|
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 13:32:09 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Schrödinger's Chat on Dec 19, 2018 13:32:09 GMT 1, Just when we thought there was no magic money tree Mrs May produces another 2 billion to look at no deal brexit. Imagine what life would be like if there was a magic money tree! Would you prefer that she does not look at preparations for a no deal scenario? Would you prefer us to crash out at the end of March next year and then decide what to do after that?
I agree with daylightrobbery but for a fuller response.
My preference would be no brexit, but I could have stomached a properly conceived and measured approach to brexit by the Government built up over the last 2 years +. To be running around like headless chickens now throwing cash around and basically panic planning to desperately preserve a position likely to be worse than our current position is all pretty irresponsible in my view. Giving businesses 100 day warning to prepare for a potential no deal is in some cases about as useful as handing them a chocolate teapot.
The Tories have made a complete horlicks of Brexit from conception to now. The claims that we can have a brexit wherein we have our cake and eat it (and potentially eat other people's cake along the way),quickly crumbled. Trusting asshats like TweedleDom and TweedleDavis to negotiate a decent deal has resulted in abject failure. They couldn't collectively negotiate their way out of a paper bag, but nevertheless found it hilarious to celebrate their ineptitude by collecting their joint award for Cabinet Resignation of the Year.
All the collective egos in suits that make up the party should be totally ashamed of their behaviour, their lack of morality and their self interest throughout Brexit, taking the focus off doing a decent job of it (but since they don't possess any powers of introspection they won't).
They should have expended more energy looking after the interests of the Country then making hollow claims of putting the people first and generating pathetic meaningless pithy soundbites; red, white & blue brexit, brexit means brexit, no deal is better than a bad deal (I bet Theresa May didn't imagine she would be stress testing this statement).
If the opposition wasn't so terrible and totally devoid of an alternative plan the Tories would be out by now. How can an opposition party slide in popularity against this shower?
It's a sad sad day when I'm left dewy eyed reminiscing about Cameron, Osborne, Milliband, Clegg etc as some sort of glorious bygone period for politics.
Sick of the lot of them and can't wait for this sorry chapter of our history to be closed.
Glad to get that off my chest 🤣 - Merry Christmas all!
Just when we thought there was no magic money tree Mrs May produces another 2 billion to look at no deal brexit. Imagine what life would be like if there was a magic money tree! Would you prefer that she does not look at preparations for a no deal scenario? Would you prefer us to crash out at the end of March next year and then decide what to do after that? I agree with daylightrobbery but for a fuller response. My preference would be no brexit, but I could have stomached a properly conceived and measured approach to brexit by the Government built up over the last 2 years +. To be running around like headless chickens now throwing cash around and basically panic planning to desperately preserve a position likely to be worse than our current position is all pretty irresponsible in my view. Giving businesses 100 day warning to prepare for a potential no deal is in some cases about as useful as handing them a chocolate teapot. The Tories have made a complete horlicks of Brexit from conception to now. The claims that we can have a brexit wherein we have our cake and eat it (and potentially eat other people's cake along the way),quickly crumbled. Trusting asshats like TweedleDom and TweedleDavis to negotiate a decent deal has resulted in abject failure. They couldn't collectively negotiate their way out of a paper bag, but nevertheless found it hilarious to celebrate their ineptitude by collecting their joint award for Cabinet Resignation of the Year. All the collective egos in suits that make up the party should be totally ashamed of their behaviour, their lack of morality and their self interest throughout Brexit, taking the focus off doing a decent job of it (but since they don't possess any powers of introspection they won't). They should have expended more energy looking after the interests of the Country then making hollow claims of putting the people first and generating pathetic meaningless pithy soundbites; red, white & blue brexit, brexit means brexit, no deal is better than a bad deal (I bet Theresa May didn't imagine she would be stress testing this statement). If the opposition wasn't so terrible and totally devoid of an alternative plan the Tories would be out by now. How can an opposition party slide in popularity against this shower? It's a sad sad day when I'm left dewy eyed reminiscing about Cameron, Osborne, Milliband, Clegg etc as some sort of glorious bygone period for politics. Sick of the lot of them and can't wait for this sorry chapter of our history to be closed. Glad to get that off my chest 🤣 - Merry Christmas all! |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 14:17:12 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 19, 2018 14:17:12 GMT 1, I agree with much of what you say, Schrodinger's Cat. I too reminisce about the good old days of Cameron et al. The Tories are rubbish right now and Labour have been pretty pathetic during this whole Brexit thing as well. If there was a general election tomorrow I would be loathed to vote for either of them.
The problem, as I see it, is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people even though the will of the people appears to consist primarily of xenophobia and flag-waving reactionaries who long for the days of yore when we ruled half the known world and kept those damn foreigners in their place.
I agree with much of what you say, Schrodinger's Cat. I too reminisce about the good old days of Cameron et al. The Tories are rubbish right now and Labour have been pretty pathetic during this whole Brexit thing as well. If there was a general election tomorrow I would be loathed to vote for either of them.
The problem, as I see it, is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people even though the will of the people appears to consist primarily of xenophobia and flag-waving reactionaries who long for the days of yore when we ruled half the known world and kept those damn foreigners in their place.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 16:48:31 GMT 1
Brexit, by Daylight Robber on Dec 19, 2018 16:48:31 GMT 1, I agree with much of what you say, Schrodinger's Cat. I too reminisce about the good old days of Cameron et al. The Tories are rubbish right now and Labour have been pretty pathetic during this whole Brexit thing as well. If there was a general election tomorrow I would be loathed to vote for either of them. The problem, as I see it, is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people even though the will of the people appears to consist primarily of xenophobia and flag-waving reactionaries who long for the days of yore when we ruled half the known world and kept those damn foreigners in their place.
This is utter b*ll*cks for a couple of reasons.
1) The referendum was advisory. It only became the made up 'will of the people' (a wholly inaccurate description as it was only ever the will of approx. 25% of the populace) after the event.
