Show some patriotism, UK minister tells broadcasters over Brexit

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

If you can find a constitutional reason to invalidate a second vote, please let me know.Invoking the evil EU is a nice shot at deflection.

That's really for Parliament to decide. Just as it decided on the first referendum. This is a political question, not a constitutional one.

[owl sees all]

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And if another referendum is offered, then that will be the proven clear will of the people.

Why don't they have a referendum asking if people want a new BREXIT referendum!!

[soalbundy]

3 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

So, how many referenda would you be satisfied with ?   

Until a two thirds majority is reached

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, owl sees all said:

Why don't they have a referendum asking if people want a new BREXIT referendum!!

Because if the answer is no, youd have had another referendum anyway. Whereas if the answer is yes, you would have to have yet another. Seems inefficient to me.

[dick dasterdly]

On 6/25/2017 at 1:18 PM, Grouse said:

Let's clear up something

 

On the remain side, the forecast was overly negative as it turned out, in large part due to swift action by the BoE.

 

On the leave side, multiple lies were told. There is a distinct difference.

 

Right now, I sense no appetite for Brexit. Far too many other urgent matters to attend to. I suspect we may need to adopt building codes from other EU countries that are not so bent and twisted as we seem to have become.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Hang on a minute!  Didn't Osbourne promise an immediate punitive budget in the event of a 'leave' vote?  A lie, or a scare tactic?

 

Not to mention that you're defending the scare tactics used by the 'remain side' as "overly negative" - rather than outright lies.....

 

53 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Osborne expected a punitive budget would be required if the GBP went into free fall. Quick action by Carney headed that off at the pass.

 

What out right lies were told?

My mistake, I thought I'd outlined the outright lies in my last post.....

 

But we're back to "overly negative" rather than outright lies .

 

[soalbundy]

24 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Posted 2 minutes ago · Report post

  5 hours ago, soalbundy said:

I'm not a fan of referendums anyway, MP's are elected presumably to govern in our best interests with an army of experts at their disposal while Mrs Smith of number 4 railway crossing, East Cheam, votes because she remembers something that she read in the Daily Express. A more or less 50/50 result from a referendum should be ignored.

 

Dick Dastardly replied:

"You seriously think MPs care about 'ordinary people', rather than their own best interests??!"

 

 

 

Judging by the quality of M.P.s in recent years, along with their army of "experts", I would put my money on Mrs Smith of number 4  Railway Crossing, East Cheam any day!

 

Jeremy Corbyn seems to believe that because Mrs May failed to win an overall  majority in Parliament in the recent UK election, despite getting a substantial majority over his party, he should be given the opportunity to form a Government instead of the Tories.

 

As an aside, he also heavily criticised the Government over the Grenfell Flats disaster, even calling for all the local council members to resign, until of course he discovered that many of the other councils presiding over similar unprotected buildings were in Labour constituencies.  

 

 Like th

•  

I did say presumably. I'm no Marxist but if i had to choose between which group of politicians i would trust more it would be Labour or the Greens as there would be more idealism in the menu. I don't think i would trust the wisdom of Mrs. Smith though.

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

My mistake, I thought I'd outlined the outright lies in my last post.....

 

But we're back to "overly negative" rather than outright lies .

 

Its really not that hard to admit that both sides lied through their teeth!

[Retiredandhappyhere]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

If you can find a constitutional reason to invalidate a second vote, please let me know.Invoking the evil EU is a nice shot at deflection.

Ok, but if you can find a constitutional reason to invalidate a third vote, please let me know.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Ok, but if you can find a constitutional reason to invalidate a third vote, please let me know.

If Parliament okays it, who am I to say no?

[nauseus]

21 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

If you can find a constitutional reason to invalidate a second vote, please let me know.Invoking the evil EU is a nice shot at deflection.

The first vote is legitimate and binding under the UK constitution. Another referendum on the same question so soon after the first one would be against the spirit of the constitution itself, so therefore be rather unconstitutional. The shots at deflection rouse is a favourite of yours to try to mask the fact that you have no argument. I am not deflecting anything but pointing out again the lousy record of the EU on the subject of acceptance of the democratic referendums voted on by peoples of individual EU member states.

 

Deflector shields. Mr. Spock!    

