High Court rules Parliament must decide on triggering Article 50

[-:Undertaker:-]

High Court rules Parliament must decide on triggering Article 50

The High Court has frustrated the governments attempt to bypass Parliament using the Royal Prerogative


http://rabbisacks.adlertrust.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/House-of-Lords-e1389956624470.jpg

The chances of an early General Election just increased massively this morning.

794119375624302592

794118725972750337

I actually agree with the decision constitutionally and legally. However...

I would go to the country now. Whilst it is very unlikely the House of Commons will outright block Brexit (there's enough MPs from Conservatives, DUP and Labour to vote through) it could seek to warp the details. In addition the House of Lords which is overwhelmingly Remain could seek to delay the process - although if it does it could well be the last thing it does.

[sex]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwVJx6VWIAE0me9.jpg

bye.

[lemons]

the govt should just get on with a vote rather than appealing it's not like it wont get through despite how many mp's didnt want brexit to happen

[Cerys]

How's ur heart rate dan?

Personally yeah parliament is above us so they should get the final say. Think they're silly to appeal tho cos they're complaining about it being delayed to begin with, why are they delaying it further ! !

[-:Undertaker:-]

Cerys;

I'm relaxed. We have the numbers.

779079051600277504

But even if not there are other ways outside the electoral system to force MPs to re-think. That's all I will say...

[FlyingJesus]

So what was the point of the referendum other than to waste shitloads of money? Realistically a vote in the Commons ought to reflect the referendum outcome since they're meant to be working for what their constituents want but obv that won't happen, so basically the entire thing was an exercise in poor politics

[Martin]

I'm confused about why it's taken so long for this to happen?


Also not really relevant, but relevant to brexit! :D Dan you might enjoy this!


https://youtu.be/mVy7faNKEtM

[-:Undertaker:-]

Martin;

Prefer this. :P


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfOUFSlDq6k

[Zak]

Democracy is dead

[Chris]

What a load of shit. If it is voted against in parliament then we essentially wasted time and money on something that was never going to happen.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Many pro-Remain MPs have pledged to respect the will of the people.

However...


https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S3bObZrQoXU/WBtoaNvL7VI/AAAAAAAAIAA/nVoAJkTR2y4j_fib01nObeYlzTjX0AVewCLcB/s640/13620156_1063903340366425_4929478868460418564_n-1.jpg

http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/mps-are-playing-dangerous-games-with.html


MPs know full well there is no stopping Brexit lest they face the wrath of the electorate and there is no way they kind bind Mrs May in a negotiation. All they can do is compel her to seek a particular type of settlement which she is most likely considering anyway. Hard Brexit is not on the table. What is the actual point of this?

Arch-Remainer Ian Dunt is not so impressed with the leaver reaction though.


Britain’s new political class of angry, borderline hysterical campaigners are already on the warpath. “I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50,” Nigel Farage tweeted. “They have no idea the level of public anger they will provoke.” Whenever Farage raises the spectre of public anger and violence, as he did during the referendum on immigration, he makes it out to be a warning. It is in fact a threat. He is trying to incite that mob mentality. He wants riots in the streets.

In this I think Mr Dunt is correct. It's not a warning. It's a call to arms. And though I detest Farage for a number of reasons, on this, I really don't have a problem. I have made similar warnings myself with an implied subtext. I am completely at ease with it. This is basic civics.

Democracy is a substitute for violence. We only have a civil society because of a social contract. It is only because decision making is legitimate that the government has any moral authority to exert force over us. Remove that legitimacy and government authority no longer applies. The government can no longer legitimately apply force.

Spent force though he is, Farage does have a certain sway with a sizable portion of the electorate for whom he is a spokesman. From this position he is issuing a veiled threat, ratcheting up the rhetoric in the knowledge that someone somewhere, willing to do as he alludes, is hearing him loud and clear.

It's not exactly subtle but it is a clear warning to MPs not to even think about derailing Brexit. We had riots over the poll tax so if MPs think they can cynically use process to defeat what we Eurosceptics have worked all our lives for and invested in, then they open up a Pandora's box.

The bottom line is that we had a referendum, a free and fair referendum where the advantage was stacked strongly in favour of the status quo. That was the mountain for the leavers to climb and we climbed it. We won. It was a slim win but a win nonetheless.

It shows that there are MPs who see themselves as rulers not servants. Such extreme hubris warrants a more robust threat than the threat to kick them out at the next general election. Whether Dunt likes it or not, Brexit is deadly serious.


This is about self determination. It is an intergenerational struggle spanning decades. We eurosceptics live this cause, we will fight for it for as long as it takes. We are fanatics. We will do, in the long run, whatever it takes to ensure that Britain is not ruled by a remote antidemocratic technocracy.

