Brexit, for once some facts.

[Danidl]

This does amaze me.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/08/mps-must-stop-wishful-thinking-and-back-may-on-brexit-irish-deputy-pm-simon-coveney

Foreign governments trying to influence our parliament. Are people so naive that they think the German government is doing this from the goodness of its heart and Ireland is just being altruistic all of a sudden?

Mays deal is shizen for us but great for the EU. Look at how desperately they want us to take it. Wto deal should be started as soon as the vote fails. It will give the EU a chance to come back but more importantly a bit of time to get some things in order.

And as for the 200 idiot MPs signing a Neville Chamberlain style bit of paper saying we cant have a Wto deal...what kind of fools are they?

Seriously. That is so stupid its almost treasonable. Sign ANY deal? What does that even mean? Sign away all our fishing rights? Sign away our opportunity to trade freely with the word? Sign away everything? But no wto deal?

Ridiculous.

Yes. I do so believe. Is the concept of solidarity so difficult to follow. ?. The German government,the Irish government,the US President, the Russian President and Uncle Tom Cobbley are all entitled to proffer advice,and to influence your Parliament in an open way. What is Diplomacy other than that?.
What we are not entitled to do is bribe individuals to buy votes... (Although I do understand that that is also considered Diplomacy) . Let us be very clear the only people who can commit treason against the UK are the citizens of the UK . It is only treason when it contravenes an existing act.
You may hold any view you like about the desirability of the May Deal , and those 200 MPs ,may hold a differing view. Neither is treason. Either will become treasonous if on the passing of the Act in your parliament, you are they then conspire illegally , to subvert the will of Parliament.... This is a consequence of decisions your parliament made in the negotiations with William of Orange.

 

[50Hertz]

I can't see it's undemocratic. We are a parliamentary democracy in which MPs act according to their conscience and where every citizen, including MPs and Cabinet Ministers, are entitled to have their own view and express it.

Anna Soubry is a remainer and is not bound by a majority in her constituency voting Leave. She also represents all those in her constituency who voted Remain and is entitled to prefer their choice.
.

There was close to a 10% differential in Anna Soubry’ constituency in favour of leave. She was elected to represent the views of the majority of her constituents and she isn’t doing that. It’s not really sensible saying she is representing the views of the minority. Where do you draw the line? What if only one person had voted remain in Broxtowe? Would that give her license to represent that one person to the exclusion of thousands of others?

I’m afraid Anna Soubry isn’t representing the wishes of a clear majority of Browtowe voters. She is doing her own thing. People are angry about that and we are starting to see the anger boiling over.

 

[50Hertz]

Perhaps you can explain where the Jackboots and expressions dictatorial and undemocratic apply?
You can't have it both ways, either politicians are fair game to be agressively verbally threatened, or they are not.
She wants not to be accosted in the street and called names, do you think bullying and itimidating women in public is OK?
So she hasn't the right to expect the Police to intervene?
What happened to the laws on disturbing the Peace?
"
Disturbing the peace, also known as breach of the peace, is a criminal offense that occurs when a person engages in some form of disorderly conduct, such as fighting or causing excessively loud noise. When a person's words or conduct jeopardizes another person's right to peace and tranquility, he or she may be charged with disturbing the peace.


What Constitutes Disturbing the Peace?
Disturbing the peace laws exist to prevent people from disturbing the peace of others while they are tending to their daily business and personal affairs. These laws vary from state to state, but they typically prohibit:

• Fighting or challenging someone to fight in a public place;
• Using offensive words in a public place likely to incite violence;
• Shouting in a public place intending to incite violence or unlawful activity;

She has every right to expect the police to at least warn off the offenders and restore peace

Broxtowe voted to leave by close to a 10% majority. To pay total disregard for that majority is dictatorial. Jackbooted politics.

Why are you so outraged by the words which were allegedly spoken to Soubry, yet when a baying mob of left wing thugs tried to physically attack Nigel Farage, necessitating him to take refuge in a building, not a peep of condemnation from you? Why is that?

