1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

British Indy: What Happens Now?

Discussion in 'Wasteland' started by Loz, May 23, 2015.

?
  1. Full Brexit with "no EU deal" on the 29th March.

  2. Request Extension to article 50 to allow a general election and new negotiations.

  3. Request Extension to article 50 to allow cross party talks and a new deal to be put to EU.

  4. Request Extension to article 50 to allow a second referendum on 1. Remain in EU or 2. Full Brexit.

  5. Table a motion in parliament to Remain in EU WITHOUT a referendum.

  6. I don't know or I don't care anymore

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. You forgot to mention Hitler too. :thinkingface:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. then you are an idiot but representative of the cause

    When people who now have evolved into leavers said maastericht is a wrong un, it turns the eu into a superstate, we were called anti european and seen as racist towards the eu..we have been proved right

    When blair opened the doors and said it should 6 to 12 thousand only, those same people said, don't do it, there are no safeguards, 3.5 million people extra......we have been proved right

    When Merkel offered to take milllions into the heart of 28 countries that had no internal borders, we shouted, don't do it, it will be the start of the end for the eu...we have been proved right

    When we said, clean break from day one as the eu will try and fuck us over rather than lose control of us..we have been proved right

    when middle class professionals such as mp's lawyers, doctors and yes even barristers, look down on young black kids as disposable because they sell cannabis and so are "not one of us because they do not do the lines of coke we do" and say hey, make drugs legal, people said no don't it...and look what is happening

    considering they almost always have gone to uni, they are some of the dumbest fucks on the planet and have glasses of dellusional roses and pink gin.

    Why should a young person respect the laws of the land when the house making them, does not even respect their own democracy?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Ah, the arrogance of the man on the Clapham omnibus. No longer satisfied with being “the reasonable man”, he now rejects the views of “experts” and holds himself out as an authority on geopolitics, economics, more recently, constitutional law, and now, apparently drug reform (though I confess I couldn’t follow the argument on that point as drugs have not been legalised).

    PS: yet again, like almost every Leaver I’ve encountered, despite 3 years of this issue being argued up hill and down dale, you don’t seem to even understand what democracy means (in the UK at least) or how it operates in practice. Once more. We have a representative not direct democracy and so referenda are non-binding. What about that concept is eluding you?
     
    #38963 Zhed46, Sep 17, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
  4. There. Fixed it for you
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. and like a typical barrister, always looking for a way to defeat the law and then wonders why young kids say if it's okay for them then it's okay for us

    Johnson is trying to get a peoples democratic majority vote enacted , the extreme remainers are teaching our young, fuck democracy, shout loud and we will win no matter what the consequences.

    Do you honestly think our young look at the house and labour remaining mp's jumping all over the speaker with their "silence" signs and think mmm, thats how you respect peoples votes, well if they can't be bothered, why should I

    Liberal elites are the cause of young men being knifed, because the profession's they should be looking upto have distanced themselves so far from reality, the respected professions are no longer filled with respectable people

    I don't blame the kids for the country going feral, I look at those who should know better
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Face Palm Face Palm x 1
  6. Good lord. It’s like talking to the wall.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. But not as much fun!
     
  8. And at least walls have ears (ice cream and sausages are also available from selected stores)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Let's start with what is, is the prime minister trying to carry out the majority democratic peoples vote to leave the eu?

    have remainers spent 3 years trying to stop that peoples vote?
     
  10. maybes aye, maybes naw.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  11. Question for you Noob.

    If your claim that liberal elites and by implication the EU is the reason for feral youths knifing each other then why is that problem much worse over here than in any of the other EU states?

    If your premise was correct then it would be an EU wide problem. In fact, I’d go so far as to wager that the liberal carey sharey countries like Belgium, Holland, Sweden have much lower violent crime rates than we do. We, on the other hand, tend to follow US trends, socially and politically.

    In all my years of defending (and in the past, also prosecuting) “feral youths” not one has blamed a liberal elite. In my experience it’s much more associated with inequality, poverty and poor parenting.
     
