[skinster]

Nonsense, I am not authorised to like your post so I shall give ye a thumbs up, back.

Although can I request that you stop capitalizing whole words in your posts? It makes them not fun to read, thanks in advance.

[Ter]

What is democracy if you deny people the right to change their mind?

I feel compelled to once again point out the hypocrisy of your statement.
If the referendum result would have been 52 remain and 48 leave, you would have been the first to say that there will not be another referendum on EU membership for at least a generation.

[Rich]

TRAITOR!

Hardly I'm perhaps the most vociferous and consistent European nationalist on the forum. I've been a Republican, Pagan since I've been politically aware. However I resist cultural Marxist anti-Britishism, anti-Englishism, anti-Protestantism and anti-Christian attacks because these are so often proxies for anti White racism as are anti-Americanism and anti-Germanism.

[SolarCross]

Hardly I'm perhaps the most vociferous and consistent European nationalist on the forum. I've been a Republican, Pagan since I've been politically aware. However I resist cultural Marxist anti-Britishism, anti-Englishism, anti-Protestantism and anti-Christian attacks because these are so often proxies for anti White racism as are anti-Americanism and anti-Germanism.

lol, so after all that you are a white nationalist! Well I suppose the fourth reich would be right up your alley then. It's a fair point that you have; people called Guy Fawkes a traitor but if his chosen loyalties were to the vatican how was he a traitor for attacking the enemies of the papacy? One shouldn't assume loyalties by association, being born a brit doesn't make one a loyal brit.

[redcarpet]

A 'walk out with nothing' result was always likely to lead to a change of mind by a considerable number of voters (and non-voters) as there was little consideration given to the large number of what 'if's during the campaign. A referendum was always the wrong way to decide our future. The other main concern I have is that if people do take to the streets in the manner I think the rabble-rousers of Brexit hardliners are suggesting, it will become a feature of politics in this country - perhaps that is one of the objectives in some quarters.

[Londonbiker]

Nonsense =

The only sad thing is the denial of MP's wanting to frustrate or stop us leaving, the economic damage they are inflicting, both, in terms of their denial, as well as project 'fear', or their shenanigans in parliament, is something that voters of whatever persuasion,that voted either way in the referendum, will never forgive them for.
Theresa MAY had the power the referendum voters gave her to deliver 'LEAVE', without the concoction, called, 'BREXIT'.

She is the one that allowed MP's in parliament to begin to derail the referendum result, her cabinet & MP's should have forced her to either deliver 'LEAVE' or to RESIGN, they did neither, they,as a Party, are therefore complicit in the deception being perpetrated against the democratic vote of the people & must pay the price politically.

The same rule must also apply to CORBYN & Labour MP's.

I concur,

Now these servants to the electorate are thrratening resignations on mass. Well, crack on.

[B0ycey]

I feel compelled to once again point out the hypocrisy of your statement.
If the referendum result would have been 52 remain and 48 leave, you would have been the first to say that there will not be another referendum on EU membership for at least a generation.

Well Ter, you are assuming aren't you. Unless you can quote there is no hypocrisy.

The fact of the matter is that if Leave lost the calls for another referendum would never stop. UKIP would still exist. And whether there was a need for such a vote would depend on public opinion. And that is where we are now. Everyday the percentage wanting to remain grows. And the closer to March, under current trend, it will be even higher. Is democracy about changing your mind? Yes. So is it undemocratic to have another referendum? No. So when you have a PM say such a thing she needs to be called out as a fraud. She denies democracy not supports such a thing. Although it does need to be said that in the UK we have elected representation so referendums are only advisory anyway. If MPs were to ask for an amendment to extend article 50 (or even ask for another referendum say) that is UK democracy too. But yet again we have a PM so clueless that she thinks even this is against the will of the people. What? They elected MPs to support their voice and you moan of their actions. Perhaps she should quit. A Captain who enjoys sailing into icebergs is no good for anyone.

[Ter]

Brexit: David Cameron warned by Donald Tusk over 'stupid referendum'

European Council President Donald Tusk told David Cameron to "get real" over his "stupid referendum" before the 2016 Brexit vote, a BBC documentary reveals.

Mr Tusk tells the three-part show that he warned the then prime minister there was no "appetite for revolution in Europe" and he "could lose everything".

He claims that Mr Cameron, who did not take part in the programme, felt "there was no risk of a referendum" happening.

But Craig Oliver, Mr Cameron's former communications director, denies this.

"David Cameron spent the whole of the 2015 election campaign making clear he would not lead any form of government that didn't have a referendum," he said on Twitter.
'Amazed and shocked'

In BBC Two's "Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil", which starts next Monday, Mr Tusk said Mr Cameron thought a referendum would not happen because of the coalition government with the Lib Dems.

