The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 DanH  SW2 24 Sep 19 8.27pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
That narrative paints her as a simpleton. We shall see......Perhaps we should be doing away with the whole system. The Queen (or any sitting monarch) has been purely a symbolic part of the process for decades and decades. She relies purely on advice from the sitting government.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Stirlingsays 24 Sep 19 8.32pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
The Queen (or any sitting monarch) has been purely a symbolic part of the process for decades and decades. She relies purely on advice from the sitting government. That is her choice, not law. She sits at the head of all of this and the courts have acted in an unprecedented manner here. My take is that unless she acts she and ultimately the institution is permanently damaged. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Sep 2019 8.33pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 19 8.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
I voted on June 23rd in absolute good faith that the result would be acted upon. And three and half years later we are here, with a Parliament and a Judiciary that is doing everything in its power to make a fool out of me for holding such beliefs on that day. Backed up by idiots who are trying to pull a three-card trick on me by way of seeing my vote deemed utterly worthless whilst trying to maintain their own self-illusion as the good guys in this s*** show. If you want the result on June 23rd ignored, you are a w***er of the highest order. As simple and straight forward as that.
Edited by Matov (24 Sep 2019 7.23pm) The problem in trying to have a "reasoned debate" with you is that no amount of reason seems to penetrate your fixed position. No matter when areas of agreement can be offered, or compromises suggested nothing changes. The post above could have been written 100 pages ago, minus the new target, the Judiciary. I know my position also remains firm but mine is based on verifiable facts some of which have now been unanimously confirmed by the highest Court in the land. I, nor I believe does anyone else, think those who hold your position are "w***ers" of the highest order". I just think you are mistaken about the way our democracy works and that your attitudes and frustrations all flow from that. Unfortunately Johnson is reinforcing those attitudes, entirely for his own reasons, in his efforts to position this as "Boris and the Brexiteers defending the people against the elite", when the truth is that it's absolutely the very opposite. This is Parliament and the law defending the people against an elite. The hard line Brexiteers are no more "the people" than Corbyn's hard liners are. Most of the 52% wouldn't have come from that group but were sucked in to that camp for a variety of reasons. Therefore to make the claims that he does, and you repeat, that the vote of the majority being betrayed is simply untrue.
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 |
|
| Midlands Eagle 24 Sep 19 8.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Alex1991
If they were not expecting any disruption to the supply chain he could have said so. Doctor's are not usually vague when it comes to important questions. I've just been to see my GP's pharmacist and asked her the same question about what will happen after 31st October and she said that she doubted whether there would be any undue disruptions as the NHS has six week's supply of most drugs and arrangements had been made in case of shortages of life saving drugs. She also said that most drugs seem to be manufactured in India anyway
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 24 Sep 19 8.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
If you don’t think British judges are impartial and acting to uphold the law to the best of their ability does this mean every judgment from the Supreme Court is suddenly null and void? I would happily torch the entire place tomorrow.
"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 |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 19 8.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
The only person (or people) who have embarrassed her is Boris and his advisors. Of course. The Court found that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and that as a consequence everything that flowed from that advice was also illegal. The Queen was just following that advice as required by constitutional convention. If she had an opinion she would neither have expressed it or acted upon it. She quite rightly left that to Parliament and/or the Courts. The Queen is above the law.
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 |
|
| chris123 hove actually 24 Sep 19 9.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Of course. The Court found that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and that as a consequence everything that flowed from that advice was also illegal. The Queen was just following that advice as required by constitutional convention. If she had an opinion she would neither have expressed it or acted upon it. She quite rightly left that to Parliament and/or the Courts. The Queen is above the law. Unlawful, not illegal.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 19 9.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
Unlawful, not illegal. Semantics really but OK a fair point. Not that it actually makes any difference.
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 |
|
| Matov 24 Sep 19 9.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
So we have Parliament agreeing to hold a referendum with a simple question being posed. Shall we leave or remain in the EU? And the Government says that it will abide by the decision, as does every major political player of the day. We have that vote. And with no serious doubts about the veracity of the voting process. There is a clear winner. 52% vote for us to Leave. Parliament then, by a huge majority, vote for the Article 50 process to be triggered. It is. And we are told that come what may, we will be leaving on March 29th. None of it proviso on a deal being agreed. Then we have a GE. And 80% of people vote for a political party that has campaigned on a straight forward promise to honour the outcome of the referendum. The PM of the day comes back with a deal. It is rejected. Three times. But we are still scheduled to be leaving on March 29th. And we dont. Instead we end up here. Yes, I have written all of this before. But explain this to me. Why should I not be frustrated? Why should I not be utterly dismissive of a political system that has promised me, time and time again, to do what I along with 17.4 million others asked it to do? Yes, the referendum was advisory. And yes, Parliament has the right to change its mind. But if it does so, why would I then subsequently vote in another referendum it offers me on this precise topic? What credibility would that one have in face of the one from June 23rd being ignored despite numerous promises? Surely the refusal to abide by its promise before that one makes any subsequent referendums utterly pointless? Has it ignored any other referendums? Is there a precedent for this? And this self-same Parliament refusing to put itself to the scrutiny of a general election? What has more credibility now? A general election or a referendum? f*** it. And f*** anybody who wants to defend it. If it wants to revoke A50 then let it do so. Let it stand up and proudly hold that vote. I will loathe it for ever more but its authority will be clear for all of us to see and judge accordingly when the next GE comes around. You want us all to just sit back and accept what MP's decide for us all then fine but let them do so openly and without any more deceit. And certainly not with another referendum that solves nothing at all.
"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 |
|
Teddy Eagle  24 Sep 19 9.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Of course. The Court found that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and that as a consequence everything that flowed from that advice was also illegal. The Queen was just following that advice as required by constitutional convention. If she had an opinion she would neither have expressed it or acted upon it. She quite rightly left that to Parliament and/or the Courts. The Queen is above the law. But to repeat the advice given was that taken from the Attorney General. Should his advice not have been trusted? It’s not as though the government asked some bloke down the pub. He is the chief legal adviser to the Crown.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop Portishead 24 Sep 19 9.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
Re-moaners think 17.4m people came to the wrong conclusion. They just have less power than 11 judges. They did. And a 2nd referendum will prove it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 19 9.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
No-body has yet commented on Johnson's response which seemed to me to have been prepared in advance and, as a consequence, totally miss the gravity of the situation he is now in. To say he "disagrees" with a unanimous verdict by the UK Supreme Court is arrogance of a staggering degree and totally inappropriate in the circumstances. Much better to have said nothing other than the government were carefully reviewing the decision and would respond in due course. To then carry on with the sham defence of positioning this as his government trying to deliver Brexit on behalf of the people in the face of Parliamentary, and now Judicial, interference was unbelievable when he had just lost the argument so decisively. This was the people's law as enacted by the people's Parliament finding that a minority government had acted unlawfully. I know the hardliners here and elsewhere are predictably up in arms but this is a major moment in British political history when the supremacy of Parliament over the executive has been nailed down in law. Much good can flow from this. And not just for Brexit.
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 |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.