Given that much law is based on John Stuart Mill's principle that people are free to do as they please on the proviso that it doesn't harm others. And given that we know that Brexit will be harmful to the majority. Is there not some way that it would be illegal for the government to pursue Brexit knowing the harm that it would cause? With most government actions there are winners and losers and it can be argued that where individuals are harmed it is for the greater good. What is abundantly clear with Brexit is that there is no greater good and therefore no mitigation for the harm that will be done.
"and given that we KNOW that brexit will be harmful to the majority..."
do we ?? for certain ?? If so, then please can you tell me the numbers for tomorrows lottery as I wouldn't mind a winning ticket.
Interesting that you choose to ignore Chizz's question, but pick up on this.
Just how much evidence do you need to accept that you have pulled a ricket, and have the balls to admit it, Golfie?
Interesting radio interview yesterday with a trade negotiator and the head of Brexit Central discuss our future trading position with the UK being a third country
Mcdonnell says labour aren't taking a second eu referendum off the table.
I think it says mountains that i'd actually prefer the nutcase that is mcdonnell to be labour leader than the current one. At least the guy gives half decent decisive comments on things.
Mcdonnell says labour aren't taking a second eu referendum off the table.
I think it says mountains that i'd actually prefer the nutcase that is mcdonnell to be labour leader than the current one. At least the guy gives half decent decisive comments on things.
Heard him on Radio 4 this morning and thought the same. Then I needed a shower.
Given that much law is based on John Stuart Mill's principle that people are free to do as they please on the proviso that it doesn't harm others. And given that we know that Brexit will be harmful to the majority. Is there not some way that it would be illegal for the government to pursue Brexit knowing the harm that it would cause? With most government actions there are winners and losers and it can be argued that where individuals are harmed it is for the greater good. What is abundantly clear with Brexit is that there is no greater good and therefore no mitigation for the harm that will be done.
"and given that we KNOW that brexit will be harmful to the majority..."
do we ?? for certain ?? If so, then please can you tell me the numbers for tomorrows lottery as I wouldn't mind a winning ticket.
In the sense that we know throwing ourselves off the top of The Shard is going to result in our deaths yes. I mean a giant eagle might swoop down and pluck us from the air or we might fall into the back of a passing mattress delivery truck... but the overwhelming likelihood is we will die.
Just as the evidence that was presented before the referendum and in the time since indicates Brexit will not, on balance, have a overall positive affect for most of us in the UK. I know that's a subjective statement and leaves me open to claims of confirmation bias and having different priorities to Leavers.
I don't for, example, give a toss if the levels of food colouring allowed in curries are decided in Westminster or Brussels, provided they ensure that the food itself ends up safe for me to eat. I accept that for some, that's an important matter of sovereignty but I don't particularly see the UK having to unilaterally undertake the research, legislation and enforcement behind issues like that as any sort of genuinely positive outcome.
But, and this is the nub of what's going on, there is nothing coming out of all this to counteract my natural bias towards thinking that we benefit, both economically and in many other areas, such as my food safety example, from our EU membership. We've seen report after report come out warning of the predicted impacts of Brexit on our economy and our everyday lives. All we are seeing from Leavers is yet more rhetorical claims that, with a fair wind, things might not be as bad as predicted and more allegations of Project Fear. Rather than calmly and factually addressing those reports and maybe even convincing people like me that there is at least some logic behind all this.
While you and many others are pinning your hopes on that giant eagle breaking your fall some of us are just suggesting that it might be more sensible to take the lift instead!
Given that much law is based on John Stuart Mill's principle that people are free to do as they please on the proviso that it doesn't harm others. And given that we know that Brexit will be harmful to the majority. Is there not some way that it would be illegal for the government to pursue Brexit knowing the harm that it would cause? With most government actions there are winners and losers and it can be argued that where individuals are harmed it is for the greater good. What is abundantly clear with Brexit is that there is no greater good and therefore no mitigation for the harm that will be done.
I'll hold the traditionalist legal philosophers back while you make a run for it....
I'm not sure that, in the English, Welsh and Irish Common Law system, too many would agree, with your laws from time immemorial and all that.
Mill was just a 19th Century blow in.
