On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 15:12:09 +0100, wrote:

snip

One point he made - and the interested should really go listen for
themselves - was that the nature of the political process meant
that the decision (here) was at least felt to be made with sufficient
popular support, thus giving it natural democratic legitimacy;

snip

This is the crux of it for me for the whole Brexit process and could
so easily been resolved by:

1) Leaving the referendum to be the advisory poll it should only have
ever been and / or

2) Requiring any decision to require a supermajority providing a
'clear will of the people' as you reflect above (50%+1 is not
'sufficient popular support' and hence doesn't (hasn't) gained
'natural democratic legitimacy, IMHO).

Ironically the latter was the very requirement Firage insisted would
be needed for him to consider a Remain win.

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 15:40:45 UTC+1, T i m wrote:


This is the crux of it for me for the whole Brexit process and could
so easily been resolved by:

1) Leaving the referendum to be the advisory poll it should only have
ever been and / or

and what use would that have been if it were only advisory ?



2) Requiring any decision to require a supermajority providing a
'clear will of the people' as you reflect above (50%+1 is not
'sufficient popular support' and hence doesn't (hasn't) gained
'natural democratic legitimacy, IMHO).

So you wouldn't want the democracy that we've used for the past few hundred years.
well as long as those voting know you've changed the rules and that those that chose not to vote you respect that right and don't label them as supporting either of the options on the ballot paper, whatever they are.




Ironically the latter was the very requirement Firage insisted would
be needed for him to consider a Remain win.

Why are yuo supporting farages POV, seems strange that you'd support what some would call a raging brexiteer, but it's hardly suprising is it.



Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 15:12:09 +0100, wrote:

snip

One point he made - and the interested should really go listen for
themselves - was that the nature of the political process meant
that the decision (here) was at least felt to be made with sufficient
popular support, thus giving it natural democratic legitimacy;

snip

This is the crux of it for me for the whole Brexit process and could
so easily been resolved by:

1) Leaving the referendum to be the advisory poll it should only have
ever been and / or

if you read the Supreme Court's judgement you will see that,
constitutionally, it was only advisory, but the Government decided to
honour the result

2) Requiring any decision to require a supermajority providing a
'clear will of the people' as you reflect above (50%+1 is not
'sufficient popular support' and hence doesn't (hasn't) gained
'natural democratic legitimacy, IMHO).

Ironically the latter was the very requirement Firage insisted would
be needed for him to consider a Remain win.

Cheers, T i m

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:10:49 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 15:12:09 +0100, wrote:

snip

One point he made - and the interested should really go listen for
themselves - was that the nature of the political process meant
that the decision (here) was at least felt to be made with sufficient
popular support, thus giving it natural democratic legitimacy;

snip

This is the crux of it for me for the whole Brexit process and could
so easily been resolved by:

1) Leaving the referendum to be the advisory poll it should only have
ever been and / or

if you read the Supreme Court's judgement you will see that,
constitutionally, it was only advisory, but the Government decided to
honour the result

And therefore going against the 'spirit' (for a start) of what it
should have been.


Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 16:18:37 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 15:12:09 +0100, wrote:

snip

One point he made - and the interested should really go listen for
themselves - was that the nature of the political process meant
that the decision (here) was at least felt to be made with sufficient
popular support, thus giving it natural democratic legitimacy;

snip

This is the crux of it for me for the whole Brexit process and could
so easily been resolved by:

1) Leaving the referendum to be the advisory poll it should only have
ever been and / or

if you read the Supreme Court's judgement you will see that,
constitutionally, it was only advisory, but the Government decided to
honour the result

Remmebr T i m has trouble reading, so is unlikely to understand.

I will admit that I didn;t understand when David Cameron said what he said at the time and whether he could change what wasn;t legally binding to what is without a parliamentary vote or at least votes from his party.
All I could find was this. Note that it says following.

Did Cameron say the referendum was binding?
Following the 2016 referendum, the High Court confirmed that the result was not legally binding, owing to the constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy, and the legislation authorising the referendum did not contain clear words to the contrary.

But I still don;t see that as T i m being able to claim that remain was the result because there wasn;t a supermajority , and that all those that didn;t vote wanted to remain even though they didn't chose to vote remain.

The 'will of the people' is just a buzz word he likes to throw around, similar to the way farage would if he had lost.