2) Our parliamentary system is a representative democracy which despite the name, is not designed to carry out the 'will of the people', but rather act in the best interests of the nation. Our MPs are there to consider the evidence and arguments for and against and then make the decision they think is best for their constituents.
I agree with much of what you say, Schrodinger's Cat. I too reminisce about the good old days of Cameron et al. The Tories are rubbish right now and Labour have been pretty pathetic during this whole Brexit thing as well. If there was a general election tomorrow I would be loathed to vote for either of them. The problem, as I see it, is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people even though the will of the people appears to consist primarily of xenophobia and flag-waving reactionaries who long for the days of yore when we ruled half the known world and kept those damn foreigners in their place. This is utter b*ll*cks for a couple of reasons. 1) The referendum was advisory. It only became the made up 'will of the people' (a wholly inaccurate description as it was only ever the will of approx. 25% of the populace) after the event. 2) Our parliamentary system is a representative democracy which despite the name, is not designed to carry out the 'will of the people', but rather act in the best interests of the nation. Our MPs are there to consider the evidence and arguments for and against and then make the decision they think is best for their constituents. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 19:00:14 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 19, 2018 19:00:14 GMT 1, I agree with much of what you say, Schrodinger's Cat. I too reminisce about the good old days of Cameron et al. The Tories are rubbish right now and Labour have been pretty pathetic during this whole Brexit thing as well. If there was a general election tomorrow I would be loathed to vote for either of them. The problem, as I see it, is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people even though the will of the people appears to consist primarily of xenophobia and flag-waving reactionaries who long for the days of yore when we ruled half the known world and kept those damn foreigners in their place. This is utter b*ll*cks for a couple of reasons. 1) The referendum was advisory. It only became the made up 'will of the people' (a wholly inaccurate description as it was only ever the will of approx. 25% of the populace) after the event. 2) Our parliamentary system is a representative democracy which despite the name, is not designed to carry out the 'will of the people', but rather act in the best interests of the nation. Our MPs are there to consider the evidence and arguments for and against and then make the decision they think is best for their constituents.
1. The referendum was not advisory (even though some referenda are). Before it took place, Cameron stated quite unequivocally that the people would decide and the government would act on the outcome. There was no confusion or change of terms after the referendum. The fact that only 25% of the populace voted for Brexit is irrelevant. They still amounted to the highest vote for any of the options - so the 25% win it. That's what democracy means.
2. Whilst we may well live in a representative democracy, that has nothing to do with the Brexit vote which was billed as "let the people decide" not "let the MP's decide after considering the will of the people". You can't change the goalposts just because the people got it wrong.
I agree with much of what you say, Schrodinger's Cat. I too reminisce about the good old days of Cameron et al. The Tories are rubbish right now and Labour have been pretty pathetic during this whole Brexit thing as well. If there was a general election tomorrow I would be loathed to vote for either of them. The problem, as I see it, is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people even though the will of the people appears to consist primarily of xenophobia and flag-waving reactionaries who long for the days of yore when we ruled half the known world and kept those damn foreigners in their place. This is utter b*ll*cks for a couple of reasons. 1) The referendum was advisory. It only became the made up 'will of the people' (a wholly inaccurate description as it was only ever the will of approx. 25% of the populace) after the event. 2) Our parliamentary system is a representative democracy which despite the name, is not designed to carry out the 'will of the people', but rather act in the best interests of the nation. Our MPs are there to consider the evidence and arguments for and against and then make the decision they think is best for their constituents. Oh dear you are rather confused my good chap. The "utter b*ll*cks" is on your side I'm afraid. 1. The referendum was not advisory (even though some referenda are). Before it took place, Cameron stated quite unequivocally that the people would decide and the government would act on the outcome. There was no confusion or change of terms after the referendum. The fact that only 25% of the populace voted for Brexit is irrelevant. They still amounted to the highest vote for any of the options - so the 25% win it. That's what democracy means. 2. Whilst we may well live in a representative democracy, that has nothing to do with the Brexit vote which was billed as "let the people decide" not "let the MP's decide after considering the will of the people". You can't change the goalposts just because the people got it wrong. |
|
maven
New Member
🗨️ 589
👍🏻 746
November 2017
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 19:15:18 GMT 1
Brexit, by maven on Dec 19, 2018 19:15:18 GMT 1, Let's face it, Brexit has left the country in a mess. It is all about self interest. Politicians and flippers - it is all the same! Greed and self interest.
Let's face it, Brexit has left the country in a mess. It is all about self interest. Politicians and flippers - it is all the same! Greed and self interest. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 19:28:08 GMT 1
Brexit, by Daylight Robber on Dec 19, 2018 19:28:08 GMT 1, This is utter b*ll*cks for a couple of reasons. 1) The referendum was advisory. It only became the made up 'will of the people' (a wholly inaccurate description as it was only ever the will of approx. 25% of the populace) after the event. 2) Our parliamentary system is a representative democracy which despite the name, is not designed to carry out the 'will of the people', but rather act in the best interests of the nation. Our MPs are there to consider the evidence and arguments for and against and then make the decision they think is best for their constituents. Oh dear you are rather confused my good chap. The "utter b*ll*cks" is on your side I'm afraid. 1. The referendum was not advisory (even though some referenda are). Before it took place, Cameron stated quite unequivocally that the people would decide and the government would act on the outcome. There was no confusion or change of terms after the referendum. The fact that only 25% of the populace voted for Brexit is irrelevant. They still amounted to the highest vote for any of the options - so the 25% win it. That's what democracy means. 2. Whilst we may well live in a representative democracy, that has nothing to do with the Brexit vote which was billed as "let the people decide" not "let the MP's decide after considering the will of the people". You can't change the goalposts just because the people got it wrong.
You need to read up on basic constitutional principles of parliament, parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy.
