Menu
Sister Sites

  • How a Hairdresser’s Lawsuit Could Spell Trouble for Brexit

    From bloomberg.com

    In the hall of London’s Inner Temple, a grand dining chamber with stained-glass windows and coats of arms adorning the walls, 300 lawyers assembled to complain about Britain’s exit from the European Union. "The world has effectively been turned upside down," said former attorney general Dominic Grieve. The campaign in favor of leaving was "the constitutional equivalent of crimes against humanity," remarked Richard Gordon, a barrister at Brick Court Chambers. When the speakers asked if anyone in the room had anything more positive to say, there was silence. Like that audience at the Inner Temple last month, ... (full story)

I would suggest these lawyers stop grand standing and look at Turkey and their "Failed Coup" against a democratically voted government. They are now thinking about bringing in the Death penalty. The action of this hairdresser and lawyers is the same as the coup leaders. They are the ones who are trying to overthrow a Democratically voted decision by the people of Great Britain. I would suggest that they and thier backers be held for Treason.
In the up coming Ashes series, every time an English batsman is told "you're out" perhaps we are now saying they should stage a sit in at the wicket, call a lawyer and waste the courts time ?

Sure , if people want to argue against a democratic vote fine, take it to court fine, but lose, they need to pay the Bill.....

You lost, shut up, get on with it ... Simple !!
The world is one way but appear another way and is still perceived a different way by the interpreter.

Concrete fact.

Enough said.
Quoting NewtonsCash
In the up coming Ashes series, every time an English batsman is told "you're out" perhaps we are now saying they should stage a sit in at the wicket, call a lawyer and waste the courts time ?

Sure , if people want to argue against a democratic vote fine, take it to court fine, but lose, they need to pay the Bill.....

You lost, shut up, get on with it ... Simple !!
What exactly is democratic about a referendum that was advisory only and not one person who voted knows exactly what they were voting for as detailed negotiations must occur first before Brexit. Add to that all the lies and deceipt from the Brexiteers and Remain’s Osborne and it now being forced down the throats of the 63% of eligible voters who did not vote for Brexit?

If that’s democracy they can shove it where the sun don’t shine!
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
Quoting theras2000
What exactly is democratic about a referendum that was advisory only and not one person who voted knows exactly what they were voting for as detailed negotiations must occur first before Brexit. Add to that all the lies and deceipt from the Brexiteers and Remain’s Osborne and it now being forced down the throats of the 63% of eligible voters who did not vote for Brexit?

If that’s democracy they can shove it where the sun don’t shine!
See.. sore loser's abound
Quoting Sniper2000
I would suggest these lawyers stop grand standing and look at Turkey and their "Failed Coup" against a democratically voted government. They are now thinking about bringing in the Death penalty. The action of this hairdresser and lawyers is the same as the coup leaders. They are the ones who are trying to overthrow a Democratically voted decision by the people of Great Britain. I would suggest that they and thier backers be held for Treason.
On the contrary. They are trying to uphold democratic principles. I've said this before, but it bears repeating – the result of the Brexit referendum vote is NOT legally binding on Parliament, and was undertaken on this basis. If the UK Prime Minister seeks to unilaterally invoke Article 50, that is to say, without putting it to a parliamentary vote, she will be putting herself above the will of Parliament and setting herself up as, in effect, a dictator, setting the stage for a monumental constitutional crisis.

Furthermore, since membership of the EU (or the EEC as it was known then) was ratified by an Act of Parliament –The European Communities Act 1972 – a further Act of Parliament will be required to repeal the former Act and give effect to the UK's exit from the EU, and since we know that a majority of MP's of all parties and a majority of the House of Lords were/are in favour of Bremain, what are the chances of getting such a Bill passed by both houses?

I voted in favour of Brexit, so I don't have an axe to grind. I just don't want to see democracy brushed aside in the name of expediency. The referendum was undertaken in indecent haste without the careful consideration it was due.

The UK's exit from the EU should be rigorously subject to the full democratic process. Anything less than this would be setting an extremely dangerous precedent.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
Quoting NewtonsCash
See.. sore loser's abound
Didn't think you could answer my question. And I was correct.
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
Quoting theras2000
What exactly is democratic about a referendum that was advisory only and not one person who voted knows exactly what they were voting for as detailed negotiations must occur first before Brexit. Add to that all the lies and deceipt from the Brexiteers and Remain’s Osborne and it now being forced down the throats of the 63% of eligible voters who did not vote for Brexit?

If that’s democracy they can shove it where the sun don’t shine!
The real lies and deceit are in article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty and items 6 and 7 in particular. You might want to consider that when considering the EU to be a democratic institution, something that the Remain campaign continually professed. This gives the EU the power to change any or all parts of the treaty without reference to the citizens or even the parliament. It is a self amending clause http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html
Quoting Devauxt
The real lies and deceit are in article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty and items 6 and 7 in particular. You might want to consider that when considering the EU to be a democratic institution, something that the Remain campaign continually professed. This gives the EU the power to change any or all parts of the treaty without reference to the citizens or even the parliament. It is a self amending clause http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...rticle-48.html
I have never said that that I consider the EU to be a totally democratic institution. Though of course it should be.

I am certainly not an expert on EU treaty etc, but I would have thought that this quote from Section 6 from your link "That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements." would contradict what you say above "This gives the EU the power to change any or all parts of the treaty without reference to the citizens or even the parliament"
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
Quoting theras2000
I have never said that that I consider the EU to be a totally democratic institution. Though of course it should be.

I am certainly not an expert on EU treaty etc, but I would have thought that this quote from Section 6 from your link "That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements." would contradict what you say above "This gives the EU the power to change any or all parts of the treaty without reference to the citizens or even the parliament"...
You would think so, but apparently not.
Quoting Devauxt
You would think so, but apparently not.
"Apparently not" According to who? You?
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
Quoting Sniper2000
I would suggest these lawyers stop grand standing and look at Turkey and their "Failed Coup" against a democratically voted government. They are now thinking about bringing in the Death penalty. The action of this hairdresser and lawyers is the same as the coup leaders. They are the ones who are trying to overthrow a Democratically voted decision by the people of Great Britain. I would suggest that they and thier backers be held for Treason.
Let me get this straight. You are comparing potential legal action by professionals to ensure that invoking Article 50 is legal and therefore democratic to a military coup where 265 people lost their lives! What a farcical comparison, what planet are you living on?

Quoting CloudRider
On the contrary. They are trying to uphold democratic principles. I've said this before, but it bears repeating – the result of the Brexit referendum vote is NOT legally binding on Parliament, and was undertaken on this basis. If the UK Prime Minister seeks to unilaterally invoke Article 50, that is to say, without putting it to a parliamentary vote, she will be putting herself above the will of Parliament and setting herself up as, in effect, a dictator, setting the stage for a monumental constitutional crisis.

Furthermore, since membership...
Finally some sense from a Brexiteer. Thank you.
You raise a very valid point. How can The Prime Minister invoke Article 50 from an advisory only referendum without a vote in parliament? That is not democratic, it is straight out of the Idi Amin handbook on dictatorship.
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
Quoting theras2000
"Apparently not" According to who? You?
I'm not that up on my EU law, but these are some of the people who would know a lot more than I would. It is only a very small sample. But if you google "Article 48 lisbon treaty self amending" or derivatives of that you will see plenty of more qualified opinion on the matter

Damian Chalmers, professor of European Union Law at the London School of Economics and head of the European Institute

Sinn Féin Dublin MEP Mary Lou McDonald has described claims by media commentators that the Lisbon Treaty does not allow the European Commission or Council to increase and extend its own powers without the need for referendum as false. The Dublin MEP said “the Lisbon Treaty does contain a self amending clause, it’s called Article 48.”

