Brexit again...

[Regal Beagle]

aaaaand we're back to the nazi Germany stuff.

 

Laughable really.

[Fosse69]

1 hour ago, geosname said:

To be honest mate I think if parliament wanted to do something I doubt anyone or anything could stop them.

As judge Lord Cooper stated some time ago "it's not a question of what parliament can or can't do, it's a question of who can stop them"

The only thing with the power to stop them are the people.

Of course nothing should be able to stop parliament doing anything as it makes and rescinds the law , and  so it  should  be able to stop a government without a majority using the royal prerogative, otherwise the people are not sovereign though their representatives although they do not have a direct mandate. Otherwise it is direct action as in the past, surely we are now more civilized than that.

[Regal Beagle]

3 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

Of course nothing should be able to stop parliament doing anything as it makes and rescinds the law , and  so it  should  be able to stop a government without a majority using the royal prerogative, otherwise the people are not sovereign though their representatives although they do not have a direct mandate. Otherwise it is direct action as in the past, surely we are now more civilized than that.

Sovereignty of parliament only extends to legislating. The Government (who get their power from parliament) implement laws and the judiciary interprets and upholds them.

There has to a separation of these powers otherwise they can be abused. Parliament should not ever be charged with implementing laws. It is outside of their jurisdiction. 

There are lawful ways for the government to block legislation. Tony Blair did it numerous times. I'm not sure that is the way Boris will go but it is nice to have it as an insurance policy, as a brexiter of course. 

 

[Fosse69]

2 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

Sovereignty of parliament only extends to legislating. The Government (who get their power from parliament) implement laws and the judiciary interprets and upholds them.

There has to a separation of these powers otherwise they can be abused. Parliament should not ever be charged with implementing laws. It is outside of their jurisdiction. 

There are lawful ways for the government to block legislation. Tony Blair did it numerous times. I'm not sure that is the way Boris will go but it is nice to have it as an insurance policy, as a brexiter of course. 

 

Parliament is making laws, the government is to implement them. Blair always had a majority government, Johnson does not have a majority so is controlled by parliament if it pleases. 

[whotobeakiller]

4 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

You dont actually read what people write and have a long history of stiring it but in the interest of honouring you...

Quote

I said NOBODY thought about Ireland.  You seem to be struggling to understand what NOBODY means.  It means not anybody, out of 10 people 0 etc...  get it yet?  However, my point which again you amazingly seem to miss as wide as a Calvin Andrew shot, is simply that there was no onus on the remain campaign to think of it as of course they were never having to deliver anything they promised because it was already delivered.  Now that's not difficult to understand is it, because I really cant explain it any more simply.

When the ref was called, I dint know what to do, so I listened.  The remain campaign actually carried alot of facts, explained alot of benefits and also provided evidence from various think tanks etc of the damage that leaving will do.  That was immediately labelled project fear by the Leave campaign.  So I had a listen to them, the first problem I had was the blatant lie that anybody would have to be as thick as <ovf censored> not to notice, the one plastered on the side of the bus.  Despite being told time and again that it was false, they carried on with it (famously denouncing it the day after the vote).  Now that undermined credibility straight away.  Then they had that poster of immigrants heading for the uk.... That was akin to Nazi Germany victimising the Jews, outrageous and yet folk lapped it up.  So I set about looking at what they were saying and they promised me an easy deal, a queue of folk wanting to trade with us etc....  this all seemed good.  There was talk of deals similar to those of Switzerland and Norway, that seemed a really moderate situation and then there was the issue of controlling immigration, Johnson himself taked about a points system similar to Australia, so all in all, I thought despite the lies and the association with a compete pair of wankers like Farage and Johnson, leave was not a bad option.  A hard Brexit was never talked about and was not a possibility given the potential deals everyone wanted to do...

However, I simply could not get past the fact that this leave campaign was being spearheaded by those contemptuous pricks and quite frankly I couldn't do it, and I am surprised anybody could align themselves with such tossers of there own free will.

If Nigel Farage supported Vale I would go down Stoke.

