Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980425)

I remember seeing this programme and talking about it the day afterwards. One elderly customer remarked that she'd overheard an immigrant on his mobile phone saying "you come to England, they pay you to have children". I remember remarking that, however unpalatable his comments were, he was telling the truth.

Presumably this is why, in most cases, people can now only claim for a maximum of two children and why the NASS system for calculating money given to asylum seekers has been reformed.

Because we aren't allowed to treat EU citizens any differently to our own population, this legislation to counter this greedy abuse of our generosity also affects those who took no part in it too.

There's a similar issue with the EHIC cards. If someone from Spain comes here, they automatically enjoy all the benefits of our NHS. When I visit Spain, however, I have to register as a temporary visitor, which often means wasting my first day hanging around a Government office. They don't rush and, even then, the cover isn't equivalent to our NHS as there are often charges to pay.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980427)

This data is three years old, but nevertheless is still interesting to look at. I'm surprised that the EU countries expecting us to bail them out after we ourselves have had to endure nearly a decade of austerity.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35980384)

Nothing like brazen Brexit hypocrisy especially as he was claiming to speak for the thousands of British businesses that are hoping to manufacture in the UK after Brexit.:rolleyes::td:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35980429)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...nt-cost-to-nhs

If we aren't recovering the costs we are entitled to then we should resolve it that way, as it seems we are paying out more to EEA countries for our tourists overseas. So again this is just a racist myth based on anecdotal accounts and an absence of evidence.

---------- Post added at 19:21 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------



If it's out of date can you explain the factors that mean reality and 2016 isn't representative of reality in 2019?



EU migrants don't claim asylum here. You are conflating two separate issues that aren't one and the same.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8504206.html

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u...the-uk-asylum/

The numbers are absolutely tiny - approx 30 000 per year since 2010 and a tiny fraction of all applications across the European Union.



What an absolutely rubbish comparison. EU migration is hardly equivalent to giving out free nice houses. The vast, vast majority make a contribution to this country.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35980386)

It's just business, nothing more. Move manufacturing to a country with low wages & long hours, build it cheap knowing the 'name' will sell it dear ;)



edit: in fact it's a little like Range Rover & Slovakia :D

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980333)

Would that be the same poll where 26% thought that ‘no deal’ meant staying in the EU

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980458)

You need to stop purposely bringing the R word into it, it's being unnecessarily inflammatory.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980443)

In June 2016, Dyson did say “We will create more wealth and more jobs by being outside the EU.”

Well, Singapore is certainly outside the EU, so he wasn’t lying, and to be fair to him, he didn't actually specify that the wealth and jobs would be in the UK... :dozey:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35980366)

Not that it will happen, but IF then I'd suspect to see both sides paying a sum

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35980391)

Of course it's business. It's just that one of the biggest business supporters of Brexit and how it will help British business is moving his British business out of Britain. It may not be because of the EU, although at the present rate he'll have better access to that market than he would here, but it's hardly a big confidence vote in this new dawn for British manufacturing he advocated for.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980458)

You appear to have totally misunderstood my comparison to being forced to accept people into the UK and the reasons why they would want to do impose themselves upon us (along with the general confusion caused by you responding to points that haven't been made).

Also, whilst immigration is a key factor in Brexit, as usual you seem to become obsessed with one particular point in a thread and go on about it ad infinitum. Others have remarked that this has all been covered before (which it has), so i'm now bringing our conversation to a close before everyone else falls asleep.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980458)

You need to stop purposely bringing the R word into it, it's being unnecessarily inflammatory.

Anyone can repeatedly Google for out of date information to try and prove a point. Again, nobody has suggested that immigrants from the EU claim asylum. I was responding to your claim that immigrants aren't attracted to our superior welfare state.

You appear to have totally misunderstood my comparison to being forced to accept people into the UK and the reasons why they would want to do impose themselves upon us (along with the general confusion caused by you responding to points that haven't been made).

