| The Comments |
I didn't suggest that all abstainers should be treated as Remainers. But, like it or not Destry and tteedd only 37% of the electorate voted to leave. A little over one in three. That is the fact.
If the PM did not want this to end up in Court she should have put the matter in front of Parliament...that is what democracy is all about. A party having the majority does not get the unfettered right to make decisions and laws and curtail peoples rights without doing that. Maybe you would be happier in North Korea.
The Supreme Court will rule the same and I will bet my Pension on that if anyone wants to step up to the plate with a big wad of cash.
It was an advisory referendum. It it not a law. It is not an Act of Parliament and the idea that the PM can use Royal Perogative was never going to fly. As I said, I would expect MP's to accept the will of the people that elected them, but they are also accountable to those people whether they voted in, out or not at all, to be sure that it is in the best interest of the Country in their personal opinion. They cannot do that if they don't know what Brexit means.
If the PM was happy with the decision she would not be taking it to the Supreme Court. If she was so sure that it would pass Parliament on a substantive motion she would not be taking it to the Supreme Court. If anyone in the Country knew what she was doing then we would all know by now. Brexit is Brexit and not providing a running commentary is never going to work. But then again there are those poor souls who are told to shut and wait and are prepared to do so.
The will of the people is as clear as mud on the issue of Brexit. The majority who voted, voted to give advice to the Government to Leave the EU. Not how, not when, nada. Just they wanted out and they want out so badly they are prepared to give up the Soverienty of Parliament to do it which is 100% against why they claim they want to be out in the first place.
Obfuscate means to confuse or to be evasive, unclear, or confusing. There is nothing unclear or confusing about my statements. We don't know where we are going, how to get there or what we want when we get there so we should stop and think. Why do Leavers get so worried about that?
I agree there was no plan for either outcome of the Referendum. That is a valid criticism of David C. But it does not change the fact that we are in the same position now. Delay damages the economy, the wrong choices will destroy it. This was explained to Leavers but they just don't or want to accept it. Lifetime decisions should not be made in secret or in haste.
2
Like
|
Rob-j1
You said the following
So far do you want to disregard the good work of everyday folks, that you want to throw that all in the rubbish bin, and instead focus on the bogeyman of "social cohesion".
Are you so intent to run the country down, and its enormous strides in overcoming the GFC, such is the depth of your apparent hatred of immigrants in your frequent posting on "social cohesion"?
I will answer directly.
No I certainly do not disregard progress but point to economic analyses that appear to question the premises made, that do not take Govt debt into consideration where required, or have missing data or have not been sufficiently robust in their analyses when drawing their conclusions. By doing so are you suggesting that is disloyal in some way? Is it not necessary to review all economic data before reaching conclusions? I agree with you that the GFC was at the hands of bankers and greedy Govt, but that is surely even more reason to require good ongoing independent analyses with adequate provision of relevant data.
In no way do I have hatred of immigrants and I take great exception to your comment and wrong interpretations in this regard.
My concerns re social cohesion are with regard to the EU bureaucrats, who through their ongoing intransigence and unwillingness to reflect upon growing insecurities and all manner of data and statistics with regard to the impact of SWIFT, UNCONTROLLED,and UNPLANNED economic migration on members states, without any willingness to provide flexibility where required in the form of EFFECTIVE transient controls in the interim, with inadequate focus and strategy to review and address the causes of swift economic migration re mass unemployment and the impact from wide wage differentials across member states, etc, the apparent failure to review strategies to encourage growth, etc, appear, in that process and through their policies, to be placing social cohesion at risk in Europe and exacerbating the problems.
1
Like
|
Tteedd
Given the recent background of the three Judges involved it is absolutely imperative that the result is appealed against.
What do you mean by this? I've read the reasons given by the judges, and they came to a unanimous conclusion.
Are you in any way suggesting that they have deliberately broken the law to arrive at a position that somehow suits them personally?
Who would you rather believe; the court, or a bunch of incompetent, turncoat, lying, thieving politicians who, if they arent kissing babies, they're stealing the candy?
1
Like
|
Ads
Current public debates often associate increasing ethnic diversity resulting from immigration with the erosion of social cohesion. Research suggests that issues of deprivation, disadvantage and long-term marginalisation, unrelated to immigration, must also be considered – as well as how people relate to each other – to ensure social cohesion.
1
Like
|
Perrypower, in terms of how people relate to one another, this has been one of the great positives to integration and tolerance within the UK over the years, and why many voters expressed their concern in the EU referendum vote by their understandable concerns as they perceived a growing and worrying intolerance in their neighbourhoods, due primarily to the failure by Govt and EU to adequately respond to pressures caused by swift and uncontrolled immigration.
