Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So that would like just saying you are divorced, but without any legally binding, formal settlement? I guess the Kippers will be along at some stage to promote and explain this new policy." UKippers would be happy to join Darth Vader's empire if he promised to get them out of the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972" AND trigger article 50, or do you not believe in the UK honouring the treaties we sign? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 AND trigger article 50, or do you not believe in the UK honouring the treaties we sign? " if they do that then Article 50 doesn't mean anything and is not needed. What the fuck does it matter what I think, I was just pointing out it is another option, thought most people knew this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 AND trigger article 50, or do you not believe in the UK honouring the treaties we sign? if they do that then Article 50 doesn't mean anything and is not needed. What the fuck does it matter what I think, I was just pointing out it is another option, thought most people knew this" Remember how I said that some people would happily shred the constitution just to get out of Europe? That's exactly what you are advocating.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 AND trigger article 50, or do you not believe in the UK honouring the treaties we sign? if they do that then Article 50 doesn't mean anything and is not needed. What the fuck does it matter what I think, I was just pointing out it is another option, thought most people knew this Remember how I said that some people would happily shred the constitution just to get out of Europe? That's exactly what you are advocating. "who is fucking advocating it? Do you just imterpret words to suit your mindset?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 AND trigger article 50, or do you not believe in the UK honouring the treaties we sign? if they do that then Article 50 doesn't mean anything and is not needed. What the fuck does it matter what I think, I was just pointing out it is another option, thought most people knew this Remember how I said that some people would happily shred the constitution just to get out of Europe? That's exactly what you are advocating.
who is fucking advocating it? Do you just imterpret words to suit your mindset??"So its not an option then is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 AND trigger article 50, or do you not believe in the UK honouring the treaties we sign? if they do that then Article 50 doesn't mean anything and is not needed. What the fuck does it matter what I think, I was just pointing out it is another option, thought most people knew this Remember how I said that some people would happily shred the constitution just to get out of Europe? That's exactly what you are advocating.
who is fucking advocating it? Do you just imterpret words to suit your mindset??
So its not an option then is it? "are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 AND trigger article 50, or do you not believe in the UK honouring the treaties we sign? if they do that then Article 50 doesn't mean anything and is not needed. What the fuck does it matter what I think, I was just pointing out it is another option, thought most people knew this Remember how I said that some people would happily shred the constitution just to get out of Europe? That's exactly what you are advocating.
who is fucking advocating it? Do you just imterpret words to suit your mindset??
So its not an option then is it?
are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it?"Ok, its an option like "fuck it lets just nuke Brussels" is an option, but it's an unconstitutional option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 AND trigger article 50, or do you not believe in the UK honouring the treaties we sign? if they do that then Article 50 doesn't mean anything and is not needed. What the fuck does it matter what I think, I was just pointing out it is another option, thought most people knew this Remember how I said that some people would happily shred the constitution just to get out of Europe? That's exactly what you are advocating.
who is fucking advocating it? Do you just imterpret words to suit your mindset??
So its not an option then is it?
are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it?
Ok, its an option like "fuck it lets just nuke Brussels" is an option, but it's an unconstitutional option. "Oh, god, don't start putting ideas in their heads. Next thing you know 52% of Daily Mail readers will agree to a poll on it and will then claim the 'people have spoken' 
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 AND trigger article 50, or do you not believe in the UK honouring the treaties we sign? if they do that then Article 50 doesn't mean anything and is not needed. What the fuck does it matter what I think, I was just pointing out it is another option, thought most people knew this Remember how I said that some people would happily shred the constitution just to get out of Europe? That's exactly what you are advocating.
who is fucking advocating it? Do you just imterpret words to suit your mindset??
So its not an option then is it?
are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it?
Ok, its an option like "fuck it lets just nuke Brussels" is an option, but it's an unconstitutional option. "you are losing the plot son. If I was you I'd go and see a doctor, this whole Brexit thing and the fact you didn't get your own way seems to be driving you mad | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"who is fucking advocating it?" You. "Do you just imterpret words to suit your mindset??" No, I think that maybe you need to buy a dictionary (or use a free online one) and learn how to use it, before questioning others use of English (it may save you looking like a semi literate tit). Definition of advocate: 'verb (used with object), advocated, advocating. 1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly. When you posted: "This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972" You became an advocate of the suggestion. When you subsequently posted: "are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it?" you became a serial advocate who is denying their advocacy. Now would you like to guess what that makes you? (You may want to consult a thesaurus before answering this question.) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"who is fucking advocating it? You. Do you just imterpret words to suit your mindset?? No, I think that maybe you need to buy a dictionary (or use a free online one) and learn how to use it, before questioning others use of English (it may save you looking like a semi literate tit). Definition of advocate: 'verb (used with object), advocated, advocating. 1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly. When you posted: This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 You became an advocate of the suggestion. When you subsequently posted: are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it? you became a serial advocate who is denying their advocacy. Now would you like to guess what that makes you? (You may want to consult a thesaurus before answering this question.)" you have just made yourself look like a tit. Read it properly. Where did I say I was in favour of it/supportive of it?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"you have just made yourself look like a tit. Read it properly. Where did I say I was in favour of it/supportive of it? "No, by publicly writing that it is an option when your previous posts make your support of exiting the EU absolutely clear you became an advocate for the policy. It is called implication! Never mind, some day you may work out some of the subtle (and not so subtle) nuances of language. I would suggest you step away from the keyboard now, have a nice cup of tea and come back when you have calmed down.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"you have just made yourself look like a tit. Read it properly. Where did I say I was in favour of it/supportive of it?
No, by publicly writing that it is an option when your previous posts make your support of exiting the EU absolutely clear you became an advocate for the policy. It is called implication!
Never mind, some day you may work out some of the subtle (and not so subtle) nuances of language.
I would suggest you step away from the keyboard now, have a nice cup of tea and come back when you have calmed down. "bit of a pathetic swerve mate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's fine CandM, maybe we just got the wrong end of the stick. You can clear it up by saying that ignoring the Lisbon treaty and not triggering article 50, but just repealing the European Communities Act, is an absolutely terrible idea, is unconstitutional, and should in no way be considered as an option. Then we can clear up this whole misunderstanding. How does that sound? " If you knew what you were talking about you would know that it is being repealed next year anyway under the Great Repeal Bill | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's fine CandM, maybe we just got the wrong end of the stick. You can clear it up by saying that ignoring the Lisbon treaty and not triggering article 50, but just repealing the European Communities Act, is an absolutely terrible idea, is unconstitutional, and should in no way be considered as an option. Then we can clear up this whole misunderstanding. How does that sound? If you knew what you were talking about you would know that it is being repealed next year anyway under the Great Repeal Bill" I do know what I'm talking about. You however, seem to be a little out of your depth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's fine CandM, maybe we just got the wrong end of the stick. You can clear it up by saying that ignoring the Lisbon treaty and not triggering article 50, but just repealing the European Communities Act, is an absolutely terrible idea, is unconstitutional, and should in no way be considered as an option. Then we can clear up this whole misunderstanding. How does that sound? If you knew what you were talking about you would know that it is being repealed next year anyway under the Great Repeal Bill I do know what I'm talking about. You however, seem to be a little out of your depth. " Unbelievable