The treaty contains an article, sometimes referred to as a "ratchet clause", allowing member states to agree that decisions currently taken only by means of a unanimous vote, can in future be taken by a mere majority vote (though this is ruled out in the area of defence). It also contains provisions allowing the objectives of most EU policies to be amended. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6928737.stm

Article 48 of Lisbon allows the EU to amend the Treaty without a referendum
or vote by a national parliament or the European Parliament. Amendments must
be ratified by member states according to their respective constitutional
requirements.
http://uk.politics.misc.narkive.com/Z0D5Gk2X/crotty-and-the-self-amending-lisbon-treaty
Quoting theras2000
Didn't think you could answer my question. And I was correct.
Didn't bother , don't have too , you guys lost....
Quoting theras2000
...Finally some sense from a Brexiteer. Thank you.
You're welcome.

Although I have a vested interest in Brexit, I have no desire whatsoever to see it achieved at the expense of the democratic process. That would be a slippery slope indeed! It could, of course, result in Brexit being dead in the water at some future date, but at least the full rigour of the democratic process will have been applied.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
Quoting Devauxt
Sinn Féin Dublin MEP Mary Lou McDonald has described claims by media commentators that the Lisbon Treaty does not allow the European Commission or Council to increase and extend its own powers without the need for referendum as false. The Dublin MEP said “the Lisbon Treaty does contain a self amending clause, it’s called Article 48.”
Sin Fein isn't that the Irish terrie party who supports the IRA ?
Quoting Devauxt
I'm not that up on my EU law, but these are some of the people who would know a lot more than I would. It is only a very small sample. But if you google "Article 48 lisbon treaty self amending" or derivatives of that you will see plenty of more qualified opinion on the matter

Damian Chalmers, professor of European Union Law at the London School of Economics and head of the European Institute

Sinn Féin Dublin MEP Mary Lou McDonald has described claims by media commentators that the Lisbon Treaty does not allow the European Commission or Council...
I might be wrong but I assume from this quote from your BBC link,
"There are two important caveats: member states would still have to take the decision unanimously, just as they would at an IGC; and all national parliaments would have to approve."
that for EU decisions currently taken only by means of a unanimous vote, can in future be taken by a mere majority vote if there is unanimous agreement from the member states in the first place. Presumably if this is correct it would be for minor decisions. ie Defense is specifically excluded from this.
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
Wow, the Bremain idiots are really desperate - they're pinning their hopes on a hairdresser?
What a bunch of pathetic LOSERS!!
Screw the EU!! Tell the pencil-neck paper-pushers in Brussels exactly where they can go.

Rule Britannia!
Quoting gravitist
Wow, the Bremain idiots are really desperate - they're pinning their hopes on a hairdresser?
What a bunch of pathetic LOSERS!!
ROFL
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
Quoting theras2000
I might be wrong but I assume from this quote from your BBC link,
"There are two important caveats: member states would still have to take the decision unanimously, just as they would at an IGC; and all national parliaments would have to approve."
that for EU decisions currently taken only by means of a unanimous vote, can in future be taken by a mere majority vote if there is unanimous agreement from the member states in the first place. Presumably if this is correct it would be for minor decisions. ie Defense is specifically excluded from this....
I have a view based on the research I have carried out. I'll leave it to you to form your own opinion.
Quoting gravitist
Screw the EU!! Tell the pencil-neck paper-pushers in Brussels exactly where they can go.

Rule Britannia!
Huzzah !!
Quoting Devauxt
The real lies and deceit are in article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty and items 6 and 7 in particular. You might want to consider that when considering the EU to be a democratic institution, something that the Remain campaign continually professed. This gives the EU the power to change any or all parts of the treaty without reference to the citizens or even the parliament. It is a self amending clause http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...rticle-48.html
Correct! Out is OUT! If you want a revolution on your hands, try and weasel out of the decision. This time the elite will not be spared and they know it.
  •  Guest
  • | IP XXX.XXX.13.225
does no one else think, historically Britain has been slightly more democratic than the european nations [ thinking of magna carta ,cromwell etc.]. and that maybe there is still a bit of wisdom in the populace that can see it should be better to leave a flailing, rather disconnected political experiment [I'm being polite !, when it comes to bureaucracy ,bigger is never better ]. I expect Britain to do rather better out than in.
Britain has taken twice "democratic" Europe from a bloody war, and they paid for it with millions of lives. This time they decided to leave Europe to stifle in his own piece of shit.
perhaps my English is not perfect - but I know the Jungle
The constitutional and legal reality of the brexit referendum is that it was and is no more than an opinion poll. The result we now see was deeply influenced by widespread ignorance of both issues and consequences, a pathologically disingenuous campaign led by probably the most extraordinarily disreputable bunch of liers, and wasters our country has seen since Oswald Mosley.

@macdon "If you want a revolution on your hands, try and weasle out of the decision"
I though civilization was about the Rule of Law?
Sounds to me like treason.
Quoting SickOfScam
Britain has taken twice "democratic" Europe from a bloody war, and they paid for it with millions of lives. This time they decided to leave Europe to stifle in his own piece of shit.
Thanks for the Figi vote. Whats your interest in UK? Are you just another Troll-Mole? Or is your "sickofscam" FF identity another scam?
Quoting cliffedwards
Thanks for the Figi vote. Whats your interest in UK? Or are you just another Troll-Mole?
You just need to look a little further away from your little dick,nick Trully
perhaps my English is not perfect - but I know the Jungle
Quoting cliffedwards
The constitutional and legal reality of the brexit referendum is that it was and is no more than an opinion poll. The result we now see was deeply influenced by widespread ignorance of both issues and consequences, a pathologically disingenuous campaign led by probably the most extraordinarily disreputable bunch of liars, and wasters our country has seen since Oswald Mosley.
Even though I voted for Brexit, I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with everything you say. I had my reasons for voting the way I did, arising out of a long held view, and I was not influenced one jot by the rabble rousers on either side of the argument.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
Quoting CloudRider
Even though I voted for Brexit, I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with everything you say. I had my reasons for voting the way I did, arising out of a long held view, and I was not influenced one jot by the rabble rousers on either side of the argument.
My fullest respect for a perfectly justified personal decision..
There is no black and white in these matters.
I hope your interests are served in the outcome. Cheers.
When the will of the people is ignored it eventually leads to revolution.
Quoting gat
When the will of the people is ignored it eventually leads to revolution.
Unbelievable..
You actually believe that the the result of an advisory referendum, which was won by a relatively small majority , which research is now revealing didnt have a clue what either the issue or the consequences were about? A result achieved without proportional participation of younger voters, represents a cause of "Revolution"..
WTF..
The "Will of the People"?
" Revolution" ?
I think you mean Civil War, and the breakup of the Union?
Great result ..that?
Come on Cliff, at least you will not be swamped with all this Chinese shit like the rest of EU.
perhaps my English is not perfect - but I know the Jungle
[quote=cliffedwards;9074391]Unbelievable..
You actually believe that the the result of an advisory referendum, which was won by a relatively small majority , which research is now revealing didnt have a clue what either the issue or the consequences were about? A result achieved without proportional participation of younger voters, represents a cause of "Revolution"..

Like all elections it was a vote of the folks that pitched up, the Brexit crowd were / are a lot more fired up and passionate about many, many issues.. most of which seem to have to do with the various scams the "Eton Mess" were running in cabinet. Some, quite rightly the vast problems associated with totally un-controlled immigration, many with Globalisation and it's disgusting effects on wages and jobs. Personally I love Europe but can't stand the idiots in charge , either political or banking. We've already got a perfectly efficient bunch of half wits in Westminster , I can see no reason why we should double up with even more in Brussels.

Anyways, the public have spoken and which ever way we slice it they have voted for change, 6 weeks after the vote many are now getting hot under the collar re. Article 50. Quite rightly, May will be "Out on 'er ear by the End of the year" if she thinks she can drag her "very classy" heals
Yes Cliff, like the breakup of the USSR. Or like the French Revolution - hopefully w/o Dr. Guillotine's invention. Rioting or violent revolution is not a good result but becomes necessary when suppression exceeds rational tolerance.

