[Nonsense]

You are completely wrong nonsense.

Where do you get this rubbish from?

That's a sweeping statement, completely devoid of substance.

I consider it evidence of your inability to contest the reality before your eyes,therefore,it confirms that I am correct in my thinking.

[skinster]

[Sivad]

Why is Corbyn bitching out so hard on brexit?

[JohnRawls]

Why is Corbyn bitching out so hard on brexit?

Good question, nobody knows. It might be just not his thing but before Brexit happened he was anti-EU globalism semi publicly. You know, no need to be in the EU because they ain't gonna help us with socialism and will prevent it no matter the cost version.

[snapdragon]

That's a sweeping statement, completely devoid of substance.

I consider it evidence of your inability to contest the reality before your eyes,therefore,it confirms that I am correct in my thinking.

Well, no. It was because I didn't know where to start. You began by saying this:

Many Westminster MP['s believe that only 'parliamentary' democracy is legitimate as a form of democratic expression, it isn't, but they see any 'alternative' form of democractic expression as a 'threat' to 'parliamentary' democracy, in other words, like trades union restrictive practices, MP's are trying to run a 'closed-shop' monopoly with our system of democracy.

huh? what does that even mean?

It's a fundamental part of British democracy that Parliament is sovereign.

That's not my opinion, that's was the unanimous ruling reached by the High Court.

[Nonsense]

Well, no. It was because I didn't know where to start. You began by saying this:



huh? what does that even mean?

It's a fundamental part of British democracy that Parliament is sovereign.

That's not my opinion, that's was the unanimous ruling reached by the High Court.

Well, no, it wasn't 'unanimous', there was a dissenting 'opinion' amongst the other legal 'opinions'.
What does it mean?
Well, it means what it says, that 'parliamentary' sovereignty does not accept in this country, the equal validity of 'direct' democracy.

In so far as , 'parliamentary' sovereignty means anything, as opinionated by the High Court,it is only effective 'sovereignty' when parliament is in existence, that is when it is open for business.
When parliament is closed on announcement of a general election date-until a new government is formed, for which a date for the 'opening' of a 'new' parliament is announced, this country is effectively without a parliament or it's inherent 'sovereignty'.

It is of course true when considering the above, that when parliament is open, it is 'sovereign', but, politically, 'direct' democracy by the people, is complementary to normal elections as a form of democracy, it is only politicians who cannot accept democracy in action, as per referendums, that challenge their legitimacy.

Now, they can, in parliament, decide, whether or not to accept 'direct' democratic decisions by the people(face facts, they do accept that in the context of their own elections to office), but, by going against the people's democratic 'direct' decision through a referendum, are, 'politically', playing with fire, which is why we are where we are right now.

Let me explain the differences between 'parliamentary' or 'general' elections & 'direct' decisions of the people as per referendum's.

In a 'general' election, the people vote on the 'flavour' of the national political party they want in power, or, put another way, keeping another party out of power, in 'opposition', along with multiple policies that they feel are aligned with their own ideas, 'policies', which in fact, may or may not be delivered, or 'honoured' once elected.
The difference between the above with a referendum, is that a referendum has only one question, of a binary nature, to which one may agree or disagree with, by voting YES\NO to.
In other words, a general election appeal to one's vote is laced with ambiguous, multiple 'policies', without certainty of delivery, whereas a referendum question is singular,as well as explicit, with a simple binary option of agreeing or disagreeing with, by voting YES\NO.

Now, parliamentary sovereignty, which derives it's power through the ballot box in a general election, is left to politicians to decide on how they address that 'sovereign' power, which derives from the ballot box through the people's vote, on the other hand, a referendum instructs politicians to deliver whatever result the outcome is, on pain of 'political' trouble, or democratic damage if they don't carry out the order of the people delivered by the result of the referendum.
That 'sovereign' power, is contingent on the strength of any 'concensus' within parliament, if a government has a full working majority, then parliament, as opposed to the government, has little, if any 'sovereign' power to change things, the current position is unclear as to where the concensus lies,if indeed there is any at all,which is an open question.
Which is why a 'no confidence' vote by CORBYN is probably doomed, even if he won, was able to form a 'government', it would almost immediately be subjected to a 'no confidence' vote, just like it's predecessor, probably forcing a general election.
It was Harold WILSON that introduced referendums to this country, in order that the people could decide in 1975, whether to 'leave' or 'remain' in the EC as it then was & if it was a legitimate form of democracy then, it is no less so now.

Back then, like in 2016, the government pushed a 'pro-EU' line, the difference being that they accepted to remain, largely, because this country was in a parlous state(some things never change)due, in part, to the 1973 oil crisis.
The Tory government of Ted HEATH was deceitful in propagating British entry to the european project, the public had no real debate(deja vu), only a general election reference to,'negotiate an entry' & that was all that there was in essence(so much for remainers in 2016 complaining ).