UK referendums only have the force of law if the Act setting them up say so. This one didn't. Infact the Bill's briefing paper was quite clear about the fact that this one wasn't binding. MPs who claim it was binding don't understand the law, never read the briefing papers or are outright lying. As someone who doesn't represent constituents (& as it is nearly Christmas) I can look past your lack of knowledge on this one. Cameron could have said anything he wanted ahead of the vote, but the FACT remains he was never above the law.
As for your thinking that 25% is The Will of The People, I genuinely don't know where to start. Claiming that 25% of the populace is The People is arrogant beyond belief. It isnt. And it's why any properly organised binding referendum requires a Super Majority.
This is utter b*ll*cks for a couple of reasons. 1) The referendum was advisory. It only became the made up 'will of the people' (a wholly inaccurate description as it was only ever the will of approx. 25% of the populace) after the event. 2) Our parliamentary system is a representative democracy which despite the name, is not designed to carry out the 'will of the people', but rather act in the best interests of the nation. Our MPs are there to consider the evidence and arguments for and against and then make the decision they think is best for their constituents. Oh dear you are rather confused my good chap. The "utter b*ll*cks" is on your side I'm afraid. 1. The referendum was not advisory (even though some referenda are). Before it took place, Cameron stated quite unequivocally that the people would decide and the government would act on the outcome. There was no confusion or change of terms after the referendum. The fact that only 25% of the populace voted for Brexit is irrelevant. They still amounted to the highest vote for any of the options - so the 25% win it. That's what democracy means. 2. Whilst we may well live in a representative democracy, that has nothing to do with the Brexit vote which was billed as "let the people decide" not "let the MP's decide after considering the will of the people". You can't change the goalposts just because the people got it wrong. Showing ignorance once again. You need to read up on basic constitutional principles of parliament, parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy. UK referendums only have the force of law if the Act setting them up say so. This one didn't. Infact the Bill's briefing paper was quite clear about the fact that this one wasn't binding. MPs who claim it was binding don't understand the law, never read the briefing papers or are outright lying. As someone who doesn't represent constituents (& as it is nearly Christmas) I can look past your lack of knowledge on this one. Cameron could have said anything he wanted ahead of the vote, but the FACT remains he was never above the law. As for your thinking that 25% is The Will of The People, I genuinely don't know where to start. Claiming that 25% of the populace is The People is arrogant beyond belief. It isnt. And it's why any properly organised binding referendum requires a Super Majority. |
|
|
|
mojo
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,190
👍🏻 3,720
May 2014
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 19:33:04 GMT 1
Brexit, by mojo on Dec 19, 2018 19:33:04 GMT 1, Let's face it, Brexit has left the country in a mess. It is all about self interest. Politicians and flippers - it is all the same! Greed and self interest.
Let's face it, Brexit has left the country in a mess. It is all about self interest. Politicians and flippers - it is all the same! Greed and self interest. Sorry maven wrong person reply |
|
mojo
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,190
👍🏻 3,720
May 2014
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 19:56:18 GMT 1
Brexit, by mojo on Dec 19, 2018 19:56:18 GMT 1, I agree with much of what you say, Schrodinger's Cat. I too reminisce about the good old days of Cameron et al. The Tories are rubbish right now and Labour have been pretty pathetic during this whole Brexit thing as well. If there was a general election tomorrow I would be loathed to vote for either of them. The problem, as I see it, is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people even though the will of the people appears to consist primarily of xenophobia and flag-waving reactionaries who long for the days of yore when we ruled half the known world and kept those damn foreigners in their place.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070710
I agree with much of what you say, Schrodinger's Cat. I too reminisce about the good old days of Cameron et al. The Tories are rubbish right now and Labour have been pretty pathetic during this whole Brexit thing as well. If there was a general election tomorrow I would be loathed to vote for either of them. The problem, as I see it, is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people even though the will of the people appears to consist primarily of xenophobia and flag-waving reactionaries who long for the days of yore when we ruled half the known world and kept those damn foreigners in their place. Then why are you so fondly reminiscing about Cameron et al? Brexit belongs to David Cameron, George Osbourne, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks as well as many other self serving xenophobic flagwavers, and please don't come back with 'Cameron wanted to remain' as if you believe that you really do believe anything. Which is exactly how they like it. As a democracy we should absolutely be entitled to vote based on actual facts and reality as it is now. The leave campaign's accounts are currently being investigated by the Met Police surely that's enough of a reason to reconsider the outcome of their lies. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070710 |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 19:57:38 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 19, 2018 19:57:38 GMT 1, Oh dear you are rather confused my good chap. The "utter b*ll*cks" is on your side I'm afraid. 1. The referendum was not advisory (even though some referenda are). Before it took place, Cameron stated quite unequivocally that the people would decide and the government would act on the outcome. There was no confusion or change of terms after the referendum. The fact that only 25% of the populace voted for Brexit is irrelevant. They still amounted to the highest vote for any of the options - so the 25% win it. That's what democracy means. 2. Whilst we may well live in a representative democracy, that has nothing to do with the Brexit vote which was billed as "let the people decide" not "let the MP's decide after considering the will of the people". You can't change the goalposts just because the people got it wrong. Showing ignorance once again. You need to read up on basic constitutional principles of parliament, parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy. UK referendums only have the force of law if the Act setting them up say so. This one didn't. Infact the Bill's briefing paper was quite clear about the fact that this one wasn't binding. MPs who claim it was binding don't understand the law, never read the briefing papers or are outright lying. As someone who doesn't represent constituents (& as it is nearly Christmas) I can look past your lack of knowledge on this one. Cameron could have said anything he wanted ahead of the vote, but the FACT remains he was never above the law. As for your thinking that 25% is The Will of The People, I genuinely don't know where to start. Claiming that 25% of the populace is The People is arrogant beyond belief. It isnt. And it's why any properly organised binding referendum requires a Super Majority.