People are always unsophisticated in comparison to the slick sounding politicians. But that does not mean they are total idiots. People do understand when they are being ignored and their self interest being sold out. Brexit was hardly a back burner issue. The Brits rejected all the fear mongering thrown at them. It is the elites v the common man. Brexit is more freedom and self determination with closer representation.
Quoting gat
Yes Cliff, like the breakup of the USSR. Or like the French Revolution - hopefully w/o Dr. Guillotine's invention. Rioting or violent revolution is not a good result but becomes necessary when suppression exceeds rational tolerance.

People are always unsophisticated in comparison to the slick sounding politicians. But that does not mean they are total idiots. People do understand when they are being ignored and their self interest being sold out. Brexit was hardly a back burner issue. The Brits rejected all the fear mongering thrown...
So.. according to @gat .. the frustration of the advisory EU referendum if not pursued to its conclusion, (whatever that is?.. anyone know?) is going to justify a Revolution and more realistically, if your plugged into this bizarre extremist narrative? Then CIVIL WAR?

Is this on NETFLIX?
Quoting NewtonsCash
Quoting cliffedwards
Unbelievable..
You actually believe that the the result of an advisory referendum, which was won by a relatively small majority , which research is now revealing didnt have a clue what either the issue or the consequences were about? A result achieved without proportional participation of younger voters, represents a cause of "Revolution"..

Like all elections it was a vote of the folks that pitched up, the Brexit crowd were / are a lot more fired up and passionate about many, many issues.. most of which seem to have
...
You have no idea? do you? Of whats involved here.
Article 50? You know why its not been triggered? Because the UK, OUR country, has NOBODY capable of even the basics of International Trade negotiation.
The EU will line up over 500 experienced guys. The UK couldnt negotiate a "Piss-up in a Brewery"

"The People have Spoken"??
And WTF HAVE the "People" said. What IS BREXIT??
Leaving the EU? Like Norway, paying the fees, and allowing free movement?
That would be BREXIT? Yeah? Is THAT what "the People spoke?
Or maybe , cutting all ties, and going down the WTO "independent nation route?
That would be BREXIT? Yeah? Is that what "the People spoke.".?

So WHICH IS IT?
This advisory referendum asked a stupid question on a subject of a complexity way above the Pay-Grade of 90% of the voters, and boy, did they get a predictably stupid answer.
Is your bewilderment real of phony? With just a bit of imagination Brexit makes the British government more concerned with British people instead of the globalist agenda. Less immigration by enemies, more jobs, more self sufficiency, less pounds sent to wherever the EU decides.

Perhaps people will be dullards satisfied with the freedom of serfs. Elites have been moving governments that way.
Quoting cliffedwards
So.. according to @gat .. the frustration of the advisory EU referendum if not pursued to its conclusion, (whatever that is?.. anyone know?) is going to justify a Revolution and more realistically, if your plugged into this bizarre extremist narrative? Then CIVIL WAR?
This narrative is ludicrous! It is widely acknowledged that a significant proportion of those who voted for Brexit, not fully understanding the issues involved, or the consequences, and expecting the Bremain vote to win by a significant margin, used their vote as a protest vote to kick the political elite in the teeth! In this they succeeded magnificently, but they've had their protest, and it's business as usual. Revolution? Civil war? I don't think so! Many of those protest voters are on record as saying that if there was a re-run of the referendum, they would vote the other way!

Quoting cliffedwards
...if not pursued to its conclusion, (whatever that is?.. anyone know?)...
I don't think anyone knows! However, if the full rigour of the democratic process is brought to bear, I think there is a significant risk that ultimately, Brexit may NOT take place. And I say that advisedly, as someone who voted for Brexit.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
Quoting CloudRider
This narrative is ludicrous! It is widely acknowledged that a significant proportion of those who voted for Brexit, not fully understanding the issues involved, or the consequences, and expecting the Bremain vote to win by a significant margin, used their vote as a protest vote to kick the political elite in the teeth! In this they succeeded magnificently, but they've had their protest, and it's business as usual. Revolution? Civil war? I don't think so! Many of those protest voters are on record as saying that if there was a re-run of the referendum,...
Sorry @cloudrider.. my INTENTION was to highlight the ridiculousness of this narrative.. If you read the posts to which it was addressed that will become clear?
I totally agree with you.
Forget about that hairdresser Norway going to troll the splitters.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-article-50-theresa-may-britain-2016-8
Quoting cliffedwards
...my INTENTION was to highlight the ridiculousness of this narrative...
Yes, I was fully aware of your intention. I was just trying to back you up! My apologies if I didn't make that clear.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
Quoting gat
.. Brexit makes the British government more concerned with British people instead of the globalist agenda....
Quotation from Article by Boris Johnson in the Daily Telegraph, 6 months ago.

"Leaving would embroil the Government for several (sic) years of negotiating new arrangements , so diverting energy from the real problems of this country."

That sound like what you suggest?
The United Kingdom general election of 2015 on 7 May 2015 elected the 56th Parliament of the United Kingdom.

The MPs elected were and still are overwhelmingly anti-Brexit.

The thing I dont understand is that IF the leaving of the EU were SUCH a HUGH issue for our electorate.. HOW did they vote in a parliament with such overwhelmingly contrary views to what has been described here as the "Will of the People"??
Quoting cliffedwards
...The thing I don't understand is that IF the leaving of the EU were SUCH a HUGH issue for our electorate.. HOW did they vote in a parliament with such overwhelmingly contrary views to what has been described here as the "Will of the People"??
Ah Ha! That's the $64,000 question!

As I see it, Cameron was facing a rebellion by euro-sceptic back benchers, and some on the front bench too, so he offered an 'in/out' referendum for one reason and one reason only – to try and quell the rebellion, complacently thinking that there would unquestionably be a decisive majority in favour of 'in' and he completely misjudged the groundswell of public opinion in favour of 'out' for whatever reasons, and the other political parties were offering no alternative.

He had already announced his intention of standing down as PM at the end of this current parliament and I think he envisioned his legacy as being 'the man who kept the UK in a reformed (what a joke!) EU' but it backfired on him big time.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
That kind of reinforces the view that the whole thing was a big PROTEST vote, more perhaps to do with our own domestic UK political dissatisfaction than with outside issues?
As I think youve suggested and current in-progress research is showing indications of.
Absolutely! You've hit the nail on the head!
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
Quoting cliffedwards
That kind of reinforces the view that the whole thing was a big PROTEST vote, more perhaps to do with our own domestic UK political dissatisfaction than with outside issues?
As I think youve suggested and current in-progress research is showing indications of.
Looks Like I missed a lot on this news item today!
I agree about the PROTEST vote idea. And I have no doubt that places like Sunderland (one of the most deprived areas in UK) who voted overwhelmingly for Brexit that many voters used their vote as a protest against Cameron and Osborne’s austerity policies which seemed to increase the wealth of the “toffs” at the expense of the “working man.”

I hope for their sake companies like Nissan (55% of the vehicles they produce are exported to EU) don’t decide to take their plant elsewhere. Analysts have stated that there is a 75% chance that Toyota and Honda will eventually pull out of the UK if the EU imposes a levy on cars made in UK.

Who will they protest too then! Maybe according to gat and Macdon they will start a “revolution”
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
Quoting cliffedwards
That kind of reinforces the view that the whole thing was a big PROTEST vote, more perhaps to do with our own domestic UK political dissatisfaction than with outside issues?
As I think youve suggested and current in-progress research is showing indications of.
Just seen an interesting Guardian article from Faisal Islam.
I feel sorry for Shirley in the article. Still mistakenly believes the NHS is going to get £350M a week extra when Brexit actually happens. Poor deluded soul.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/09/post-brexit-sunderland-if-this-money-doesnt-go-to-the-nhs-i-will-go-mad
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
Quoting cliffedwards
Quotation from Article by Boris Johnson in the Daily Telegraph, 6 months ago.