Also, whilst immigration is a key factor in Brexit, as usual you seem to become obsessed with one particular point in a thread and go on about it ad infinitum. Others have remarked that this has all been covered before (which it has), so i'm now bringing our conversation to a close before everyone else falls asleep.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35980473)

It wont happen, it’s just the EU ratcheting up the pressure, a hard border would be political suicide for the Irish PM, if the EU were seen to “Force” the Irish to build it you would immediately see legal challenges a plenty.

It won’t happen.

---------- Post added at 09:17 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------



Always pays to know more before a rant. Dysons manufacturing went offshore years ago. All the R&D is on the UK. This move relocated a massive Two people to Singapore that’s it. No other UK positions are affected.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.b...iness-46962093

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35980477)

How were we forced to accept freedom of movement? We signed the Maastricht Treaty willingly. We signed off on Directive 2004/38/EC willingly. Hell, we knew about freedom of movement established in the treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957) before we even joined the EEC as was. Nothing has been forced upon the UK here.

Of course, the freedom of movement established by 2004/38/EC puts limitations of three months to stay after which citizens must be working or the dependent of a worker or be financially self sufficient. The UK has never enforced this properly. Rules in place do not allow benefit tourism for EU citizens if the UK wanted to enforce them.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35980478)

You haven’t actuallly proved any of your assertions, which is why we haven’t moved on from the point. I don’t really care for the distinction between racism and xenophobia either way it’s ignorance of the facts.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35980481)

1. The original freedom of movement was of workers. - true, it has now been extended to students and family members of workers but the income or self supporting status still exists

2. That was before the Eastern European states joined the EU. The scale of the impact of freedom of movement changed dramatically as a result. - The UK government signed off on the accession of the A10 countries. There was a temprorary brake on free movement from these countries that the UK decided not to use

3. I don't remember being asked and now that we have been it has proved to be pointless/meaningless. - successive governments have followed the policy of allowing and wanting free movement. I am not sure what you mean by pointless/meaningless

4. How would we overturn it, other than by leaving altogether? - If you want to stop free movement of EU citizens as defined by TFEU and directive 2004/38/EC, then you hve to leave the EU pretty much. If you want to get stricter on what EU citizens can claim in benefits, then we need to look back to what David Cameron got in 2016 (no JSA for 3 months, phase in of in work benefits over 4 years)

5. All they do is be involved with a one-off collection of scrap or sell one copy of the "Big Issue" and any restrictions go away. - if they are 'employed' then there's no issue. If you have been working for less than a year, you can only get benefits for 6 months and show you are an active job seeker

6. How was it ever possible to deport them? - Directive 2004/38/EC allows member states to deport on public policy issues such as becoming an unnecessary burden on the state

7. In any initial period and the never ending sets of appeals they would still receive housing, benefits, NHS treatment etc. - not true, benefits are time limited

8. After 5 years of residence there is no restrictions of any sort. - yep, just as non EEA citizens. My american colleague has just been given leave to remain

9. Once just one person is here that fulfils any requirements, then any family members also acquire those rights. - not quite, spouses/civil partners, children and grandchildren under 21 are covered. Other family members need to show that they are supported by the worker. If the initial migrant loses their right to reside, then all dependents do too

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980513)

Disgusting behaviour- hopefully prosecutions will happen.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35980495)

£60 million a year from just one business . . . it makes you wonder how much has been lost over the years since manufacturing was 'thrown out' by previous Governments who decided the financial sector was a better option :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980505)

I think that a lot of people are getting tired of Brexit now, the danger is that the wrong decisions will be reached as people just want to get it over and done with.
]

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35980529)

Mrs Thatcher is the answer to your question.[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35980529)

Yes people do have a very short attention span. Those immigrants are still here providing public services and paying taxes, because we're too old and lazy, wtf is going on !