1. David Cameron clearly told everybody that the result would be binding. The fact that the law says the UK government is not required to do so is neither here nor there. The referendum was carried out on the understanding that the government would act on the result.
2. I never said 25% is the will of the people. I said 25% was the majority vote - and it was. You don't need a "super majority" as you call it; just a majority. A vote of 5% could, in effect, be a "majority" if the other option only got 1% and 94% didn't bother to vote.
Oh dear you are rather confused my good chap. The "utter b*ll*cks" is on your side I'm afraid. 1. The referendum was not advisory (even though some referenda are). Before it took place, Cameron stated quite unequivocally that the people would decide and the government would act on the outcome. There was no confusion or change of terms after the referendum. The fact that only 25% of the populace voted for Brexit is irrelevant. They still amounted to the highest vote for any of the options - so the 25% win it. That's what democracy means. 2. Whilst we may well live in a representative democracy, that has nothing to do with the Brexit vote which was billed as "let the people decide" not "let the MP's decide after considering the will of the people". You can't change the goalposts just because the people got it wrong. Showing ignorance once again. You need to read up on basic constitutional principles of parliament, parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy. UK referendums only have the force of law if the Act setting them up say so. This one didn't. Infact the Bill's briefing paper was quite clear about the fact that this one wasn't binding. MPs who claim it was binding don't understand the law, never read the briefing papers or are outright lying. As someone who doesn't represent constituents (& as it is nearly Christmas) I can look past your lack of knowledge on this one. Cameron could have said anything he wanted ahead of the vote, but the FACT remains he was never above the law. As for your thinking that 25% is The Will of The People, I genuinely don't know where to start. Claiming that 25% of the populace is The People is arrogant beyond belief. It isnt. And it's why any properly organised binding referendum requires a Super Majority. You are still ignoring two very important points here. 1. David Cameron clearly told everybody that the result would be binding. The fact that the law says the UK government is not required to do so is neither here nor there. The referendum was carried out on the understanding that the government would act on the result. 2. I never said 25% is the will of the people. I said 25% was the majority vote - and it was. You don't need a "super majority" as you call it; just a majority. A vote of 5% could, in effect, be a "majority" if the other option only got 1% and 94% didn't bother to vote. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 20:12:37 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 19, 2018 20:12:37 GMT 1, I agree with much of what you say, Schrodinger's Cat. I too reminisce about the good old days of Cameron et al. The Tories are rubbish right now and Labour have been pretty pathetic during this whole Brexit thing as well. If there was a general election tomorrow I would be loathed to vote for either of them. The problem, as I see it, is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people even though the will of the people appears to consist primarily of xenophobia and flag-waving reactionaries who long for the days of yore when we ruled half the known world and kept those damn foreigners in their place. Then why are you so fondly reminiscing about Cameron et al? Brexit belongs to David Cameron, George Osbourne, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks as well as many other self serving Conservatives, and please don't come back with 'Cameron wanted to remain' as if you believe that you really do believe anything. Which is exactly how they like it. As a democracy we should absolutely be entitled to vote based on actual facts and reality as it is now. The leave campaign's accounts are currently being investigated by the Met Police surely that's enough of a reason to reconsider the outcome of their lies. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070710
2. It's important to bear in mind that both 'Leave.eu' and 'Vote Leave' are being investigated for financial irregularities not "lies" as you put it.
I agree with much of what you say, Schrodinger's Cat. I too reminisce about the good old days of Cameron et al. The Tories are rubbish right now and Labour have been pretty pathetic during this whole Brexit thing as well. If there was a general election tomorrow I would be loathed to vote for either of them. The problem, as I see it, is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people even though the will of the people appears to consist primarily of xenophobia and flag-waving reactionaries who long for the days of yore when we ruled half the known world and kept those damn foreigners in their place. Then why are you so fondly reminiscing about Cameron et al? Brexit belongs to David Cameron, George Osbourne, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks as well as many other self serving Conservatives, and please don't come back with 'Cameron wanted to remain' as if you believe that you really do believe anything. Which is exactly how they like it. As a democracy we should absolutely be entitled to vote based on actual facts and reality as it is now. The leave campaign's accounts are currently being investigated by the Met Police surely that's enough of a reason to reconsider the outcome of their lies. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-460707101. David Cameron was a Remainer. He campaigned vigorously for us to remain in the UK. If you think he was a Brexiteer then you are clearly very confused. 2. It's important to bear in mind that both 'Leave.eu' and 'Vote Leave' are being investigated for financial irregularities not "lies" as you put it. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 20:28:54 GMT 1
Brexit, by Daylight Robber on Dec 19, 2018 20:28:54 GMT 1, You are still ignoring two very important points here. 1. David Cameron clearly told everybody that the result would be binding. The fact that the law says the UK government is not required to do so is neither here nor there. The referendum was carried out on the understanding that the government would act on the result. 2. I never said 25% is the will of the people. I said 25% was the majority vote - and it was. You don't need a "super majority" as you call it; just a majority. A vote of 5% could, in effect, be a "majority" if the other option only got 1% and 94% didn't bother to vote.
You're kidding no one.
It doesn't matter one jot what Cameron said. The law is the law. The referendum wasn't legally binding. You can argue til you're blue in the face that it was but you'll be wrong.
As for thinking that the opinion of 4% of the populace could ever be considered the Will of the People - now you're just showing yourself up!