As Farage said on the night, we achieved our victory without a shot being fired.

Let us hope MPs are smart enough to keep it that way.

[dbgtz]

Yes because when have the government ever been unable to/decided not to fulfill a "promise" ;)

[Lucy]

As much as people do not like it the majority of those who voted decided leave was the best option, you would be committing political suicide to go against the mandate of the people. I have stopped browsing /r/unitedkingdom on reddit because I am sick of reading the rubbish. I agree with Chris that if they go back on the referendum decision what a total waste of time and effort.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What irks me is the people who spat on Parliamentary Sovereignty for forty years and handed it over to EU institutions despite telling us all otherwise time after time are now the ones posing as defenders of Parliamentary Sovereignty. We weren't born yesterday. I have a Remoaner friend who literally discovered the principle yesterday and now parrots it.

[FlyingJesus]

Bad losers and bad winners tbh

[AgnesIO]

What irks me is the people who spat on Parliamentary Sovereignty for forty years and handed it over to EU institutions despite telling us all otherwise time after time are now the ones posing as defenders of Parliamentary Sovereignty. We weren't born yesterday. I have a Remoaner friend who literally discovered the principle yesterday and now parrots it.

What irks me is the incredible one-sided angle of all your posts. Come off it, Dan.

You are right - Remain voters are saying this. IN THE SAME WAY THAT LEAVE VOTERS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT BEING UNFAIR.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, no surprises that the Pound gained strength the moment this was announced.

But it's cool guys, the pounds crash isn't directly related to the outcome of the referendum :rolleyes:

[Cerys]

this gave me a lil giggle


https://youtu.be/WwsQ_5Wm4oo

but ye tbh even tho i dont want brexit i think people should just accept that the chances are its happening and get over it !! no point wasting time and energy when the chances of changing anything are so tiny and the repercussions of overruling the referendum could be equally as big imo

[-:Undertaker:-]

Farage is publically calling for a General Election and Government Ministers are openly discussing it, sources are now saying.

794526138353721345


What irks me is the incredible one-sided angle of all your posts. Come off it, Dan.

Of course my posts are one sided. I'm here on the forum to give my opinion on matters.

What do you think I am, an AQA Politics & History text book?


You are right - Remain voters are saying this. IN THE SAME WAY THAT LEAVE VOTERS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT BEING UNFAIR.

About what being unfair?

Many Remain voters (and certainly those in Parliament like the odious little rats David Lammy MP and Nick Clegg MP) still aren't accepting the result are are either threatening to block or keep us in the Single Market. Over my dead body.

Those in stages 4 & 5 have my respect and those in 3, 2 and 1 my increasing contempt and loathing.

794137827638472704

It [the debate] is no longer Remain vs Leave but Democrats vs anti-Democrats. Pick a side.

[Empired]

I have a few genuine questions I want to know the answer to plz everyone mostly cos I like to know whats going on but haven't rly been keeping up :(

Ok hello one, what would a general election now actually do? Surely article 50 will still have to be triggered by parliament so why would an election change anything?

Second of all dan you say we have to accept the result of the referendum but I don't understand what the result actually does except /say/ the people want this. Surely we all knew at the time the result of the referendum isn't the thing that directly changes whether or not we are in the EU or not? (Not challenging your post I genuinely don't understand why people seem to think the referendum was the number 1 deciding factor that would actually make a change)

Finally I don't understand ur point about democrats vs anti democrats. Cos surely British democracy doesn't work like that? Saying "the people have spoken therefore they must get their way" over specific matters is not democracy is it? If I could get a majority vote to paint the houses of parliament pink or randomly declare war on france for no reason are we doing that as well now because the people have spoken and disagreeing would make you an anti democrat? Cos that pink one would be cool and I would love to see that.

[dbgtz]

-:Undertaker:-; I find it funny you call Nick Clegg and David Lammy rats, but I highly doubt if it was the other way around you would be calling Farage a rat. I think that's what AgnesIO means by your awful bias.

In a democracy, why do you think that people should just sit and accept the result? Isn't the whole point of a democracy and freedom of speech that you can and should keep fighting for your own view?

I also tried to look for the actual document/report on that UEA/Change Britain image but couldn't actually find anything.

[AgnesIO]

I have a few genuine questions I want to know the answer to plz everyone mostly cos I like to know whats going on but haven't rly been keeping up :(

Ok hello one, what would a general election now actually do? Surely article 50 will still have to be triggered by parliament so why would an election change anything?

