howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Two things, firstly why did the Prime Minister not take legal advice before she said that Parliament didn't need to be consulted? Secondly the vile,personal and racist comments made about the lady who brought the action just about sums up present day politics.
SWWood likes this
Guest 1849- Registered: 12 Sep 2016
- Posts: 440
SWWood wrote:That's correct, but yesterday's decision does nothing to undermine that fact. The judges are simply pointing out what needs to be done to make sure this process is carried out in accordance with the law. Who in their right minds would argue against that? And yet we see papers like the Mail misrepresenting the courts judgement in order to whip up more hysteria. It's very worrying.
Brexit will happen, nothing has changed in that respect, but if the proper legal processes are not followed things will get very messy. Nobody wants that.
This is from February
Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday set out the details of the UK-EU deal in the House of Commons. He argued that the referendum would be “a straight democratic decision… Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper.” He went on to say that “If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.”
This has nothing to do with media misrepresentation, our Prime Minister assured us we would begin the process immediately, it hasn't happened.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 258
D Little wrote:
This is from February
Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday set out the details of the UK-EU deal in the House of Commons. He argued that the referendum would be “a straight democratic decision… Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper.” He went on to say that “If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.”
This has nothing to do with media misrepresentation, our Prime Minister assured us we would begin the process immediately, it hasn't happened.
It has everything to do with misrepresentation. The court descision yesterday had nothing to do with stopping brexit. It's purpose was to ensure brexit was carried out in accordance with the law. Those newspaper headlines, however, give a very different angle, one which is entirely untrue.
With regards to Cameron's promises, (and those more recently of May), I guess they both believed, or were advised, that they had the authority under the Royal Perogative to initiate article 50. The judges have decided otherwise. This issue could, and probably should have been sorted out before the referendum. For example, parliament could have made the referendum legally binding, which would have provided the authority for the PM to start brexit. Parliament
chose not to do so. That is where the fault lies, along with PM's claiming they could do something they were not legally entitled to do.
It really doesn't matter how much people whinge about this now, the law is the law, and the government must operate within that.
Guest 1849- Registered: 12 Sep 2016
- Posts: 440
SWWood wrote: "D Little" wrote:
This is from February
Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday set out the details of the UK-EU deal in the House of Commons. He argued that the referendum would be “a straight democratic decision… Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper.” He went on to say that “If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.”
This has nothing to do with media misrepresentation, our Prime Minister assured us we would begin the process immediately, it hasn't happened.
It has everything to do with misrepresentation. The court descision yesterday had nothing to do with stopping brexit. It's purpose was to ensure brexit was carried out in accordance with the law. Those newspaper headlines, however, give a very different angle, one which is entirely untrue.
With regards to Cameron's promises, (and those more recently of May), I guess they both believed, or were advised, that they had the authority under the Royal Perogative to initiate article 50. The judges have decided otherwise. This issue could, and probably should have been sorted out before the referendum. For example, parliament could have made the referendum legally binding, which would have provided the authority for the PM to start brexit. Parliament
chose not to do so. That is where the fault lies, along with PM's claiming they could do something they were not legally entitled to do.
It really doesn't matter how much people whinge about this now, the law is the law, and the government must operate within that.
Therein lies the problem, I earlier referred to trust in politicians. The Prime Minister stated clearly that we would begin leaving the EU immediately, of course at the time he was very confident that wouldn't happen. So was he lying or did he not bother researching? Most people will assume the PM was being honest.
The press aren't the problem, we don't have to buy newspapers, politicians are the problem.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 258
D Little wrote:
Therein lies the problem, I earlier referred to trust in politicians. The Prime Minister stated clearly that we would begin leaving the EU immediately, of course at the time he was very confident that wouldn't happen. So was he lying or did he not bother researching? Most people will assume the PM was being honest.
The press aren't the problem, we don't have to buy newspapers, politicians are the problem.
The press are a problem when they are personally attacking high court judges for simply applying the law. It is as if they believe that obeying the law is optional when it comes to matters regarding Brexit. It's laughable. And it's made worse by the fact that the judgement has no real effect on brexit, it just pushes the issue back to parliament.
Ross Miller, Brian Dixon, Guest 1881 and
2 more like this
Ross Miller, Brian Dixon, Guest 1881, Reginald Barrington and howard mcsweeney1 like this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I see that Clegg is busying himself ingratiating with the EU again hoping to be made commissioner one day. His latest is that the UK will lose its geographically protected status on foodstuffs and Member states will simply copy them. He mentioned Whitstable Oysters but when this was put to the top man there he said that even down the road in East Kent shellfish stalls pass off any Oyster as being from Whitstable.
Guest 1881- Registered: 16 Oct 2016
- Posts: 1,071
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:I see that Clegg is busying himself ingratiating with the EU again hoping to be made commissioner one day. His latest is that the UK will lose its geographically protected status on foodstuffs and Member states will simply copy them. He mentioned Whitstable Oysters but when this was put to the top man there he said that even down the road in East Kent shellfish stalls pass off any Oyster as being from Whitstable.
