Brexit will be a Titanic Success - Boris Johnson

talexuser

EnglishMohican wrote: »

then I can understand why you believe everything economists tell you.

That is your opinion perhaps, unfortunately again no facts to back up the case that I believe everything that every economist ever "told" me.

bowlhead99

prosaver wrote: »

Done some more research..its a bit long winded but does make a point.
I quote.....

........
Whilst incredibly well argued, this is not an argument that I agree with.
.....

You have not done any research into the issues and are not qualified to opine on matters of constitutional law.

Your 'research', an example of which you posted above, seems to have been limited to looking around on the internet to find an individual who does not agree with the arguments presented by the lawyers this week which were accepted by the judges. You found someone regurgitating the position presented at court and saying it was not something he agreed with. Well done on your exhaustive research.

Your position is that you knew what you were voting for and that your vote automatically translates to action by the government because that's what all the MPs agreed was constitutionally allowable before doing the referendum/ opinion poll. However, back in post #55 you actually quoted the briefing document gived to MPs when they were voting on the bill to set out the terms of the referendum, and it said:

This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.

The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.

So, when you are actually sitting there with facts in your hand, that you don't like, it seems a little lame to keep disregarding them, and then get in a huff, throw those facts in the bin and go off to find someone else willing to put their opinion on the internet that you prefer.

doe808

EnglishMohican wrote: »

Mostly these "facts" are cut and pastes from various publications and many of the other posts are people squabbling over the wording of those cut and pastes. But if you want to consider that that makes them experts in Constitutional Law, then I can understand why you believe everything economists tell you.

My posts came from the judgement. That carries higher weight, I would think, than those 'various publications' you are referring to.

Also, I've also practiced law for over ten years. My dissertation was on the interplay between money laundering regulations and three differing constitutions, including the UK.

I will obviously bow to your superior understanding if you are, in fact, better qualified to interpret the judgement. Nothing you have posted so far, however, leads me to that conclusion.

veryintrigued

prosaver wrote: »

There are 15,000 barristers and 115,000 solicitors. In the uk .

And it seems most seem have a MSE account by the looks of how the forum has sprung to life this week...

prosaver

doe808 wrote: »

Those who signed were the preeminent constitutional minds in the UK, if you had read it. I don't know how much weight would have been added to it had a lawyer who specialises in parking fines signed. But just you go on and ignore things that dont suit your agenda.

Anyway you do know that all judges do is interpret what the law of the land?

they dont.. move on

doe808

prosaver wrote: »

they dont.. move on

Ok, what do they do then?

prosaver

talexuser wrote: »

Did you see the Michael Moore program on TV the other week where he had the old clip of Trump saying what a super intelligent, charming and wonderful woman Hilary was? This I think from memory is yet a different clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q76rxpKm3m4
He invited the Clintons to his wedding, and was desperate to go to Chelseas'.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/donald-trump-chelsea-clinton-wedding

Unfortunately there are very few honest politicians.

err no i was watching this,,,
http://www.snopes.com/obama-hillary-clinton-isnt-qualified/

ffacoffipawb

It would be somewhat ironic if the Government has to appeal to the EU courts to overrule the UK high court's article 50 decision...

prosaver

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

It would be somewhat ironic if the Government has to appeal to the EU courts to overrule the UK high court's article 50 decision...

Never know anyone to leave a club and have to ask.
2 years why? To suck more money out of us .

prosaver

bowlhead99 wrote: »

You have not done any research into the issues and are not qualified to opine on matters of constitutional law.

Your 'research', an example of which you posted above, seems to have been limited to looking around on the internet to find an individual who does not agree with the arguments presented by the lawyers this week which were accepted by the judges. You found someone regurgitating the position presented at court and saying it was not something he agreed with. Well done on your exhaustive research.

Your position is that you knew what you were voting for and that your vote automatically translates to action by the government because that's what all the MPs agreed was constitutionally allowable before doing the referendum/ opinion poll. However, back in post #55 you actually quoted the briefing document gived to MPs when they were voting on the bill to set out the terms of the referendum, and it said:



So, when you are actually sitting there with facts in your hand, that you don't like, it seems a little lame to keep disregarding them, and then get in a huff, throw those facts in the bin and go off to find someone else willing to put their opinion on the internet that you prefer.

Your taking nonsense as usual .. your argument opions are weak
But i see you have got nothing more to defend your opinions so now you have tried a different tact trying to discredit me and make up lies about me.
Thanks bye.