Nigel Farage probably wants another attempt at being elected in an election people vote in ;)

Second of all dan you say we have to accept the result of the referendum but I don't understand what the result actually does except /say/ the people want this. Surely we all knew at the time the result of the referendum isn't the thing that directly changes whether or not we are in the EU or not? (Not challenging your post I genuinely don't understand why people seem to think the referendum was the number 1 deciding factor that would actually make a change

In fairness, whilst referendums aren't legally binding, they are typically politically binding. In that a government not following the result of a referendum can be fatal for the party.

Finally I don't understand ur point about democrats vs anti democrats. Cos surely British democracy doesn't work like that? Saying "the people have spoken therefore they must get their way" over specific matters is not democracy is it? If I could get a majority vote to paint the houses of parliament pink or randomly declare war on france for no reason are we doing that as well now because the people have spoken and disagreeing would make you an anti democrat? Cos that pink one would be cool and I would love to see that.


It doesn't. Dan just has dreams over the idea that it does.


Farage is publically calling for a General Election and Government Ministers are openly discussing it, sources are now saying.

Isn't it time Farage removed himself? I thought he was too busy supporting Trump in America nowadays, anyway.

794526138353721345



Of course my posts are one sided. I'm here on the forum to give my opinion on matters.

What do you think I am, an AQA Politics & History text book?

Any successful debater can see one sides view, and then explain why it is wrong. You can't do this.

About what being unfair?

Many Remain voters (and certainly those in Parliament like the odious little rats David Lammy MP and Nick Clegg MP) still aren't accepting the result are are either threatening to block or keep us in the Single Market. Over my dead body.

Those in stages 4 & 5 have my respect and those in 3, 2 and 1 my increasing contempt and loathing.

Leave voters have been complaining that it is unfair that Parliament gets a say. Despite people clearly missing the irony that that is what they supposedly wanted when taking power back from the EU.

794137827638472704

It [the debate] is no longer Remain vs Leave but Democrats vs anti-Democrats. Pick a side.But it isn't.


Longer.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I have a few genuine questions I want to know the answer to plz everyone mostly cos I like to know whats going on but haven't rly been keeping up :(

Ok hello one, what would a general election now actually do? Surely article 50 will still have to be triggered by parliament so why would an election change anything?

A General Election would likely, according to polling, hand the Conservatives a majority in the House of Commons of over 100 MPs meaning she would be able to activate Article 50 without the risk of any funny business going on. At the moment the governments majority is something like 11 MPs - some of which are dogmatic Remainers - although if you add the DUP and Ukip you have something like 30 MPs. A larger majority simply means less chance of being held to ransom by people who pretend they are accepting the result but really are going for death by a thousand amendments.


Second of all dan you say we have to accept the result of the referendum but I don't understand what the result actually does except /say/ the people want this. Surely we all knew at the time the result of the referendum isn't the thing that directly changes whether or not we are in the EU or not? (Not challenging your post I genuinely don't understand why people seem to think the referendum was the number 1 deciding factor that would actually make a change)

Seriously?

We had a referendum asking us whether we wanted to Remain or Leave the European Union with the Government, Parliamentarians and each side vowing to accept and implement the will of the British people. What's not to understand? The question was very simple to understand and Leave received the largest vote share ever in British history.


Finally I don't understand ur point about democrats vs anti democrats. Cos surely British democracy doesn't work like that? Saying "the people have spoken therefore they must get their way" over specific matters is not democracy is it? If I could get a majority vote to paint the houses of parliament pink or randomly declare war on france for no reason are we doing that as well now because the people have spoken and disagreeing would make you an anti democrat? Cos that pink one would be cool and I would love to see that.

It does work like that in referendum matters. We rarely have referendums, and we only have them on important constitutional matters such as joining the EEC, Scottish and Welsh devolution, the status of the Falklands, the status of Gibraltar, the status of Northern Ireland, the voting system, Scottish independence and British independence from the EU.

We put constitutional matters directly to the people because ultimately the constitution belongs to we the people and any major changes must be approved by us. This has been the case now in our constitution since 1975. Had Scotland voted for independence, do you think it would be practical or acceptable to tell Scottish Britons to get bent as we're blocking it in the House of Commons or Lords? It would've broken my heart to see Scotland leave but I accept I have to abide by the will of the people.


@-:Undertaker:- (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233); I find it funny you call Nick Clegg and David Lammy rats, but I highly doubt if it was the other way around you would be calling Farage a rat. I think that's what AgnesIO means by your awful bias.

Why would I call Farage a rat?

He's been speaking for the will of the people for years, not obstructing it or denying it like those two.


In a democracy, why do you think that people should just sit and accept the result? Isn't the whole point of a democracy and freedom of speech that you can and should keep fighting for your own view?

