|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 19, 2024 6:37:31 GMT
The Tories were like every other Party in Parliament - they consisted of a majority of MP's who wanted to remain in the EU and would rather fight to ignore the referendum than find a good leaving deal. Why do you believe that was? A dislike for democracy |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 19, 2024 6:39:21 GMT
Well to be fair to them it is the only deal that could get through Parliament - every other option was rejected. Even though the Tories had a majority in parliament? The Tories had a majority in Parliament in the early 70s yet struggled to get approval to join the EEC through parliament. A majority does not always mean agreement within that majority. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 19, 2024 6:48:31 GMT
The Tories were like every other Party in Parliament - they consisted of a majority of MP's who wanted to remain in the EU and would rather fight to ignore the referendum than find a good leaving deal. Why do you believe that was? Many reasons, principles certainly, an eye on future employment certainly, possibly belief in what was right for the British people I think was also there, a sense of I am right and the public are wrong played a part. What was lacking was an understanding of democracy and the acceptance that sometimes one has to fight hard to achieve that which one does not believe in because that is the democratic process. There was always the option to resign on principle, very few followed that route to my recall, mostly they fought hard to try and either keep us in or make leaving so difficult we would all give up. What should have taken two years took htree times that dues to much prevarication. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2024 6:55:35 GMT
Why do you believe that was? A dislike for democracy We live under the tyranny of EUphile tyrants and despots. According to the EUphile drones of today anyone who actually supports genuine democracy, which includes seeing it through, are the far-right. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 19, 2024 7:00:41 GMT
Why do you believe that was? Many reasons, principles certainly, an eye on future employment certainly, possibly belief in what was right for the British people I think was also there, a sense of I am right and the public are wrong played a part. What was lacking was an understanding of democracy and the acceptance that sometimes one has to fight hard to achieve that which one does not believe in because that is the democratic process. There was always the option to resign on principle, very few followed that route to my recall, mostly they fought hard to try and either keep us in or make leaving so difficult we would all give up. What should have taken two years took htree times that dues to much prevarication. I think a lot of that is right. I also think that, despite people claiming there was, leave was not defined at the time of the referendum, so until that had been decided Article 52 could not be triggered. You then have the issue of how you define that when the vast majority of parliament think it's a mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 19, 2024 7:11:42 GMT
Many reasons, principles certainly, an eye on future employment certainly, possibly belief in what was right for the British people I think was also there, a sense of I am right and the public are wrong played a part. What was lacking was an understanding of democracy and the acceptance that sometimes one has to fight hard to achieve that which one does not believe in because that is the democratic process. There was always the option to resign on principle, very few followed that route to my recall, mostly they fought hard to try and either keep us in or make leaving so difficult we would all give up. What should have taken two years took htree times that dues to much prevarication. I think a lot of that is right. I also think that, despite people claiming there was, leave was not defined at the time of the referendum, so until that had been decided Article 52 could not be triggered. You then have the issue of how you define that when the vast majority of parliament think it's a mistake. I agree however we also have to consider the advice the government gave to the people prior to the referendum. The Choice is yours we will do as you decide. Then their get out clause was I resign. I do not think the public had any doubts as to what they wished, it was parliament that tried to make it as close to staying in as possible and pass through a revolving door straight back in asap. Leave was not clearly defined but for most people it entailed not following EU rules nor following EU decisions. For them it was that simple. All the problems that were foreseen were in the public's mind created on false premises. Even now the the Irish border is becoming an EU problem that may need some form of control when all along it was always their problem and the British taking it on board as their problem was the wrong move. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 19, 2024 7:13:04 GMT