It funny how politicians like Gordon BROWN or John MAJOR rail against leaving the E.U, they both hate allowing the people to decide these things through referendums,because, at root, they are not 'democrats', anymore than all the other 'remainers', whether that's the current Labour Party members, as expressed by their current policy on leaving, or the Lib Dems, along with others, who cry out for a 'second' referendum, which exposes them all as lying hypocrites.

[Sivad]

Good question, nobody knows. It might be just not his thing but before Brexit happened he was anti-EU globalism semi publicly.

Yeah, he's a sellout. He just wants that PM spot, another Tsipras waiting to happen.

[Sivad]

A little history lesson for those on the left who get caught up in follow the leader:

by John Pilger
The Greek people said “No” to the bankers in Brussels, but their supposedly “radical” Syriza leaders immediately said “Yes.” What is the true political nature of Syriza? “Tsipras and his impressively-educated comrades were not radical in any sense of that cliched label, neither were they ‘anti austerity.’” The consequence of their false leftism “is not resistance, but subservience.”

https://www.blackagendareport.com/greec ... dy_but_lie

Glen Ford: Syriza "Punked Out"

[JohnRawls]

A little history lesson for those on the left who get caught up in follow the leader:

by John Pilger
The Greek people said “No” to the bankers in Brussels, but their supposedly “radical” Syriza leaders immediately said “Yes.” What is the true political nature of Syriza? “Tsipras and his impressively-educated comrades were not radical in any sense of that cliched label, neither were they ‘anti austerity.’” The consequence of their false leftism “is not resistance, but subservience.”

https://www.blackagendareport.com/greec ... dy_but_lie

Glen Ford: Syriza "Punked Out"

It is much more complicated. Tsipras gets blamed for too many things. There is no simple way to say "No" in such a situation even if you want to say it. There are consequences. Tsipras did leverage things with the Troike and the IMF. He didn't just simply say "Yes". He could have tried to leverage things even more but that might have caused very negative consequences for Greece. (If you listen to Varufakis, he did have a plan. Tsipras had no will to push the IMF and the Troika further while Varufakis wanted to do it) Saying that Tsipras just said "Yes" is a lie.

Varufakis vs Tsipras situation was interesting. I think Tsipras actually did a decent job in that regard. Varufakis wanted to push further and further while basically keeping the economy on improvised life support while Tsipras chose to take the "Cure" at a more leveraged price.

[Sivad]

It is much more complicated. Tsipras gets blamed for too many things. There is no simple way to say "No" in such a situation even if you want to say it. There are consequences. Tsipras did leverage things with the Troike and the IMF. He didn't just simply say "Yes". He could have tried to leverage things even more but that might have caused very negative consequences for Greece. (If you listen to Varufakis, he did have a plan. Tsipras had no will to push the IMF and the Troika further while Varufakis wanted to do it) Saying that Tsipras just said "Yes" is a lie.

Ultimately it's just that simple, Tsipras had a mandate from the people and in the end he fed his country to the banksters. There is no painless way of getting out from under the globalists, if you want your independence you have smash your way out and it's gonna cost you.

[JohnRawls]

Ultimately it's just that simple, Tsipras had a mandate from the people and in the end he fed his country to the banksters. There is no painless way of getting out from under the globalists, if you want your independence you have smash your way out and it's gonna cost you.

So what is your solutions? Not pay the debt, default and ignore the obligations that Greece basically taken out of its own accord? That is the outcome if Greece didn't take the money from the IMF/Troika and also if the IMF/Troika didn't help/suspended help.

That is silly. The consequence of such an action would have been:
1) Greece would have a significant one off GDP loss even more then it did just less in duration.
2) Greece would not be able to get any loan/debt/obligation money for the next decade or more. Probably would be blocked from any financial mechanisms. (The last part is only if Varufakis blackmail failed)
3) Greece would have been kicked out of the Euro zone. (If Varufakis blackmail failed)
4) Greece would be forced to reintroduce the Drachma which would inflate heavily and probably uncontrollably.

Going from Euro to the Drachma was not the answer. The loans were in Euros so it didn't matter if you introduced the Drachma in a sense. This is what we often see from countries who take loans in Dollars for example, have economic downturn and then can't return them because their own currency has significantly changed compared to the dollar. I think Argentina was in such a situation recently.

There were no situation for Greece that would magically stop the pain and make it sunshine and rainbows. Tsipras chose the safer option. Varufakis wanted to blackmail more basically to get even better terms.

[snapdragon]

Well, no, it wasn't 'unanimous', there was a dissenting 'opinion' amongst the other legal 'opinions'.
What does it mean?
Well, it means what it says, that 'parliamentary' sovereignty does not accept in this country, the equal validity of 'direct' democracy.

