On 08/11/2016 21:18, ColinR wrote:
On 08/11/2016 15:58, Graeme Wall wrote:
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.

Oxford dictionary definition of threat:
"A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other
hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."

The above does not meet the threat definition


How does "The Remoaners had better be careful about provoking conflict
today." not fit that definition.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 08/11/16 21:38, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 21:18, ColinR wrote:
On 08/11/2016 15:58, Graeme Wall wrote:
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:
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.

Oxford dictionary definition of threat:
"A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other
hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."

The above does not meet the threat definition


How does "The Remoaners had better be careful about provoking conflict
today." not fit that definition.

I agree. The original statement does constitute a threat under the
dictionary definition.