovereignity
which underpins our democracy.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The absence of a written constitution
places supreme authority on Parliament.

Which chose to have a referendum.

In many other countries the constitution (not the
Parliamentary legislature) is supreme but not here.

That's what British democracy is all about.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
...
JoeJoe wrote:
On 04/11/2016 12:28, pamela wrote:
On 10:39 4 Nov 2016, 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.

Brexiteers expecting all their extreme demands to be met should
have realised all they had was a wafer-thin majority in an
advisory referendum beset with dishonest claims.

... on both sides.


I expect most people had made their minds up from day one,

They clearly didn’t, that's why the undecideds was so
high in the polls and why the polls got the result wrong.

and there were obviously many who'd waited decades to have their say.

Just like with any important political issue.

The campaigns probably only served to feed peoples' confirmation bias.

They must have had an effect on the undecideds.

This is proved by so many people from both sides claiming that 'your side
lied' with equal conviction.

Sure. But that is a separate issue to the undecideds.

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Leaving the EU does allow Britain to apply the same
conditions on immigrants from the EU as it currently
does to non EU immigrants, remoaner.

Most of the immigrants aren't from the EU

While technically correct, in practice its quite close.

so that will have a big effect then!

Certainly will have a big effect on the number of those
with no skills at all from places like Romania and Poland.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 04/11/2016 12:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 11:41, Timothy Murphy wrote:
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.



Just because you lost. And are in denial over the fact you were lied to,
and believed it.,

Since almost none of the economic disasters predicted have happened,
except in the rest of the EU, a referendum tomorrow would probably net a
far far bigger majority.

I suppose we could have one referendum a week until.we got to 60%, but
them you'ld say 75%, wouldn't you?



We haven't left yet and the finances are already being strained.

Bull**** they are.

You may be OK as you are old and won't live long enough to suffer much but
what about the rest?

No evidence that any of those are being
affected by Britain deciding to leave.

And when Britain no longer has to send £350M a week to
the EU once it has left, that can be spent in Britain instead.

Moron Watch wrote
pamela wrote

Interesting line of reasoning but I got the impression Theresa May
was beginning to show all the zealous enthusiasm of a convert.

Just good acting. Same as her public conversations with
EU bigwigs. They're not mugs and will have read of her
"secret" briefing to Goldman Sachs same as everyone else.

The fact remains that more you look at the process in detail,
and the ramifications for the UK, the worse it becomes.
Simply in terms of unsurmountable complexity, if nothing else.

Irrelevant to what those who bothered to vote have said they want.

Are you seriously suggesting that they should be ignored ?

May is no mug and so presumably she's quite happy for others to eventually
realise this for themselves.

Or she has decided that those who bothered to vote have said
what they wanted and she is going to give them what they wanted.

Rather than her needing to spell it all out, and being seen to criticise
the "people's will".

Conspiracy theory IMO.

Quite what any HoC debates are going to be about, is another
matter. All EU sources are adamant, that in accordance with
the Lisbon Treaty there can be no negotiations until after the
UK triggers Article 50. And then all negotiations will be between
the remaining member states. The UK will then be presented with a proposal
which she can either accept or reject.

Article 50 doesn’t say that on that last stuff.

There will be no room for negotiation of any kind.

Article 50 says nothing even remotely like that and does
in fact allow for an extension of the 2 years by mutual
agreement. That is nothing even remotely like your claim.

If the UK rejects the proposal then she will be allowed to return home,

The EU doesn’t get to allow anything. Britain is free
to leave regardless of what the EU thinks about that
and doesn’t have to do anything but involve Article
50 and then just leave if it chooses to do that.

and will be called back at such time as the EU eventually gets around to
agreeing on another proposal which can be presented to the UK.

Article 50 doesn’t say anything like that either.

Basically from start to finish its the EU which makes all the running

Article 50 says the exact opposite of that.

It's this prospect, presumably with all the humiliating detail
spelled out, which MP's will now be invited to vote on.

The MPs have to vote on initiating Article 50 in the first place.

With all the nonsense about "Hard" and "Soft" Brexits shown up for the
sham that it is.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Britain is free to get
parliament to agree to invoking Article 50 and to decide to tell
the EU to take the EU and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

Short anyway of the UK reneging on International Treaties
and suffering the inevitable consequences.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Britain is free to get
parliament to agree to invoking Article 50 and to decide
to tell the EU to take the EU and shove it where the sun don’t
shine. That is what Article 50 says very unambiguously. No
need to renegotiate anything if Britain wants to go that route.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Bod wrote

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

Any government gets elected on the basis of its manifesto.
The things they promise to do.

They actually get elected on the basis of the
majority who bother to vote arent ****ed off
enough about them to vote for the alternative.

