Reply With QuoteWondering how this is accomplished summons some slightly disturbing imagery.Originally Posted by Herbert Augustus Chapman
Don't be ridiculous man! My concerns are far more shallow and I think I made it quite clear that it is Diane Abbot I fear. She has no discernible intellect, an infantile attention span and grasp of detail that would shame a nursery school toddler. But far worse, my sources tell me, is that she can snap a man's neck like a twig with her fanny.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I believe Boris would romp an election anyway.
Wondering how this is accomplished summons some slightly disturbing imagery.
The wishes of the electorate change, C. That's why we have elections. The ability to change one's mind is what differentiates us from a dictatorship.
Constitutionally, it was also an advisory referendum, it was mandated by the previous parl which can't bind this one, and no manifestos matter given it was a hung parl. Therefore it's up to the MPs to be representatives, not delegates, to cite Burke.
If my side stops it then your side can go out and vote for the Brexit Party (or their Tory clone) on a manifesto of Art 50, no negotiation and WTO.
That's how it works.
We had an advisory referendum passed by a previous parl, with the HoC now containing a majority of members who stood on a "We won't have a no deal" platform. The Tories said they'd have a deal, but as long as it was better than no deal. That is a judgement to be made by the individual MP.
But no matter, we didn't vote for no deal in a binding referendum, and even if we had, the 2017 GE trumps it constitutionally. (Though if we had, the govt would have had no need to call a GE in 2017.)
The public didn't want a no deal then and don't want a no deal now. And more to the constitutional point, their elected representatives no want no deal.
If you don't like it, vote for a party that wants to change MPs from representatives to delegates, or introduce direct democracy, or even a dictatorship.
But until you do,we have over 200 years of constitutional precedence for this since Burke's declaration to the electors of Bristol in 1774.
Would have hoped a gent like yourself would have understood the constitutional history of our proud nation, C.
Just like there was no "No Deal" option on the ballot, there also wasn't an option to end our representative, parliamentary democracy.
In fact, the clusterfück of the last 3 years is all down to these two facts. And I'm afraid, constitutionally, our representatives elected in 2017 trump the non specific wishes of an advisory referendum in 2016.
Bit of a pickle, but there we be. And had the ERG voted for the proffered deal, we'd have left no matter how many lefties like me went a-protesting.
Ironically, I agree that May's deal was vassalage, and would personally rather have no deal than that (unless we first got the consent of NI to break the union in this way.)
But no deal wasn't on the ballot, nor in the manifestos, and - the only thing that matters constitutionally - isn't in the hearts of a majority of our elected representatives.
If we don't like howthey choose to vote, we can kick 'em out next GE.
This is the way it has worked since the Great Reform Act, and in many boroughs, since the preceding centuries.
1. I know what you mean.
2. Wow. That's heavy. Our PM is a less pleasant human than Mourinho. Jeez. There should be a law against these people even standing.
Are you familiar with the term 'tl;dr', g?
We done a voting. We made a decision. That decision can certainly be changed by a different voting. But we never got the first decision implemented.
That is the act of a dictatorship.
Oh she comes on all coy like a southern belle fluttering her eyelashes, "y'all wanna taste ma poontang honey?" and the second you fall to your knees to bury your foolish head bewteen her thighs, it's all over. This is the last thing you will ever see
Lie.
This is the root of your sophistry, that the referendum was 'advisory' and therefore can be ignored while pretending this is still democracy.
The govt spent millions on a leaflet which said, while telling people to vote remain: "The Government will implement your decision".
A campaign leaflet is not written law. It's a politicians promise worth less than the paper it was printed on.
It wasn't a campaign leaflet.
True, I responded in haste. Have just looked it up for the first time and was astonished at the pro remain stance it took. Had I been a leave I would have been incensed.
The technical point stands though. it is simply a pamphlet. It had no legal authority.
Posting Permissions