So you want to explain why its unconstitutional. Maybe you can disagree with Bunandbucks post too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unilaterally repealing the 1972 act is constitutional and an option. I don't think it's sensible and I've not heard of anybody advocating it as a sensible option, but it is legal and documented on the bbc as a possible option." Isn't it funny, you even show him a way out where he can save face, but does he take it? Nah, its like watching a child have a temper tantrum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unilaterally repealing the 1972 act is constitutional and an option. I don't think it's sensible and I've not heard of anybody advocating it as a sensible option, but it is legal and documented on the bbc as a possible option. Isn't it funny, you even show him a way out where he can save face, but does he take it? Nah, its like watching a child have a temper tantrum." I've said it before and will say it Farageism is an illness....im sure somewhere down the line the medical researchers will come up with some type of cure....from the £350 million that were going to pump in to the NHS from NOT being in the EU per week  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unilaterally repealing the 1972 act is constitutional and an option. I don't think it's sensible and I've not heard of anybody advocating it as a sensible option, but it is legal and documented on the bbc as a possible option. Isn't it funny, you even show him a way out where he can save face, but does he take it? Nah, its like watching a child have a temper tantrum." a way out of what and save face from what? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unilaterally repealing the 1972 act is constitutional and an option. I don't think it's sensible and I've not heard of anybody advocating it as a sensible option, but it is legal and documented on the bbc as a possible option. Isn't it funny, you even show him a way out where he can save face, but does he take it? Nah, its like watching a child have a temper tantrum. a way out of what and save face from what?" From you advocating for just repealing the act of parliament and abandoning our treaty obligations | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From you advocating for just repealing the act of parliament and abandoning our treaty obligations "PMSL | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unilaterally repealing the 1972 act is constitutional and an option. I don't think it's sensible and I've not heard of anybody advocating it as a sensible option, but it is legal and documented on the bbc as a possible option. Isn't it funny, you even show him a way out where he can save face, but does he take it? Nah, its like watching a child have a temper tantrum. a way out of what and save face from what? From you advocating for just repealing the act of parliament and abandoning our treaty obligations "He specifically said he wasn't advocating it. He said it is an option which it is. But, why do you say it is unconstitutional? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's fine CandM, maybe we just got the wrong end of the stick. You can clear it up by saying that ignoring the Lisbon treaty and not triggering article 50, but just repealing the European Communities Act, is an absolutely terrible idea, is unconstitutional, and should in no way be considered as an option. Then we can clear up this whole misunderstanding. How does that sound? If you knew what you were talking about you would know that it is being repealed next year anyway under the Great Repeal Bill" I think the whole point that that would happen *after* Article 50 has been triggered. I mean, even the Leave Alliance don't think that you can simply repeal the 1972 act: (not sure I post link to it, but just Google "Repealing the European Communities Act is not an option"). quoting in part: "Of these, there are few more irresponsible that the misguided notion that the UK could “simply” amend the 1972 European Communities Act to end its political union with the EU. To be clear, an Article 50 notification is the only legal and viable means of leaving the European Union and it is the only method which obliges the EU to negotiate a settlement. " "Crucially, repeal of the 1972 Act would be a venture of domestic law only. Our treaty obligations would remain intact, thus failure to live up to them would be actionable." -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unilaterally repealing the 1972 act is constitutional and an option. I don't think it's sensible and I've not heard of anybody advocating it as a sensible option, but it is legal and documented on the bbc as a possible option. Isn't it funny, you even show him a way out where he can save face, but does he take it? Nah, its like watching a child have a temper tantrum. a way out of what and save face from what? From you advocating for just repealing the act of parliament and abandoning our treaty obligations
He specifically said he wasn't advocating it. He said it is an option which it is.
