It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Brexit court defeat for UK government

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SprocketUK

There was no vote on whether we should leave or stay in the single market or customs union. The idea that the vote to leave the EU was a vote to sever all ties is a fantasy.

Leaving the EU is a complex process with a lot if different possible outcomes and is exactly why parliament should be involved right from the start.

Not just as a rubber stamp after the negotiations are complete and it is the to late for any alternative as May seems to want.


Do you not think that a vote to leave the EU includes all mechanisms and sub groups of the same organisation by implication?




posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

That wasnt ranting.
You need to stop being such a limp wristed lefty.



So. No reason from you then. Just because. Classic!

You and sceptic are perfect examples of why calling people racists is like blowing a raspberry these days.




Blimey, I don't know where this is coming from - whatever you're on I suppose I could do with one.

Nice attempt to show you'd rather circumvent the judiciary, the sovereignty of parliament and blame the woes of the world on an immigrant. Are you Nigel in disguise?



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

So, a vote is constitutional when it comes to deciding who is going to govern our country...but not when it comes to going against what the elites want for us in a federal Europe?

What...?

How dare they attempt to destroy our democracy.

They ought to be arrested and charged as traitors to the People.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

That wasnt ranting.
You need to stop being such a limp wristed lefty.



So. No reason from you then. Just because. Classic!

You and sceptic are perfect examples of why calling people racists is like blowing a raspberry these days.




Blimey, I don't know where this is coming from - whatever you're on I suppose I could do with one.

Nice attempt to show you'd rather circumvent the judiciary, the sovereignty of parliament and blame the woes of the world on an immigrant. Are you Nigel in disguise?


In this particular case, given that May wanted to use prerogative powers to trigger art 50 and considering that was voted for by a majority of Britons, how is that circumventing the sovereignty of Parliament to any appreciable degree? Surely the people are sovereign and parliament gains it's authority via direct election from the people?

Or do you believe we are rabble that needs to be ruled?

And of course I don't blame the stupid bloody woman entirely, she's merely the loudest mouth in the crowd right now.

edit on 59pWed, 09 Nov 2016 05:48:59 -060020162016-11-09T05:48:59-06:00kAmerica/Chicago30000000k by SprocketUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

That wasnt ranting.
You need to stop being such a limp wristed lefty.



So. No reason from you then. Just because. Classic!

You and sceptic are perfect examples of why calling people racists is like blowing a raspberry these days.




Blimey, I don't know where this is coming from - whatever you're on I suppose I could do with one.

Nice attempt to show you'd rather circumvent the judiciary, the sovereignty of parliament and blame the woes of the world on an immigrant. Are you Nigel in disguise?


In this particular case, given that May wanted to use prerogative powers to trigger art 50 and considering that was voted for by a majority of Britons, how is that circumventing the sovereignty of Parliament to any appreciable degree? Surely the people are sovereign and parliament gains it's authority via direct election from the people?

Or do you believe we are rabble that needs to be ruled?

And of course I don't blame the stupid bloody woman entirely, she's merely the loudest mouth in the crowd right now.


Why is it circumventing the sovereignty of Parliament? I think the three judges that ruled that it did could answer that question better than either you or me, so why don't you listen to the opinion of people who actually know what they are talking about?



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Right on.

It is we THEY answer to, not the other way around.

WE have decided...they have to obey, and preferably without the whining and undemocratic maneuvering.

Or we'll soon have a situation where we'll vote for a new Council, Government and have endless challenges when the result doesn't go the way SOME people wanted...it would be chaos and wholly unproductive.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

That wasnt ranting.
You need to stop being such a limp wristed lefty.



So. No reason from you then. Just because. Classic!

You and sceptic are perfect examples of why calling people racists is like blowing a raspberry these days.




Blimey, I don't know where this is coming from - whatever you're on I suppose I could do with one.

Nice attempt to show you'd rather circumvent the judiciary, the sovereignty of parliament and blame the woes of the world on an immigrant. Are you Nigel in disguise?


In this particular case, given that May wanted to use prerogative powers to trigger art 50 and considering that was voted for by a majority of Britons, how is that circumventing the sovereignty of Parliament to any appreciable degree? Surely the people are sovereign and parliament gains it's authority via direct election from the people?

