[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

We have a new PM who was supporting remain. You have to give her time to reset her thinking and gather information so we do this in the best interests of the UK. Would you rather they rushed it through and ****ed it up?

No I would rather it was discussed in parliament as was agreed in july.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You joined the convo a bit late that was put up early evening.

Is there a set time when things have to be in the news then?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

No I would rather it was discussed in parliament as was agreed on july.

Parliament has been closed for the summer. As it always is in August. I believe there is a debate in the house scheduled for this coming Monday if you didn't know.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Mitchell

Well actually no and she doesn't have to, yes we democratically voted to leave the EU, but almost half of us didn't want to leave, we don't automatically have to be ok with the decision, we have as much right to be annoyed at the vote as you do to be happy with the result, we're not dictating to you how to react to it, don't do the same to others.

So when you lose at snakes and ladders do you March through your house 3 months later?



Get real

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

If I did not exist ToySoldier would Troll himself.

And if you were all alone in this world, you would argue with yourself.

Life is really sad for some it appears.

[bots]

Just to clarify for those that are confused:

The referendum is not legally binding, it requires a vote in parliament for the UK to trigger article 50. Associated with that vote will be a debate. So, clearly all sides in parliament will have an opportunity to discuss/question what is going to happen, when it is to happen and how it is going to happen.

It is still quite possible for parliament to reject leaving the EU, however, one could expect any MP's that go against their area result not to be in parliament for long if they vote against.

So, for example, the SNP can vote to reject article 50 being triggered decisively as that was the will of the Scottish people. Its by no means yet a certainty that article 50 will get triggered in the time frame being proposed .... it may have many twists and turns yet. We will just need to wait an see.

So .... while some might want to say the vote is over, there is no point in protesting, that would be completely false. The legal vote has yet to take place.

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by Livia

Hands up whp wants serious debates to go back to being about debates, instead of incessant trolling and bickering?

Me! I also would like the mods to do their job and remove those said trolls. Alas i can only dream.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Is there a set time when things have to be in the news then?

When it's an organised live event you would have thought it would be reported on as it happened, unless the media didn't want to encourage anyone from offering their support... but that's my cynical side speaking.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Just to clarify for those that are confused:

The referendum is not legally binding, it requires a vote in parliament for the UK to trigger article 50. Associated with that vote will be a debate. So, clearly all sides in parliament will have an opportunity to discuss/question what is going to happen, when it is to happen and how it is going to happen.

It is still quite possible for parliament to reject leaving the EU, however, one could expect any MP's that go against their area result not to be in parliament for long if they vote against.

So, for example, the SNP can vote to reject article 50 being triggered decisively as that was the will of the Scottish people. Its by no means yet a certainty that article 50 will get triggered in the time frame being proposed .... it may have many twists and turns yet. We will just need to wait an see.

So .... while some might want to say the vote is over, there is no point in protesting, that would be completely false. The legal vote has yet to take place.

It doesn't actually require a vote.

"Oliver Letwin, heading Whitehall’s Brexit unit, says legal advice is that article 50 can be invoked under royal prerogative."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...nt-lawyers-say

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

When it's an organised live event you would have thought it would be reported on as it happened, unless the media didn't want to encourage anyone from offering their support... but that's my cynical side speaking.

I doubt most small protests like that would be considered important enough for live news.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

Me! I also would like the mods to do their job and remove those said trolls. Alas i can only dream.

As would I , which reminds me you haven't actually commented on the topic at all here have you?...

[bots]

Originally Posted by jaxie

It doesn't actually require a vote.

"Oliver Letwin, heading Whitehall’s Brexit unit, says legal advice is that article 50 can be invoked under royal prerogative."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...nt-lawyers-say

they can try and bypass parliament if they wish, but it will set a precedent that I am sure no right minded MP would support. It would spell the end of democracy and place us in similar waters to some of our more exotic eastern european neighbours

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I doubt most small protests like that would be considered important enough for live news.

It was massive RT covered it, it's important enough for Russian media but not ours?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

they can try and bypass parliament if they wish, but it will set a precedent that I am sure no right minded MP would support. It would spell the end of democracy and place us in similar waters to some of our more exotic eastern european neighbours

It was voted on by the people, there is no need for parliament, elected by the people, to ratify something the people have already voted on themselves. That would be fairly undemocratic, to have to approve the vote of the nation because we can't be trusted?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Just to clarify for those that are confused:

The referendum is not legally binding, it requires a vote in parliament for the UK to trigger article 50. Associated with that vote will be a debate. So, clearly all sides in parliament will have an opportunity to discuss/question what is going to happen, when it is to happen and how it is going to happen.

