Another Interesting Court Case (Brexit)...

One of the funniest counter arguments I've ever read on here...

Was that real or has your predictive text been infected with Esperanto?

 

Bravo Manxtike.

 

Please give up grasping at straws. Both sides lied continuously throughout the process, if you don't think that then you are naive at best. I've said before that the vote will have no major bearing on myself either way but that fact remains that the British people have chosen what they want. I really fail to see why either side can deem themselves better than the other perhaps it's just down to pompous arrogance or an inflated opinion of their way of thinking.

 

Utter rubbish. I and most people I know who voted to leave did so for varying reasons that had nothing to do with who were running the leave campaign or who else were also voting leave. I made no decision to stand with any racist or fascist groups and just because I may have voted the same way does not mean I have anything in common with a racist either politically or ideologically.

Do you really think that people who voted to leave for genuine reasons should have voted remain just because of who else may be voting the same way.

 

Agree Mario.

Fwiw this was my main reasoning

https://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave

that and imho the EU is the biggest driver of a neo-liberal globalist takeover of nation states and the degradation of the individual - see how (with the aid of the IMF) it ground Greece into the dirt - moving money and businesses into the hands of multinationals. That and its expansionist agenda Eastwards which will provoke Putin, and I think it's developed into an undemocratic dangerous organisation. The fact that we've become so entangled in it in the last 40 odd years is no reason to remain so.

 

It took me ages to make that up abit like Les Dawson playing the piano ... badly ( good pianist though)

 

To be fair I'm minded to vote on the opposite side to anything Nigel Farage votes in favour of...

But more seriously you are 100 percent right. People voted leave for a variety of reasons. I was a waverer myself for most of the time for reasons argued by Tony Benn eloquently throughout his life and only voted stay because with the coming boundary changes and the weaknesses of Unions I have serious concerns about the impact leaving will have on employment rights. It wouldn't have made me a crypto fascist sympathiser if I'd gone the other way.

What was sad for me was the quality and level of debate on the issue from politicians and the media on all sides.

 

"What was sad for me was the quality and level of debate on the issue from politicians and the media on all sides."

Couldn't agree more.

 

****ing hell.

If you are going start with that you might as well wheel in every election winning party leader since god was a lad.

 

Probably for the same reason that pro-remainers, many of them socialist and labour supporters, sided with the Conservatives, Etonians Osborne and Cameron and the elite bankers and Industrialists. Socialists would normally dis-associate themselves from the Elite 'ruling classes' in any other circumstance in the same way most Brexiters would avoid those fascists and racist organisations.

I voted on what I knew and NOT what we were 'spoon fed' by the lies and propoganda from both sides. That is, that the Euro WILL collapse (a view since supported by the architect of the Euro). Furthermore, rather than what is currently being stated by the European press, the Euro is not 'strong' nor is, in the opinion of the vast majority of Europeans (the public), all well in the EU and Britain a pariah for voting to leave. That is what Junckers/Tusk etc. want you to believe and who want to play hardball with the UK to discourage others .

I also recall Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall confronting the EU senior official outside the EU Parliament when he was running his campaign against the obscene EU policy of 'Discard' with thousands of tons of dead fish being dumped back into the sea. The dismissive, totally arrogant response of the official to HFW summed up for me the complete detachment the EU commission have from the real world in which most EU citizens live and contempt in which they hold the general public.

 

The architect of the Euro doesn't exactly think it will collapse nor does he argue that he wants it to. But it makes a good soundbite.

Can't disagree with you about the attitude of some EU officials. I've met quite a few through work and the generally fall into the ****hook class.

 

Scoff. The Euro WILL fail. There is now way the one size fits all and a two speed EU is remotely sustainable. It has 'kicked the can down the road' so many times now but the end of the road is now in site. The Greek bailouts are made to enable Greece simply to pay the interest on previous loans which they can never repay particularly with the austerity measures they had imposed on them as part of the bailout agreement. That though is as nothing comparewd to the ECB which has broken its own rules so many times simply to support the political aspirations of France and Germany of a Federal State run by, you've guessed it, France and Germany.

Can you tell me your reason for thinking why the Euro will not fail and what the solution is 'cos none of the World's Economist have a clue? Where did you study Economics to draw that conclusion? It is scary that you would like to live in a Federal Europe, a statement that suggests to me you haven't really given a lot of thought regarding what that would entail for the 'little people' like us.
Norway is a Scandinavian country but not in the EU and they are OK and the Dutch and Germans are Northern States. Do you "identify" as easily with Greeks, Italians, Croatians, Lithuanians , Czechs, Cypriots etc? I agree as a species it is time we grew up. Try telling that to an IS jihadist or a member of the 'Real IRA'. Unfortunately due to Nationalism and Religion there are far more differences than you think.

 

The Eu will fail, the only question is can it keep going long enough to earn enough for those with a vested personal interest?

