Brexit vote - Parliament votes overwhelmingly in favour of triggering article 50

by Tommy Monk Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:54 pm

MPs vote to trigger Article 50 by 498 to 114
SNP amendment rejected
Two Labour shadow cabinet ministers resign, more expected
Nine Labour frontbench MPs defy Jeremy Corbyn
The road to Britain's exit from the EU
Sketch: Is George Osborne over Brexit? Not quite yet ...
Boris Johnson said that “history has been made” after MPs voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday night in favour of triggering Brexit negotiations and beginning the process of leaving the EU.

The Foreign Secretary called it a “momentous” night as MPs voted four to one in favour of triggering Article 50. Kenneth Clarke, a former chancellor, was the only Tory MP to oppose it.

I’ve just voted three times in the House of Commons for an absolutely momentous thing – to give our Prime Minister the right to trigger Article 50 and Britain to begin the path out of the EU
Boris Johnson
Theresa May, the Prime Minister, will today publish a White Paper formally setting out the Government’s plans for Brexit in response to the concerns of pro-European Tory MPs.

However, there were further signs of division among the Conservatives as George Osborne, the former chancellor, accused Mrs May of putting Brexit ahead of the economy and warned he will join the “fight” over Britain’s future outside the EU.

Wednesday’s vote means the Government’s Brexit legislation has cleared its first hurdle and Mrs May is on course to trigger the process by her March deadline. There had been 14 and a half hours of debate and bitter clashes in Parliament over two days as nearly 100 MPs expressed their views about Brexit.

MPs finally voted in favour of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill by 498 votes to 114, with 47 Labour MPs, 50 SNP MPs and seven Liberal Democrats voting against.

It leaves Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, facing his third reshuffle in 18 months after 12 serving frontbenchers voted against it. Four members of his front bench team have already quit.

Mr Johnson said: “I’ve just voted three times in the House of Commons for an absolutely momentous thing – to give our Prime Minister the right to trigger Article 50 and Britain to begin the path out of the EU. Don’t forget we may be leaving the EU treaties but we are not leaving Europe.

“We are going to be making an amazingly positive contribution to our continent as we always have done and always will. But we are now able to forge a new identity with new free trade deals as global Britain.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/theresa-may-eu-bill-brexit-pmqs-live2/

Laughing

by veya_victaous Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:51 am

Great News for those cheering for the UKs destruction Twisted Evil

not me of course Cool

(now watch fido come running Razz

)

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:14 am

It's about time.

by nicko Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:24 am

We have a saying in England Veya, "all mouth and no trousers" fits you perfectly.

by veya_victaous Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:36 am

nicko wrote:We have a saying in England Veya, "all mouth and no trousers" fits you perfectly.

Ohh good boy here a smacko
Brexit vote - Parliament votes overwhelmingly in favour of triggering article 50 363046

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:23 am

Great news - we will be better out and it is a long time coming - Laughing

by Eilzel Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:17 am

Was anybody expecting a different result?

The only surprise was how much bitching came from the Brexiteers at the thought of letting the BRITISH judges and BRITISH parliament 'do their jobs'.

Brexiteers- pathetic even in victory...

by HoratioTarr Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:11 pm

Diane Abbott ill on the day of voting? She must have been cacking her pants. Hopefully, she'll now fade into oblivion.

by HoratioTarr Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:12 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Great News for those cheering for the UKs destruction

not me of course

(now watch fido come running )

Destruction? I doubt that. Things will be up and down and then settle. Watch the rest of Europe follow suit.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:17 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:Great News for those cheering for the UKs destruction

not me of course

(now watch fido come running )

Destruction? I doubt that. Things will be up and down and then settle. Watch the rest of Europe follow suit.

That is not very reassuring when nobody can actually predict what will happen.
Either it will be good, or it could very well damage the UK for decades to come, with a massive rise in employment, when we are already massively in debt

by HoratioTarr Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Great news - we will be better out and it is a long time coming -

I agree. The people of this country have been through tough times before, and we'll weather it again if it comes. The problem with most younger people is they can't remember a time they didn't have all the home comforts, a disposable society and an easy life.

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:38 pm

Eilzel wrote:Was anybody expecting a different result?

The only surprise was how much bitching came from the Brexiteers at the thought of letting the BRITISH judges and BRITISH parliament 'do their jobs'.

Brexiteers- pathetic even in victory...

It's been the remanians who have been constantly batching and moaning and fearmongering since July 23rd...

by Fred Moletrousers Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:39 pm

Eilzel wrote:Was anybody expecting a different result?

The only surprise was how much bitching came from the Brexiteers at the thought of letting the BRITISH judges and BRITISH parliament 'do their jobs'.

Brexiteers- pathetic even in victory...

Hello Lez

Well I certainly voted to leave the EU, but I deny that I'm either being either pathetic or bitching.

