BradburgerUltimately it highlights the extreme incompetence of Cameron and his sidekicks to plan the biggest project post WWII and not look into the fine detail and account for all aspects.
Naming the judges and professing to state your beliefs of their political persuasion, as also did the Daily Mail, sits nicely as one of Britts published 14 characteristics of fascism, hardly something to be proud of or align yourself with.
WTF?
:confused:
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerTrekkie & Bruce
It depends on one’s interpretation of ‘binding’. On page 14 of the Governments pre referendum brochure it clearly stated ” this is your decision, the Government will implement what you – the electorate – decide”.
There were no caveats. No ifs, but and maybe’s. No promise that Parliament had to ratify. Now I don’t know what you really think as opposed to what party politics induces you to think but, that sounds to me like a cast iron guarantee that the Govt. will discharge the will of the people demonstrated by a democratic vote.
Therefore the role of the Supreme Court was superfluous. They should not have been allowed to deliver a judgment. The judges are political appointees and we know, for most of them, wherein lay their political affiliations. The Govt. were reasonably relaxed about the Supreme Court verdict knowing that they would carry Parliament anyway.
The Chief Justice made his comment about the perils of ignoring the will of the people knowing that this was the default position otherwise why do we bother to vote on anything? The will of the people exercised thru a democratic ballot has the last word. It cannot be any other way.
Or would you prefer that the next time we have a General Election, we refer the result to the Supreme Court for ratification? After all, the result won’t be binding – will it?
I can hear the tumbrils rattling already.
You raise some very valid and in interesting points John.
One has to ask why Parliament didn’t scrutinize the Referendum Bill in more detail and think ahead, if they felt that they should have had a final say.
Yet you can clearly see that they didn’t, as at the time, they seemed happy for the British people to have it!
It was interesting hearing legal expert Joshua Rozenberg commenting after the Supreme Court ruling on one of the news channels.
He pointed out that unlike the US Supreme Court, ours has no jurisdiction, and therefore can only advise, and that it had basically ‘passed the buck’ back to Parliament.
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerYou forget John, that legally the referendum was advisory. It was not a binding vote, So I fear that it is you who are not correct.
Advisory to the UK Government yes, but NOT UK Parliament or indeed for them to make any decision on the UK leaving the EU.
If you read my earlier post, you would have seen that there was never any mention by Philip Hammond or anything in the Conservative referendum literature of Parliament making a final decision on the UK leaving the EU.
It was down to the British people – the UK electorate!
(And never ever was there a mention of a ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ Brexit)
Now along comes Gina Miller, who despite what she and her supporters say, really just want to slow things down so they can halt and override democracy (that is the British peoples decision to leave the EU), and for the UK to remain members ever more, even if is by ‘the back door’!
It’s was always interesting hearing and reading her comments on what was ‘right’ for the UK people, our ‘Parliamentary sovereignty’, and of course, good old ‘democracy’.
Here is what she said to a Sky News reporter the day before the Supreme Court decision (which she no doubt knew already) was made: –
“I am hoping that they (the Supreme Court justices) will uphold the rule of law when it comes to our parliamentary sovereignty and democracy, that no prime minister or executive can bypass Parliament when it comes to people’s individual rights.”
The problem with that statement is she (like many others), our forgetting the fact that our entry into the then EEC via the Treaty of Rome in 1972, was somewhat duboius, with Ted Heath choosing to use the Royal Prerogative instead of consulting UK Parliament or it’s electorate.
(I wonder why that was?)
We should of course have had a referendum then because of the major constitutional changes that came into effect, namely EEC and later EU, directives, laws, and regulations, which would eventually override UK law – all done without any Parliamentary or indeed electorate scrutiny!
So for her to come out with such gems as “When it comes to our Parliamentary sovereignty and democracy”, no prime minister or executive can bypass Parliament”, she is either very ignorant (about the EU and how we joined it), a total hypocrite, or rather stupid, because that’s exactly what our membership of the EU does – bypasses our Parliment, and therefore our democrocy.
Now of course you can argue it’s all a matter of legal ‘interpretation’, but many lawyers and legal experts do believe that the UK Government could, and should have triggered Article 50 (long before the High and Supreme Court judgements) using the Royal Prerogative, that is without consulting Parliament for approval, because our membership of the EU and subsequent EU law and regulations there after, were done using it.
For this reason, more people should be questioning why she and others now see fit to use UK Parlimentary sovereignty to override a democratic decision made by the majority of the British electorate, yet during our enitre time as members of the EU, UK Parliamentary and the UK electorates sovereignty has been overridden!
Again I’ll leave you with the words of the then Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, a remain campaigner.
“For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard”.
Phillip Hammond, The House of Commons, June 9, 2015
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerGosh, it’s up on You Tube already.
As pointed out in the comments below, Michael Portillo makes a very good point at the end.
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerThere was a very interesting interview on last nights ‘This Week’ with the new US EU Ambassador, Ted Malloch.
There looks to be some very interesting times ahead for Junker & co!
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerI do not deny anything. That’s your false assumption and one that is made too often when shouting at the minority.
But Beermat, did I say you did?
Perhaps you are the one who is making a false assumption!
Being in a majority or having your will enacted democratically – which the pro-Europeans I know accept has happened and agree is the only thing that should happen – does not in itself say anything about relative cleverness. Nothing at all.
