Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Ah, I get it now. The particular lie that you fell for was the one about Brussels making our laws for us.

    Newsflash - every law in place in the UK was passed by Parliament in Westminster, and there were no measures in place to change that.

    So, now that you know that the reason you voted Leave (if you are old enough) was just made up rubbish, are you going to change your position?
    You are incorrect. European regulations (which forms part of EU laws) supersedes those of the UK, and impose a minimum in which the UK government must apply to their own laws. Any violation will result in fines and penalty.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36473105

    'It is safe to say that EU law does have a very significant presence and effect in UK law.'

    You can keep trying to divert away from the facts. It is simply ludicrous to anyone, that EU does not have a major control over our laws.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    From oligarchy to democracy, welcome to the United Kingdom.
    There, fixed that for ya.
    You do realise that the HC ruling simply tells the government that they cannot make constitutional changes without first consulting Parliament. Or in other words, they must follow the established, democratic process. A referendum is not part of that, it is merely a consultative process that is in no way legally binding. It showed that there was a will to leave the EU. Now Parliament must debate how that happens, not leave it to a few individuals. It's exactly the kind of "Taking Our Country Back" and "Sovereignty Of Parliament" that Brexiteers have been banging on about.
    Or maybe it really was just about blaming Johnny Foreigner after all?

    I will personally be up in arms if MPs vote against Brexit and the triggering of Article 50. They're supposed to work for us. Bunch of *****.
    So, have you always been "up in arms" every time Parliament votes in a way that conflicts with your personal position?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by QE2)
    There, fixed that for ya.
    You do realise that the HC ruling simply tells the government that they cannot make constitutional changes without first consulting Parliament. Or in other words, they must follow the established, democratic process. A referendum is not part of that, it is merely a consultative process that is in no way legally binding. It showed that there was a will to leave the EU. Now Parliament must debate how that happens, not leave it to a few individuals. It's exactly the kind of "Taking Our Country Back" and "Sovereignty Of Parliament" that Brexiteers have been banging on about.
    Or maybe it really was just about blaming Johnny Foreigner after all?

    So, have you always been "up in arms" every time Parliament votes in a way that conflicts with your personal position?
    You are correct :yy:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    I really wish that excited remainers would calm the **** down about stuff like this. This does not mean Brexit will stop, it just means that it has to go before parliament because that's how the procedure is supposed to work. The triggering of article 50 is not going to be voted against by most MPs, as it would be political suicide for mere representatives to block the result of a direct democratic vote (except for maybe the MPs of some pro-remain constituencies like those in London).
    But the problem I see with this line of thinking is that the referendum only shown what public opinion was on 23 June 2016, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the same now, or that it will be in 3-4 years time, especially since by then, many people who were too young to vote in the referendum will come of age, and a lot of the people who did vote will be dead... also ironically a lot of the constituencies that voted out are also places that received a lot of funding from the EU, and unless the UK government is willing to match that (granted I've been feeling pretty pessimistic in general lately, but I can't see that happening), they will loose the funding and the MPs that represent those constituencies will probably end up getting blamed for it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The point is, that's exactly what happen when we remain in the EU. It is a simple fact that European Parliaments and laws supersedes those of the UK's.

    It's the same logic that some people who voted Leave expected short term negative effects to the economy, doesn't mean they wish it to happen.
    Exactly - the fact that European Parliaments and laws would supersede laws made in Britain is, for Remainers, a "small price to pay" for the economic benefits of the EU, rather than something they actually want. Whereas for Leavers, the ultimate sovereignty of the British Parliament is something they actually wanted.

    So it's now ironic that Leavers aren't happy when power is handed over to the British Parliament with the chance to vote on Article 50, when it's the same parliament they specifically wanted to make more powerful in the first place.

    The same point doesn't not work in reverse whereby "Remainers are now happy about power being handed over to the British Parliament, even though they had always been trying to reduce its influence", because for Remainers, the surrender of power to the European Parliament has always been the "lesser of two evils" rather than a desire in itself.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    To be fair, Gina Miller has campaigned in the past for more openness and a fairer system for ordinary people in the finance sector - she attracted a lot of anger from the City people for trying to get all their hidden fees on products out into the public domain. I'm not saying she's perfect, but she isn't the usual self-obsessed City type by any means.
    Yep, she has a history of crossing swords with the establishment.
    But the best bit is the delicious irony of the Brexiteers being given a wedgie by a BME immigrant woman. Brilliant! The Kippers must be seething.