Or do you believe we are rabble that needs to be ruled?

And of course I don't blame the stupid bloody woman entirely, she's merely the loudest mouth in the crowd right now.


Why is it circumventing the sovereignty of Parliament? I think the three judges that ruled that it did could answer that question better than either you or me, so why don't you listen to the opinion of people who actually know what they are talking about?
so you don't have your own opinion then.
Just like always.
Well, when Tim Farron programmes you later, do come back and tell us what he....erm you, think.




posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Dupe
edit on 47pWed, 09 Nov 2016 06:47:47 -060020162016-11-09T06:47:47-06:00kAmerica/Chicago30000000k by SprocketUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

I think some of them should have been smacked as children. They wouldn't have turned into such odious adults then.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

I Doubt it . England can Renegotiate All their Trade Deals now Free of E.U. Dictates . It will take time , but Autonomy is better than being Economically Tied to a Failed Socialist Welfare State that has Forgotten how to Create Wealth .
edit on 9-11-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

That wasnt ranting.
You need to stop being such a limp wristed lefty.



So. No reason from you then. Just because. Classic!

You and sceptic are perfect examples of why calling people racists is like blowing a raspberry these days.




Blimey, I don't know where this is coming from - whatever you're on I suppose I could do with one.

Nice attempt to show you'd rather circumvent the judiciary, the sovereignty of parliament and blame the woes of the world on an immigrant. Are you Nigel in disguise?


In this particular case, given that May wanted to use prerogative powers to trigger art 50 and considering that was voted for by a majority of Britons, how is that circumventing the sovereignty of Parliament to any appreciable degree? Surely the people are sovereign and parliament gains it's authority via direct election from the people?

Or do you believe we are rabble that needs to be ruled?

And of course I don't blame the stupid bloody woman entirely, she's merely the loudest mouth in the crowd right now.


Why is it circumventing the sovereignty of Parliament? I think the three judges that ruled that it did could answer that question better than either you or me, so why don't you listen to the opinion of people who actually know what they are talking about?
so you don't have your own opinion then.
Just like always.
Well, when Tim Farron programmes you later, do come back and tell us what he....erm you, think.



You're doing it again, why be so obnoxious? I have an opinion and I thought I made it quite clear. Parliament should be involved in understanding at the very least at a broad level what the negotiating terms will be and what is and out of bounds. Simple as. I also think that this is showing parliamentary sovereignty and means that frankly if it goes pear shaped then parliament will to an extent hold some accountability - this is important because individuals may well have moved on by the time the actual impact of whatever is negotiated comes into play.

There, you see? A considered reflection, not a rant.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

That wasnt ranting.
You need to stop being such a limp wristed lefty.



So. No reason from you then. Just because. Classic!

You and sceptic are perfect examples of why calling people racists is like blowing a raspberry these days.




Blimey, I don't know where this is coming from - whatever you're on I suppose I could do with one.

Nice attempt to show you'd rather circumvent the judiciary, the sovereignty of parliament and blame the woes of the world on an immigrant. Are you Nigel in disguise?


In this particular case, given that May wanted to use prerogative powers to trigger art 50 and considering that was voted for by a majority of Britons, how is that circumventing the sovereignty of Parliament to any appreciable degree? Surely the people are sovereign and parliament gains it's authority via direct election from the people?

Or do you believe we are rabble that needs to be ruled?

And of course I don't blame the stupid bloody woman entirely, she's merely the loudest mouth in the crowd right now.


Why is it circumventing the sovereignty of Parliament? I think the three judges that ruled that it did could answer that question better than either you or me, so why don't you listen to the opinion of people who actually know what they are talking about?
so you don't have your own opinion then.
Just like always.
Well, when Tim Farron programmes you later, do come back and tell us what he....erm you, think.



You're doing it again, why be so obnoxious? I have an opinion and I thought I made it quite clear. Parliament should be involved in understanding at the very least at a broad level what the negotiating terms will be and what is and out of bounds. Simple as. I also think that this is showing parliamentary sovereignty and means that frankly if it goes pear shaped then parliament will to an extent hold some accountability - this is important because individuals may well have moved on by the time the actual impact of whatever is negotiated comes into play.

