Brexit (Old)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Gavin78

Jfman - really you sound like Corbyn, Roll out the picket signs "we shall not be moved"

That’s quite an insult.

I’m going to try and avoid the circular discussions, I think my position has been repeated enough.

However it’s a virtual certainty the politicians are trying to weasel out of this without getting the blame for doing so.

More people than ever before are mentioning “no Brexit at all” and a 2nd referendum. It’s all about softening up the public for when one/other/both happens to minimise a backlash.

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

You’re not listening, or either can’t understand or refuse to understand.

Try to think jfman, thinking is so important.

I voted Remain. Leave won. Parliament voted to leave in March 2019. I merely support the democratic decisions of the electorate and the democratically elected Parliament.

Subsequently to that I only wish to see a period of time elapse for bexit to play out before it is revisited. I would prefer 10-15 years, but would live with 5 as a minimum, that’s all.

Well yes.....we would have to assess the drawbacks and benefits of rejoining at the time.

Try harder, I have to deal with your unique skill of not understanding any points put to you.

Fair enough, I look forward to you adding nothing.

Ironically you continue with your flawed understanding of what constitutes democracy and even further flawed understanding of our constitution.

Parliament is sovereign in this country. The people, or rather Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, are not. A key principle within this is that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and as such no Government can bind a future Government. Regardless of any advisory referendum carried out on any random date.

Your whole reason for wanting to leave is not understanding this point. Which is fine I suppose, because clearly you don’t understand the economics of the situation enough for it to be on that basis.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

That’s quite an insult.

I’m going to try and avoid the circular discussions, I think my position has been repeated enough.

However it’s a virtual certainty the politicians are trying to weasel out of this without getting the blame for doing so.

More people than ever before are mentioning “no Brexit at all” and a 2nd referendum. It’s all about softening up the public for when one/other/both happens to minimise a backlash.

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:22 ----------



Ironically you continue with your flawed understanding of what constitutes democracy and even further flawed understanding of our constitution.

Parliament is sovereign in this country. The people, or rather Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, are not. A key principle within this is that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and as such no Government can bind a future Government. Regardless of any advisory referendum carried out on any random date.

Your whole reason for wanting to leave is not understanding this point. Which is fine I suppose, because clearly you don’t understand the economics of the situation enough for it to be on that basis.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Ironically you continue with your flawed understanding of what constitutes democracy and even further flawed understanding of our constitution.

Parliament is sovereign in this country. The people, or rather Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, are not.

I thought you had nothing to add?

You fail to understand that on this question Parliament conceded it sovereignty to the electorate. It is quite that simple. Do you understand yet?

A key principle within this is that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and as such no Government can bind a future Government.

No one is saying that. If a future government, after this referendum is enacted, wishes to ask if we want to re-join the EU, they can.

Regardless of any advisory referendum carried out on any random date.

already addressed this, which you ignore again. Funny how it’s ok for you to be selective.

The result has been enshrined in law, in a parliamentry democratic vote, therefore no longer advisory

Originally Posted by jfman

You can barely hold a consistent argument so let’s leave it there. Don’t quote me.

This is the second such post from you - Stop telling other members not to quote you, if you post on here, you should expect to be quoted and by anybody.

Also, you will respect other members, while posting on here.

Several posts have been deleted - a reminder to all members - this is not a school playground. I did say a few weeks ago, this thread is in the last chance saloon and risks being closed, I cannot tell you how much the team is fed up with the petty squabbles.

Don’t think of it as a 2nd referendum, more of a 1st referendum on the deal...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Don’t think of it as a 2nd referendum, more of a 1st referendum on the deal...

But Hugh, that is not and has never been a thing.

There was a referendum to stay or leave. Leave won.

Anything after this is waffle with dumplings.

We voted to leave, therefore we must leave. If after we have left and there is a movement to rejoin, fine. No problem with it.

But result of the first referendum must be enacted.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I thought you had nothing to add?

You fail to understand that on this question Parliament conceded it sovereignty to the electorate. It is quite that simple. Do you understand yet?


No one is saying that. If a future government, after this referendum is enacted, wishes to ask if we want to re-join the EU, they can.

already addressed this, which you ignore again. Funny how it’s ok for you to be selective.

The result has been enshrined in law, in a parliamentry democratic vote, therefore no longer advisory

Parliament didn’t concede sovereignty, it legislated to hold an advisory referendum. It’s free to hold as many as it pleases in future. That’s the point of sovereignty, it is supreme authority.

If it decided to hold a referendum and didn’t agree with the outcome it’s entirely within it’s prerogative to change it’s mind for any reason it considered appropriate. It would also be the ultimate arbiter of what reasons are appropriate.

The point “enshrined in law” ignores what I’ve been saying all along. It can repeal, withdraw or amend any existing legislation where there is Parliamentary will to do so. This will happen in the coming weeks.

Originally Posted by Pierre

But Hugh, that is not and has never been a thing.

There was a referendum to stay or leave. Leave won.

Anything after this is waffle with dumplings.

We voted to leave, therefore we must leave. If after we have left and there is a movement to rejoin, fine. No problem with it.

But result of the first referendum must be enacted.

And even if there was a 2nd referendum, with a remain option - why should this referendum take precedence over the first?

Leave campaign will just insist on a 3rd and so on, to what end do we stand up and say one referendum is enough because this is democracy.

Keep having referendums until one side gets the result it wants, is not a true democracy.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But Hugh, that is not and has never been a thing.