You don't have to 'accept' the result as just or right. You can disagree with it. The issue is, you cannot keep forcing people to vote in order for you to get what is the 'right' answer. That is not democracy. Now sure, if you really wish to stay in the European Union then you can still campaign once we have left to re-join in the future if you wish.

It is like with this referendum. I stated I would accept the result had it gone the other way, and I would have. Would I have stopped campaigning for British independence? No. But would I have accepted the result? Yes. I knew henceforth that my next chance was at the next EU Treaty, which would have been 10 years+ ahead which would've triggered the referendum lock. The same with Scotland. Had it gone the other way it would not have changed my belief in the Union (ever) but in Parliament I certainly would not stand in the way of the will of Scots and would have simply abstained.


I also tried to look for the actual document/report on that UEA/Change Britain image but couldn't actually find anything.

Various constituency estimates around. Or just look at a map of the vote.


https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d0aa5196ea368733dbdc3cfcfbab42f0?convert_to_webp=t rue

https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/the-eu-referendum-how-did-westminster-constituencies-vote-283c85cd20e1#.6vtetpole


- 421 out of 574 English and Welsh constituencies probably voted to Leave- Of these, 270 English and Welsh constituencies almost definitely voted to Leave
- 152 constituencies probably voted to Remain.
- Of these, half (76) almost definitely voted to Remain.

Whether you want to view it through seats or votes we won.


Any successful debater can see one sides view, and then explain why it is wrong. You can't do this.

I've spent years on here explaining why EU membership is wrong. Wake up.


Leave voters have been complaining that it is unfair that Parliament gets a say. Despite people clearly missing the irony that that is what they supposedly wanted when taking power back from the EU.

It isn't unfair that Parliament as a *formality* votes through Article 50 however it would be more than unfair - and in my eyes make Parliament illegitimate which is huge for someone who respects institutions as I do to say - if Parliament dares to obstruct or block the will of the people. Parliament voted by a overwhelming margin to delegate this decision to the British public via a referendum, and we returned our decision. It is now up to Parliament and the Government to deliver it.

Or face serious consequences.

[dbgtz]

A General Election would likely, according to polling, hand the Conservatives a majority in the House of Commons of over 100 MPs meaning she would be able to activate Article 50 without the risk of any funny business going on. At the moment the governments majority is something like 11 MPs - some of which are dogmatic Remainers - although if you add the DUP and Ukip you have something like 30 MPs. A larger majority simply means less chance of being held to ransom by people who pretend they are accepting the result but really are going for death by a thousand amendments.


The DUP + UKIP is 9. And isn't that one UKIP MP very much a rebel?



Why would I call Farage a rat?

He's been speaking for the will of the people for years, not obstructing it or denying it like those two.


So much I need to say on this one bit alone.
One, I was speaking as if remain had won and Farage would inevitable call for a second referendum as he said he would. You would not be calling him a rat. The fact you even call people rats in what should be a rational discussion is quite laughable frankly.
Two, stop using "the will of the people". It is misleading and suggests it has significant support by everybody.
Three, the "will of the people", as you like to call it, has been has never been fixed. Support for the EU has generally had greater support than against, hence why even Farage himself thought the leave campaign would not win. Not to say EU support has ever been huge, though.



You don't have to 'accept' the result as just or right. You can disagree with it. The issue is, you cannot keep forcing people to vote in order for you to get what is the 'right' answer. That is not democracy. Now sure, if you really wish to stay in the European Union then you can still campaign once we have left to re-join in the future if you wish.

It is like with this referendum. I stated I would accept the result had it gone the other way, and I would have. Would I have stopped campaigning for British independence? No. But would I have accepted the result? Yes. I knew henceforth that my next chance was at the next EU Treaty, which would have been 10 years+ ahead which would've triggered the referendum lock. The same with Scotland. Had it gone the other way it would not have changed my belief in the Union (ever) but in Parliament I certainly would not stand in the way of the will of Scots and would have simply abstained.


Except what seems to be happening is the process going through the correct legal procedure going through Parliament, and as you seem to like Parliamentary sovereignty and our legal system, I don't quite see what your issue is. At the end of the day, it's another check and balance on the executive which is not a bad thing.

I'm very interested to see which way certain MPs vote and see how the media castrates them as much as they did the judges. Enemies of the state :)



Various constituency estimates around. Or just look at a map of the vote.


https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d0aa5196ea368733dbdc3cfcfbab42f0?convert_to_webp=t rue

https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/the-eu-referendum-how-did-westminster-constituencies-vote-283c85cd20e1#.6vtetpole



Whether you want to view it through seats or votes we won.