You are still ignoring two very important points here. 1. David Cameron clearly told everybody that the result would be binding. The fact that the law says the UK government is not required to do so is neither here nor there. The referendum was carried out on the understanding that the government would act on the result. 2. I never said 25% is the will of the people. I said 25% was the majority vote - and it was. You don't need a "super majority" as you call it; just a majority. A vote of 5% could, in effect, be a "majority" if the other option only got 1% and 94% didn't bother to vote. You're kidding no one. It doesn't matter one jot what Cameron said. The law is the law. The referendum wasn't legally binding. You can argue til you're blue in the face that it was but you'll be wrong. As for thinking that the opinion of 4% of the populace could ever be considered the Will of the People - now you're just showing yourself up! |
|
mojo
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,190
👍🏻 3,720
May 2014
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 20:31:05 GMT 1
Brexit, by mojo on Dec 19, 2018 20:31:05 GMT 1, Then why are you so fondly reminiscing about Cameron et al? Brexit belongs to David Cameron, George Osbourne, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks as well as many other self serving Conservatives, and please don't come back with 'Cameron wanted to remain' as if you believe that you really do believe anything. Which is exactly how they like it. As a democracy we should absolutely be entitled to vote based on actual facts and reality as it is now. The leave campaign's accounts are currently being investigated by the Met Police surely that's enough of a reason to reconsider the outcome of their lies. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-460707101. David Cameron was a Remainer. He campaigned vigorously for us to remain in the UK. If you think he was a Brexiteer then you are clearly very confused. 2. It's important to bear in mind that both 'Leave.eu' and 'Vote Leave' are being investigated for financial irregularities not "lies" as you put it.
2. Financial irregularities are lies in the eyes of the law and both leave groups are guilty.
Then why are you so fondly reminiscing about Cameron et al? Brexit belongs to David Cameron, George Osbourne, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks as well as many other self serving Conservatives, and please don't come back with 'Cameron wanted to remain' as if you believe that you really do believe anything. Which is exactly how they like it. As a democracy we should absolutely be entitled to vote based on actual facts and reality as it is now. The leave campaign's accounts are currently being investigated by the Met Police surely that's enough of a reason to reconsider the outcome of their lies. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-460707101. David Cameron was a Remainer. He campaigned vigorously for us to remain in the UK. If you think he was a Brexiteer then you are clearly very confused. 2. It's important to bear in mind that both 'Leave.eu' and 'Vote Leave' are being investigated for financial irregularities not "lies" as you put it. 1. He did not campaign vigorously. Prior to the referendum being announced he flounced off round Europe warning other EU member states that if they didn't conform to his way of thinking he'd call a referendum. He used it as a threat and then he ran away like a proper jumped up little rich kid when it backfired on him. 2. Financial irregularities are lies in the eyes of the law and both leave groups are guilty. |
|
irl1
Full Member
🗨️ 9,274
👍🏻 9,381
December 2017
|
Brexit
Dec 19, 2018 23:50:57 GMT 1
Brexit, by irl1 on Dec 19, 2018 23:50:57 GMT 1, Only a hundred shopping days left
Only a hundred shopping days left
|
|
mojo
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,190
👍🏻 3,720
May 2014
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 2:56:40 GMT 1
Brexit, by mojo on Dec 20, 2018 2:56:40 GMT 1,
Link
|
|
|
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,766
👍🏻 1,852
March 2017
|
Brexit, by Chris JL on Dec 20, 2018 3:05:17 GMT 1, Oh dear you are rather confused my good chap. The "utter b*ll*cks" is on your side I'm afraid. 1. The referendum was not advisory (even though some referenda are). Before it took place, Cameron stated quite unequivocally that the people would decide and the government would act on the outcome. There was no confusion or change of terms after the referendum. The fact that only 25% of the populace voted for Brexit is irrelevant. They still amounted to the highest vote for any of the options - so the 25% win it. That's what democracy means. 2. Whilst we may well live in a representative democracy, that has nothing to do with the Brexit vote which was billed as "let the people decide" not "let the MP's decide after considering the will of the people". You can't change the goalposts just because the people got it wrong. Showing ignorance once again. You need to read up on basic constitutional principles of parliament, parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy. UK referendums only have the force of law if the Act setting them up say so. This one didn't. Infact the Bill's briefing paper was quite clear about the fact that this one wasn't binding. MPs who claim it was binding don't understand the law, never read the briefing papers or are outright lying. As someone who doesn't represent constituents (& as it is nearly Christmas) I can look past your lack of knowledge on this one. Cameron could have said anything he wanted ahead of the vote, but the FACT remains he was never above the law. As for your thinking that 25% is The Will of The People, I genuinely don't know where to start. Claiming that 25% of the populace is The People is arrogant beyond belief. It isnt. And it's why any properly organised binding referendum requires a Super Majority.
Spot on.
Too much ignorance, in the literal sense, around this issue unfortunately - and strategic misinformation too, obviously. But that’s what Brexit has been about from the start...
Oh dear you are rather confused my good chap. The "utter b*ll*cks" is on your side I'm afraid. 1. The referendum was not advisory (even though some referenda are). Before it took place, Cameron stated quite unequivocally that the people would decide and the government would act on the outcome. There was no confusion or change of terms after the referendum. The fact that only 25% of the populace voted for Brexit is irrelevant. They still amounted to the highest vote for any of the options - so the 25% win it. That's what democracy means. 2. Whilst we may well live in a representative democracy, that has nothing to do with the Brexit vote which was billed as "let the people decide" not "let the MP's decide after considering the will of the people". You can't change the goalposts just because the people got it wrong. Showing ignorance once again. You need to read up on basic constitutional principles of parliament, parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy. UK referendums only have the force of law if the Act setting them up say so. This one didn't. Infact the Bill's briefing paper was quite clear about the fact that this one wasn't binding. MPs who claim it was binding don't understand the law, never read the briefing papers or are outright lying. As someone who doesn't represent constituents (& as it is nearly Christmas) I can look past your lack of knowledge on this one. Cameron could have said anything he wanted ahead of the vote, but the FACT remains he was never above the law. As for your thinking that 25% is The Will of The People, I genuinely don't know where to start. Claiming that 25% of the populace is The People is arrogant beyond belief. It isnt. And it's why any properly organised binding referendum requires a Super Majority. Spot on. Too much ignorance, in the literal sense, around this issue unfortunately - and strategic misinformation too, obviously. But that’s what Brexit has been about from the start... |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 11:21:25 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 11:21:25 GMT 1, You are still ignoring two very important points here. 1. David Cameron clearly told everybody that the result would be binding. The fact that the law says the UK government is not required to do so is neither here nor there. The referendum was carried out on the understanding that the government would act on the result. 2. I never said 25% is the will of the people. I said 25% was the majority vote - and it was. You don't need a "super majority" as you call it; just a majority. A vote of 5% could, in effect, be a "majority" if the other option only got 1% and 94% didn't bother to vote. You're kidding no one. It doesn't matter one jot what Cameron said. The law is the law. The referendum wasn't legally binding. You can argue til you're blue in the face that it was but you'll be wrong. As for thinking that the opinion of 4% of the populace could ever be considered the Will of the People - now you're just showing yourself up!
