On 08/11/2016 14:39, Peter wrote:
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.

What is it then?


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?


What makes you think I care about being British?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 08/11/2016 14:53, Optimist wrote:
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.


Intersting how the exiters soon resort to threats of violence.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:11:57 +0000, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 12:07:52 +0000, Guy Gorton
wrote:


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?

Immigrants from countries with wildly different cultures,believes and
lifestyles from Continents apart from Europe that when they come here
prefer to set up enclaves and a long term aim of changing the country
rather than blend in, as opposed to people from Europe whose lifestyle
,religions and sense of how to behave is much closer to those of the
British Way of life and aim to blend in as seamlessly as possible ,
just like all those Poles who fought alongside the British in WW2 and
then found they could not return home whose children and grandchildren
only standout when you see their surname is something like Kowalski.



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 is the British / English way of life?
Sainsburys , Tesco's and Watneys and cheap motoring and TV have
changed the traditional way of life that our parents and grandparents
lived as much as anything.
As well as having the countrys Political arse kicked in the mid
fifties by the United States who did not fight WW2 to allow the UK to
continue the British way of life of bossing other counties around
while using their resources.



I find it interesting in these debates that many of those who feel the
economic pain that Brexit is going to cause will be worth it then go
on to say that in doing deals with Europe they will be prepared to
give good deals because not to do so will cause them economic pain.
Completely ignoring that people in Europe may actually have similar
thoughts the other way around and that the opportunity to shaft the UK
whose population to a large extent have never really accepted EU
membership to the full and have always clamoured and some cases
obtained special treatment is too good an opportunity to pass up even
if it is not to their best economic interests.
Heart over Head can apply to both parties.

G.Harman

Thanks you for a considered response to my very simplified statement.
I could not and will not try to respond to all your points but will
just say that I signed up to the Common Market - and still would - but
not to a political union with countries and political systems that
have little in common with ours.

Guy Gorton

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:28:30 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

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.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act - that requires legislation.
Article 50 is simply a mechanism to say a country intends to leave. That decision was taken by the
British people after Parliament overwhelmingly approved a referendum to settle the matter.

The argument of the Remain side is quite bizarre. They seem to be squaring up to defy the people
which could lead to civil war.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:37:59 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:53, Optimist wrote:
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.


Intersting how the exiters soon resort to threats of violence.

Not a threat, a warning of the likely consequences of overturning a clear democratic vote.

In message , at 15:46:23 on
Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Optimist 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.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act
- that requires legislation.

The current argument, as I understand it, is whether or not the PM can
trigger Article 50 which is irrevocable and requires them to be able to
repeal the European Communities Act(s) even if Parliament (if asked)
would say "no". By using the Royal Prerogative.

Article 50 is simply a mechanism to say a country intends to leave.

I don't think you can change your mind.

That decision was taken by the British people after Parliament
overwhelmingly approved a referendum to settle the matter.

Parliament approved an advisory referendum.

The argument of the Remain side is quite bizarre. They seem to be
squaring up to defy the people which could lead to civil war.

Teresa May is re-running the Civil War by saying [her] Royal prerogative
trumps Parliament.
--
Roland Perry

On 08/11/2016 15:46, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:28:30 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

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.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act - that requires legislation.
Article 50 is simply a mechanism to say a country intends to leave. That decision was taken by the
British people after Parliament overwhelmingly approved a referendum to settle the matter.

52:48 is not overwhelming.


The argument of the Remain side is quite bizarre. They seem to be squaring up to defy the people
which could lead to civil war.


More threats of violence.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 08/11/2016 15:48, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:37:59 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:53, Optimist wrote:
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.


Intersting how the exiters soon resort to threats of violence.

Not a threat, a warning of the likely consequences of overturning a clear democratic vote.


That's a threat in anybody's language.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:36:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:39, Peter wrote:
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.

What is it then?


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?


What makes you think I care about being British?

Evidently you do not. I wonder if you care about anything except
money - EU money of course.

Guy Gorton

On 08/11/2016 16:32, Guy Gorton wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:36:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:39, Peter wrote:
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.

What is it then?


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?


What makes you think I care about being British?

Evidently you do not. I wonder if you care about anything except
money - EU money of course.


So now you descend to insults. FTAOD I receive no money from the EU.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.