No body in the Remain or the Leave campaign addressed the Irish issue but that's because as a whole the border does NOT constitute the largest part of the Good Friday agreement...the Good Friday agreement, in it's most part, is not in breach regardless of what happens on the border.

[whotobeakiller]

4 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

Quote

  A hard Brexit was never talked about and was not a possibility given the potential deals everyone wanted to do...

  A hard Brexit was never talked about and was not a possibility given the potential deals everyone wanted to do...

The referendum question was Leave or Remain...look at the wording on the referendum slip...looks pretty cut and dry to me...no wording of a 'deal with Europe' anywhere

[Fosse69]

28 minutes ago, whotobeakiller said:

The referendum question was Leave or Remain...look at the wording on the referendum slip...looks pretty cut and dry to me...no wording of a 'deal with Europe' anywhere

What does it say on a voting slip in a national election, does it say taxes are going to be raised or lowered. Of course not just put a cross in a box with a name on it.

 

42 minutes ago, whotobeakiller said:

No body in the Remain or the Leave campaign addressed the Irish issue but that's because as a whole the border does NOT constitute the largest part of the Good Friday agreement...the Good Friday agreement, in it's most part, is not in breach regardless of what happens on the border.

There must be a prize for that statement somewhere.

[Warren]

The Act passed by Parliament is likely to go to judicial review. It may be unconstitutional and / or ultra virus and / or have other defects. So let's assume Boris gets no deal on 17th or Parliament rejects a deal. He will then refuse to sign the letter, a judicial review will arise.

 

Acts of Parliament always require a public servant or person / entity in society to do or refrain from doing something. It may establish another politically led body. But they never direct legislation at an opposing politician directly. Boris is PM is in political office is opposed to what the Parliamentary majority want. So their legislation is actually a political action with political intentions including personal humiliation and entrapment. But I think they have made a fundamental mistake because it should have been directed at the Head of the Civil Service to take action with them effectively taking over the government role.

 

There are many other bases of challenge. I think the remainers act will fall at judicial review.

[geosname]

7 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

You dont actually read what people write and have a long history of stiring it but in the interest of honouring you...

I said NOBODY thought about Ireland.  You seem to be struggling to understand what NOBODY means.  It means not anybody, out of 10 people 0 etc...  get it yet?  However, my point which again you amazingly seem to miss as wide as a Calvin Andrew shot, is simply that there was no onus on the remain campaign to think of it as of course they were never having to deliver anything they promised because it was already delivered.  Now that's not difficult to understand is it, because I really cant explain it any more simply.

When the ref was called, I dint know what to do, so I listened.  The remain campaign actually carried alot of facts, explained alot of benefits and also provided evidence from various think tanks etc of the damage that leaving will do.  That was immediately labelled project fear by the Leave campaign.  So I had a listen to them, the first problem I had was the blatant lie that anybody would have to be as thick as <ovf censored> not to notice, the one plastered on the side of the bus.  Despite being told time and again that it was false, they carried on with it (famously denouncing it the day after the vote).  Now that undermined credibility straight away.  Then they had that poster of immigrants heading for the uk.... That was akin to Nazi Germany victimising the Jews, outrageous and yet folk lapped it up.  So I set about looking at what they were saying and they promised me an easy deal, a queue of folk wanting to trade with us etc....  this all seemed good.  There was talk of deals similar to those of Switzerland and Norway, that seemed a really moderate situation and then there was the issue of controlling immigration, Johnson himself taked about a points system similar to Australia, so all in all, I thought despite the lies and the association with a compete pair of wankers like Farage and Johnson, leave was not a bad option.  A hard Brexit was never talked about and was not a possibility given the potential deals everyone wanted to do...

However, I simply could not get past the fact that this leave campaign was being spearheaded by those contemptuous pricks and quite frankly I couldn't do it, and I am surprised anybody could align themselves with such tossers of there own free will.

If Nigel Farage supported Vale I would go down Stoke.

I apologise.... it seems I failed to clarify the point I was trying to make.

Both sides campaining should have known about the boarder problem, they are the people in the know. Although I wouldn't expect the leave side to bring it up I think the remain side should have.