Again, I didn’t specifically refer to you, but the fact is, many of those who haven’t, and never will except the result, have said that how, by voting remain, they are the ‘smart’ & the ‘clever’ people, and have even suggested the ridiculous (and highly ‘democratic’) idea that in the future, you should only be able to vote based on your level of education. (Some members of this forum who have posted on this thread, have said the same, and hold that opinion too).
But of course, a good number of those who wished us to remain in the EU have accepted the result of the referendum, and whilst disappointed, have quite rightly moved on.
(“Life goes on/is too short”, and “Well, that’s democracy for you” etc.)
Of course though, there are plenty more that are the deniers, who hark on about good old ‘democracy’, but still want that ‘rematch’, and then another one, and then another, until they get the result they want.
If you can not see rare principle behind a local MP resigning rather than obey a three-line-whip on a vote that runs contrary to the majority view of her own constituents then you wouldn’t recognise it anywhere.
I think you should read my post again or at least properly.
The fact that the majority of her constituents didn’t vote to leave the EU is not of significance or indeed an important fact for her to consider, since it is clear from my post (and in the Government’s own words), the outcome of the referendum was based on what the majority of the British people voted for, and not her’s, or any other MP’s constituents!
Therefore she, (and other MPs whose constituents voted to remain) should follow the will of the majority of the British people, and put this ‘Article 50’ mess to bed.
(Which means if you are a Labour MP, obey the three-line-whip!)
They are, after all, our servants and not our masters.
Respect.
Paul
BradburgerPrinciples. Rare.
No, not really.
It would seem that many of our Members of Parliament, and indeed, the referendum result deniers (or as they are colloquially referred to ‘Remoaners’), have forgotten the simple fact that Parliament are our servants, and not our masters.
It’s rather amusing when all those who think they are the ‘clever ones’ amongst the UK population (or so they keep telling us), fail to have grasped the fact that the two questions asked on the EU referendum ballot paper were (even for those with a ‘lesser’ education) very clear and straightforward : –
Remain a Member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
I think it’s worth reminding ourselves what was said in the Conservative General Election Manifesto of 2015: –
“We believe in letting the people decide: so we will hold an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU before the end of 2017.”
As you can see it’s promise was to (and I quote) “let the people decide”.
There was never any mention of minimum percentage thresholds of vote (something that the ‘Remoaners’ are continually trying to justify as being an important factor in the result), or of turnout, or indeed who voted what in each constituency (and of course the same in Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland), before the referendum would be binding.
It’s also worth pointing out that there was never a promise to hold an advisory referendum and then leave the final decision to Parliament, something again the ‘Remoaners’ are convinced of being fact, and keep trying to justify, ad nauseam!
The fact is, we were given a politically and constitutionally binding promise (as laid out in the Conservative’s election manifesto) that we (the British people) would be given the final and deciding say in a referendum, in which the majority decision would be final.
Now in case that isn’t enough for those who deny the result (‘black is white’ and all that), I will quote the then Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond during the second reading of the Referendum Bill on 9 June 2015: –
“This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.”
He concluded by saying: –
“The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House.”
If that is still not clear enough for the result deniers, here is the wording from the Government EU Referendum leaflet, under the heading ‘Once In Generation’: –
“The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union.”
(Nowhere did it say “it’s your chance to advise on whether we should remain, with the actual decision being taken by Parliament.”)
And also: –
“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
So there you have it.
The promises to the British people on the EU referendum, direct from the British Government.
It really is about time those who are, and have been trying to stop our leaving of the EU for many years now, grow some balls, and admit that they do not like the result of the referendum.
(“We accept the result, but…..”)
At least then they might get some respect from the majority!
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerLabour’s First “You Must Back Article 50” Casualty
Tulip Siddiq has thrown in the towel apparently: –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38753808
Could well be the first of many!
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerFB,
Thanks for the link.
I saw a piece on South Today this lunchtime about the AAIB recommendations to the CAA, but it didn’t mention what exactly what they were.
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerIn your opinion. Not in mine. It is in the eye of the beholder or the ear of the listener. You look for anti-brexit and are willing to find it. All I see or hear is an attempt to show the reality of the situation and the facts that support it. Not wishful thinking
I see the Beeb were taken to task by some viewers on their biased and negative coverage of Brexit, on last Saturday’s Newswatch: –
Elizabeth Miller’s observation about Tim Farron was spot on!
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerMost incidents reach the internet eventually just as this one has, will be interesting to see the report when published.
The AAIB report into the incident has been now been published: –
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-robinson-r44-ii-g-saig-and-spitfire-ixt-g-ccca
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerFor the Aeroplane readers amongst us, there is a long interview with Robert Pleming in the latest edition.
Very interesting, and well worth a read, whether you are a critic or fan of the Vulcan to the Sky project!
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerThe same web site lists SM969 as sold.
Does anyone know where it currently resides?SM845 looks lovely indeed!
Andy
Good question, and one I was going to ask!
It will be interesting to see if the Air Fighter Academy/Hanger 10 MKXVIII TP280 which is up for sale (as is the rest of the collection), gets a buyer.
But I do hope SM845 remains in the UK.
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerMerry Xmas all.
And a big thanks to all contributors to this forum, and to all the owners/operators of historic aircraft, and of course all those that help look after and maintain them.
Here’s to a great 2017.
Cheers
Paul
BradburgerCongrats to all.
Looking forward to the first flight!
Excellent work but I wonder why they chose the “high” rear canopy rather than the lower version as per ML407. Probably for ease of access for the larger guests?
No doubt a customer requirement, and because it was restored to true MK.IX trainer specification.
Cheers
Paul
Sign In
