This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
jamiemartin721  Reading 04 Jul 16 10.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
Just pointing out the discrepancies ! I've not gone into any great investigation as to the validity of the figures from various sources as it really doesn't concern me, accordingly I am not giving creedance to any one source.As such I'm not going to bother asking you about your "Factual source" - you have probably mentioned this earlier but this whole matter doesn't really interest me to be honest. At the end of the day the Referendum is 'Done and dusted' and BREXIT prevailed. Edited by Willo (04 Jul 2016 10.16am) Whilst I'm inclined towards agreeing with you, that the people have spoken etc... That doesn't rule out legal challenges, or guarantee an exit either. For example, were a party to stand in a general election on a 'remain ticket' and win, then there is definitely grounds for remaining in the EU. Or another referendum at a later date, about reversing the decision - either as part of the process of completing and finalising Article 50. Especially if there is no general election before hand. It would be undemocratic to assert that the referendum would be the one and only on the subject. Certainly if there is no general election, the public would have to have the final say on negotiations over article 50, and of course if there was a party who won a general election on the basis of staying in the EU - It would be undemocratic to dismiss that as a possibility (although it would, in my opinion, to be fair have to be a general election on a second referendum). There also remains the possibility of blocking in parliament, although I think this would be a crisis for British Democracy, if parliament overruled a referendum, without 'the authority of the masses'
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 16 10.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
Let's face it, even George Osborne has come round to the idea and is actively trying to make a go of it - announcing a reduction in Corporation Tax to try and make the UK attractive to foreign investors. A mistake, in my opinion, even though I'll benefit. There is little point in replacing the corporate state of the EU, with a corporate state of the UK, and simply becoming attractive to different international foreign influences. Hardly a patriotic or nationalist act, cut government revenues, which will need to be met by reduced government spending, in order to 'attract' foreign investment. I thought the point of independence was to be independent, not become in hoc to more mercenary foreign influences (as their interest is purely financial). Selling the country piece by piece, and rallying around the flag with a hooo-rah.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Hoof Hearted 04 Jul 16 10.48am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
A mistake, in my opinion, even though I'll benefit. There is little point in replacing the corporate state of the EU, with a corporate state of the UK, and simply becoming attractive to different international foreign influences. Hardly a patriotic or nationalist act, cut government revenues, which will need to be met by reduced government spending, in order to 'attract' foreign investment. I thought the point of independence was to be independent, not become in hoc to more mercenary foreign influences (as their interest is purely financial). Selling the country piece by piece, and rallying around the flag with a hooo-rah. And your credentials to oppose this tax strategy are....? You are the world's leading authority on everything Jamie if we were to believe all your posts. Is there not one thing you haven't got an opinion on? LOL mate.
|
|
 Mapletree Croydon 04 Jul 16 11.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SloveniaDave
As the days go by, I am getting a bit more optimistic that we will be able to salvage the situation, re-negotiate a better deal and remain. Even most of the Tories are starting to panic, quite rightly, about the implications of triggering Clause 50. Hopefully they wont be daft enough to have another referendum this time though. Have you been observing the legal challenge Dave? It's Mischcon de Reya, so to be taken very seriously. I have been up against them in the past and they really know what they are doing. Likely outcome is that Parliament would have to vote on leaving, no doubt taking into account the way the referendum went. I wonder if MPs will have the balls to vote according to how their constituencies voted. If so it could be a close run thing and I might suggest it would shift slightly in favour of remain.
|
|
| Part Time James 04 Jul 16 11.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Have you been observing the legal challenge Dave? It's Mischcon de Reya, so to be taken very seriously. I have been up against them in the past and they really know what they are doing. Likely outcome is that Parliament would have to vote on leaving, no doubt taking into account the way the referendum went. I wonder if MPs will have the balls to vote according to how their constituencies voted. If so it could be a close run thing and I might suggest it would shift slightly in favour of remain. Even if the majority of them voted how their constituency voted then it'd be in favour of Leave still. I think I saw somewhere that on a FPTP system Leave would've had about 68% backing.