  12. If you go to the trouble of having a vote where all the electorate can have their say on one issue is it reasonable to say afterwards it is only advisory.

    Parliament are not trying to stop Brexit, just a no deal B. Well they voted against TMs deal and they don't seem to be coming up with a deal they could vote for or how to successfully negotiate that deal. So, can we assume from that they are trying to stop Brexit if not why not.

    TB
     
  13. I'm pretty sure I did not say the eu are responsible for feral youths knifing each other

    I did say when the liberal elites do not get the answer they want so seek to ignore and overturn the democratic vote, kids look at what are supposed to be societies leaders and see yep, it's all about them and not us so if they can have a no rules country, so can we. If the majorities votes can be overturned then why vote, apathy sets in as does the law of the streets

    add to this the dissassociation of those same liberal elite through double standards and you can see why kids are feral
     
  14. Are you for real?

    You decry the nebulous “liberal elite” for seeking to, perfectly legally and perfectly constitutionally, ignore/amend/re-run a vote, which according to the Leave supporting Govt’s own predictions could well lead to a national disaster.

    Yet you support the actions of an unelected Prime Minister with a minus 43 (perhaps fewer now - I haven’t checked if anyone else has defected today) majority, who has been found by an appellate court who heard evidence on the matter to have lied to the monarch in order to shut Parliament down and who even openly threatens to disobey a law passed by Parliament.

    Incredible. Truly, truly remarkable pretzel logic......
     
    #38974 Zhed46, Sep 17, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Where did I say that it was only afterwards that the electorate were told that the referendum was merely advisory?

    As I’ve said earlier, Leavers seem to believe that they’re the fount of all human knowledge on the issue of democracy, so one would have thought they’d have known that already, surely?
     
  16. Well you'd be foolish to ask an extreme remainer about democracy given it would have only been applied in their eyes had they won
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. Z, I there any particular reason why you guys don't speak English?
    what is it Joanna is trying to say here?
    Joanna Cherry responds to this point in her pleadings:

    The answer to the appellant’s complaint that “it would be most astonishingly inconvenient if, notwithstanding that England and Scotland have been united since 1707” the UK Executive might be subject to greater scrutiny and more readily called to account before court based on the north bank of the Tweed as compared to those on its south bank is simply this: don’t be persuaded by complaints of inconvenient for the Executive that it is even open to this court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to lower Scots law standards, in this regard, to that which is regarded as properly justiciable before the courts of England and Wales. Let English law, if it is deficient in this regard, be brought up to the standards by which the Executive is called to account under Scots law. That is what is required of this court, acting as a constitutional court for the Union as a whole.

    In summary, against the foregoing background, the respondents reiterate as follows:
    (1)
    This court must take full and proper account of the Scottish constitutional tradition in deciding this appeal. There is no necessary correlation between Scots law and English law on the question of what prerogative powers the Executive may claim and how they
    might lawfully be exercised.

    (2)
    Esto there be any difference between Scots law’s and English law’s respective understandings on the limitations which the law imposes on the Executive’s power to prorogue Parliament (which is not known and not admitted), that constitutional tradition within these islands and this Union polity which is more
    limiting of the manner in which the Executive may exercise this power to prorogue Parliament is to be preferred, the better to ensure the Executive’s democratic and legal accountability for the use of this power and to prevent its abuse of that power in an unlawful attempt to shift the proper constitutional balance of power among the three pillars of State and allow it unconstitutionally to dominate and so govern without due and proper regard to, Parliament.
    .
    i'm gonna post the full article, not to promote devision, but maybe more as an eye opener to what they are up against at the SC.
    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/nations-unhappily-held-together/
     
  18. She lost the first case but that seems to have been forgotten :D, so she appealed it and won and now it's gone to the highest court in the land lets see the result, it will be a usefull guide for europe if she loses
     
  19. it will be less useful if the democracy you have voted for can be turned into a dictatorship for anything up to 5years.
    legally.
     
  20. It's already started fin with mp's trying to overturn a nations question, that they asked us to have
     
Do Not Sell My Personal Information