Harry Monk:
What’s with all this “Dude” business?
Zb wit Socialist code word. 
GORDON 50:
For the second time then, why have a referendum in the first place?
So parliament can judge the mood of the nation and then wait for government to table a bill so they can debate, vote and put forward an act.
Now the voting of those MP’s is entirely personal, they can follow what the country has advised them in a referendum, vote with their own conscience or vote for what they think is best for the country as a whole. That is how our democracy has always worked and always will.
The PM tried to abolish parliament by invoking Royal prerogative, just as Henry IV did 800 years ago and they were both summarily knocked down.
Parliament is supreme when it comes to amending our laws, in this case the eu community act, and what the PM did was, is and will be illegal.
We are governed by our parliament, long may it continue.
Carryfast:
No Parliament and the Courts were happy to keep us in based solely on a referendum vote in 1975.Which obviously set the precedent that an EU referendum vote is Supreme over parliament’s wishes on that issue.IE In this case what happened in 1975 is key.Although I wouldn’t expect a Federalist to do or want to understand democracy and legal precedent when it doesn’t suit.
Dude, go find your meds you are discussing something that has no bearing on today.
My legal precedent goes back 1,000 years, yours comes from fantasy land…
Our laws, our parliament. What part of that don’t you understand.
Harry Monk:
What’s with all this “Dude” business?
more americanisms, ‘dude in a truck’ may be we are gearing up to be an aircraft carrier for trump.
Bluey Circles:
Harry Monk:
What’s with all this “Dude” business?more americanisms, ‘dude in a truck’ may be we are gearing up to be an aircraft carrier for trump.
The other words won’t get passed the sensorbots.
The dude must find his meds though he keeps going off on a tangent.
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
No Parliament and the Courts were happy to keep us in based solely on a referendum vote in 1975.Which obviously set the precedent that an EU referendum vote is Supreme over parliament’s wishes on that issue.IE In this case what happened in 1975 is key.Although I wouldn’t expect a Federalist to do or want to understand democracy and legal precedent when it doesn’t suit.Dude, go find your meds you are discussing something that has no bearing on today.
My legal precedent goes back 1,000 years, yours comes from fantasy land…
Our laws, our parliament. What part of that don’t you understand.
No the so called ‘precedent’ regarding this issue was set when it suited those with your agenda being happy to accept a referendum vote being supreme over parliament.
While I’m sure that the referendum in question went along the lines that only the people,not parliament,have the right to decide sovereignty being transferred from parliament to foreign federal rule.As in this case. 
wheelnutt:
Parliament is supreme when it comes to amending our laws, in this case the eu community act, and what the PM did was, is and will be illegal.We are governed by our parliament, long may it continue.
It’s more a case of the EU communities act being illegal because it transfers powers from parliament to foreign federal rule without the consent of the people.While unfortunately for your agenda I think we’re now into the realms of the ‘people’ in question saying zb parliament.Being that it’s obviously made up as a majority of Federalists who are all about taking advantage of the democratic process to further their own anti democratic foreign federal rule agenda.IE this can only end badly as the anti federalist v federalist argument usually does.
Carryfast:
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
No Parliament and the Courts were happy to keep us in based solely on a referendum vote in 1975.Which obviously set the precedent that an EU referendum vote is Supreme over parliament’s wishes on that issue.IE In this case what happened in 1975 is key.Although I wouldn’t expect a Federalist to do or want to understand democracy and legal precedent when it doesn’t suit.Dude, go find your meds you are discussing something that has no bearing on today.
My legal precedent goes back 1,000 years, yours comes from fantasy land…
Our laws, our parliament. What part of that don’t you understand.
No the so called ‘precedent’ regarding this issue was set when it suited those with your agenda being happy to accept a referendum vote being supreme over parliament.
While I’m sure that the referendum in question went along the lines that only the people,not parliament,have the right to decide sovereignty being transferred from parliament to foreign federal rule.As in this case.
Even the 1975 referendum was non-binding. I still don’t know what you are on about.
Parliament at all times has sovereignty over our laws, as it was in 1975 at is now in 2016, The PM tried to abolish parliament and failed.
What part of our democracy don’t you understand?
Dude, don’t spout more rubbish conspiracy theories it makes you look like such a fool.
Repeat after me: Parliament is supreme. Parliament is supreme. Parliament is supreme.
Now go take your meds.
Carryfast:
wheelnutt:
Parliament is supreme when it comes to amending our laws, in this case the eu community act, and what the PM did was, is and will be illegal.We are governed by our parliament, long may it continue.
It’s more a case of the EU communities act being illegal because it transfers powers from parliament to foreign federal rule without the consent of the people.While unfortunately for your agenda I think we’re now into the realms of the ‘people’ in question saying zb parliament.Being that it’s obviously made up as a majority of Federalists who are all about taking advantage of the democratic process to further their own anti democratic foreign federal rule agenda.IE this can only end badly as the anti federalist v federalist argument usually does.
Dude we don’t need consent of the “people” we are not a direct represented democracy we are a parliamentary democracy, have been for 1,000 years and no matter what BS you can think of that is not going to change.
Dude, take your meds.
goodnight y’all.
wheelnutt:
Bluey Circles:
Harry Monk:
What’s with all this “Dude” business?more americanisms, ‘dude in a truck’ may be we are gearing up to be an aircraft carrier for trump.
The other words won’t get passed the sensorbots.
The dude must find his meds though he keeps going off on a tangent.
I found the video in your avatar - impressive stuff!
youtube.com/watch?v=JJXPXTaVlMY
clearly he has done that once or twice
Harry Monk:
What’s with all this “Dude” business?
He’s been watching old episodes of ‘Friends’ again, thinks he’s Joey, it’ll be… ‘How YOU doin’’ next. 