2) Requiring any decision to require a supermajority providing a
'clear will of the people' as you reflect above (50%+1 is not
'sufficient popular support' and hence doesn't (hasn't) gained
'natural democratic legitimacy, IMHO).

Ironically the latter was the very requirement Firage insisted would
be needed for him to consider a Remain win.

Cheers, T i m

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 24/09/2019 16:10, charles wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 15:12:09 +0100, wrote:

snip

One point he made - and the interested should really go listen for
themselves - was that the nature of the political process meant
that the decision (here) was at least felt to be made with sufficient
popular support, thus giving it natural democratic legitimacy;

snip

This is the crux of it for me for the whole Brexit process and could
so easily been resolved by:

1) Leaving the referendum to be the advisory poll it should only have
ever been and / or

if you read the Supreme Court's judgement you will see that,
constitutionally, it was only advisory, but the Government decided to
honour the result

It was not the government. MPs of all parties voted for a referendum and
agreed, both in advance and afterwards, that they would be bound by the
result.

At the subsequent general election, around 2/3 of current MPs stood on a
manifesto of abdiing by that result.

Even without those commitments, do you think it would have been tenable
to have the referendum, for leave to win and for the government to just
say, well it was too close for our liking, so we'll just ignore it?

SteveW

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
It was not the government. MPs of all parties voted for a referendum and
agreed, both in advance and afterwards, that they would be bound by the
result.

At the subsequent general election, around 2/3 of current MPs stood on a
manifesto of abdiing by that result.

And so they will - given a reasonable deal. Which leave promised us would
be easy.

--
*Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies *

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

On 24/09/2019 18:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
It was not the government. MPs of all parties voted for a referendum and
agreed, both in advance and afterwards, that they would be bound by the
result.

At the subsequent general election, around 2/3 of current MPs stood on a
manifesto of abdiing by that result.

And so they will - given a reasonable deal. Which leave promised us would
be easy.

But what is a reasonable deal? Remaining in a customs union, where you
cannot set your own tariffs or do trade deals with other countries?
Remaining in the single market, where you must follow all the EU's rules
rather than just producing goods that meet EU standards and which
requires freedom of movement?

A good deal is simply a trade deal without all the extras, but that is
not on offer to the UK, despite the EU doing such deals with other
countries.

SteveW

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
And so they will - given a reasonable deal. Which leave promised us would
be easy.

But what is a reasonable deal? Remaining in a customs union, where you
cannot set your own tariffs or do trade deals with other countries?
Remaining in the single market, where you must follow all the EU's rules
rather than just producing goods that meet EU standards and which
requires freedom of movement?

What do you think a deal means? You think we could get a deal with any
country in the world without conditions?

A good deal is simply a trade deal without all the extras, but that is
not on offer to the UK, despite the EU doing such deals with other
countries.

We could have the same deal as Canada or whatever easily. But that
wouldn't solve the Irish border problem.

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

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

On 25/09/2019 00:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
And so they will - given a reasonable deal. Which leave promised us would
be easy.

But what is a reasonable deal? Remaining in a customs union, where you
cannot set your own tariffs or do trade deals with other countries?
Remaining in the single market, where you must follow all the EU's rules
rather than just producing goods that meet EU standards and which
requires freedom of movement?

What do you think a deal means? You think we could get a deal with any
country in the world without conditions?

Of course there are always conditions, but not ones that tie up the
whole country with huge numbers of rules. How many are part of the
EU/Japan FTA?

The main ones seem to be following the same standards for cars, which
they effectively did anyway and freedom of movement for professionals
(as part of movement between employers' offices). Oh and they can't sell
whale meat to the EU.

A good deal is simply a trade deal without all the extras, but that is
not on offer to the UK, despite the EU doing such deals with other
countries.

We could have the same deal as Canada or whatever easily. But that
wouldn't solve the Irish border problem.

As the UK is a sovereign nation and NI is part of it, while the EU is
not a nation at all, put the border between the RoI and the rest of the
EU? No? Thought not, so why should the UK remain bound to the EU for
perpetuity unless we have a border between two parts of our nation?

If the people of NI want to leave the UK and join the ROI, then they
have the right to (it is likely to happen eventually), until then they
remain an integral part of the UK, but that cannot be used to prevent
the UK leaving. It is the EU that insist on the itegrity of their
precious SM and thus that there must be a hard border unless NI is
effectively separated from the UK, not the UK.