I was quite comfortable with both the hearing and result of the recent case heard by the Supreme Court - because the role of Parliament in this issue involves a point of law (several points, in fact) and the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the final arbiter on disputed points of law.

Its 11 permanent judges are those considered to be the foremost and best legal minds in the country, and their deliberations are conducted on far more democratic lines than many, if not most, European institutions because the bench always comprises odd numbers of judges, sitting as three, five, seven, nine or eleven. In the recent case the matter before them involved constitutional law, and they therefore sat as the entire bench.

I voted to leave because I have always strongly opposed the relentless and patently undemocratic progress towards "ever closer union" - in other words a de facto United States of Europe - in which citizens would not be able to elect, or indeed to hold accountable in any way, those who have the power to make binding decisions on the minutiae of practically every aspect of our lives.

We as citizens would have no say whatsoever in the appointment of the President of the future United States of Europe, or of its ridiculously named High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, or in the appointment or accountability of any member of the executive arm in the form of the Commission, a body which, as you know, rules largely under a system of Directives (simply another word for decrees) which cannot be challenged, and even less disobeyed, by democratically elected parliaments.

The European Parliament itself is simply a toothless talking shop, which tries to give the impression of being democratic but which in effect is so limited in its powers as to be pointless. It is, nonetheless, unbelievably expensive and disgracefully wasteful.
,
The whole facade is one of greed, profligacy and sheer corruption - for more than two decades its own Court of Auditors have refused to sign off the annual accounts citing fraud and corruption, and has been utterly ignored. The only whistle-blower who dared to draw attention to what is going on, a very senior auditor, was called in by an utterly useless trougher, British finance Commissioner Neil Kinnock, publicly humiliated...and sacked.

Had the result of the referendum gone the other way I would have at least accepted it in good grace. It is a shame that so many Remainers seem less inclined to do so.

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:41 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Great news - we will be better out and it is a long time coming -

I agree. The people of this country have been through tough times before, and we'll weather it again if it comes. The problem with most younger people is they can't remember a time they didn't have all the home comforts, a disposable society and an easy life.

They only know a time when our democracy had been stolen and we were subject to eu dictatorship and a completely barmy open door immigration system...

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:46 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Was anybody expecting a different result?

The only surprise was how much bitching came from the Brexiteers at the thought of letting the BRITISH judges and BRITISH parliament 'do their jobs'.

Brexiteers- pathetic even in victory...

Hello Lez

Well I certainly voted to leave the EU, but I deny that I'm either being either pathetic or bitching.

I was quite comfortable with both the hearing and result of the recent case heard by the Supreme Court - because the role of Parliament in this issue involves a point of law (several points, in fact) and the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the final arbiter on disputed points of law.

Its 11 permanent judges are those considered to be the foremost and best legal minds in the country, and their deliberations are conducted on far more democratic lines than many, if not most, European institutions because the bench always comprises odd numbers of judges, sitting as three, five, seven, nine or eleven. In the recent case the matter before them involved constitutional law, and they therefore sat as the entire bench.

I voted to leave because I have always strongly opposed the relentless and patently undemocratic progress towards "ever closer union" - in other words a de facto United States of Europe - in which citizens would not be able to elect, or indeed to hold accountable in any way, those who have the power to make binding decisions on the minutiae of practically every aspect of our lives.

We as citizens would have no say whatsoever in the appointment of the President of the future United States of Europe, or of its ridiculously named High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, or in the appointment or accountability of any member of the executive arm in the form of the Commission, a body which, as you know, rules largely under a system of Directives (simply another word for decrees) which cannot be challenged, and even less disobeyed, by democratically elected parliaments.

The European Parliament itself is simply a toothless talking shop, which tries to give the impression of being democratic but which in effect is so limited in its powers as to be pointless. It is, nonetheless, unbelievably expensive and disgracefully wasteful.
,
The whole facade is one of greed, profligacy and sheer corruption - for more than two decades its own Court of Auditors have refused to sign off the annual accounts citing fraud and corruption, and has been utterly ignored. The only whistle-blower who dared to draw attention to what is going on, a very senior auditor, was called in by an utterly useless trougher, British finance Commissioner Neil Kinnock, publicly humiliated...and sacked.

Had the result of the referendum gone the other way I would have at least accepted it in good grace. It is a shame that so many Remainers seem less inclined to do so.

Sorry but there is some glaring errors in your claims Me Lord
For one, the UK has never allowed prisoners to vote, even though the EU court of Human rights stipulates, it is unlawful.

Also I find the claims it is not Democratic very misleading and false

Here have a read

http://theconversation.com/how-democratic-is-the-european-union-59419

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:52 pm

On EU laws:

The British government has voted against EU laws 2% of the time since 1999

Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix. In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%. This is counting votes in the EU Council of Ministers, which passes most EU laws jointly with the European Parliament.

