Wolmar for MP
 

On 18/11/2016 18:52, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:51:03 on Fri, 18 Nov
2016, d remarked:

As far as I'm concerned, if you weren't born in the UK you shouldn't have
had a vote in the referendum. What the spanish or any other govn do with
respect to immigrants who have taken local nationality is entirely up
to them.

Not even if married to a Brit for 30yrs and naturalised British?

cough

38 years.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:54:43 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:47:07 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 01:46:08 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:55:16 +0000
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:32:45 +0000
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:


And many people who were born here did not have a vote e.g. those using
EU freedom of movement to work in Europe.

There's a reason there's an "ex" in ex-pat.

So you don't want immigrants to UK to vote because they wern't born here
and you don't want people who were born here to be able to vote either.
That does not make any sense.

Born here and living here. If you've ****ed off to live in another country
you absolve any right to have an influence on whether your country of birth
remains in the EU since it is no longer your concern. And if all those
chavs
and criminals living on the costas are worried about their status when we
exit then they should apply for Spanish citizenship. Ditto anywhere else.



What about those working abroad on fixed term contracts of a few years
duration?

Thats different. I'm talking about people who've gone to live abroad with
no intention of returning.


When allocating who can vote, how do you tell the difference?

You can't with 100% certainty, but if they still have a UK address thats not a
PO Box and are still paying UK tax then its a reasonable bet they'll return.

How does one "have" a UK address ?
The tax bit is easy, just buy something by mail order each year.

Wolmar for MP
 

Optimist wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:26:03 +0800, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:

On 08/11/2016 23:46, Optimist wrote:
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.

Not quite.

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

True. However, triggering Article 50 would mean that we *will* leave the
EU and that will take away rights that Parliament granted when it passed
the European Communities Act.

The Crown (including the Crown's ministers) does not have the right to
overrule Parliament's wishes or take away what Parliament has given.
This has been a *written* part of the Constitution at least since the
Bill of Rights, with plenty of case law to support it, and part of the
Constitution for longer than that - ask Charles I.

There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for
this had been passed by
Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs,
and that the government
would implement that decision. So effectively Article 50 was de facto
triggered by the referendum
itself.

Of course there are those desperate to block the decision playing the
"advisory" card, but that
really will not do as no MP mentioned during the campaign "Oh, by the
way, peasants, if you vote the
wrong way we'll ignore your decision anyway" (indeed Cameron said that in
the event of a Leave vote
he would begin the process to leave) so in that case MPs would just be
exposed as utterly cynical
liars and not fit to represent the people.

From an FT reader's comment, via Twitter:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxX-B-2U...jpg&name=large

Wolmar for MP
 

On 18/11/2016 22:29, Recliner wrote:
Optimist wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:26:03 +0800, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:

On 08/11/2016 23:46, Optimist wrote:
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.

Not quite.

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

True. However, triggering Article 50 would mean that we *will* leave the
EU and that will take away rights that Parliament granted when it passed
the European Communities Act.

The Crown (including the Crown's ministers) does not have the right to
overrule Parliament's wishes or take away what Parliament has given.
This has been a *written* part of the Constitution at least since the
Bill of Rights, with plenty of case law to support it, and part of the
Constitution for longer than that - ask Charles I.

There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for
this had been passed by
Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs,
and that the government
would implement that decision. So effectively Article 50 was de facto
triggered by the referendum
itself.

Of course there are those desperate to block the decision playing the
"advisory" card, but that
really will not do as no MP mentioned during the campaign "Oh, by the
way, peasants, if you vote the
wrong way we'll ignore your decision anyway" (indeed Cameron said that in
the event of a Leave vote
he would begin the process to leave) so in that case MPs would just be
exposed as utterly cynical
liars and not fit to represent the people.

From an FT reader's comment, via Twitter:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxX-B-2U...jpg&name=large


Just about says it all.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Wolmar for MP
 

On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 07:37:10 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 18/11/2016 22:29, Recliner wrote:
Optimist wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:26:03 +0800, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:

On 08/11/2016 23:46, Optimist wrote:
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.