My mistake here, I misread it initially. I thought it was a poll conducted. It's still rather misleading since the referendum was a binary choice.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The DUP + UKIP is 9. And isn't that one UKIP MP very much a rebel?

Mr Carswell will vote to abide by the will of the people.


So much I need to say on this one bit alone.

One, I was speaking as if remain had won and Farage would inevitable call for a second referendum as he said he would. You would not be calling him a rat. The fact you even call people rats in what should be a rational discussion is quite laughable frankly.

If you think the rhetoric/discourse is turning poisonous now then just see what happens if you try and block our vote.


Two, stop using "the will of the people". It is misleading and suggests it has significant support by everybody.

Three, the "will of the people", as you like to call it, has been has never been fixed. Support for the EU has generally had greater support than against, hence why even Farage himself thought the leave campaign would not win. Not to say EU support has ever been huge, though.

Incorrect, going by the polling of the last few years you were heading for an even bigger hammering.


http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-02-24/OveralEU-3.png




Except what seems to be happening is the process going through the correct legal procedure going through Parliament, and as you seem to like Parliamentary sovereignty and our legal system, I don't quite see what your issue is. At the end of the day, it's another check and balance on the executive which is not a bad thing.

Provided it votes it through.


I'm very interested to see which way certain MPs vote and see how the media castrates them as much as they did the judges. Enemies of the state :)

Enemies of the people, actually.


My mistake here, I misread it initially. I thought it was a poll conducted. It's still rather misleading since the referendum was a binary choice.

And in the binary choice we won by 1.3m votes.

Are you telling me MPs should block Article 50?

[Misawa]

It's the right thing to do - legally. Should parliament vote against the will of the people? No, because that's just bad for democracy (despite 'remain' more than likely receiving most votes if there was to be a second public referendum).

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's the right thing to do - legally. Should parliament vote against the will of the people? No, because that's just bad for democracy (despite 'remain' more than likely receiving most votes if there was to be a second public referendum).

I agree with first points but it really is a Remain delusion that they'd win a second referendum. All of the polling shows virtually no movement between either side and certainly nothing outside the Margin of Error. I know of no one who 'Bregrets' their vote. :P

Infact I have a friend of mine who voted Remain who said he would switch to Leave if the country were forced to vote again because he'd be that disgusted in having a democratic result overturned. Kudos for his principle on democracy.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9776

[Misawa]

I don't know, I personally know of a few people who voted for leave who have since regretted their choice. I think there were a lot of blind votes.

[peteyt]

You don't have to 'accept' the result as just or right. You can disagree with it. The issue is, you cannot keep forcing people to vote in order for you to get what is the 'right' answer. That is not democracy. Now sure, if you really wish to stay in the European Union then you can still campaign once we have left to re-join in the future if you wish.

Exactly. You do not set up a massive vote, get the results in and then just ignore the results or ask for a revote. The majority voted out, and so we have to leave, in the same way that if remain won, we would have stayed in. Not being happy with the results is one thing, but expecting something else is wrong. Believe me, if the government go against the majority, things will get ugly.

[hungryfront]

I mean okay I have to say I disagree with their decision and it's unfair, but I think part of the reason the High Court may have ruled it was because of how much the Leave campaign lied, with their £350m per week to go to the NHS. Because of budget cuts, my most local hospital (the Princess Royal Hospital) is possibly closing their A&E Department, so that means if I'm hit by a car I have to travel at BEST 21 minutes in the back of an ambulance, and that's with no traffic.

[Zak]

Parliamentary democracy is not such a bad thing. The general public were fed so much tripe in the lead up to the referendum - majority of us are the ill-informed - they are (supposedly) the informed. Therefore it makes sense give it to parliament.

Anyway they are to do the best for the country and if everything is telling them that it's going to bankrupt the country etc then it shouldn't be done. If it's a mixed picture then they should certainly consider the people's decision.

The general public can't the decisions on their own. Vote for higher taxes? Oh everyone votes against it, but it will still happen haha.

I really have a limited understanding of how all this works - so if I make any mistakes please correct me!

[-:Undertaker:-]

@Zak (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=33322);

Never understood this elitist argument. The general public aren't qualified to make a decision on a single issue in a binary referendum you say but they're qualified at General Election to make a decision that will determine the entire governance of the realm? Huh?

And if you believe most modern Parliamentarians are informed you're very much mistaken. The two main parties are dominated by close-minded cliques at their centres who know nothing of much outside North London. What makes them so qualified and clever? If the threat of a referendum on Euro membership which people would've voted against was never hanging over them back in 2001 then they [the oh so clever politicians] would've took us into the Euro currency. A not-so-clever decision as it transpired.

Parliament voted something like 6 to 1 to give the decision to we the people. They work for us not the other way round.