"Leaving would embroil the Government for several (sic) years of negotiating new arrangements , so diverting energy from the real problems of this country."

That sound like what you suggest?
I can hear the gnashing of teeth all the way over here. It was not all that long ago lil ol' England ruled the world but sadly now, having gone socialist, the expectation is incapability to perform the basic functions of government. But wait, isn't that why socialism is supposed to be so great? Because government can do what people and business can't? I think the British people can find enough representatives with capability and the spine to negotiate better deals.

Quoting cliffedwards
The United Kingdom general election of 2015 on 7 May 2015 elected the 56th Parliament of the United Kingdom.

The MPs elected were and still are overwhelmingly anti-Brexit.

The thing I dont understand is that IF the leaving of the EU were SUCH a HUGH issue for our electorate.. HOW did they vote in a parliament with such overwhelmingly contrary views to what has been described here as the "Will of the People"??
Incumbents have a built in advantage. For some reason, perhaps seniority or committee positions, voters do not turn out their guy as often as they should. Also issues surge to the forefront in their own time. Immigration and Brexit became one. Muslims raping and killing as Muslims do focused the issue from my view here.
So WHICH IS IT?
This advisory referendum asked a stupid question on a subject of a complexity way above the Pay-Grade of 90% of the voters, and boy, did they get a predictably stupid answer.[/quote]

Wow, linking pay grade to intellect..... Einstein spent his whole life broke, Sir Isaac Newton lost all his money on the South Sea Bubble... they were about as bright as it gets.

Meantime, Mark Carney's raking it in at £600k per annum out of taxpayers hard earned and he's about as dim as a 1990's solar garden light.

The point anti Brexit folk don't get is this, if you are going to threaten that "if you vote Brexit" Bonds, Stocks and House prices will go down" you'd better make damn sure the majority of the country own Stocks, Bonds and Houses. Since most people own none of them outright , the people said "we don't care, Mr Osbourne if your trust fund paid for house in Notting Hill falls in value.

Since 2008 the Bank of England have been printing money and giving it, tax free to their friends , meantime working families have been trodden under foot with ridiculous rates of taxation, again no one bothered to consider the innequality that such heinous policy would unleash... well, the can of worms is open now and, happily , there is no going back.

As for people not being able to negotiate their own deals, maybe you don't know any but I know many great British businessmen happy to step up. If your example of someone capable of such negotiations is Carney, Osbourne or Cameron you're away with the fairies and best of luck with that
Quoting gat
I can hear the gnashing of teeth all the way over here. It was not all that long ago lil ol' England ruled the world but sadly now, having gone socialist, the expectation is incapability to perform the basic functions of government. But wait, isn't that why socialism is supposed to be so great? Because government can do what people and business can't? I think the British people can find enough representatives with capability and the spine to negotiate better deals.



Incumbents have a built in advantage. For some reason, perhaps seniority...
"Muslims raping and killing as Muslims do focused the issue from my view here."
Wow, says it all really, (about you)!
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
At least you quoted and presumably read my entire comment. The selected line says it all about a 1400 year history. Noting the truth is not being prejudiced. From the Brexit news here that is what focused the vote.
Quoting cliffedwards
@macdon "If you want a revolution on your hands, try and weasle out of the decision"
I though civilization was about the Rule of Law?
Sounds to me like treason.
Power comes out of the barrel of gun.

If you talk about Rule of Law then bring back the 200+ capital offences of Victorian England. That was law. Bring back the White Australia Policy. That was law. Weasel lawyers had no effect in changing those laws. It was the will of the masses of people.

Quoting cliffedwards
Unbelievable..
You actually believe that the the result of an advisory referendum, which was won by a relatively small majority?
That's the point that you don't seem to understand - IT WAS WON by MORE PEOPLE than it was LOST! Break this covenant and you will have revolution or civil war if you like.
Quoting Macdon
Power comes out of the barrel of gun.
Do you have any idea of how inappropriate this comment is in the context of a forum dedicated to largely amateur currency speculation? Where the discussion relates to the economic outcomes of political policy?

Quoting Macdon
If you talk about Rule of Law then bring back the 200+ capital offences of Victorian England. That was law. Bring back the White Australia Policy. That was law. Weasel lawyers had no effect in changing those laws. It was the will of the masses of people.
Or any idea of how inaccurate your assertions are?
-You quote "White Australia Policy"? Effectively dismantled by the Holt Government in 1966? Do you even KNOW Holts profession and background? Yes. A Lawer.
-The Death Penalty, (capital Punishment) was only finally abolished in 1998, by the UKs compliance with the European Convention on Human rights?? (One of those pesky EU regulations IMPOSED on the UK by the EU, and which can be now binned??


Quoting Macdon
That's the point that you don't seem to understand - IT WAS WON by MORE PEOPLE than it was LOST! Break this covenant and you will have revolution or civil war if you like.
WHAT was "WON by More People"? The UK referendum asked a stupid question and got a stupid answer.
Thats the problem.. Everybody knew broadly what a STAY vote would mean.. stability in a highly unstable economic world and a continuing struggle for incremental reform..
NOBODY knew or knows now what Brexit means. I venture to suggest that that was obvious to most intelligent people before the vote. And even that many REMAIN voters were and are unhappy with certain aspects of our EU membership, but voted REMAIN specifically because of this ambiguity? And the political and economic chaos they knew it would bring?? It was in many ways a trick question that Cameron thought most smart people would spot.. but unfortunately a majority didnt.
So much for democracy.
This 'discussion' is getting out of hand. Repeated comments about revolution, civil war and 'power coming from the barrel of a gun' are inappropriate and irresponsible and could be construed as incitement to violence. Where are the moderators?
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
Quoting cliffedwards
WHAT was "WON by More People"? The UK referendum asked a stupid question and got a stupid answer.
Thats the problem.. Everybody knew broadly what a STAY vote would mean.. stability in a highly unstable economic world and a continuing struggle for incremental reform..
NOBODY knew or knows now what Brexit means. I venture to suggest that that was obvious to most intelligent people before the vote. And even that many REMAIN voters were and are unhappy with certain aspects of our EU membership, but voted REMAIN specifically because of this ambiguity?...
On the contrary, the referendum question was perfectly reasonable with a perfectly reasonable and unambiguous answer. For those who voted to leave, they saw huge amounts of uncertainty in remaining in the EU. You say that Brexit brought ambiguity and Remain offered stability. What a joke.

The electorate were concerned about continued loss of sovereignty, loss of democracy, increased and uncontrolled migration, increased diktats from the EU courts, increased EU bureaucracy, increased contributions to the EU budget, less say in the running of the EU, EU expansion and increased instability in the EURO zone.

Neither the EU nor the government satisfied the electorate on these concerns. That is the reason for the outcome, pure and simple. Where were the EU elite in all of this? Where are their answers to these concerns? This referendum was all about the EU and very little to do with UK politics.
Quoting CloudRider
This 'discussion' is getting out of hand. Repeated comments about revolution, civil war and 'power coming from the barrel of a gun' are inappropriate and irresponsible and could be construed as incitement to violence. Where are the moderators?
Couldnt agree more.
Quoting CloudRider
This 'discussion' is getting out of hand. Repeated comments about revolution, civil war and 'power coming from the barrel of a gun' are inappropriate and irresponsible and could be construed as incitement to violence. Where are the moderators?
Well said CloudRider. The moderators drop the ball quite frequently when it suits them. You could try hitting the Cleanup button but you would probably be wasting your time.

