Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:05 pm
Jock wrote:I certainly would have, that fat nonce Heath was well aware of the ultimate goal of a federal Euro Superstate.
Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:35 pm
llan bluebird wrote:Any democracy reserves the rights to change their minds.
With that in mind if we have a 3rd referendum on membership of the EU and we vote to remain, how often should the population be polled to ensure they haven't further changed their minds ?
Should there be a fixed term for instance every 5 years ?
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:52 pm
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:53 pm
Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:05 pm
paulh_85 wrote:i mean... you sort of answered it in your first post.
the vote in 1973 wasnt for the EU we currently have - we had no vote on that.
Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:22 pm
rumpo kid wrote:If I posted a picture of the Paris attacks, and argued that we should leave the EU, it would be an extremely weak and immature case to make. I'd feel a complete Melvin.
Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:28 pm
Man of Harlech wrote:llan bluebird wrote:Any democracy reserves the rights to change their minds.
With that in mind if we have a 3rd referendum on membership of the EU and we vote to remain, how often should the population be polled to ensure they haven't further changed their minds ?
Should there be a fixed term for instance every 5 years ?
And if we are going to set a precedent of re-visiting votes that were marginal then we should have another referendum on devolution. 50.3% majority on a 50.2% turnout. Now I did not like that result but hey, that's democracy.
Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:48 pm
Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:00 pm
Dave67 wrote:rumpo kid wrote:If I posted a picture of the Paris attacks, and argued that we should leave the EU, it would be an extremely weak and immature case to make. I'd feel a complete Melvin.
The pictures
1. Boris Johnson standing in front of a sign - £350 million per week to the NHS
2. Liam Fox - Brexit Deal would be the Easiest Deal in History
3. Graph showing the £1 sterling has devalued by 23% since Brexit Vote.
4. Nigel Farage standing in front of a long queue of Brown faces.
5. David Davis - Business would demand the EU does a deal with the UK
6. Press reports of anti-polish racism proclaiming to be pro Brexit.
All these are either quotes or facts.
I have made no comment in any of them
There is no comment in any of them except from the individuals being quoted. They are a matter of public record.
Please feel free to address any/all of the issues Melvin.
Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:07 pm
Sloper Road wrote:Never thought we needed a deal as such when i voted to be honest.
The vote was to leave so why are we trying to get a deal. Tell the EU we are leaving ,and this is what we will do when we have, Its not for the EU to to say if they like it or not. We are not asking to leave ,we are telling them we are .
If the EU want to put up a hard boarder in Eire then thats up to them. We dont intend too.
AS it stands now the EU are treating us with no respect, if i was the PM i would start talking to countries like Russia and iran for example about trade deals and that would scare the pants out of them, We should threaten to withdraw from NATO and let the EU fight there own battles, they would shit themselves.
We have proped up The EU with money and taken a lead in defence. They should get nothing from us now..I voted to remain but if there was another vote it would be to leave ,due to the lack of respect shown to this country.
Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:18 pm
Steve Zodiak wrote:Dave, only the most naive believe the claims made by politicians, whether it be in the run up to a general election or the Brexit referendum. You have listed claims made by one side, but omitted the equally false claims made by the other side. Do you recall what George Osborne said when fighting the remain corner? He said the Conservative manifesto would have to be ripped up in order to save the economy, and the result would be an emergency budget within weeks of a "leave" vote. He talked about all sorts of tax increases to try and save our economy from collapsing. None of this happened, in fact a couple of years later the emergency budget still has not taken place, and our economy has not collapsed to the best of my knowledge.
Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:11 am
Dave67 wrote:Steve Zodiak wrote:Dave, only the most naive believe the claims made by politicians, whether it be in the run up to a general election or the Brexit referendum. You have listed claims made by one side, but omitted the equally false claims made by the other side. Do you recall what George Osborne said when fighting the remain corner? He said the Conservative manifesto would have to be ripped up in order to save the economy, and the result would be an emergency budget within weeks of a "leave" vote. He talked about all sorts of tax increases to try and save our economy from collapsing. None of this happened, in fact a couple of years later the emergency budget still has not taken place, and our economy has not collapsed to the best of my knowledge.