As for deprivation, disadvantage and long-term marginalisation, these factors have sadly been accentuated in several regions of the UK, in areas where unskilled labour was most prevelent, and exacerbated by these same failures to adequately resource and repond to the changing circumstances from economic migration which were seen as beyond their own personal control....hence their call for greater controls (and more resource to make greater provision for housing, education, health, police to cope with increasing crime, prison provision again exacerbated by a large growth in EU prison inmates etc).
The fact that this came at a time that the UK was gradually recovering from the financial crisis, where many in deprived areas of the UK had been exposed to cutbacks/austerity (which was supposed to have diminshed the UK debt), rent rises due to under supply/increasing demand, and endeavours to encourage / incentivise dependent benefit claimants back to work, together with what they perceived as economic immigrants taking up in-work benefits whilst exacerbating the housing crisis, with downward impact on wages (due to wage differentials), proliferation of zero hours contacts that challenged their working conditions, etc, the impact on their schools, health system, infrastructure etc as has already been identified to date..... all of these factors that Govt AND the EU should have been taking into account during the years of swift and growing EU migration, have sadly started to impact cohesion in the UK, and IMHO should be swiftly addressed.
This message was last edited by ads on 04/11/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 04/11/2016.
0
Like
|
To ensure cohesion, the impact of social and economic changes needs to be addressed as well as how people relate to each other. The limited opportunities and multiple deprivations of the long-term settled population in parts of UK towns and cities undermine social cohesion. These fundamental issues of deprivation, disadvantage and discrimination impact on both majority ethnic and minority ethnic settled residents. A restructuring of the housing debate away from arguments about need and entitlement to a focus on the provision of adequate housing for all would be beneficial for social cohesion.
A key factor influencing whether new immigrants are accepted is the view about who belongs there. The idea that we need a fixed notion of Britishness and British values. Rather, 'cohesion' is about negotiating the right balance between separateness and commonality. What most people welcome is the opportunity to meet residents in their area at social occasions or cultural events, and to be able to exercise the choice of, selectively, getting to know people better. In addressing relations between people it is necessary to enable and support both expressions of difference and of unity. Both are opportunities for people to learn about each other and relate to each other.
2
Like
|
Agreed Perrypower, but in the UK these factors re provision of adequate housing, limited opportunities, deprivation etc are already being called for by ethnic minorities and others alike, and many of those exposed to these factors are equally concerned by the impact of swift and unplanned uncontrolled growth of immigration on the ability to achieve progress in this regard.
As for " What most people welcome is the opportunity to meet residents in their area at social occasions or cultural events, and to be able to exercise the choice of, selectively, getting to know people better. " there has already been encouragement and recent debate in the UK to better address these opportunities so hopefully this is already being reviewed.
This message was last edited by ads on 04/11/2016.
1
Like
|
As this is the Brexit thread the question has to be whether the cause is EU freedom of movement or non EU. People don't come from the EU to the UK to go in benefits. They come for work and they find it. Businesses in UK rely on that. Targeting migrants is just a scape goat for those that can't find work. But are UK unemployed really prepared or even capable of taking the jobs that EU migrants take.
Somewhere we have let the unemployed and unemployable UK citizens down. But pointing at immigration is just to simplistic. We rarely accept our own failings and it is easy to blame someone else especially people who are readily identifiable as different. Before it was EU migrants it was someone else. Like young single moms.
Ads you and I are not miles apart on this we just seem to be pointing the finger at different groups. Whether we like it or not the UK is a welfare state to which there is no simple fix. Like a fish net it catches all the fish not just the ones we want. My solution is to better educate and prepare the next generation of UK citizens and enforce (I know that word is harsh) a stronger work ethic on them. Take responsibility for themselves. But affirmative action to employ the UK unemployed before reaching outside (EU or otherwise) is probably also a good idea. I feel that we should have been fighting harder within the EU to get that principle in place. A country's nationals should come before an equally qualified EU citizen. I am not sure how this would work in practice. But if no one from the UK will take on the job then business should not be hindered in hiring from the EU.
ads your comments on this subject are very well thought out in my opinion.
1
Like
|
I understood the main argument concerning migration from the EU member states to the UK to be:
a city the size of Liverpool is coming into us every year (or was it Cardiff)
the Eastern European citizens will fill our hospitals, doctors and other public services through the net migration.
We will have to build a house every four or five minutes for many years just to cope with standing still
our jobs will be affected in the uk by migrant workers working for lower wages
how much of this then can be substantiated by facts, because these claims (to my mind) were the scary reasons most people voted out.
_______________________
Best wishes, Brian
1
Like
|
Three stooges.
It is not a matter of breaking the law it is a matter of interpreting the law, which in itself is very sparse as we do not have a written constitution. It is not what I am saying, the charge in the press is that they have interpreted the law in line with thier personal preferences.