    Also of potential, off-the-scale irony is that if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the gov't, the ultimate court of appeal available to Miller et al is..... The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg! It's almost worth the gov't winning their appeal just to see that happen.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Exactly - the fact that European Parliaments and laws would supersede laws made in Britain is, for Remainers, a "small price to pay" for the economic benefits of the EU, rather than something they actually want. Whereas for Leavers, the ultimate sovereignty of the British Parliament is something they actually wanted.

    So it's now ironic that Leavers aren't happy when power is handed over to the British Parliament with the chance to vote on Article 50, when it's the same parliament they specifically wanted to make more powerful in the first place.

    The same point doesn't not work in reverse whereby "Remainers are now happy about power being handed over to the British Parliament, even though they had always been trying to reduce its influence", because for Remainers, the surrender of power to the European Parliament has always been the "lesser of two evils" rather than a desire in itself.
    I have copied my reply to another user on this thread, but this should answer your question.

    As I have mentioned above, it was understood that a less powerful UK parliament would form part of the outcome if we voted to remain. Therefore their action in effect voted in agreement with it. Whether it was their main motive is not important, the outcome is the key. It is a simple fact that EU laws have a significant presence and mandatory influence on UK laws. It is also true that Brexit will return full powers to UK parliament, I hope we can agree on this.

    Also, the referendum was the biggest democratic exercise in 40 years. Everyone was eligible to vote and everybody's vote had the same weighting, unlike FPTP in general elections. MPs in parliament are representatives of which their powers are leveraged to them by voters. It is only natural that a referendum forms a more direct and accurate mandate to the government.

    When people said they wish to 'take back control', it means that they want to have complete control on laws and how the country is ran. A referendum does exactly that, and more in terms of the accuracy and clarity of mandate compared to parliamentary representative. It is therefore within the logic, that parliament in this instance is not needed and should not intervene with the referendum's mandate - to leave the EU. It is however suitable that the government must consult parliament on the final Brexit terms before invoking Article 50, something which the government had indicated that there will be a vote in parliament.

    Simply saying that they don't want UK parliament to gain powers despite calling for it is not correct. I think you are taking their statement way too literally and ignoring the underlying message that their intention is to allow British people to have complete control and say over laws and legislation.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    You are incorrect. European regulations (which forms part of EU laws) supersedes those of the UK, and impose a minimum in which the UK government must apply to their own laws. Any violation will result in fines and penalty.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36473105

    'It is safe to say that EU law does have a very significant presence and effect in UK law.'

    You can keep trying to divert away from the facts. It is simply ludicrous to anyone, that EU does not have a major control over our laws.
    But you said "if you let the European Parliament make our laws for us".
    The EU does not "make out laws for us". They are all made by Parliament in Westminster.
    If you are hoping that leaving the EU will mean that there will be no foreign influence in Westminster, you are sadly mistaken.

    And as I have asked many Brexiteers, but have never been given a reply that wasn't one of those made up by the Mail et al, which particular EU directives are you concerned about, and what was their negative influence of UK legislation?
    (I'm not holding my breath, BTW)
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    But you said "if you let the European Parliament make our laws for us".
    The EU does not "make out laws for us". They are all made by Parliament in Westminster.
    If you are hoping that leaving the EU will mean that there will be no foreign influence in Westminster, you are sadly mistaken.

    And as I have asked many Brexiteers, but have never been given a reply that wasn't one of those made up by the Mail et al, which particular EU directives are you concerned about, and what was their negative influence of UK legislation?
    (I'm not holding my breath, BTW)
    As I said, our laws are made according to EU regulations and directives. We have to obey to EU and UK laws, which forms 'our' laws which we have to obey as UK citizens.

    You are trying to argue about the technicality of the word 'our' used in this context however I can play the same game with you.

    If words-twisting (although you have failed at that) is all you can do to help your argument, then it shows a lot about the strength of your points.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J_89)
    I hate that people keep saying "the will of the people". It was a very simple majority - a plurality. That does not constitute "the people".