In so far as , 'parliamentary' sovereignty means anything, as opinionated by the High Court,it is only effective 'sovereignty' when parliament is in existence, that is when it is open for business.
When parliament is closed on announcement of a general election date-until a new government is formed, for which a date for the 'opening' of a 'new' parliament is announced, this country is effectively without a parliament or it's inherent 'sovereignty'.

It is of course true when considering the above, that when parliament is open, it is 'sovereign', but, politically, 'direct' democracy by the people, is complementary to normal elections as a form of democracy, it is only politicians who cannot accept democracy in action, as per referendums, that challenge their legitimacy.

Now, they can, in parliament, decide, whether or not to accept 'direct' democratic decisions by the people(face facts, they do accept that in the context of their own elections to office), but, by going against the people's democratic 'direct' decision through a referendum, are, 'politically', playing with fire, which is why we are where we are right now.

Let me explain the differences between 'parliamentary' or 'general' elections & 'direct' decisions of the people as per referendum's.

In a 'general' election, the people vote on the 'flavour' of the national political party they want in power, or, put another way, keeping another party out of power, in 'opposition', along with multiple policies that they feel are aligned with their own ideas, 'policies', which in fact, may or may not be delivered, or 'honoured' once elected.
The difference between the above with a referendum, is that a referendum has only one question, of a binary nature, to which one may agree or disagree with, by voting YES\NO to.
In other words, a general election appeal to one's vote is laced with ambiguous, multiple 'policies', without certainty of delivery, whereas a referendum question is singular,as well as explicit, with a simple binary option of agreeing or disagreeing with, by voting YES\NO.

Now, parliamentary sovereignty, which derives it's power through the ballot box in a general election, is left to politicians to decide on how they address that 'sovereign' power, which derives from the ballot box through the people's vote, on the other hand, a referendum instructs politicians to deliver whatever result the outcome is, on pain of 'political' trouble, or democratic damage if they don't carry out the order of the people delivered by the result of the referendum.
That 'sovereign' power, is contingent on the strength of any 'concensus' within parliament, if a government has a full working majority, then parliament, as opposed to the government, has little, if any 'sovereign' power to change things, the current position is unclear as to where the concensus lies,if indeed there is any at all,which is an open question.
Which is why a 'no confidence' vote by CORBYN is probably doomed, even if he won, was able to form a 'government', it would almost immediately be subjected to a 'no confidence' vote, just like it's predecessor, probably forcing a general election.
It was Harold WILSON that introduced referendums to this country, in order that the people could decide in 1975, whether to 'leave' or 'remain' in the EC as it then was & if it was a legitimate form of democracy then, it is no less so now.

Back then, like in 2016, the government pushed a 'pro-EU' line, the difference being that they accepted to remain, largely, because this country was in a parlous state(some things never change)due, in part, to the 1973 oil crisis.
The Tory government of Ted HEATH was deceitful in propagating British entry to the european project, the public had no real debate(deja vu), only a general election reference to,'negotiate an entry' & that was all that there was in essence(so much for remainers in 2016 complaining ).

It funny how politicians like Gordon BROWN or John MAJOR rail against leaving the E.U, they both hate allowing the people to decide these things through referendums,because, at root, they are not 'democrats', anymore than all the other 'remainers', whether that's the current Labour Party members, as expressed by their current policy on leaving, or the Lib Dems, along with others, who cry out for a 'second' referendum, which exposes them all as lying hypocrites.

The referendum was only advisory and not binding.

Britain is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy

and:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... net-manual

This is a link to what is basically the rule book for what happens during an election.
edit

and:

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/

[Rugoz]

Ultimately it's just that simple, Tsipras had a mandate from the people and in the end he fed his country to the banksters.

Tsipras didn't have a mandate to leave the Euro, which would have been necessary. And he didn't feed his country to "the banksters", rather to the ze Germans.

[Atlantis]

Varufakis wanted to blackmail more basically to get even better terms.

Donald, Boris, Yanis, they all play the same game. The difference is that Trump has a lot of leverage, Boris much less so, and Yanis none.

Tsipras was offered a restructuring of debts in exchange for "temporary" Euro exit. To demonstrate that it wasn't a bluff, Juncker took him into his inner office to show him a 1,000-page confidential document dealing with all the nuts and bolts of Grexit, while the Greeks hadn't even made preparations for printing Dachme. He probably would have been beaten to death on the streets of Athens if had exited Greece.

[Nonsense]

[quote="snapdragon"]The referendum was only advisory and not binding.

Britain is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.= quote].