But, why do you say it is unconstitutional? "Because honouring our international treaty obligations is a constitutional convention | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unilaterally repealing the 1972 act is constitutional and an option. I don't think it's sensible and I've not heard of anybody advocating it as a sensible option, but it is legal and documented on the bbc as a possible option. Because honouring our international treaty obligations is a constitutional convention" Ok, so actually, it's convention, not unconstitutional. So the point is correct, it's constitutional and an option, but not advocated by anybody on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unilaterally repealing the 1972 act is constitutional and an option. I don't think it's sensible and I've not heard of anybody advocating it as a sensible option, but it is legal and documented on the bbc as a possible option. Because honouring our international treaty obligations is a constitutional convention Ok, so actually, it's convention, not unconstitutional. So the point is correct, it's constitutional and an option, but not advocated by anybody on here." Thank you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unilaterally repealing the 1972 act is constitutional and an option. I don't think it's sensible and I've not heard of anybody advocating it as a sensible option, but it is legal and documented on the bbc as a possible option. Because honouring our international treaty obligations is a constitutional convention Ok, so actually, it's convention, not unconstitutional. So the point is correct, it's constitutional and an option, but not advocated by anybody on here." The UK constitution is in part made up of convention, so I would argue that that makes it unconstitutional. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unilaterally repealing the 1972 act is constitutional and an option. I don't think it's sensible and I've not heard of anybody advocating it as a sensible option, but it is legal and documented on the bbc as a possible option. Because honouring our international treaty obligations is a constitutional convention Ok, so actually, it's convention, not unconstitutional. So the point is correct, it's constitutional and an option, but not advocated by anybody on here. The UK constitution is in part made up of convention, so I would argue that that makes it unconstitutional. " I'm sure you would argue anything to the death regardless of how trivial, rather than ever concede any tiny point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unilaterally repealing the 1972 act is constitutional and an option. I don't think it's sensible and I've not heard of anybody advocating it as a sensible option, but it is legal and documented on the bbc as a possible option. Because honouring our international treaty obligations is a constitutional convention Ok, so actually, it's convention, not unconstitutional. So the point is correct, it's constitutional and an option, but not advocated by anybody on here. The UK constitution is in part made up of convention, so I would argue that that makes it unconstitutional. I'm sure you would argue anything to the death regardless of how trivial, rather than ever concede any tiny point."  why do you think it is constitutional to ignore our treaty obligations? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" why do you think it is constitutional to ignore our treaty obligations?"The discussion is repealing the act, not simply ignoring the treaty. You are saying it is unconstitutional to repeal the act. How so? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So its not an option then is it? are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it? Ok, its an option like "fuck it lets just nuke Brussels" is an option, but it's an unconstitutional option. " But as you say the pm can take us to war so it would be perfectly ok according to you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So its not an option then is it? are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it? Ok, its an option like "fuck it lets just nuke Brussels" is an option, but it's an unconstitutional option. But as you say the pm can take us to war so it would be perfectly ok according to you "Well there is legally possible, and what's realistic or practical or sensible. I wouldn't suggest that nuking Belgium is a good way to go. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" why do you think it is constitutional to ignore our treaty obligations?
The discussion is repealing the act, not simply ignoring the treaty.
You are saying it is unconstitutional to repeal the act. How so?"Parliament can repeal the act, constitutionally, after we have triggered article 50, and concluded our negotiations or the 2 years have run out. I'm saying that we can't just repeal the act and be done with it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So its not an option then is it? are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it? Ok, its an option like "fuck it lets just nuke Brussels" is an option, but it's an unconstitutional option. But as you say the pm can take us to war so it would be perfectly ok according to you
Well there is legally possible, and what's realistic or practical or sensible. I wouldn't suggest that nuking Belgium is a good way to go. "But you are advocating it in the same way as you accused C&M of advocating just leaving by repealing the 1972 act . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So its not an option then is it? are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it? Ok, its an option like "fuck it lets just nuke Brussels" is an option, but it's an unconstitutional option. But as you say the pm can take us to war so it would be perfectly ok according to you
Well there is legally possible, and what's realistic or practical or sensible. I wouldn't suggest that nuking Belgium is a good way to go.
But you are advocating it in the same way as you accused C&M of advocating just leaving by repealing the 1972 act .
"No I'm not advocating it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" why do you think it is constitutional to ignore our treaty obligations?
The discussion is repealing the act, not simply ignoring the treaty.
You are saying it is unconstitutional to repeal the act. How so?
Parliament can repeal the act, constitutionally, after we have triggered article 50, and concluded our negotiations or the 2 years have run out.
I'm saying that we can't just repeal the act and be done with it."Do you mean in the British or EU constitution? Because that doesn't make sense, in so far as one government could enter a treaty that had terms that were 'impossible' to leave by a following government. It is constitutional to repeal an act and end a treaty. It's not the best way forward but it can be done. I don't get the obsession with saying it is illegal in UK law to do that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" why do you think it is constitutional to ignore our treaty obligations?
The discussion is repealing the act, not simply ignoring the treaty.
You are saying it is unconstitutional to repeal the act. How so?
Parliament can repeal the act, constitutionally, after we have triggered article 50, and concluded our negotiations or the 2 years have run out.