Why do you believe that was? Many reasons, principles certainly, an eye on future employment certainly, possibly belief in what was right for the British people I think was also there, a sense of I am right and the public are wrong played a part. What was lacking was an understanding of democracy and the acceptance that sometimes one has to fight hard to achieve that which one does not believe in because that is the democratic process. There was always the option to resign on principle, very few followed that route to my recall, mostly they fought hard to try and either keep us in or make leaving so difficult we would all give up. What should have taken two years took htree times that dues to much prevarication. Fundamental to my hatred of the labour bitch currently collecting more than our entire household as our MP is the pack of shit filled lies she peddled in 2017 In a scenario where many candidates from many parties offered the entire range of options from a one paragraph bill expunging Ted Heath's 1970's legislation and erecting border machine gun towers at the channel tunnel to tearing up the expressed wishes of 52% and applying to join the Euro and Schengen and inviting Macron to publicly bugger them in the Plas De La Concorde, this bitch said it was of the utmost importance to respect the expressed views of the people and NOT follow David Lammy's advice, and then once her arse was back on the green leather and the guarantee of a half million in salary and expenses was in her grasp thanks to Clegg's evil fixed term parliaments act, the bitch conspired with the bastard from buckingham to do the very opposite |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 19, 2024 7:42:30 GMT
So you never once blamed Thatcher or previous Tory governments for things Blair and Brown got wrong? Oh, wait, yes you did, almost weekly. All The Best LIAR Well, the Mods here have asked us not to link to That Other Site; but for anyone wanting to see see2 constantly blaming the Tories for New Labour's failures, you know where to go. If you don't, drop me a PM, I'll help you get up to speed. But I am guessing you are all far too familiar with see2 and his constant dishonesty. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 19, 2024 7:44:14 GMT
We live under the tyranny of EUphile tyrants and despots. According to the EUphile drones of today anyone who actually supports genuine democracy, which includes seeing it through, are the far-right. Very hard to claim to support Democracy when you supported a PM who illegally prorogues Parliament solely to avoid a Democratic Accounting of his own policies. One might go so far as to call that rank hypocrisy. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 19, 2024 8:08:21 GMT
We live under the tyranny of EUphile tyrants and despots. According to the EUphile drones of today anyone who actually supports genuine democracy, which includes seeing it through, are the far-right. Very hard to claim to support Democracy when you supported a PM who illegally prorogues Parliament solely to avoid a Democratic Accounting of his own policies. One might go so far as to call that rank hypocrisy. All The Best It was only deemed illegal after the fact. It was a constitutional move to break a deadlock, rightly or wrongly. It is part of our Constitutional process as was the Supreme Court decision. It is how democracy works, sometimes ineptly, but there you go. Not hypocritical at all. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 19, 2024 8:43:18 GMT
Very hard to claim to support Democracy when you supported a PM who illegally prorogues Parliament solely to avoid a Democratic Accounting of his own policies. One might go so far as to call that rank hypocrisy. All The Best It was a constitutional move to break a deadlock, rightly or wrongly. It is part of our Constitutional process as was the Supreme Court decision. It is how democracy works, sometimes ineptly, but there you go. Not hypocritical at all. Yes, that is how Courts work. Someone carries out an act. The relevant authorities decide whether or not a crime may have been committed. A Court tests that and comes to a conclusion. Not rocket science, is it. However, Johnson was warned before he prorogued Parliament that doing so under those circumstances was highly likely to be illegal; but he chose to continue anyway, thereby demonstrating (not for the first time, nor the last) his complete disregard for the Law and the Constitution. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 19, 2024 9:00:37 GMT
Farage can pretty much say what he wants, because we know for a fact he wont be the next Prime Minister, however if predicted that he does exceptionally well at the GE then he will have to start making some of these manifesto pledges seem plausible, we need a strong challenge to both the Tories and Labour, it always being a two horse race doesn't leave much for voters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 19, 2024 9:09:54 GMT
The main two problems are we are a signatory to the 1951 UN refugee convention and a member of the ECHR. The Cons are split, where you have half of them in the One Nation Conservatives and the rest who want stronger measures. In other words they are blackmailed by this group and can't do what is necessary to make the whole thing legal. So it kind of hangs in limbo. If we got out of these two agreements we could simply ship the lot back to where they came from. If the British Public were ever stupid enough grant a mandate to any government intent on abandoning the ECHR it would be the worst day in this country's history. Worker's Rights - Gone The ECHR is what ensures workers have a right to pay, and not be treated as slaves. The ECHR is what ensures workers have a right to breaks, and annual leave. The ECHR is what ensures workers have the right to set standards of safety within the workplace. Abandoning the ECHR would see the UK workforce in a race to the bottom with the likes of China etc. Women's Rights - Gone The only people to benefit from us abandoning the ECHR would be the Corporate-Fascists the Conservatives already serve. All The Best As far as I'm aware, the way they pay you in China for work is the same system we had in the Industrial Revolution. This is the cool thing, because China values and British values are quite similar. The idea is each job has a going rate, so you would get paid about the same for the same job in each of the factories you could opt to work in. The ECHR as was originally set up was very strongly influenced by British values and British values very much influenced American values. Indeed if you study law, you will find the English Common Law system is used throughout the world as well.
