P.K. Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Max Power said: Did Churchill have the numbers to back up his opposition to Hitler? Actually it was a stupid question for which I apologise. All bets are off until the details of any agreement is are known. Mind you, decisions on Herr Hitler were not exactly economic! Edited January 6, 2019 by P.K. Dreadful grammar 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 14 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said: I have to offer you Gentlemen an apology. I have completely misunderstood the workings of the European Political Project, and, had I properly understood the fantastic(al) workings of this new social model - I would have been the first to vote remain and would have encouraged my leave leaning friends to follow my lead. 1. I simply did not realise that, unlike a tribe, a business, a sports team, or any other country on earth, the European Political Project had invented a system whereby majority decisions were optional! "There is no obligation or duty to support a majority decision." WOW!!!!!!! 2. I simply did not appreciate that the Common Fisheries Policy was voluntary! I honestly believed that, if the EU Commission, by majority vote, passed laws that restricted vessel size, imposed quotas, and enforced discards, then I naively thought that it would be compulsory on all - not just an obligation on those who voted in favour of the laws! "democracy must never be a tyranny of the majority." Wow, Wow, Wow!!!!!!!! I'm now with you guys all the way! Had I known that the EU had devised a social system whereby only those who agreed with (and voted for) taxes (VAT, TVA Etc.) actually had to pay them then I would have been in all along. Had I known that socialists could vote in all the benefits they wish, but that only those that voted for that decision were bound to pay the taxes to fund it then carry on for me chopper. Majority decisions are no longer binding on anyone that did not vote in the majority - Wow, Oh Wow, Oh Wow - Unbelievable! Count me in !!!!! (Ps. Could one of you Gentlemen who have enlightened me so please forward a reference to the relevant confirming EU legislation just in case I meet any sceptical idiots of low IQ who may not be aware of these new social models.) Ta. That’s pretty cretinous, even by the standards set by Woody. You are confusing disagreement and dissent with law breaking and non-compliance. It’s like confusing the right to have an opinion on speed limits with driving at 50 mph through a 30 mph zone. You are correct that in a democracy majority decisions have to be complied with, but you couldn’t be more wrong thinking that majority decisions must be supported. As Pongo says, the decision making process of democracy is fundamentally different from the decision making process in a sports team or company (well, unless you happen to work for a company where the workers elect the board and big decisions about the future direction of the company are taken by poll of the workers). I will continue to explore the arguments both for and against Brexit and any number of other ‘majority opinions’ because I live in a democracy, and not some facist 1984 dystopia where I would be committing ‘thought crime’ for disagreeing with the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 42 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said: I have to offer you Gentlemen an apology. I have completely misunderstood the workings of the European Political Project, and, had I properly understood the fantastic(al) workings of this new social model - I would have been the first to vote remain and would have encouraged my leave leaning friends to follow my lead. 1. I simply did not realise that, unlike a tribe, a business, a sports team, or any other country on earth, the European Political Project had invented / discovered a system whereby majority decisions were optional! "There is no obligation or duty to support a majority decision." WOW!!!!!!! 2. I simply did not appreciate that the Common Fisheries Policy was voluntary! I honestly believed that, if the EU Commission, by majority vote, passed laws that restricted vessel size, imposed quotas, and enforced discards, then I naively thought that it would be compulsory on all - not just an obligation only on those who voted in favour of the laws! "democracy must never be a tyranny of the majority." Wow, Wow, Wow!!!!!!!! I'm now with you guys all the way! Had I known that the EU had devised a social system whereby only those who agreed with (and voted for) EU taxes (VAT, TVA Etc.) actually had to pay them then I would have been in all along. Had I known that socialists could vote in all the benefits they wish, but that only those that voted for that decision were bound to pay the taxes to fund it then carry on for me chopper. Majority decisions are no longer binding on anyone that did not vote in the majority - Wow, Oh Wow, Oh Wow - Unbelievable! Count me in !!!!! (Ps. Could one of you Gentlemen who have enlightened me so please forward a reference to the relevant confirming EU legislation just in case I meet any sceptical idiots of low IQ who may not be aware of these new social models.) Ta. Apology accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: That’s pretty cretinous, even by the standards set by Woody. You are confusing disagreement and dissent with law breaking and non-compliance. It’s like confusing the right to have an opinion on speed limits with driving at 50 mph through a 30 mph zone. You are correct that in a democracy majority decisions have to be complied with, but you couldn’t be more wrong thinking that majority decisions must be supported. As Pongo says, the decision making process of democracy is fundamentally different from the decision making process in a sports team or company (well, unless you happen to work for a company where the workers elect the board and big decisions about the future direction of the company are taken by poll of the workers). I will continue to explore the arguments both for and against Brexit and any number of other ‘majority opinions’ because I live in a democracy, and not some facist 1984 dystopia where I would be committing ‘thought crime’ for disagreeing with the government. 