"[He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there's no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum," Mr Tusk said.

"But then, surprisingly, he won and there was no coalition partner. So paradoxically David Cameron became the real victim of his own victory."

Mr Tusk said he was "really amazed and even shocked" to learn from Mr Cameron that he decided to hold the referendum because of his own party.

Mr Cameron decided to resign as prime minister when the Leave campaign won the referendum.

The programme's producers said he did not take part in the programme because he has signed an exclusive deal for his memoirs.

Mr Tusk warned Mr Cameron that other European prime ministers would not be inclined to help him in the referendum, and says: "For the first time I saw something close to fear in his eyes. He finally realised what a challenge he was facing."

And after hearing Mr Cameron's decision to quit, Mr Tusk says he told him: "Yes David, it would be very difficult even to imagine that a prime minister who was the leader of Remain's campaign would be just two days later a prime minister negotiating Brexit.

"It was like his day of reckoning was coming, reckoning for his biggest mistake in his life."

The first episode of the three-part series features interviews with former chancellor George Osborne, ex-foreign secretary William Hague, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and former French presidents Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande.

Nick Clegg, the UK's then EU ambassador Sir Ivan Rogers and Mr Oliver are also included.

In the programme, Mr Sarkozy reveals how he warned Mr Cameron about his attempt at strong-arm tactics with EU leaders over concessions on migrant rules and integration, telling him: "If you try to break our arm, you'll get nothing."

And Mr Hollande says that during a visit to Chequers in 2015 he tried to talk the Tory leader out of holding the referendum.

"Nothing obliged him to hold the referendum when he did," he tells the documentary.

"This would not be the first time that a commitment made at an election had not been kept afterwards, but he wanted to show he could negotiate successfully with Europeans."

Theresa May, who is criticised in the programme by Mr Osborne - who she sacked as chancellor, also declined to take part in the programme

Describing a meeting held by Mr Cameron to get ministers' views on whether to back a referendum, Mr Osborne said: "Theresa May didn't say very much, which was par for the course in those meetings."

The EU super fat cats did not like the idea of a referendum either.
Why would that be I wonder ?

And former President Hollande, the bastard, said:
"And Mr Hollande says that during a visit to Chequers in 2015 he tried to talk the Tory leader out of holding the referendum.
"Nothing obliged him to hold the referendum when he did," he tells the documentary."
"This would not be the first time that a commitment made at an election had not been kept afterwards"

Bastards, the lot of them.
At least Cameron kept his word.
Unlike that other bastard Gordon earlier on.
Fine politicians you have over there, @B0ycey

[Londonbiker]

UK employment total hits record high,despite Brexit scaremongering, doom & gloomers. The socialists nightmare.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46958560

[ingliz]

UK employment total hits record high,despite Brexit scaremongering, doom & gloomers. The socialists nightmare.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46958560

We both know that is bollocks.

Governments have so fiddled the figures over the years that the employment numbers are a joke.

[Nonsense]

Ed BALLS wife Yvette COOPER, wants to allow MP's to decide,by ammendment, to rule out a 'No Deal' motion in the Commons.

The Prime Minister is the Head of the GOVERNMENT, that was ELECTED to RUN the country by the PEOPLE'S VOTE in a GENERAL ELECTION.

She alone, Theresa MAY, that 'Leader' in name ONLY, must grow a set of 'BALLS'(no pun intended Ed)& tell the Commons in the Anglo Saxon refrain, to "'F OFF".

COOPER's ammendment, if passed, would be akin to 'allowing the patients to take over the assylum', an absolute abdication of 'leadership'.

It is her job, for which she alone is employed by the majority of voters, to 'Lead' the government of the country,to abide by the outcome of manifesto policies that she & her party were elected on.

She decided what the E.U-U.K 'Deal' result was like for the U.K, she has failed to pass that 'Deal' in the Commons, because, as a matter of democratic principle, she violated the unwritten rule of conflating an order from the people, instructing her government to LEAVE - by allowing MP's to play games with that order by the people,she did it because she is both a 'remainer' & unfit for office.

She is the one who has now allowed those patients(MP's)to take over the assylum(Westminster), in order to steal the instruction to LEAVE.

She is a traitor of the lowest order, the legacy she leaves the TORY Party is political oblivion in the political subterrneum word of Hades=all' infinito.

[Nonsense]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46951942


The EU super fat cats did not like the idea of a referendum either.
Why would that be I wonder ?