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980554)

This has been fully covered already, though I suspect you're now just being naughty ��

Chris made an interesting point in a different thread about Scottish independence ie that Salmond had said in 2013 that Scottish independence could be achieved 18 months after a referenfum win.

Brexit has shown how complicated these things actually are in reality.

I've heard one or two people say that they are leavers at heart, but they essentially believe that we are now so ingrained into the EU that it will be impossible to leave (at least completely).

Wasn't VAT introduced to pay for our contribution to the EU? If we leave and no longer have to pay into the EU every year, is there a case for abolishing this?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35980412)

To somewhere OUTSIDE the Eurozone. So how does that work?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35980567)

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35980580)

Well seeeing a remainer MPs seem to be using every trick in the parliamentary book to frustrate Brexit, time for the leave supporters to have a wheeze of their own. :D

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35980571)

I'm looking for the contradiction.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980579)

So, apparently the latest wheeze from the ERG (you know, the ‘we need to restore Parliamentary Sovereignty’ chaps and chapesses) is to propose to suspend Parliament.

Cognitive dissonance, much?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980579)

So, apparently the latest wheeze from the ERG (you know, the ‘we need to restore Parliamentary Sovereignty’ chaps and chapesses) is to propose to suspend Parliament.

Cognitive dissonance, much?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980579)

So, apparently the latest wheeze from the ERG (you know, the ‘we need to restore Parliamentary Sovereignty’ chaps and chapesses) is to propose to suspend Parliament.

Cognitive dissonance, much?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980589)

It would be drastic, but on the other hand, there is presently a balance between the legislature and the executive which allows both to function smoothly. It is maintained by procedures and precedent. Certain parliamentarians, aided by the Speaker, are tinkering with it, with little regard for the long-term consequences, one of which is the risk of a straight confrontation between the power of the Crown and of Parliament. We really don’t want to go there, which is a major reason why those precedents are, and should be, left well alone.

Quite a few of your posts lately appear to be wilfully misrepresenting quite complex constitutional issues that I suspect you’re well aware can’t usefully be summed up in one sentence... :erm:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980579)

So, apparently the latest wheeze from the ERG (you know, the ‘we need to restore Parliamentary Sovereignty’ chaps and chapesses) is to propose to suspend Parliament.

Cognitive dissonance, much?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980589)

wilfully misrepresenting quite complex constitutional issues that I suspect you’re well aware can’t usefully be summed up in one sentence... :erm:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980597)

A really interesting video about examining the paradox in Wales where areas voted to Leave when they were net recipients of EU funds:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980597)

Bit like the question to Leave, eh? ;)

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980599)

They are not EU Funds - they are OUR funds which they then distribute back to the UK.

We are a NET Contributor, in other words we put more in than we get out - you do know what that means, yeah ?

It's like you giving me £500, I then give you £200 of it back and then have the cheek to tell you what to buy with it.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980596)

Hugh - you seriously need to lose this consistent irritating and flippant attitude.

As usual, you're getting things in a muddle again, probably due to too much reliance on Google surfing no doubt.

There would be nothing apparent with proroguing of Parliament, as the Queen is the Constitutional Reigning and Sovereign Monarch, Head of State of the Common Wealth.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980597)

A really interesting video about examining the paradox in Wales where areas voted to Leave when they were net recipients of EU funds

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35980602)

Have the government committed to replacing those funds when they have been lost? Essentially cutting out the middle man (the EU) and funding those projects directly? I've seen nothing to suggest they've even promised to look at doing that.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35980603)

Does it require the Queen officially? I can't see her being willing to suspend Parliament for political reasons.

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35980602)

Have the government committed to replacing those funds when they have been lost? Essentially cutting out the middle man (the EU) and funding those projects directly? I've seen nothing to suggest they've even promised to look at doing that.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980605)

I have explained several pages ago there is two ways the Queen could act at the advice of her Government, she won't act if they do not advise her to.