I think your concerns about exploitation can be dealt with in other ways. I know what you speak of because I've seen some inside footage of an Amazon warehouse and one that supplied Sports Direct I think it was. Anyhow in these cases the workers are treated as subhumans and I personally would very much do anything to avoid such a job myself and hence understand the concerns of those who are forced to. I think the solution is to enable the choice of the worker. No one should be forced to do a job and so if this were the case these abusers would not get the staff and have to improve their manners. This is why I stand for free markets, because in a free market it gives someone the opportunity to run such a firm better and take their market share. The market has a way of dealing with firms who have a bad reputation.
By the way, if you ask how can this be done, well it is a lot of small changes we can make. Employers should not be forced to sign NDAs. That firm Second Sight was being threatened with bankruptcy due to signing an NDA if they didn't play ball and cover up criminal activity. In effect is it a 1000 bad laws and practices that bring about exploitation, all of which we can fix under British law if we had a government which was not sponsored by these abusers. They find it cheaper to fund the political party etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 19, 2024 10:30:13 GMT
It was only deemed illegal after the fact. It was a constitutional move to break a deadlock, rightly or wrongly. It is part of our Constitutional process as was the Supreme Court decision. It is how democracy works, sometimes ineptly, but there you go. Not hypocritical at all. Yes, that is how Courts work. Someone carries out an act. The relevant authorities decide whether or not a crime may have been committed. A Court tests that and comes to a conclusion. Not rocket science, is it. However, Johnson was warned before he prorogued Parliament that doing so under those circumstances was highly likely to be illegal; but he chose to continue anyway, thereby demonstrating (not for the first time, nor the last) his complete disregard for the Law and the Constitution. All The Best It was not a crime, there was no punishment in law as the decision as to its legality was unknown before the act. One knows theft is illegal and the courts decide if theft was what you did. The act to prorogue Parliament was believed to be legal and found not to be legal. It was not a crime. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jun 19, 2024 10:48:06 GMT
I agree not a Crime or Criminal Act
In early September 2019, judges in the High Court of Justice and the Outer House of the Court of Session (the English and Scottish civil courts of first instance) ruled that the matter was not subject to judicial review as it was a political decision.
An appeal in the latter case to the Inner House of the Court of Session (Scotland's supreme civil court) overturned the Outer House verdict and ruled the prorogation was justiciable and unlawful.
To resolve the differences of opinion between the courts, both cases were appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which, on 24 September, ruled unanimously in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland that the prorogation was both justiciable and unlawful – consequently, the Order in Council ordering prorogation was quashed, and the prorogation was deemed "null and of no [legal] effect".[1]
When Parliament resumed on the following day, the prorogation ceremony was expunged from the Journal of the House of Commons and business continued as if the ceremony had never happened. A much shorter prorogation, this time for six days, began on 8 October.
|
|