And former President Hollande, the bastard, said:
"And Mr Hollande says that during a visit to Chequers in 2015 he tried to talk the Tory leader out of holding the referendum.
"Nothing obliged him to hold the referendum when he did," he tells the documentary."
"This would not be the first time that a commitment made at an election had not been kept afterwards"

Bastards, the lot of them.
At least Cameron kept his word.
Unlike that other bastard Gordon earlier on.
Fine politicians you have over there, @B0ycey

Nonsense -

Indeed BOyce, As I have said before, the demand by LABOUR for a 'Second' Referendum, is plumbing the depths of cynicism for that Party, demanding a 'people's' vote, when Gordon BROWN denied one, after PROMISING a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, on the basis that it was merely an 'ammendment' & that 'NOTHING' had changed..oh! the language of DECEIT never runs it's full term of usage.

He said that 'nothing' had changed' , YET, the Lisbon Treaty had fundamentally changed the EEC-E.U, from people being able to WORK anywhere in the Single Market', to becoming 'Citizens', to the 'Treaty' of the EEC becoming a 'Constitution'(making the E.U a SINGLE-LEGAL-ENTITY-Like a single country is), to majority voting' to 'co-decisions by ministers' , to removing the 'Revolving Presidency', to 'Third Countries', to removing 'National Vetoes' & so on & so forth... 'NOTHING'-HAS changed'.

BROWN knew that the change from EEC-E.U meant the creation of a Single State(E.U), the 'ever closer union' or merger of many countries into one 'superstate', the E.U.
'LYING' is the blood that runs through all politicians veins-without it they would die....Oh! YES PLEASE.

[Potemkin]

It is her job, for which she alone is employed by the majority of voters, to 'Lead' the government of the country,to abide by the outcome of manifesto policies that she & her party were elected on.

She decided what the E.U-U.K 'Deal' result was like for the U.K, she has failed to pass that 'Deal' in the Commons, because, as a matter of democratic principle, she violated the unwritten rule of conflating an order from the people, instructing her government to LEAVE - by allowing MP's to play games with that order by the people,she did it because she is both a 'remainer' & unfit for office.

She is the one who has now allowed those patients(MP's)to take over the assylum(Westminster), in order to steal the instruction to LEAVE.

No, actually Theresa May is merely obeying the law of the land. Parliament is sovereign, and the PM can only govern with the consent of Parliament. Party election manifestos have no legal force. Referenda have no legal force. The will of the Prime Minister, absent Parliament's support, has no legal force. Only Parliament is sovereign. You are actually calling for the overthrow of Parliament and its replacement by a dictator who will rule by referendum and decree. We fought a war against Napoleon Bonaparte to prevent that from happening.

[Nonsense]

No, actually Theresa May is merely obeying the law of the land. Parliament is sovereign, and the PM can only govern with the consent of Parliament. Party election manifestos have no legal force. Referenda have no legal force. The will of the Prime Minister, absent Parliament's support, has no legal force. Only Parliament is sovereign. You are actually calling for the overthrow of Parliament and its replacement by a dictator who will rule by referendum and decree. We fought a war against Napoleon Bonaparte to prevent that from happening.

No, you are wrong, it's NOT about 'overthrowing' parliament, the decision & delivery is NOTHING to do with parliament's sovereignty.


The instruction(read-ORDER)is a direct contract between whatever government was elected(based on it's manifesto promise)to DELIVER the referendum result-WHATEVER THAT WAS, absolutely not a normal parliamentary business for which a general election result gives a mandate for.

It's a contract between the people & the government through it's manifesto, for the very reason that was why they are the party in government, they promised to DELIVER 'LEAVE', which was the answer that the majority gave on the referendum question & why the Tories were elected.

Referendum's are NOT parliamentary business-save-to enable(they did)the decision to LEAVE, which is what the referendum result ORDERED the government to do.

MP's of all Parties were elected on Manifesto's that promised to abide by the referendum result, many are backsliding on that platform, for which they were elected as MP's.

People are 'sovereign', a 'parliament' gains it's power through the majority of the people ONLY for the period of the parliament, currently 5 years.
That is temporary-NOT-permament.
A government represents the 'sovereign' power of the people, as an agent between the people & the Head of State, the 'Sovereign',who holds that position in a state of 'TRUST' for the nation.

That is where parliament governs by 'consent' in a supposedly 'democratic' fashion, of which the carrying out the will of the people as represented by the referendum, is not being carried out in the letter or spirit of that result.

I say that, because there appears to be 635 DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF WHAT 'LEAVE' MEANS.

A 'Sovereign' CANNOT transfer power to a 'foreign' state, save in defeat of a war, where there is a total capitulation by our 'defence' forces.

'Sovereign' power itself is only ephemeral, it's not permament, should the country capitulate, the 'Sovereign' dies with it, that doesn't mean the physical liquidation of the current 'Sovereign' at that time, although it could do.

Were the 'term' of parliament to end, with no further elections held, the country would revert to it's prevous status as a 'kingdom', until a 'new' 'Cromwell' or 'revolution' came along.