That's a shame, just getting desperate to be honest. Trying to think of anything that could stop this farce.
Yes - that's exactly the type of bullshit overdrive I was referring to chirps. Good find.
And yours wasn't...can't you ever say a sentence without swearing.
Course I fucking can. Writing in response to your child like responses on the other hand...
The one I posted has links to (mostly) credible sources to back up the rhetoric, yours is a string of (mostly) unsubstantiated rants by people with similar problems to yourself.
Debate is a process that involves discussion on a particular topic. In a debate, opposing arguments are put forward to argue for opposing viewpoints.
However, one side putting forward arguments based on a number of valid sources against another saying blah blah blah, experts suck, etc.. is not a debate.
I love reading that back and forth between most the of reasonable posters(Len, stonemouse, dippelhall being some on the Brexit side) , but when you get bogged down arguing with one of the most blatant trolls I've ever seen - maybe apart from the 'guy in Germany' - it simply baffles me, it must be like smashing your head against a wall, just more painful.
I love reading that back and forth between most the of reasonable posters(Len, stonemouse, dippelhall being some on the Brexit side) , but when you get bogged down arguing with one of the most blatant trolls I've ever seen - maybe apart from the 'guy in Germany' - it simply baffles me, it must be like smashing your head against a wall, just more painful.
I think the reason people try to engage with Chippy is that he is probably more representative of a Brexit voter than the other posters on here so it gives an insight into why the vote went like it did. For all the interesting points some make about economics/trade agreements etc, I don't think that's what many people were thinking about when they voted to leave the EU.
I think the reason people try to engage with Chippy is that he is probably more representative of a Brexit voter than the other posters on here so it gives an insight into why the vote went like it did. For all the interesting points some make about economics/trade agreements etc, I don't think that's what many people were thinking about when they voted to leave the EU.
You don't know nothing about me or my values or my beliefs..I know all about yours..
Yes - that's exactly the type of bullshit overdrive I was referring to chirps. Good find.
And yours wasn't...can't you ever say a sentence without swearing.
Course I fucking can. Writing in response to your child like responses on the other hand...
The one I posted has links to (mostly) credible sources to back up the rhetoric, yours is a string of (mostly) unsubstantiated rants by people with similar problems to yourself.
Mostly...give up mate...caught you again ..this is so easy
Comments
Just how much evidence do you need to accept that you have pulled a ricket, and have the balls to admit it, Golfie?
I think it says mountains that i'd actually prefer the nutcase that is mcdonnell to be labour leader than the current one. At least the guy gives half decent decisive comments on things.
Just as the evidence that was presented before the referendum and in the time since indicates Brexit will not, on balance, have a overall positive affect for most of us in the UK. I know that's a subjective statement and leaves me open to claims of confirmation bias and having different priorities to Leavers.
I don't for, example, give a toss if the levels of food colouring allowed in curries are decided in Westminster or Brussels, provided they ensure that the food itself ends up safe for me to eat. I accept that for some, that's an important matter of sovereignty but I don't particularly see the UK having to unilaterally undertake the research, legislation and enforcement behind issues like that as any sort of genuinely positive outcome.
But, and this is the nub of what's going on, there is nothing coming out of all this to counteract my natural bias towards thinking that we benefit, both economically and in many other areas, such as my food safety example, from our EU membership. We've seen report after report come out warning of the predicted impacts of Brexit on our economy and our everyday lives. All we are seeing from Leavers is yet more rhetorical claims that, with a fair wind, things might not be as bad as predicted and more allegations of Project Fear. Rather than calmly and factually addressing those reports and maybe even convincing people like me that there is at least some logic behind all this.
While you and many others are pinning your hopes on that giant eagle breaking your fall some of us are just suggesting that it might be more sensible to take the lift instead!
http://www.brexitlies.com/
All your own work ?
It was mailed to you. Did you write it, send it to someone who sent it back and you posted it ?
Yet again you post something unintelligible for us to guess the meaning.
The one I posted has links to (mostly) credible sources to back up the rhetoric, yours is a string of (mostly) unsubstantiated rants by people with similar problems to yourself.
However, one side putting forward arguments based on a number of valid sources against another saying blah blah blah, experts suck, etc.. is not a debate.