I'm saying that we can't just repeal the act and be done with it.
Do you mean in the British or EU constitution?
Because that doesn't make sense, in so far as one government could enter a treaty that had terms that were 'impossible' to leave by a following government.
It is constitutional to repeal an act and end a treaty.
It's not the best way forward but it can be done. I don't get the obsession with saying it is illegal in UK law to do that."The UK constitution. Parliament is supreme, and anything done by government or parliament can be undone by parliament. But there are right ways of doing it, and wrong ways of doing it. Article 50 first, then once that's concluded repealing the Act is fine. But if you just repealed the Act, then you wouldn't be fulfilling the obligations that you agreed to when we signed the Lisbon treaty. So it's just the sequencing that I'm talking about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" why do you think it is constitutional to ignore our treaty obligations?
The discussion is repealing the act, not simply ignoring the treaty.
You are saying it is unconstitutional to repeal the act. How so?
Parliament can repeal the act, constitutionally, after we have triggered article 50, and concluded our negotiations or the 2 years have run out.
I'm saying that we can't just repeal the act and be done with it.
Do you mean in the British or EU constitution?
Because that doesn't make sense, in so far as one government could enter a treaty that had terms that were 'impossible' to leave by a following government.
It is constitutional to repeal an act and end a treaty.
It's not the best way forward but it can be done. I don't get the obsession with saying it is illegal in UK law to do that.
The UK constitution.
Parliament is supreme, and anything done by government or parliament can be undone by parliament. But there are right ways of doing it, and wrong ways of doing it.
Article 50 first, then once that's concluded repealing the Act is fine. But if you just repealed the Act, then you wouldn't be fulfilling the obligations that you agreed to when we signed the Lisbon treaty.
So it's just the sequencing that I'm talking about."Yes, we agree the best sequence. But we can just repeal if we wish, within the UK constitution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" why do you think it is constitutional to ignore our treaty obligations?
The discussion is repealing the act, not simply ignoring the treaty.
You are saying it is unconstitutional to repeal the act. How so?
Parliament can repeal the act, constitutionally, after we have triggered article 50, and concluded our negotiations or the 2 years have run out.
I'm saying that we can't just repeal the act and be done with it.
Do you mean in the British or EU constitution?
Because that doesn't make sense, in so far as one government could enter a treaty that had terms that were 'impossible' to leave by a following government.
It is constitutional to repeal an act and end a treaty.
It's not the best way forward but it can be done. I don't get the obsession with saying it is illegal in UK law to do that.
The UK constitution.
Parliament is supreme, and anything done by government or parliament can be undone by parliament. But there are right ways of doing it, and wrong ways of doing it.
Article 50 first, then once that's concluded repealing the Act is fine. But if you just repealed the Act, then you wouldn't be fulfilling the obligations that you agreed to when we signed the Lisbon treaty.
So it's just the sequencing that I'm talking about.
Yes, we agree the best sequence. But we can just repeal if we wish, within the UK constitution."But then we wouldn't be keeping to the obligations that we agreed to in the treaty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But then we wouldn't be keeping to the obligations that we agreed to in the treaty." Maybe not, but it is allowed by UK constitution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But then we wouldn't be keeping to the obligations that we agreed to in the treaty. Maybe not, but it is allowed by UK constitution." Which part? Where does it say that we don't need to keep to our treaty obligations? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But then we wouldn't be keeping to the obligations that we agreed to in the treaty. Maybe not, but it is allowed by UK constitution. Which part? Where does it say that we don't need to keep to our treaty obligations?" You'll be wanting a link to the constitution ? Look, we can repeal the 1972 act if we wish. It isn't the correct way in terms of international relations in any shape or form. But it can be done if we wanted to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But then we wouldn't be keeping to the obligations that we agreed to in the treaty. Maybe not, but it is allowed by UK constitution. Which part? Where does it say that we don't need to keep to our treaty obligations? You'll be wanting a link to the constitution ? Look, we can repeal the 1972 act if we wish. It isn't the correct way in terms of international relations in any shape or form. But it can be done if we wanted to." need a brick wall? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But then we wouldn't be keeping to the obligations that we agreed to in the treaty. Maybe not, but it is allowed by UK constitution. Which part? Where does it say that we don't need to keep to our treaty obligations? You'll be wanting a link to the constitution ? Look, we can repeal the 1972 act if we wish. It isn't the correct way in terms of international relations in any shape or form. But it can be done if we wanted to." I don't need the link, just tell me which act, or which chapter of Erskine May etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So its not an option then is it? are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it? Ok, its an option like "fuck it lets just nuke Brussels" is an option, but it's an unconstitutional option. But as you say the pm can take us to war so it would be perfectly ok according to you
Well there is legally possible, and what's realistic or practical or sensible. I wouldn't suggest that nuking Belgium is a good way to go.