Edited June 26, 2017 by nauseus

[Retiredandhappyhere]

13 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Until a two thirds majority is reached

The idea being of course that such a majority would clearly never be reached either way, so the existing status quo of being IN the EU would automatically apply, thereby satisfying your dearest wish?

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The first vote is legitimate and binding under the UK constitution. Another referendum on the same question so soon after the first one would be against the spirit of the constitution itself, so therefore be rather unconstitutional. The shots at deflection rouse is a favourite of yours to try to mask the fact that you have no argument. I am not deflecting anything but pointing out again the lousy record of the EU on the subject of acceptance of the democratic referendums voted on by peoples of individual EU member states.

 

Deflector shields. Mr. Spock!    

Do you mean the vote of the first referendum or Parliament's vote afterwards?

[soalbundy]

Just now, Retiredandhappyhere said:

The idea being of course that such a majority would clearly never be reached either way, so the existing status quo of being IN the EU would automatically apply, thereby satisfying your dearest wish?

Something like that although such an important decision which would affect everybody in the UK (not me, i ran away to the good life on the continent years ago) requires a substantial majority, not 4%.

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Do you mean the vote of the first referendum or Parliament's vote afterwards?

The former, of course.

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Something like that although such an important decision which would affect everybody in the UK (not me, i ran away to the good life on the continent years ago) requires a substantial majority, not 4%.

Under the UK constitution it doesn't.

 

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, nauseus said:

The former, of course.

Well, then, of course, you're wrong. It was constituted as being advisory. That is not up for debate. I believe that Supreme Court completely put paid to that. Though even without that ruling, it was clear enough.

[Airbagwill]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

They have, but you immediately delete those opinions from your mind as inadequate and stupid - preferring to believe that the UK was able to change EU faults..... if only they'd remained part of the EU .

 

We now know that the EU has no intention of changing any of its faults.....

Still no benefits though?

One day someone will come up with one.....NOT!

[nauseus]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Well, then, of course, you're wrong. It was constituted as being advisory. That is not up for debate. I believe that Supreme Court completely put paid to that. Though even without that ruling, it was clear enough.

You are right, it is not up for debate. But you are wrong, constitutionally, as the referendum result was a valid mandate given to the government, by the people, to give notice under Article 50. The mandate was frustrated by several interventions, including that of R. Miller, with the apparent aim of delaying and possibly voiding it. The Supreme Court did not question the validity of the referendum itself but it did rule that an act of parliament was necessary to enable the actual triggering of Article 50. After more dithering by the Lords, the bill was passed and this actually removes any question of legitimacy. Gina Miller has unwittingly shot herself in the foot! 

 

The government and parliament had a constitutional duty to honour the referendum result and they know that. That is why, despite all of the interference, the democratic majority vote has been respected. 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

My mistake, I thought I'd outlined the outright lies in my last post.....

 

But we're back to "overly negative" rather than outright lies .

 

Don't you understand the difference?

 

Reading is a good way to improve comprehension.

[nontabury]

12 hours ago, stevenl said:

Sorry you don't get it.

 

I don't care about leaving or not, I care about the will of the people. And at present the will of the people is not listed to.  Democracy should be to listen to that, in stead of keep on hammering on about a vote that is clearly not the representation of what is wanted.

The will of the people was expressed nearly a year ago. Because you don't agree with it is irrelavent.  

Edited June 26, 2017 by nontabury

[nontabury]

12 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

I think many people outside UK fail to grasp how utterly abhorrent words line "patriotism" and "nationalism" traditionally are (and for centuries have been) to most British people.

 

They are inherently regarded as words used by those trying to tell or order the Britsh what to do.

 

Anyone using these words is displaying one or both of the following...

 

An ignorance of history

 

An over authoritarian attitude

It was not nationalism that freed EUROPE from the evil of nationalism, it was the will of the free world and the blood of patriots. 

[nontabury]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

Spoken like a true Brexiteer.

 

Independent observers may have a different opinion.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a solution. But simply continuing because 'the people have spoken' when it is clear that the people want something different is IMO not the way to go.

I  agree, we should not rely on Referendums, or for that matter, General Elections. much quicker and cheaper, to simple ask you, what you want. 

[nontabury]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

Ah, of course! The first referendum was a proven murky will of the people and we should adopt the EU truly democratic philosophy of vote until we get the right result. Thanks for setting that straight.

 

That's what happened to the Dutch, French and Irish electorate, when they voted against E.U. agreements.  

[rockingrobin]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

You are right, it is not up for debate. But you are wrong, constitutionally, as the referendum result was a valid mandate given to the government, by the people, to give notice under Article 50. The mandate was frustrated by several interventions, including that of R. Miller, with the apparent aim of delaying and possibly voiding it. The Supreme Court did not question the validity of the referendum itself but it did rule that an act of parliament was necessary to enable the actual triggering of Article 50. After more dithering by the Lords, the bill was passed and this actually removes any question of legitimacy. Gina Miller has unwittingly shot herself in the foot! 

 

The government and parliament had a constitutional duty to honour the referendum result and they know that. That is why, despite all of the interference, the democratic majority vote has been respected. 

The arguments presented are flawed.

How does an advisory referendum become a constitional mandate , given thar the people are not sovereign. The only reasonable conclusion is that it gave a political mandate.

The court case was not about the referendum, but the use of the RP  and thus did not need to make a decision pn such.

[nauseus]

9 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

The arguments presented are flawed.

How does an advisory referendum become a constitional mandate , given thar the people are not sovereign. The only reasonable conclusion is that it gave a political mandate.

The court case was not about the referendum, but the use of the RP  and thus did not need to make a decision pn such.

Notice any similarities in what I wrote? Your arguments must be flawed too!

 

  15 hours ago, nauseus said:

You are right, it is not up for debate. But you are wrong, constitutionally, as the referendum result was a valid mandate given to the government, by the people, to give notice under Article 50. The mandate was frustrated by several interventions, including that of R. Miller, with the apparent aim of delaying and possibly voiding it. The Supreme Court did not question the validity of the referendum itself but it did rule that an act of parliament was necessary to enable the actual triggering of Article 50. After more dithering by the Lords, the bill was passed and this actually removes any question of legitimacy. Gina Miller has unwittingly shot herself in the foot! 

 

The government and parliament had a constitutional duty to honour the referendum result and they know that. That is why, despite all of the interference, the democratic majority vote has been respected. 

[rockingrobin]

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Notice any similarities in what I wrote? Your arguments must be flawed too!

 

  15 hours ago, nauseus said:

You are right, it is not up for debate. But you are wrong, constitutionally, as the referendum result was a valid mandate given to the government, by the people, to give notice under Article 50. The mandate was frustrated by several interventions, including that of R. Miller, with the apparent aim of delaying and possibly voiding it. The Supreme Court did not question the validity of the referendum itself but it did rule that an act of parliament was necessary to enable the actual triggering of Article 50. After more dithering by the Lords, the bill was passed and this actually removes any question of legitimacy. Gina Miller has unwittingly shot herself in the foot! 

 

The government and parliament had a constitutional duty to honour the referendum result and they know that. That is why, despite all of the interference, the democratic majority vote has been respected. 

It is about context

 

Your claim about the Supreme Court did not question the validity of the referendum  is irrelevent because it was not asked to do so. This does not confer a constitional mandate.

With the advisory nature of the referendum then it can only be a considered political mandate

[nauseus]

46 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

It is about context

 

Your claim about the Supreme Court did not question the validity of the referendum  is irrelevent because it was not asked to do so. This does not confer a constitional mandate.

With the advisory nature of the referendum then it can only be a considered political mandate

If you worry about context then go back my post as a reply to password. The government promised to implement the result.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

If you worry about context then go back my post as a reply to password. The government promised to implement the result.

 

Could I just add a few words to your reply.

 

"The government promised to implement the result," WHATEVER the result would be.

 

The government did not expect a Leave result and seeming made no plans to deal with it.

 

It was a sloppily put together referendum with just a simple majority necessary to win. No minimum of a majority, 60%, 2/3rds or whatever, because they believed that they would win the referendum and therefore it wasn't necessary.

 

As it says in the old fairy tale. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

[Xaos]

The will of the people was expressed nearly a year ago. Because you don't agree with it is irrelavent.  

They were lied to tho

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, Xaos said:

 

They were lied to tho

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

 

OMG - not again!