Supremacy of Parliament. "the arm twisting and arguments failed"

[EFLImpudence]

In attacking Brexit, Remainers frequently wheel out Edmund Burke to support their view of a representative democracy based on Parliament.

...but is he right?

Burke was an inverterate snob, who believed firmly in the class system, where everyone knew their place. He would have balked at the great unwashed getting the vote.
He is completely irrelevant in this day and age, with the universal vote, a far better read- and educated public, radio, tv, internet and social media etc. Ideas travel at breakneck speed when compared with the 18th century.
It's about time that MPs and Remainers woke up to the fact that we are now in a completely different world, in which Burke is just an anachronism.

What does Facebook say is the duty of an M.P., then?

 

[transam]

Woah Tony, gotta disagree there. Better read yes, better educated definitely not. I despair when I see the way that most people carry on, and the lack of understanding that most people have shown in this debate, and it horrifies me. I think the truth of the referendum was that a small core of people knew exactly what they were voting for, another group voted brexit because they didn't like being controlled by the EU, and a lot voted because they didn't like being treated like idiots by the scaremongering of the remain camp. The remainers on the other hand, are mainly little EU'ers, and are afraid of change, but I'll guarantee that most people voted on their feelings rather than their true understanding of the issues and consequences.

Apart from that, I'll support your post.

Cameron was very mistaken if he thought that every one would vote in the referendum on EU issues . Plenty voted out for all sorts of issues some of which had nowt to do with the EU .

Protest vote against certain policies . Bedroom tax being one . He should never have called a referendum in the first place tbh

Referendums on these types of things E.U / scottish independance ect are very divisive

Also when is it correct for any Government to ignore a referendum result ? If we had a ref on bringing back capital punishment ? and the people voted for it ? what should the government do ? implement it or ignore the ref' result ??

 

[Doggit]

As most referendums are advisory, one on bringing back capital punishment would just get ignored (not that they'd ever risk having one) but Cameron screwed up big time when he then said that parliament would enact whatever got voted for, so removed the normal advisory get out clause.

I'm amazed that he's got a new job, but it's with a US firm, and they always go for glitzy names over quality workers.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

A... but Cameron screwed up big time when he then said that parliament would enact whatever got voted for, so removed the normal advisory get out clause.

Doggit's fantasy working overtime. Where does he get his information from? Probably **** end!

A representative or a direct democracy?
In the end, the argument comes down to different visions for democracy in the United Kingdom. The conventional view is that ultimate political power lies with Parliament. The High Court came to its conclusion that the referendum was not legally binding guided by “basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy”.

In a parliamentary democracy, as barrister Rupert Myers bluntly puts it, “the people are not sovereign”.

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

 

[Notch7]

It does prove one point

Yes, it proves that you will go to any lengths to point score

He needs to be discouraged from making such vitriolic and hate-filled comments.

More importantly you need to learn a sense of balance. There are real issues to be discussed not escalating an innappropriate comment.

You should be ashamed bringing Joe Cox into your post simply to support your narrative.

 

[noseall]

Yes, it proves that you will go to any lengths to point score

Oh the irony!

Untitled

• noseall
• 17 Jan 2015
• 3

 

[Notch7]

Oh the irony!

 

[SirGalahad]

but I'll guarantee that most people voted on their feelings rather than their true understanding of the issues and consequences.

Absolutely and isn't that frightening.

I'm amazed that he's got a new job, but it's with a US firm, and they always go for glitzy names over quality workers.

He has connections and his policies have benefited certain industries.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Yes, it proves that you will go to any lengths to point score
More importantly you need to learn a sense of balance. There are real issues to be discussed not escalating an innappropriate comment.
You should be ashamed bringing Joe Cox into your post simply to support your narrative.

Oh the irony!

Untitled

• noseall
• 17 Jan 2015
• 3

I do not know about irony, noseall. Although I appreciate you were addressing the point scoring issue.

I am flabbergasted that someone who supports another musing about a lost opportunity to "shoot a politician between the eyes" feels that I am missing a 'sense of balance'. That I should be ashamed?
Incredulity rather than irony comes to mind.
Has he not understood the concerns about abusive texts, emails, twitter etc?
Or perhaps those concerns do not apply to him and roger?

No perhaps you were right, noseall, so ironic that notch takes a morally superior attitude supporting someone regretting that a politician was not assassinated, in order to 'point score'.

 

[transam]

Yes, it proves that you will go to any lengths to point score


More importantly you need to learn a sense of balance. There are real issues to be discussed not escalating an innappropriate comment.

You should be ashamed bringing Joe Cox into your post simply to support your narrative.

Assume you are responding to way R bee ??

yep the RWR remoaners will go to any lengths to point score tis what they do, they could all get a job with the daily wail . on the fake news , porki pie desk

 

[Notch7]

Has he not understood the concerns about abusive texts, emails, twitter etc?

Yes, I understand the concerns.......

Or perhaps those concerns do not apply to

dead people

It seems Wannabe cant appreciate the difference between making a comment about somebody that has been dead over a decade and sending abusive tweets to a pregnant MPs wife who is very much alive.

 

[Doggit]

Yes he can, but any old stick to beat you with is better than none. Jo Cox did nothing but good, and the MP wife that was pregnant certainly didn't deserve the abuse she got, but Heath knew that the common market was heading for a federal Europe, yet lied to us about it. And if he hadn't, we wouldn't be in this Brexit mess right now, so no, maybe he didn't deserve a bullet between the eyes, but I think some form of retribution would have been deserved, even if it was only complete and utter vilification.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Yes he can, but any old stick to beat you with is better than none. Jo Cox did nothing but good, and the MP wife that was pregnant certainly didn't deserve the abuse she got, but Heath knew that the common market was heading for a federal Europe, yet lied to us about it. And if he hadn't, we wouldn't be in this Brexit mess right now, so no, maybe he didn't deserve a bullet between the eyes, but I think some form of retribution would have been deserved, even if it was only complete and utter vilification.

You would support roger's suggestion of violence against politicians then?
Or would you?
You obviously are quite happy to shout down anyone who is prepared to challenge violence (or the suggestion/support of violence) against others.

 

[Notch7]

You obviously are quite happy to shout down anyone who is prepared to challenge violence (or the suggestion/support of violence) against others.

No!

But I am quite happy to shout down a bonehead ranting Numpty that can't understand when a comment is just inappropriate and not worth making a fuss about.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

No!

But I am quite happy to shout down a bonehead ranting Numpty that can't understand when a comment is just inappropriate and not worth making a fuss about.

A person making a comment such as a politician "should have been shot between the eyes " is a person regretting that a politician was not murdered.
And you call it "not worth making a fuss about"?
Have you not been aware of recent abuse (and violence) against politicians? Of course you have! Yet you still say "it is not worth making a fuss about".

How about if I said something like "Germany should have won the war", or "the IRA should have carried out more terrorist activities"? Would you still say, "it is not worth making a fuss about"?
If I say something like "Manchester should have won the football match", that is something not worth making a fuss about.
But anyone suggesting that violence against another person is OK, (or would have been OK), especially in this current divisive climate is worth making a fuss about!
Even more so when they express those comments on social media!
If roger had any morals about him at all, he would have retracted the comment, but no, you continue to endorse his comment!