Cl*gg is the spawn of my nemesis.
howard mcsweeney1 likes this
Just because you don't take an interest in politics doesn't mean that politics won't take an interest in you. PERICLES.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,782
I do smile when Mr Little continues to say politicians can't be trusted as though he isn't one,
He stood in the last general election
And yes people didnt trust him lol
Jan Higgins and Reginald Barrington like this
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I went to a public meeting on the EEC in Wanstead during the early 1980s and one of the main speakers was Ken Livingstone in his role as leader of the now defunct GLC. He warned of the future where multinationals would move around factories and plant to where the labour was cheaper and eventually with free movement of cheap labour they wouldn't even have the expense of relocating.
When free movement first came in wages and living standards were fairly even across the member states so people who did move around simply wanted to gain new experience and/or learn another language and it all evened itself out. Then when the doors were flung open to the poorer countries everything went wrong for people and right for the multinationals. Incidentally up on the stage the newly elected member for Islington North was giving Ken his full support.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,782
Not related, but you mention Ken,,,
I attended with 100'sof railway employees Westminster hall prior to labour gaining number 10.
on the top table Ken L , Prescott, and that NUPE general sec(name escapes me)
Prescott was wildly applauded when he said if Labour gets into Govt they will nationalise the railways.
Labour did get in, we waited and ,,,,waited,,,,,,,,,,,
I then wrote to Prescott asking when, he wrote back saying labour had changed there mind and couldn't afford to nationalise the railways.
Although you don't expect much else from politicians it was to say the least disappointing
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 2,993
Post 49: well Ken certainly had a point, although one only has to look at the (absence of the) Cornish tin mines to realise it wasn't a particularly new one. The point is still relevant, but less so given increased mechanization.
I'm not sure I follow the 2nd paragraph though. For example, one could define 'multinational' as anyone who trades in foreign goods (or exports to foreign countries). Heaven forbid I should ever be tempted to buy things other than those both made and sourced in the UK. Still, with the value of Sterling against other currencies suppressed and hence with the prospect of imports costing more, perhaps I shall have pause for thought - until UK companies expand production here. And as for cheap (foreign) labour why, with the Minimum Wage creating a level wage floor, every UK job a visitor can do, so too can a UK worker. Yippee - and the benefits budget set to shrink accordingly!
(Not my real name.)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Mr Zipfly the normal definition of a multinational is a monster with tentacles stretching into many countries and paying little or no tax at all. Rather surprised that you think the minimum wage automatically extends to all workers.
Guest 1849- Registered: 12 Sep 2016
- Posts: 440
Keith Sansum1 wrote:I do smile when Mr Little continues to say politicians can't be trusted as though he isn't one,
He stood in the last general election
And yes people didnt trust him lol
As usual Sansum you are partly correct, I stood at the General Election. Despite your inane protestations in excess of 10000 people clearly did trust me - do you have any evidence that the others didn't?
As part of your recent embracement of glasnost, perhaps you could list 3 politicians that you trust implicitly, that in turn would give us the opportunity to discuss the integrity and ambiguity of your preferred representatives.
I do appreciate however, that you are as thick as mince and that any attempt at sensible discussion is futile.
In the unlikely event that you have access to a thesaurus I perish the the thought of a withering reply.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,758
Wow! How rude is David #53 maybe that is one reason he did not get elected. It might be a good idea to remember that, unlike local elections, in a General Election people vote for a party the actual candidate being a secondary consideration.
Keith and myself have had our disagreements in the past but hopefully we have never posted like that to anyone.
howard mcsweeney1 likes this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 1849- Registered: 12 Sep 2016
- Posts: 440
Jan Higgins wrote:Wow! How rude is David #53 maybe that is one reason he did not get elected. It might be a good idea to remember that, unlike local elections, in a General Election people vote for a party the actual candidate being a secondary consideration.
Keith and myself have had our disagreements in the past but hopefully we have never posted like that to anyone.
I'm unashamedly rude to Sansum and make no apologies for it. There were lots of reasons I wasn't elected, being rude to a poisonous, libellous, stalking halfwit was neither here nor there.
Chris- Forum Admin
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Oct 2009
- Posts: 357
Perhaps it might be possible to keep things a little friendlier on here? Otherwise people will stop reading and posting.
Judith Roberts, Jan Higgins and Reginald Barrington like this
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,758
Well said Chris but with a response like that from David I certainly will not hold my breath anything will change.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Mr Tutthill that is already happing but only you can do anything about it.
Jan Higgins and howard mcsweeney1 like this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I don't like the sound of this nowadays too many protests result in disorder and take a depleted police force away from dealing with crime. Passions run high on both sides of a very wide divide and Farage knows how to work a crowd.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-will-lead-100000-strong-march-to-supreme-court-during-brexit-legal-challenge-hearing-a7402051.htmlButton likes this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352