Discussion:
Is holding another general election anti-democratic?
Add Reply
MM
2018-12-05 08:37:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

MM
The Todal
2018-12-05 10:05:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
It wouldn't be anti-democratic but it would not solve the Brexit Crisis.
Vidcapper
2018-12-05 15:49:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
It wouldn't be anti-democratic but it would not solve the Brexit Crisis.
Quite so - whoever won it would still the same issues.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
MM
2018-12-05 17:05:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
It wouldn't be anti-democratic but it would not solve the Brexit Crisis.
It would if there was a substantial majority next time. Whether for
Leave or Remain. But the key word is substantial.

MM
Joe
2018-12-05 10:20:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.

And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
--
Joe
Pamela
2018-12-05 10:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.

The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-05 10:50:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.
The problem with parliament holding all the cards, is that those who are
likely to vote against the proposed deal will do so because of two wildly
opposing views; both of which seem to have little to do with the wishes of
the British public on Brexit.

One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

The other will vote against because it thinks it can force a leadership
change where the new leader will stick two fingers up to the EU and leave
with no deal at all.
Ophelia
2018-12-05 14:13:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Fruitiest of Fruitcakes" wrote in message news:***@news.giganews.com...
The problem with parliament holding all the cards, is that those who are
likely to vote against the proposed deal will do so because of two wildly
opposing views; both of which seem to have little to do with the wishes of
the British public on Brexit.

One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general
election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

The other will vote against because it thinks it can force a leadership
change where the new leader will stick two fingers up to the EU and leave
with no deal at all.


==

I reckon you have that spot on!
Vidcapper
2018-12-05 15:56:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Ian Jackson
2018-12-05 16:36:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!
You're assuming that none of the 17.4 million have reconsidered the
situation (and the same goes for the 16 million remainers). And then
there are those who didn't vote (12 million, wasn't it?). And, of
course, this takes no account of those who previously were too young to
vote, and those who are now dead.

Care to make another prediction?
--
Ian
Vidcapper
2018-12-06 07:17:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Vidcapper
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!
You're assuming that none of the 17.4 million have reconsidered the
situation (and the same goes for the 16 million remainers). And then
there are those who didn't vote (12 million, wasn't it?). And, of
course, this takes no account of those who previously were too young to
vote, and those who are now dead.
Care to make another prediction?
This would be a GE where Brexit would be just one issue amongst many, so
relatively few people will be deciding on it alone.

There are always that many, or more non-voters, so they can be disregarded.

As for young voters replacing deceased ones, you forget the fact that
voters tend to become more conservative as they get older, countering
the trend of youngsters being more radical.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Col
2018-12-05 18:02:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!
No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.
--
Col
abelard
2018-12-05 18:07:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!
No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.
war is peace...
--
www.abelard.org
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-05 18:15:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!
No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.
They could, but that policy might backfire if people point out that the
result of a 2nd referendum would only be advisory.

After all, if you don’t accept the result of the first one, why must anyone
accept the view expressed in a second one?

What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?
Col
2018-12-06 19:21:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Col
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!
No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.
They could, but that policy might backfire if people point out that the
result of a 2nd referendum would only be advisory.
After all, if you don’t accept the result of the first one, why must anyone
accept the view expressed in a second one?
Because the 2nd one would at least be based upon the then known
implications of Brexit, May's deal/renegotiated deal/no deal.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?
That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.
--
Col
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-06 20:07:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Col
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general
election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!
No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.
They could, but that policy might backfire if people point out that the
result of a 2nd referendum would only be advisory.
After all, if you don’t accept the result of the first one, why must anyone
accept the view expressed in a second one?
Because the 2nd one would at least be based upon the then known
implications of Brexit, May's deal/renegotiated deal/no deal.
Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.

It is Remainers (so confident they would win) who had not considered any
alternative scenario, which is why they are now trying every trick they can
think of to insist the result Brexiteers wanted is not the result Brexiteers
wanted; when what they really mean it is not the result Remainers wanted and
is therefore unacceptable.
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?
That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.
Post by Col
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-06 23:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.
Come off it. Pull the other one!

Most voted Leave because they thought that either personally or as a
nation, they would be better off or have a better lifestyle. [In short,
they succumbed to a general feeling of dissatisfaction with things as
they were.] This is obviously a laudable aspiration - but a heck of a
lot had not really thought through the REAL whys and wherefores - and,
in particular, ANY of the hows.
--
Ian
Col
2018-12-07 08:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.
No they didn't know the implications, and we still don't.
During the referendum campaign there was much talk of what Brexit
*could* mean, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Norwegian model, Swiss model etc
etc but people who voted leave voted on the basis of what they thought
would constitute a good Brexit for them , not what was actually on the
table. And 2½ years later we *still* don't know what is on the table.
May's deal, a renegotiated deal, no deal? Brexiteers still don't know
exactly what they voted for!
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?
That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.
It would indeed but the argument would have been far from over. Leavers
would no doubt have been pushing for another referendum. Remember
Farage's 'unfinished business'?
--
Col
Vidcapper
2018-12-07 10:10:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.
It would indeed but the argument would have been far from over. Leavers
would no doubt have been pushing for another referendum. Remember
Farage's 'unfinished business'?
He's never gonna live that down... :p
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-07 10:33:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.
No they didn't know the implications, and we still don't.
During the referendum campaign there was much talk of what Brexit
*could* mean, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Norwegian model, Swiss model etc
etc but people who voted leave voted on the basis of what they thought
would constitute a good Brexit for them , not what was actually on the
table. And 2½ years later we *still* don't know what is on the table.
May's deal, a renegotiated deal, no deal? Brexiteers still don't know
exactly what they voted for!
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?
That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.
It would indeed but the argument would have been far from over. Leavers
would no doubt have been pushing for another referendum. Remember
Farage's 'unfinished business'?
No one will ever know, of course; but I am not so sure that scenario would
have come about.

