EU is the past.BruceWee - Member
Brexit isn't the past. It's very much the present. All that's happened is that there has been a non-binding referendum.
Yes, it is binding. Absolutely.
All political parties must bow to the people will because people have voted.thecaptain - Member
It's not even the present, it seems to be the future that our unelected PM has chosen, and she sounds like she's reneging on the tory manifesto committment to stay in the single market.
PM May is doing the right thing.
GrahamS - Member
Likewise people have to remember that the Brexit vote doesn't give the government a free reign to just do whatever they want in the name of Brexit without even running in past their fellow MPs.
Govt have to bow to the will of the people and Not even MPs can sabotage the democratic rights of the people. MPs have NO power to over rule and to oppose people's will. The people have voted with their democratic rights so MPs should simply accept their faith because their Masters (People & Democracy) have spoken.
Nobody voted for a dictatorship.
Nobody voted for EU bureaucrats too.
Of course you have a choice. If you are determine enough to endure a bit of hardship you will get to where ever you wish. Your home is changing so is mine in a land far far away.zippykona - Member
Most of us don't have the choice to live in another country and very soon that option is about to get even harder.
So has Jamba flounced or been banned?
Chewk,what kind of hardship?
Stow away on the back of a lorry, paddle across the sea?
I quite like my current option of loading up my car and driving down to majorca.
Yes, it is binding. Absolutely.
It's not legally binding. It's advisory.
If somebody doesn't listen to your opinion, the answer is not to bully / assassinate their character to teach them a lesson.
The "opinion" bit is not the problem. The problem is making stuff up.
If we're having a discussion about football, we can have different opinions about which team is boring, attractive, dominated by foreign transfers etc., but if one participant supports their "opinion" by mentioning that Swansea City have won the Champions League ten years in a row, then there ceases to be a rational basis for discussion.
And if they do so over and over again, despite being directed to authoritative lists of Cup winners, then the other participants may get a bit frustrated.
Amusing that this came at the end of an appeal to be nicer to folk and not play the man and you chose to shoot the messenger and ignore the message completely.Junkyard, you really do post a lot of nonsense.
Sometimes this place does make me chuckle.
Straw man they are pointing out he makes up facts and we al know this is true. Its a fairly basic requirement in debate that what you say is evidenced based. Its fairly basic to accept when the evidence negates your "opinion".If somebody doesn't listen to your opinion, the answer is not to bully / assassinate their character to teach them a lesson.
When someone does not do this then they get robustly challenged and this eventually degenerates,years later, into just calling the purveyor of untruths a purveyor of untruths in increasingly unpleasant ways.
No one called Blair Bliar till he did his dossier for example.
as i said its not nice but it is NOT inaccurate....probably why you were rude and did not use facts in your rebuttal whilst getting upset about playing the man...irony overload
The people have voted with their democratic rights so MPs should simply accept their faith because their Masters (People & Democracy) have spoken.
Honestly you don't really know how the system is set up. You're not alone either so don't take this as an insult.
The UK is a [i]representative[/i] democracy. That means that you vote for an MP and they join in parliament and it's parliament that rules. Not us.
And the referendum was explicitly stated as only advisory.
because you believe in an unevidenced sky fairy and folk mock you for this view
Once again descends within seconds to the depths of childish playground insults. It says a lot about you that you can't even mention religion without flinging the usual insults about.
Amusing that this came at the end of an appeal to be nicer to folk and not play the man and you chose to shoot the messenger and ignore the message completely.
Do you keep that one on standby perchance? Because you said near enough the same thing the last time I called you out for being a tit. Not playing the man and calling someone out are not mutually exclusive things. I'm quite happy to debate any point someone throws out there but the moment they start flinging insults about then I think it's fair enough to call them out on it [b]whether you agree with their point or not[/b].
So has Jamba flounced or been banned?
AFAIK he's just not been on since yesterday which is apparently Big News.
And the referendum was explicitly stated as only advisory.
As I recall from reading it, the legislation that brought the EU membership referendum into being was gloriously silent on the standing of the result - but it certainly didn't say a majority in favour of leaving means we will leave, so 'advisory' is as good a description as any.
Again my recollection is that the Scots independence referendum was very clear about what would happen.
On Jamba - I think he gets a little muddled in his facts sometimes, sometimes clutches at straws for his arguments , and I think he occasionally gets angry and rattles off a response that he'd have been better to think about for a bit (I tend to feel his level of spelling reflects that), but overall he adds a little colour to proceedings. You could lay a lot of those comments at a few doors and I suspect also he is a product of his upbringing / environment to a large degree - aren't we all?
