Reply to: Question for the Bremoaners

[Mordac]

It's good, but it's not right, as Roy Walker might have said.

The Section 30 order abides the Westminster Govt by the result of the referendum. It does not provide 'permission' to have one. That is not required.

In which case why doesn't Sturgeon hold one every week until she gets the result she wants?

[WTFH]

no but beating the tulip out of your subjects is normally frowned upon in decent democracies.

Shall we mention Ian Tomlinson again, or will it be met with the same response of “he was near the crowd”, “he was running away”, “he wasn’t a very good newspaper salesman” etc?

[NotAllThere]

no but beating the tulip out of your subjects is normally frowned upon in decent democracies.

Like Britain?

[darmstadt]

no but beating the tulip out of your subjects is normally frowned upon in decent democracies.

Name me a decent democracy and I'll show you police brutality in it...

[vetran]

As they should and as any fule knows the Catalan referendum was illegal...or are you a fule and the EU should have supported Catalan and an illegal vote?

no but beating the tulip out of your subjects is normally frowned upon in decent democracies.

[BR14]

It's good, but it's not right, as Roy Walker might have said.

The Section 30 order abides the Westminster Govt by the result of the referendum. It does not provide 'permission' to have one. That is not required.

aaaand, - NEXT!

[AtW]

But why was it legal? I'll give you a clue. It was because a sovereign government allowed them to hold a referendum. It's the difference between the way we do things, and they way they do things...

It was legal because key affected parties agreed to recognise it as such.

Also rules for it were far more sensible than Brexit tulip, won with the help of Russian Banking

[TestMangler]

But why was it legal? I'll give you a clue. It was because a sovereign government allowed them to hold a referendum. It's the difference between the way we do things, and they way they do things...

It's good, but it's not right, as Roy Walker might have said.

The Section 30 order abides the Westminster Govt by the result of the referendum. It does not provide 'permission' to have one. That is not required.

[Mordac]

The Scottish referendum was legal, and not boycotted by those opposed to independence. So entirely irrelevant.

You guys are funny. If the EU had intervened, you'd have whined about them violating sovereignty. When they don't, you whine about them not showing leadership.

What's funniest is that you don't even begin to see the inherent contradiction in your positiion.

But why was it legal? I'll give you a clue. It was because a sovereign government allowed them to hold a referendum. It's the difference between the way we do things, and they way they do things...

[darmstadt]

Actually they supported the Spanish government.

shocking...

As they should and as any fule knows the Catalan referendum was illegal...or are you a fule and the EU should have supported Catalan and an illegal vote?

[vetran]

The Catalans. The EU stood by and watch as Spain beat the crap out of their own people.

Actually they supported the Spanish government.

shocking...

[shaunbhoy]

What's funniest is that you don't even begin to see the inherent contradiction in your positiion.

Or maybe we do? And we are just chuckling away quietly to ourselves listening to you muppets trying to continually point this out to us?

[NotAllThere]

Would NAT have been happier if we'd sent the riot police in during the Scottish independence referendum?

The Scottish referendum was legal, and not boycotted by those opposed to independence. So entirely irrelevant.

You guys are funny. If the EU had intervened, you'd have whined about them violating sovereignty. When they don't, you whine about them not showing leadership.

What's funniest is that you don't even begin to see the inherent contradiction in your positiion.

[Mordac]

Well it is always a good thing when those in power ignore the oppression of free people.

I for one think the is a good reason to stay in the EU.

I was contemplating how to respond to NAT. He made a very good argument for governments to do nothing, which somehow reminds me of our collective response to Austria and the Sudetenland in the 1930's. That is to say, "pretend it isn't happening".
Would NAT have been happier if we'd sent the riot police in during the Scottish independence referendum? I'll presume not, but using his argument, they wouldn't have had that chance in the first place. "Scotland, after all, isn't a Sovereign nation. So bollox to 'em..."

[original PM]

Oh that old canard.

Even the individual countries that make up the EU didn't say much.

For the EU to have intervened would have required powers that have been repeatedly resisted by pretty much every country that's part of the EU - none so vigorously as British Eurosceptics.

You, apparently, would have preferred the EU to have the power to interfere with the sovereignty of Spain. But that would be somewhat tyrannical, wouldn't it?

Well it is always a good thing when those in power ignore the oppression of free people.

I for one think the is a good reason to stay in the EU.