OVLOV JAY:
Totally agree. But like I say, the mp’s should be transparent in the vote. This is going to be decided by mp’s like my local one, Robert Halfon. A remain campaigner representing a Brexit seat. This could well be the end of the Labour Party too
Unfortunately there’s more Brexit MP’s with a majority remain electorate this being one of them.The fact is BREXIT has no chance based on a parliamentary boundary vote.While ironically it probably would have been the opposite in 1975 with the Labour government in the day clearly in favour of leaving.
Harry Monk:
What’s with all this “Dude” business?
Where’s his car?
Carryfast:
OVLOV JAY:
Totally agree. But like I say, the mp’s should be transparent in the vote. This is going to be decided by mp’s like my local one, Robert Halfon. A remain campaigner representing a Brexit seat. This could well be the end of the Labour Party tooUnfortunately there’s more Brexit MP’s with a majority remain electorate this being one of them.The fact is BREXIT has no chance based on a parliamentary boundary vote.While ironically it probably would have been the opposite in 1975 with the Labour government in the day clearly in favour of leaving.
Well hopefully they’ll all vote for article 50, and just let us get on with it, or they will all be seen as corrupt and contemptible toe rags that let big business rule the roost
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
No Parliament and the Courts were happy to keep us in based solely on a referendum vote in 1975.Which obviously set the precedent that an EU referendum vote is Supreme over parliament’s wishes on that issue.IE In this case what happened in 1975 is key.Although I wouldn’t expect a Federalist to do or want to understand democracy and legal precedent when it doesn’t suit.Dude, go find your meds you are discussing something that has no bearing on today.
My legal precedent goes back 1,000 years, yours comes from fantasy land…
Our laws, our parliament. What part of that don’t you understand.
No the so called ‘precedent’ regarding this issue was set when it suited those with your agenda being happy to accept a referendum vote being supreme over parliament.
While I’m sure that the referendum in question went along the lines that only the people,not parliament,have the right to decide sovereignty being transferred from parliament to foreign federal rule.As in this case.
Even the 1975 referendum was non-binding. I still don’t know what you are on about.
Parliament at all times has sovereignty over our laws, as it was in 1975 at is now in 2016, The PM tried to abolish parliament and failed.
What part of our democracy don’t you understand?
Dude, don’t spout more rubbish conspiracy theories it makes you look like such a fool.
Repeat after me: Parliament is supreme. Parliament is supreme. Parliament is supreme.
Really so exactly which parliamentary vote was it that kept us in in 1975.As opposed to the referendum decision being supreme.
Repeat Parliament is not supreme in the case of handing over parliamentary sovereignty to foreign federal rule.Only the people can decide that.Hence the 1975 referendum and the new referendum based on the fact that the 1975 referendum vote was based on the remain campaign lie that it didn’t involve the handing over of sovereignty.While if you’re supposedly about so called sovereignty then you obviously wouldn’t be supporting EU federal rule.
OVLOV JAY:
Carryfast:
OVLOV JAY:
Totally agree. But like I say, the mp’s should be transparent in the vote. This is going to be decided by mp’s like my local one, Robert Halfon. A remain campaigner representing a Brexit seat. This could well be the end of the Labour Party tooUnfortunately there’s more Brexit MP’s with a majority remain electorate this being one of them.The fact is BREXIT has no chance based on a parliamentary boundary vote.While ironically it probably would have been the opposite in 1975 with the Labour government in the day clearly in favour of leaving.
Well hopefully they’ll all vote for article 50, and just let us get on with it, or they will all be seen as corrupt and contemptible toe rags that let big business rule the roost
As in the case of Farage I’d say that’s naive in the extreme.They won’t vote for article 50 other than at best to keep us tied to the EU as an EEA member state, but with no real reason to think they won’t just over turn the referendum.In which case remain would have been the correct stance for UKIP and go for smashing the federal zb pile from within in favour of a Confederal Europe.When all the muppet has done is to destroy his own power base within the EU parliament and his own leadership.Total zb wit.Meanwhile we’ve got our answer as to why remainer May got the job as PM and wouldn’t invoke article 50 as part of that.
I think there’s going to be a lot of Labour MPs with major dilemmas on the horizon. Go against their constituents and vote it down, committing political suicide and taking apart their party, or pass it and go against their socialist messiah Tony Blair, but possibly leave the party to fight another day. We’ll see who the hold in higher regard or contempt. I’m not holding my breath, as new Labour aren’t exactly friends of the working man
OVLOV JAY:
I think there’s going to be a lot of Labour MPs with major dilemmas on the horizon. Go against their constituents and vote it down, committing political suicide and taking apart their party, or pass it and go against their socialist messiah Tony Blair, but possibly leave the party to fight another day. We’ll see who the hold in higher regard or contempt. I’m not holding my breath, as new Labour aren’t exactly friends of the working man
If Labour had any intention of reflecting the Labour Eurosceptic vote they’d already have moved towards that stance.On that note the Eurosceptic vote only realistically has UKIP or nothing to vote for.Which as we know can’t be reflected on a constituency level vote basis.If there’s one good thing in all this it’s that the over turning of the legitimate Brexit vote can only help in strengthening anti EU feeling across Europe which is what Farage should have played on rather than trying to do mission impossible of Brexit.
To be fair, as more comes to light from the story it’s all around the wording in article 50 “within constitutional requirements” which is open to interpretation either way. Today’s judges voted in favour of going back to the house. There’s nothing to say the Supreme Court judges won’t say a 6-1 majority gave power to the referendum result. It’s a very complex situation, and like most threads on here, all down to individual interpretation. One things for sure, the pound will never recover so we may as well leave anyway