794953918824456193

[dbgtz]

Mr Carswell will vote to abide by the will of the people.


Stop saying the will of the people.
And that is not proof of which way he will vote.



If you think the rhetoric/discourse is turning poisonous now then just see what happens if you try and block our vote.


Yeah because it's been really nice until up to now with the xenophobia and racism. Not saying all leavers are such, but you would be foolish to think there was none.
And there's this nice comparison which was on Reddit:
http://i.imgur.com/jZwyLTx.jpg



Incorrect, going by the polling of the last few years you were heading for an even bigger hammering.


http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-02-24/OveralEU-3.png


Is that why people continuously voted parties which were clearly going to do little about it?



Provided it votes it through.


"It's a good thing if it does what I want".



Enemies of the people, actually.


Not sure if you're just correcting me or actually agreeing with it also.



And in the binary choice we won by 1.3m votes.

Are you telling me MPs should block Article 50?

You've taken what I said to a new meaning. My point was you can't use the result of the referendum to predict the amount of MPs in Parliament who would vote out.

And considering A) MPs were elected to represent us and are actually educated on the matter, absolutely and B) You say 1.3m as if that's a huge number, when in actuality it's only ~2% of the population or ~4% of those who voted. In that context, 1.3m is not a huge number which is supported by recent polling that Remain would win. Using raw figures is bad practice, so stop doing it.

I find it funny when you mention margin of error in a different post when you don't seem to understand GCSE maths?

Also, in your response to Zak, firstly I want to say it was down to Gordon Brown we didn't join the Euro. Probably the only good thing he actually did. But I have to ask, for someone who clearly does not trust our Politicians, why do you advocate for such a strong state? Why do you advocate so hard for FPTP? Why aren't you campaigning for more local powers so that at least those who live in their own area can control what happens? Why are you even for the UK?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Stop saying the will of the people.
And that is not proof of which way he will vote.

It is the will of the people. We had a referendum with very high turnout, remember?


Yeah because it's been really nice until up to now with the xenophobia and racism. Not saying all leavers are such, but you would be foolish to think there was none.

You lost the referendum calling everyone racist or bigoted who believed different and it did you no good then nor will it now.


And there's this nice comparison which was on Reddit:
http://i.imgur.com/jZwyLTx.jpg

It was also a common tactic of mass-murdering Communist Russia to constantly compare their detractors to Nazi Germany.

So you compare us to Fascists and I compare you to Communists. Now what?


Is that why people continuously voted parties which were clearly going to do little about it?

But they didn't though, did they? Every single General Election we were treated to the Conservatives and Labour promising to either take back powers from European Union institutions or at the very best to stop transferring more powers. Yet again and again the complete opposite happened which is why Ukip came about and forced a referendum on the issue.

That's why the re-negotiation tactic failed too incase you're wondering. By 2016, your credibility on 'reform' was non-existent.


"It's a good thing if it does what I want".

Correct. Parliament delegated this decision to the British public and we have returned our verdict which must be upheld.


You've taken what I said to a new meaning. My point was you can't use the result of the referendum to predict the amount of MPs in Parliament who would vote out.

I wasn't, I was just pointing out that if we do need to go a General Election then an overwhelming majority of seats have a Leave majority in them around the country. The referendum in the end was called because of a huge disconnect on this issue between MPs and their constituents as evidenced by the gulf of opinion between the people and MPs on this. Hence the referendum.


And considering A) MPs were elected to represent us and are actually educated on the matter, absolutely and B) You say 1.3m as if that's a huge number, when in actuality it's only ~2% of the population or ~4% of those who voted. In that context, 1.3m is not a huge number which is supported by recent polling that Remain would win. Using raw figures is bad practice, so stop doing it.

It doesn't matter whether it was 1,300,000 margin of victory or 100,000. It was 50%+1 carried the day. End of story.


I find it funny when you mention margin of error in a different post when you don't seem to understand GCSE maths?

what


Also, in your response to Zak, firstly I want to say it was down to Gordon Brown we didn't join the Euro. Probably the only good thing he actually did. But I have to ask, for someone who clearly does not trust our Politicians, why do you advocate for such a strong state? Why do you advocate so hard for FPTP? Why aren't you campaigning for more local powers so that at least those who live in their own area can control what happens? Why are you even for the UK?

Firstly Gordon Brown did not prevent us joining, that was a campaign by Business for Sterling.

Secondly what makes you say I advocate for 'such a strong' state?

Thirdly because I believe FPTP is the best voting system.

Fourthly I have said for a long time that we should return to the pre-Local Government Act 1972.

Finally why would I not be the for existence of my country?

