The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 18 Sep 19 3.56pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
From the BBC running commentary on the proceedings. As it rather neatly sums up what been saying for months I thought it worth sharing, especially as it comes from such a high legal brain:- "Now Mr O'Neill, who wants the judges to find that the suspension of Parliament was unlawful, is speaking about parliamentary sovereignty. "It's inherent in this concept that the executive is subordinate to the law," he tells the judges. "That's important because that basic principle seems to be being questioned sometimes in these febrile times. "But that's a fundamental principle. The executive is subordinate to the law and it is accountable to Parliament. "The essence of our constitution is one of accountability to Parliament." He says we live in a parliamentary representative democracy, where the executive is accountable to Parliament, and Parliament is accountable to the people. "The executive in this country is not elected directly by the people. The executive's accountability is therefore not directly to the people. "Claiming a direct line to the people is not democracy, it's populism".
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 18 Sep 19 4.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
What is a standard political tribe. That might be true but that group in the middle are just as split. This divide is very different to traditional political differences.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the silurian The garden of England.(not really) 18 Sep 19 4.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That might be true but that group in the middle are just as split. This divide is very different to traditional political differences. Makes no difference, if the referendum result is overturned, I for one, will NEVER vote again for anyone/anything...it would be totally pointless!!!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 18 Sep 19 4.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
From the BBC running commentary on the proceedings. As it rather neatly sums up what been saying for months I thought it worth sharing, especially as it comes from such a high legal brain:- "Now Mr O'Neill, who wants the judges to find that the suspension of Parliament was unlawful, is speaking about parliamentary sovereignty. "It's inherent in this concept that the executive is subordinate to the law," he tells the judges. "That's important because that basic principle seems to be being questioned sometimes in these febrile times. "But that's a fundamental principle. The executive is subordinate to the law and it is accountable to Parliament. "The essence of our constitution is one of accountability to Parliament." He says we live in a parliamentary representative democracy, where the executive is accountable to Parliament, and Parliament is accountable to the people. "The executive in this country is not elected directly by the people. The executive's accountability is therefore not directly to the people. "Claiming a direct line to the people is not democracy, it's populism". That's simply because it currently suits the Remain Narrative. Parliament is actually the highest court in the land so it's a load of bollox. Claiming something is populism is just to smear Brexit with the current 'dirty' word. Somehow Populism is equated to far right currently. Both bulls*** terms.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 18 Sep 19 4.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
When you engage with the truth and address the actual subject I might. Not for the first time when challenged by actual facts you resort to attempted insult. Trying to throw mud at those who point out your mistakes is not debate. It might be what Trump does but it just makes both you and him look ridiculous. If you want to carry on digging your hole then carry on. It won't bother me in the slightest. The facts were shown to you but you disputed them as they did not go along with your own ideas. Gina MIller has been funded all the way through these court cases and still is. Soros did it first and now she has switched to begging for cash online to try and beat the government.
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 18 Sep 19 4.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
That's simply because it currently suits the Remain Narrative. Parliament is actually the highest court in the land so it's a load of bollox. Claiming something is populism is just to smear Brexit with the current 'dirty' word. Somehow Populism is equated to far right currently. Both bulls*** terms. As the Court has already stated this has nothing at all to do with Brexit and the arguments being put have no bearing on it. This is all about the supremacy of Parliament over the executive and whether a PM can legally stop their oversight.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 18 Sep 19 7.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Really? You don't think it is just true? It is very rare for anyone here to ever pause for a moment and say that anything I have said has made them reconsider their position. All that ever comes back are entrenched positions defended with self righteous indignation. It's not that I don't understand the arguments being put. They have been thrust down my throat so often I have had much more than my fill of them. It's simply that I believe them to be fundamentally flawed because they are almost all based upon a misunderstanding of how our democratic system actually works. I am far from alone in what I believe to be true. Many, indeed most at the moment, MPs agree with me as do a large number of our fellow citizens. The difference is that this forum, for some weird reason, has a much higher number from the group I believe to be wrong in it's membership. Why would be a very interesting thing to find out. It just isn't normal. Is it the way it was originally set up that attracted such people? Is it that football supporters who use forums tend to come from that section of society? I really don't know. Finding right leaning or left leaning forums on the internet isn't difficult and in them you would expect to encounter biased opinions. But why here? This