Cameron may have remained as PM with a working majority, and support for
Farage had been sliding into a noisy rump which would have been continually
portrayed as a bunch of racists by the left. I’m not sure that leavers
would have been in the mood for another referendum so quickly - certainly I
wouldn’t.

Maybe in another ten years or so, but I was resigned to remain getting a
narrow majority anyway, and I had lived with EU nonsense for 40 years
already. If the majority were happy with that then my attitude would have
been “so-be-it”.
Col
2018-12-08 09:15:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Col
It would indeed but the argument would have been far from over. Leavers
would no doubt have been pushing for another referendum. Remember
Farage's 'unfinished business'?
No one will ever know, of course; but I am not so sure that scenario would
have come about.
Cameron may have remained as PM with a working majority, and support for
Farage had been sliding into a noisy rump which would have been continually
portrayed as a bunch of racists by the left. I’m not sure that leavers
would have been in the mood for another referendum so quickly - certainly I
wouldn’t.
Maybe in another ten years or so, but I was resigned to remain getting a
narrow majority anyway, and I had lived with EU nonsense for 40 years
already. If the majority were happy with that then my attitude would have
been “so-be-it”.
i think that's probably about right. Had the result been 52:48 the other
way the country would still have been deeply divided and the campaign to
leave would have gone on. Clearly you can't hold a referendum every year
but in 10 years' time would seem realistic. If we do leave on March 29th
then campaign groups will instantly spring up for us to re-join. No
doubt they are already being planned.
--
Col
abelard
2018-12-07 11:59:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.
No they didn't know the implications, and we still don't.
so what...nobody knows the future...

the rest of your post is superfluous ramble
Post by Col
During the referendum campaign there was much talk of what Brexit
*could* mean, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Norwegian model, Swiss model etc
etc but people who voted leave voted on the basis of what they thought
would constitute a good Brexit for them , not what was actually on the
table. And 2½ years later we *still* don't know what is on the table.
May's deal, a renegotiated deal, no deal? Brexiteers still don't know
exactly what they voted for!
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?
That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.
It would indeed but the argument would have been far from over. Leavers
would no doubt have been pushing for another referendum. Remember
Farage's 'unfinished business'?
--
www.abelard.org
Col
2018-12-07 12:47:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Col
No they didn't know the implications, and we still don't.
so what...nobody knows the future...
Of course nobody knows the future but the point is that in 2016 people
voted for Brexit based upon a complete unknown as to what it might
entail. If there was to be a 2nd referendum we would at least have a far
clearer idea exactly what it was we werer voting for.
Post by abelard
the rest of your post is superfluous ramble
LOL, you certainly are an expert in that!
--
Col
abelard
2018-12-07 16:42:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by abelard
Post by Col
No they didn't know the implications, and we still don't.
so what...nobody knows the future...
Of course nobody knows the future but the point is that in 2016 people
voted for Brexit based upon a complete unknown as to what it might
entail. If there was to be a 2nd referendum we would at least have a far
clearer idea exactly what it was we werer voting for.
dream on
Post by Col
Post by abelard
the rest of your post is superfluous ramble
LOL, you certainly are an expert in that!
it is my place to study and be expert in idiots...
which is why i am the exception who does not kf idiots
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2018-12-07 13:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
so what...nobody knows the future...
the rest of your post is superfluous ramble
The whole of your post is a superfluous ramble.
Vidcapper
2018-12-07 07:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?
That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.
If Leavers abstained there might be a 99% Remain vote, but on a low-30's
turnout, rendering the result farcical.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Col
2018-12-07 08:38:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?
That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.
If Leavers abstained there might be a 99% Remain vote, but on a low-30's
turnout, rendering the result farcical.
If disgruntled Brexiteers wanted to throw a hissy fit by boycotting the
poll then that's up to them. But imagine if you could determine whether
the result of a vote was recognised or not by *not* taking part?
Now that really would be farcical.
--
Col
kat
2018-12-07 09:22:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?
That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.
If Leavers abstained there might be a 99% Remain vote, but on a low-30's
turnout, rendering the result farcical.
If disgruntled Brexiteers wanted to throw a hissy fit by boycotting the poll
then that's up to them. But imagine if you could determine whether the result of
a vote was recognised or not by *not* taking part?
Now that really would be farcical.
LOL, if only I had a pound for every time the number of people who didn't vote
in the referendum was mentioned here, as "evidence" that only a minority want to
leave!
--
kat
^..^<
Ian Jackson
2018-12-07 10:45:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by kat
Post by Col
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Col
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?
That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.
If Leavers abstained there might be a 99% Remain vote, but on a
low-30's turnout, rendering the result farcical.
If disgruntled Brexiteers wanted to throw a hissy fit by boycotting
the poll then that's up to them. But imagine if you could determine
whether the result of a vote was recognised or not by *not* taking part?
Now that really would be farcical.
Large-scale boycotting of an election is a well-established technique by
those who know that there is little chance of their side winning.
However, this is generally used where the government is oppressive and
totalitarian, and where it's pretty obvious that the election will be
'fixed'. This will enable the opposition to claim that the result is not
valid.