One is not to give Royal Assent to any Backbench or opposition Bill. No Royal Assent, means it does not become law, the other is proroguing of Parliament, it is not covered in the Fixed term parliament act and is legally possible.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35980603)

Does it require the Queen officially? I can't see her being willing to suspend Parliament for political reasons.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980604)

Mick has already said it but it bears repeating: there is no such thing as EU funds. We are a net contributor by quite some margin. Every penny spent in Wales (yet with that disingenuous blue flag forcibly glued to it), can be more than matched by spending from the U.K. government or by the devolved executive.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980604)

Nope. The question on the ballot was debated at length, across a variety of media. Sooner or later you’re going to have to accept that a national debate took place yet at the end of it, most people disagreed with you.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980612)

Yet again you miss the point. You are naive to believe that this Government will replace these funds on a like-for-like basis.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980620)

I make no judgement about whether this government will replace those funds. I will judge the party manifestos on this issue in 2021 (if not sooner), when structural funding will be a British election issue for the first time in a generation. That’s what Brexit is for. That is the point.



Seriously, this again .... we debated a range of outcomes. The leave campaign generally outlined the opportunities while the remain campaign highlighted the risks (occasionally they agreed what would happen but disagreed over whether it was a good thing, e.g. our departure from the customs union).

There is a simple mandate to leave the EU. The referendum question was not qualified or limited in any way, so it is a nonsense to claim that there is no mandate for one consequence or another.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35980610)

She's done it before...

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35980622)

Really? :shocked:

When was this?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35980623)

Before we were born, so my recollection is patchy, iirc she suspended then dismissed the Australian PM and dissolved their parliament in the mid '70's due to some constitutional crisis or other

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35980608)

I can't see the Queen doing anything considered improper or setting herself up against Parliament though. Even if it's the Government asking her to do it. She protects the institution too much and this is country isn't really split on the question of the Monarchy so why risk that?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980631)

This leak from the Civil Service obtained by Sky News just shows why many MP's are so against a No Deal:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980620)

I make no judgement about whether this government will replace those funds. I will judge the party manifestos on this issue in 2021 (if not sooner), when structural funding will be a British election issue for the first time in a generation. That’s what Brexit is for. That is the point.

Seriously, this again .... we debated a range of outcomes. The leave campaign generally outlined the opportunities while the remain campaign highlighted the risks (occasionally they agreed what would happen but disagreed over whether it was a good thing, e.g. our departure from the customs union).

There is a simple mandate to leave the EU. The referendum question was not qualified or limited in any way, so it is a nonsense to claim that there is no mandate for one consequence or another.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35980633)

Ah the good old anti brexit civil service leaked secret document trick:rofl:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35980623)

Before we were born, so my recollection is patchy, iirc she suspended then dismissed the Australian PM and dissolved their parliament in the mid '70's due to some constitutional crisis or other

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980634)

It really is disturbing that you are trying to argue the case that a simplistic binary vote from 37% of the electorate underwrites a structural change that will leave the country poorer and less secure when the opposite scenario was "sold" to the country in 2016 by the leave campaign.

What you are willing to accept, on behalf of all of us in the country, to achieve your ideological goals is simply staggering. In spite of your simplistic arguments, there is no mandate for No Deal and the Commons fully realises this.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35980633)

Ah the good old anti brexit civil service leaked secret document trick:rofl:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35980638)

yep, the ones that Sky 'aquire' and then blatantly push into your face. Sky is more remain than any other media program IMO

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35980638)

yep, the ones that Sky 'aquire' and then blatantly push into your face. Sky is more remain than any other media program IMO

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980636)

Not quite ... the Governor General acts on authority derived from the Crown, and used that authority himself to dismiss the Australian PM. So it wasn’t the Queen wot did it, even though historic crown powers were used.

Queen can sack the Governor General, but ironically she would only ever do so on advice from her Australian PM. So really the PM should’ve moved first. :D

In the U.K. the Queen is the one who appoints PMs and has the power to dismiss them, and also to dissolve Parliament, but she only does so on advice.