I never suggested 4% (or 5%) was the "will of the people". Go back and read my post properly. Either you are unable to read properly or perhaps you just realise you can't argue against my position so you invent a position that you can argue against.
You are still ignoring two very important points here. 1. David Cameron clearly told everybody that the result would be binding. The fact that the law says the UK government is not required to do so is neither here nor there. The referendum was carried out on the understanding that the government would act on the result. 2. I never said 25% is the will of the people. I said 25% was the majority vote - and it was. You don't need a "super majority" as you call it; just a majority. A vote of 5% could, in effect, be a "majority" if the other option only got 1% and 94% didn't bother to vote. You're kidding no one. It doesn't matter one jot what Cameron said. The law is the law. The referendum wasn't legally binding. You can argue til you're blue in the face that it was but you'll be wrong. As for thinking that the opinion of 4% of the populace could ever be considered the Will of the People - now you're just showing yourself up! You really should get in to the habit of reading people's posts properly before you start criticising them. I never suggested 4% (or 5%) was the "will of the people". Go back and read my post properly. Either you are unable to read properly or perhaps you just realise you can't argue against my position so you invent a position that you can argue against. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 11:29:26 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 11:29:26 GMT 1, 1. David Cameron was a Remainer. He campaigned vigorously for us to remain in the UK. If you think he was a Brexiteer then you are clearly very confused. 2. It's important to bear in mind that both 'Leave.eu' and 'Vote Leave' are being investigated for financial irregularities not "lies" as you put it. 1. He did not campaign vigorously. Prior to the referendum being announced he flounced off round Europe warning other EU member states that if they didn't conform to his way of thinking he'd call a referendum. He used it as a threat and then he ran away like a proper jumped up little rich kid when it backfired on him. 2. Financial irregularities are lies in the eyes of the law and both leave groups are guilty.
1. Cameron did not use the referendum as a threat to the EU. The referendum only occurred when his deal was rejected by his own party not by the EU contingent. You really need to get your facts straight before you post messages like this.
2. Financial regularities are about funding the campaign. They do not have anything to do with the lies that the campaign told during the run up to the referendum.
3. You really shouldn't be forming your political opinions around YouTube videos of pop songs.
1. David Cameron was a Remainer. He campaigned vigorously for us to remain in the UK. If you think he was a Brexiteer then you are clearly very confused. 2. It's important to bear in mind that both 'Leave.eu' and 'Vote Leave' are being investigated for financial irregularities not "lies" as you put it. 1. He did not campaign vigorously. Prior to the referendum being announced he flounced off round Europe warning other EU member states that if they didn't conform to his way of thinking he'd call a referendum. He used it as a threat and then he ran away like a proper jumped up little rich kid when it backfired on him. 2. Financial irregularities are lies in the eyes of the law and both leave groups are guilty. You are wrong. 1. Cameron did not use the referendum as a threat to the EU. The referendum only occurred when his deal was rejected by his own party not by the EU contingent. You really need to get your facts straight before you post messages like this. 2. Financial regularities are about funding the campaign. They do not have anything to do with the lies that the campaign told during the run up to the referendum. 3. You really shouldn't be forming your political opinions around YouTube videos of pop songs. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 11:31:36 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 11:31:36 GMT 1, Only a hundred shopping days left
(*apart from mine, of course)
Only a hundred shopping days left The most sensible post so far*. (*apart from mine, of course) |
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 13:11:34 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Daylight Robber on Dec 20, 2018 13:11:34 GMT 1, You're kidding no one. It doesn't matter one jot what Cameron said. The law is the law. The referendum wasn't legally binding. You can argue til you're blue in the face that it was but you'll be wrong. As for thinking that the opinion of 4% of the populace could ever be considered the Will of the People - now you're just showing yourself up! You really should get in to the habit of reading people's posts properly before you start criticising them. I never suggested 4% (or 5%) was the "will of the people". Go back and read my post properly. Either you are unable to read properly or perhaps you just realise you can't argue against my position so you invent a position that you can argue against.
Ok, humour me.....
1) do you believe that the referendum was binding? Yes or no?
2) do you believe that the result of the referendum is the 'will of the people'? Yes or no?
You're kidding no one. It doesn't matter one jot what Cameron said. The law is the law. The referendum wasn't legally binding. You can argue til you're blue in the face that it was but you'll be wrong. As for thinking that the opinion of 4% of the populace could ever be considered the Will of the People - now you're just showing yourself up! You really should get in to the habit of reading people's posts properly before you start criticising them. I never suggested 4% (or 5%) was the "will of the people". Go back and read my post properly. Either you are unable to read properly or perhaps you just realise you can't argue against my position so you invent a position that you can argue against. Ok, humour me..... 1) do you believe that the referendum was binding? Yes or no? 2) do you believe that the result of the referendum is the 'will of the people'? Yes or no? |
|
mojo
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,190
👍🏻 3,720
May 2014
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 13:24:22 GMT 1
Brexit, by mojo on Dec 20, 2018 13:24:22 GMT 1, 1. He did not campaign vigorously. Prior to the referendum being announced he flounced off round Europe warning other EU member states that if they didn't conform to his way of thinking he'd call a referendum. He used it as a threat and then he ran away like a proper jumped up little rich kid when it backfired on him. 2. Financial irregularities are lies in the eyes of the law and both leave groups are guilty. You are wrong. 1. Cameron did not use the referendum as a threat to the EU. The referendum only occurred when his deal was rejected by his own party not by the EU contingent. You really need to get your facts straight before you post messages like this. 2. Financial regularities are about funding the campaign. They do not have anything to do with the lies that the campaign told during the run up to the referendum. 3. You really shouldn't be forming your political opinions around YouTube videos of pop songs.