Other examples are more personal. Many people don't bother to vote when
they believe that there will be so few votes for their favoured
candidate that their vote will be a waste of time. Others don't bother
for exactly the opposite reason, ie when they believe there will be more
than enough votes for their candidate to win with out needing theirs.
Post by kat
LOL, if only I had a pound for every time the number of people who
didn't vote in the referendum was mentioned here, as "evidence" that
only a minority want to leave!
Which of the two (personal) examples I have given do you think applies
in the case of the referendum? Were a lot of the non-voters Leavers at
heart, but didn't vote because they knew that there would be a
sufficient majority without them needing to support the Leave side?

Or were they Remainers who similarly didn't think their vote was
necessary?

Or was it for a large variety of other reasons - such as they didn't
know what all the fuss was about, and were happy, in a passive way, to
remain neutral, and for things to go on as they were.

Or, of course, they simply just couldn't be bothered.
--
Ian
abelard
2018-12-05 11:24:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies
Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory
it wasn't
Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to
'the british public' is not person...
Post by Pamela
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.
it wasn't advice...it was an instruction

you try so much logical error in just one post...your post is
self-serving dishonesty
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2018-12-05 11:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.
nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies
Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory
it wasn't
BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.

===========

The European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16 states:

"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum"

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf

https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m

=========== An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords Committee
on the Constitution (UK Referendums) said:

"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of
public opinion."

Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm

===========
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.
it wasn't advice...it was an instruction
See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.
abelard
2018-12-05 11:58:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.
nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies
Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory
it wasn't
BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
=========== An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords Committee
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of
public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.
it wasn't advice...it was an instruction
See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.
be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2018-12-05 13:44:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.
nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies
Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory
it wasn't
BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government
to implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
===========
An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords Committee
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression
of public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.
it wasn't advice...it was an instruction
See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.
be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool
So that's what you do when you are shown to be 100% wrong about
something .... you insult the person who showed you to be wrong.

I've seen you do it before.

It's hardly worth discussing anything with someone who behaves like
that. In truth, your posts rarely rise to the level of a discussion
these days.

Now tell me once again the referendum was not advisory and provide some
proof.
abelard
2018-12-05 16:25:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.
nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies
Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory
it wasn't
BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government
to implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
===========
An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords Committee
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression
of public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.
it wasn't advice...it was an instruction
See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.
be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool
So that's what you do when you are shown to be 100% wrong about
something .... you insult the person who showed you to be wrong.
I've seen you do it before.
It's hardly worth discussing anything with someone who behaves like
that. In truth, your posts rarely rise to the level of a discussion
these days.
Now tell me once again the referendum was not advisory and provide some
proof.
go tell your dreadful story to your best friend in the infant's class

i'm sure she will console you
--
www.abelard.org
Ian Jackson
2018-12-05 16:41:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool
So that's what you do when you are shown to be 100% wrong about
something .... you insult the person who showed you to be wrong.
I've seen you do it before.
Many times........ many, many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Marsden
--
Ian
abelard
2018-12-05 17:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 16:41:42 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool
So that's what you do when you are shown to be 100% wrong about
something .... you insult the person who showed you to be wrong.
I've seen you do it before.
Many times........ many, many times.
you make a very common error of mediocre minds.....

you believe that when you can't understand something
someone else if in error
Post by Ian Jackson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Marsden
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2018-12-05 18:32:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool
So that's what you do when you are shown to be 100% wrong about
something .... you insult the person who showed you to be wrong.
I've seen you do it before.
Many times........ many, many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Marsden
I have to agree Abelard acts like a comedy character quite a lot these
days.
Joe
2018-12-05 18:23:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:50:43 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another
general election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election
or referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert
here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity.
It holds only until the next general election.
nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies
Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory
it wasn't
BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government
to implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
=========== An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression
of public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.
it wasn't advice...it was an instruction
See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?

Mine said, among other things:

"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the government
which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?

Now, I'm aware that there has been a change of government, and that no
Parliament can bind its successors. If this or another government uses
this excuse for welshing on this commitment, then a future Parliament
can also revoke any deal which the current Parliament may reach now.

European and other diplomats who have seen how the British government
treats its promises to its own electorate might be wary of placing too
much trust in it in future.
--
Joe
Pamela
2018-12-05 18:47:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another
general election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election
or referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert
here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity.
It holds only until the next general election.
nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies
Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory
it wasn't
BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the
end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK
Government
to implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
=========== An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression
of public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to
Parliament) then that's fine.
it wasn't advice...it was an instruction
See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you
decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?
The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.
Post by Joe
Now, I'm aware that there has been a change of government, and that no
Parliament can bind its successors. If this or another government uses
this excuse for welshing on this commitment, then a future Parliament
can also revoke any deal which the current Parliament may reach now.
European and other diplomats who have seen how the British government
treats its promises to its own electorate might be wary of placing too
much trust in it in future.
I guess we will all have to cry into our cornflakes with sorrow every
morning at the way of the world but the fact is politicians and
governments sometimes lie and do not always get held to account.
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2018-12-05 22:00:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?
The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.
Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any claim
to re-run the referendum.
--
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Pamela
2018-12-05 22:51:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?
The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.
Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any claim
to re-run the referendum.
It wasn't a lie at the time. It was a promise that couldn't be kept as the
speaker did not have authority.