[-:Undertaker:-]

795567507054673920

:) :) :)

[dbgtz]

It is the will of the people. We had a referendum with very high turnout, remember?


A high turnout with a rather small majority.



You lost the referendum calling everyone racist or bigoted who believed different and it did you no good then nor will it now.


I mean, I did say not every leaver but it's clear some were very xenophobic or racist. On the flip side, some on the remain were clear multiculturalists.
At no point have I ever dismissed someones argument for being as such.



It was also a common tactic of mass-murdering Communist Russia to constantly compare their detractors to Nazi Germany.

So you compare us to Fascists and I compare you to Communists. Now what?


Well, the UK does supposedly have the most fascist movements :¬:
I do think it highlights their clear lack of respect for law though.



But they didn't though, did they? Every single General Election we were treated to the Conservatives and Labour promising to either take back powers from European Union institutions or at the very best to stop transferring more powers. Yet again and again the complete opposite happened which is why Ukip came about and forced a referendum on the issue.

That's why the re-negotiation tactic failed too incase you're wondering. By 2016, your credibility on 'reform' was non-existent.


You know what might have helped? PR :¬:

No but people always bang on about not trusting politicians, so why would you vote those you don't trust?

But let's take a look back starting at 1997.

Labour manifesto 1997
High priority for enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of central and eastern Europe and Cyprus, and the institutional reforms necessary to make an enlarged Europe work more efficiently.
Mentions referendums for: voting system; devolved institutions; something about London; the Euro. Nothing on the EU as a whole.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab97.htm

Labour manifesto 2001
The Conservative policy of opposing the enlargement of Europe in the Nice Treaty and their pledge to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s EU membership is dangerous and ill thought-out.
Same referendum promises except for the one about London it seems.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/e01/man/lab/lab01.htm

Labour manifesto 2005
We will continue to lead European defence cooperation.
Again, no referendum on the EU itself.
http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/tutorial/labour%20manifesto%202005.pdf

Conservative 2010.
No mention of a referendum on leaving the EU, only:
We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.
The Lib Dem manifesto goes without saying they did not want it.

Only in the Conservative 2015 manifesto is an in/out referendum actually mentioned.



Correct. Parliament delegated this decision to the British public and we have returned our verdict which must be upheld.


In a non binding vote. Please show me where it legally must be upheld.



I wasn't, I was just pointing out that if we do need to go a General Election then an overwhelming majority of seats have a Leave majority in them around the country. The referendum in the end was called because of a huge disconnect on this issue between MPs and their constituents as evidenced by the gulf of opinion between the people and MPs on this. Hence the referendum.


Was it? Or was it called because David Cameron wanted to unite his party and be PM for another 4 years? Or maybe because the public were very much mislead on certain parts (from both sides)?

I'm going to pose a hypothetical to you now. Let's say tomorrow, there's a referendum held on the type of processors in PCs. It is held because a group said that x86 architecture was outdated and that ARM architecture should be adopted.
Do you those who don't actually know anything about these should be able to vote on it?



It doesn't matter whether it was 1,300,000 margin of victory or 100,000. It was 50%+1 carried the day. End of story.


It kind of does when people's opinions are volatile. It does matter when the decision is actually irreversible in our current deal. It does matter when that one vote could have simply been a miscount.



what


Nae bother.



Firstly Gordon Brown did not prevent us joining, that was a campaign by Business for Sterling.

Secondly what makes you say I advocate for 'such a strong' state?

Thirdly because I believe FPTP is the best voting system.

Fourthly I have said for a long time that we should return to the pre-Local Government Act 1972.

Finally why would I not be the for existence of my country?

Going to need a source on that first point. I see no mention of that whatsoever. I mean, the tests for the Euro existed before that pressure group so I'm not sure exactly what your point is. And if Labour did stick to their manifesto, then we'd have got a referendum on the Euro.

Sorry, when I said strong state I mean a strong party in power. Miscommunication on my end. I do feel like this is getting slightly off topic at this point though and honestly I want to go watch my show now lmao

[-:Undertaker:-]

A high turnout with a rather small majority.

A 4% victory is by far enough, as would be 0.5%.


I mean, I did say not every leaver but it's clear some were very xenophobic or racist. On the flip side, some on the remain were clear multiculturalists.

At no point have I ever dismissed someones argument for being as such.

The fact you brought it up is you using it as a slur. But nevertheless it doesn't even matter of 1%, 5% or 20% of those who voting Leave were fascist, racist or the spawn of Hitler himself. We all had one vote each in the referendum.


Well, the UK does supposedly have the most fascist movements :¬:
I do think it highlights their clear lack of respect for law though.