|
|
| Hoof Hearted 04 Jul 16 11.34am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Have you been observing the legal challenge Dave? It's Mischcon de Reya, so to be taken very seriously. I have been up against them in the past and they really know what they are doing. Likely outcome is that Parliament would have to vote on leaving, no doubt taking into account the way the referendum went. I wonder if MPs will have the balls to vote according to how their constituencies voted. If so it could be a close run thing and I might suggest it would shift slightly in favour of remain. This is just another hopeful attempt to outdo democracy and not carry out the will of the people. Assuming the legal challenge was successful, do you honestly think Parliament would not vote to uphold what the majority of the UK voted for? MP's like Liz Truss who was a Remaniac, but her constituency was fiercely Brexit. She would not risk being de-selected. This is just another false hope, and a dying man clutching at straws.
|
|
| silvertop Portishead 04 Jul 16 11.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
False optimism Dave.... No one has any doubts about triggering clause 50, in fact today I heard a report that we don't even need to... we can withdraw by passing our own legislation if we want to.. The story was on R4's Today Programme. They also had Phillip Hammond on who although a Remaniac was consigned to moving onwards and follow the wishes of the people. He also confirmed he supported Theresa May's leadership bid and there would be no General Election till 2020. So... face the facts.... there will be no "best of 3", "a legal challenge to the result" "calling it unfair, because someone had their fingers crossed behind their back", "not any 16-17 year olds' voted so was undemocratic" OR any daft reason you want to dream up. The Referendum was one sided I agree, but blame David Cameron for that by not playing fair by spending tax payers money on pathetic biased leaflets and getting people like Obama in to try and con us. Luckily those of us in the know stood resolute and firm and voted Out/Leave. Let's face it, even George Osborne has come round to the idea and is actively trying to make a go of it - announcing a reduction in Corporation Tax to try and make the UK attractive to foreign investors. As much as you may hate them pesky foreigners Hoof it may be unwise to by-pass the Art 50 procedure with the very people who we apparently want to negotiate effective bi-lateral trade deals with.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 16 11.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
And your credentials to oppose this tax strategy are....? You are the world's leading authority on everything Jamie if we were to believe all your posts. Is there not one thing you haven't got an opinion on? LOL mate. I'm not the one championing the idea of patriotism and how great the UK is. You can't be 'patriotic' in one breath about how the UK must be free of EU influence, and then cutting taxes to attract foreign investment the next. Hardly a victory for the British people... Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
You are the world's leading authority on everything Jamie if we were to believe all your posts. Is there not one thing you haven't got an opinion on? I'm interested in a lot of things, including the fate of the nation, but the hypocrisy of Patriotism and Nationalism, especially in politics, is a subject I'm very interested in.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Hoof Hearted 04 Jul 16 11.55am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
As much as you may hate them pesky foreigners Hoof it may be unwise to by-pass the Art 50 procedure with the very people who we apparently want to negotiate effective bi-lateral trade deals with. I wasn't agreeing with it , I was just telling people what I heard on the News. In my experience of leaving clubs/organisations (like Britannia CD Club - LOL) you're best off filling out the forms they supply for departure, but for absolute certainty of leaving cancel your DDM with their bank. All we need to do is stop paying the EU money and it will hit home to them that we mean business. The rest will be like a messy divorce with lawyers earning a fortune!
|
|
| Hoof Hearted 04 Jul 16 11.57am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I'm interested in a lot of things, including the fate of the nation, but the hypocrisy of Patriotism and Nationalism, especially in politics, is a subject I'm very interested in. But you said that about "My little pony" characters! LOL
|
|
| silvertop Portishead 04 Jul 16 11.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
This is just another hopeful attempt to outdo democracy and not carry out the will of the people. Assuming the legal challenge was successful, do you honestly think Parliament would not vote to uphold what the majority of the UK voted for? MP's like Liz Truss who was a Remaniac, but her constituency was fiercely Brexit. She would not risk being de-selected. This is just another false hope, and a dying man clutching at straws. For the record, I was a fierce "remainer" but do not support these efforts to defeat the spoken will of the people - no matter how strongly I disagree with the justifications for most leave voters I have seen interviewed and read on this site. A protest vote against austerity, I ask you! However, the rules of the referendum were fixed in advance - simple majority wins. If there was evidence of electoral irregularity then a new referendum needs to be called. Otherwise, it is wholly wrong to seek to subvert the democratic process by some post-facto technical knock-out. We must deal with where we are. No doubt we will eventually find a new equilibrium. I just hope it settles at a level more or less where we are.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 16 11.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
As much as you may hate them pesky foreigners Hoof it may be unwise to by-pass the Art 50 procedure with the very people who we apparently want to negotiate effective bi-lateral trade deals with. Quite, especially given the UK as a primary member of the EU and signatory of the assorted treaties that created the process of article 50. Especially, as it would leave us in a problematic position of being legally within the EU.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 16 11.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
I'm a Bromy....