Occasionally of course I even agree with him - but rarely. I would if he's ever round my way be have to meet him for a beer and argue the toss.
Thanks as that is all I did - I assume that was your way of agreeing with me and respecting my right to do it ? WHat a strange way of expressing it as it almost reads like a dig at me for doing what you recommend 😉the moment they start flinging insults about then I think it's fair enough to call them out on it
Clearly my posting style annoys some - I have the e-mails to prove it- and clearly it annoys others to the point they dont like or respect me. If i ever start arguing i am always polite and considered in my opinions [ or i dont deserve some of what gets dished back to me] to others please feel free to point out my opinion is not evidence based
On Jamba - I think he gets a little muddled in his facts sometimes
And the understatement of the year award goes to....
I dont think you ever overstep the mark of civil debate.
That's very kind of you to say Junkyard. My wife used to read my posts and tell me she couldn't understand why I was such an arsehole online. Since then I always try to re-read what I type in her voice 😀
So has Jamba flounced or been banned?
Neither as far as I'm aware, he just hasn't commented on this thread for a few hours. 😀
Anyways, trying to drag this back on track...
Govt have to bow to the will of the people and Not even MPs can sabotage the democratic rights of the people. MPs have NO power to over rule and to oppose people's will. The people have voted with their democratic rights so MPs should simply accept their faith because their Masters (People & Democracy) have spoken.
So you'd put no limits or oversight at all on what the government can do to enact this "will of the people"?
Say, for extremis sake, that they decide to round up all foreigners and place them into internment camps where they would be held until they could be processed and deported. That'd be fine with you? Because Brexit?
The only question on the referendum was [i]"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"[/i]
There was nothing on there about [i]how[/i] we leave. Nothing about freedom of movement, reciprocal healthcare, visas, free trade, EU funding, leaving the ECHR, denying hospital treatment, listing foreign workers, and all the other details that must now be debated and talked about.
And it would be hugely undemocratic to allow all those decisions, which massively shape our post-Brexit future and the laws of this land, to be made behind closed doors without even being debated in parliament.
[img] 
[/img]
Beginners mistake...that like giving her the keys to the shedMy wife used to read my posts
TBH i think [s]we all [/s]many of us debate in a more robust manner on here than ofline
For example three of my closest friends are devoutly religious and a friend from school now teaches RE. I am not as rude to religious folk in the real world as I am on here but they all know how strong my views are but that I respect their choice.
I think many of debate on here in a manner we would not elsewhere.
I also think a lot of my sarcasm and tonugue in cheek points get lost in the muddle of all this
ANyway enough navel gazing for me
Well said Graham
I am not as rude to religious folk in the real world as I am on here
why not?
Well, he is only about five foot tall 😉
I am not as rude to religious folk in the real world as I am on here
why not?
There's a reason why we don't discuss religion or politics in public in this country. Forums are exempt though. I guess we can't punch each other, so being rude doesn't matter online.
Being rude isn't the same as persistent [attempts at] bullying the same person though. People who do it really make it clear what kind of person they are.
[img] 
[/img]
Junkyard - lazarusI am not as rude to religious folk in the real world as I am on here
This is the real world, you're not talking to spambots. Except Chewkw obviously. Why be rude to real people online but not in person? Pretty poor imo.
Its still not bullying IMHO but this is getting close
Briefly - why not - who knows but folk are not as rude to me about veganism in the real world either so I am assuming many folk do it.
They are not unaware of my views and they do know I think it is all nonsense. I would be as forthright with non religious friends.In the real world I will see them so why offend them. this is less of a concern online.
It probably is. You and GrahamS seems the rare exceptions that everyone seems to like even if they dont always agree with you. Clearly I lack this skill so its fair enough to say it.Pretty poor imo
[quote=zokes ]Well, he is only about five foot tall the bike fitted so you have no room to talk 😉
Being rude isn't the same as persistent [attempts at] bullying the same person though. People who do it really make it clear what kind of person they are.
In jamby's case, I'm afraid his modus operandi of deliberately misrepresenting the truth and being totally blind to evidence generally resulted in a spade being called a spade. I really don't think that's bullying.
the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
~ Hermann Göring
🙁
You and GrahamS seems the rare exceptions that everyone seems to like even if they dont always agree with you.
On the other hand, people don't like me even when they do agree with me...
Clearly I lack this skill so its fair enough to say it.
Probably just a lack of protein in your diet 😉
Davis is still shouting his Taking back control speech at mp, and still unable to explain his plans for Brexit.
zippykona - Member
Chewk,what kind of hardship?