Many of these people posting on this news item are Trump supporters. Unfortunately Trump sets examples to his “sheep” followers like this. “Second Amendment People” could stop Clinton.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
Quoting NewtonsCash
... As for people not being able to negotiate their own (Trade Deals/Brexit Deals) deals, maybe you don't know any but I know many great British businessmen happy to step up. If your example of someone capable of such negotiations is Carney, Osbourne or Cameron you're away with the fairies and best of luck with that
To suggest that International Trade Negotiation, and particularly a job as unprecedentedly complicated as negotiating Brexit, (never mind all these NEW deals we are going to allegedly get from China/US/Australia/India etc ??) and will require a huge team with very very specialist skills and experience, can be undertaken by some "great British businessmen (you know?)"? shows a complete unawareness of whats involved here..
"Carney? Cameron? Osbourne? What ARE you talking about? The people Im referring to are legal and financial professionals whos names you have never heard of.
And like Carney, ("about as dim as a 1990's solar garden light"?? Your words?)will almost certainly be NonUK "migrants" .. LoL

Example Link: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-trade-idUKKCN0ZK0L6

FYI..The EU currently has existing PTAs with 52 countries, and it is negotiating trade agreements with another 72 countries. In case of Brexit, the UK would therefore need to re-negotiate or start new bilateral negotiations on 124 trade agreements, plus one additional trade agreement re-defining its own trade status as a third country vis-à-vis the EU.
Quoting theras2000
Well said CloudRider. The moderators drop the ball quite frequently when it suits them. You could try hitting the Cleanup button but you would probably be wasting your time.
Bit harsh gentlemen.
Been here over 10 years and IMHO FF Mods normally do a good job.
.. and "Cleanup" usually works. This Brexit subject and the Trump candidacy do represent unusual, ongoing "Heat over Light" challenges.
Meanwhile bond holders refuse to sell.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/aug/10/uk-gilt-yields-hit-record-lows-after-bank-of-england-bond-buying-failure-business-live
Had the result been Remain then no doubt I expect we would be hearing how the people of were well informed, educated on their choice and made the right choice.

Yet as the result was a Brexit then everyone was ill-informed, duped and betrayed. You have to laugh.

Then we have the poor hard done by younger voters. These poor deprived 'apparent adults' were betrayed by their elders and left to rot on a useless island!

Oh hang on let's see, yup only about 36% of the younger voters could be bothered to vote... 67% could not be arsed to turn up, yet they were betrayed.
However apparently large numbers of them could be bothered to vote on a silly petition to change the vote! No doubt that was because they could do this on facebook and didn't have to be bothered to get to their local polling booth. And now of course, they would be to busy playing Pokemon to participate so another referendum would be futile.
Quoting courtneywild
Had the result been Remain then no doubt I expect we would be hearing how the people of were well informed, educated on their choice and made the right choice.

Yet as the result was a Brexit then everyone was ill-informed, duped and betrayed. You have to laugh.
Have a laugh at this one..
As a result of Brexit our country has been put in a position where it will have to re-negotiate or start new bilateral negotiations on 124 trade agreements, plus one additional trade agreement re-defining its own trade status as a third country vis-à-vis the EU. With a Government and Civil Service with NO experience of Trade Negotiations.
Im not laughing.
IMHO the Boris/Gove/Farage Troike have walked us into a mess of monumental proportions.
Quoting cliffedwards
Have a laugh at this one..
As a result of Brexit our country has been put in a position where it will have to re-negotiate or start new bilateral negotiations on 124 trade agreements, plus one additional trade agreement re-defining its own trade status as a third country vis-à-vis the EU. With a Government and Civil Service with NO experience of Trade Negotiations.
Im not laughing.
IMHO the Boris/Gove/Farage Troike have walked us into a mess of monumental proportions.

Having the government /civil service get off their arse to do some real work and forcing them to hire skilled negotiating resource is preferable to a lifetime of subservience to the EU
Quoting cliffedwards
Have a laugh at this one..
As a result of Brexit our country has been put in a position where it will have to re-negotiate or start new bilateral negotiations on 124 trade agreements, plus one additional trade agreement re-defining its own trade status as a third country vis-à-vis the EU. With a Government and Civil Service with NO experience of Trade Negotiations.
Im not laughing.
IMHO the Boris/Gove/Farage Troike have walked us into a mess of monumental proportions.
Oh I'm not laughing about that and what this will mean and take...
No doubt about it, it will be one hell of a lot of work but you know... we could pull it off. My point is the pathetic ramblings of the apparent hard done by.
Anyhow I don't think there will be an exit. There will be another much more 'well-informed' vote in about a years time after the media has softened the population up enough.
Quoting courtneywild
Anyhow I don't think there will be an exit. There will be another much more well-informed vote in about a years time after the media has softened the population up enough.
Or the decline in all things economic does the media's job for them ?
Quoting courtneywild
...Anyhow I don't think there will be an exit. There will be another much more 'well-informed' vote in about a years time after the media has softened the population up enough.
I'm inclined to agree with you. Even though I voted for Brexit, I've thought right from the beginning that, utimately, it won't happen.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
If an Act of parliament brought us in, an act of parliament should take us out.

If the original referendum in 1975 was intended to be acted upon, then the 2016 election should be acted upon.

If you aren't going to abide by the rules of a referendum, then why call it in the first place?

There is a lot of talk about parliament blocking a Leave, but if the government is not there to serve the will of the people, who is it serving?

We need a codified constitution in this country to put all the above issues to rest. It is inconceivable that the democratic will of the people is somehow ignored.
Quoting verv
If an Act of parliament brought us in, an act of parliament should take us out.
Agreed

Quoting verv
If you aren't going to abide by the rules of a referendum, then why call it in the first place?
According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, the definition of a referendum is:-

"A vote in which all the people in a country are asked TO GIVE THEIR OPINION"

In other words, it is no more than an opinion poll and is therefore NOT legally binding on the government, as has been said on several occasions in this discussion. That is the only "rule" that applies to a referendum.

Quoting verv
If the original referendum in 1975 was intended to be acted upon, then the 2016 election should be acted upon.
It was clearly stated at the time that the referendum was advisory only, would not be legally binding on the government, and may not necessarily be acted upon. As it turned out, the plebiscite vote was in favour of the status quo anyway.

Quoting verv
There is a lot of talk about parliament blocking a Leave, but if the government is not there to serve the will of the people, who is it serving?
Our constitution rests on the notion of 'the Queen in parliament' and our MP's are representatives of the people, NOT delegates and are therefore required to vote according to their own consciences, which may be at odds with the will of the people. There have been many such examples in our history, but to quote just one, the parliamentary vote to abolish the death penalty was at odds with the will of the people.

Quoting verv
...It is inconceivable that the democratic will of the people is somehow ignored.
I don't think it is being ignored. The government are clearly moving towards an exit. Informal exploratory talks are currently taking place, prior to invoking Article 50, and I think this is the right approach, as it gives time for all the hotheads (think Hollande here) to cool down. However, when the terms of our exit have been finally agreed in principle and are put to a parliamentary vote, if the terms are seen to be NOT in the best interests of the country as a whole, I would expect Parliament to ditch Brexit.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
Quoting CloudRider
Agreed



According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, the definition of a referendum is:-

"A vote in which all the people in a country are asked TO GIVE THEIR OPINION"

In other words, it is no more than an opinion poll and is therefore NOT legally binding on the government, as has been said on several occasions in this discussion. That is the only "rule" that applies to a referendum.



It was clearly stated at the time that the referendum was advisory only, would not be legally binding on the government, and may not necessarily...
I don't think it is being ignored either, I think it looks certain that we will exit, and that much of the headlines are just click bait.

Regarding your other reasons,i.e. referendum not legally binding, parliament blocking exit - this is why our constitution needs codified. These grey areas need tending to, that's my point.

Regarding the specific comparison to the death penalty. I think the two issues are clearly different. The gov. (imo) is there to serve the people, and it is constituted to protect liberty and life. I think a death penalty contradicts with that mission, i.e. if a gov. is constituted to protect liberty and life then how can it ever be allowed to take life (except through war) etc. That is clearly different from a referendum on our sovereignty.
Quoting verv
If an Act of parliament brought us in, an act of parliament should take us out.

If the original referendum in 1975 was intended to be acted upon, then the 2016 election should be acted upon.

