Will Govt. win in Supreme Court?

Moby

Tromking wrote: »

Your bitterness is a joy to behold for a proud leave voter like me.
To have your world view summarily junked by people you despise must be galling for you, here`s hoping your pain lasts for the full two years and beyond.

Hmmm lots of christmas cheer to you as well. Remember just because a vote has taken place it doesn't mean that people should just say....oooh the 52% are now in control of our future so we just bow out and accept whatever happens. We have voted to leave but the destination is still unknown and people in a democracy are fully entitled to have a view on that. That doesn't make them a 'moaner' or a 'bitter'. There is a lot to play for ....hard, soft brexit etc. I'm not going to leave that decision to people I have no respect for! I wonder if Farage etc would have shut their gobs if the result had gone the other way!

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

Attacking people will not change the concept of democracy.

Do you not believe we should question the hypocrisy of those who claim that democracy is one thing when it suits them but something very different when it doesn't?

Are you opposed to scrutinising the motives of these people?

There are just as many variations of democracy as there are variations of Brexit.

Mortgagefreeman

mrginge wrote: »

Do you not believe we should question the hypocrisy of those who claim that democracy is one thing when it suits them but something very different when it doesn't?

Are you opposed to scrutinising the motives of these people?

There are just as many variations of democracy as there are variations of Brexit.

There are a lot of remoaners here continually wanting to change goal posts for their agenda.

Tromking

Moby wrote: »

Hmmm lots of christmas cheer to you as well. Remember just because a vote has taken place it doesn't mean that people should just say....oooh the 52% are now in control of our future so we just bow out and accept whatever happens. We have voted to leave but the destination is still unknown and people in a democracy are fully entitled to have a view on that. That doesn't make them a 'moaner' or a 'bitter'. There is a lot to play for ....hard, soft brexit etc. I'm not going to leave that decision to people I have no respect for! I wonder if Farage etc would have shut their gobs if the result had gone the other way!

On the long list of things I don't give a stuff about its probably the views of bitter remainiacs that top (or is it bottom?) the list.
You lot are free to bore every tw*t with the machinations pertaining to Brexit, but intrinsically no ones listening. MP`s for all their bluster left you Guys high and dry last week in the latest vote, they know the constitutional crisis that would ensue if the wishes of the 52% don't get priority.
Drip away, no one cares!

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Can I ask what you think of the media and some on here referring to leave voters as xenophobes, little Englanders, racists, fascists?

If "remoaner" is the worst you have to contend with, I think "disgusting" is a rather strong tone to use when in comparison with what people like myself have to put up with.

I think a lot was said during the campaign on both sides and some things were said that should not have been. Most people had genuinely held views on both sides of the argument. The result was close enough that we have a very divided nation. How long should this be allowed to continue? If we want to divide the nation for evermore and keep abusing people with pejorative terms then this does not auger well for the future.

mrginge wrote: »

Do you not believe we should question the hypocrisy of those who claim that democracy is one thing when it suits them but something very different when it doesn't?

Are you opposed to scrutinising the motives of these people?

There are just as many variations of democracy as there are variations of Brexit.

I make no secret of the fact that I favoured Remain and would probably vote that way again if the opportunity arose. But I also accept that we are leaving the EU and all that matters is the future of the UK. I think most of those who supported remain have accepted that we will leave but still wish to question what will be UK's future outside of the EU, something that was never decided by the referendum.

I do think we should question hypocrisy. I am just bemused how attacking the leader of the Lib Dems is questioning hypocrisy. Democracy has never meant that citizens are prevented from questioning its outcomes. We have after all just questioned the democratic decisions taken in the past and, if the EU still exists in 20 years time others may well question the decisions that have made by this electorate. That is democracy in action.

As to questioning the motives of those who hold opinions we disagree with, I would suggest you question your own motives too. Are you really suggesting that on the 22 June anyone who voted remain no longer has the right to an opinion? That is indeed an interpretation of democracy!

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I do think we should question hypocrisy. I am just bemused how attacking the leader of the Lib Dems is questioning hypocrisy. Democracy has never meant that citizens are prevented from questioning its outcomes. We have after all just questioned the democratic decisions taken in the past and, if the EU still exists in 20 years time others may well question the decisions that have made by this electorate. That is democracy in action.

hypocrisy isn't about whether Farron has the right to continue to fight for 'remain' ; it is about the false reasons he gives to justify his position.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

I make no secret of the fact that I favoured Remain and would probably vote that way again if the opportunity arose. But I also accept that we are leaving the EU and all that matters is the future of the UK. I think most of those who supported remain have accepted that we will leave but still wish to question what will be UK's future outside of the EU, something that was never decided by the referendum.

I do think we should question hypocrisy. I am just bemused how attacking the leader of the Lib Dems is questioning hypocrisy. Democracy has never meant that citizens are prevented from questioning its outcomes. We have after all just questioned the democratic decisions taken in the past and, if the EU still exists in 20 years time others may well question the decisions that have made by this electorate. That is democracy in action.

As to questioning the motives of those who hold opinions we disagree with, I would suggest you question your own motives too. Are you really suggesting that on the 22 June anyone who voted remain no longer has the right to an opinion? That is indeed an interpretation of democracy!

You seem to be struggling with this concept. Let me restate it for you.

It has always been the case that parliament will scrutinise and debate the brexit negotiation.

Always.

Never has it been on the cards that the govt would be able to railroad through a deal.

Never.

Exactly the same principle of parliamentary democracy that works fine for all other government activity for hundreds of years.
If MPs do not like the terms they can vote the government down. Just like they could have last week regarding article 50. They chose not to on that occasion.
If people like Ken Clarke want to stick rigidly to their beliefs and vote against the govt then that is fine by me. Just as it is fine if parliament do all their due diligence and we end up with the softest brexit imagineable.
I, you and everybody else will then get their chance to pass judgement on that at the next GE. Just like we always have done.

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

Farron was blissfully unconcerned as Parliament stole our rights and sovereignty and handed them over to the EU time and again.......

Is this a serious argument? Successive Parliaments have been elected and did whatever they did with the support of the public. There is a difference between stealing sovereignty and agreeing that we as a sovereign nation will cooperate with other sovereign nations to pool it.

You are fighting the arguments of the past and re-writing history.

The idea that in 1970 we did not understand that this was about more than a trade is fanciful. Even then we understood this was about pooling sovereignty, harmonisation of taxation. The Treaty of Rome spoke of the ‘four freedoms’, requiring the unrestricted circulation of goods, persons, services, and capital.

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

How dare they have given away our rights on a lie - Referendum 1 was a lie - we were told it would only ever be about trade, never about ceding substantive sovereignty

Try reading the Treaty of Rome which we signed in 1972. The Treaty was written and signed by the six founder members in 1957 and we spent the next 15 years trying to join it.

ARTICLE 3 For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein
(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect;
(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries;
(c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;
(d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture;
(e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport;
(f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted;
(g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied;
(h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market;
(i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living;
(j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources;
(k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and to promote jointly economic and social development.


You may not have agreed with the aims of the Treaty (and I do not agree with all of it either), but you are being disingenuous to suggest that the concept of more integration was not understood at the time. The arguments of mavericks like Benn and Powell were largely based on these concerns.

Where I will agree with you is that the Press and most of the political class were united in their support of the EEC.

BobQ

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

There are a lot of remoaners here continually wanting to change goal posts for their agenda.

For example?