Anyone who looked into it at the time would have found that. It was no
secret.
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2018-12-07 04:47:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?
The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.
Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any claim
to re-run the referendum.
It wasn't a lie at the time.
I am glad you agree it wasn't a lie.
Post by Pamela
It was a promise that couldn't be kept as the
speaker did not have authority.
Anyone who looked into it at the time would have found that. It was no
secret.
It was a promise that could and must be kept. The speaker did have
authority. He was PM at the time, and the decision to hold a referendum
had been supported by his party and by the Opposition.
--
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Pamela
2018-12-07 13:09:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 04:47 7 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
On 22:00 5 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
Mine said, among other things: "This is your decision. The
Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?
The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.
Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any
claim to re-run the referendum.
It wasn't a lie at the time.
I am glad you agree it wasn't a lie.
It was a promise that couldn't be kept as the speaker did not have
authority. Anyone who looked into it at the time would have found
that. It was no secret.
It was a promise that could and must be kept. The speaker did have
authority. He was PM at the time, and the decision to hold a
referendum had been supported by his party and by the Opposition.
It was purely rhetoric. It's better to take a more mature view of these
things rather than obsessively latch onto some irrelevancy. I don't
expect this point to carry any weight whatsoever in what happens next.
The Todal
2018-12-07 15:26:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
On 04:47 7 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
On 22:00 5 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
Mine said, among other things: "This is your decision. The
Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?
The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.
Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any
claim to re-run the referendum.
It wasn't a lie at the time.
I am glad you agree it wasn't a lie.
It was a promise that couldn't be kept as the speaker did not have
authority. Anyone who looked into it at the time would have found
that. It was no secret.
It was a promise that could and must be kept. The speaker did have
authority. He was PM at the time, and the decision to hold a
referendum had been supported by his party and by the Opposition.
It was purely rhetoric. It's better to take a more mature view of these
things rather than obsessively latch onto some irrelevancy. I don't
expect this point to carry any weight whatsoever in what happens next.
It was no more a "binding promise" than any manifesto promise. Cameron
hadn't been instructed by a vote in the House of Commons to implement
the referendum result, nor even a vote from his own party conference. So
it's similar to "our party will not increase taxes during the life of
this parliament" or for that matter "our party will abolish student
loans" - an expression of intent with no binding force.

The other rather obvious point is that "this is your decision. The
government will implement what you decide" is not an assurance directed
to every citizen of this country, agreeing to implement Tom, Dick, Harry
and Joe's various views about what Brexit means. If Mr Bloggs complains
that he personally wants all the Romanians to be sent home and the
Tories have broken their promise, the correct response is to laugh at Mr
Bloggs because he's a halfwit.
Pamela
2018-12-07 17:54:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Pamela
On 04:47 7 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
On 22:00 5 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the
government leaflet?
Mine said, among other things: "This is your decision. The
Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?
The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but
that still doesn't make it true.
Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any
claim to re-run the referendum.
It wasn't a lie at the time.
I am glad you agree it wasn't a lie.
It was a promise that couldn't be kept as the speaker did not have
authority. Anyone who looked into it at the time would have found
that. It was no secret.
It was a promise that could and must be kept. The speaker did have
authority. He was PM at the time, and the decision to hold a
referendum had been supported by his party and by the Opposition.
It was purely rhetoric. It's better to take a more mature view of
these things rather than obsessively latch onto some irrelevancy. I
don't expect this point to carry any weight whatsoever in what
happens next.
It was no more a "binding promise" than any manifesto promise. Cameron
hadn't been instructed by a vote in the House of Commons to implement
the referendum result, nor even a vote from his own party conference.
So it's similar to "our party will not increase taxes during the life
of this parliament" or for that matter "our party will abolish student
loans" - an expression of intent with no binding force.
The other rather obvious point is that "this is your decision. The
government will implement what you decide" is not an assurance
directed to every citizen of this country, agreeing to implement Tom,
Dick, Harry and Joe's various views about what Brexit means. If Mr
Bloggs complains that he personally wants all the Romanians to be sent
home and the Tories have broken their promise, the correct response is
to laugh at Mr Bloggs because he's a halfwit.
There was a lot of misuderstanding if what had been achieved by Leave in
getting a majority in the referendum. It's probably the fault of
Cameron and his government, who expected to win, that these things were
no tmore fully explained beforehend.