It is still quite possible for parliament to reject leaving the EU, however, one could expect any MP's that go against their area result not to be in parliament for long if they vote against.

So, for example, the SNP can vote to reject article 50 being triggered decisively as that was the will of the Scottish people. Its by no means yet a certainty that article 50 will get triggered in the time frame being proposed .... it may have many twists and turns yet. We will just need to wait an see.

So .... while some might want to say the vote is over, there is no point in protesting, that would be completely false. The legal vote has yet to take place.

the protest is due to the fact there will be no vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-commons-vot/

[bots]

Originally Posted by jaxie

It was voted on by the people, there is no need for parliament, elected by the people to ratify something the people have already voted on themselves.

referendum's are not legally binding, this was made quite clear prior to the vote taking place.

I don't for one moment expect parliament to go against that vote, but it is the body that decides the nations course. It ensures proper democratic process is followed.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

It was voted on by the people, there is no need for parliament, elected by the people, to ratify something the people have already voted on themselves. That would be fairly undemocratic, to have to approve the vote of the nation because we can't be trusted?

it was not to annul or reverse the vote but to debate and vote on issues relating to brexit.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

referendum's are not legally binding, this was made quite clear prior to the vote taking place.

I don't for one moment expect parliament to go against that vote, but it is the body that decides the nations course. It ensures proper democratic process is followed.

Not seeing how you think that is more democratic than a vote by everyone in the country. Before the referendum it wasn't mentioned that it needed a parliamentary vote to happen.

What is profoundly undemocratic is to keep trying to have votes on it until you get the answer you want.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

it was not to annul or reverse the vote but to debate and vote on issues relating to brexit.

A debate is an entirely different thing to a vote of approval. As I mentioned previously there is reportedly a debate on this coming Monday about Brexit.

However again, the people have spoken, so it's only paying lip service to mp opinions.

[bots]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Not seeing how you think that is more democratic than a vote by everyone in the country. Before the referendum it wasn't mentioned that it needed a parliamentary vote to happen.

it was actually stated quite clearly that it would need a vote in parliament.

It should be a rubber stamping of the will of the people with an opportunity for parliament to guide the direction we as a country take on leaving. It ensures that all relevant issues are debated. Surely that can only be a good thing. We all want a balanced withdrawal that safeguards the British people

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

it was actually stated quite clearly that it would need a vote in parliament.

It should be a rubber stamping of the will of the people with an opportunity for parliament to guide the direction we as a country take on leaving. It ensures that all relevant issues are debated. Surely that can only be a good thing. We all want a balanced withdrawal that safeguards the British people

Yeah, we won't be getting that... not for a minute did I think we would.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

it was actually stated quite clearly that it would need a vote in parliament.

It should be a rubber stamping of the will of the people with an opportunity for parliament to guide the direction we as a country take on leaving. It ensures that all relevant issues are debated. Surely that can only be a good thing. We all want a balanced withdrawal that safeguards the British people

MPs are our representatives not the other way round, the debate has already happened prior to the referendum. It was talked about incessantly.

Where was it stated that a vote in parliament would be needed? Do you have links I don't recall that at all.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yeah, we won't be getting that... not for a minute did I think we would.

A House of Commons debate on a petition calling for a second EU referendum will take place on Monday, 5 September.

“The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.”

Quoted above was reported in July.

[bots]

Originally Posted by jaxie

MPs are our representatives not the other way round, the debate has already happened prior to the referendum. It was talked about incessantly.

Where was it stated that a vote in parliament would be needed? Do you have links I don't recall that at all.

Referendums are advisory only, and to protect against any undemocratic processes happening down stream of this vote, it has to be ratified by a bill in parliament. Those that say they can bypass that are on very shady ground. This is one event that needs to follow all due process, or it will forever haunt us.

It was all discussed before the vote, on TV several times, on the BBC website, national newspapers etc. Don't get me wrong, if parliament went against the referendum result there would be catastrophic fall out, but still, the proper democratic process should be followed

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Not seeing how you think that is more democratic than a vote by everyone in the country. Before the referendum it wasn't mentioned that it needed a parliamentary vote to happen.

What is profoundly undemocratic is to keep trying to have votes on it until you get the answer you want.

There is NO FECKING CHANCE AT ALL of overturning the Referendum result - but, if it happened THEN YOU WOULD SEE WHAT A PROTEST REALLY IS.

And I would be in the VANGUARD.