Paper works. You need to have all your paper works in place in order for you to live and work all over the world. i.e. paper works to comply with the rules & laws of your host country like qualifications etc.
If you do not have the paper works in place then you need to work hard to get them. Just like me. I have gathered all the necessary paper works to qualify me to work as minor bureaucrat all over the world. I am now very good at ensuring I have all the paper works in place.
Stow away on the back of a lorry, paddle across the sea?
Not me coz I am a bureaucrat and I can deal with all bureaucratic system with ease, therefore I don't have to paddle across the sea or jump off the back of lorry. I follow the rules. We bureaucrats Must stick to the rules regardless of who you are or what you are regardless of condition. We Must stick to the rules.
If you have that choice that can make you happy why on earth do you have to put yourself through all this unhappiness now when you can simply gain your happiness instantly at Majorca?I quite like my current option of loading up my car and driving down to majorca.
BruceWee - Member
Yes, it is binding. Absolutely.
It's not legally binding. It's advisory.
Democratically it is binding. Unless you oppose democracy in which case you fiddle with the details to prevent the system working.
Well, I'm quite liking Kier Starmer's performance today - some opposition at last.
Chewk I'm 51 , left school with minimal qualifications and not a millionaire. What paperwork do I need that will let me move to Australia?
I really don't see that I should have to go and get a degree so that I can go and live in Spain.
Democratically it is binding. Unless you oppose democracy
As above, which you haven't answered: unilaterally making decisions about the future direction of this country after Brexit, decisions that will impact everyone living here, decisions that you have no mandate for, without debating those decisions in a democratically-elected parliament, THAT is "opposing democracy".
Regarding the tone of Chewkw's comments, perhaps he has been reading the Express lately?
There is an interesting article in the Independent online about the rising intolerance of alternative political views expressed in our wonderful right wing tabloids.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7357591.html
These newspapers and their commentators are implying that those who disagree with them should be silenced, locked up even. That we are traitors.The Mail and the Express seem to have decided they simply do not recognise the legitimacy of people who have a different political position.
These newspapers preen themselves as champions of free speech and traditional British liberties. Yet they are seeking to delegitimise contrary political views, to silence them through intimidation and the implied threat of violence.
To suggest that people should be locked up because they hold an alternative view to their own is surely not something anyone should accept in our 'free' society
I am incapable of being insulated. Please express yourself at will coz I have no problem whatsoever. I like it. The same cannot be said for our forum members unfortunately.molgrips - Member
Honestly you don't really know how the system is set up. You're not alone either so don't take this as an insult.
Yes, yes, I roughly know the concept/rules ...The UK is a representative democracy. That means that you vote for an MP and they join in parliament and it's parliament that rules. Not us.
Very simple. What if MPs refuse to acknowledge people's will by voting against the people will what do you think is going to happen? Ya, you are now in the process of establishing or creating "new" kind of Politburo. Democracy is dead! Long live Politburo!
And the referendum was explicitly stated as only advisory.
Comparing referendum to the principle of Democracy which do you think is more important? i.e. The concept of Democracy where the entire Western civilisation is built upon or the minority that object to the outcome of democratic referendum.
You refuse to acknowledge the democratic outcome of a referendum then you have made the entire Western Civilisation is a joke with no legs to stand on. If that is the case then Democracy is slowly deteriorating as a concept and other nations should refuse to acknowledge such system.
(jimw's link: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/daily-mail-brexit-daily-express-the-sun-tabloids-language-political-intolerance-traitors-a7357591.html )
zippykona - Member
Chewk I'm 51 , left school with minimal qualifications and not a millionaire. What paperwork do I need that will let me move to Australia
Me mate could not even speak English let alone write them properly yet he is now in NZ working for Harley Davison motorbike company as mechanic. He retrained for 2 to 3 years and eventually got a job there. He then migrated there with his family.
You speak the same language, same culture, perhaps even same ancestral linkage and you cannot even be arsed to scarifice a few year of your life to retrain to go over?
Me mate is about the same age as you! The bloke has NO qualification apart from the certificate gained from Harley Davison as mechanic.
You Do Not have to get a degree! Just something to demonstrate that you are qualify to do something like plumber, electrician etc ... I mean most of the ones I know have the basic qualification to do the physical work. Just make sure the qualification is legit and you are good to go.I really don't see that I should have to go and get a degree so that I can go and live in Spain.