If you aren't going to abide by the rules of a referendum, then why call it in the first place?

There is a lot of talk about parliament blocking a Leave, but if the government is not there to serve the will of the people, who is it serving?

We need a codified constitution in this country to put all the above issues to rest. It is inconceivable that...
Yes, that is the point I was going to make. The elites do not get to choose when votes count.

Re the need for 124 new agreements stop whining and get started once the exit is officially declared. It's not that hard since the frameworks are in place. Somehow your ancestors managed international agreements w/o computers and instant communications. Are you admitting to being less capable then they were?
Quoting gat
Re the need for 124 new agreements stop whining and get started once the exit is officially declared. It's not that hard since the frameworks are in place. Somehow your ancestors managed international agreements w/o computers and instant communications. Are you admitting to being less capable then they were?
Your ancestors didn't have to negotiate 124 new trade deals with 12 negotiators while countries know that the UK is desperate to get a deal which means that they can dictate an agreement.

Restore the power of the elites, ignore the plebs and everybody will be better off.
Quoting barkie
Your ancestors didn't have to negotiate 124 new trade deals with 12 negotiators while countries know that the UK is desperate to get a deal which means that they can dictate an agreement.

Restore the power of the elites, ignore the plebs and everybody will be better off.
Good afternoon my little UK hater. Other countries are as keen to negotiate deals with the UK as we are with them. Pretty even I would say so far
Quoting Devauxt
Good afternoon my little UK hater. Other countries are as keen to negotiate deals with the UK as we are with them. Pretty even I would say so far
lol you bet they want to "negotiate" a deal with the UK it will be the best deal they'll ever get. You don't get much chances to plunder another country.
Quoting barkie
lol you bet they want to "negotiate" a deal with the UK it will be the best deal they'll ever get. You don't get much chances to plunder another country.
Another barking comment from my little UK hater, but I don’t have the time or the crayons to explain "negotiate" to you.
Quoting cliffedwards
To suggest that International Trade Negotiation, and particularly a job as unprecedentedly complicated as negotiating Brexit, (never mind all these NEW deals we are going to allegedly get from China/US/Australia/India etc ??) and will require a huge team with very very specialist skills and experience, can be undertaken by some "great British businessmen (you know?)"? shows a complete unawareness of whats involved here..
"Carney? Cameron? Osbourne? What ARE you talking about? The people Im referring to are legal and financial professionals whos...
Hey Cliff, might be complex to you, to me , not so much
Quoting CloudRider
This 'discussion' is getting out of hand. Repeated comments about revolution, civil war and 'power coming from the barrel of a gun' are inappropriate and irresponsible and could be construed as incitement to violence. Where are the moderators?
Quoting courtneywild
Had the result been Remain then no doubt I expect we would be hearing how the people of were well informed, educated on their choice and made the right choice.

Yet as the result was a Brexit then everyone was ill-informed, duped and betrayed. You have to laugh.

Then we have the poor hard done by younger voters. These poor deprived 'apparent adults' were betrayed by their elders and left to rot on a useless island!

Oh hang on let's see, yup only about 36% of the younger voters could be bothered to vote... 67% could not be arsed to turn...
Like .... a Lot
Quoting cliffedwards
Have a laugh at this one..
As a result of Brexit our country has been put in a position where it will have to re-negotiate or start new bilateral negotiations on 124 trade agreements, plus one additional trade agreement re-defining its own trade status as a third country vis-à-vis the EU. With a Government and Civil Service with NO experience of Trade Negotiations.
Im not laughing.
IMHO the Boris/Gove/Farage Troike have walked us into a mess of monumental proportions.
No, membership of the EU was a "mess of monumental proportions" , getting out was a heroic act
http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/08/quantitative-easing-illiquid-market/

Brexiteers , merely front running the inevitable consequence of a Ponzi scheme.. we rest our case , Voila
Quoting cliffedwards
Do you have any idea of how inappropriate this comment is in the context of a forum dedicated to largely amateur currency speculation? Where the discussion relates to the economic outcomes of political policy?
That was a quote from Mao - "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". You seek to do away with the majority vote and let venal, greedy lawyers do away with the will of the people. The quote is not a threat, but a warning and it is appropriate, for that will surely cause GBP to plummet.
Quoting cliffedwards
Or any idea of how inaccurate your assertions are?
-You quote "White Australia Policy"? Effectively dismantled by the Holt Government in 1966? Do you even KNOW Holts profession and background? Yes. A Lawer.
-The Death Penalty, (capital Punishment) was only finally abolished in 1998, by the UKs compliance with the European Convention on Human rights?? (One of those pesky EU regulations IMPOSED on the UK by the EU, and which can be now binned??
PM Holt was acting in his capacity as a politician, not a lawyer. I am using WAP and CP as examples of the law which are defunct. IOW, the law is not sacrosanct. These lawyers have no power to change the will of the people, no matter how smart they think they bloody well are!
In the course of my research, I came across this:-

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

It makes for interesting reading and gives the matter a whole new slant.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
  •  Guest
  • | IP XX.XXX.40.133
Quoting CloudRider
In the course of my research, I came across this:-

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

It makes for interesting reading and gives the matter a whole new slant.
Fascinating, and possibly a slam dunk for the Brexit side , it seems both sides of the argument can lawyer up. Thanks for sharing.
Quoting CloudRider
In the course of my research, I came across this:-

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

It makes for interesting reading and gives the matter a whole new slant.
I seen articles regarding the same and I think there would be a case to persue should it ever come to it.
Do you think there will be a EU to exit from in two years time?
Greece is in hell
Portugal is on the edge of hell
France is denying its being drawn to hell
And they all pale into insignificance when compared to the inferno of Italy...
Hold tight.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/italys-political-and-economic-crisis-threatens-europes-stability-2016-7
Quoting courtneywild
Do you think there will be a EU to exit from in two years time?
Greece is in hell
Portugal is on the edge of hell
France is denying its being drawn to hell
And they all pale into insignificance when compared to the inferno of Italy...
Hold tight.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/italys...ability-2016-7
I think that the EU will remain but certainly not in its current form
Quoting CloudRider
In the course of my research, I came across this:-

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

It makes for interesting reading and gives the matter a whole new slant.
And for validation of the author and source read this..
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/doctor-on-the-make-1303622.html
Quoting courtneywild
Do you think there will be a EU to exit from in two years time?
Maybe not. It certainly looks that way, but the sceptic in me says that Germany and France will do whatever it takes, and I mean absolutely WHATEVER, to keep alive the dream of European political union.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
  •  Guest
  • | IP XXX.XX.218.175
the whole reason for this childish argument about the legal implications of the referendum, and invoking art. 50, is that GB does not have a constitution.

if they can't even draw up a written constitution, what chance does GB have of drawing up much more complex trade agreements? so the simple answer is that the British parliament, together with their lawyers, should first draw up a constitution before even thinking about the situation regarding Europe.
Quoting Guest
the whole reason for this childish argument about the legal implications of the referendum, and invoking art. 50, is that GB does not have a constitution.

if they can't even draw up a written constitution, what chance does GB have of drawing up much more complex trade agreements? so the simple answer is that the British parliament, together with their lawyers, should first draw up a constitution before even thinking about the situation regarding Europe.
Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions.
Quoting CloudRider
Maybe not. It certainly looks that way, but the sceptic in me says that Germany and France will do whatever it takes, and I mean absolutely WHATEVER, to keep alive the dream of European political union.
I agree but they face one big challenge...
Draghi. He is using the ECB to print money buying corporate & government debt... about 960Billion euro. Never mind the IMF will come to the rescue like they did with Greece. Oh no that was pillage and plunder... sorry.
Quoting CloudRider
Maybe not. It certainly looks that way, but the sceptic in me says that Germany and France will do whatever it takes, and I mean absolutely WHATEVER, to keep alive the dream of European political union.
So true. France needs someone to bank role it socialist ways and Germany needs a car crash economy like France to keep the value of the currency down. A marriage made in Brussels
Quoting courtneywild
I agree but they face one big challenge...
Draghi. He is using the ECB to print money buying corporate & government debt... about 960Billion euro. Never mind the IMF will come to the rescue like they did with Greece. Oh no that was pillage and plunder... sorry.
EU is in a much better condition than for example the UK, I hate to spoil your day buddie but you are 53k in debt which is needed to cover the cost of public sector pensions and other unfunded government liabilities. And this was BEFORE Brexit.