As it is, we now have desperate Leavers clutching at straws in order to
strength their case. This nonsense about what Cameron allegedy promised
reminds me of anti-Blairites injecting into their conversations "The war
was illegal, you know". So what? Personally, I don't happen to think
the Iraqi war was illegal but why hold Blair to a higher standard than
those starting the many "illegal" wars around the world in the last 50
years? An illegal war is a newish concept which Blair's critics latched
onto but nothing will come of it even if they were right.
abelard
2018-12-08 11:11:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
There was a lot of misuderstanding if what had been achieved by Leave in
getting a majority in the referendum. It's probably the fault of
Cameron and his government, who expected to win, that these things were
no tmore fully explained beforehend.
indeed...he gave the people choice...outrageous
Post by Pamela
As it is, we now have desperate Leavers clutching at straws in order to
strength their case. This nonsense about what Cameron allegedy promised
reminds me of anti-Blairites injecting into their conversations "The war
was illegal, you know". So what? Personally, I don't happen to think
the Iraqi war was illegal but why hold Blair to a higher standard than
those starting the many "illegal" wars around the world in the last 50
years? An illegal war is a newish concept which Blair's critics latched
onto but nothing will come of it even if they were right.
at least that bit's true
--
www.abelard.org
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2018-12-08 09:10:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The Todal <***@icloud.com> posted
[pamela's drivel removed]
Post by The Todal
It was no more a "binding promise" than any manifesto promise.
Yes it was.
Post by The Todal
Cameron hadn't been instructed by a vote in the House of Commons to
implement the referendum result, nor even a vote from his own party
conference.
The referendum was mandated by a law enacted by parliament, which is the
same as requiring its result to be implemented.
Post by The Todal
So it's similar to "our party will not increase taxes during the life
of this parliament" or for that matter "our party will abolish student
loans" - an expression of intent with no binding force.
No it's not similar to it at all.
Post by The Todal
The other rather obvious point is that "this is your decision. The
government will implement what you decide" is not an assurance directed
to every citizen of this country, agreeing to implement Tom, Dick,
Harry and Joe's various views about what Brexit means.
Of course it isn't that, nobody except you has said anything about
"various views". It was a Yes/No question. An unequivocal assurance was
given to the electorate as a whole that the Yes/No result would be
implemented.
Post by The Todal
If Mr Bloggs complains that he personally wants all the Romanians to
be sent home and the Tories have broken their promise, the correct
response is to laugh at Mr Bloggs because he's a halfwit.
And also to laugh at the only person who has made this suggestion, and
for the same reason.
--
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Pamela
2018-12-08 11:51:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 09:10 8 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Todal
It was no more a "binding promise" than any manifesto promise.
Yes it was.
In what way was it more binding than the usual manifesto promise?
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Todal
Cameron hadn't been instructed by a vote in the House of Commons to
implement the referendum result, nor even a vote from his own party
conference.
The referendum was mandated by a law enacted by parliament, which is
the same as requiring its result to be implemented.
Post by The Todal
So it's similar to "our party will not increase taxes during the life
of this parliament" or for that matter "our party will abolish student
loans" - an expression of intent with no binding force.
No it's not similar to it at all.
Seems very similar to me. I can't see how it's so very different. Can
you explain.
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Todal
The other rather obvious point is that "this is your decision. The
government will implement what you decide" is not an assurance
directed to every citizen of this country, agreeing to implement Tom,
Dick, Harry and Joe's various views about what Brexit means.
Of course it isn't that, nobody except you has said anything about
"various views". It was a Yes/No question. An unequivocal assurance
was given to the electorate as a whole that the Yes/No result would be
implemented.
It was just an other empty promise from apolitician. I'm sorry it got
you excited and got your hopes up but that doesn't make it more binding.
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Todal
If Mr Bloggs complains that he personally wants all the Romanians to
be sent home and the Tories have broken their promise, the correct
response is to laugh at Mr Bloggs because he's a halfwit.
And also to laugh at the only person who has made this suggestion, and
for the same reason.
MM
2018-12-06 12:26:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:50:43 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another
general election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election
or referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert
here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity.
It holds only until the next general election.
nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies
Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory
it wasn't
BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government
to implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
=========== An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression
of public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.
it wasn't advice...it was an instruction
See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
I expect complacent Cameron hadn't realised that the referendum was
advisory only.

Or maybe his, er, advisers told him he couldn't just promise whatever
he liked, but he did it anyway, thinking that wining was going to be a
foregone conclusion anyway.

MM
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-06 12:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:50:43 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another
general election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election
or referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert
here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity.
It holds only until the next general election.
nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies
Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory
it wasn't
BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government
to implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
=========== An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression
of public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.
it wasn't advice...it was an instruction
See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
I expect complacent Cameron hadn't realised that the referendum was
advisory only.
Or maybe his, er, advisers told him he couldn't just promise whatever
he liked, but he did it anyway, thinking that wining was going to be a
foregone conclusion anyway.
MM
Wining (and dining) /is/ a forgone conclusion for that lot :-)
Pamela
2018-12-06 14:25:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one
complained that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet
another general election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election
or referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert
here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold
office in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity.
It holds only until the next general election.
nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies
Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory
it wasn't
BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of
the UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before
the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK
Government
to implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
=========== An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However,
it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive
expression of public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to
Parliament) then that's fine.
it wasn't advice...it was an instruction
See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you
decide."
I expect complacent Cameron hadn't realised that the referendum was
advisory only.
Or maybe his, er, advisers told him he couldn't just promise whatever
he liked, but he did it anyway, thinking that wining was going to be a
foregone conclusion anyway.
MM
Either way, obsessing over some unenforceable point of detail in a
statement made two years ago is not going to change anything now. Time
to move on.
Joe
2018-12-06 20:45:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:25:09 GMT
Post by Pamela
Either way, obsessing over some unenforceable point of detail in a
statement made two years ago is not going to change anything now.
Time to move on.
You lost.