So what you are saying is that, having exposed the lies, we are in a better position now to make an informed decision on Brexit?
Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:52 am
Steve Zodiak wrote:Can't understand why certain people always have to twist the words of others to try and get a point of view over. I have said nothing of the sort.
Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:49 am
Dave67 wrote:Steve Zodiak wrote:Can't understand why certain people always have to twist the words of others to try and get a point of view over. I have said nothing of the sort.
You made the point that there were a lot of lies on both sides that have been exposed.
I asked the question - are you saying that the electorate is better informed about Brexit?
Apologies if my use of a question mark was taken a a devious means of misreading your meaning.
Punctuation can be very confusing.
Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:53 pm
Steve Zodiak wrote:Dave67 wrote:Steve Zodiak wrote:Can't understand why certain people always have to twist the words of others to try and get a point of view over. I have said nothing of the sort.
You made the point that there were a lot of lies on both sides that have been exposed.
I asked the question - are you saying that the electorate is better informed about Brexit?
Apologies if my use of a question mark was taken a a devious means of misreading your meaning.
Punctuation can be very confusing.
We don't know is the answer to that. In the main, we are hearing the same claims and counter claims that we heard last time. The "leave" campaign will make a statement that will be ridiculed by the "remainers" and vice versa. We will once again be fed with information that we can either take as being correct because a politician says so, or we can do our own research and make an informed choice. Nothing can be based on previous experience, because no country has left before. Likewise, we cannot look at how things were before we joined the Common Market, as the world has changed a lot since then. The only claims to date made by either side that we can prove or disprove 100% are those that were based on what would happen within a short period after the last referendum, as we now know the answer to that.
I suspect the electorate may have more information now than they did last time, and I also suspect thata most of the new information they have will depend on which newspaper they read and which of the politicians they most trust. Whether or not that information is any more accurate than it was last time is open to debate, as trusting the information in a daily rag or believing everything a politician says is probably not the most sensible thing to do.
Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:03 pm
Dave67 wrote:Jock wrote:I certainly would have, that fat nonce Heath was well aware of the ultimate goal of a federal Euro Superstate.
Why do you feel the need to refer to Edward Heath as a fat nonce?
What does this contribute to your argument?
There is no substantive argument here just smear.
Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:02 pm
Jock wrote:Dave67 wrote:Jock wrote:I certainly would have, that fat nonce Heath was well aware of the ultimate goal of a federal Euro Superstate.
Why do you feel the need to refer to Edward Heath as a fat nonce?
What does this contribute to your argument?
There is no substantive argument here just smear.
Heath Knew the end game for what was sold to the electorate as a tarrif free trading block, the Federal Superstate you long for was planned by the Bilderberg Group in the 50s and 60s and the fat Nonce was up to his armpits in it. Tell me, why do you think Soros is so keen to spike Brexit, do you think it’s because he cares about his fellow man?
We had a referendum, your side lost, however rather than respecting the democratic mandate, backing our country and fighting for the best deal we can get, treacherous scum backed Junkers, Tusk and Merkel.
Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:12 pm
Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:09 pm
Dave67 wrote:rumpo kid wrote:If I posted a picture of the Paris attacks, and argued that we should leave the EU, it would be an extremely weak and immature case to make. I'd feel a complete Melvin.
The pictures
1. Boris Johnson standing in front of a sign - £350 million per week to the NHS
2. Liam Fox - Brexit Deal would be the Easiest Deal in History
3. Graph showing the £1 sterling has devalued by 23% since Brexit Vote.
4. Nigel Farage standing in front of a long queue of Brown faces.
5. David Davis - Business would demand the EU does a deal with the UK
6. Press reports of anti-polish racism proclaiming to be pro Brexit.
All these are either quotes or facts.
I have made no comment in any of them
There is no comment in any of them except from the individuals being quoted. They are a matter of public record.
Please feel free to address any/all of the issues Melvin.
Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:48 am
Dave67 wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Well you're quite wrong about treason, and trying to distinguish between high treason and low treason has been somewhat pointless since 1351. If you'd like to know , they could technically have beheaded you for that up till 1973, and the other offence for which the death penalty was retained was military arson , ( " burning the Queens ships in her arsenals " I think.
I agree that it's got bugger all to do with the subject but since you were the one who raised it, your comment seems strange.
again I am not "quite wrong".
Wikipedia:
High treason was formerly distinguished from petty treason, a treason committed against a subject of the sovereign, the scope of which was limited by statute to the murder of a legal superior. Petty treason comprised the murder of a master by his servant, of a husband by his wife, or of a bishop. Petty treason ceased to be a distinct offence from murder in 1828, and consequently high treason is today often referred to simply as treason.
I grant you that their usage is somewhat interchangeable today but the capital punishment offences were indeed all High Treason.
One that you missed was Arson in royal dockyards repealed in 1969.
Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:00 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote:I stand corrected upon the wording of the 1975 referrendum. Although I voted in it, I'd forgotten the actual wording because the thing which the nation was considering was in practical reality whether or not we would join. As you point out though, they'd already signed a treaty which was subject to ratification or otherwise by the vote .
As far as the treason and high treason goes, well that's a bit like " armed robbery" in that the prefix is generally a linguistic thing rather than a specific offence. The offence of "High Treason" does exist theoretically but it's definition is very narrow, requiring the offender to have been doing things like humping Royal princesses. In reality, people were generally convicted of "treachery " if you want to be precise.
I don't recommend it as light reading and I certainly wouldn't advise you to take too much from Wikipedia entries on stuff like this. I note that they blibble on about low and petty treason , which are most archaic concepts, even more so than treason itself which there's not much call for in the courts these days. I could be far more exact on the subject if I took the time to study authorities but I'm not going to do that unless you pay me I'm afraid .
Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:11 pm
Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:11 pm
rumpo kid wrote:Most schoolchildren know that newspapers and magazines are generally not accepted as sources of information. Nobody suggested you made any comment to the pictures, and as for petty name calling..Ha ha, keep up the good work Dave...the layers are slowly peeling.
Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:44 pm
Dave67 wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:I stand corrected upon the wording of the 1975 referrendum. Although I voted in it, I'd forgotten the actual wording because the thing which the nation was considering was in practical reality whether or not we would join. As you point out though, they'd already signed a treaty which was subject to ratification or otherwise by the vote .
As far as the treason and high treason goes, well that's a bit like " armed robbery" in that the prefix is generally a linguistic thing rather than a specific offence. The offence of "High Treason" does exist theoretically but it's definition is very narrow, requiring the offender to have been doing things like humping Royal princesses. In reality, people were generally convicted of "treachery " if you want to be precise.
I don't recommend it as light reading and I certainly wouldn't advise you to take too much from Wikipedia entries on stuff like this. I note that they blibble on about low and petty treason , which are most archaic concepts, even more so than treason itself which there's not much call for in the courts these days. I could be far more exact on the subject if I took the time to study authorities but I'm not going to do that unless you pay me I'm afraid .
Having attempted to trawl through the various acts of parliaments and revisions thereof in search of evidence, I also came to the conclusion that you should be paying me to do the research, particularly as the point I was looking to prove was incidental to the main point I was making. At that point Wikipedia became good enough.
Your posts to me have been pretty much been fact based and substantiated, I commend you for this. I read your response to Jock's smears and which were quite the opposite (fact free unsubstantiated opinion) and wondered if they were from the same person.
Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:43 pm
Dave67 wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:I stand corrected upon the wording of the 1975 referrendum. Although I voted in it, I'd forgotten the actual wording because the thing which the nation was considering was in practical reality whether or not we would join. As you point out though, they'd already signed a treaty which was subject to ratification or otherwise by the vote .
As far as the treason and high treason goes, well that's a bit like " armed robbery" in that the prefix is generally a linguistic thing rather than a specific offence. The offence of "High Treason" does exist theoretically but it's definition is very narrow, requiring the offender to have been doing things like humping Royal princesses. In reality, people were generally convicted of "treachery " if you want to be precise.