"Council of the European Union"

Where government ministers pass laws, generally agreed with the European Parliament. Entirely different from the "European Council" of government leaders, and from the "Council of Europe" which is not part of the EU at all.

The Vote Leave campaign has counted another 16 votes between 1996 and 1998 where it says the UK was on the losing side, to bring its total up to 72. We haven’t been able to check this figure but the general picture won’t change much whether the number is 56 or 72.
The bigger point is that the number of times the UK government “lost” doesn’t give us a full idea of what has happened.

Votes are only the tip of the iceberg

First, EU laws pass through several stages of negotiations in the Council and the European Parliament.

So the UK government’s ability to influence policies doesn’t only occur through voting—which is a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ situation—but also in negotiations over the actual text of a draft law.

Many accounts have shown that the UK diplomatic service has—at least historically—been very skilled in such negotiations over important laws.

Second, the records only relate to votes on proposed laws that eventually pass.

So we simply do not know how often the UK successfully opposed proposals, or failed to get things it wanted, as these are not mentioned in the official figures.

The UK has been in a losing minority more often over the past few years

In recent years the UK has been more often on the losing side of these votes.

Research by Dr Hagemann and Professor Hix shows that between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.

That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.

This doesn’t tell us about how important the decisions were, though. The UK might have been on the winning side on all the issues it really cared about.

Ministers aren’t the only British decision-makers in the EU

The UK is represented in the EU both by ministers in the Council and British Members of the directly elected European Parliament (MEPs).

It is relatively common for a UK government minister to vote ‘no’ to a measure that many British MEPs support.

In fact, on several occasions a minister has voted ‘No’ to a measure supported by a majority of British MEPs, including those from the minister’s own party. And on some occasions the UK government might oppose an EU law which is supported by the administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast.

Any defeats may have “significance” to somebody

As for the claim by Remain campaigners that significant UK defeats are hard to find, it is impossible to know what an “EU regulation of significance” is.

Different people find different kinds of law significant. Whether a particular vote is “significant” is a matter of judgement.

The 2003 regulation on genetically modified food was probably hugely significant for some farmers and consumers, but not necessarily the average voter.

Equally, when the UK is outvoted on budgetary matters, as it was several times in this period, one could argue that this has implications for all EU taxpayers, but would affect how much each UK taxpayer paid into the EU budget only slightly.

In fact, it is probably difficult to find any proposal on which a UK government minister was outvoted that was not significant for one group of UK citizens for some reason or another.

On the other hand, there will have been numerous occasions where the government supported rules that were disliked by some of its citizens.

In sum, it is correct that UK government ministers have sometimes been outvoted over EU laws, and the UK government has clearly voted ‘No’ on some issues that some sections of the British population think are important.

In terms of the total volume of laws passed, the proportion of times the UK government has been on the “losing side” is small at about 2% since 1999. In recent years the UK has been losing a lot more votes, and now loses a higher proportion of votes than other members.

*Sara Hagemann (2016) ‘Government decision records from the Council of the European Union 1999-2016, dataset v. March 2016’, London School of Economics and Political Science.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

by Eilzel Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:12 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Was anybody expecting a different result?

The only surprise was how much bitching came from the Brexiteers at the thought of letting the BRITISH judges and BRITISH parliament 'do their jobs'.

Brexiteers- pathetic even in victory...

Hello Lez

Well I certainly voted to leave the EU, but I deny that I'm either being either pathetic or bitching.

I was quite comfortable with both the hearing and result of the recent case heard by the Supreme Court - because the role of Parliament in this issue involves a point of law (several points, in fact) and the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the final arbiter on disputed points of law.

Its 11 permanent judges are those considered to be the foremost and best legal minds in the country, and their deliberations are conducted on far more democratic lines than many, if not most, European institutions because the bench always comprises odd numbers of judges, sitting as three, five, seven, nine or eleven. In the recent case the matter before them involved constitutional law, and they therefore sat as the entire bench.

I voted to leave because I have always strongly opposed the relentless and patently undemocratic progress towards "ever closer union" - in other words a de facto United States of Europe - in which citizens would not be able to elect, or indeed to hold accountable in any way, those who have the power to make binding decisions on the minutiae of practically every aspect of our lives.

We as citizens would have no say whatsoever in the appointment of the President of the future United States of Europe, or of its ridiculously named High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, or in the appointment or accountability of any member of the executive arm in the form of the Commission, a body which, as you know, rules largely under a system of Directives (simply another word for decrees) which cannot be challenged, and even less disobeyed, by democratically elected parliaments.

The European Parliament itself is simply a toothless talking shop, which tries to give the impression of being democratic but which in effect is so limited in its powers as to be pointless. It is, nonetheless, unbelievably expensive and disgracefully wasteful.
,
The whole facade is one of greed, profligacy and sheer corruption - for more than two decades its own Court of Auditors have refused to sign off the annual accounts citing fraud and corruption, and has been utterly ignored. The only whistle-blower who dared to draw attention to what is going on, a very senior auditor, was called in by an utterly useless trougher, British finance Commissioner Neil Kinnock, publicly humiliated...and sacked.