 

LOL. That is the funniest/ daftest thing I have read for ages. I can drive at any speed I like unless I break the "applicable legislation"... err!! In other words illegally speeding.

PS Britain does not actually HAVE a constitution. Think before you post!!

 

It's a very long technical argument he advanced , and like you say he didn't say it is actually collapsing , but he did say

''Realistically, it will be a case of muddling through, struggling from one crisis to the next one. It is difficult to forecast how long this will continue for, but it cannot go on endlessly. Governments will pile up more debt – and then one day, the house of cards will collapse.''

He is certainly giving a clear warning that it will happen unless things change .

 

Inciting racial hatred, threats, terrorism and other similar offences are covered in law, as are slander and libel, so you can say anything you want as long as you don't break those or the other laws. You can drive your car as long as you follow the rules - valid insurance, MOT, driving licence, within the speed limits, etc, etc.

By the way, Britain does have a constitution comprising all the acts of Parliament - it just isn't written into a single document. There were plans recently to codify it into a single document, but not sure how far along that got.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/whatis/uk-constitution
https://www.parliament.uk/documents...constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf

 

Its all quite reasonable stuff but just to put my thoughts on it
a) I agree I don't think The Euro will fail , because the EU will not let it fail , Ottmar Issing's article is clear that one of the reasons it is in serious trouble is because the rules have been broken , but to enforce those rules it will require the Germans to force the issue to a point that will be very difficult politically and socially for many states to accept , Greece of course is one example he uses .
b) I don't want a Federal State , purely a Sovereign Nation State the kind that Tony Benn argued for all his life .
I don't identify particularly with anyone , or any nation , in Europe , I particularly don't identify with the badly behaved Brit Abroad , but I do identify with decent people everywhere . I do not wish to force our values, customs , traditions , rules , or regulations on them , I don't believe the vast bulk of ordinary people in Europe wish to force theirs on anyone else either . The beauty of Europe and travelling in it , has always been , to me at least , that it is different everywhere you go , that towns and villages are not clones of those elsewhere .
To me it is more important that local people the continent over are allowed their sometimes strange ( to outsiders ) customs and currencies , beliefs , freedoms , and outlooks on life itself , and should not be forced into Identikit existences .
Obviously it's all down to opinion , personally I believe EU Federacy is the death knell for the things I have mentioned above , if The People want that then fine , it should happen , if The People don't want that , then that must be respected .
Without going into the politics of it , who in 21st century Europe has the right to deny a Basque or Catalan , or a Scot ( or any other nation ) for that matter the right to govern themselves in the manner they see fit , if that is what the people decide ?
I agree over Millennia Isolationism has led to the things you say , but the world get's smaller everyday and as a species we are growing up as you put it , but free trading and friendship the world over are a much better way of achieving harmony than just being part of a protectionist bloc .

 

Regarding freedom of speech, given that we haven't yet repealed the Human Rights Act 1998 and haven't yet disaccoaiated ourselves from the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10 of the Convention guarantees freedom of expression. Like most of the rights, this is qualified where it must be restricted in the interests of the prevention of crime or disorder, or in the interests of national security. Interestingly enough, it may also be restricted where it is necessary to preserve the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Daily Mail take note!

 

1st para. Glad we agree....That is exactly my original point. Read your original post again. Free speech becomes 'less free' the more laws are passed and more importantly how they are intepreted and applied. Social Media means that virtually every utterence is scrutinised and someone, somewhere, takes offence even where no offence is intended.

2nd para. Semantics I know but : Separate laws are not a 'written consitution' (as confirmed by your last sentence)

"Unlike most modern states, Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions. Professor Robert Blackburn explains this system, including Magna Carta's place within it, and asks whether the UK should now have a written constitution.

And this :

"An uncodified constitution creates two problems. First, it makes it difficult to know what the state of the constitution actually is. Second, it suggests that it is easier to make changes to the UK Constitution than in countries with written constitutions, because the latter have documents with a ‘higher law’ status against which ordinary statute law and government action can be tested, and are only amendable via elaborate procedures. The flexibility of the UK constitution is evident from the large number of constitutional reforms since 1997, including the abolition of the majority of hereditary peers in the House of Lords, the introduction of codified rights of individuals for the the first time in the Human Rights Act 1998, and devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Arguably, however, these recent constitutional reforms may have made the constitution less flexible in some respects: it is debatable, for instance, whether the devolution settlements could ever be repealed."

See I can trawl the internet too!

 

Well, at least since 2006 when the law was enacted. If you stand in an election and say something that is incorrect, then continue to repeat it after being told it is incorrect then you are deceiving the public. Vote Leave told several specific lies in their campaign as statements of fact, then continued to tell the lies after being told they were incorrect. The DPP is now looking at the evidence and could bring charges if it is felt they broke the law.

Remain said predictions that may or may not come to pass, and may have tried to pass them off as facts but they were just predictions. Some already have come true, but that is just a coincidence apparently.