---------- Post added at 14:34 ---------- Previous post was at 14:27 ----------



You are legally incorrect, and based on the contents of the very thorough public debate prior to the vote you are not correct in the spirit of the law either.

The referendum was advisory because it only ever can be so in our constitution. Its mandate lies only in the precedent that what is voted for, is done. This was established in the first referendum ever held in the U.K., on our EU membership in 1974, in three devolution referendums, a Westminster election voting system referendum and one on Scottish independence.

Of these, only the Welsh and Scottish devolution referendums of 1998 have changed the status quo; in both cases, the way in which the referendum result was implemented was by consultation, forming government policy, and finally by whipped votes in Parliament. Ultimately the devolution bills presented by Blair’s government were passed. The nationalists continued to blow hard over it but that’s what happened then, and it’s what needs to happen now. Government policy must be implemented as stated in the manifestos we voted on in 2016.

And the Commons fully realises nothing - it is split as never before, because when push comes to shove MPs know that the power to legislate is theirs, not ours; because both main party leaders are the weakest in living memory; because we have now had a hung parliament for 7 of the last 9 years and the Commons has become a place where horse trading and personal preferences have begun to take precedence over the party manifestos MPs pledge to support in return for the major advantage of running as an official candidate.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980634)

It really is disturbing that you are trying to argue the case that a simplistic binary vote from 37% of the electorate underwrites a structural change that will leave the country poorer and less secure when the opposite scenario was "sold" to the country in 2016 by the leave campaign.

What you are willing to accept, on behalf of all of us in the country, to achieve your ideological goals is simply staggering. In spite of your simplistic arguments, there is no mandate for No Deal and the Commons fully realises this.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980642)

Is our Government able to hold a binding referendum if they make this clear beforehand?

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35980621)

Of the two sides Leave was the one making claims about "the easiest deal ever" and similar expectations. Not quite working out as planned and I for one feel conned by Leave and their misdirection in the name of winning.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980650)

No, because nothing is binding, ever. Even Parliament can’t pass anything binding, because Parliament has the power to repeal whatever it enacts. Everything from the Theft Act to the Fraud Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and, indeed, the European Communities Act is British Law only until Parliament chooses to repeal it.

The nearest you could get would be an Act of Parliament that authorised a referendum and specified exactly what would happen in the event of certain outcomes. But even then, Parliament could subsequently intervene to prevent it, which is exactly what is happening now. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act which made it a fact of British Law that the U.K. will cease to be a member of the EU at 11pm this 29th of March. Some Remainers have realised that that means we leave, deal or no deal, and are pursuing ever more arcane procedures - plus a few unprecedented ones - in order to get Parliament to repeal that law so that we don’t leave on 29 March, or at least, we don’t leave unless a withdrawal agreement has been concluded with the EU and ratified by Parliament.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980596)

Hugh - you seriously need to lose this consistent irritating and flippant attitude.

As usual, you're getting things in a muddle again, probably due to too much reliance on Google surfing no doubt.

There would be nothing apparent with proroguing of Parliament, as the Queen is the Constitutional Reigning and Sovereign Monarch, Head of State of the Common Wealth.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980653)

Interesting. I did a bit of research myself and, even though the Government leaflet did state "The Government will implement what you decide", this fact checking charity agrees with your post, though it does suggest that, whilst not legally binding, there is a political and moral case for enacting the referendum result:

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980665)

Actually, having been very active in local and national politics in the 80s and 90s, including a couple of years as a researcher for my local MP, not much googling was required.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980665)

Actually, having been very active in local and national politics in the 80s and 90s, including a couple of years as a researcher for my local MP, not much googling was required.

It’s strange that you seem to deride seeking out information to have an informed opinion as a bad thing - surely the more information one has, the more one learns; the older I get, the more I realise there is so much I don’t know, so I try to keep learning.

