@iainjwatson: And downing st insist today's a50 ruling will have no influence on the election date and timetable for triggering it won't be be derailed
No, it'll be the Supreme Court ruling which does that.
Yes, but which Leave? And where is the £350/million for the NHS?
Well at least you are acknowledging that it was a Leave, so you are better than 32% of Remainers who think black is white, up is down, left is right, on is off etc.
Of course it was Leave, anybody's guess how many wanted Hard Brexit (10%?), EEA/EFTA (30%?), £350m to NHS (7%?), bash the Government (5%?). At least the 48% knew what they were voting for.
What would that be?
Ever closer economic and political union?
A European army?
Turkey's entry to the EU?
No, status quo. The things you mentioned were more Leave lies. Of course if we are out we can't influence what the EU might now do.
Turkish accession was a case of taking a lie at face value. The British government pretended to support Turkish membership of the EU. The Leave campaign pretended to believe this lie, an then used it in the campaign.
Yes, but which Leave? And where is the £350/million for the NHS?
Well at least you are acknowledging that it was a Leave, so you are better than 32% of Remainers who think black is white, up is down, left is right, on is off etc.
Of course it was Leave, anybody's guess how many wanted Hard Brexit (10%?), EEA/EFTA (30%?), £350m to NHS (7%?), bash the Government (5%?). At least the 48% knew what they were voting for.
What would that be?
Ever closer economic and political union?
A European army?
Turkey's entry to the EU?
No, status quo. The things you mentioned were more Leave lies. Of course if we are out we can't influence what the EU might now do.
Turkish accession was a case of taking a lie at face value. The British government pretended to support Turkish membership of the EU. The Leave campaign pretended to believe this lie, an then used it in the campaign.
Didn't Boris get flack for supporting Turkey's membership after the vote?
I wonder what form the government bill will take? You could probably do it in one line, but the risk is it will be amended to buggery.
Probably amended along the lines that any final deal has to be put to a second referendum, and will only be binding if at least 50% of the entire electorate votes in favour. Or, will only be binding if every region of the UK + Gibraltar votes in favour. Or, that under 18's be enfranchised, and over 65's be disenfranchised. Whatever form of gerrymandering is required.
Yes, but which Leave? And where is the £350/million for the NHS?
Well at least you are acknowledging that it was a Leave, so you are better than 32% of Remainers who think black is white, up is down, left is right, on is off etc.
Of course it was Leave, anybody's guess how many wanted Hard Brexit (10%?), EEA/EFTA (30%?), £350m to NHS (7%?), bash the Government (5%?). At least the 48% knew what they were voting for.
What would that be?
Ever closer economic and political union?
A European army?
Turkey's entry to the EU?
No, status quo. The things you mentioned were more Leave lies. Of course if we are out we can't influence what the EU might now do.
Turkish accession was a case of taking a lie at face value. The British government pretended to support Turkish membership of the EU. The Leave campaign pretended to believe this lie, an then used it in the campaign.
It was not a lie: the UK government supported Turkish membership of the EU. If Turkey had completed progress towards completing their obligations, I doubt we would have prevented them joining.
Leave made what as, at best, a long-term proposition (and in fact Turkey's been going backwards wrt the aquis) and made it sound imminent.
It was a classic example of where racism in the leave campaign became overt.
Yes, but which Leave? And where is the £350/million for the NHS?
Well at least you are acknowledging that it was a Leave, so you are better than 32% of Remainers who think black is white, up is down, left is right, on is off etc.
Of course it was Leave, anybody's guess how many wanted Hard Brexit (10%?), EEA/EFTA (30%?), £350m to NHS (7%?), bash the Government (5%?). At least the 48% knew what they were voting for.
What would that be?
Ever closer economic and political union?
A European army?
Turkey's entry to the EU?
No, status quo. The things you mentioned were more Leave lies. Of course if we are out we can't influence what the EU might now do.
Turkish accession was a case of taking a lie at face value. The British government pretended to support Turkish membership of the EU. The Leave campaign pretended to believe this lie, an then used it in the campaign.
It was not a lie: the UK government supported Turkish membership of the EU. If Turkey had completed progress towards completing their obligations, I doubt we would have prevented them joining.
Leave made what as, at best, a long-term proposition (and in fact Turkey's been going backwards wrt the aquis) and made it sound imminent.
It was a classic example of where racism in the leave campaign became overt.
The government always relied on other countries vetoing Turkish accession.
Yes, but which Leave? And where is the £350/million for the NHS?
Well at least you are acknowledging that it was a Leave, so you are better than 32% of Remainers who think black is white, up is down, left is right, on is off etc.
Of course it was Leave, anybody's guess how many wanted Hard Brexit (10%?), EEA/EFTA (30%?), £350m to NHS (7%?), bash the Government (5%?). At least the 48% knew what they were voting for.