I don't recommend it as light reading and I certainly wouldn't advise you to take too much from Wikipedia entries on stuff like this. I note that they blibble on about low and petty treason , which are most archaic concepts, even more so than treason itself which there's not much call for in the courts these days. I could be far more exact on the subject if I took the time to study authorities but I'm not going to do that unless you pay me I'm afraid .
Having attempted to trawl through the various acts of parliaments and revisions thereof in search of evidence, I also came to the conclusion that you should be paying me to do the research, particularly as the point I was looking to prove was incidental to the main point I was making. At that point Wikipedia became good enough.
Your posts to me have been pretty much been fact based and substantiated, I commend you for this. I read your response to Jock's smears and which were quite the opposite (fact free unsubstantiated opinion) and wondered if they were from the same person.
Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:19 pm
Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:02 pm
rumpo kid wrote:I note that you have covered none of the issues I invited you to address.
Can I suggest you stop discussing politics with schoolchildren, It will get you some funny looks from the mother's at the school gates.
Can I ask out of interest, If you to not regard the Press as "accepted source of information"....
Where do you get you news from?
Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:40 am
City Slicker wrote:Dave67 wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:I stand corrected upon the wording of the 1975 referrendum. Although I voted in it, I'd forgotten the actual wording because the thing which the nation was considering was in practical reality whether or not we would join. As you point out though, they'd already signed a treaty which was subject to ratification or otherwise by the vote .
As far as the treason and high treason goes, well that's a bit like " armed robbery" in that the prefix is generally a linguistic thing rather than a specific offence. The offence of "High Treason" does exist theoretically but it's definition is very narrow, requiring the offender to have been doing things like humping Royal princesses. In reality, people were generally convicted of "treachery " if you want to be precise.
I don't recommend it as light reading and I certainly wouldn't advise you to take too much from Wikipedia entries on stuff like this. I note that they blibble on about low and petty treason , which are most archaic concepts, even more so than treason itself which there's not much call for in the courts these days. I could be far more exact on the subject if I took the time to study authorities but I'm not going to do that unless you pay me I'm afraid .
Having attempted to trawl through the various acts of parliaments and revisions thereof in search of evidence, I also came to the conclusion that you should be paying me to do the research, particularly as the point I was looking to prove was incidental to the main point I was making. At that point Wikipedia became good enough.
Your posts to me have been pretty much been fact based and substantiated, I commend you for this. I read your response to Jock's smears and which were quite the opposite (fact free unsubstantiated opinion) and wondered if they were from the same person.
Go on Dave, don't be stingy give Old Jim a couple of bob; I dare say he needs it. If nothing else he always provides good entertainment (in all his guises)
Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:40 am
Dave67 wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:I stand corrected upon the wording of the 1975 referrendum. Although I voted in it, I'd forgotten the actual wording because the thing which the nation was considering was in practical reality whether or not we would join. As you point out though, they'd already signed a treaty which was subject to ratification or otherwise by the vote .
As far as the treason and high treason goes, well that's a bit like " armed robbery" in that the prefix is generally a linguistic thing rather than a specific offence. The offence of "High Treason" does exist theoretically but it's definition is very narrow, requiring the offender to have been doing things like humping Royal princesses. In reality, people were generally convicted of "treachery " if you want to be precise.
I don't recommend it as light reading and I certainly wouldn't advise you to take too much from Wikipedia entries on stuff like this. I note that they blibble on about low and petty treason , which are most archaic concepts, even more so than treason itself which there's not much call for in the courts these days. I could be far more exact on the subject if I took the time to study authorities but I'm not going to do that unless you pay me I'm afraid .
Having attempted to trawl through the various acts of parliaments and revisions thereof in search of evidence, I also came to the conclusion that you should be paying me to do the research, particularly as the point I was looking to prove was incidental to the main point I was making. At that point Wikipedia became good enough.
Your posts to me have been pretty much been fact based and substantiated, I commend you for this. I read your response to Jock's smears and which were quite the opposite (fact free unsubstantiated opinion) and wondered if they were from the same person.
Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:03 am