1. He did not campaign vigorously. Prior to the referendum being announced he flounced off round Europe warning other EU member states that if they didn't conform to his way of thinking he'd call a referendum. He used it as a threat and then he ran away like a proper jumped up little rich kid when it backfired on him. 2. Financial irregularities are lies in the eyes of the law and both leave groups are guilty. You are wrong. 1. Cameron did not use the referendum as a threat to the EU. The referendum only occurred when his deal was rejected by his own party not by the EU contingent. You really need to get your facts straight before you post messages like this. 2. Financial regularities are about funding the campaign. They do not have anything to do with the lies that the campaign told during the run up to the referendum. 3. You really shouldn't be forming your political opinions around YouTube videos of pop songs. You contribute very little to this forum and during your time here have managed to slag off many people that actually do contribute constructively. Please reign it in. As of now I will be ignoring you as I feel you are here purely to wind up long standing members and people who actually have something to say. We can't always agree with one another although we can try and be civilized when expressing our opinions. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 13:34:26 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 13:34:26 GMT 1, You are wrong. 1. Cameron did not use the referendum as a threat to the EU. The referendum only occurred when his deal was rejected by his own party not by the EU contingent. You really need to get your facts straight before you post messages like this. 2. Financial regularities are about funding the campaign. They do not have anything to do with the lies that the campaign told during the run up to the referendum. 3. You really shouldn't be forming your political opinions around YouTube videos of pop songs. You contribute very little to this forum and during your time here have managed to slag off many people that actually do contribute constructively. Please reign it in. As of now I will be ignoring you as I feel you are here purely to wind up long standing members and people who actually have something to say. We can't always agree with one another although we can try and be civilized when expressing our opinions.
I will leave it there.
You are wrong. 1. Cameron did not use the referendum as a threat to the EU. The referendum only occurred when his deal was rejected by his own party not by the EU contingent. You really need to get your facts straight before you post messages like this. 2. Financial regularities are about funding the campaign. They do not have anything to do with the lies that the campaign told during the run up to the referendum. 3. You really shouldn't be forming your political opinions around YouTube videos of pop songs. You contribute very little to this forum and during your time here have managed to slag off many people that actually do contribute constructively. Please reign it in. As of now I will be ignoring you as I feel you are here purely to wind up long standing members and people who actually have something to say. We can't always agree with one another although we can try and be civilized when expressing our opinions. I sincerely hope you will follow your own advice. I will leave it there. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 13:43:16 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 13:43:16 GMT 1, You really should get in to the habit of reading people's posts properly before you start criticising them. I never suggested 4% (or 5%) was the "will of the people". Go back and read my post properly. Either you are unable to read properly or perhaps you just realise you can't argue against my position so you invent a position that you can argue against. Ok, humour me..... 1) do you believe that the referendum was binding? Yes or no? 2) do you believe that the result of the referendum is the 'will of the people'? Yes or no?
2. No - It is the 'will of the majority' (of those that bothered to vote).
As an aside, no government (let alone a referendum) has the 'will of the people'. It is very rare for a government to get anywhere close to more than 50% of the vote, let alone 50% of the populous. By your reasoning, that's means all UK governments have been illegitimate.
You really should get in to the habit of reading people's posts properly before you start criticising them. I never suggested 4% (or 5%) was the "will of the people". Go back and read my post properly. Either you are unable to read properly or perhaps you just realise you can't argue against my position so you invent a position that you can argue against. Ok, humour me..... 1) do you believe that the referendum was binding? Yes or no? 2) do you believe that the result of the referendum is the 'will of the people'? Yes or no? 1. Yes - because that is the basis upon which people voted. 2. No - It is the 'will of the majority' (of those that bothered to vote). As an aside, no government (let alone a referendum) has the 'will of the people'. It is very rare for a government to get anywhere close to more than 50% of the vote, let alone 50% of the populous. By your reasoning, that's means all UK governments have been illegitimate. |
|
|
|
caruso
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,181
👍🏻 818
August 2017
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 14:00:05 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by caruso on Dec 20, 2018 14:00:05 GMT 1, British man ignorant of his own laws. In the UK a referendum is not binding. Do your research before you speak.
British man ignorant of his own laws. In the UK a referendum is not binding. Do your research before you speak.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 14:17:31 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Daylight Robber on Dec 20, 2018 14:17:31 GMT 1, Ok, humour me..... 1) do you believe that the referendum was binding? Yes or no? 2) do you believe that the result of the referendum is the 'will of the people'? Yes or no? 1. Yes - because that is the basis upon which people voted. 2. No - It is the 'will of the majority' (of those that bothered to vote). As an aside, no government (let alone a referendum) has the 'will of the people'. It is very rare for a government to get anywhere close to more than 50% of the vote, let alone 50% of the populous. By your reasoning, that's means all UK governments have been illegitimate.
So, a few things other than you talking such crap.
You can't simply ignore the law because it suits. Thinking that you can is idiotic. As is arguing against it.
You appear to be starting to backtrack. You started out concerned with the problem, as you saw it, "is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people". If there's no will of the people, as you're now arguing, why are you so concerned? The phrase has been introduced to make it sound as if this is what we all want when actually only 25% of the populace have told us it's what they want. The rest either didn't want it, didn't care enough to vote or weren't allowed.