The ‘bad thing’ would be to prorogue Parliament for purely political reasons to lessen the sovereignty of Parliament - the Government is not Parliament, merely the Executive.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980636)

You are legally incorrect, and based on the contents of the very thorough public debate prior to the vote you are not correct in the spirit of the law either.

The referendum was advisory because it only ever can be so in our constitution. Its mandate lies only in the precedent that what is voted for, is done. This was established in the first referendum ever held in the U.K., on our EU membership in 1974, in three devolution referendums, a Westminster election voting system referendum and one on Scottish independence.

Of these, only the Welsh and Scottish devolution referendums of 1998 have changed the status quo; in both cases, the way in which the referendum result was implemented was by consultation, forming government policy, and finally by whipped votes in Parliament. Ultimately the devolution bills presented by Blair’s government were passed. The nationalists continued to blow hard over it but that’s what happened then, and it’s what needs to happen now. Government policy must be implemented as stated in the manifestos we voted on in 2016.

And the Commons fully realises nothing - it is split as never before, because when push comes to shove MPs know that the power to legislate is theirs, not ours; because both main party leaders are the weakest in living memory; because we have now had a hung parliament for 7 of the last 9 years and the Commons has become a place where horse trading and personal preferences have begun to take precedence over the party manifestos MPs pledge to support in return for the major advantage of running as an official candidate.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35980640)

It's news for the gullible i'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980648)

Here we go again with the 37% figure rubbish.

Also is the rubbish that the country will be poorer but we've been over this many times with this negative fantasy.

I will say it again and keep on saying it when you keep bringing up this nonsensical and misleading rubbish.

The people ineligible to vote, could not be arsed to vote, do not come in to final % calculations, it wasn't 37% of the electorate anyway, as not every single person in the UK is eligible to vote and therefore not part of the Electorate.

I am not sorry to be pedantic but it was actually 72.2% of the Electorate who turned out to vote in 2016. That is the one of the biggest turn out to any Democratic event in political history.

Way more people voted in this referendum than the one in the 70's to join the Common Market, more people voted to leave in 2016, than they did Remain in 1975.

So it is more staggering that you're advocating the 2016 figures as invalid when the figures in 1975 were much less.

UK Population in 1975 was 56 Million, compared to 66 Million in 2016/2018.

17.3 Million said yes in 1975 Referendum, based on your erroneous calculations and thought process regarding the figures, only 31% of entire UK opted to stay in Commons Market in 1975, so based off your Modus Operandi and other Remainers demanding a second vote, the vote in 1975, should have been held again. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980678)

The ‘check and balance’ would them being voted out of their seat at the next election - that’s how our system works, just like in the 80’s and 90s (especially in the 97 General Election).

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980688)

The Queen Proroguing Parliament is part of a valid system. Perfectly legal.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980680)

The Leavers did not detail or articulate that if you voted Leave there was a significant chance that we would leave the EU with No Deal and that you, personally and the country as a whole, would be worse off as measured by a variety of metrics.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35980694)

The Queen isn’t meant to act as a check on Parliament. If she did then that’s going to radically change the relationship between the Monarchy and the electorate...which is why she won’t get involved.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980696)

I think that she serves as an important safety valve for preventing any ridiculous legislation. No bill can become law without her signature, so i'd say that she does keep a (very important) check on Parliament.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980696)

I think that she serves as an important safety valve for preventing any ridiculous legislation. No bill can become law without her signature, so i'd say that she does keep a (very important) check on Parliament.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35980700)

I believe this is pretty much automatic. Even when the Queen is doing what the government asks of her its assumed that they have the support of Parliament. I don't know how anyone can think the Queen acting on behalf of the Government against Parliament, explicitly to remove Parliament's power from challenging the Government, wouldn't spark a constitutional crisis far worse than Bercow allowing an amendment.