 

[flecc]

While I certainly don't agree with the way she is being treated by a very small minority, I think it is an inevitable result of some feeling that they are going to be stitched up by the very people who represent them.

But they are wrong as I explained, neither she nor any other MPs are stitching them up. Furthermore, the referendum was advisory and proclaimed as such at the outset. No-one, MPs, Government or parliament is bound by it.

Given the scale of problems it's created, it would have
been better if the government had stated the result too indecisive to be acted upon. That might have been understood, since it's obvious there will never be any peace with the very close result we got. It's too easy to pick holes in it, the exclusion of Brits living abroad for example and the exclusion of the 16 to 18s who will be most affected. A decisive margin is necessary to avoid these grievances.
.

 

[flecc]

What if only one person had voted remain in Broxtowe? Would that give her license to represent that one person to the exclusion of thousands of others?

She doesn't need licence, as their elected representative she decides what is best in her opinion. That is her duty in our parliamentary system. You may not like it but that is the only one we have. And as noted above, the referendum was advisory as it always will be in our system.

Her electorate can express their dislike by voting her out at the next opportunity, and that is what they are limited to. Also don't forget she was a staunch remainer at the general election and they voted her in, so they only have themselves to blame.
.

 

[Woosh]

But the point is that she is using her position as a democratically elected representative to try and overturn what was a democratic decision by the citizens of the UK to leave the EU. A choice that was freely given to them by the very MP's who are now trying to deny it.

it's David Cameron who made the promise to carry out the result of the vote on behalf of his government, later, TM and JC made similar promises in 2017.
The backbench MPs are not the front bench (government and HM Opposition), they are not tied by these promises.
Soubry is a backbench MP. She is entitled to campaign for remain and the people's vote.

 

[oldgroaner]

Along with hospitals recruiting volunteer care staff to plug gaps on the cheap, now Essex Police are looking for volunteer detectives.

Volunteer detectives could investigate murders and rapes

This sort of thing could catch on!

Why don't we form a "Amateur Government"?

Oh! that hasn't worked has it.

 

[gray198]

Furthermore, the referendum was advisory and proclaimed as such at the outset.

Didn't the document put out by the government say that they would implement what was decided. I don't recall being told anywhere that it was only advisory. What was the point of turning out to vote for that

 

[tommie]

Yes. I do so believe. Is the concept of solidarity so difficult to follow. ?. The German government,the Irish government,the US President, the Russian President and Uncle Tom Cobbley are all entitled to proffer advice,and to influence your Parliament in an open way. What is Diplomacy other than that?.
What we are not entitled to do is bribe individuals to buy votes..

Na, what we cant do is bribe people - the EU couldn`t be seen doing such a thing at this important stage of negotiations ... prob only a pure coincidence

Five 'shared space' projects get £29.1m offer from EU body

A total of €32.4m (£29.1m) of EU funding is being offered to create five new "shared space" projects in Northern Ireland and County Monaghan.

Four of the projects that have been selected are in Northern Ireland.

They are based in south Belfast, Ballycastle, County Antrim, the Waterside area of Londonderry, and Pomeroy, County Tyrone.

The project in the Republic of Ireland is based in Monaghan town.

The money is being offered by the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB).

 

[50Hertz]

Didn't the document put out by the government say that they would implement what was decided. I don't recall being told anywhere that it was only advisory. What was the point of turning out to vote for that

Absolutely. A statement was made that the British public would be asked and their decision implemented. That was when they thought the result would be remaining though. It all went tits up for them when the result was leave. The word advisory was not used until after the unexpected result was announced

 

[tommie]

Furthermore, the referendum was advisory and proclaimed as such at the outset. No-one, MPs, Government or parliament is bound by
.

So when we leave the EU on the 28th March, its only Advisory is it?? !!

For goodness sake flecc Wise Up!!