Time to move on.
--
Joe
Pamela
2018-12-06 22:51:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:25:09 GMT
Post by Pamela
Either way, obsessing over some unenforceable point of detail in a
statement made two years ago is not going to change anything now.
Time to move on.
You lost.
You reckon? Don't confuse losing the battle with winning the war.
Post by Joe
Time to move on.
Definitely. It's going the right way now: No Deal is thwarted and wacky
deals are unavailable. Staying close to the EU is the order of the day.
MM
2018-12-07 12:49:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:25:09 GMT
Post by Pamela
Either way, obsessing over some unenforceable point of detail in a
statement made two years ago is not going to change anything now.
Time to move on.
You lost.
Will you still be crowing next week after T. May loses the vote?

Were you crowing earlier this week when the government was found in
contempt of Parliament, the *only* time that has happened in this
country's history?

Will you carry on jeering when food trucks are queuing on the
motorways in Kent? When diabetics die because they couldn't get
insulin? When someone has an anaphylactic shock but couldn't get a
replacement epipen?

Or will you just bury the dead and declare...
Post by Joe
Time to move on.
MM
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2018-12-05 12:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
But in the meantime the government must change to implement the result
of the first general election.

If it doesn't - if the PM just sits there despite having been voted out,
saying "I think we should have another general election and then we'll
decide who's going to be the government" - then *that* would be
undemocratic.
Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.
You can campaign for that to happen after that "advice" has been
implemented.
--
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Vidcapper
2018-12-05 15:52:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.
FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Incubus
2018-12-05 16:22:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.
FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...
David Cameron made it unequivocally clear that it was not advisory:

"It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.

Your decision.

Nobody else's.

Not politicians'.

Not Parliament's.

Not lobby groups'.

Not mine.

Just you.

You, the British people, will decide.

At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.

This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.

And it will be the final decision.

So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave...
...would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay...
...I say think again.

The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.

An in or out referendum.

When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.

If we vote to leave, then we will leave.

There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum."

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-on-europe
Ian Jackson
2018-12-05 16:44:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.

Honest - he did!
--
Ian
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-05 16:55:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!
Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-12-05 18:01:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!
Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?
London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-05 18:12:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!
Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?
London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?
No idea.
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-12-05 18:25:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:12:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!
Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?
London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?
No idea.
You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-05 18:43:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:12:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!
Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?
London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?
No idea.
You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.
Apparently not.

The London bus headline was London Bus Found In Antarctic.

A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-12-05 19:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:43:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:12:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!
Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?
London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?
No idea.
You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.
Apparently not.
The London bus headline was London Bus Found In Antarctic.
Quite plausible.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.
Quite implausible.

So the question remains: why did you ask him if he'd had a ride on
the London bus while he was up there? Is there something you know
that the rest of us don't?
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-05 19:09:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:43:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:12:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!
Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?
London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?
No idea.
You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.
Apparently not.
The London bus headline was London Bus Found In Antarctic.
Quite plausible.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.
Quite implausible.
So the question remains: why did you ask him if he'd had a ride on
the London bus while he was up there? Is there something you know
that the rest of us don't?
I couldn’t possibly comment further.
The Peeler
2018-12-05 20:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:03:48 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Apparently not.
The London bus headline was London Bus Found In Antarctic.
Quite plausible.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.
Quite implausible.
So the question remains: why did you ask him if he'd had a ride on
the London bus while he was up there? Is there something you know
that the rest of us don't?
He knows what EVERYONE knows here: that you are a sick piece of psychopathic
shit, dumb anal Razovic!
--
"The Jews" about defeated gay Razovic:
"We've reduced him to a terminally brain-damaged shell over the years."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
Ian Jackson
2018-12-05 19:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:12:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!
Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?
London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?
No idea.
You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.
Apparently not.
The London bus headline was London Bus Found In Antarctic.
A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.
That's nearly as far-fetched as claiming that the UK will leave the EU.
--
Ian
Col
2018-12-07 09:06:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.
That's nearly as far-fetched as claiming that the UK will leave the EU.
You'd get kicked off the Sunday Sport's editorial team for writing
ludicrous headlines like that!
--
Col
The Peeler
2018-12-05 20:08:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:25:22 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?
No idea.
You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.
Still labouring under the delusion that the more retardedly you talk, the
more your alleged "intelligence" will show, poor deluded psychopath? LOL
--
Tony about psychopath Razovic:
"You have really made a complete fool out your self but you are too dumb to
notice."
MID: <951ce6b3-9c49-4426-ba53-***@googlegroups.com>
The Peeler
2018-12-05 20:06:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:01:08 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!
Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?
London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?
Trying to start one of your insipid "conversations", psychopath? <BG>
--
Gray Guest about inferior Razovic: "You are a subhuman. You should not be
permitted to propagate your genes."
MID: <***@88.198.244.100>
The Todal
2018-12-05 16:57:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.
FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...
"It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.
Your decision.
Nobody else's.
Not politicians'.
Not Parliament's.
Not lobby groups'.
Not mine.
Just you.
You, the British people, will decide.
At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.
This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave...
...would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay...
...I say think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum."
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-on-europe
What a brilliant speech. Thank you for that link.