There was a referendum to stay or leave. Leave won.

Anything after this is waffle with dumplings.

We voted to leave, therefore we must leave. If after we have left and there is a movement to rejoin, fine. No problem with it.

But result of the first referendum must be enacted.

In your opinion, yes.

Legally, no.

---------- Post added at 22:16 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

And even if there was a 2nd referendum, with a remain option - why should this referendum take precedence over the first?

Leave campaign will just insist on a 3rd and so on, to what end do we stand up and say one referendum is enough because this is democracy.

Keep having referendums until one side gets the result it wants, is not a true democracy.

If it was the clear political will of the people surely the same result would present itself every time?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Parliament didn’t concede sovereignty, it legislated to hold an advisory referendum. It’s free to hold as many as it pleases in future. That’s the point of sovereignty, it is supreme authority.

You’ll get it in the end.

We as the electorate cede our power to our elected representatives to make all the big decisions and make laws by which we will be governed.

However, a bill was passed in parliament to put this particular question back to the electorate because parliament felt it too big a question to be handled by the elected representatives of parliament.

Subsequently the electorate voted leave, and in recognition of the decision the elected representatives in parliament enacted that decision in law to affirm to the electorate that they would comply with the will of them electorate.

If it decided to hold a referendum and didn’t agree with the outcome it’s entirely within it’s prerogative to change it’s mind

But the overriding fact is, they did agree with the outcome?

The point “enshrined in law” ignores what I’ve been saying all along. It can repeal, withdraw or amend any existing legislation where there is Parliamentary will to do so. This will happen in the coming weeks.

Never have disagreed with that.

However, to repeal A50 will need all the parliamentry hoops and be debated and voted, bearing in mind that parliament has already voted to leave.

I don’t share your outlook

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:27 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

In your opinion, yes.

Legally, no

I’ll happily have the popcorn moment in the commons as they debate overturning A50.

[jfman]

I fail to see how “I’ll get there in the end” when I’m citing hundreds of years of convention relating to Parliamentary Sovereignty.

You actually concede my point in your penultimate sentence, and we finally get to the point where you don’t think what I’m predicting will happen (which also happens to be your preference).

(I’m referring to the first part of the post timed 22:27).

They’ll be unlikely to debate overturning A50 that’ll be unpalatable at that stage. Extension to prevent no deal far more likely as the campaign to soften up the leave vote continues. People’s Vote will necessitate an extension of three months or so to stop it going back to square one. This will create the illusion of the public being presented with a genuine choice, and that’s there’s any will to leave the EU in Parliament.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I fail to see how “I’ll get there in the end” when I’m citing hundreds of years of convention relating to Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Yet failing to understand what parliament has done in regards to Brexit. I hope you’ll get there in the end.

You actually concede my point in your penultimate sentence, and we finally get to the point where you don’t think what I’m predicting will happen (which also happens to be your preference).

(I’m referring to the first part of the post timed 22:27).

nope don’t see it.

Quote and reference it.

They’ll be unlikely to debate overturning A50 that’ll be unpalatable at that stage.

Yes.

Extension to prevent no deal far more likely as the campaign to soften up the leave vote continues.

Will require parliamentry vote, and only if there was a realistic outcome of a new deal.

People’s Vote will necessitate an extension of three months or so to stop it going back to square one. This will create the illusion of the public being presented with a genuine choice, and that’s there’s any will to leave the EU in Parliament.

A people’s vote is not even on the horizon, a “people’s vote” is nothing but a fantasy.

A second referendum ( which is what it is) would have to debated, voted in parliament.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

However, to repeal A50 will need all the parliamentry hoops and be debated and voted, bearing in mind that parliament has already voted to leave.

Literally in this sentence you accept Parliament is sovereign.

Somewhere further up you make some random point about people ceding our power to elected representatives. I refer you to the Reform Act 1832, Reform Act 1867, Representation of the People Act 1884 and the Representation of the People Act 1918 (as amended), note this list is not exhaustive. At no point in the history of England, or the United Kingdom, has power been ceded from the people to Parliament. Our involvement has always been defined by Parliament. Again, it is sovereign, people are not.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Literally in this sentence you accept Parliament is sovereign.

I’ve never said it isn’t, just that in regards to the referendum it ceded it’s sovereignty to the the electorate and then enshrined the electorate’s decision in law.

Just so we are clear.......do you agree with that statement?

Somewhere further up you make some random point about people ceding our power to elected representatives

that would be parliament...... yes

. I refer you to the Reform Act 1832, Reform Act 1867, Representation of the People Act 1884 and the Representation of the People Act 1918 (as amended), note this list is not exhaustive. At no point in the history of England, or the United Kingdom, has power been ceded from the people to Parliament. Our involvement has always been defined by Parliament. Again, it is sovereign, people are not.

Are you on medication?

You say that we....the people....have never ceded our Authority to Parliament ( which is what we do every five years )

By definition we “allow” Parliament to govern and represent us.

People are not sovereign?

I think Oliver Cromwell sorted that argument out.

I’m not sure what country you think you live in.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yet failing to understand what parliament has done in regards to Brexit. I hope you’ll get there in the end.

nope don’t see it.

Quote and reference it.



Yes.



Will require parliamentry vote, and only if there was a realistic outcome of a new deal.



A people’s vote is not even on the horizon, a “people’s vote” is nothing but a fantasy.

A second referendum ( which is what it is) would have to debated, voted in parliament.

there a chance it will be after deal get defeated in parliament you must admit there a chance it will be