EU membership referendum debate thread

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 06 Sep 2016, 18:42

woodburner wrote:There already is blood on the streets. Polish guy killed in Harlow recently, plenty of abuse suffered by eastern Europeans from the moronic-tendency we have in the UK (and whom we could well do without).

Plenty of blood on the streets of North Kent, Lithuanians stabbing Russians, Russians stabbing Poles, Poles stabbing Lithuanians, Romanians stabbing everyone.....

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 07 Sep 2016, 08:32

Yep this place has been cooking nicely. Why do you think the sons of Normans don't allow weapons for the proles?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -here.html

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 07 Sep 2016, 10:49

That article was written in 2013, is it still relevant?

Post by **adam2** » 07 Sep 2016, 11:17

woodburner wrote:That article was written in 2013, is it still relevant?

Still somewhat relevant as the concerns, problems, and issues still exist and seem to be broadly unchanged.
On the other hand, it was implied that large scale trouble was due in the near term, and in fact after nearly three years not much has happened.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 13 Sep 2016, 13:01

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -committee

constitution committee calls article 50 invocation by prerogative unconstitutional

Post by **clv101** » 13 Sep 2016, 17:03

I thought one of the main points of Brexit was that parliament should be sovereign. The idea of doing something as significant as this without a vote in parliament seems odd.

It may well be that the eventual negotiated deal is rubbish - at that point I'd hope parliament would have a vote on whether to accept it or not.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 17 Sep 2016, 05:38

johnhemming2 wrote:People have to be allowed to argue that a referendum has taken the wrong decision.

No. They. Don't.

That is what a referendum is for.

Jeez.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 17 Sep 2016, 05:41

clv101 wrote:I thought one of the main points of Brexit was that parliament should be sovereign. The idea of doing something as significant as this without a vote in parliament seems odd.

It may well be that the eventual negotiated deal is rubbish - at that point I'd hope parliament would have a vote on whether to accept it or not.

This is *exactly* why the Americans think Brits are nuts. It is THE PEOPLE who are sovereign. But you have been brainwashed into thinking you must do what you are told. Government is supposed to work for *you*

If they do debate it in parliament however, and they overturn the *will of the people* then that will prove that they consider the people to be their servants.

In which case why bother having democracy at all? Why not in that case just get the communist revolution over with.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 17 Sep 2016, 07:00

fifthcolumn wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:People have to be allowed to argue that a referendum has taken the wrong decision.
No. They. Don't.

That is what a referendum is for.

Jeez.

What about the referendum in the 1970s then?

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 17 Sep 2016, 12:51

johnhemming2 wrote:
fifthcolumn wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:People have to be allowed to argue that a referendum has taken the wrong decision.
No. They. Don't.

That is what a referendum is for.

Jeez.
What about the referendum in the 1970s then?

Good point John, we should definitely evaluate Brexit in 2055.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 17 Sep 2016, 14:50

A periodic revisiting of referenda decisions is a good thing, in my opinion. I made a mistake, was conned, in the 1970s referendum. This did not come to light for several decades so I was pleased to be able to correct my vote at the recent referendum. If, in ten or twenty years, we find that we made a mistake coming out of the EU we could revisit the decision then. There is no pint in revisiting such a decision after a year or two because we won't really know what the real long term consequences are in that time.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 17 Sep 2016, 16:46

Catweazle wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:
fifthcolumn wrote: No. They. Don't.

That is what a referendum is for.

Jeez.
What about the referendum in the 1970s then?
Good point John, we should definitely evaluate Brexit in 2055.

When did people first criticise the EEC/EU after the referendum.

There are rules within constitutional bodies (councils, parliament etc) that prevent discussion of things that have been discussed in those bodies recently. However, this cannot apply more generally or on a cross body basis.

Potemkin Villager · Post by **Potemkin Villager** » 05 Oct 2016, 11:47

Does anybody want to place any bets if the great leader is to make even a tentative move towards a running commentary on the progress of the Brexit project whilst addressing the faithful today?

Potemkin Villager · Post by **Potemkin Villager** » 05 Oct 2016, 12:53

Cor what a lot of misleading and uninformative old waffle!

Potemkin Villager · Post by **Potemkin Villager** » 05 Oct 2016, 12:55

Potemkin Villager wrote:Cor what a lot of cynically misleading and uninformative old waffle!