guest1957 Posted January 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 That is a fair comment,but seriously ,do you think that the proper application of the law is at the top of the agenda here,or is it the frustration of the leaving process? Bearing in mind that early indications,bar the libs and SNP ,parliament will support the signing of article 50,it would appear to the casual observer,that it is exactly that,a delaying tactic. I think it delayed the government making any rash decisions and throwing in an Article 50 notice on a whim. I also think it sends a clear message to Theresa that she isn't the captain of the great ship Britannia; it's a bit more nuanced than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 I also think it sends a clear message to Theresa that she isn't the captain of the great ship Britannia; it's a bit more nuanced than that. The message hasn't worked. I think she is still the PM and has staked her future on Brexit. All this publicity for Gina (I claim to have a Law degree, but really haven't got one) Miller sells some newspapers for the moment, but will have no long term impact. The UK will be out of the EU and the media will move on to another topic. It might run for another six months, it might be a year or two, but it is almost irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 I think it delayed the government making any rash decisions and throwing in an Article 50 notice on a whim. I also think it sends a clear message to Theresa that she isn't the captain of the great ship Britannia; it's a bit more nuanced than that. Its not a whim ,its what the majority wanted! Governments have done far worse things in this country ,without a vote,and theres been less fuss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Rewulf - you are speaking the truth, unpalatable though that is to the remain camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Thanks Gordon . Its plain as day as I see it,but I suppose if your mind is set to Lib/left mode ,theres not a lot can change it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Its not a whim ,its what the majority wanted! Governments have done far worse things in this country ,without a vote,and theres been less fuss! +2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krugerandsmith Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Forgive me but how would that teach them a lesson? The Labour Party has discovered that a small organised group of people can hijack democracy. IMHO it means we need to vote more, not less. I would not be trying to teach them a lesson. You cannot teach the untrustworthy. However your comment does have merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted January 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Its not a whim ,its what the majority wanted! Governments have done far worse things in this country ,without a vote,and theres been less fuss! By on a whim I meant shortly following the vote. Thanks Gordon . Its plain as day as I see it,but I suppose if your mind is set to Lib/left mode ,theres not a lot can change it ! The EU isn't the preserve of the the left, far from it. It really isn't that many years since Thatcher was banging the drum for Europe and I've never heard her called a leftie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 until she realised it was a scam, using trade as a cover for taking your sovereignty, but you are right, in the first referendum she was the leader of the stay in Europe campaign. someone as bright as her could see it, all those years ago, but many still believe we would be rudderless without Europe, yet we managed for 1000 years on our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 By on a whim I meant shortly following the vote. The EU isn't the preserve of the the left, far from it. It really isn't that many years since Thatcher was banging the drum for Europe and I've never heard her called a leftie. Shortly after the vote ? Its been 7 months,and another 2 before its due in,what do you think is the correct time frame? Theres still a good 2 years to hammer it out anyway. And to bring up how the EU was 30 odd years ago ,when it was virtually unrecognisable from the monstrosity it is today is frankly,clutching at straws. Do you seriously believe that the EU doesnt have deep rooted socialist ideology at its core? Please ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 Err yes it would majority verdict nounEnglish Law noun: majority verdict; plural noun: majority verdicts a verdict agreed by all but one or two of the members of a jury. And the key is in the word "jury". There was no jury; this was not a criminal trial, and so the requirement you describe above (a verdict agreed by all but one or two members of the jury) did not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 A jury majority may be different? But Is not a simple majority one vote more than 50% of the votes? The EU referendum was decided by a simple majority......but it was by more than one vote! Lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveboy Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 And the key is in the word "jury". There was no jury; this was not a criminal trial, and so the requirement you describe above (a verdict agreed by all but one or two members of the jury) did not apply. I never said there was........I was making a comparison ...In your post #120 you highlighted " if this had been a jury trial the case would have been dismissed or a retrial" you then said "no it wouldn't 8-3 is a majority verdict".........with 11 on a jury it has to be 10-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 daveboy - well spotted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 And the key is in the word "jury". There was no jury; this was not a criminal trial, and so the requirement you describe above (a verdict agreed by all but one or two members of the jury) did not apply. More truth bending by the remain camp?😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 More truth bending by the remain camp? No. A simple statement of fact . But then what price facts for the many paranoids and conspiracy-theorists who post on here (never mid the hard of thinking who would continue to argue that black was white regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 I never said there was........I was making a comparison ...In your post #120 you highlighted " if this had been a jury trial the case would have been dismissed or a retrial" you then said "no it wouldn't 8-3 is a majority verdict".........with 11 on a jury it has to be 10-1 Apologies - I didn't read your post carefully enough. Too early in the morning for an old codger like me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 "never mid the hard of thinking who would continue to argue that black was white regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary" Like this you mean I never said there was........I was making a comparison ...In your post #120 you highlighted " if this had been a jury trial the case would have been dismissed or a retrial" you then said "no it wouldn't 8-3 is a majority verdict".........with 11 on a jury it has to be 10-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 Apologies - I didn't read your post carefully enough. Too early in the morning for an old codger like me.... Give the man credit for owning up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveboy Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 Apologies - I didn't read your post carefully enough. Too early in the morning for an old codger like me.... No problem,I have no axe to grind... I'm sure if we ever met we would get on just fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 No problem,I have no axe to grind... I'm sure if we ever met we would get on just fine Hope so! I've enjoyed this thread - it's reached eight pages now, and the debate has been predominantly earnest, reasoned and polite (although i did try to tease Gordon R by using the word "silly" ). All the best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 aldivalloch - no problem. I have been called worse and probably deserved even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 Does anyone remember who got us into the "closer political ties" mess in the first place? Trade fine but ruled/law from Europe, give me a break, soon please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 Hope so! I've enjoyed this thread - it's reached eight pages now, and the debate has been predominantly earnest, reasoned and polite (although i did try to tease Gordon R by using the word "silly" ). All the best! aldivalloch - no problem. I have been called worse and probably deserved even worse. Probably a good time to draw this one to a close....................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts