"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/2016 12:14, tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe

mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had
a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision
not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity [Huh?]
and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/


But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by
phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your
claims otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they make
because they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making
them because they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good of the
country, it's the right thing to do - and in the current state of the
country's finances doing what's right for the economy trumps doing what
is socially the right thing to do.


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term. That
is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.

tim

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/2016 12:14, tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe


mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty
much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have
had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision
not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile
campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity
[Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/



But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by
phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your
claims otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they make
because they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making
them because they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good of the
country, it's the right thing to do - and in the current state of the
country's finances doing what's right for the economy trumps doing what
is socially the right thing to do.


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for


But you've just said that the economy trumps that.


about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term.
That is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Are there?


Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



And just what is my like?

If the economy gets shafted it won't be just me that is affected.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term. That
is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



Genuine question: who do you think it is good for?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:35:06 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term. That
is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



Genuine question: who do you think it is good for?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.


Guy Gorton

On 08/11/2016 12:07, Guy Gorton wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:35:06 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term. That
is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



Genuine question: who do you think it is good for?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.


And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?







--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 12:07, Guy Gorton wrote:

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.


And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?


No.

If you really believed that your straw men represented the British way
of life, you would be ashamed to be British, wouldn't you? Are you?

Peter

On 08/11/2016 12:05, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).


Under our unwritten constitution, the conventional view is that no
Parliament can bind its successors. So, even if such the referendum Act
had included such a provision, another Act after the referendum could
have repealed the relevant provision of the first one (and if necessary
further provisions enacted to annul any penalties or other consequences
stemming from it and from its repeal).

(NB this is related to but somewhat separate from the question of the
legislative supremacy of Parliament given that Parliament would only be
taking away what Parliament had given - not taking away some fundamental
right stemming from common law.)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:05:45 +0000, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

When a government is defeated in a general election the outgoing PM advises the monarch to ask the
leader of the winning party to form a government. But if this is only advisory, the Queen doesn't
have to follow it, does she? Well of course she does because "advised" in practice means
"instructed".

Similarly, the people "advise" parliament in referendums. But in practice after every referendum,
parliament does as instructed by the people (Europe in 1975, Scottish, Welsh, London, North-East
devolution, N. Irish border, alternative vote, Scottish independence). Why should this one be any
different?

Cameron promised to "implement what [we] decide" but then resigned instead. Ball is now in May's
court.

We had a civil war in the 1640s. There was unrest in later centuries to reform the franchise. In
1910 the House of Lords had to be faced down, and suffragettes broke windows, chained themselves to
railings and one died in a spectacular way under the King's horse at a race meeting. The Remoaners
had better be careful about provoking conflict today.

In message , at
14:52:00 on Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Robin remarked:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

Under our unwritten constitution, the conventional view is that no
Parliament can bind its successors. So, even if such the referendum
Act had included such a provision, another Act after the referendum
could have repealed the relevant provision of the first one

The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a
successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European
Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative
apparently held by the PM-du-jour.

No-one, as far as I know, says parliament can't - the argument is about
whether *only* Parliament can.
--
Roland Perry