    If there were 33 people in a room and 17 people said: "I like chocolate" and 16 people said: "I hate chocolate", you would not draw the conclusion the people in this room like chocolate. That is ridiculous and I do not say that because I am pro-Remain.

    Even if Remain won I wouldn't call it "the will of the people". I'd probably say "thank God for that it was a close one" and keep my mouth shut.

    I would also acknowledge that a really, really significant amount of people voted Leave and that their needs or at least the reasons why they felt they had to vote Leave should also be addressed.

    Unfortunately, that's because we're on the rational, logical side.

    The leavers are not going to take into account our wants or desires as they are the amygdala, emotional, animal-brain-wired people who I would really love to deport to an island so they can throw spears at each other.

    What a debacle. The courts can't do a lot as although the referendum does not show that Brexit is the will of the people, it's clear from our last elections that this is a conservative country with nobody willing to have the balls to stand up for the people against corporate interests.

    Brexit? Yes. British exit. That's my intentions for the future. Luckily I have the means to do so, I feel so badly for the people who voted Remain and who aren't free-marketeer masochists without the means to leave.
    That's just literal minded obtuseness. It's a figure of speech.

    The referendum is a clear concept. So equivalent to a party winning a general election, there is a decisive outcome that must be implemented- that to me, is leaving the single market and the EU.

    As an aside- on the logical basis of your argument, you must also accept that saying 'Scotland voted to remain' or London voted to remain' or 'Northern Ireland voted to remain' is defunct.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    And there's the problem - different people thought that they'd get different things by voting leave. In reality, I suspect most will not get what they thought that they voted for.

    Another major issue is that there was so narrow a gap between the stay and leave votes, but we're embarking on a multi-year process. By the time it's complete, I would not be at all surprised if the vote would be to stay.
    I've heard a lot of commentary to this effect. It seems logical on one level, but what they seem to paying no regard to is the elections that will sweep Europe soon.

    Italy has a real chance of leaving the Euro, I think Le Pen can win in France and she wants a total end to the concept of the single market, even if they stay, and it may well be that France votes out under her presidency.

    If France goes, it's kaput. None of this has been mentioned.

    To add to the French anti-EU feeling, and numbers wanting to leave, I also have a suspicion that had we been humbled and stayed in or half in with our tail between our legs, they would then take mischievous amusement in declaring full independence confidently and wrecking what we'd aimed to stay in. In my opinion all the self indulgent remainers would deserve this.....they will deserve the massively weakened position of the UK when it has to give away more and be reduced further because of throwing all this up in the air and then bending to remain. Even if France isn't the one I could see something like this happening.

    I don't suspect many remainers care about this reduction in prospects or power at all, it all will come down to their own narcissism and sense of moral and intellectual superiority.

    The worst scenario would be a reduced EU with many members exiting, yet Germany remaining and therefore increasing it's dominance, with Britain remaining in, cowed, giving away more and more power and sublimating itself to Germany...again I suspect many remainers would have no problem with this so long as they could **** a sneer at Brexiters.

    The thought that the fact that it was voted 6 to 1 to have a referendum and therefore we will be weakened and it was contemptible, irresponsible and babyish, not to mention making us a laughing stock to then turn it around, does not even matter to many of them- again, shallowness, narcissism, self-indulgence, self righteous pomposity.

    It isn't just about the objective decision, which has been portrayed with huge bias anyway, it's about the circumstances that surround it, holding the referendum, the fact it's happened, what our position would be, what happens in Europe and all. If these people were not so far up their own pompous morally superior arses, and had the capacity for self reflection, they would realise this, and stop behaving so selfishly.

    I could talk on this all day.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    There, fixed that for ya.
    You do realise that the HC ruling simply tells the government that they cannot make constitutional changes without first consulting Parliament. Or in other words, they must follow the established, democratic process. A referendum is not part of that, it is merely a consultative process that is in no way legally binding. It showed that there was a will to leave the EU. Now Parliament must debate how that happens, not leave it to a few individuals. It's exactly the kind of "Taking Our Country Back" and "Sovereignty Of Parliament" that Brexiteers have been banging on about.
    Or maybe it really was just about blaming Johnny Foreigner after all?

    So, have you always been "up in arms" every time Parliament votes in a way that conflicts with your personal position?
    This.

    It's absolutely disgraceful to see the right wing press (even broadsheets like the daily telegraph) label our independent judges as 'enemies of the state' for making a correct legal decision.