There, you see? A considered reflection, not a rant.



No. Your answer previously was pure smarm.

That's why I niggled at you with the Tim Farron thing.
I tried engaging with you, even empathising in the past but there's no helping you is there?

You really think some mealy mouthed snipe about the judges was a sufficient rebuttal of the question I put to you regarding the conflict between parliamentary sovereignty and that of the people? If so, twitter is thataway. ..



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: SprocketUK

I Doubt it . England can Renegotiate All their Trade Deals now Free of E.U. Dictates . It will take time , but Autonomy is better than being Economically Tied to a Failed Socialist Welfare State that has Forgotten how to Create Wealth .



Too true.

Freedom is worth a lot more than nickels and dimes mate.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

That wasnt ranting.
You need to stop being such a limp wristed lefty.



So. No reason from you then. Just because. Classic!

You and sceptic are perfect examples of why calling people racists is like blowing a raspberry these days.




Blimey, I don't know where this is coming from - whatever you're on I suppose I could do with one.

Nice attempt to show you'd rather circumvent the judiciary, the sovereignty of parliament and blame the woes of the world on an immigrant. Are you Nigel in disguise?


In this particular case, given that May wanted to use prerogative powers to trigger art 50 and considering that was voted for by a majority of Britons, how is that circumventing the sovereignty of Parliament to any appreciable degree? Surely the people are sovereign and parliament gains it's authority via direct election from the people?

Or do you believe we are rabble that needs to be ruled?

And of course I don't blame the stupid bloody woman entirely, she's merely the loudest mouth in the crowd right now.


Why is it circumventing the sovereignty of Parliament? I think the three judges that ruled that it did could answer that question better than either you or me, so why don't you listen to the opinion of people who actually know what they are talking about?
so you don't have your own opinion then.
Just like always.
Well, when Tim Farron programmes you later, do come back and tell us what he....erm you, think.



You're doing it again, why be so obnoxious? I have an opinion and I thought I made it quite clear. Parliament should be involved in understanding at the very least at a broad level what the negotiating terms will be and what is and out of bounds. Simple as. I also think that this is showing parliamentary sovereignty and means that frankly if it goes pear shaped then parliament will to an extent hold some accountability - this is important because individuals may well have moved on by the time the actual impact of whatever is negotiated comes into play.

There, you see? A considered reflection, not a rant.



No. Your answer previously was pure smarm.

That's why I niggled at you with the Tim Farron thing.
I tried engaging with you, even empathising in the past but there's no helping you is there?

You really think some mealy mouthed snipe about the judges was a sufficient rebuttal of the question I put to you regarding the conflict between parliamentary sovereignty and that of the people? If so, twitter is thataway. ..


You mean I don't agree with you so you compare me to Tim Farron?

I wouldn't stoop as low as to say that just because you seem to think everything can happen without regard to detail or understanding and acceptance of risk makes you as much an idiot as the blond BJ, well, I would, but I'm sure you'd take it as a compliment.

You seem to have lost what was some level of reasoning, strange world you must live in where everything revolves around you being right.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

No, merely touting someone else's opinion as your own without attempting to explain why you believe it to be true is why.

I may at times go off on one and am often less than polite. I do try though to explain why.
Your arguments are just tiresome and one dimensional. Have a look at some of the posts by others who disagree with me, even solo, bless his little cotton socks can often explain why he thinks I am wrong and saint Sturgeon is right. You though, you just parrot some Guardian by line as though it's gospel and I wonder if you really believe or even understand what it is you are talking about?



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

No, merely touting someone else's opinion as your own without attempting to explain why you believe it to be true is why.

I may at times go off on one and am often less than polite. I do try though to explain why.
Your arguments are just tiresome and one dimensional. Have a look at some of the posts by others who disagree with me, even solo, bless his little cotton socks can often explain why he thinks I am wrong and saint Sturgeon is right. You though, you just parrot some Guardian by line as though it's gospel and I wonder if you really believe or even understand what it is you are talking about?