SteveW

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2019 00:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
And so they will - given a reasonable deal. Which leave promised us
would
be easy.

But what is a reasonable deal? Remaining in a customs union, where you
cannot set your own tariffs or do trade deals with other countries?
Remaining in the single market, where you must follow all the EU's rules
rather than just producing goods that meet EU standards and which
requires freedom of movement?

What do you think a deal means? You think we could get a deal with any
country in the world without conditions?

Of course there are always conditions, but not ones that tie up the whole
country with huge numbers of rules. How many are part of the EU/Japan FTA?

The main ones seem to be following the same standards for cars, which they
effectively did anyway and freedom of movement for professionals (as part
of movement between employers' offices). Oh and they can't sell whale meat
to the EU.

A good deal is simply a trade deal without all the extras, but that is
not on offer to the UK, despite the EU doing such deals with other
countries.

We could have the same deal as Canada or whatever easily. But that
wouldn't solve the Irish border problem.

As the UK is a sovereign nation and NI is part of it, while the EU is not
a nation at all, put the border between the RoI and the rest of the EU?
No? Thought not, so why should the UK remain bound to the EU for
perpetuity unless we have a border between two parts of our nation?

If the people of NI want to leave the UK and join the ROI, then they have
the right to (it is likely to happen eventually),

Bet it doesnt, and I bet that the Crimea wont
eventually be part of the Ukraine again either.

until then they remain an integral part of the UK, but that cannot be used
to prevent the UK leaving. It is the EU that insist on the itegrity of
their precious SM and thus that there must be a hard border unless NI is
effectively separated from the
? UK, not the UK.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 09:51:40 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more troll****

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 25/09/2019 00:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
And so they will - given a reasonable deal. Which leave promised us would
be easy.

But what is a reasonable deal? Remaining in a customs union, where you
cannot set your own tariffs or do trade deals with other countries?
Remaining in the single market, where you must follow all the EU's rules
rather than just producing goods that meet EU standards and which
requires freedom of movement?

What do you think a deal means? You think we could get a deal with any
country in the world without conditions?

Of course there are always conditions, but not ones that tie up the
whole country with huge numbers of rules. How many are part of the
EU/Japan FTA?

You'd need to define huge numbers. And how they effect the majority in
practice. After all many on here when on and on about domestic vacuum
cleaner power consumption. As if this was a deal breaker for all.

The main ones seem to be following the same standards for cars, which
they effectively did anyway and freedom of movement for professionals
(as part of movement between employers' offices). Oh and they can't sell
whale meat to the EU.

Free movement of essential 'workers' seemed to be part of the May deal
too.

A good deal is simply a trade deal without all the extras, but that is
not on offer to the UK, despite the EU doing such deals with other
countries.

We could have the same deal as Canada or whatever easily. But that
wouldn't solve the Irish border problem.

As the UK is a sovereign nation and NI is part of it, while the EU is
not a nation at all, put the border between the RoI and the rest of the
EU? No? Thought not, so why should the UK remain bound to the EU for
perpetuity unless we have a border between two parts of our nation?

If the people of NI want to leave the UK and join the ROI, then they
have the right to (it is likely to happen eventually), until then they
remain an integral part of the UK, but that cannot be used to prevent
the UK leaving. It is the EU that insist on the itegrity of their
precious SM and thus that there must be a hard border unless NI is
effectively separated from the UK, not the UK.

Gaining back control of our borders was one of the key aspects of the
leave campaign. Who oddly didn't seem to realise the implications of that
on our one and only land border with the EU. But then they went on and on
about sovereignty - until that turned round and bit them on the arse.

--
*Rehab is for quitters

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

On 26/09/2019 15:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:

8

Of course there are always conditions, but not ones that tie up the
whole country with huge numbers of rules. How many are part of the
EU/Japan FTA?

You'd need to define huge numbers. And how they effect the majority in
practice. After all many on here when on and on about domestic vacuum
cleaner power consumption. As if this was a deal breaker for all.

Its only about 550 pages long.

Which they could look up if they wanted to.

Of course that's the agreement and not all the negotiations or the
twelve or so annexes.

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 08:52:28 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip weirdo drool

But I still don;t see that as T i m being able to claim that remain was the result

How do you manage to dress yourself in the mornings (assuming you do)?

I have never, ever stated 'Remain was the result' (of the Referendum)
because it wasn't, patently.