    Once you label someone who you disagree with as an 'enemy' it will be no surprise if some people take this too far and get violent against 'traitors'.

    Our judges made a correct legal call and get labelled as enemies of the state who are preventing democracy.

    Welcome to Brexit Britain.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    If these people were not so far up their own pompous morally superior arses, and had the capacity for self reflection, they would realise this, and stop behaving so selfishly.

    I could talk on this all day.
    Just to clarify you are arguing that on the off-chance France and Italy vote in new parliaments that in turn call their own referendums that in turn result in a vote to leave the EU, we should undermine our own democratic process and prevent decisions being made by parliament, because if we only had the capacity for morality, self-reflection and selflessness we'd be able to realise... something. :confused:

    Going to be honest my moral self-reflective compass has absolutely no idea what you're on about.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    Just to clarify you are arguing that on the off-chance France and Italy vote in new parliaments that in turn call their own referendums that in turn result in a vote to leave the EU, we should undermine our own democratic process and prevent decisions being made by parliament, because if we only had the capacity for morality, self-reflection and selflessness we'd be able to realise... something. :confused:

    Going to be honest my moral self-reflective compass has absolutely no idea what you're on about.
    No, you misinterpreted and partially quoted. And no, I am not offering reposts on request.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    As I said, our laws are made according to EU regulations and directives. We have to obey to EU and UK laws, which forms 'our' laws which we have to obey as UK citizens.

    You are trying to argue about the technicality of the word 'our' used in this context however I can play the same game with you.

    If words-twisting (although you have failed at that) is all you can do to help your argument, then it shows a lot about the strength of your points.
    So, you agree that the EU never "made our laws for us" as you claimed.

    I notice that you still didn't say which particular EU directives you consider to have adversely affected UK legislation.
    Personally, I have no issue with someone encouraging our gov't to ensure certain minimum standards in employment, H&S, law, etc, etc, are met and maintained, whover they may be.

    So, I'll ask you again, which "EU laws" that the UK has been "forced to accept" would you repeal? Come on, you must be able to think of one. After all, it is the reason that you voted leave, wasn't it (you also forgot to mention if you are old enough to have voted).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    No, you misinterpreted and partially quoted. And no, I am not offering reposts on request.
    I partially quoted because your post was massive and for no other reason, and I interpreted it exactly as I read it! If I wanted you to re-post what you already posted, I can just scroll up and read it again :confused:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    As I said, our laws are made according to EU regulations and directives. We have to obey to EU and UK laws, which forms 'our' laws which we have to obey as UK citizens.

    You are trying to argue about the technicality of the word 'our' used in this context however I can play the same game with you.

    If words-twisting (although you have failed at that) is all you can do to help your argument, then it shows a lot about the strength of your points.
    Two points.

    1) As a member of the EU we had a say in all of these laws, the ability to propose, veto and vote on them.

    2) As non-members we will have to follow most of them anyway, in order to trade our goods and services with the EU - regardless of whether we stay in the single market or not. However we will no longer have any input.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    The referendum is a clear concept.
    Indeed. And that is "a consultative process that is not legally or constitutionally binding".

    So equivalent to a party winning a general election, there is a decisive outcome that must be implemented- that to me, is leaving the single market and the EU.
    Except that it is nothing like a party winning an election, and there is no requirement to implement its suggestion.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The type of Brexit that Parliament will likely agree on will be nothing like what the average Leave voter wanted. There will almost certainly be freedom of movement, and continued trade will mean complying with required EU regulations.

    Although to be honest, I am yet to find a Leave voter who can explain what it is that they actually voted for, that doesn't turn out to be based on a bunch of lies or nonsense.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    This.

    It's absolutely disgraceful to see the right wing press (even broadsheets like the daily telegraph) label our independent judges as 'enemies of the state' for making a correct legal decision.

    Once you label someone who you disagree with as an 'enemy' it will be no surprise if some people take this too far and get violent against 'traitors'.

    Our judges made a correct legal call and get labelled as enemies of the state who are preventing democracy.

    Welcome to Brexit Britain.
    And now, a staunch Leave supporting Tory MP (and QC) has resigned over the gov'ts undemocratic approach to Brexit!
    Ouch!
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,131

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.