You refuse to acknowledge the democratic outcome of a referendum then you have made the entire Western Civilisation is a joke with no legs to stand on. If that is the case then Democracy is slowly deteriorating as a concept and other nations should refuse to acknowledge such system.
to use a fairly crude analogy, it is as if we had a referendum on whether to move, or to stay still. We voted to move.
Now we have to decide where to move, when to move, how far, how fast, in which direction.
This is all still to be decided. Should the people (or their representatives in parliament) have a say in this? Or should they be told to shut up - they voted to move and that's the end of it?
because majority of the people have voted to leave.
This is a blatant untruth
Does this kind of thing [i]really[/i] sound like "democracy" to you chewkw?
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
"Silence" the "snake-like treachery" of the "unpatriotic" opposition. Punish them. Clap them in the Tower. They "must take what's coming to them"
😯
doris5000 - Member
Now we have to decide where to move, when to move, how far, how fast, in which direction.
You lot are really impatient.
PM May said no running commentaries so everything is as it is for now.
Once PM May signed the paper at the beginning of next year then perhaps you may want to provide your wisdom by arguing until your face is blue.
In the meantime, just relax ... chill ... chillax.
This is all still to be decided. Should the people (or their representatives in parliament) have a say in this? Or should they be told to shut up - they voted to move and that's the end of it?
You can argue until your face is blue once PM May signed the paper to trigger proper exit within the next two years.
Therefore, let PM May sign the paper first.
After that you can argue until your face is blue.
[s]Sometimes even the Devil cannot fiddle with the details in order to manipulate the truth.[/s]rkk01 - Member
because majority of the people have voted to leave.
This is a blatant untruth
Sometimes even the Devil cannot manipulate the truth by fiddling the details. (this sounds better)
Graham and theocb well said ^. sadly like to fall on deaf ears
Back on topic - as much as I dislike the decision and distrust the motives of the three BSers in charge, the government really do have to be left to get on with much of this. We voted for Brexshit and this will be delivered in a hard, lumpy format or a soft one. Either way it will stink. But we cant be checking spools at every twist and turn of the U-bend.
Absurd to listen to some Tory backbencher BSer arguing that it was all about trade. Doh, that is what it should have been at the start instead of all the xenophobic nonsense and lies that marked the debate (sic). from the start, we had a simple question - what is the best arrangement that facilitates trade with our largest trading partner. We had avoided € and Shengen and the rest was just silly noise. Sadly the real debate didnt happen and we have thrown the near-perfect toy out of the pram (excuse the mixed metaphors)
Barmy
Therefore, let PM May sign the paper first.
Except they are making decisions, agreeing on the way forward and deciding our negotiating positions and goals NOW.
I'd rather not be in a situation where we are left saying "[i]Actually the vast majority of the British public didn't want to (rejoin the EFTA / deport all the foreigners / keep paying the EU / give up free trade)* but now you've kind of steered us irrevocably down that path without even discussing it with us."[/i]
*delete as appropriate.
I really don't want to insult your intelligence but do you really believe the news from that newspaper or any news as a matter of fact?GrahamS - Member
Does this kind of thing really sound like "democracy" to you chewkw
I mean really."Silence" the "snake-like treachery" of the "unpatriotic" opposition. Punish them. Clap them in the Tower. They "must take what's coming to them"
That's Govt's role.GrahamS - Member
Therefore, let PM May sign the paper first.
Except they are making decisions, agreeing on the way forward and deciding our negotiating positions and goals NOW.
I really don't want to insult your intelligence but do you really believe the news from that newspaper or any news as a matter of fact?
It's not "news", it is opinion.
Powerful hateful divisive invective that tries to mould the opinions of the millions that will read it.
And it is pretty damn far from "democratic"
That's Govt's role.
No. That is PARLIAMENT's role.
GrahamS - Member
It's not "news", it is opinion.Powerful hateful divisive invective that tries to mould the opinions of the millions that will read it.
And it is pretty damn far from "democratic"
You want to curb opinions? What about opposing opinions? Should we curb them too?
No. That is PARLIAMENT's role.
Like I said previously PM May will sign the paper to exit then you can decide and debate until everyone's face is blue. My understanding is that govt is doing what govt supposed to do. i.e. background work.
Not running commentaries.
My understanding is that govt is doing what govt supposed to do. i.e. background work.
As you'd need too, if you were suddenly faced with a situation of which you'd previously had no prior warning, and you also had no previous knowledge - not even 40 years or so - of how these organisations actually functioned.
Because if that wasn't the case then you'd either be either
a) A totally clueless ****-wit who was making it up as they went along
b) A devious bastard who was flagrantly distorting the situation to further an unspoken agenda you wanted kept from both parliament and the people
