Any Housing Schemes For Non First Time...
Home & Garden1 min ago
Solidarity With Gina Miller
62 Answers
I don't agree with everything Mr Carr has to say but boy-oh-boy there are some spot on characterisations of certain AB individuals in here.
Do you believe his assertions that we're slipping into the mire via the more radical factions of the public to have a voice?
http://
Do you believe his assertions that we're slipping into the mire via the more radical factions of the public to have a voice?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zacs-Master. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"If Ms Miller had no need to invoke the legal action she did, why did it succeed?"
It succeeded because she was legally correct. Had she (nor anybody else) launched such an action Article 50 would have been invoked by Royal Prerogative and we would have been in exactly the same position as we are now. It's similar to taking action for breach of contract. There is only a case to be settled if one of the parties makes such a case. If neither do then there is no case.
It succeeded because she was legally correct. Had she (nor anybody else) launched such an action Article 50 would have been invoked by Royal Prerogative and we would have been in exactly the same position as we are now. It's similar to taking action for breach of contract. There is only a case to be settled if one of the parties makes such a case. If neither do then there is no case.
It's as complicated (or as simple) as the participants like to make it. I'm not suggesting that it is a simple task to undo 40 years of entanglement with the EU. But it is made more complicated when the negotiators try to achieve some sort of "half way house". I gave no examples of why a clean break is not the most straightforward (and most preferable) option. I suggested that the strategy of trying to retain some of the rights and privileges of membership whilst actually leaving is bound to complicate things. It’s unnecessary and undesirable. The decision was to leave, not to leave but retain the bits we like and ditch the bits we don’t.
Sometimes I wonder why we have these discussions on AB.
Someone can say something and the other person with opposing views latches onto it as affirmation of what they were saying. When the opposite is true. It does rather seem that only the views that agree with the op are given weight!
Has anyone ever been convinced of changing their strongly held view or belief from one of these?
Someone can say something and the other person with opposing views latches onto it as affirmation of what they were saying. When the opposite is true. It does rather seem that only the views that agree with the op are given weight!
Has anyone ever been convinced of changing their strongly held view or belief from one of these?
"Well, I for one am quite glad that the law of the land, from which I believe you earn a crust, upheld her case and prevented Parliament riding roughshod over constitutional principles."
Perfectly fine. But had the action not been taken (i.e. nobody was unhappy with being "ridden roughshod over") we would have been in an identical position as we are now. She tested the government's proposals and they were found to be lacking. But she had no need to test them (unless she was unhappy with them). It seems that the only people unhappy with them were (some of) those unhappy with the idea that the UK should leave the EU and they saw her action as an opportunity to thwart that aim.
However, we digress. She did what she believed was right and which she was entitled to do. Whilst nobody deserves to be "trolled" or threatened when they do that unfortunately that's what happens these days. She (and all her supporters) should not keep using that fact to denigrate all people who voted to leave by suggesting they all share the views and psyche of those doing the threatening.
Perfectly fine. But had the action not been taken (i.e. nobody was unhappy with being "ridden roughshod over") we would have been in an identical position as we are now. She tested the government's proposals and they were found to be lacking. But she had no need to test them (unless she was unhappy with them). It seems that the only people unhappy with them were (some of) those unhappy with the idea that the UK should leave the EU and they saw her action as an opportunity to thwart that aim.
However, we digress. She did what she believed was right and which she was entitled to do. Whilst nobody deserves to be "trolled" or threatened when they do that unfortunately that's what happens these days. She (and all her supporters) should not keep using that fact to denigrate all people who voted to leave by suggesting they all share the views and psyche of those doing the threatening.
“You seem to keep reinforcing my point NJ rather than making one of your own.”
My point is that leaving with a clean and prompt break (a so-called “Hard Brexit”) is far simpler and more straightforward than trying to negotiate half-hearted measures and “transition periods” (a so-called “Soft Brexit”). I don’t know what your point is except to say that it’s complicated.