Unlike your parents, I've never read the Guardian, I've no more interest in heavily left leaning papers than I do with ones leaning heavily right. Your argument is the same as the annoying person you hear on Question Time so often at the moment who just says 'out means out, why aren't we out?' without understanding that there is f# all consensus even from people who voted to leave on what 'out' means.

The one dimension is you, it's that person on QT who has their opinion on what 'out' means and expects everyone else to have the same. You are just coming off as an argumentative idiot who won't take a view that seeing as you wanted sovereignty, you have to abide by it even when you would rather people looked the other way. Delusional and quickly getting tiresome. Give it a break and type your rant in the Express opinion column, everyone will love you and agree with you. They might also say 'out means out, so why haven't they all gone?', I'll leave you to give your opinion on that as you seem to blow in different directions.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

You read the referendum question right?
You thought about what it actually meant?

At any point did you really believe that a vote to leave the EU meant staying in it in any way?


If you did, I'd like to know why that simple question led you to believe that voting out would mean staying in....



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

You read the referendum question right?
You thought about what it actually meant?

At any point did you really believe that a vote to leave the EU meant staying in it in any way?


If you did, I'd like to know why that simple question led you to believe that voting out would mean staying in....


Your memory, I voted to remain and was quite clear about that at the time.

Leave the EU.......... no trade deals with the EU? Not everyone thought that, BJ certainly didn't/doesn't.

No free movement of people? Is that zero movement or reduced movement? Does it affect people already here (plenty seem to think it does)? How does that affect people from the UK wanting to work in the EU countries or who are already domiciled in those countries with only a UK passport? BJ and co seemed to think that they wouldn't/won't be affected - did you think that? Why?



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

You read the referendum question right?
You thought about what it actually meant?

At any point did you really believe that a vote to leave the EU meant staying in it in any way?


If you did, I'd like to know why that simple question led you to believe that voting out would mean staying in....


Your memory, I voted to remain and was quite clear about that at the time.

Leave the EU.......... no trade deals with the EU? Not everyone thought that, BJ certainly didn't/doesn't.

No free movement of people? Is that zero movement or reduced movement? Does it affect people already here (plenty seem to think it does)? How does that affect people from the UK wanting to work in the EU countries or who are already domiciled in those countries with only a UK passport? BJ and co seemed to think that they wouldn't/won't be affected - did you think that? Why?


So you really think it's reasonable to imply that "Should Britain leave the EU " means it somehow shouldn't?

You don't think that doing trade deals and sorting out visa rules etc are things that cannot be done outside of the framework of the EU?

We have agreements with non EU countries Re trade etc. We had them prior to EEC membership. Why would we not make such deals following enacting of article 50?

Leaving the EU doesn't depend on any of this, the issues are separate and free trade will benefit all parties here so there is no rationale for the EU to block such, save a self harming desire for revenge.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

You read the referendum question right?
You thought about what it actually meant?

At any point did you really believe that a vote to leave the EU meant staying in it in any way?


If you did, I'd like to know why that simple question led you to believe that voting out would mean staying in....


Your memory, I voted to remain and was quite clear about that at the time.

Leave the EU.......... no trade deals with the EU? Not everyone thought that, BJ certainly didn't/doesn't.

No free movement of people? Is that zero movement or reduced movement? Does it affect people already here (plenty seem to think it does)? How does that affect people from the UK wanting to work in the EU countries or who are already domiciled in those countries with only a UK passport? BJ and co seemed to think that they wouldn't/won't be affected - did you think that? Why?


So you really think it's reasonable to imply that "Should Britain leave the EU " means it somehow shouldn't?

You don't think that doing trade deals and sorting out visa rules etc are things that cannot be done outside of the framework of the EU?

We have agreements with non EU countries Re trade etc. We had them prior to EEC membership. Why would we not make such deals following enacting of article 50?

Leaving the EU doesn't depend on any of this, the issues are separate and free trade will benefit all parties here so there is no rationale for the EU to block such, save a self harming desire for revenge.



It's totally pointless trying to enter into a discussion with you. You sound more and more like a sad angry old man biting for an argument, sorry, I'm not playing.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join