Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

[Lockdoctor 10]

18 minutes ago, apelike said:

I think if there is to be a run-off then it should be deal or no-deal as remain was already a part of the first referendum question and shouldn't be used again.

 

That's exactly correct.  Then every voter has a say in the way our country leave the EU.  I don't support  another referendum though because our MPs should have a straight choice between the new Withdrawal Agreement on offer or a no-deal exit on the 31st October.

 

1 minute ago, Bargepole23 said:

Well done Mr Speaker

The speaker shouldn't have allowed the Letwin amendment vote on Saturday. It should have been a vote whether to support the new Withdrawal Agreement on offer or not support it.  The speaker of the house is not neutral otherwise he wouldn't allow amendments to be voted on that are intended to block the implementation of the democratic 2016 EU Referendum result. 

[Pettytom 1]

28 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

Since the democratic 2016 Referendum result our country has been divided.  Our country isn't  divided between Remainers and Leavers, but it is divided  between those who Respect Democracy and those who DON'T Respect Democracy.  I am in the Respect Democracy camp and support the way Boris has behaved  and what he has done since becoming  our country's Prime Minister because he is doing his very best to get the democratic 2016 EU Referendum result implemented on 31st October.  It's no coincidence that those who don't support Boris are in the DON'T Respect Democracy camp.

 

 

A true democrat wouldn’t pick and choose the bits of democracy that they supported.

 

It is a bit hypocritical to claim to respect democracy and then to complain about the conduct of our democratically elected parliament.

[tinfoilhat 11]

58 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

You cannot have it both ways. Are you saying that the first referendum result wasn’t democratic ? Of course you have the right to change your mind but you’re argument would deny my and others rights to have our votes implemented from the 2016 referendum.

If the first referendum result was automatically enshrined in law (like the AV referendum was) the result wouldn't have stood as it fell below electoral commission standards - or so I've read. It was only a snippet so I'll look further.

[apelike 10]

15 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

If the first referendum result was automatically enshrined in law (like the AV referendum was) the result wouldn't have stood as it fell below electoral commission standards - or so I've read. It was only a snippet so I'll look further.

No that was reported in a blog which was widely circulated and siezed upon by remainers but was just someone's interpretation of how he saw it.  Whether it was binding or nonbinding has no relevance on the outcome as it was still passed by an act of parliament with the electoral commission as the overseers with basically the same legal rules. I posted as such many posts ago and have also contacted the electoral commission on that very subject. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by apelike

[L00b 441]

20 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:If the first referendum result was automatically enshrined in law (like the AV referendum was) the result wouldn't have stood as it fell below electoral commission standards - or so I've read. It was only a snippet so I'll look further.

You may be referring to a legal opinion based on these (High Court) findings.

 

I do not recall whether that opinion was expressed by Maugham or not. But if it was, I'd take it to the bank: it's him (and the GLP) who have achieved the biggest legal wins against the government in the recent months.

[Lockdoctor 10]

27 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

A true democrat wouldn’t pick and choose the bits of democracy that they supported.

 

It is a bit hypocritical to claim to respect democracy and then to complain about the conduct of our democratically elected parliament.

Our democratically elected parliament should have never voted in favour of holding the 2016 EU Referendum if they were not prepared to implement both of the choices on the ballot paper.

 

I am not hypocritical at all.  I went to the polling station on 23rd June 2016 believing if my personal choice was in the majority then that choice would be implemented. I personally chose the Remain option and expected our country to remain in the EU, if the majority chose the Remain option. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't support the winning choice which was Leave that I personally didn't vote for from being implemented.

Edited October 21, 2019 by Lockdoctor

[Pettytom 1]

5 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

Our democratically elected parliament should have never voted in favour of holding the 2016 EU Referendum if they were not prepared to implement both of the choices on the ballot paper.

 

I am not hypocritical at all.  I went to the polling station on 23rd June 2016 believing if my personal choice was in the majority then that choice would be implemented. I personally chose the Remain option and expected our country to remain in the EU, if the majority chose the Remain option. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't support the winning choice which was Leave that I personally didn't vote for from being implemented.

As usual, you fail to address the substantive point.

 

As a democrat, do you support the actions of our democratically elected parliament?

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

19 hours ago, Pettytom said:

I presume that Johnson has sacked his old legal team then. You know, the ones who told him that proroguing Parliament was legal.

 

So far, Johnson has yet to win either a Commons vote, or a court case, since he became our unelected PM.

 

So, what chance do you think he has of winning this one?

 

He could get banged up for two years, for contempt. We all know that you’d like to see criminals locked away for a long time, so I guess you’d support such an outcome.

 

 

The EU have stated they received the letter, and it is fine, signed or not.

 

Angel1.

[Lockdoctor 10]

6 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

As usual, you fail to address the substantive point.

 

As a democrat, do you support the actions of our democratically elected parliament?

The only substantive point is both you and I voted to Remain in the EU, but unlike you I respect democracy and support those who are attempting to implement the democratic 2016 EU Referendum result.  

 

Yes, I supported the actions of our democratically elected Parliament who voted overwhelmingly to hold the 2016 EU Referendum and then overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50.  I don't support our democratically elected Parliament when they backslide and attempt to cheat 17.4 million of their own people out of their democratic wish to leave the EU. No honest person who respects democracy could respect how Parliament has behaved since the democratic 2016 EU Referendum vote.

[apelike 10]

33 minutes ago, L00b said:

You may be referring to a legal opinion based on these (High Court) findings.

 

I do not recall whether that opinion was expressed by Maugham or not. But if it was, I'd take it to the bank: it's him (and the GLP) who have achieved the biggest legal wins against the government in the recent months.

No that is a different matter.

 

In that article Maugham wrongly concludes (to cut it short)  "....The consequence is that the commission unlawfully tilted the playing field." But in the court proceedings of Feb 2019 where Jessica Simor QC put forward the same arguments the judges threw out all 3 of hers and also stated "“there is simply no evidential basis for the proposition that the breaches, or any of them, are material in the sense that, had they not occurred, the result of the referendum would have been different.”

Edited October 21, 2019 by apelike

[Car Boot 10]

On 19/10/2019 at 18:57, Litotes said:

No. There was a march by people of all ethnicities, social classes, and religions who wished to protest against the way the Stalinist government of the lying, cheating, sexist, racist, PM, Boris Johnson, has withheld their democratic right to have a say in the negotiated future of the United Kingdom.

The images of the People's Vote March on Saturday 19 October 2019 reveal less diversity among those attending than is present on an average Tommy Robinson March. 

 

 

It was a march of privilege against democracy.

Edited October 21, 2019 by Car Boot

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 hours ago, hobinfoot said:

Of course you have the right to change your mind but you’re argument would deny my and others rights to have our votes implemented from the 2016 referendum.

Your vote in 2016 wasn’t to implement anything, it was simply to voice an opinion on the matter. It is up to Parliament to either remain in the EU, leave the EU or if leave, to decide what form that would take,

 

1 hour ago, apelike said:

I think if there is to be a run-off then it should be deal or no-deal as remain was already a part of the first referendum question and shouldn't be used again.

 

Don’t be so ridiculous!

 

How on earth would you decide who had voted what in the first referendum? 🙄