Had the result of the referendum gone the other way I would have at least accepted it in good grace. It is a shame that so many Remainers seem less inclined to do so.

Many remainers are genuinely concerned about the future of their nation.

While you may not have been bitching, many were. Whinging like frightened children about the possibility the judges or parliament might reverse Brexit by using the democratic power they are trusted with. Absurd, irrational concerns considering parliament showed no inclination of voting in such a way.

The EU argument is dead for the UK now, so I won't respond to the concerns you expressed there. My only interest is seeing how the separation us handled.

I accepted the result the moment it was announced, however much I wished it were otherwise.

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:14 pm

Nigel Farage telling it how it is this week... and a childish labour twat mep in the background trying to deny the truth...

https://youtu.be/v4gBZ3MYLUc

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:17 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Hello Lez

Well I certainly voted to leave the EU, but I deny that I'm either being either pathetic or bitching.

I was quite comfortable with both the hearing and result of the recent case heard by the Supreme Court - because the role of Parliament in this issue involves a point of law (several points, in fact) and the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the final arbiter on disputed points of law.

Its 11 permanent judges are those considered to be the foremost and best legal minds in the country, and their deliberations are conducted on far more democratic lines than many, if not most, European institutions because the bench always comprises odd numbers of judges, sitting as three, five, seven, nine or eleven. In the recent case the matter before them involved constitutional law, and they therefore sat as the entire bench.

I voted to leave because I have always strongly opposed the relentless and patently undemocratic progress towards "ever closer union" - in other words a de facto United States of Europe - in which citizens would not be able to elect, or indeed to hold accountable in any way, those who have the power to make binding decisions on the minutiae of practically every aspect of our lives.

We as citizens would have no say whatsoever in the appointment of the President of the future United States of Europe, or of its ridiculously named High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, or in the appointment or accountability of any member of the executive arm in the form of the Commission, a body which, as you know, rules largely under a system of Directives (simply another word for decrees) which cannot be challenged, and even less disobeyed, by democratically elected parliaments.

The European Parliament itself is simply a toothless talking shop, which tries to give the impression of being democratic but which in effect is so limited in its powers as to be pointless. It is, nonetheless, unbelievably expensive and disgracefully wasteful.
,
The whole facade is one of greed, profligacy and sheer corruption - for more than two decades its own Court of Auditors have refused to sign off the annual accounts citing fraud and corruption, and has been utterly ignored. The only whistle-blower who dared to draw attention to what is going on, a very senior auditor, was called in by an utterly useless trougher, British finance Commissioner Neil Kinnock, publicly humiliated...and sacked.

Had the result of the referendum gone the other way I would have at least accepted it in good grace. It is a shame that so many Remainers seem less inclined to do so.

Many remainers are genuinely concerned about the future of their nation.

While you may not have been bitching, many were. Whinging like frightened children about the possibility the judges or parliament might reverse Brexit by using the democratic power they are trusted with. Absurd, irrational concerns considering parliament showed no inclination of voting in such a way.

The EU argument is dead for the UK now, so I won't respond to the concerns you expressed there. My only interest is seeing how the separation us handled.

I accepted the result the moment it was announced, however much I wished it were otherwise.

If they were genuinely concerned about the uk then they would never support the theft of our democracy or the continuation of it by staying in the eu.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:19 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Hello Lez

Well I certainly voted to leave the EU, but I deny that I'm either being either pathetic or bitching.

I was quite comfortable with both the hearing and result of the recent case heard by the Supreme Court - because the role of Parliament in this issue involves a point of law (several points, in fact) and the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the final arbiter on disputed points of law.

Its 11 permanent judges are those considered to be the foremost and best legal minds in the country, and their deliberations are conducted on far more democratic lines than many, if not most, European institutions because the bench always comprises odd numbers of judges, sitting as three, five, seven, nine or eleven. In the recent case the matter before them involved constitutional law, and they therefore sat as the entire bench.

I voted to leave because I have always strongly opposed the relentless and patently undemocratic progress towards "ever closer union" - in other words a de facto United States of Europe - in which citizens would not be able to elect, or indeed to hold accountable in any way, those who have the power to make binding decisions on the minutiae of practically every aspect of our lives.

We as citizens would have no say whatsoever in the appointment of the President of the future United States of Europe, or of its ridiculously named High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, or in the appointment or accountability of any member of the executive arm in the form of the Commission, a body which, as you know, rules largely under a system of Directives (simply another word for decrees) which cannot be challenged, and even less disobeyed, by democratically elected parliaments.