**** all voters go thru the manifestos
and decide which one they like most.

One of those for the past few governments was to bring
immigration 'down to a trickle' And none got remotely
close - even ignoring free movement of Europeans.

Not all manifesto items are delivered on ?

Shock horror, who knew ?

So just why a referendum result that didn't
have an absolute majority of those entitled
to vote must be so special. I don't understand.

Just like you don’t understand anything else either.

But even accepting that decision, I'm certainly not going
to leave the outcome of any negotiations in the hands of a
few appointed by a PM that wasn't herself elected as such.

You have always been, and always will
be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

In article ,
lid says...
The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

NO, it was supposed to be binding.

Otherwise WTF was the point of it?



It wasn't a legally binding referendum because the UK
constitution contains no such concept.

You may have heard of the phrase "Parliament is
sovereign".

In article ,
says...

On 09:17 4 Nov 2016, dennis@home wrote:

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.

It would have been far better if there had been a clear majority like
the one in the 1975 EU referendum.

The margin was so narrow that recent swings against Brexit mean it's
no longer a majority view. What a mess.

Conversation, two days ago, with a vehement 'Leave' voter.

"What is this Brexit thing? Is it something to do with
the banks?"

On 04/11/2016 17:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 04/11/2016 15:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
The UK is torn down the middle by successive governments allowing the rich
to get richer while the poor got poorer.

The miners union and the car workers unions didn't/don't appear to care
much about what happens to others as long as they get paid more than the
average. The car workers unions didn't even care if the company was
going bust, they still wanted more than car workers in other plants.

Thus is capitalism. Each out for themselves. If a company seeks to get
the very best deal at that point in time for that company out of the
workforce, why expect the workforce to have some sort of public duty?

Nobody does, but why would a workforce try and put the firm into
insolvency?

They didn't. BL failed through lack of investment and absolutely appalling
management. But all to easy to blame the workforce when it was poor design
development and penny pinching on materials etc that were to blame.
Oh - and treat your workforce like **** and you get ****s.


You only invest if you are getting a return, with the unions refusing to
increase production when new equipment was invested in then there is no
reason to invest.




'We can buy coal cheaper from abroad than we can produce it
outselves' So close our coal industry and who cares about those
thrown out of work. They brought it on themselves for daring to take
any action to protect their jobs.

The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing down the
elected government and that can't be allowed to happen even if it
does leave them on the dole.

Did they actually bring down the government, then? Or was it just
typical scare tactics?

They stated that they were going to do so.
The government caved in but they then built up stocks so they couldn't
do it again. The idiots tried it again and lost big time.

The government can't have 'caved in' or there would have been no reason to
go on strike. Maggie was just spoiling for a fight. There as in so much
else.

It wasn't Maggie that caved it was the previous lot.

And she certainly won that battle. The country lost the war.

The country is buying cheap coal, the miners aren't suffering down pits,
we don't have smoke induced smog, who is the loser other than the union
leaders?


Seems to be the predictions made by many unions at that time have
largely come true.

Mostly because they helped to cause the problems.

That'll be why wages are so high these days, then.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 09:23:25 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

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.

"The government isn't parliament" - what?

--
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:46:33 -0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Bod wrote:
It was our government that asked us the question. Why ask it if they
won't accept the answer. A pointless question.

Any government gets elected on the basis of its manifesto. The things they
promise to do. One of those for the past few governments was to bring
immigration 'down to a trickle' And none got remotely close - even
ignoring free movement of Europeans.

So just why a referendum result that didn't have an absolute majority of
those entitled to vote must be so special. I don't understand.

Because this is more like us voting Conservative and the Green Party getting into power.

But even accepting that decision, I'm certainly not going to leave the
outcome of any negotiations in the hands of a few appointed by a PM that
wasn't herself elected as such.

--
You can lead a man to Congress . . .
.. . . but you can't make him think.

dennis@home wrote:



The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing down the
elected government and that can't be allowed to happen even if it does
leave them on the dole.

So you *still* haven't heard the admission that they had already planned
to close 75 pits before the strke!!

--

Roger Hayter

On 04/11/16 15:21, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I think rule by referendum is inherently dangerous.
It is also contrary to the UK's historic tradition, which I value.

Rule by decree is even more dangerous.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 04/11/2016 20:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:



The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing down the
elected government and that can't be allowed to happen even if it does
leave them on the dole.

So you *still* haven't heard the admission that they had already planned
to close 75 pits before the strke!!


They had been closing pits for decades.
Its what happens when demand falls below supply.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 04/11/2016 10:39, Michael Chare wrote:

There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted
to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences.

People are living with the consequences of being in the EU for decades
and that's perhaps why the vote was to leave.

It can not be used to
deprive us all of our liberties.


What liberty are you going to lose as a result of the UK leaving the EU?
Or more importantly what liberty is 99% of the population going to lose?