[Potemkin]

No, you are wrong, it's NOT about 'overthrowing' parliament, the decision & delivery is NOTHING to do with parliament's sovereignty.


The instruction(read-ORDER)is a direct contract between whatever government was elected(based on it's manifesto promise)to DELIVER the referendum result-WHATEVER THAT WAS, absolutely not a normal parliamentary business for which a general election result gives a mandate for.

It's a contract between the people & the government through it's manifesto, for the very reason that was why they are the party in government, they promised to DELIVER 'LEAVE', which was the answer that the majority gave on the referendum question & why the Tories were elected.

Referendum's are NOT parliamentary business-save-to enable(they did)the decision to LEAVE, which is what the referendum result ORDERED the government to do.

MP's of all Parties were elected on Manifesto's that promised to abide by the referendum result, many are backsliding on that platform, for which they were elected as MP's.

You seem to have no understanding of legality, nor of the British constitutional traditions. A party manifesto is not legally binding. If it were, most of the party leaders throughout history would have ended up in prison. A referendum is not legally binding. And a Prime Minister's diktat is not legally binding. Nobody can legally bind Parliament to do anything it doesn't want to do. What is there about all this that you don't understand?

[Nonsense]

You seem to have no understanding of legality, nor of the British constitutional traditions. A party manifesto is not legally binding. If it were, most of the party leaders throughout history would have ended up in prison. A referendum is not legally binding. And a Prime Minister's diktat is not legally binding. Nobody can legally bind Parliament to do anything it doesn't want to do. What is there about all this that you don't understand?

Nonsense -

Ok , if manifestos were not 'legally' binding(I accept that), but, 'promise's' are subject to being acceptable as a fact to be undertaken.

Were they not so, then the Advertising Standards Authority, would be within it's right to prosecute any negligence in not doing so.

Besides that, what is the point of either 'democracy' itself, by way of voting, if policies in manifesto's were not delivered?

The whole point of 'democracy' is that it is, 'war, by any other means', of which there are unwritten rules that have 'trust' as the sole purpose of voting, because you vote for the change that such proposals would bring, to accept anything else is nonsensical vapour ware.

Lose that 'trust' in democracy & physical contest become the norm for addressing issues.

I am sure that most people prefer politics that 'deliver', to the 'alternative' anarchy of 'direct' (physical)action'.

[Potemkin]

Nonsense -

Ok , if manifestos were not 'legally' binding(I accept that), but, 'promise's' are subject to being acceptable as a fact to be undertaken.

Were they not so, then the Advertising Standards Authority, would be within it's right to prosecute any negligence in not doing so.

Besides that, what is the point of either 'democracy' itself, by way of voting, if policies in manifesto's were not delivered?

What indeed, Nonsense? What indeed?

The whole point of 'democracy' is that it is, 'war, by any other means', of which there are unwritten rules that have 'trust' as the sole purpose of voting, because you vote for the change that such proposals would bring, to accept anything else is nonsensical vapour ware.

Lose that 'trust' in democracy & physical contest become the norm for addressing issues.

Indeed. We call it a "revolution".

I am sure that most people prefer politics that 'deliver', to the 'alternative' anarchy of 'direct' (physical)action'.

Whether they prefer it or not, they're not going to get it. Neither in the past, nor now, nor in the future.

Why do you think I became a revolutionary Marxist?

[Nonsense]

Nonsense, I am not authorised to like your post so I shall give ye a thumbs up, back.

Although can I request that you stop capitalizing whole words in your posts? It makes them not fun to read, thanks in advance.

Nonsense-

Thanks Skinster, sometimes I can't help it, I do it for emphasis rather than for 'shouting'.

[Nonsense]

What indeed, Nonsense? What indeed?


Indeed. We call it a "revolution".


Whether they prefer it or not, they're not going to get it. Neither in the past, nor now, nor in the future.

Why do you think I became a revolutionary Marxist?

Nonsense -

If only I had known.

I felt that way when I was young & politically active.

They say that as you get older you transition from being radical or 'revolutionary', to becoming a 'Socialist' & then a 'Conservative' with a small 'c'.

For myself, I have come full circle & progressed into an 'anarchist' of sorts, a complete 'non-believer'.

[Potemkin]

Nonsense -

If only I had known.

I felt that way when I was young & politically active.

They say that as you get older you transition from being radical or 'revolutionary', to becoming a 'Socialist' & then a 'Conservative' with a small 'c'.

For myself, I have come full circle & progressed into an 'anarchist' of sorts, a complete 'non-believer'.

That's strange; I went through the opposite trajectory. I started out as a small-c conservative, and as I grew older and wiser over the years I gradually moved somewhere to the left of Joseph Stalin. Lol.