The European Parliament itself is simply a toothless talking shop, which tries to give the impression of being democratic but which in effect is so limited in its powers as to be pointless. It is, nonetheless, unbelievably expensive and disgracefully wasteful.
,
The whole facade is one of greed, profligacy and sheer corruption - for more than two decades its own Court of Auditors have refused to sign off the annual accounts citing fraud and corruption, and has been utterly ignored. The only whistle-blower who dared to draw attention to what is going on, a very senior auditor, was called in by an utterly useless trougher, British finance Commissioner Neil Kinnock, publicly humiliated...and sacked.

Had the result of the referendum gone the other way I would have at least accepted it in good grace. It is a shame that so many Remainers seem less inclined to do so.

Many remainers are genuinely concerned about the future of their nation.

While you may not have been bitching, many were. Whinging like frightened children about the possibility the judges or parliament might reverse Brexit by using the democratic power they are trusted with. Absurd, irrational concerns considering parliament showed no inclination of voting in such a way.

The EU argument is dead for the UK now, so I won't respond to the concerns you expressed there. My only interest is seeing how the separation us handled.

I accepted the result the moment it was announced, however much I wished it were otherwise.

Your first point Eilzel would also be applicable to Brexiters. If remain would have won, many would have accepted the result, but would have still continually campaigned until there was another referendum in the hope that people would vote to leave. Just as we have seen where Scotland's Referendum failed. So claims that many are just whinging to me is unjustified, because many would have continually campaigned to leave the EU. Hence why I said, nothing is ever set in stone.

I accepted the result like you, but like you am concerned over the future and even more, that there seems to be no contingency plan, if everything goes tits up.

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:25 pm

WTF are you waffling on about still...?

First it was the 'no plan' waffle from the remoaners...?

Now it's the 'no contingency plan' nonsense...!?

We're leaving the eu!!!

We are returning complete democratic control over every aspect of our country to our parliament!!!

Trade will continue!!!

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

WTF are you waffling on about still...?

First it was the 'no plan' waffle from the remoaners...?

Now it's the 'no contingency plan' nonsense...!?

We're leaving the eu!!!

We are returning complete democratic control over every aspect of our country to our parliament!!!

Trade will continue!!!

Yes there needs to be a contingency, if the Uk loses many jobs, due to companies pulling out from the UK
I have always spoken in regards to contingencies. So no idea what planet you have been on.

Like I said, if the leave vote would have lost, are you telling me you would have given up on having a second referendum?

Of course not

Yes we are leaving and nobody can predict what is going to happen now.

I hope Tommy, you end up being right on this, because the last thing I think anyone wants is an economic disaster to befall the UK

The UK is less democratic than the EU, argued by some on the vote system you claim is more democratic funnily enough.

Clearly the EU structure has defects when assessed by the normal standards of Western democracy – but I would argue that the British parliament, with its unelected House of Lords and an unrepresentative House of Commons (in terms of the balance of political parties to votes cast), is even less democratic.

Eurosceptics have for a long time questioned the legitimacy of the EU – but that charge is difficult to sustain. Of course national parliaments have all agreed to pool sovereignty in the EU institutions, but they are entitled to do that and have done so with their eyes wide open. Many even asked their citizens to vote on the decision in a referendum.

What’s more, national governments, through the Council of Ministers, are still the most powerful collective influence in shaping EU decisions – not the European Parliament. They have the right to raise a yellow card about EU legislation, which can cause the Commission to change it.

And the EU is in the process of strengthening the ability of national parliaments to call a halt to EU legislation if they object to it.

So all in all, the EU is, or is at least working to be, a democratic organisation. It has its failings but national governments have just as many – if not more.

http://theconversation.com/how-democratic-is-the-european-union-59419

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:41 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Nigel Farage telling it how it is this week... and a childish labour twat mep in the background trying to deny the truth...

https://youtu.be/v4gBZ3MYLUc

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:42 pm

So not able to answer my points

Oh well, no problem.

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:43 pm

What points...?

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:45 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:What points...?

Brexit vote - Parliament votes overwhelmingly in favour of triggering article 50 E8e6f829_circular_argumentmid

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

I agree. The people of this country have been through tough times before, and we'll weather it again if it comes. The problem with most younger people is they can't remember a time they didn't have all the home comforts, a disposable society and an easy life.

They only know a time when our democracy had been stolen and we were subject to eu dictatorship and a completely barmy open door immigration system...

I agree there the young people are not used to hearing the word 'NO' this is a good lesson for them to learn that in life you win some you lose some , they lost and boy don't we known it lol.

Open door immigration was the biggest mistake and we're paying for that - hopefully that will change when our borders are fully controlled by us .

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:22 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Great news - we will be better out and it is a long time coming -

I agree. The people of this country have been through tough times before, and we'll weather it again if it comes. The problem with most younger people is they can't remember a time they didn't have all the home comforts, a disposable society and an easy life.

yes we will .

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:44 pm

Thorin wrote:So not able to answer my points

Oh well, no problem.

