The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 serial thriller  The Promised Land 01 Oct 19 4.44pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
What do you think would happen should the welfare state collapse? Who do you think is paying for it? You don't need to ask the question: look what's happened! Nearly £8 billion has been cut in a decade to social care. Disabled people have seen their incomes cut by 30%, and local council services have in places seen their budgets cut by more than a half. The irony is, many who have contributed taxes for decades are now not being provided with the support they now need, because of either illness, disability, or being out of work.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Oct 19 4.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyboy1978
Like? Any at all. Parliament has the right to change it's mind if, in it's judgement, circumstances, so demand. Nothing should ever be cast in stone and in so doing restrict our ability to react to events or new information.
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 |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 01 Oct 19 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Just because the government is now a minority doesn't mean that Parliament cannot function or that this necessarily requires a GE. It probably will, but only when Parliament decides the time is right. If we end with a government of national unity then they could potentially function until June 2022 and enact all kinds of legislation in the meantime. They probably won't though as the various elements won't be able to agree on a joint strategy beyond stopping a no deal Brexit. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever with anybody "blocking" anything. It only has to do with the basic fact of Parliamentary democracy which is that every act of Parliament and government action needs their approval. No government has any right to act without it. It's neither the "political establishment" or the judiciary doing anything. We elected the Parliament. The judiciary don't make the law. They interpret and rule on it when asked to. This is OUR democracy in action. What is dangerous is that so many seem not to either recognise that fact or value it. That is not fully correct. British law works on a precedent basis - the precedent for when parliament does not work, or when a government has a minority is to call a general election. So the original point was entirely right. However, this is complicated by both Brexit and the unelected Supreme Court. And further complicated by the original referendum - which is now heading off into the past. How it is being dealt with currently is unacceptable on many levels. You must recognise that.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 01 Oct 19 5.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
What will be the downfall of Johnson? The voters? No, I think women. I should know....
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
palace_in_frogland  In a broken dream 01 Oct 19 5.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Any at all. Parliament has the right to change it's mind if, in it's judgement, circumstances, so demand. Nothing should ever be cast in stone and in so doing restrict our ability to react to events or new information. Would you please, please stop doing this?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Oct 19 5.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
As I have said a second referendum with two versions of leave on the paper makes a kind of sense (and again, I write that through gritted teeth). But you don't want that do you? You only want a Leave option that involves a deal with the EU or Remain. Just the act of wanting 'Remain' on any second referendum ballot paper is the act of people not wanting to accept the outcome of June 23rd. Just be honest about that. Be proud of it. Own it. As you know I don't want another referendum on this, or any other issue, ever again. I want our elected Parliament to do their job and work together across the aisle, and for as long as it takes, to find a solution. However, having done so, if at the end of that process they decided to consult the people directly to learn their opinion why couldn't ALL the viable options be put to them? Things have moved on a long way since 2016. Everyone is better informed. Asking if the people approve of a negotiated deal, no deal or no Brexit makes sense. Are you scared that a majority wouldn't agree with you? Just be honest about that. Own it.
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 |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 01 Oct 19 5.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As you know I don't want another referendum on this, or any other issue, ever again. I want our elected Parliament to do their job and work together across the aisle, and for as long as it takes, to find a solution. However, having done so, if at the end of that process they decided to consult the people directly to learn their opinion why couldn't ALL the viable options be put to them? Things have moved on a long way since 2016. Everyone is better informed. Asking if the people approve of a negotiated deal, no deal or no Brexit makes sense. Are you scared that a majority wouldn't agree with you? Just be honest about that. Own it. It makes sense if you want rig it by dividing the leave vote.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Oct 19 5.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
That is not fully correct. British law works on a precedent basis - the precedent for when parliament does not work, or when a government has a minority is to call a general election. So the original point was entirely right. However, this is complicated by both Brexit and the unelected Supreme Court. And further complicated by the original referendum - which is now heading off into the past. How it is being dealt with currently is unacceptable on many levels. You must recognise that. The only relevant law which dictates how Parliament works is the fixed Parliament act. Everything else is convention and conventions can be amended by circumstances. The Supreme Court have just ruled that the government's attempt to prorogue Parliament for political reasons was unlawful, so the law has been clarified in that regard. As the SC is our constitutional court it is naturally the place where such questions get answered. As no Judge, thank goodness, is elected, to impute any kind of political motivation to them is very unfair and completely untrue. How it is being dealt with is 100% correct and I am very proud that it is working as it is. That we must explain things better and restore faith in the system is true, but a separate issue.
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 01 Oct 19 5.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
But a majority did agree with me. That is the point. Leave won. I am not the one arguing for a second chance because my side lost. And given the mood in the country at the moment do you honestly think a second referendum will solve anything? I will not vote in another referendum that has Remain on the ballot paper and will refuse to accept the legitimacy of any result from it. Nothing is resolved now until we either leave on the 31st with or without a deal or else, we have a GE in which parties can be honest about their stances. Then if Parliament has a majority for Remain with the courage of their convictions, it can vote to Revoke. But another referendum? Can you imagine how toxic that would be? Or what happens if there is a mass boycott of it? It ramps tensions up and gives a legitimate justification for people to lose faith in the voting process. Not only before the June 23rd vote but since there are reams of footage of a variety of politicians promising to honour the result then doing a complete U-turn. At least if they betray the Leave vote on the back of a manifesto promise to do so in the run-up to a GE we still maintain a semblance of living in a democracy. But a second referendum when the first has not been honoured? I shudder to think about it.
"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 01 Oct 19 5.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It makes sense if you want rig it by dividing the leave vote. As I am not in favour of it myself I am not attempting to "fool" anyone. I am just trying to explain how it might work. As I would hope those 3 options would involve a single transferable vote, which would certainly split both the "no deal" and "remain" votes with the likely final winner being the "deal". Which hopefully everyone could live with.
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 01 Oct 19 5.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Which hopefully everyone could live with. I believe that millions of us will never 'live with' another referendum with Remain as an option in any way, shape or form. Remain lost. And a GE has to happen eventually. Then we cast our votes solely based on who will take us out of the EU immediately. No referendums just a simple trip to Brussels, hand in the notice again and a default position of no deal. We are leaving the EU no matter what or else the UK implodes.
"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 |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 01 Oct 19 5.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As I am not in favour of it myself I am not attempting to "fool" anyone. I am just trying to explain how it might work. As I would hope those 3 options would involve a single transferable vote, which would certainly split both the "no deal" and "remain" votes with the likely final winner being the "deal". Which hopefully everyone could live with.
|
|
| 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.