6 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: That’s pretty cretinous, even by the standards set by Woody. You are confusing disagreement and dissent with law breaking and non-compliance. It’s like confusing the right to have an opinion on speed limits with driving at 50 mph through a 30 mph zone. You are correct that in a democracy majority decisions have to be complied with, but you couldn’t be more wrong thinking that majority decisions must be supported. As Pongo says, the decision making process of democracy is fundamentally different from the decision making process in a sports team or company (well, unless you happen to work for a company where the workers elect the board and big decisions about the future direction of the company are taken by poll of the workers). I will continue to explore the arguments both for and against Brexit and any number of other ‘majority opinions’ because I live in a democracy, and not some facist 1984 dystopia where I would be committing ‘thought crime’ for disagreeing with the government. 5 minutes ago, P.K. said: Apology accepted. You are you both confirming or denying that you will work in support of the 'majority view' when that emerges? Simple question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 I should add, that I have no obligation, moral or patriotic, to get behind the UK’s referendum result. I don’t live in the U.K. and I didn’t get to vote in the referendum. If it was down to me I’d opt for the age-old British solution of partitioning the kingdom into two new states with a very hard border around the leave areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 7 minutes ago, P.K. said: Apology accepted. Fine, can you just send me the link requested than (Ps. Could one of you Gentlemen who have enlightened me so please forward a reference to the relevant confirming EU legislation just in case I meet any sceptical idiots of low IQ who may not be aware of these new social models.) Ta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 You’ve quoted my post twice, but you haven’t read it once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: You’ve quoted my post twice, but you haven’t read it once. My sincere apologies - I inadvertently clicked twice. I have now read your post three times and said a few Hail Mary's to compensate - so now to my question; Are you both confirming or denying that you will work in support of the 'majority view' when that emerges? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said: (Ps. Could one of you Gentlemen who have enlightened me so please forward a reference to the relevant confirming EU legislation just in case I meet any sceptical idiots of low IQ who may not be aware of these new social models.) Ta. Happy to oblige: All EU countries have signed the European Convention of Human Rights - an instrument of the Council of Europe. ... It includes article 10, which protects the right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, since 2009 the EU has its own fundamental rights legal instrument - the EU Charter of Fundamental rights. The info you are looking for is in Articles 10 & 11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 (edited) I am entitled to my own views and will exercise my freedom of conscience. I’m not planning on breaking any laws. What are you going to do when the U.K. changes its mind? By the way, are you Russian or Chinese? You don’t seem to understand democracy very well. Edited January 6, 2019 by Freggyragh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said: My sincere apologies - I inadvertently clicked twice. I have now read your post three times and said a few Hail Mary's to compensate - so now to my question; Are you both confirming or denying that you will work in support of the 'majority view' when that emerges? I view this attempt to pin people down as a bit pathetic really. I didn't want to get drawn into this nonsense. However.... Are you saying that the Opposition of Her Maj's Government shouldn't have used the "humble address" to force the Maybot to put the legal ramifications of brexit into the public domain? I think I'll leave it there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 12 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: Happy to oblige: All EU countries have signed the European Convention of Human Rights - an instrument of the Council of Europe. ... It includes article 10, which protects the right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, since 2009 the EU has its own fundamental rights legal instrument - the EU Charter of Fundamental rights. The info you are looking for is in Articles 10 & 11. Nothing in that link that exempts you from complying will the will of the majority even though you did not vote for it - nothing at all - unless you can point out where it says differently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, P.K. said: I view this attempt to pin people down as a bit pathetic really. I didn't want to get drawn into this nonsense. However.... Are you saying that the Opposition of Her Maj's Government shouldn't have used the "humble address" to force the Maybot to put the legal ramifications of brexit into the public domain? I think I'll leave it there.... You always 'Leave it there ' when you are stumped - bit of a cop out really. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 37 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said: You always 'Leave it there ' when you are stumped - bit of a cop out really. Oh the irony! Note you haven't answered my question. Bit of a cop out really. Then there's Gina Miller who took the government to the highest court in the land - and won. As i posted previously. I'll leave you to your bombastic nonsense.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 1 hour ago, Manximus Aururaneus said: Nothing in that link that exempts you from complying will the will of the majority even though you did not vote for it - nothing at all - unless you can point out where it says differently? One minute you’re gibbering on about an obligation or duty to support majority decisions, the next you’re talking about complying will the will (sic). I’ll try to explain this in as simple a way as possible. Neither you or I have any obligation or duty to support the majority decisions of the U.K. electorate, government, or court of popular opinion. Challenging accepted opinion is how democracies progress. Complying with the laws of the land is an entirely different matter, and I do indeed plan to continue to obey the law, even the bits I don’t personally agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.