Lack of respect for the law... or a story just made up on Twitter?

https://twitter.com/i/moments/795625410432299008


You know what might have helped? PR :¬:

As a constitutionalist I do not feel the need to meddle with the constitution in order to achieve my goals.


No but people always bang on about not trusting politicians, so why would you vote those you don't trust?

We both understand the power of the tribal vote. In many ways, the true feeling of euroscepticism in this country has been hidden for many years given the establishment agreement on it. The referendum showed us the true feeling.


But let's take a look back starting at 1997.

Labour manifesto 1997
High priority for enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of central and eastern Europe and Cyprus, and the institutional reforms necessary to make an enlarged Europe work more efficiently.
Mentions referendums for: voting system; devolved institutions; something about London; the Euro. Nothing on the EU as a whole.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab97.htm

Labour manifesto 2001
The Conservative policy of opposing the enlargement of Europe in the Nice Treaty and their pledge to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s EU membership is dangerous and ill thought-out.
Same referendum promises except for the one about London it seems.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/e01/man/lab/lab01.htm

Labour manifesto 2005
We will continue to lead European defence cooperation.
Again, no referendum on the EU itself.
http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/tutorial/labour%20manifesto%202005.pdf

Conservative 2010.
No mention of a referendum on leaving the EU, only:
We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.
The Lib Dem manifesto goes without saying they did not want it.

Only in the Conservative 2015 manifesto is an in/out referendum actually mentioned.

I was not referring to an in/out referendum I was referring to numerous pledges on powers going to EU institutions. From the very start we were told it was a mere trading arrangement and no sovereignty would be lost. Then the Single European Act. Then Nice. Then Amsterdam. Then Maastricht. Then Lisbon. For the last forty years the European Union has acquired powers from our sovereign Parliament without explicit agreement from the British public or done so under a pretext of lies (oh its just a tidying up exercise. oh it's just about trade) and we rejected it in June.


In a non binding vote. Please show me where it legally must be upheld.

Legally Parliament doesn't have to abide by anything and could rip up constitutional documents like the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Acts of Union and Acts of Succession. Legally if it so wished, it could legislate for an end to elections, to behead the Queen, to abolish the Supreme Court and to build a giant pink elephant in London. Parliament is sovereign so legally and hypothetically it has the powers to do as it wishes.

However Parliament is bound (in an uncodified manner) both morally and by convention to uphold certain things such as the Magna Carta. Such as the Bill of Rights. And, more recently, the results of referendums that it puts to the people itself in Acts of Parliament as the EU referendum was. So yes, strictly legally and hypothetically Parliament can do as it wishes however Parliament ultimately has to abide by certain constraints unless it wants to follow Charles I or Louis XVI.


Was it? Or was it called because David Cameron wanted to unite his party and be PM for another 4 years? Or maybe because the public were very much mislead on certain parts (from both sides)?

And why did he have to unite his party?

795363910153097216


I'm going to pose a hypothetical to you now. Let's say tomorrow, there's a referendum held on the type of processors in PCs. It is held because a group said that x86 architecture was outdated and that ARM architecture should be adopted.

Do you those who don't actually know anything about these should be able to vote on it?

Processors in computers isn't a constitutional/national issue of huge importance so.... no.


It kind of does when people's opinions are volatile. It does matter when the decision is actually irreversible in our current deal. It does matter when that one vote could have simply been a miscount.

Luckily it was a 1,300,000 winning margin then.


Going to need a source on that first point. I see no mention of that whatsoever. I mean, the tests for the Euro existed before that pressure group so I'm not sure exactly what your point is. And if Labour did stick to their manifesto, then we'd have got a referendum on the Euro.

You'll need to check out books on the history of Euroscepticism for that.

And surely you'd have been against a referendum on the Euro given most common people in your eyes are simply too stupid to decide on such matters. So as a result, the oh so clever experts would have taken us in. Great!


Sorry, when I said strong state I mean a strong party in power. Miscommunication on my end. I do feel like this is getting slightly off topic at this point though and honestly I want to go watch my show now lmao

I don't believe I have ever advocated for a strong party in power merely one that will respond to public opinion and which will stand up for the country against those seeking to do it harm. Domestically I have always rallied against a big state whether it be on detention without trial, terror laws, spying, extradition warrants, secret courts, gun legislation, free speech prosecutions and so on and so forth.

[Lucy]

I don't understand the small majority argument, if its declared a majority then that is what it is. If in an election a government has a majority even if its small it is still a majority. For example our "fantastic" Australian government only have a majority of 4 seats but they don't let us forget its a majority government.

[FlyingJesus]

My team lost 4-3 at the weekend, gonna petition the league to let us do it again because it was close