On 17/11/2016 17:00, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:37:17 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:53:06 +0000
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 16/11/2016 09:13, Optimist wrote:

There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for this
had been passed by
Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs,

But who told them that? Or was the idea that it might be binding just an
assumption made by the kind of people who don't talk about trains using
a obscure format from the dark age of online communications?

The whole parliament must ratify nonsense is just another ploy by Remoaners
to block Brexit. Parliment exists to enact the will of the people, however if
the will of the people has already been made perfectly clear via a referendum
then the role of parliament is redundant in the matter. And whats more - if
parliament go against the will of the people then we're sliding into a
parliamentary dictatorship.

All UK needs to do is to repeal the European Communities Act and tell the EU to make personal use of
a taxidermist.


To repeal the ECA requires that it be put before parliament, something
that May is trying to avoid.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 17/11/2016 17:44, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 17/11/2016 09:37, d wrote:

Parliment exists to enact the will of the people,

So how come we haven't got hanging, flogging and free beer?



Free beer tomorrow.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:46:55 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 17/11/2016 17:44, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 17/11/2016 09:37, d wrote:

Parliment exists to enact the will of the people,

So how come we haven't got hanging, flogging and free beer?



Free beer tomorrow.

What do we want ?!
Free beer !
When do we want it....

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:44:59 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 17/11/2016 17:00, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:37:17 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:53:06 +0000
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 16/11/2016 09:13, Optimist wrote:

There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for this
had been passed by
Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs,

But who told them that? Or was the idea that it might be binding just an
assumption made by the kind of people who don't talk about trains using
a obscure format from the dark age of online communications?

The whole parliament must ratify nonsense is just another ploy by Remoaners
to block Brexit. Parliment exists to enact the will of the people, however if
the will of the people has already been made perfectly clear via a referendum
then the role of parliament is redundant in the matter. And whats more - if
parliament go against the will of the people then we're sliding into a
parliamentary dictatorship.

All UK needs to do is to repeal the European Communities Act and tell the EU to make personal use of
a taxidermist.


To repeal the ECA requires that it be put before parliament, something
that May is trying to avoid.

Invoking Article 50 not the same as repealing the ECA.

On 17/11/2016 18:52, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:46:55 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 17/11/2016 17:44, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 17/11/2016 09:37, d wrote:

Parliment exists to enact the will of the people,

So how come we haven't got hanging, flogging and free beer?



Free beer tomorrow.

What do we want ?!
Free beer !
When do we want it....


And not any beer but Black Sheep or, even better, Gales HSB (memories!!)

Colin

On 17/11/2016 18:59, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:44:59 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 17/11/2016 17:00, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:37:17 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:53:06 +0000
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 16/11/2016 09:13, Optimist wrote:

There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for this
had been passed by
Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs,

But who told them that? Or was the idea that it might be binding just an
assumption made by the kind of people who don't talk about trains using
a obscure format from the dark age of online communications?

The whole parliament must ratify nonsense is just another ploy by Remoaners
to block Brexit. Parliment exists to enact the will of the people, however if
the will of the people has already been made perfectly clear via a referendum
then the role of parliament is redundant in the matter. And whats more - if
parliament go against the will of the people then we're sliding into a
parliamentary dictatorship.

All UK needs to do is to repeal the European Communities Act and tell the EU to make personal use of
a taxidermist.


To repeal the ECA requires that it be put before parliament, something
that May is trying to avoid.

Invoking Article 50 not the same as repealing the ECA.


You've noticed.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 17/11/2016 20:01, ColinR wrote:
On 17/11/2016 18:52, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:46:55 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 17/11/2016 17:44, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 17/11/2016 09:37, d wrote:

Parliment exists to enact the will of the people,

So how come we haven't got hanging, flogging and free beer?



Free beer tomorrow.

What do we want ?!
Free beer !
When do we want it....


And not any beer but Black Sheep or, even better, Gales HSB (memories!!)


Brakspeare's Old. alas no more.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

d wrote in message

"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:

Actually, the correct analogy is
Georgians/Carolinans/Virginians/Alabamans complaining about being told
what to do by a load of leftie liberals in Washington DC.

They were not sovereign nations to start with. The analogy is false.

Don't know your history do you ?

The states that originally ratified the US constitution plus Texas,
California and Hawaii were all sovereign when they joined so that's all but
Alabama in the list above.

--
Mike D

On 17/11/2016 21:19, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
d wrote in message

"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:

Actually, the correct analogy is
Georgians/Carolinans/Virginians/Alabamans complaining about being told
what to do by a load of leftie liberals in Washington DC.

They were not sovereign nations to start with. The analogy is false.

Don't know your history do you ?

The states that originally ratified the US constitution plus Texas,
California and Hawaii were all sovereign when they joined so that's all
but Alabama in the list above.


In the case of Hawaii it is less clear. Certainly Hawaii did not "join",
it was annexed as a Territory and gained statehood many years later.

Quite an interesting history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii

Colin

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:55:16 +0000
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:32:45 +0000
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:


And many people who were born here did not have a vote e.g. those using
EU freedom of movement to work in Europe.

There's a reason there's an "ex" in ex-pat.

So you don't want immigrants to UK to vote because they wern't born here
and you don't want people who were born here to be able to vote either.
That does not make any sense.

Born here and living here. If you've ****ed off to live in another country
you absolve any right to have an influence on whether your country of birth
remains in the EU since it is no longer your concern. And if all those chavs
and criminals living on the costas are worried about their status when we
exit then they should apply for Spanish citizenship. Ditto anywhere else.



What about those working abroad on fixed term contracts of a few years
duration?


Anna Noyd-Dryver