My point is that leaving with a clean and prompt break (a so-called “Hard Brexit”) is far simpler and more straightforward than trying to negotiate half-hearted measures and “transition periods” (a so-called “Soft Brexit”). I don’t know what your point is except to say that it’s complicated.
I think Leave voters probably need to allow for the fact that the referendum question was *actually* meant more as a request to the government to Eurosceptics to "shut up now, OK"? Answer: "noooope." Government: "Oh... shoot."
That's left no clear plans, so yes it will be complicated and yes, perhaps more so than it needed to be.
That's left no clear plans, so yes it will be complicated and yes, perhaps more so than it needed to be.
My point in pressing home the complexity of the situation is to bring into focus the rather naive chant of leavers 'let's just get on with it'. It was never ever going to be a case of let's just get on with it. The majority of the Conservative MPs were remainers and it was a Conservative Govt who would be in charge of enacting the will of (a small majority) of the vote eligible populace. Anyone not see a problem with that?
//My point is that leaving with a clean and prompt break (a so-called “Hard Brexit”) is far simpler and more straightforward than trying to negotiate half-hearted measures and “transition periods” (a so-called “Soft Brexit”). I don’t know what your point is except to say that it’s complicated. //
I assume NJ means that it would be simpler for him to understand. Many business leaders feel that it would be simpler for businesses if there were some measures agreed before we leave.
I assume NJ means that it would be simpler for him to understand. Many business leaders feel that it would be simpler for businesses if there were some measures agreed before we leave.
Oh how tiny was the majority of vote eligible populace?
Because at the end of the day it is the majority of those that voted that actually counts.
If your argument entails drawing on people that don't count to make up your numbers you have lost your argument.
Not all Remainers are remoaners and not all Brexiters are knuckle draggers. Those that continue to use the terms as insults loose credibility.
Because at the end of the day it is the majority of those that voted that actually counts.
If your argument entails drawing on people that don't count to make up your numbers you have lost your argument.
Not all Remainers are remoaners and not all Brexiters are knuckle draggers. Those that continue to use the terms as insults loose credibility.
Ahh Matt Carr, an example if there ever was one of the original Liberal Fascist. Smug beyond belief, and a perfect example of the I am always right, and you are always wrong, champagne socialists who have an agenda for themselves only. Try reading his blog...a more self centered piece of work you will never encounter. Any comparisons there with our AB contributors? An ideal fit for the Huff n Puff Post.
On detaining illegal immigrants.
"It is worth reminding ourselves that the essential ‘crime’ committed by these detainees was simply to come here ‘without permission’ – and also that British penal law has strict sentencing parameters and time limits for imprisonment that are commensurate with particular crimes. Yet the UK has no fixed time limit on immigration detention, which means that migrant detainees can be held at the discretion of the state for as long as the state sees fit, without any need for further justification."
"This month hundreds of men and women resisted their invisibility and their dehumanisation, to the general indifference of the British media. And their struggle should galvanise us not only to support them, but to close those evil places once and for all, and puncture the poisonous politics that have made detention possible."
On detaining illegal immigrants.
"It is worth reminding ourselves that the essential ‘crime’ committed by these detainees was simply to come here ‘without permission’ – and also that British penal law has strict sentencing parameters and time limits for imprisonment that are commensurate with particular crimes. Yet the UK has no fixed time limit on immigration detention, which means that migrant detainees can be held at the discretion of the state for as long as the state sees fit, without any need for further justification."
"This month hundreds of men and women resisted their invisibility and their dehumanisation, to the general indifference of the British media. And their struggle should galvanise us not only to support them, but to close those evil places once and for all, and puncture the poisonous politics that have made detention possible."
It is a fact that it was a small majority. It's indisputable.
I also said it was a small proportion of leave voters who were knuckle draggers. Their abhorrent threats to GM prove that.
I've no idea what 'If your argument entails drawing on people that don't count to make up your numbers you have lost your argument' means.
I also said it was a small proportion of leave voters who were knuckle draggers. Their abhorrent threats to GM prove that.
I've no idea what 'If your argument entails drawing on people that don't count to make up your numbers you have lost your argument' means.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.