ought to be more balanced. It isn't just slightly to the right of centre, it's way to the right. Why? Edited by Wisbech Eagle (18 Sep 2019 12.22pm) I haven’t seen if this has been answered yet but it’s because the choice is either HOL or the bbs where if they could clone a politician, Jeremy Corbyn wouldn’t be Marxist enough. Although they moderate the bbs quite like how the Labour Party is bullies these days. Or it’s been like a chatroom for Momentum years before Corbyn and momentum. It’s funny because it would be great if some of Corbyn’s ideals could be delivered, if he left the the politics of envy and dislike of business at home, but you just know it would go wrong. He couldn’t say no to anything and we’d be screwed pretty quickly. The argument could be that his is a minimum 3 term parliament vision, just like Brexit actually the left don’t want that longer term aim either, which is a big issue in the U.K. Advantages? Yes please. Any disadvantages at all. No fvcking thanks.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 18 Sep 19 7.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As the Court has already stated this has nothing at all to do with Brexit and the arguments being put have no bearing on it. This is all about the supremacy of Parliament over the executive and whether a PM can legally stop their oversight. Hang on.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 18 Sep 19 7.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by susmik
The facts were shown to you but you disputed them as they did not go along with your own ideas. Gina MIller has been funded all the way through these court cases and still is. Soros did it first and now she has switched to begging for cash online to try and beat the government. You are at it again aren't you? Insults are no substitute for debate nor lies for the truth. Just because you have read something on Facebook or in the Daily Mail or Sun doesn't mean it's true. I gave you the real facts. They are all on the public record so go check them out if you refuse to believe me. Gina Miller was one of several founders of "Best for Britain" who did receive some funding from one of the Soros foundations but she left them in 2017 as they were becoming, in her opinion, too political. She has not, so far as anyone knows, received any funding either directly from him, or via his foundation, for the court cases. These have been crowdfunded. I actually agree that it ought not be down to an individual citizen to have to raise such an important matter in Court or to have to fund it themselves in some way. This ought to be the responsibility of us all and paid for through taxation.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 18 Sep 19 7.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Hang on. Brexit has not actually even been mentioned in the case other than in the opening remarks by Lady Hale when she said they weren't there to judge the merit, or not, of Brexit. It's the actions of Johnson in proroguing Parliament with the aim of reducing it's ability to scrutinise him that is the reason for the case. That Johnson has done that to try to push his vision of Brexit over the line in direct contradiction to his bosses in Parliament is the only involvement. If Johnson had tried the same trick over any other issue then he would have got exactly the same outcome. Parliament must establish its'supremacy remains intact, and accepted by the executive, or our democracy goes onto a slippery slope at the end of which we could easily find things none of us really want.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 18 Sep 19 8.38pm | |
|---|---|
|
Literally how much more smug and condescending can these c***s get? I am very close to completely losing my s*** and suspect I’m very much not on my own.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 18 Sep 19 8.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That's just hyperbole. Those fighting this don't all do because they want to remain. Some want to put that option back on the table now the electorate have had more time to consider and more information to use but most are just concerned to avoid unnecessary harm and protect British democracy. Who made Remainers the arbiters of us needing more time to consider? Where was the option mentioned to us in the run up to the vote in 2016? And I am fascinated to understand how you 'protect' British democracy by doing your utmost to have over 17 million votes discarded. Because every single person pushing for a second referendum with 'Remain' as an option is a Remainer. The losers. The ones whose arguments failed. You want A50 revoked. But you still want to think of yourself as one of the good guys. As a democrat. As somebody who believes voting is important. Who hates the thought of dictatorship. And yet will s*** on over 17 million people who voted in total good faith on June 23rd 2016. If people like you were promoting a second referendum on the basis of people being offered either a No-Deal exit or one with a deal, then I might just about be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of your self-proclaimed status as a defender of democracy. But you want the losing 'Remain' option not only included and actually weighted in favour of. Otherwise why not just re-run June 23rd again? If that many people have switched to your side, what is wrong with asking the same question again? I loathe the Lib Dems but they have the courage of their convictions. They believe that Parliament has a duty to ignore what the 52% voted for. I can respect them for that. That stance takes a certain kind of courage. But this 'Peoples vote' bulls***? Nah. That is shameful s***. Because this Brexit mayhem continues and ramps up in ways that hold the potential to rip this nation apart. Because why would I vote ever again? If my vote does not count on June 23rd then it will never count again. It is rendered invalid. All because people who did not even vote Leave somehow think we don't know what the word 'leave' means. And that is all on the likes of you. Not me. I voted Leave and expect my vote to be honoured, just like I was promised. You want to dishonour that, then have the cojenes to be proud of that.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.