LadyNorwood

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/04/07/syrian-survivor-thanks-trump-nr.cnn

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyNorwood Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Alan Medic Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > LadyNorwood Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > AM - who's to say they're not? Are you > > talking > > > > about the man on the street or those 'in > > > charge'? > > > > > > > > > I haven't spoken to the man on the street. So > > I'm > > > talking about the rest. I wouldn't > necessarily > > say > > > they are in charge. As the PM hasn't > negotiated > > > Brexit thusfar, who are the people in the > know > > you > > > think exist? > > > > > > Who is the rest? You make very sweeping > > generalisations - unless you are prepared to > speak > > to each and every person who voted then how can > > you know? > > To cut to the chase, who are the informed people > out there? I don't see them. Enlighten me. FFS - I don't know, I never said I did, why don't you go out and ask some people, I really cannot wait to move out of London, actually I don't even need to do that, I'm just going to not participate in the edf anymore - cheerio, have a great weekend all....

dc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyNorwood Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The wording on the ballot paper stated "This is > > your decision. The Government will implement > what > > you decide" - there was no mention of > Parliament > > being involved. > > That wording may have been somewhere but it was, > categorically, not on the ballot paper itself. Yes, I've already clarified that, if you read my earlier posts - I said mea culpa OK? It was on the leaflet distributed by the Government to every household..... Anyway we now have some NHS worker at GOSH wishing a Leaver's child gets sick and doesn't get treatment (on BBC QT last night) - how personal can this get??

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyNorwood Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > AM - who's to say they're not? Are you talking > > about the man on the street or those 'in > charge'? > > > I haven't spoken to the man on the street. So I'm > talking about the rest. I wouldn't necessarily say > they are in charge. As the PM hasn't negotiated > Brexit thusfar, who are the people in the know you > think exist? Who is the rest? You make very sweeping generalisations - unless you are prepared to speak to each and every person who voted then how can you know?

AM - who's to say they're not? Are you talking about the man on the street or those 'in charge'?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's with the girly ribbon BS ? > Whether your point is valid or not, getting all > anti-men about it is surely a needless sidetrack. It was Shaggy I think who said ill-informed moron, so I just added girly ribbon for a touch of humour, clearly lost in translation.. I adore men actually, I have very old-fashioned views on marriage and actually I do put on lipstick and freshen up before his Lordship comes home... Heaven forfend that topics on the edf get sidetracked, because that NEVER happens!

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With her disdain for the ruling elite, I'm > wondering why LadyN chose such a moniker. How > about PlebbyPeckham?... It was given to me by someone much cleverer and better than me....

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyNorwood Wrote: > > > The wording on the ballot paper stated "This is > > your decision. The Government will implement > what > > you decide" > > No it didn't, it didn't say that anywhere on the > ballot paper. Thousands of pictures of the ballot > paper online to refresh your memory if you don't > believe me. Furthermore, the European Referendum > Bill 2015-2016 briefing notes specifically > explain: "The Bill requires a referendum on the > UK's continued membership of the European Union > (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain > any requirement for the UK Government to implement > the results of the referendum." > > You may believe the government ought to implement > the result of the referendum and you would > certainly have an arguable case, but nowhere on > the ballot did it say they would and there's > nothing in law to say they have to. Mea culpa - it was actually in the leaflet sent out by the Government... See under "A Once In A Generation Decision" https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyNorwood Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Shaggy Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > And your point is? > > > > My point is this - at no stage was it indicated > to > > the electorate that Parliament would then > debate > > the outcome - it was clearly stated, again, > "This > > is your decision. The Government will implement > > what you decide". Such was the naivety and > > arrogance of the ruling elite (on both sides of > > both Houses) that they did not contemplate the > > effects of a Leave vote. A question was asked, > an > > answer was given, now the goal posts are being > > jiggled about in a frantic attempt to appease > that > > ruling elite.... > > I'm sorry if I wasn't air headed enough for you > > first time round, I do hope this clarifies that > I > > am, indeed, a really stupid girly.... > > > If they didn't even examine the consequences - how > do they know if Brexit is even possible. > > We're entwined with EU and maybe 30-40 years is > the timetable, we aren't even told half the story. Well that's a totally different argument - what I do know is that all my French neighbours and friends in my tiny Provencal village think that the result is brave and, given the chance, they would vote to leave the EU too... Anyway I'm not going to trouble my silly head about this any more as I must go and choose a new lipstick and ribbon for my curly hair and leave it to all you sensible men to make things better....

Shaggy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And your point is? My point is this - at no stage was it indicated to the electorate that Parliament would then debate the outcome - it was clearly stated, again, "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide". Such was the naivety and arrogance of the ruling elite (on both sides of both Houses) that they did not contemplate the effects of a Leave vote. A question was asked, an answer was given, now the goal posts are being jiggled about in a frantic attempt to appease that ruling elite.... I'm sorry if I wasn't air headed enough for you first time round, I do hope this clarifies that I am, indeed, a really stupid girly....

Shaggy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today's court ruling is an interesting barometer. > I'm sure that lots of those offerings their > "opinions" haven't read it, but all it does is to > simply state that the government doesn't make > laws. It proposes laws, and parliament votes for > them or against them. There may be a democratic > imperative for parliament not to oppose Brexit, > but the government just doesn't have the power to > overrule parliament. If it did, we would be living > in a dictatorship. > > Here is the reason why it is a barometer: it is > possible to have a reasoned viewpoint in support > of Brexit. It is not, however reasonable to say > that the judges in this ruling are wrong, biased, > or acting in an undemocratic way. Those > suggestions do not withstand a moment of scrutiny. > Any "opinion" to the contrary isn't based on fact, > and therefore is worthless. > > So the response to the ruling will separate the > ill-informed morons from normal sensible people. The wording on the ballot paper stated "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide" - there was no mention of Parliament being involved. Yours aye, ill-informed moronic, worthless opinoned fluffy kitten loving airhead....

Reward

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > red devil Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Perhaps they will now take the case to the > > European Court of Justice... :) > > Quote of the week I think! > > This attitude of 'we must enforce the will of the > people' gets on my ties. MP's are elected by the > will of the people on the basis they know better > than we do (possibly). A referendum which produced > a result almost too close to call where many votes > were very likely based on believing lies, is not > the right way to decide the future of the country. > Let the MP's debate on the actual merits or > otherwise of Brexit and then vote on it. I'm not sure that would work either, given that most MPs were either firmly Remain or firmly Leave. I think to say "many votes were very likely based on believing lies" is being rather disingenuous; many people I know felt patronised by the elite and made very informed choices (on both sides of the debate)....

I think it goes to the Supreme Court next.... But then what do I know, I'm just a girl who likes fluffy kittens....

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyNorwood Wrote: > > > No, my point is that the Lord Chief Justice is > a > > founding member of ELI, therefore he is not > > impartial.... > > You do the man an injustice, possibly even > defaming him - he is a very well respected member > of the judiciary & was entirely ethical and > responsible to be involved in the ELI give that > the UK is a member of the EU. Not to have been > involved would have been a dereliction of his duty > to UK jurisprudence given the impact that EU laws > have on all our lives. I take your point, thank you - I have edited to read "possibly not impartial" - to the average Leave voter on the street, it doesn't sit well to have a senior judge who may be perceived to be less impartial, they may think he should have recused himself... I am in no way defaming anybody - I've been called far worse things than this....