You got zero trade deals, your CB prints like there is no tomorrow and cuts rates 8 years after the great "recession", there is nothing to export and China going to own your ass with that nuclear plant. Meanwhile your economy is falling of a cliff, politicians have no plan and Norway doesn't want you in EFTA.

And you are worried about the EU ? haha-LOL
Quoting barkie
EU is in a much better condition than for example the UK, I hate to spoil your day buddie but you are 53k in debt which is needed to cover the cost of public sector pensions and other unfunded government liabilities. And this was BEFORE Brexit.

You got zero trade deals, your CB prints like there is no tomorrow and cuts rates 8 years after the great "recession", there is nothing to export and China going to own your ass with that nuclear plant. Meanwhile your economy is falling of a cliff, politicians have no plan and Norway doesn't want you...

My little UK hater woofs again. The important thing is that the UK has the belief, capability and determination to make a success of this new beginning. Whereas you have Junker ( in between glasses of wine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU
Quoting Devauxt
My little UK hater woofs again. The important thing is that the UK has the belief, capability and determination to make a success of this new beginning. Whereas you have Junker ( in between glasses of wine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU
The UK is paralyzed like a bunnie caught in the headlights, no plan, no negotiators, no trade deals, no money, no belief, no nothing. Absolutely shocking.
Quoting Guest
the whole reason for this childish argument about the legal implications of the referendum, and invoking art. 50, is that GB does not have a constitution.

if they can't even draw up a written constitution, what chance does GB have of drawing up much more complex trade agreements? so the simple answer is that the British parliament, together with their lawyers, should first draw up a constitution before even thinking about the situation regarding Europe.
Precedents show that the British constitution, which may not be written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution is presented, is nevertheless, enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) which requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect.

Interestingly, the 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath:-

"I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath, or ought to have, jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm."

and since this Bill has not been repealed, according to those well versed in constitutional law, there is a case for saying that every treaty Britain has signed with the EU has been illegal.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
Quoting barkie
The UK is paralyzed like a bunnie caught in the headlights, no plan, no negotiators, no trade deals, no money, no belief, no nothing. Absolutely shocking.
Oh please barkie, you cannot be that stupid. 5 minutes after the refferendum you expect the plan to be fully developed, delivered and agreements in place. I hope you are not representative of the Dutch nation as a whole. You truly are depriving some small town in the Netherlands of an idiot.

The plan is being developed, negotiators are being hired, countries falling over themselves to agree trade deals (even the Germans), phenomenal belief in our capabilities, no shortage of investors and the prospect of being able to control immigration. I'd love to say that we a further forward, but it is an OK start
Quoting CloudRider
Precedents show that the British constitution, which may not be written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution is presented is, nevertheless, enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) which requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect.

Interestingly, the 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath:-

"I do declare that no...
Cloudrider, it seems that like me you are a strong believer in the process.

This referendum has brought to the fore grey areas in our 'constitution' which to me have implications far greater than a Brexit.

Much has been made that the referendum as an opinion poll, and although that is theoretically correct, I can't find an example of any other referendum in this country were the result has been ignored. The de facto 'tradition' therefore has been that if you put a vote to the British public you abide by that vote.

Referendums ought to be legally binding provided they are not in breach of the constitution i.e. 51% decide to kill the other 49%.

'Traditions' need to be written into law, and certain laws which by 'tradition' are not used need to be binned.

The point of a constitution, and a process of doing things is to ensure that is a government cannot be easily hijacked, such that votes that are inconvenient to a particular group cannot be ignored for example. Nor can the executive branch use their privilege to do whatever they fancy.

I think we need a constitutional convention, to codify it into written text what exactly are the rights of the people, the role of government in protecting those rights, with sensible restrictions on the power of government.
Quoting Devauxt
Oh please barkie, you cannot be that stupid. 5 minutes after the refferendum you expect the plan to be fully developed, delivered and agreements in place. I hope you are not representative of the Dutch nation as a whole. You truly are depriving some small town in the Netherlands of an idiot.
You're neve going to make it, look, when the UK joined the EU it was by far the poorest EU member (back then the EC). We the EU made sure you got a bit of money to spend and managed you and you needed that.

Take a look at the Premier League, 95 percent of the teams are managed by EU managers. Why ? Because we are better managers, I guess you are better in a serving role. But that doesn't make you less than us ,no no no, everybody has his own role in life I guess.

Now do us a favor in return and pull article 50 right away.
  •  Guest
  • | IP XXX.XXX.204.99
let's take the 1689 Bill of Rights at face value. (quote #96)

"I do declare that no foreign prince, person ... hath, or ought to have, jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm."

the first question that comes to mind is what is Mark Carney doing as Governor of the Bank of England?
Quoting CloudRider
Precedents show that the British constitution, which may not be written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution is presented, is nevertheless, enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) which requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect.

Interestingly, the 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath:-

"I do declare that no...
Very interesting. This type of info is why history is important and why I love it. If we knew a tenth of what we have forgotten we would not be so susceptible to carnival barkers like barkie.

If you want a constitution might I recommend you adopt one written by James Madison in 1787. We haven't used it much here stateside of late.
Verv, I am, as you rightly observe, a big believer in 'due process'. As long as 'due process' is followed, there can be no argument about the outcome, even if happens to be inconvenient. As soon as due process is ignored or subverted, we end up on a very slippery slope indeed.

I agree with much of what you have said. However, I'm not sure about a formal written and codified constitution. A large part of our legal system, including constitutional law, is based on the doctrine of 'legal precedent' which means that 'the law' is organic, growing and changing as needed, as our constitution has done over the centuries. A formally codified constitution would largely prevent this from happening, I think. Furthermore, many of the safeguards which you mention as being enshrined in a written constitution are already in place, I think.

I'm inclined to agree (but not fully convinced) that referenda ought to be legally binding on Parliament, but in order to be fully convinced of this, I think referenda should be subject to a two thirds majority of a minimum turnout of those eligible to vote of say, 75%. That would make sure that such votes are decisive and unequivocal.

Just my two 'pennorth, for what it's worth. I think we have more in common than that which separates us.
It matters not how slow we are to learn, as long as we do not stop.
Quoting barkie
You're neve going to make it, look, when the UK joined the EU it was by far the poorest EU member (back then the EC). We the EU made sure you got a bit of money to spend and managed you and you needed that.

Now do us a favor in return and pull article 50 right away.
You are so right. Back in the 1970's, the UK was in a pile of DooDoo and because of this, it was a good reason to join the EEC. The main reason we were in such a state was because of Labour socialist policy and militant unions. EU socialist policy is very reminiscent of those Labour policies and it would be remiss of you not to consider this when considering where the EU will be in 3 to 5 years from now, as it roles out its socialist agenda. When the EU falls to sh1t, the UK will be happy to negotiate a trade agreement with the Netherlands without gloating or animosity. We understand how difficult it is to see beyond the status quo, it has taken the UK long enough to see the light.

As for football. I have not a clue about it
Quoting barkie
You're neve going to make it, look, when the UK joined the EU it was by far the poorest EU member (back then the EC). We the EU made sure you got a bit of money to spend and managed you and you needed that.

Take a look at the Premier League, 95 percent of the teams are managed by EU managers. Why ? Because we are better managers, I guess you are better in a serving role. But that doesn't make you less than us ,no no no, everybody has his own role in life I guess.