Dodge... the long and short of it is that while the uk is in the eu, we have no real democracy as we are subservient to eu rules, laws and directives...!

We are leaving the eu and putting our parliament back in charge of our country and them controlled by our people!!!

Demos kratos!!!

by Eilzel Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:51 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

I agree. The people of this country have been through tough times before, and we'll weather it again if it comes. The problem with most younger people is they can't remember a time they didn't have all the home comforts, a disposable society and an easy life.

They only know a time when our democracy had been stolen and we were subject to eu dictatorship and a completely barmy open door immigration system...

I agree there the young people are not used to hearing the word 'NO' this is a good lesson for them to learn that in life you win some you lose some , they lost and boy don't we known it lol.

Open door immigration was the biggest mistake and we're paying for that - hopefully that will change when our borders are fully controlled by us .

Don't worry, if/when it all goes tits up then our generations will never forget how your lots fucked us over forever due to your short sighted nationalist inclinations.

by Fred Moletrousers Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:20 pm

Thorin wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Hello Lez

Well I certainly voted to leave the EU, but I deny that I'm either being either pathetic or bitching.

I was quite comfortable with both the hearing and result of the recent case heard by the Supreme Court - because the role of Parliament in this issue involves a point of law (several points, in fact) and the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the final arbiter on disputed points of law.

Its 11 permanent judges are those considered to be the foremost and best legal minds in the country, and their deliberations are conducted on far more democratic lines than many, if not most, European institutions because the bench always comprises odd numbers of judges, sitting as three, five, seven, nine or eleven. In the recent case the matter before them involved constitutional law, and they therefore sat as the entire bench.

I voted to leave because I have always strongly opposed the relentless and patently undemocratic progress towards "ever closer union" - in other words a de facto United States of Europe - in which citizens would not be able to elect, or indeed to hold accountable in any way, those who have the power to make binding decisions on the minutiae of practically every aspect of our lives.

We as citizens would have no say whatsoever in the appointment of the President of the future United States of Europe, or of its ridiculously named High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, or in the appointment or accountability of any member of the executive arm in the form of the Commission, a body which, as you know, rules largely under a system of Directives (simply another word for decrees) which cannot be challenged, and even less disobeyed, by democratically elected parliaments.

The European Parliament itself is simply a toothless talking shop, which tries to give the impression of being democratic but which in effect is so limited in its powers as to be pointless. It is, nonetheless, unbelievably expensive and disgracefully wasteful.
,
The whole facade is one of greed, profligacy and sheer corruption - for more than two decades its own Court of Auditors have refused to sign off the annual accounts citing fraud and corruption, and has been utterly ignored. The only whistle-blower who dared to draw attention to what is going on, a very senior auditor, was called in by an utterly useless trougher, British finance Commissioner Neil Kinnock, publicly humiliated...and sacked.

Had the result of the referendum gone the other way I would have at least accepted it in good grace. It is a shame that so many Remainers seem less inclined to do so.

Sorry but there is some glaring errors in your claims Me Lord
For one, the UK has never allowed prisoners to vote, even though the EU court of Human rights stipulates, it is unlawful.

Also I find the claims it is not Democratic very misleading and false

Here have a read

http://theconversation.com/how-democratic-is-the-european-union-59419

Some glaring errors in what I posted? Really?

The only "glaring error" that I can see is the one that I have highlighted, and I certainly didn't post that.

There is, of course, no such thing as the "EU Court of Human Rights"...there is a European Court of Human Rights, which ruled on the right or otherwise of prisoners to vote, but this operates under the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which in turn is the responsibility of the Council of Europe - not the European Union. They are entirely different entities.

I think you are referring to the European Court of Justice, which is indeed the court of the EU, but this body did not, and could not, play any part in the appeal on behalf of UK prisoners in relation to their electoral rights.

So far as I am aware, the UK is still technically in breach of this ruling and has already won a submission that prisoners are not entitled to monetary compensation, but the matter of whether they can or cannot vote in elections is still unresolved. My understanding is that as prisoners will not be given the right to vote unless and until it is approved by Parliament, the ECHR decision cannot be enforced. And that eventuality is, to say the least, unlikely under the present administration.

Whether the EU is undemocratic or not is a matter of opinion and you are perfectly entitled to yours, as are the authors of the opinions expressed in publication The Conversation that you cite.

But I am also entitled to my opinions, which are at least based on many years of working alongside a major EU department both in this country and Brussels, and seeing for myself just how incompetent, inefficient, self-serving, profligate, authoritarian and undemocratic the organisation is.

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:39 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

I agree there the young people are not used to hearing the word 'NO' this is a good lesson for them to learn that in life you win some you lose some , they lost and boy don't we known it lol.

Open door immigration was the biggest mistake and we're paying for that - hopefully that will change when our borders are fully controlled by us .

Don't worry, if/when it all goes tits up then our generations will never forget how your lots fucked us over forever due to your short sighted nationalist inclinations.