As someone who would have prefered to remain I think the remain campaign was weak and flawed, bearing in mind it was a campaign to win votes not a political discussion/debate..... offer the voters what they think they want... spend the majority of time talking about your stance not the oppositions... dismantle the opposition's claims of benefit in the shortest time possible extol the benefits of your own in the maximum time allowed.... the voters need to be talking about remaining not leaving.

I would add, if you do not want to create a chasem after the count is announced ..... avoid denouncing the voters you failed to win over as stupid, racist, idiots or any other derogatory remark.... especially if you contemplate mounting a challenge to the result.

[geosname]

I think to simply blame Cameron for brexit is a little short sighted.

The leave issue was first encountered the day we joined the common market...... several prominent politicians and some who became prominant later wanted to leave.... to trim history a lot..... it rumbled on in the background, on and off, for years with suggestions of a referendum being raised occasionally,  even being mentioned in manifestos,  never really fading into the background.

It came to a head when Cameron went to the EU to get consessions and returned with nothing..... basically to change the deal we had agreed.... so he made good on a manifesto pledge and called a referendum.

I am by no means trying to negate his role of incompetance in the matter..... he screwed up big time in many ways. 

As for a second referendum...... as above many politicians have screamed a second referendum without enacting the first is undemocratic..... yet are now desperately trying to obtain the "undemocratic "

It seems to me that politicians are like revolving doors...... 

[Regal Beagle]

10 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

Parliament is making laws, the government is to implement them. Blair always had a majority government, Johnson does not have a majority so is controlled by parliament if it pleases. 

No I mean Blair blocked parliaments legislation at the stage that the surrender bill is now. Whether he had a majority in parliament is irrelevant as it had already passed that stage successfully. 

[Regal Beagle]

Hard or soft brexit deals and Irish border debates were not had before the referendum because these are remainer/eu fabrications. 

In fact it was 100% stated by people on both sides that leaving meant leaving the single market and all other eu institutions. 

Anyone who is stating differently is at this point being dishonest in my opinion. I've posted at least 2 videos showing this.

Add in the fact that the leave campaign was not the government and it was not elected to parliament afterwards. There was no manifesto and the only mandate given was to...leave. it was very literal. 

Furthermore, I could quite easily say that we were promised reform from within by the remain campaign. So can anyone tell me exactly HOW we should remain? It is a silly argument really but it has the same purpose as the remainers one...anything to try and explain away people's democratic voice. 

We've had stupid, we've had old, we've had racist, we are now having lied too. 

How about the majority simply dont want to be in the eu and a trade deal is not a deal breaker? 

[Howjy04]

I’ve asked before re Ireland,why are the EU so against keeping things as they are?This appears to be the main weapon to stop any acceptable deal.Would they be happy with a few billion more ?Would they be happy for hostilities to start again?Will they be happy when the ROI is on its knees if we leave with no deal?Why not make the concession?Who loses if they do?

[Fosse69]

2 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

No I mean Blair blocked parliaments legislation at the stage that the surrender bill is now. Whether he had a majority in parliament is irrelevant as it had already passed that stage successfully. 

That takes some beating," whether a PM has a majority in parliament is irrelevant ", basic skill of a PM is to count whether he has the votes or not. Voting down the Queen`s speech end of story.

[Fosse69]

12 hours ago, Warren said:

The Act passed by Parliament is likely to go to judicial review. It may be unconstitutional and / or ultra virus and / or have other defects. So let's assume Boris gets no deal on 17th or Parliament rejects a deal. He will then refuse to sign the letter, a judicial review will arise.

 

Acts of Parliament always require a public servant or person / entity in society to do or refrain from doing something. It may establish another politically led body. But they never direct legislation at an opposing politician directly. Boris is PM is in political office is opposed to what the Parliamentary majority want. So their legislation is actually a political action with political intentions including personal humiliation and entrapment. But I think they have made a fundamental mistake because it should have been directed at the Head of the Civil Service to take action with them effectively taking over the government role.

 

There are many other bases of challenge. I think the remainers act will fall at judicial review.

If it is an action that only the PM has the power to do, he has to be directed to do it.  Directed at a civil servant he could stop it.