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 04 Jul 16 12.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
This is just another hopeful attempt to outdo democracy and not carry out the will of the people. Assuming the legal challenge was successful, do you honestly think Parliament would not vote to uphold what the majority of the UK voted for? MP's like Liz Truss who was a Remaniac, but her constituency was fiercely Brexit. She would not risk being de-selected. This is just another false hope, and a dying man clutching at straws. Truss woukd definitely lose support.
|
|
| silvertop Portishead 04 Jul 16 12.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
I wasn't agreeing with it , I was just telling people what I heard on the News. In my experience of leaving clubs/organisations (like Britannia CD Club - LOL) you're best off filling out the forms they supply for departure, but for absolute certainty of leaving cancel your DDM with their bank. All we need to do is stop paying the EU money and it will hit home to them that we mean business. The rest will be like a messy divorce with lawyers earning a fortune!
It may happen.
|
|
| Hoof Hearted 04 Jul 16 12.03pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
For the record, I was a fierce "remainer" but do not support these efforts to defeat the spoken will of the people - no matter how strongly I disagree with the justifications for most leave voters I have seen interviewed and read on this site. A protest vote against austerity, I ask you! However, the rules of the referendum were fixed in advance - simple majority wins. If there was evidence of electoral irregularity then a new referendum needs to be called. Otherwise, it is wholly wrong to seek to subvert the democratic process by some post-facto technical knock-out. We must deal with where we are. No doubt we will eventually find a new equilibrium. I just hope it settles at a level more or less where we are. Fair play to you silvertop. A pity a lot of other people aren't as pragmatic as your good self and want to see democracy in action and the people's will carried out. Bad losers are the bane of everyone's life.
|
|
| Hoof Hearted 04 Jul 16 12.05pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Truss would definitely lose support.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 16 12.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
This is just another hopeful attempt to outdo democracy and not carry out the will of the people. Assuming the legal challenge was successful, do you honestly think Parliament would not vote to uphold what the majority of the UK voted for? MP's like Liz Truss who was a Remaniac, but her constituency was fiercely Brexit. She would not risk being de-selected. This is just another false hope, and a dying man clutching at straws. I really think that any legal challenge that isn't based on demonstrating fraud or electoral tampering, is stupid for any politician to back. By the rules in place, the decision of the people, barring proof of collusion or tampering, was to leave. Even if we're talking about the percentages being so close, that's something that should have been ascertained and defined at the first UK Referendum, that a clear mandate would be required. Politically, I can't see anyone or any party getting out of it without damaging their political viability, without at the very least presenting a second referendum, based on the outcome of a general election (i.e. If the Liberal Democrats stood in the general election with a manifesto that held a referendum on remaining in the EU and won, then fair enough). Anything less than a second referendum, backed by support of a democratic mandate, would be damaging for the already fragile trust and relationship between the public and parliamentary democracy.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Hoof Hearted 04 Jul 16 12.18pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I really think that any legal challenge that isn't based on demonstrating fraud or electoral tampering, is stupid for any politician to back. By the rules in place, the decision of the people, barring proof of collusion or tampering, was to leave. Even if we're talking about the percentages being so close, that's something that should have been ascertained and defined at the first UK Referendum, that a clear mandate would be required. Politically, I can't see anyone or any party getting out of it without damaging their political viability, without at the very least presenting a second referendum, based on the outcome of a general election (i.e. If the Liberal Democrats stood in the general election with a manifesto that held a referendum on remaining in the EU and won, then fair enough). Anything less than a second referendum, backed by support of a democratic mandate, would be damaging for the already fragile trust and relationship between the public and parliamentary democracy. Your best post EVER jamie!
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.