O/T Democracy

[rolymiller]

If only it was that simple shark even if you were willing to give up a job for the privilege of coming out. There are far reaching implications of coming out of the EU which dunt just affect employment...Brexit will have a flavour the electorate/ parliament will decide on that flavour one day=possibly! A tory brexit will be different from a labour brexit for example.

[Shark27]

If only it was that simple shark even if you were willing to give up a job for the privilege of coming out. THere are far reaching implications of coming out of the EU which dunt just affect employment...

You should have just voted remain instead of sitting on the fence.

[vaterland_miller]

I'm not sure what majority vs minority has to do with the definition the word "traitor" Rolymiller. Admittedly the problem we are discussing is caused by a minority's unwillingness to accept a clear majority decision.

Collins:
If someone is a traitor, they betray their country or a group of which they are a member by helping its enemies, especially during time of war.

Oxford:
Middle English from Old French traitour, from Latin traditor, from tradere ‘hand over’

It is difficult for the UK's representatives to negotiate with the larger, more economically powerful, EU if their colleagues have guaranteed that there can be no down-side for the EU. They have thereby HANDED OVER power to the EU who are aligned against the UK. We are told that the consequences for the UK will be very costly if we are not able to get the EU to agree to a deal. However the EU's backstop is highly unlikely to be acceptable to any British parliament and it has already been rejected 3 times by the current parliament. Under these circumstances it is clearly treason to try impede the government in their quest for a deal.

[animallittle3]

Roly. Let me try to explain something to you that you seem to not know.

The house of commons can and will make a law that will never let the supreme court rule on a political matter again. They can do this because it is parliament that make the law. In doing so this proves that the courts ruling is not a matter for the law of the land and is not binding in political law. In other words civil law cannot over rule political law and is why what the supreme court ruled carries no weight at all and you and many more like you have bought in to the supreme courts ruling. It is pathetic and was used by the remoaners as a way of getting their own way without having to call for a GE.

I will lay you odds on that the next parliament after the next GE will make it illegal for the supreme court to ever have the chance to do it again.

This is why I was so angry at what happened and was why I was telling all that would listen that you did not know what had just happened.

Where are you going with this Biglad ? , it's the Supreme Court and that makes everyone accountable and that's something we should be proud of , this isn't 1930's Germany .

I'm a leaver all day long but feck me there's an end of the road and thank your lucky stars the likes of Johnson can't entirely beat everything placed in front of em .

It's the end of the road , accept it mate .

[vaterland_miller]

The supreme court is not part of our ancient constitution - it was recently introduced as one of the ill-thought out acts of constitutional vandalism he called "modernization" by Blair - the man who took us into a war on the strength of lies. It is not fit for purpose and never was. If it survives it will be because it is useful to politicians rather than because it is a safeguard to the electorate.

[rolymiller]

I'm not sure what majority vs minority has to do with the definition the word "traitor" Rolymiller. Admittedly the problem we are discussing is caused by a minority's unwillingness to accept a clear majority decision.

Collins:
If someone is a traitor, they betray their country or a group of which they are a member by helping its enemies, especially during time of war.

Oxford:
Middle English from Old French traitour, from Latin traditor, from tradere ‘hand over’

It is difficult for the UK's representatives to negotiate with the larger, more economically powerful, EU if their colleagues have guaranteed that there can be no down-side for the EU. They have thereby HANDED OVER power to the EU who are aligned against the UK. We are told that the consequences for the UK will be very costly if we are not able to get the EU to agree to a deal. However the EU's backstop is highly unlikely to be acceptable to any British parliament and it has already been rejected 3 times by the current parliament. Under these circumstances it is clearly treason to try impede the government in their quest for a deal.

No as I pointed out before to big lad the majority since february this year have been for remaining in the EU so you have your facts wrong. Indeed in general their has been a consistent pattern over the last 2 years where more people would vote remain than leave . Don't be in denial like Biglad...so who are being treacherous? The will of the people is to remain...and as i pointed out to biglad a quarter of the population in the last survey don't know which way to vote or are not bothered which suggests leavers do not represent the will of the british people.

Its the old story those who shout loudest -ie leavers-think they should have their own way whether they are entitled to it or not. All a bit like kids really...

[rolymiller]

The supreme court is not part of our ancient constitution - it was recently introduced as one of the ill-thought out acts of constitutional vandalism he called "modernization" by Blair - the man who took us into a war on the strength of lies. It is not fit for purpose and never was. If it survives it will be because it is useful to politicians rather than because it is a safeguard to the electorate.

Bollax or truth Mr Kerr?

[animallittle3]

The supreme court is not part of our ancient constitution - it was recently introduced as one of the ill-thought out acts of constitutional vandalism he called "modernization" by Blair - the man who took us into a war on the strength of lies. It is not fit for purpose and never was. If it survives it will be because it is useful to politicians rather than because it is a safeguard to the electorate.

It's not fit for purpose but shutting down parliament given the country is facing its biggest crisis is perfectly fine .

Give over , save the Blair straw man line whilst you are at it .

[vaterland_miller]

No Rolymiller, you have your facts wrong if you are talking about opinion polls. In the UK we are not yet governed by opinion polls. The majority that matters is the one in the official referendum. No one knows what would be the outcome of another referendum were we (heaven forbid) to have one. The referendum was required by a bill that was passed by both houses. The government of the day agreed to implement the democratic decision of the referendum. Article 50 (with the clearly stated time scale) was invoked via a bill passed by both houses. Therefore Brexit is the will of parliament and it became the job of the government to get the best deal possible. If no deal was possible, the effect of invoking article 50 was that we would leave the EU without a deal. If parliament doesn't have confidence in the government, it should have called for a general election via a vote of no confidence - that is how it works in our ancient and successful constitution.

[rolymiller]

2 things

1: you srill don't take account of more than a quarter of the electorate not voting at all at the referendum when you talk of treason. The biggest majoriy of the electorate did not want to leave ie the remainers plus non voters against the leavers. I didn't vote myself but I certainly didn't want to leave under the tory party. Maybe others thought the same who didn't vote. If we left even now under the tories I would be pissed off. Then you might say why not vote remain. I didn't want to do that either i wanted more choice. I feel I had a right to a further choice because to me it wasnt a binary option.The referendum was flawed as far as I'm concerned and it could be that a quarter of the electorate agreed with me.

2. The ruling by the supreme court was made at a time when more people are for remain than leave.

Times have changed since the referendum. The referendum was 3 years ago. Things have moved on. Voting intentions have changed. THe world is a different place. It is stupid to base the will of the people now on something that happened 3 years go.