You've just seen what the BEXITS want. The rule of law in the UK ignored,
if it goes against them.

And have you heard any proposals of added liberties for the average UK
citizen after we leave?

Yep, the liberty to decide that EU citizens have to leave
if they arent useful to Britain if enough feel that way.

Ditto with EU citizens wanting to move to Britain too.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
T i m wrote:
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.


I'm happy enough with the 'let's get on with it' approach. But
I'd like to know about the plans on just how to achieve this.

Not possible to do that given that so much of leaving is unpredictable.

Same with remaining, not possible to plan to how do
deal with what might happen if Britain stays either.

There are many many politicians and businessmen who have
been just waiting for the day we could be out of the EU. So
presumably must have some ideas of the way forward?

Corse they do, Britain gets to decide policy for itself.

If so, why not some concrete proposals?

There have been plenty of those, particularly with
what to do with what is no longer paid to the EU.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

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.

Perhaps so, although I think the UK was already torn down the middle.

We agree about something at last.

Years ago I used to imagine that the EU (this EU, that is) was probably
a good thing. Once they started bullying people who voted "the wrong
way", and once I started seeing it a little bit from the inside, I
began to wonder.

The UK is torn down the middle by successive governments
allowing the rich to get richer while the poor got poorer.

That last is a lie. The real poor, those with no income at all, do MUCH
better than when workhouses were the only option for them.

'We can buy coal cheaper from abroad than we can produce it outselves'
So close our coal industry and who cares about those thrown out of work.

At the time that happened, there was plenty of work for anyone who wanted
it.

So much work was available in fact that Britain had to allow any of
those who wanted to move from the colonys to Britain to do that.

They brought it on themselves for daring
to take any action to protect their jobs.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

And repeat with many many other industries.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

And little attempt to encourage alternative work and training for it.

More of your bare faced lies.

Which BTW has f-all to do with the EU. Except as a fall guy.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael Chare wrote:
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.

But depriving the average UK citizen of at least some
liberties is *exactly* what many BREXITEERS wanted.

Even more flagrantly dishonest than you usually manage.

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 04/11/2016 13:13, pamela wrote:
On 12:59 4 Nov 2016, JoeJoe wrote:

On 04/11/2016 12:28, pamela wrote:
On 10:39 4 Nov 2016, 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.

Brexiteers expecting all their extreme demands to be met should
have realised all they had was a wafer-thin majority in an
advisory referendum beset with dishonest claims.

... on both sides.

Some sides were more dishonest than others.

Anyone want 350 million quid a week?

Osborne and Carney were either blatantly lying or are simply not fit for
purpose.

Problem is the lack of anyone that can do any better.

These two did/do have access to the facts before they open(ed) their
mouths.

There are no relevant facts. It isnt even possible to
know how much the pound would sag, or how many
operations would decide that they would prefer to
be based in the EU than in Britain if Britain left.

Or what would happen to the eurozone,
or even to the EU if Britain left either.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
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.

Absolutely. Had it been an absolute majority of those entitled to vote,
most would be resigned to the decision, even if they disagreed with it.

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.

What is far more worrying is that many voted out because they lived
in deprived areas and were desperate for change. And rightly so.

Nothing worrying about that.

But in practice are likely to have made things worse for themselves.

You don’t know that, particularly when they don’t have to compete
with those coming from the EU for what work is available.

Or even whether it will cost them more to feed themselves.
With Britain out of the EU it will be free to import the best
value food from anywhere in the world it likes.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 13:31 4 Nov 2016, Moron Watch wrote:


"pamela" wrote in message
...

Interesting line of reasoning but I got the impression Theresa
May was beginning to show all the zealous enthusiasm of a
convert.

Just good acting. Same as her public conversations with
EU bigwigs. They're not mugs and will have read of her
"secret" briefing to Goldman Sachs same as everyone else.

The fact remains that more you look at the process in detail,
and the ramifications for the UK, the worse it becomes.
Simply in terms of unsurmountable complexity, if nothing
else.

The infighting is going to be endless.

Just like it always is with all important political issues.

Even after it's all thrashed out on our side, we need
to trash it out with other countries. Back and forth.

Just like it always is with all important political issues.

Meanwhile interested parties who are not getting what
they want will be sniping continuously from the sidelines.

Just like they always do with all important political issues.

Throw in a few leaked documents and you
have a recipe for continuous uproar with little
prospect of a useful payoff at the end of it all.

Just like it always is with all important political issues.

Even once it is one day all settled, those who didn't
get their way will insist that any shortcoming can be
corrected if only you now follow their recommendations.

Just like they always do with all important political issues.

It's going to be one big marathon Punch and Judy show.

Just like it always is with all important political issues.

May is no mug and so presumably she's quite happy for others
to eventually realise this for themselves. Rather than her
needing to spell it all out, and being seen to criticise the
"people's will".