But you are advocating it in the same way as you accused C&M of advocating just leaving by repealing the 1972 act .
No I'm not advocating it. "If you apply the same logic you did to C&M you are, he said there was a option to do something you said by mentioning it he was advocating that option well you said nuking brussels was an option so therefore you have been caught out again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't need the link, just tell me which act, or which chapter of Erskine May etc." This was debated in the commons and Lords and was rejected on the grounds that it was against EU law and international treaty law, not because it was against UK law/constitution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't need the link, just tell me which act, or which chapter of Erskine May etc. This was debated in the commons and Lords and was rejected on the grounds that it was against EU law and international treaty law, not because it was against UK law/constitution." So you can't actually say which part of the constitution supports your arguement, but you are sure it says it somewhere? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But then we wouldn't be keeping to the obligations that we agreed to in the treaty. Maybe not, but it is allowed by UK constitution. Which part? Where does it say that we don't need to keep to our treaty obligations? You'll be wanting a link to the constitution ? Look, we can repeal the 1972 act if we wish. It isn't the correct way in terms of international relations in any shape or form. But it can be done if we wanted to. I don't need the link, just tell me which act, or which chapter of Erskine May etc." If France can abandon their treaty obligations in terms of the Treaty of Le Touquet (border control between Dover and Calais) which you and other Remainers have repeatedly said on here they could, then Britain can also abandon it's treaty obligations. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and it is an option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not in the UK at the moment but just picked up a couple social media snippets stating that the new UKIP policy is for an immediate Brexit and ignoring any need to invoke A50. Is this true?" So is it official Ukip policy or is this from the rumour mill from a couple of vague posts you saw on Twitter or Facebook? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't need the link, just tell me which act, or which chapter of Erskine May etc. This was debated in the commons and Lords and was rejected on the grounds that it was against EU law and international treaty law, not because it was against UK law/constitution. So you can't actually say which part of the constitution supports your arguement, but you are sure it says it somewhere?" No I don't I'm sure you've got a copy of the constitution to hand though. But since the Commons and Lords examined the option and determined it was only contrary to EU law, I'll just go with that. Anyway it's a ridiculous conversation, as nobody even wants to do it, eben though it is legitamte within UK law. We are leaving by triggering 'Fuck 50' , we'll negotiate for up to 2 years then be free. That's all we need to know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's fine CandM, maybe we just got the wrong end of the stick. You can clear it up by saying that ignoring the Lisbon treaty and not triggering article 50, but just repealing the European Communities Act, is an absolutely terrible idea, is unconstitutional, and should in no way be considered as an option. Then we can clear up this whole misunderstanding. How does that sound? " The same Lisbon treaty that the Labour party promised the British people a referendum on before signing it, and then they completely ignored the British people and just went and signed it anyway without a referendum. As the British people were ignored before the signing of the Lisbon treaty then the British people reserve the right to ignore the obligations of the Lisbon treaty because the people were never asked their opinion on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But then we wouldn't be keeping to the obligations that we agreed to in the treaty. Maybe not, but it is allowed by UK constitution. Which part? Where does it say that we don't need to keep to our treaty obligations? You'll be wanting a link to the constitution ? Look, we can repeal the 1972 act if we wish. It isn't the correct way in terms of international relations in any shape or form. But it can be done if we wanted to. I don't need the link, just tell me which act, or which chapter of Erskine May etc. If France can abandon their treaty obligations in terms of the Treaty of Le Touquet (border control between Dover and Calais) which you and other Remainers have repeatedly said on here they could, then Britain can also abandon it's treaty obligations. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and it is an option. " They can't abandon it at the drop of a hat; But either side can choose to terminate it at will, with 2 years' notice. That's what is written into the Treaty. Not forgetting that it's linked to the Eurotunnel and Eurostar protocols ( to which Belgium is also a signatory. ) I can't recall offhand if the 2 years applies to that too; I believe it does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But then we wouldn't be keeping to the obligations that we agreed to in the treaty. Maybe not, but it is allowed by UK constitution. Which part? Where does it say that we don't need to keep to our treaty obligations? You'll be wanting a link to the constitution ? Look, we can repeal the 1972 act if we wish. It isn't the correct way in terms of international relations in any shape or form. But it can be done if we wanted to." It doesn't seem as though pro Brexit politicians are particularly concerned with making Brexit legally watertight | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It doesn't seem as though pro Brexit politicians are particularly concerned with making Brexit legally watertight " No, but they need to when individuals will use any means possible to override democracy and get their own way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It doesn't seem as though pro Brexit politicians are particularly concerned with making Brexit legally watertight No, but they need to when individuals will use any means possible to override democracy and get their own way." Right. But just because Teresa May wants to override democracy and get her own way doesn't mean that we just have to shut up and accept it. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It doesn't seem as though pro Brexit politicians are particularly concerned with making Brexit legally watertight No, but they need to when individuals will use any means possible to override democracy and get their own way. Right. But just because Teresa May wants to override democracy and get her own way doesn't mean that we just have to shut up and accept it. -Matt" Yes , two aspects. 1. Many will use any means possible to prevent or indeffinately delay the process. Wrong and undemocratic. So stop the blocking tactics. 2. Others want to start the process unilaterally. So put a simple Bill to Parliament to trigger A50. Everybodies happy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not in the UK at the moment but just picked up a couple social media snippets stating that the new UKIP policy is for an immediate Brexit and ignoring any need to invoke A50. Is this true?" How many MPs do UKIP have? They really don't have any clout. Who the feck gives a fook what they think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that most people who voted to leave assumed we would just leave ! " Are you calling Leave voters uninformed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that most people who voted to leave assumed we would just leave ! Are you calling Leave voters uninformed? " no, that is the remainers. Remind us what a reformed EU means again? we just assumed that the rest of the country were fair decent people who would accept democracy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that most people who voted to leave assumed we would just leave ! Are you calling Leave voters uninformed? no, that is the remainers. Remind us what a reformed EU means again? we just assumed that the rest of the country were fair decent people who would accept democracy" Always the problem. Remainers say "But what did the Leavers mean?" They never define what the Remainers meant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that most people who voted to leave assumed we would just leave ! Are you calling Leave voters uninformed? " In all honesty I think plenty of people on both sides wernt totally sure what everything meant . But that's the sand in a general Election as well ! Both campaigns were poor ! It didn't bother me as I new I wNted to vote out and why ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that most people who voted to leave assumed we would just leave ! Are you calling Leave voters uninformed? In all honesty I think plenty of people on both sides wernt totally sure what everything meant . But that's the sand in a general Election as well ! Both campaigns were poor ! It didn't bother me as I new I wNted to vote out and why !" Too many thickos in the population. I think it would be much better if I got to pick who gets to vote and who doesn't.
(that is a joke, you know I love you all, my fabby forum friends!) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that most people who voted to leave assumed we would just leave ! Are you calling Leave voters uninformed? In all honesty I think plenty of people on both sides wernt totally sure what everything meant . But that's the sand in a general Election as well ! Both campaigns were poor ! It didn't bother me as I new I wNted to vote out and why ! Too many thickos in the population. I think it would be much better if I got to pick who gets to vote and who doesn't.