Don't be such an idiot!

The eu has been fucking us over for decades!!!

We are now escaping from its grasp!!!

And regaining our democracy and our sovereignty!!!

Only an idiot would be against this!!!

by Eilzel Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:44 pm

Rooooooaaaaaar!!! tommy pmsl

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:04 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Sorry but there is some glaring errors in your claims Me Lord
For one, the UK has never allowed prisoners to vote, even though the EU court of Human rights stipulates, it is unlawful.

Also I find the claims it is not Democratic very misleading and false

Here have a read

http://theconversation.com/how-democratic-is-the-european-union-59419

Whether the EU is undemocratic or not is a matter of opinion and you are perfectly entitled to yours, as are the authors of the opinions expressed in publication The Conversation that you cite.

But I am also entitled to my opinions, which are at least based on many years of working alongside a major EU department both in this country and Brussels, and seeing for myself just how incompetent, inefficient, self-serving, profligate, authoritarian and undemocratic the organisation is.

Yes misleading and false information
Its not a matter of opinion on whether something is democratic or not.
Its whether or not it meets democratic values, of which is easily demonstrated, that the EU is more democratic than the UK, based upon representation for example. Either something adheres to democracy and its values, or it does not. So that is misleading and false again.

So you then expect me to take on board hearsay?
Really?
Seriously?
Where is the evidence to back up your claim?
By then evoking that again it is authoritarian and undemocratic, which is blatantly bullshit.
That in itself is an opinion, a very biased one at that.
Just tell me, why should I be bothered who does legislate laws, along as they are the right ones?

by Fred Moletrousers Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:22 pm

Thorin wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Whether the EU is undemocratic or not is a matter of opinion and you are perfectly entitled to yours, as are the authors of the opinions expressed in publication The Conversation that you cite.

But I am also entitled to my opinions, which are at least based on many years of working alongside a major EU department both in this country and Brussels, and seeing for myself just how incompetent, inefficient, self-serving, profligate, authoritarian and undemocratic the organisation is.

Yes misleading and false information
Its not a matter of opinion on whether something is democratic or not.
Its whether or not it meets democratic values, of which is easily demonstrated, that the EU is more democratic than the UK, based upon representation for example. Either something adheres to democracy and its values, or it does not. So that is misleading and false again.

So you then expect me to take on board hearsay?
Really?
Seriously?
Where is the evidence to back up your claim?
By then evoking that again it is authoritarian and undemocratic, which is blatantly bullshit.
That in itself is an opinion, a very biased one at that.
Just tell me, why should I be bothered who does legislate laws, along as they are the right ones?

I've told you before, you do not possess Papal infallibility and your own opinions are no less likely to be flawed and biased than those of anyone else.

I don't give a damn whether you are expected to "take on board hearsay" or not; I have sufficient first hand experience of the governance of the European Union to be able to make up my own mind without endlessly Googling up and plagiarizing the opinions of others...particularly when your sources appear incapable of understanding the difference between the European Union and the Council of Europe.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:29 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes misleading and false information
Its not a matter of opinion on whether something is democratic or not.
Its whether or not it meets democratic values, of which is easily demonstrated, that the EU is more democratic than the UK, based upon representation for example. Either something adheres to democracy and its values, or it does not. So that is misleading and false again.

So you then expect me to take on board hearsay?
Really?
Seriously?
Where is the evidence to back up your claim?
By then evoking that again it is authoritarian and undemocratic, which is blatantly bullshit.
That in itself is an opinion, a very biased one at that.
Just tell me, why should I be bothered who does legislate laws, along as they are the right ones?

I've told you before, you do not possess Papal infallibility and your own opinions are no less likely to be flawed and biased than those of anyone else.

I don't give a damn whether you are expected to "take on board hearsay" or not; I have sufficient first hand experience of the governance of the European Union to be able to make up my own mind without endlessly Googling up and plagiarizing the opinions of others...particularly when your sources appear incapable of understanding the difference between the European Union and the Council of Europe.

1) Misdirection and nothing to do with the debate. Stick to the points of the debate, as I never claimed I am not biased. What is relevant is as I stated whether something ticks the boxes of democratic values. On this you were disingenuous, because the EU does meet the criteria of being democratic. I will put that down to bias, more than deliberate on your part.

2) So you have no evidence. You expect people to go off your good reputation as a poster.
I find that poor to say the least, when you cannot offer up anything to substantiate your claim.
You then further deflect attacking me pathetically, which proves even further to the weakness of your claim.
Its simple, say that your views are hearsay and that you have no evidence to back them.

This is what you always do when I expose poor arguments from you

Stick to the points of the debate, its not a dick measuring competition, no matter how much you seem to think it is. I use links as evidence and as seen also argue my views.
You have used nothing in support of your claims, and expect people to take this on the value of your character.