Quite what any HoC debates are going to be about, is another
matter. All EU sources are adamant, that in accordance with
the Lisbon Treaty there can be no negotiations until after the
UK triggers Article 50. And then all negotiations will be
between the remaining member states. The UK will then be
presented with a proposal which she can either accept or reject.
There will be no room for negotiation of any kind.
If the UK rejects the proposal then she will be allowed to
return home, and will be called back at such time as the
EU eventually gets around to agreeing on another proposal
which can be presented to the UK. Basically from start to
finish its the EU which makes all the running

The bigger the mess, the more the EU is pleased to point to
what happens to countries who want to leave. They would
probably swallow a few percentage points of financial losses
to make that point. Meanwhile Britain thinks it all going to be
above according to the Queendbery rules. Realpolitik awaits.

Just like it always does with all important political issues.

It's this prospect, presumably with all the humiliating
detail spelled out, which MP's will now be invited to
vote on. With all the nonsense about "Hard" and
"Soft" Brexits shown up for the sham that it is.

Short anyway of the UK reneging on International
Treaties and suffering the inevitable consequences.

For all the bravado and high expectations, I suspect Britain's
negotiating position is nothing like as good as it needs to be.
The British are not fabled negotiators like, for instance, the Chinese.

Britain doesn’t need to negotiate. Its free to make an obscene
gesture in the general direction of the EU and just leave.

In article , pamela
writes
On 18:14 3 Nov 2016, dennis@home wrote:

On 03/11/2016 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

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.

So what.

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

No, I asked that we leave this EU. Since the Govt had told me
that whatever the country's wish turned out to be in this
regard would be implemented, that's what I expect to happen.

The court should have declined to hear this case: it's not
within their competence.


Sorry but all of what the government does is subject to UK law.
They may change that law if needed but until they do they must
obey.

This is the sovereignty TNP and the likes have been asking for,
the UK parliament deciding what happens even if it takes a court
order to make them do it.

The people are sovereign. Parliament is here to serve us. They are not
our masters.
If MPs are not happy with the way the government is conducting business
they can always call a vote of no confidence and so cause a general
election.
The wild exuberence of jubilant Brexiteers had led them to think
they could ram through some extremist version of Brexit decided by
covert committees without further consultation.

You seem to overlook the fact that there is another party involved in
these discussions - the representatives of the EU who will have their
own agenda on what deal they are prepared to accept. The HOC can debate
all it likes about what our negotiating position but what if the EU
simply say no. Do we have to go back to parliament and have another
debate? And after 2 years the EU can simply refuse an extension and
we're out on WTO terms.
Luckily we still have Parliamentary sovereignity in Blighty where
these matters are debated for all to see and we also have the rule
of law to make sure these correct procedures are followed.
Which law limits the use of the royal prerogative in this situation?
--
bert

In article , charles
writes
In article ,
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.

you aren't being ruled by judges. The judges said that even the Prime
Minister has to follw the law.

Which law would that be? I haven't seen one quoted yet.
--
bert

In article . com,
lid writes
On 03/11/2016 19:52, 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.

So parliament needs to change the law, which is what the judges have
said. Its the way the UK has done stuff for a long time and you want to
change it without consulting the rest of us.
The way t has been done is for the government of the day to negotiate a
deal and then put it to parliament. What is happening now is ludicrous
beyond belief as a negotiation process and is only designed to frustrate
the outcome of the referendum Even one of the judges has a vested
interest.
--
bert

In article , Bob Martin
writes
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.
Can someone quote the law in question.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 19:52 3 Nov 2016, 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.

Parliament didn't do anything. The government arranged the
referendum and it doesn't have the right to transfer Parliament's
sovereignity.

Parliament debated and voted on the proposal to a hold the referendum
and a huge majority of MPs voted in favour, so it wasn't the government
that transferred sovereignty it was parliament.
This was also true for the 1975 EU referendum. Same rules apply.

--
bert

In article , Bob Martin
writes
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.
And those representatives decided to hold a referendum
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

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.

Perhaps so, although I think the UK was already torn down the middle.

We agree about something at last.

Years ago I used to imagine that the EU (this EU, that is) was probably
a good thing. Once they started bullying people who voted "the wrong
way", and once I started seeing it a little bit from the inside, I
began to wonder.

The UK is torn down the middle by successive governments allowing the rich
to get richer while the poor got poorer.

'We can buy coal cheaper from abroad than we can produce it outselves'
So close our coal industry and who cares about those thrown out of work.
They brought it on themselves for daring to take any action to protect
their jobs.

And repeat with many many other industries. And little attempt to
encourage alternative work and training for it.

Rewriting history again.
Which BTW has f-all to do with the EU. Except as a fall guy.


--
bert