(that is a joke, you know I love you all, my fabby forum friends!) "I agree  you can pick for the left
An il pick for the right as long as they are from Yorkshire lol  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Too many thickos in the population. I think it would be much better if I got to pick who gets to vote and who doesn't.
(that is a joke, you know I love you all, my fabby forum friends!) "Actually, I believe this is your true preferred option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"who is fucking advocating it? You. Do you just imterpret words to suit your mindset?? No, I think that maybe you need to buy a dictionary (or use a free online one) and learn how to use it, before questioning others use of English (it may save you looking like a semi literate tit). Definition of advocate: 'verb (used with object), advocated, advocating. 1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly. When you posted: This has been a well known option from the start, the government just has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 You became an advocate of the suggestion. When you subsequently posted: are you pissed or what? Of course its an option, always has been. Does that mean I advocate it? you became a serial advocate who is denying their advocacy. Now would you like to guess what that makes you? (You may want to consult a thesaurus before answering this question.)" Hahaha class lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, its an option like "fuck it lets just nuke Brussels" is an option, but it's an unconstitutional option. " Ah, at least nuking Brussels isn't a constitutional issue, doesn't require the consent of parliament and needs no Article 50 activation. Unlike Brexit, we have plans (surely to gods not actual targetting details though!) for nuking, a system that works, is practiced and that the PM can actually order. It also has similar effects post nuke as post Brexit, namely the country's coninued existence would be in some doubt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, its an option like "fuck it lets just nuke Brussels" is an option, but it's an unconstitutional option. Ah, at least nuking Brussels isn't a constitutional issue, doesn't require the consent of parliament and needs no Article 50 activation. Unlike Brexit, we have plans (surely to gods not actual targetting details though!) for nuking, a system that works, is practiced and that the PM can actually order. It also has similar effects post nuke as post Brexit, namely the country's coninued existence would be in some doubt." Are you worried about Belgium nuking us back? I think we'll be ok | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, its an option like "fuck it lets just nuke Brussels" is an option, but it's an unconstitutional option. Ah, at least nuking Brussels isn't a constitutional issue, doesn't require the consent of parliament and needs no Article 50 activation. Unlike Brexit, we have plans (surely to gods not actual targetting details though!) for nuking, a system that works, is practiced and that the PM can actually order. It also has similar effects post nuke as post Brexit, namely the country's coninued existence would be in some doubt. Are you worried about Belgium nuking us back? I think we'll be ok "You never know what those unelected bureaurcrats have hidden! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not in the UK at the moment but just picked up a couple social media snippets stating that the new UKIP policy is for an immediate Brexit and ignoring any need to invoke A50. Is this true?" No not true,what they say is to get on with it,no need for delay | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It doesn't seem as though pro Brexit politicians are particularly concerned with making Brexit legally watertight No, but they need to when individuals will use any means possible to override democracy and get their own way. Right. But just because Teresa May wants to override democracy and get her own way doesn't mean that we just have to shut up and accept it. -Matt" Theresa May is not trying to over ride democracy, Leave won the referendum and she is trying the implement the result. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It doesn't seem as though pro Brexit politicians are particularly concerned with making Brexit legally watertight No, but they need to when individuals will use any means possible to override democracy and get their own way. Right. But just because Teresa May wants to override democracy and get her own way doesn't mean that we just have to shut up and accept it. -Matt Theresa May is not trying to over ride democracy, Leave won the referendum and she is trying the implement the result. " Why doesn't she try to do it legally though? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It doesn't seem as though pro Brexit politicians are particularly concerned with making Brexit legally watertight No, but they need to when individuals will use any means possible to override democracy and get their own way. Right. But just because Teresa May wants to override democracy and get her own way doesn't mean that we just have to shut up and accept it. -Matt Theresa May is not trying to over ride democracy, Leave won the referendum and she is trying to implement the result. Why doesn't she try to do it legally though? " Leave won the referendum so she was going to do it by royal perogative (she still may do it that way if the government wins it's appeal at the Supreme court, and then it will be legal). If not then it will go through a vote in Parliament. The end result will still be the same either way, which is Britain leaves the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