Honest, direct and forthright. A speech crafted with great care. He
thought that his speech would swing public opinion in favour of
Remaining. I don't suppose all that many people heard the speech or
read it, but as it turned out he was backing a losing horse. And because
there was a vote to leave, David Cameron promptly left.

If we had another referendum we'd have lots more speeches like that.
What a dreadful prospect. We'd be bombarded with propaganda on an hourly
basis like troops in the trenches.
Incubus
2018-12-05 17:45:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Incubus
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.
FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...
"It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.
Your decision.
Nobody else's.
Not politicians'.
Not Parliament's.
Not lobby groups'.
Not mine.
Just you.
You, the British people, will decide.
At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.
This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave...
...would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay...
...I say think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum."
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-on-europe
What a brilliant speech. Thank you for that link.
Honest, direct and forthright. A speech crafted with great care. He
thought that his speech would swing public opinion in favour of
Remaining. I don't suppose all that many people heard the speech or
read it, but as it turned out he was backing a losing horse. And because
there was a vote to leave, David Cameron promptly left.
If we had another referendum we'd have lots more speeches like that.
What a dreadful prospect. We'd be bombarded with propaganda on an hourly
basis like troops in the trenches.
He always had good speeches and delivered them well. I remember it at the time
but it certainly didn't influence me to vote to remain.
Ophelia
2018-12-05 17:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.
FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...
David Cameron made it unequivocally clear that it was not advisory:

"It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the
reforms we secure, or whether we leave.

Your decision.

Nobody else's.

Not politicians'.

Not Parliament's.

Not lobby groups'.

Not mine.

Just you.

You, the British people, will decide.

At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.

This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make
in our lifetimes.

And it will be the final decision.

So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave...
...would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second
referendum in which Britain would stay...
...I say think again.

The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows
will be a once in a generation choice.

An in or out referendum.

When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not
ignored.

If we vote to leave, then we will leave.

There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum."

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-on-europe

==

Exactly and it was on those terms we voted! Of course the remoaners didn't
like that and prefer to pretend it was never promised.

I guess it just goes to show how much they respect promises.
Pamela
2018-12-05 18:38:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants
to change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.
FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...
"It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis
of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.
Your decision.
Nobody else's.
Not politicians'.
Not Parliament's.
Not lobby groups'.
Not mine.
Just you.
You, the British people, will decide.
At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your
hands.
This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will
make in our lifetimes.
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to
leave... ...would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and
then a second referendum in which Britain would stay... ...I say
think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that
follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not
ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum."
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-
on-europe
Thing is, David Cameron gave incorrect information. All referendums are
advisory and, on that point, he misled those who listened to him. Sorry
about that. Here are the real facts.

===========

The European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16 states:

"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the
question of the UK's continued membership of the
European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not
contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum"

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf

https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m

===========

That was left to the ruling in 2009-10 by the House of
Lords Committee on the Constitution (UK Referendums) which said:

"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums
cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore
advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to
ignore a decisive expression of public opinion."

Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm

=============
Joe
2018-12-05 19:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:38:27 GMT
Post by Pamela
Thing is, David Cameron gave incorrect information. All referendums
are advisory and, on that point, he misled those who listened to
him.
And you're continuing to deliberately miss the point: the referendum
was in legal terms advisory but the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom promised to implement the result, *advisory* *or* *not*.

OK, we know now he was lying, and also lying about staying on as PM if
the vote was for leaving, but the promise remains. The referendum was
held on the basis that it was real, that the voters of the UK were being
given the choice to remain or leave. People voted in the referendum on
that basis.

It's no good saying now that it was all just a hoax. Oooops, sir, you've
bought the product, but it doesn't do what it says on the tin, and I
knew it didn't when I sold it to you, and you're not getting your money
back 'cos I'm the government. That won't do. The Conservative Party
either gets behind their former leader's promise or they die now as a
serious political force, and take what remains of the UK government's
reputation with them. The Lib-Dems will have company.
--
Joe
Pamela
2018-12-05 20:53:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Thing is, David Cameron gave incorrect information. All referendums
are advisory and, on that point, he misled those who listened to him.
And you're continuing to deliberately miss the point: the referendum
was in legal terms advisory but the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom promised to implement the result, *advisory* *or* *not*.
OK, we know now he was lying, and also lying about staying on as PM if
the vote was for leaving, but the promise remains.
No promise remains. Theer is only the distant echo remains of words
uttered by a former politician, Cameron, which some die hard Brexiteers
still cling on to.
Post by Joe
The referendum was held on the basis that it was real, that the voters
of the UK were being given the choice to remain or leave.
The referendum was never more than advisory. Cook up as many arguments
as you like (about what was promised in the campaign or whatever) but
it's not going to change this.