Now do us a favor in return and pull article 50 right away.
@Barkie..
You dont understand..

We CANT invoke Art 50.
Because NO ONE knows what Brexit is?
And more immediatly because we have nobody capable of conducting the negotiations.
Even IF we knew what we were trying to negotiate?
Quoting barkie
EU is in a much better condition than for example the UK, I hate to spoil your day buddie but you are 53k in debt which is needed to cover the cost of public sector pensions and other unfunded government liabilities. And this was BEFORE Brexit.

You got zero trade deals, your CB prints like there is no tomorrow and cuts rates 8 years after the great "recession", there is nothing to export and China going to own your ass with that nuclear plant. Meanwhile your economy is falling of a cliff, politicians have no plan and Norway doesn't want you...
Barkie The EU will not survive in its current form. Britain can succeed outside the EU. The Nuclear Plant is no big deal.

Here's somthing to ponder.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/europes-economic-crisis-has-spread-from-the-periphery-to-the-core/5535485?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

or this is interesting....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/end-of-regime-in-europe-the-question-is-not-britain-the-question-concerns-all-europe/5532739?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
Quoting CloudRider
I agree with much of what you have said. However, I'm not sure about a formal written and codified constitution. A large part of our legal system, including constitutional law, is based on the doctrine of 'legal precedent' which means that 'the law' is organic, growing and changing as needed, as our constitution has done over the centuries. A formally codified constitution would largely prevent this from happening, I think. Furthermore, many of the safeguards which you mention as being enshrined in a written constitution are already in place, I...
I think the constitution, and the law are different things personally, though they are related.

You say:
'organic, growing and changing as needed'
However that assumes that those organic changes are to the benefit of the people, but what happens if they aren't?

One of the roles of a constitution is to ensure that organic changes to the law take place in such as way which ensures due process, and protects the rights of individuals.

The role of a constitution, at least in my view is not obstructive to changes in the law, unless it violates certain enshrined rights.


Quote
I'm inclined to agree (but not fully convinced) that referenda ought to be legally binding on Parliament, but in order to be fully convinced of this, I think referenda should be subject to a two thirds majority of a minimum turnout of those eligible to vote of say, 75%. That would make sure that such votes are decisive and unequivocal.

I'm inclined to agree that a larger consensus is required for constitutional issues, 66% cut off makes sense to me - I understand you require a 60% for most passages of law in the USA.

I'm not sure about a 75% turnout, because I don't believe you can force people to vote.

Quote
Just my two 'pennorth, for it's worth. I think we have more in common than that which separates us.

Absolutely. Thanks.
Correct Cliff but if the UK doesn't leave soon our Jean Claude has to trigger article 7, that would certainly speed up the process, and unshackle us from this mess.
Quoting barkie
Correct Cliff but if the UK doesn't leave soon our Jean Claude has to trigger article 7, that would certainly speed up the process, and unshackle us from this mess.
When he sobers up, he might get around to it
Quoting NewtonsCash
See.. sore loser's abound
Ha! They litter the landscape everywhere, then again Hitler and his conspirators would congratulate them for towing the newspeak.
Quoting NewtonsCash
So WHICH IS IT?
This advisory referendum asked a stupid question on a subject of a complexity way above the Pay-Grade of 90% of the voters, and boy, did they get a predictably stupid answer.
Wow, linking pay grade to intellect..... Einstein spent his whole life broke, Sir Isaac Newton lost all his money on the South Sea Bubble... they were about as bright as it gets.

Meantime, Mark Carney's raking it in at £600k per annum out of taxpayers hard earned and he's about as dim as a 1990's solar garden light.

The point anti Brexit folk don't get is this, if you are going to threaten that "if you vote Brexit" Bonds, Stocks and House prices will go down" you'd better make damn sure the majority of the country own Stocks, Bonds and Houses. Since most people own none of them outright , the people said "we don't care, Mr Osbourne if your trust fund paid for house in Notting Hill falls in value.

Since 2008 the Bank of England have been printing money and giving it, tax free to their friends , meantime working families have been trodden under foot with ridiculous rates of taxation, again no one bothered to consider the innequality that such heinous policy would unleash... well, the can of worms is open now and, happily , there is no going back.

As for people not being able to negotiate their own deals, maybe you don't know any but I know many great British businessmen happy to step up. If your example of someone capable of such negotiations is Carney, Osbourne or Cameron you're away with the fairies and best of luck with that [/quote]


Excellent points. Meanwhile the ones whining about BREXIT, and trying to force yet another vote is the Millennials. All too funny depiction of who they are, and puts into perspective the asinine arguments some will try to justify while spending all their time trying to persuade with capricious rhetoric without an ounce of substance!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn_6sU7O43w
Quoting Devauxt
Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions.
I wonder why that is? This is something that I always found peculiar when it comes to Britain's ambiguous code. Does this mean it is always open for negotiation for the people to decide, or for the politicians to impose whenever they are in need of a solution to address an issue of concern as it relates to citizens rights?
Quoting Devauxt
You are so right. Back in the 1970's, the UK was in a pile of DooDoo and because of this, it was a good reason to join the EEC. The main reason we were in such a state was because of Labour socialist policy and militant unions. EU socialist policy is very reminiscent of those Labour policies and it would be remiss of you not to consider this when considering where the EU will be in 3 to 5 years from now, as it roles out its socialist agenda. When the EU falls to sh1t, the UK will be happy to negotiate a trade agreement with the Netherlands without...

Funny that Barkie would use football as a an analogy to prop up his argument of how great the EU is, when in reality the Premier leagues and others are rife with corruption with match fixing. FIFA another organization that many associated with it are now facing criminal charges. Hmm, imagine the irony of such a statement! Seems someone's world view is formulated from the that dirty machine we like to call Main Stream Media, further proving that self induced coma's from being fed the tripe that the EU spills out as Hogwash on a daily basis, is having a detrimental effect on critical thinking skills. The dumb just like to continue to wallow in their illusions of being taken care of from cradle to grave when in reality they continue to get the snow job!
Quoting CloudRider
Precedents show that the British constitution, which may not be written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution is presented, is nevertheless, enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) which requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect.

Interestingly, the 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath:-

"I do declare that no...

Interesting. Never really consider this aspect before. Something to ponder for further contemplation.
Quoting ThunderHeart
Funny that Barkie would use football as a an analogy to prop up his argument of how great the EU is, when in reality the Premier leagues and others are rife with corruption with match fixing. FIFA another organization that many associated with it are now facing criminal charges. Hmm, imagine the irony of such a statement! Seems someone's world view is formulated from the that dirty machine we like to call Main Stream Media, further proving that self induced coma's from being fed the tripe that the EU spills out as Hogwash on a daily basis, is having...
ROFL

At one time, the EU's head of Fraud and corruption was actually a convicted fraudster. It is indeed frightening the faith he puts in these jokers. The EU is all about power, the continuity of the institution of the EU and the survival of its elite. The citizens of the EU are a mere inconvenience. Socialism and it followers are full of contradictions and the EU flavour of Socialism is something else. Unfortunately, barkie is a "dyed in the wool" socialist and an EU apologist, with a complete hatred of the UK. It would however be wrong to judge the whole of the Netherlands by his standards.
Quoting Sniper2000
I would suggest these lawyers stop grand standing and look at Turkey and their "Failed Coup" against a democratically voted government. They are now thinking about bringing in the Death penalty. The action of this hairdresser and lawyers is the same as the coup leaders. They are the ones who are trying to overthrow a Democratically voted decision by the people of Great Britain. I would suggest that they and thier backers be held for Treason.
Yeah agree is just hilarious how propaganda is throwing as legitimate reasons.
Greetings, BeLikewater
  • New Comment
  •  Guest
  • | IP XX.XXX.62.64
Join FF
  • Story Stats
  • Posted: Aug 8, 2016 7:54am
  • Submitted by:
     Newsstand
    Category: Entertainment News
    Comments: 115  /  Views: 25,444