Reply to: Brexit Party Candidates

[WTFH]

Do you mean a cross-party of parties who would die in a ditch before endorsing any sort of Brexit?

You mean like Boris did before he became PM?

No. I mean across all parties with elected MPs in the House of Commons, the idea being to come up with the best solution that satisfies the brevity of the wording of the referendum with the reality of the task.

[Mordac]

You say it's not fit for purpose, but that's only because it has been bypassed twice in the last 3 years, and never actually used.



You're incorrect in so many ways, the referendum to leave the EU did not have options to vote for different parties. It was a binary question. A person could be a voter for Tory, Labour, LibDem, DUP, SNP, PC, SF, or whoever. Their vote was whether they wanted to leave the EU.
Intelligent Leavers get this. They accept that it should have been a cross-party negotiation team.
Why don't you get it?

Do you mean a cross-party of parties who would die in a ditch before endorsing any sort of Brexit?

[WTFH]

He said "could" not "did". We all know a supporter of any party "could" vote to leave, but a certain demographic who support the more extreme segments of parties did vote to leave.

Of course, he was more interested in twisting away from the simple point that it was cross party, and so the negotiations should have been cross party.
Instead, he'd prefer to stick to his usual response of avoid the question, change the subject and accuse others of being the problem.

[Whorty]

A person could be a voter for Tory, Labour, LibDem, DUP, SNP, PC, SF, or whoever. Their vote was whether they wanted to leave the EU.

That's a concept that some of your remoaner mates are struggling with.

He said "could" not "did". We all know a supporter of any party "could" vote to leave, but a certain demographic who support the more extreme segments of parties did vote to leave.

[BlasterBates]

You say it's not fit for purpose, but that's only because it has been bypassed twice in the last 3 years, and never actually used.



You're incorrect in so many ways, the referendum to leave the EU did not have options to vote for different parties. It was a binary question. A person could be a voter for Tory, Labour, LibDem, DUP, SNP, PC, SF, or whoever. Their vote was whether they wanted to leave the EU.
Intelligent Leavers get this. They accept that it should have been a cross-party negotiation team.
Why don't you get it?

If the Tories lose the election or there's a hung parliament watch for the cries of democratic elections not being fit for pupose.

[Zigenare]

You say it's not fit for purpose, but that's only because it has been bypassed twice in the last 3 years, and never actually used.



You're incorrect in so many ways, the referendum to leave the EU did not have options to vote for different parties. It was a binary question. A person could be a voter for Tory, Labour, LibDem, DUP, SNP, PC, SF, or whoever. Their vote was whether they wanted to leave the EU.
Intelligent Leavers get this. They accept that it should have been a cross-party negotiation team.
Why don't you get it?

That's a concept that some of your remoaner mates are struggling with.

[WTFH]

The FTPA is not fit for purpose, and I await with keen disinterest your argument as to how and why it works so brilliantly.

You say it's not fit for purpose, but that's only because it has been bypassed twice in the last 3 years, and never actually used.

There's no such thing as a non-political referendum, and if you haven't realised that by now there's no hope for an intelligent contribution from you.

You're incorrect in so many ways, the referendum to leave the EU did not have options to vote for different parties. It was a binary question. A person could be a voter for Tory, Labour, LibDem, DUP, SNP, PC, SF, or whoever. Their vote was whether they wanted to leave the EU.
Intelligent Leavers get this. They accept that it should have been a cross-party negotiation team.
Why don't you get it?

[Old Greg]

A very neat twisting of my words, hats off to you for that.

Thank you very much.

[NotAllThere]

... not one where judges can trawl through centuries of mostly irrelevant 'precedents' to find something that eventually suits...

Why do you think they're irrelevant? What's your basis for thinking that? Is it just that they don't suit your wishes?

[Mordac]

Next you’ll be arguing that parliament can’t overrule laws to suit political end and that the Fixed Term Parliament Act should be observed.
Or that non-political referendums should be negotiated cross-party, not just by one party.

Or does that not suit you?

The FTPA is not fit for purpose, and I await with keen disinterest your argument as to how and why it works so brilliantly.
There's no such thing as a non-political referendum, and if you haven't realised that by now there's no hope for an intelligent contribution from you.

[WTFH]

If anything, it proves the need for a for a fully written constitution, and not one where judges can trawl through centuries of mostly irrelevant 'precedents' to find something that eventually suits.

Next you’ll be arguing that parliament can’t overrule laws to suit political end and that the Fixed Term Parliament Act should be observed.
Or that non-political referendums should be negotiated cross-party, not just by one party.

Or does that not suit you?

[Mordac]

According to the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court. Sorry that you hate parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, but that's how it is.

A very neat twisting of my words, hats off to you for that. My comment was to the effect that how could someone predict that the Supreme Court would invoke a 400 year old ruling to declare a 21st century action illegal (an action which has occurred many times since the 17th century, mostly without question in the courts). If anything, it proves the need for a for a fully written constitution, and not one where judges can trawl through centuries of mostly irrelevant 'precedents' to find something that eventually suits.

[Whorty]

No great surprise there.

Nope, I wasn't planning to surprise anyone. As I've said umpteen times ... I've never voted Labour, up to 2010 had always voted Tory, but will never do so again.

[vetran]

That's a direct result of emigration.

We can't blame even the stupid Swiss citizens trying to escape you

[NotAllThere]

The only certain thing about the UK is its continued accelerated decline.
Simply put, as this thread and others show, there are too many cretins in the country.

That's a direct result of emigration.