In my post to which you respond, I have not implied that the, or indeed, any referendum, as it stands, is anything other than 'advisory', so, I do not accept your response as it is.
That position of being 'advisory', as I have said so many times though, is irrelevent, because parliament accepted the nature of the result, by passing an Act of parliament in 2015, for a referendum to be held on the issue of our continuing memebership of the european union, for which the result would be implemented.

That Act was passed, as was the subsequent Article 50, which was passed by parliament, in order to facilitate our leaving the E.U.

Parliament used it's power(vested, by the people)to pass two Acts of Parliament, to implement the result of the referendum.
In other words, parliament, which is there-only-by the will of the people, correctly, deferred to the people's wishes, as expressed through the referendum.

Everything else, apart from completing an agreement to settle our(NET) liabilities with europe,is just political theatre,played at the expense of the country, as well as in the face of a democratic decision, for which a democratic-political price will be paid for decades to come, starting with the next election.

Apart from delivering our exit from europe-deal, or no-deal- as things stand, we will have left at the end of next month, for better or worse, it will then be a case of 'fait accompli' & the country will then be forced to adapt to the new reality of living on our feet or 'dying' on our knees as a vassal state, beholden to Brussels.
That prospect is one that leaves me feeling somewhat 'freer', if, for some time, little poorer, but hey, you cannot put a price on 'freedom' can you.


It never ceases to amaze me, that in a 'mature' western democracy like ours, that people never use what, may pass as 'intelligence', to decide on issues before they vote,as opposed to deciding by prejudice alone.

A case in point, is that 'remainers' whinge that, 'we were never told everything',yet, they still voted according to their political prejudices.

Another difference between a general election, compared to a referendum, is that, in a general election, all parties produce their manifesto's, that are published, but, of course, hardly ever read by voters, which contain 'pledges', false 'promises', or outright lies, in an effort to attract voters.

Those manifesto policies are, depending on who wins an election, decided in parliament, accordng to the balance of power in parliament, when such policies are voted on.
When you vote in an election, most people that read the manifesto's, know that they do not agree with all of the policies of just one party as per manifesto, as a result, they make a choice, which includes both positive, as well as negative attributes on multiple policies.

On the other hand, a referendum is held on a single question, meaning that, even the most ignorant of voters, has the time to 'learn' about the single issue before making any decision on which way to vote in a YES\NO situation.

That people, mostly 'remainers', on not having a decision which accords with their own thoughts, can then support MP's, who have no other interest, apart from their own, to trash our democracy, which elected them in the first place, to think that they can then get re-elected at the next election, tells me that people do get the government that they deserve.

If people can decide to elect a government based on multiple choices of policies, then it's not too much of an ask, that they shouldn't be up to the task on one simple question in a referendum.
That being the case, for politicians to decide that the above interferes with their 'sovereignty' is downright ridiculous.

IMHO, the referendum exposes the fallacious assertion that our 'democracy' is 'representative, because, if an electorate in a referendum, votes against the prevailing 'wisdom' within the political bubble,that of remaining in the E.U,it says that, what happens inside that bubble, speaks not for the nation, when the popular current of opinion outside of that bubble,runs counter to the opinion within the bubble.

[snapdragon]

Nonsense, the result of the referendum was to leave the EU, certainly.

However, the leave campaigners broke the law.

If the referendum had been anything but advisory, it would have been thrown out just because of that.

They made statements that weren't true. People believed them.

Nobody voted to leave the EU to be worse off.

That's a good enough reason to challenge the result.

Besides, if a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.

[Nonsense]

Nonsense, the result of the referendum was to leave the EU, certainly.

However, the leave campaigners broke the law.

If the referendum had been anything but advisory, it would have been thrown out just because of that.

They made statements that weren't true. People believed them.

Nobody voted to leave the EU to be worse off.

That's a good enough reason to challenge the result.

Besides, if a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.

I have refuted all of the points made before in ealier post,stating the reasons why, it is pointless repeating them, we are nearing another exit point in leaving europe,the failure, of which, will probably lead to more chaos, organised. or otherwise, with an election that could take CORBYN into Downing Street.

I am not endorsing CORBYN or Labour, I have never voted for them since the war, they are too feeble, not radical enough for me & they stand up for the wrong issues.
Likewise with the Tories, I have only ever voted for them once, which I regret,I value my freedom, by never voting, therefore, I am never disappointed at how things turn out, because they always do so as expected.

[ingliz]

I have never voted for them since the war

So, 95 years old or older.

What did you do in the War?

[Ter]

So, 95 years old or older.

What did you do in the War?

Maybe he was referring to the Korean War, or Vietnam, or the Falklands, ...

[Nonsense]

So, 95 years old or older.

What did you do in the War?

It's nearly 74 years since the end of the war, so I could have been anything from 1-21, with conscription for national service at 18,also, eligibility to vote being 21 years back then,so I will leave you guessing on that one inliz .