Not quite.

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

True. However, triggering Article 50 would mean that we *will* leave the
EU and that will take away rights that Parliament granted when it passed
the European Communities Act.

The Crown (including the Crown's ministers) does not have the right to
overrule Parliament's wishes or take away what Parliament has given.
This has been a *written* part of the Constitution at least since the
Bill of Rights, with plenty of case law to support it, and part of the
Constitution for longer than that - ask Charles I.

There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for
this had been passed by
Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs,
and that the government
would implement that decision. So effectively Article 50 was de facto
triggered by the referendum
itself.

Of course there are those desperate to block the decision playing the
"advisory" card, but that
really will not do as no MP mentioned during the campaign "Oh, by the
way, peasants, if you vote the
wrong way we'll ignore your decision anyway" (indeed Cameron said that in
the event of a Leave vote
he would begin the process to leave) so in that case MPs would just be
exposed as utterly cynical
liars and not fit to represent the people.

From an FT reader's comment, via Twitter:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxX-B-2U...jpg&name=large


Just about says it all.

There are numerous papers on the subject of leaving the EU, easily found in web searches, but these
are never read by europhiles who then parrot the sort of nonsense given in the above link. In fact
we can leave quickly and easily given the political will. I'm not convinced that Mrs. May has that
will, otherwise she would have given the EU notice of her intentions and taken steps to repeal the
ECA by now.

Wolmar for MP
 

On 18/11/2016 09:32, d wrote:
Actually, the correct analogy is
Georgians/Carolinans/Virginians/Alabamans complaining about being told
what to do by a load of leftie liberals in Washington DC.

They were not sovereign nations to start with. The analogy is false.

Don't know your history do you ?

The states that originally ratified the US constitution plus Texas,
California and Hawaii were all sovereign when they joined so that's all but
Alabama in the list above.

Yeah, right. A bunch of armed settlers forming an irregular army with a
constantly shifting border with Mexico does not make a sovereign state.

Then why did Her Majesty's Government recognize them? Try visiting 4
James Street or 1, Place Vendôme.

Actually, at the time Ambassador to Texas was the punishment posting of
the Foreign Office.

Wolmar for MP
 

On 18/11/2016 13:51, d wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, if you weren't born in the UK you shouldn't have
had a vote in the referendum.

So my adult children, who have lived in this country since they were 2
months old, aren't entitled to a vote in in Spudland? You're an idiot.

Wolmar for MP
 

On 16/11/2016 09:27, d wrote:
Pity May didn't trigger it while she had the chance before those immigrants
won that legal challenge (one can only hope one night down a dark alley...).
The EU wouldn't give a damn about legal squabbles here, once its triggered its
a done deal as far as they're concerned and all legal challenges would have
been moot.

Wrong again. If the Supreme Court had decided, even after the fact, that
May didn't have the power to give notice, the European Commission would
have accepted that decision. Unlike some people here, they actually have
respect for the law.

Wolmar for MP
 

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
On 18/11/2016 13:51, d wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, if you weren't born in the UK you shouldn't have
had a vote in the referendum.

So my adult children, who have lived in this country since they were 2
months old, aren't entitled to a vote in in Spudland? You're an idiot.

I sometimes wonder if Spud is a parody account, but I suspect he's serious.
He's probably a hen-pecked, weedy character who's got a dead-end job
writing boring computer programs for customers he hates but doesn't dare
argue with. His fear of flying restricts both his work and pleasure. His
misspelt writings here are to compensate for his frustrated real life.

Wolmar for MP
 

On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:52:38 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:51:03 on Fri, 18 Nov
2016, d remarked:

As far as I'm concerned, if you weren't born in the UK you shouldn't have
had a vote in the referendum. What the spanish or any other govn do with
respect to immigrants who have taken local nationality is entirely up to them.

Not even if married to a Brit for 30yrs and naturalised British?

No. Not even.

--
Spud