 

[gray198]

as a point of interest was the referendum when we originally joined, and when we decided to stay ''Advisory''

 

[Danidl]

Absolutely. A statement was made that the British public would be asked and their decision implemented. That was when they thought the result would be remaining though. It all went tits up for them when the result was leave. The word advisory was not used until after the unexpected result was announced

50 hertz, you are a newcomer to this forum, so cannot be expected to have followed all the subtleties of 45000 posts. . The legal position in the UK is that Parliament is supreme. Therefore no one can instruct Parliament. Even your highest court can only advise on constitutional issues. In that way the UK is almost ,maybe even totally unique amongst civilised countries. The vast majority of civilised countries have written constitutions which limit the power of the parliament.
In that context the referendum had to be advisory. Even the statements before and after about implementation of the will of the people were only the statenents or opinions of prominent People. Just as the intention of Mrs May can only be to put an Act before Parliament.
So Tommie, if the UK parliament were to vote down Mrs Mays Deal, and to crash out, it would not be Advisory. The UK Government has already conceded to Parliament that they would have a meaningful vote on exiting .. remember it was your supreme court which advised the Cabinet they needed it. Voting no on the deal would be that meaningful vote.

 

[oldgroaner]

she is certainly entitled to her views and to be able to express them. That is what happens in a democratic country. But the point is that she is using her position as a democratically elected representative to try and overturn what was a democratic decision by the citizens of the UK to leave the EU. A choice that was freely given to them by the very MP's who are now trying to deny it. People took that decision despite all the warnings of catastrophe and doom that were force fed to them . So the least they should do is honor it. While I certainly don't agree with the way she is being treated by a very small minority, I think it is an inevitable result of some feeling that they are going to be stitched up by the very people who represent them.

And she has every right to do so, the decision is proving to be a wrong one and should be opposed

 

[Fingers]

50 hertz, you are a newcomer to this forum, so cannot be expected to have followed all the subtleties of 45000 posts. . The legal position in the UK is that Parliament is supreme. Therefore no one can instruct Parliament. Even your highest court can only advise on constitutional issues. In that way the UK is almost ,maybe even totally unique amongst civilised countries. The vast majority of civilised countries have written constitutions which limit the power of the parliament.
In that context the referendum had to be advisory. Even the statements before and after about implementation of the will of the people were only the statenents or opinions of prominent People. Just as the intention of Mrs May can only be to put an Act before Parliament.

The Queen and David Attenborough are actually the only 2 people who can make a law in this country without parliament.

If one of these dies then the Michael Palin steps into their shoes.

 

[Fingers]

And she has every right to do so, the decision is proving to be a wrong one and should be opposed

How so?

 

[Woosh]

Absolutely. A statement was made that the British public would be asked and their decision implemented. That was when they thought the result would be remaining though. It all went tits up for them when the result was leave. The word advisory was not used until after the unexpected result was announced

Parliament in setting out the 'European Referendum Act 2015' made it advisory.
David Cameron promised on behalf of his government to carry out the result of the vote.
Hence the confusion. DC is not here to carry it out, is he?
No wonder most people do not trust politicians. If the going gets tough, they simply resign and let someone else carry the can.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted

 

[gray198]

if the vote had gone the other way I suspect that the word 'Advisory' would never have been mentioned

 

[tommie]

In that context the referendum had to be advisory.

Ah, a bit of foreign intervention there to educate the natives -
well i really can`t agree Dan..

 

[flecc]

Didn't the document put out by the government say that they would implement what was decided. I don't recall being told anywhere that it was only advisory. What was the point of turning out to vote for that

So when we leave the EU on the 28th March, its only Advisory is it?? !!

The word advisory was not used until after the unexpected result was announced

As I've already explained and I see Danidl has too, any referendum has to be advisory in our system.

And 50Hertz, the referendum was stated to be advisory at the outset in the Referendum Act of 2015 which authorised it.

And Tommie, the promise to implement has no force in law in our system, parliament is sovereign.
.