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:30 pm

Eilzel wrote:Rooooooaaaaaar!!! tommy pmsl

Better than your cry baby/scaredy cat bullshit...!

lol!

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:33 pm

Thorin wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I've told you before, you do not possess Papal infallibility and your own opinions are no less likely to be flawed and biased than those of anyone else.

I don't give a damn whether you are expected to "take on board hearsay" or not; I have sufficient first hand experience of the governance of the European Union to be able to make up my own mind without endlessly Googling up and plagiarizing the opinions of others...particularly when your sources appear incapable of understanding the difference between the European Union and the Council of Europe.

1) Misdirection and nothing to do with the debate. Stick to the points of the debate, as I never claimed I am not biased. What is relevant is as I stated whether something ticks the boxes of democratic values. On this you were disingenuous, because the EU does meet the criteria of being democratic. I will put that down to bias, more than deliberate on your part.

2) So you have no evidence. You expect people to go off your good reputation as a poster.
I find that poor to say the least, when you cannot offer up anything to substantiate your claim.
You then further deflect attacking me pathetically, which proves even further to the weakness of your claim.
Its simple, say that your views are hearsay and that you have no evidence to back them.

This is what you always do when I expose poor arguments from you

Stick to the points of the debate, its not a dick measuring competition, no matter how much you seem to think it is. I use links as evidence and as seen also argue my views.
You have used nothing in support of your claims, and expect people to take this on the value of your character.

The eu is democratic...!!!???

Tell us when the British people voted for/gave consent to the establishment of the EU...?

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Nigel Farage telling it how it is this week... and a childish labour twat mep in the background trying to deny the truth...

https://youtu.be/v4gBZ3MYLUc

Did you watch this, Didge...?

lol!

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) Misdirection and nothing to do with the debate. Stick to the points of the debate, as I never claimed I am not biased. What is relevant is as I stated whether something ticks the boxes of democratic values. On this you were disingenuous, because the EU does meet the criteria of being democratic. I will put that down to bias, more than deliberate on your part.

2) So you have no evidence. You expect people to go off your good reputation as a poster.
I find that poor to say the least, when you cannot offer up anything to substantiate your claim.
You then further deflect attacking me pathetically, which proves even further to the weakness of your claim.
Its simple, say that your views are hearsay and that you have no evidence to back them.

This is what you always do when I expose poor arguments from you

Stick to the points of the debate, its not a dick measuring competition, no matter how much you seem to think it is. I use links as evidence and as seen also argue my views.
You have used nothing in support of your claims, and expect people to take this on the value of your character.

The eu is democratic...!!!???

Tell us when the British people voted for/gave consent to the establishment of the EU...?

Everytime they failed to object to its existence when voting in a new government.

Did Labour give consent to the people when they created the NHS?

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Nigel Farage telling it how it is this week... and a childish labour twat mep in the background trying to deny the truth...

https://youtu.be/v4gBZ3MYLUc

Did you watch this, Didge...?

It says the following

"An error occurred, please try again later"

Sounds about right, in regards to Farage

Razz

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:37 pm

People have been objecting to the eu since its inception...

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:People have been objecting to the eu since its inception...

But failing to do so through voting in a general election .

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:39 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Did you watch this, Didge...?

It says the following

"An error occurred, please try again later"

Sounds about right, in regards to Farage

https://youtu.be/v4gBZ3MYLUc

The link works dodge...!

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:41 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

It says the following

"An error occurred, please try again later"

Sounds about right, in regards to Farage

https://youtu.be/v4gBZ3MYLUc

The link works dodge...!

Who is dodge

All I see is this when I press play

Brexit vote - Parliament votes overwhelmingly in favour of triggering article 50 Farage

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:44 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:People have been objecting to the eu since its inception...

But failing to do so through voting in a general election .

So... people never voted for it... but are to blame for not voting against it, when there has never been a party (except ukip) that has ever said anything offering to leave the eu...!?

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

But failing to do so through voting in a general election .

So... people never voted for it... but are to blame for not voting against it, when there has never been a party (except ukip) that has ever said anything offering to leave the eu...!?

They never voted for the NHS as well as many other things. Are you going to campaign a referendum against the NHS?
If parties failed to make that their primacy policy, that is tough luck. It showed for years people had other issues.

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:48 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

https://youtu.be/v4gBZ3MYLUc

The link works dodge...!

Who is dodge

All I see is this when I press play

A childish cry baby labour mep, denying the truth and behaving like a complete twat!!!

Maybe you can tell us which parts of what Farage was saying were lies...!?

Laughing

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Who is dodge

All I see is this when I press play

A childish cry baby labour mep, denying the truth and behaving like a complete twat!!!

Maybe you can tell us which parts of what Farage was saying were lies...!?

Brexit vote - Parliament votes overwhelmingly in favour of triggering article 50 Senseofhumorquotes

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:50 pm

by Sponsored content