I don't think she'll touch it, she has been pretty savvy at protecting the Monarchy, and I don't think May would want to put her in that position. PM's typically have also understood the importance of it.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980704)

You’re forgetting the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, it was a private member's bill that sought to transfer power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

In fact, 39 bills have been subject to the Queen’s veto power, bit of an eye opener for those thinking the Queens role is only a ceremonial one.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35980710)

Reading about that is different to refusal to grant Royal asset in that that bill wasn't debated by Parliament. It also seems she was asked to do so by the Government.

I am not sure if any of the other 39 were. I must admit I didn't not know she did that. I still think it would be something else entirely if Parliament has expressed a will only for it to be overridden.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35980680)

You misunderstand. When i said "underwrite", I was not referring to the legal aspect. Rather, I was talking about the mandate that the vote delivered. The vote was based on a campaign where Leave only promised a positive outcome. The Leavers did not detail or articulate that if you voted Leave there was a significant chance that we would leave the EU with No Deal and that you, personally and the country as a whole, would be worse off as measured by a variety of metrics.

To suggest that the vote delivered a democratic mandate for No Deal, with various negative scenarios, would be disingenuous.<SNIP>

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980704)

You’re forgetting the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, it was a private member's bill that sought to transfer power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

In fact, 39 bills have been subject to the Queen’s veto power, bit of an eye opener for those thinking the Queens role is only a ceremonial one.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35980697)

Surely the House of Lords is the experienced overseer?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980727)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35980731)

UNEDITED VERSION

"As we look for new answers in the modern age, I for one prefer the tried and tested recipes, like speaking well of each other and respecting different points of view; coming together to seek out the common ground; and never losing sight of the bigger picture."



She said these approaches were "timeless, and I commend them to everyone".

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35980735)

Hope Brexiteers are listening as most of the vitriol/hate has come from that side. Maybe its a message for TM as she hasn't budged on her crappy plan A (now re-named plan B), which has been rejected all round.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35980737)

I thank the gentleman for his unbiased opinion and well argued point of view.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35980735)

Hope Brexiteers are listening as most of the vitriol/hate has come from that side. Maybe its a message for TM as she hasn't budged on her crappy plan A (now re-named plan B), which has been rejected all round.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980740)

If there was a forum award for spectacular point-missing, you’d have all the noms.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35980741)

The hate came from the Remain side BEFORE the referendum. Any "hate" from the leave side is aimed at those trying to overturn the DEMOCRATIC result.



Any other country in the world that treated the English the way we are treated would more than likely have sanctions from one direction or another(EU, UN, US etc) imposed on it.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35980741)

The hate came from the Remain side BEFORE the referendum. Any "hate" from the leave side is aimed at those trying to overturn the DEMOCRATIC result.



Any other country in the world that treated the English the way we are treated would more than likely have sanctions from one direction or another(EU, UN, US etc) imposed on it.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35980745)

I think hate is a very strong word to use. However, very passionate feelings have been evident since the announcement of the referendum on both sides of argument They will continue to intensify regardless of the course of action taken.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35980748)

This I agree - there have been elements on both sides that have been equally divisive - I won't be one sided here and say my side has behaved - they have not but neither has the Remain side, we've played the same silly games and ran campaigns by them.

But for one side to totally blame the other side is wrong and uncalled for and just instils division even further. This has to end.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35980746)

Andrew Neil discusses WTO no-tariff deals with James Delingpole, and the potential impact on any future trade deal with the USA (about a minute into the clip).

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/s...266429440?s=21

---------- Post added at 10:30 ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 ----------

Did you mean ‘the British’?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35980745)

I think hate is a very strong word to use. However, very passionate feelings have been evident since the announcement of the referendum on both sides of the argument They will continue to intensify regardless of the course of action taken.

I don't hate anyone because of Brexit, my opinion on leave is that a degree of people who voted to leave were misguided or misled, some were 100% sure of why they were voting. and as Alfred once said 'some men just want to watch the world burn'