Your attempt to turn this around so that I somehow think governments are illegitimate is pathetic nonsense. Unlike you, I understand how our democratic systems work. Your reasoning is way off. Your ignorance is confirmed.
Ok, humour me..... 1) do you believe that the referendum was binding? Yes or no? 2) do you believe that the result of the referendum is the 'will of the people'? Yes or no? 1. Yes - because that is the basis upon which people voted. 2. No - It is the 'will of the majority' (of those that bothered to vote). As an aside, no government (let alone a referendum) has the 'will of the people'. It is very rare for a government to get anywhere close to more than 50% of the vote, let alone 50% of the populous. By your reasoning, that's means all UK governments have been illegitimate. So, a few things other than you talking such crap. You can't simply ignore the law because it suits. Thinking that you can is idiotic. As is arguing against it. You appear to be starting to backtrack. You started out concerned with the problem, as you saw it, "is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people". If there's no will of the people, as you're now arguing, why are you so concerned? The phrase has been introduced to make it sound as if this is what we all want when actually only 25% of the populace have told us it's what they want. The rest either didn't want it, didn't care enough to vote or weren't allowed. Your attempt to turn this around so that I somehow think governments are illegitimate is pathetic nonsense. Unlike you, I understand how our democratic systems work. Your reasoning is way off. Your ignorance is confirmed. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 14:48:45 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Schrödinger's Chat on Dec 20, 2018 14:48:45 GMT 1, Brexit - the will of SOME people.
Nowhere near as pithy and headline grabbing.
Brexit - the will of SOME people.
Nowhere near as pithy and headline grabbing.
|
|
mojo
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,190
👍🏻 3,720
May 2014
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 15:05:58 GMT 1
Brexit, by mojo on Dec 20, 2018 15:05:58 GMT 1, Brexit - the will of SOME people. Nowhere near as pithy and headline grabbing.
Brexit - the will of SOME people. Nowhere near as pithy and headline grabbing. I wonder if this will make any difference to the will of some people? |
|
maven
New Member
🗨️ 589
👍🏻 746
November 2017
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 15:18:05 GMT 1
Brexit, by maven on Dec 20, 2018 15:18:05 GMT 1, So what is the next step? How do we move forward? Is it even possible?
So what is the next step? How do we move forward? Is it even possible?
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 15:52:02 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 15:52:02 GMT 1, British man ignorant of his own laws. In the UK a referendum is not binding. Do your research before you speak.
If you want to contribute to this conversation then I suggest you read my posts properly before you call me ignorant.
British man ignorant of his own laws. In the UK a referendum is not binding. Do your research before you speak. I know that. I have never said it is. If you want to contribute to this conversation then I suggest you read my posts properly before you call me ignorant. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 15:55:34 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 15:55:34 GMT 1, 1. Yes - because that is the basis upon which people voted. 2. No - It is the 'will of the majority' (of those that bothered to vote). As an aside, no government (let alone a referendum) has the 'will of the people'. It is very rare for a government to get anywhere close to more than 50% of the vote, let alone 50% of the populous. By your reasoning, that's means all UK governments have been illegitimate. So, a few things other than you talking such crap. You can't simply ignore the law because it suits. Thinking that you can is idiotic. As is arguing against it. You appear to be starting to backtrack. You started out concerned with the problem, as you saw it, "is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people". If there's no will of the people, as you're now arguing, why are you so concerned? The phrase has been introduced to make it sound as if this is what we all want when actually only 25% of the populace have told us it's what they want. The rest either didn't want it, didn't care enough to vote or weren't allowed. Your attempt to turn this around so that I somehow think governments are illegitimate is pathetic nonsense. Unlike you, I understand how our democratic systems work. Your reasoning is way off. Your ignorance is confirmed.
1. Yes - because that is the basis upon which people voted. 2. No - It is the 'will of the majority' (of those that bothered to vote). As an aside, no government (let alone a referendum) has the 'will of the people'. It is very rare for a government to get anywhere close to more than 50% of the vote, let alone 50% of the populous. By your reasoning, that's means all UK governments have been illegitimate. So, a few things other than you talking such crap. You can't simply ignore the law because it suits. Thinking that you can is idiotic. As is arguing against it. You appear to be starting to backtrack. You started out concerned with the problem, as you saw it, "is that we, as a democracy, are obliged to carry out the will of the people". If there's no will of the people, as you're now arguing, why are you so concerned? The phrase has been introduced to make it sound as if this is what we all want when actually only 25% of the populace have told us it's what they want. The rest either didn't want it, didn't care enough to vote or weren't allowed. Your attempt to turn this around so that I somehow think governments are illegitimate is pathetic nonsense. Unlike you, I understand how our democratic systems work. Your reasoning is way off. Your ignorance is confirmed. Or, in other words, you don't have a counter-argument to disprove what I am saying. Instead you resort to the usual ad hominem attacks. Oldest trick in the book. |
|
caruso
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,181
👍🏻 818
August 2017
|
Brexit
Dec 20, 2018 17:25:26 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by caruso on Dec 20, 2018 17:25:26 GMT 1, British man ignorant of his own laws. In the UK a referendum is not binding. Do your research before you speak. I know that. I have never said it is. If you want to contribute to this conversation then I suggest you read my posts properly before you call me ignorant.
Q: do you believe that the referendum was binding? Yes or no?
A. Yes - because that is the basis upon which people voted.
I suggest you start acting smart if you want to be called so, otherwise accept your ignorance. Cornered dogs bark louder.
British man ignorant of his own laws. In the UK a referendum is not binding. Do your research before you speak. I know that. I have never said it is. If you want to contribute to this conversation then I suggest you read my posts properly before you call me ignorant. Q: do you believe that the referendum was binding? Yes or no? A. Yes - because that is the basis upon which people voted. I suggest you start acting smart if you want to be called so, otherwise accept your ignorance. Cornered dogs bark louder. |
|
