Europe, Referendum & Brexit (formerly Europe..IN or OUT??)

^ I'm now being lectured on democracy by someone who could not even be bothered to vote

Your first "fact" is wrong by the way.

We had a discussion after the referendum about the merits of another referendum once the terms of Brexit were negotiated or a General Election where parties could campaign on Leave or Remain. In my view it would be wrong for a decision to be taken to reverse the referendum result without once again consulting the people. At present they would have little in the way of new facts on which to base a decision

Its not mad to have such an opinion - I believe in democracy and so it seems do a great many of the MP's who voted Remain.

By the way what does the nationality of any resident of this country have to do with their ability to have the law of the land applied?

(05-11-2016 17:27 )SecretAgent Wrote:  ^ I'm now being lectured on democracy by someone who could not even be bothered to vote

Your first "fact" is wrong by the way.

We had a discussion after the referendum about the merits of another referendum once the terms of Brexit were negotiated or a General Election where parties could campaign on Leave or Remain. In my view it would be wrong for a decision to be taken to reverse the referendum result without once again consulting the people. At present they would have little in the way of new facts on which to base a decision

Its not mad to have such an opinion - I believe in democracy and so it seems do a great many of the MP's who voted Remain.

By the way what does the nationality of any resident of this country have to do with their ability to have the law of the land applied?

Not entirely sure i would call it lecturing.

Democrecy is the freedom of the people to do as they please (within law). A RIGHT to vote also means a right NOT to vote. In this case I can see both sides of the argument. There is no way of knowing how good or bad it will be for Britian if we leave since it's the future, we know what it was like before, ok with problems.

You do realise I've been saying if Britian does a u turn they would be the laughing stock of the world right? However, the remianers have their chance.

You seem to be one of those poeple who thinks it will be nothing but bad for the UK. The referendum was advisory. The MP's will be voting according to their concience, they should vote the same as they did on the referendum night, they will be doing nothing wrong, this may indeed lead to a different result, but so may a second referendum.

Nothing whatsoever, I just like the irony that it is one imigrant who challenged the british government and won, seems entirley fitting as well.

(05-11-2016 16:51 )wackawoo Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 08:09 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  Are you saying he's corrupt? Now who's clutching at straws.

I claimed nothing

Yes, you're very good at that when you get pulled up.

(06-11-2016 08:33 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  Yes, you're very good at that when you get pulled up.

You actually think I invented all these storys? Rather than just relay what I have read on the internet?

Your desperation is now at an all time level of stupidity.

I read, and not at all invented by myself as some paranoids would have it, this from that there internet:

""Parliament voted to put the decision about our membership of the EU in the hands of the British people.""

So parliament voted for the people of Britian to decide, didn't get what they want and then claim it's not lawful to go ahead until THEY actually have the vote - wait, what?

So how did this fuckwit win anyway?

http://lionheartnews.com/2016/11/video-i...s-demands/

also not an invention of mine

Wrong wrong wrong

Your final paragraph is such a misunderstanding of the facts of the Judges ruling that I truly wonder what universe you inhabit.

I'll repeat again what has been said many times. The judges ruling affirmed that legally Parliament is the body that must trigger Article 50. That does not mean Parliament will overturn the referendum result. Most reasonable senior politicians have made it clear they want to scrutinise the governments proposals but will vote in favour of triggering the start of Brexit negotiations. Parliament were not a party in the court case - the government in the form of the Brexit Secretary of State were.

It's called following the law. Now the Supreme Court may decide on Appeal that they will overturn the judges ruling but that remains to be seen.

(06-11-2016 16:26 )wackawoo Wrote:  So how did this fuckwit win anyway?

http://lionheartnews.com/2016/11/video-i...s-demands/

also not an invention of mine

If lionheartnews is your preferred reading it would seem to explain your immigrant comment the other day.

(06-11-2016 16:24 )wackawoo Wrote:  parliament voted for the people of Britian to decide, didn't get what they want and then claim it's not lawful to go ahead until THEY actually have the vote - wait, what?

You really are a complete buffoon aren't you. I really wonder whether you can be considered a person of sound mind.

Parliament didn't vote for the people of Britain to decide. They voted for an advisory referendum.

(06-11-2016 16:39 )SecretAgent Wrote:  Wrong wrong wrong

Your final paragraph is such a misunderstanding of the facts of the Judges ruling that I truly wonder what universe you inhabit.

Yes we know, that the hell is wrong with you?