What I have said is, of those people asked, only 1/3rd actively voted
to change from the status quo (fact).

because there wasn;t a supermajority ,

Correct, when one would have made this whole thing far more definitive
rather than divisive.

and that all those that didn;t vote wanted to remain

Nope, all I have ever said is that 2/3rds of the electorate didn't
vote to Leave, the only answer that would have made any difference to
what we were all already doing. Fact.

even though they didn't chose to vote remain.

As explained elsewhere (several times), people often don't bother to
vote for something they have already got and so it's likely that many
of those who actually voted Remain would have done so because they
actually / specifically wanted to remain, whilst others would have
voted Remain because it was considered the 'safe' option, 'Better the
devil you know'. Others (like me) wouldn't have wanted to vote for
Leave because I had no prior reason / thoughts to want to and couldn't
vote Remain because for the same reason, I didn't *know* that Leaving
wouldn't be better for 'most people.

3 years on, I have no better understanding of what would be the right
(or even least wrong) answer for 'most people' but would vote remain
as a protest against what the complete and utter clusterfcuk the whole
thing has turned out to be, as suspected it would be by me in the
first place.


The 'will of the people' is just a buzz word he likes to throw around, similar to the way farage would if he had lost.

You *are* a weirdo that's for sure and you seem to revel in it (as
trolls do of course).

Of course 'The will of the people' is something you would never be
able to understand, because unlike the test tubes you clean, it isn't
just down to counting them to fully understand what you are dealing
with.

Bottom line. Given just how much of a (divisive / expensive)
clustefcuk this whole Brexit whilst elephant has turned out to be, the
blood of anyone who dies or even suffers because of the mess so far
.... or because we do actually leave, with or without a deal will be
squarely on the hands of every single Brexiteer [1]. Not that they
will care of course, it would just be collateral damage to them (as
long as they get their way).

Cheers, T i m

[1] As oppose to just ordinary Leave voters who felt they had the need
to put a cross in one of the boxes and voted Leave because they
believed the Leave campaign lies, someone down the pub or the coin
toss landed that way.

No one could have voted Leave on facts and full knowledge of the
outcome and impact because 3 years on we still don't have a clue about
that.

Voting Remain would have been a vote to carry on doing what we are,
accepting that may change in the future (doh), *but not* restricting
the option that if it changed negatively, we couldn't leave at that
time, if leaving was considered (ideally by a supermajority) to be the
right thing to do.

On Friday, 27 September 2019 11:36:41 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 08:52:28 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip weirdo drool

But I still don;t see that as T i m being able to claim that remain was the result

How do you manage to dress yourself in the mornings (assuming you do)?

I'd say in a similar way that you do, although I have obvious doubts because of this question you've asked.
Are you sure you don't remain in bed all day because nasty things happen when you leave the bedroom, afterall most people have accidetns outside of their bed and for you that is a risk you wouldn't take, because remaining is the safeest option.



I have never, ever stated 'Remain was the result' (of the Referendum)
because it wasn't, patently.

you've claimed remain was the will of the people because only 1/3rd voted to leave or have you forgotten already.


What I have said is, of those people asked, only 1/3rd actively voted
to change from the status quo (fact).

exactly, no one voted to change or not change teh status quo because that wasn't the question asked. It wasn't the Q asked in 1975 so why change it.



because there wasn;t a supermajority ,

Correct, when one would have made this whole thing far more definitive
rather than divisive.

and that all those that didn;t vote wanted to remain

Nope, all I have ever said is that 2/3rds of the electorate didn't
vote to Leave,

and 2/3rds didn;t vote to remain.

the only answer that would have made any difference to
what we were all already doing. Fact.

even though they didn't chose to vote remain.

As explained elsewhere (several times), people often don't bother to
vote for something they have already got and so it's likely that many
of those who actually voted Remain would have done so because they
actually / specifically wanted to remain, whilst others would have
voted Remain because it was considered the 'safe' option, 'Better the
devil you know'. Others (like me) wouldn't have wanted to vote for
Leave because I had no prior reason / thoughts to want to and couldn't
vote Remain because for the same reason, I didn't *know* that Leaving
wouldn't be better for 'most people.

all irrelivant and speculation.


3 years on, I have no better understanding of what would be the right
(or even least wrong) answer for 'most people' but would vote remain
as a protest against what the complete and utter clusterfcuk the whole
thing has turned out to be, as suspected it would be by me in the
first place.