If they could not keep their personal views out of it and act impartionally then they should have excused themself from the duty. Presumably they will only have to answer to this charge if the supreme court finds differently. But certainly if I had the background of Lord Justice Thomas I would have felt that this should have excused me from sitting.
Nor is it a matter of belief. Sadly I beleive that public morals and standards are not what they used to be, whatever the truth in this case.
If I were the government I would go ahead and ask parliament to sanction initiatlng article 50 whatever the guidance from the courts. I would guillotine the reading to ensure no further time was wasted. Once parliament had passed the act it would become the law. I do not think any democrat could vote against, however, if the act was not passed then I would call an early general election.
If you want my opinion then I would say that the people are supreme and have spoken and it was not a matter for interpretation by the judges in the first place. Or at least there is only one interpretation available.
This message was last edited by tteedd on 04/11/2016.
1
Like
|
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
2
Like
|
Maybe you would be happier in North Korea.
That is just turning everything on its backside (but why should I be surprised - that's what you do all the time). It is you who wants to igonore the democratic decision of the people. Had the votes been cast for a party in a general election they would have been given a massive majority in parliament and could have passed any legislation they pleased be it in thier manefesto or not.
This vote was on a single issue and the result was clear and unambiguous.
2
Like
|
But it needs to be voted in by Parliament to become an Act of legislation, for it to be democratic. If you don't like the UK system well maybe you should immigrate.
1
Like
|
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Not even an argument.
1
Like
|
It didn't require an argument. It was like asking which is further, New York or a dill pickle.
1
Like
|
'Act of legislation, '
Never heard of one of those.
A Bill becomes an 'Act of Parliament' after it has been passed by both houses and received the royal assent.
This message was last edited by tteedd on 04/11/2016.
1
Like
|
tteedd,
Right or wrong, all that I would add is that the lawyers were never going to be happy until they got their snouts in the trough, and they could make it run and run.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
1
Like
|
Yes you are right tteedd, thank you.
1
Like
|
Tteedd
Three stooges.
It is not a matter of breaking the law it is a matter of interpreting the law, which in itself is very sparse as we do not have a written constitution. It is not what I am saying, the charge in the press is that they have interpreted the law in line with thier personal preferences.
If they could not keep their personal views out of it and act impartionally then they should have excused themself from the duty. Presumably they will only have to answer to this charge if the supreme court finds differently. But certainly if I had the background of Lord Justice Thomas I would have felt that this should have excused me from sitting.
Nor is it a matter of belief. Sadly I beleive that public morals and standards are not what they used to be, whatever the truth in this case.
If I were the government I would go ahead and ask parliament to sanction initiatlng article 50 whatever the guidance from the courts. I would guillotine the reading to ensure no further time was wasted. Once parliament had passed the act it would become the law. I do not think any democrat could vote against, however, if the act was not passed then I would call an early general election.
If you want my opinion then I would say that the people are supreme and have spoken and it was not a matter for interpretation by the judges in the first place. Or at least there is only one interpretation available.
Calling some highly respected individuals "Three stooges" just sounds like sour grapes from you.
The fact is, this was an advisory only, so a bunch of people didnt vote. I didnt even vote myself, because I thought, being an advisory, "who cares, its not important". I wonder how many other people thought this way? Would it have been enough to make a difference in an outcome with < 2% separating it?
You keep mentioning democracy, but in the scheme of things, we didnt have a full turnout, for something that wasnt supposed to be enforceable in the first instance (remember, advisory).
Now we have a situation where people (that includes YOU) were to have rights removed. That act of conferring those rights, and of removing them, have equal weight. You cant give something to someone through an Act, and then remove it "by stealth" (and I've deliberately put that in quotes, because what I mean is, it was being done WITHOUT a corresponding Act).
As you yourself have alluded to with your point on the constitution, we do not have a bill of rights. It is FOR THIS VERY REASON, that we need better oversight, and to prevent, potentially, any power-mad government, from inflicting unconstitutional change.
You want democracy, and yet you seem to want to throw out the checks and balances in the system when your pet project doesnt go your way, among also claiming the umpires are stooges. Thats a remarkable and breathtaking position for a supposed democrat.
This message was last edited by rob_j1 on 04/11/2016.
This message was last edited by rob_j1 on 04/11/2016.
1
Like
|
Again a lot of points of view with very little facts
In all honesty their are only a handful of people on here with views (very little facts)
Similar discussions are going on all over the country because nobody knows enough and many are clutching at straws
Even our elected representatives the leaders the lawyers the judges are all in a tizz
What a true mess all over and a split country more or less down the middle how long before it gets nasty
Sad sad times confusion guessing and rumours
The worst part of it which is clear from the handful on here it is becoming a pi****g contest of egos
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
0
Like
|