What would that be?
Ever closer economic and political union?
A European army?
Turkey's entry to the EU?
No, status quo. The things you mentioned were more Leave lies. Of course if we are out we can't influence what the EU might now do.
Turkish accession was a case of taking a lie at face value. The British government pretended to support Turkish membership of the EU. The Leave campaign pretended to believe this lie, an then used it in the campaign.
It was not a lie: the UK government supported Turkish membership of the EU. If Turkey had completed progress towards completing their obligations, I doubt we would have prevented them joining.
Leave made what as, at best, a long-term proposition (and in fact Turkey's been going backwards wrt the aquis) and made it sound imminent.
It was a classic example of where racism in the leave campaign became overt.
The government always relied on other countries vetoing Turkish accession.
In your view. What evidence do you have for it?
On the other hand, there are many, many places where the government over the years has encouraged it, and tried to encourage other EU governments towards their view.
One of the defining characteristics of sovereignty is that a sovereign has no master. On this basis Parliament is not "sovereign" as it has a master - the people who elect it at General Elections. This stage of the process is ignored by the formulation that "Parliament is sovereign". The better formulation is that "Parliament exercises the sovereignty of the people who have the right to elect it". This takes us back to the principle "That which touches all needs the consent of all" and is reflected in the enacting words of an Act of Parliament "with the consent of ... the Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same". On this analysis, Parliament remitted to the sovereign people the decision over EU membership and must therefore abide the result of the referendum or else be guilty of usurping the peoples' ultimate sovereign rights.
I wonder what form the government bill will take? You could probably do it in one line, but the risk is it will be amended to buggery.
Probably amended along the lines that any final deal has to be put to a second referendum, and will only be binding if at least 50% of the entire electorate votes in favour. Or, will only be binding if every region of the UK + Gibraltar votes in favour. Or, that under 18's be enfranchised, and over 65's be disenfranchised. Whatever form of gerrymandering is required.
A final deal could only exist after Article 50 was invoked; and if it was rejected then Britain would leave the EU without a deal.
Since it's been a few months since the referendum, best to check first that a majority still want to leave, surely? So introduce a bill to hold another referendum one Thursday in early December and then, if the result is Leave, to invoke Article 50 immediately. It's not the electorate's fault that the government didn't introduce an Article 50 bill immediately after the June referendum and chose instead to show themselves up in the law courts as a bunch of wallies with basically no policy on Europe, not much drive to formulate one, and little understanding of the scope of government authority. What a crock they are.
And the franchise should be changed: only British citizens should be allowed to vote.
One of the defining characteristics of sovereignty is that a sovereign has no master. On this basis Parliament is not "sovereign" as it has a master - the people who elect it at General Elections. This stage of the process is ignored by the formulation that "Parliament is sovereign". The better formulation is that "Parliament exercises the sovereignty of the people who have the right to elect it". This takes us back to the principle "That which touches all needs the consent of all" and is reflected in the enacting words of an Act of Parliament "with the consent of ... the Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same". On this analysis, Parliament remitted to the sovereign people the decision over EU membership and must therefore abide the result of the referendum or else be guilty of usurping the peoples' ultimate sovereign rights.
So how come Parliament wasn't exercising the "sovereignty of the people" when it chose to make the referendum non-binding, unlike the Scottish independence referendum which the Scottish parliament, exercising authority granted to it by the British parliament, decided to make binding? Do you accept that Parliament may decide to hold non-binding referendums?
Comments
Clinton 31 .. Trump 42 .. McMullin 21
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/utah/election_2016_utah_president
NEW THREAD
At least take the 34-1 and 40-1 off the table at Betfair first, no it isn't mine and I think 28-1 is terrible odds.
#PodestaEmails27
Is there anyone around Hillary Clinton who DOESN'T sound like a criminal? https://t.co/OuCBt1wMXx
Leave made what as, at best, a long-term proposition (and in fact Turkey's been going backwards wrt the aquis) and made it sound imminent.
It was a classic example of where racism in the leave campaign became overt.
On the other hand, there are many, many places where the government over the years has encouraged it, and tried to encourage other EU governments towards their view.
Since it's been a few months since the referendum, best to check first that a majority still want to leave, surely? So introduce a bill to hold another referendum one Thursday in early December and then, if the result is Leave, to invoke Article 50 immediately. It's not the electorate's fault that the government didn't introduce an Article 50 bill immediately after the June referendum and chose instead to show themselves up in the law courts as a bunch of wallies with basically no policy on Europe, not much drive to formulate one, and little understanding of the scope of government authority. What a crock they are.
And the franchise should be changed: only British citizens should be allowed to vote.