So your echanging your vote well done. So yuo've proved that back in 2016 you didnlt want to remain or leave.



The 'will of the people' is just a buzz word he likes to throw around, similar to the way farage would if he had lost.

You *are* a weirdo that's for sure and you seem to revel in it (as
trolls do of course).

I think peole here can tell a troll when they encounter one. I doubt they'd use you POV for evidence of that or much else.



Of course 'The will of the people' is something you would never be
able to understand, because unlike the test tubes you clean, it isn't
just down to counting them to fully understand what you are dealing
with.

Everyone knows the will of the people, it;s to better their own lives, their friends and families live. It's not rocket science try asking someone.



Bottom line. Given just how much of a (divisive / expensive)
clustefcuk this whole Brexit whilst elephant has turned out to be, the
blood of anyone who dies or even suffers because of the mess so far
... or because we do actually leave, with or without a deal will be
squarely on the hands of every single Brexiteer [1].

No it'll be on the hands of those thatv didnlt vote or those that ****ed their paper up or thought they were being clever in the booth.
That's if it was really the will of the people to remain perhaops they should have said so rather than remain in bed.


Not that they
will care of course, it would just be collateral damage to them (as
long as they get their way).

Cheers, T i m

[1] As oppose to just ordinary Leave voters who felt they had the need
to put a cross in one of the boxes and voted Leave because they
believed the Leave campaign lies, someone down the pub or the coin
toss landed that way.

No one could have voted Leave on facts and full knowledge of the
outcome and impact because 3 years on we still don't have a clue about
that.

Voting Remain would have been a vote to carry on doing what we are,
accepting that may change in the future (doh), *but not* restricting
the option that if it changed negatively, we couldn't leave at that
time, if leaving was considered (ideally by a supermajority) to be the
right thing to do.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 05:18:34 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip more crazy drooling's

Bottom line. Given just how much of a (divisive / expensive)
clustefcuk this whole Brexit whilst elephant has turned out to be, the
blood of anyone who dies or even suffers because of the mess so far
... or because we do actually leave, with or without a deal will be
squarely on the hands of every single Brexiteer [1].

No it'll be on the hands of those thatv didnlt vote

You are one stupid screwed up weirdo aren't you.

Everything in your world rotates around your crazy / twisted view of
course.

You think that someone actively pulling the trigger is no more
implicated in the outcome as those who didn't?

No wonder they just give you test tubes to wash (and I bet they are
plastic ones).

Cheers, T i m

On Friday, 27 September 2019 14:22:34 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 05:18:34 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip more crazy drooling's

Bottom line. Given just how much of a (divisive / expensive)
clustefcuk this whole Brexit whilst elephant has turned out to be, the
blood of anyone who dies or even suffers because of the mess so far
... or because we do actually leave, with or without a deal will be
squarely on the hands of every single Brexiteer [1].

No it'll be on the hands of those thatv didnlt vote

You are one stupid screwed up weirdo aren't you.

No, but I guess soemhow yuo have aa supermajority that says yuo are right, somewhere in your mind, so it doesn't suprise me you think the way you do.


Everything in your world rotates around your crazy / twisted view of
course.

I wonder where yuo get that idea from, let me guess it;s brown and smell and it loks lioke a chocolate starfish.


You think that someone actively pulling the trigger is no more
implicated in the outcome as those who didn't?

where have I said that.
One day I might be famous for saying something simialr, thanks for the recognition though.

For evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing.


Cheers, T i m

Dave Plowman wrote

Steve Walker wrote:

At the subsequent general election, around 2/3 of current MPs stood on a
manifesto of abdiing by that result.

And so they will - given a reasonable deal.

If Boris comes back with a milk & honey deal, labour would probably
still vote against it, just to further their own ends ...

On 29/09/2019 12:01, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote

Steve Walker wrote:

At the subsequent general election, around 2/3 of current MPs stood on a
manifesto of abdiing by that result.

And so they will - given a reasonable deal.

Bless!

you wont *get* a reasonable deal unless 'no deal' is on the table.


If Boris comes back with a milk & honey deal, labour would probably
still vote against it, just to further their own ends ...


That is also completely true

--
€œwhen things get difficult you just have to lie€�

€• Jean Claud Jüncker