If a whopping majority
wanted to leave the EU then MPs would be unwise to ignore them. As it
turned out, a slender majority (probably now gone) wanted Brexit and
government went about appeasing their wish.
Post by Joe
People voted in the referendum on that basis.
It's no good saying now that it was all just a hoax. Oooops, sir,
you've bought the product, but it doesn't do what it says on the tin,
and I knew it didn't when I sold it to you, and you're not getting
your money back 'cos I'm the government. That won't do. The
Conservative Party either gets behind their former leader's promise or
they die now as a serious political force, and take what remains of
the UK government's reputation with them. The Lib-Dems will have
company.
The referendum was always advisory. I am sorry for those who fooled
themselves or allowed themselves to be fooled that it was not.

After the referendum Leavers found, to everyone's amazement, that
opposition in Parliament to Brexit had collapsed. Brexiteers were given
a clear run but mucked it up royally with excessive and unrealistic
demands and behaving like children.

As the true nature of Brexit has revealled itself they have reasserted
themselves. Yesterday's votes in Parliament have given control back to
the House.

The adults are back in charge.
abelard
2018-12-06 09:47:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
No promise remains. Theer is only the distant echo remains of words
uttered by a former politician, Cameron, which some die hard Brexiteers
still cling on to.
as usual in your dishonesty, you post rubbish...

the main parties also backed brexit...the government backed it

suck it up
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2018-12-05 18:33:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.
FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...
Yes, it's such a common mistake to claim it was mandatory.

Brexiteers now clucth at straws and invent new rules whenever true
democracy asserts itself.
MM
2018-12-05 17:07:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
There was nothing to accept. The referendum result was advisory only.
Consider, certainly, but accept, no.
Post by Joe
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
But what has that got to do with GB?

MM
p***@gmail.com
2018-12-05 18:27:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
--
Joe
Please could you post details? Thanks

Patrick
Joe
2018-12-05 19:24:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
--
Joe
Please could you post details? Thanks
Jorg Haider off the top of my head for Austria. The EU imposed
sanctions on Austria and there was loose talk about expelling it from
the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/feb/04/austria.ianblack

George Papandreou in Greece, when the EU leaned on him over his
proposed referendum on the Greek bailout.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Papandreou

More or less at the same time, former EU Commissioner Mario Monti was
appointed (not elected) PM of Italy after pressure from the EU.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15713985
--
Joe
p***@gmail.com
2018-12-05 19:51:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
--
Joe
Please could you post details? Thanks
Jorg Haider off the top of my head for Austria. The EU imposed
sanctions on Austria and there was loose talk about expelling it from
the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/feb/04/austria.ianblack
George Papandreou in Greece, when the EU leaned on him over his
proposed referendum on the Greek bailout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Papandreou
More or less at the same time, former EU Commissioner Mario Monti was
appointed (not elected) PM of Italy after pressure from the EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15713985
--
Joe
I think you may be overstating it. European and other States opposed Haider, but not the EC itself. Papandreou held office, during which time the EU provided bailout funds. Italy (France too) has technocrat PMs from time to time, and that's some way from the EU refusing to permit elected officials to hold office.

Patrick
Joe
2018-12-05 20:54:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Post by p***@gmail.com
I think you may be overstating it. European and other States opposed
Haider, but not the EC itself.
"AUSTRIA'S far-Right leader, Jörg Haider, has hailed the end to European
Union diplomatic sanctions against his country.

His EU critics had been humiliated, he said yesterday. "We are leaving
this with our head held high." Mr Haider's Freedom Party precipitated
the EU's seven-month isolation of Austria when it joined the coalition
government in February. Yesterday, as Austria's political classes
celebrated, Mr Haider revelled in the climbdown by President Chirac.
France, which holds the rotating EU presidency, announced the end of
sanctions on Wednesday. It also led the original call for the measures."
--
Joe
Joe
2018-12-05 20:58:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 20:54:29 +0000
Post by Joe
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Post by p***@gmail.com
I think you may be overstating it. European and other States opposed
Haider, but not the EC itself.
"AUSTRIA'S far-Right leader, Jörg Haider, has hailed the end to
European Union diplomatic sanctions against his country.
His EU critics had been humiliated, he said yesterday. "We are leaving
this with our head held high." Mr Haider's Freedom Party precipitated
the EU's seven-month isolation of Austria when it joined the coalition
government in February. Yesterday, as Austria's political classes
celebrated, Mr Haider revelled in the climbdown by President Chirac.
France, which holds the rotating EU presidency, announced the end of
sanctions on Wednesday. It also led the original call for the
measures."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/sep/12/austria.ianblack

"European Union sanctions against Austria may be lifted as soon as
today...."
--
Joe
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2018-12-07 11:17:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Joe
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000
Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?
No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.
--
Joe
Please could you post details? Thanks
Jorg Haider off the top of my head for Austria. The EU imposed
sanctions on Austria and there was loose talk about expelling it from
the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/feb/04/austria.ianblack
George Papandreou in Greece, when the EU leaned on him over his
proposed referendum on the Greek bailout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Papandreou
More or less at the same time, former EU Commissioner Mario Monti was
appointed (not elected) PM of Italy after pressure from the EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15713985
I think you may be overstating it. European and other States opposed
Haider, but not the EC itself.
He didn't say the EC. He said the EU.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Papandreou held office, during which time the EU provided bailout
funds. Italy (France too) has technocrat PMs from time to time, and
that's some way from the EU refusing to permit elected officials to
hold office.
--
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Loading...