[skinster]

Swinson

if he gets elected Israel should cut all diplomatic ties with the UK the moment that happens

[snapdragon]

Skinster, I wish you would post your opinions instead of videos of other people's.

Still, it is your choice. I'm just saying.

I'd like to point out that Jeremy Corbyn has only stated he supports a referendum to choose between his deal or no deal. ( as far as I can find out)

His magical deal which makes no sense.
The EU will not agree to a deal that gives us the same benefits.
He will not be able to negotiate a better deal than May already did.
Even if he was to get the chance, which is so remote as to be impossible.

https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corb ... amendment/

It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Should the UK stay in the CU then we would be tied to EU rules without any say.

And what does he mean by close alignment with the single market?

Has he changed his mind since February?

Is he actually willing to give us a chance to exit Brexit?

I don't think so, which is why I've signed John Watson's public declaration urging Labour to become a party of remain.

[Nonsense]

Skinster, I wish you would post your opinions instead of videos of other people's.

Still, it is your choice. I'm just saying.

I'd like to point out that Jeremy Corbyn has only stated he supports a referendum to choose between his deal or no deal. ( as far as I can find out)

His magical deal which makes no sense.
The EU will not agree to a deal that gives us the same benefits.
He will not be able to negotiate a better deal than May already did.
Even if he was to get the chance, which is so remote as to be impossible.

https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corb ... amendment/

It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Should the UK stay in the CU then we would be tied to EU rules without any say.

And what does he mean by close alignment with the single market?

Has he changed his mind since February?

Is he actually willing to give us a chance to exit Brexit?

I don't think so, which is why I've signed John Watson's public declaration urging Labour to become a party of remain.

It doesn't matter how you frame it, whatever Labour proposes is against the democratic voice of the people in the referendum, as such, it is anti-democratic until such time as we leave the E.U.
CORBYN's 'problem' is, he is too wimpish in telling his own party a few home truths, hence, the reasons that Labour only stands for peripheral minority groups with subversive tendencies, as opposed to being a nationalist party for the working people.

If Labour stopped their anti-democratic nonsense in trying to frustrate democracy, they might see that there is a little light at the end of a very long,dark tunnel which they are entering with the Tory Party.

We know that the Labour remainers want a remain option in any such ballot from a new referendum, that is the element that is not democratic, because it's saying 'stop brexit', as opposed to, 'lets leave, then, when there is a general election, we can offer a referendum to join the E.U'(again).

Just count the laughs at that one,because they will exceed the votes that Labour will get.

I personally get the feeling that the consequences of what Labour are doing, is to lose many 'remain' MP's at the next election & that the country will go for the Brexit Party- if- they can provide a manifesto for those who have lost out from the Tory government's attacks on them through their economic policies.

[ingliz]

anti-democratic

How is it 'anti-democratic' to offer the people a vote in a democracy?

[snapdragon]

It isn't.

[layman]

It is not a conspiracy that people think he is shit. Assuming it is though, not sure while you all assuming he will win an election. Won’t they just rig it?

@noemon if it is so blatant that is labour policy and every single paper is reporting it wrongly, maybe labour should update their website. Just a thought ....

[noemon]

It is not a conspiracy that people think he is shit. Assuming it is though, not sure while you all assuming he will win an election.

It is quite unique having an opposition elected with 40% but no newsmedia supporting it or even being neutral towards it. At the end it is not Corbyn who will become irrelevant but these outlets who have the audacity to insult about half of the British electorate. News outlet are there to report on the existing socio-political reality, not try to manufacture their own reality by ignoring the real one. This disconnect will resolve itself as all vacuums get filled one way or another.

Won’t they just rig it?

If we let them.

[Nonsense]

How is it 'anti-democratic' to offer the people a vote in a democracy?


:?:

It's not 'anti-democratic',to "offer the people a vote in a democracy".

Indeed, there is no 'democracy' without a "vote".

I'm sure that's not what you meant though, so, in the context of leaving the E.U, I will repeat what I have posted so many times about the issue, but which certain posters seem not to understand the reality is from the 'democractic viewpoint.

First of all, some people seem to think that the only 'democracy' in this country, is that which is displayed within the confines of Westminster, that is as far away from the reality as one can get.
Secondly, parliamentary democracy is just one form of democracy in a 'free' country, referenda are another, which, for some reason or other, some people seem to believe, are a matter of 'choice', as to whether or not they accept the results of-depending on their prejudices, oif course.


That is completely wrong, unless it explicitly states beforehand, that the result will not be binding, or accepted, in which case, what, exactly is the point of holding one.Other people say that, because we live in a parliamentary democracy, only parliament can decide on all 'democratic' matters, in other words, politicians want to 'monopolize' democracy, which again, is wrong.

Some MP's say that they can simply ignore referendum results, because 'Parliament is Sovereign', that only applies to it's own decisions taken within parliament-parliament being merely the period applicable under the Parliament Act, currently 5 years.

Facts are, people elect a government through elections, not a parliament, which is composed simply of elected members representing(primariliy)their constituents & secondly their respective political party's interest that sometimes do or don't happen to coincide.

It's perfectly possible for BoJo to take us out of the E.U with the involvement of parliament, or despite it's involvement, that is because all of the relevent debates, with votes have been concluded on the matter in hand, which only parliament can undo(if it wishes)& there is nothing else which parliament can do.

Now, the referendum(apart from the Acts to leave - Article 50) etc, was not a business of parliament, it was an instruction by the people to their elected representatives, the majority as manifesting itself by the government, to carry out that act of leaving the E.U.

Now, that there is no majority is irrelevent, because it is not an issue for further debate, it's an instruction to ACT, the mere existence of a government, gives the government the power to deliver without parliament by virtue of the referendum not being part oif parliamentrary everyday business as manifested by party manifesto policies, that's why it's extraneous to parliamentary business.


It is entirely up to the government within parliament, to decide the business of the House, should BoJo not place government business on the order papers, there will be no nce of ammending something that doesn't exist, once Oct 31 passes, he can present parliament with his own government's business.

As a point of interest which may, or not, educate some folks, in the U.K, a number of referendum have been held in the U.K, in fact, there have been 11 in total, most in connection with 'devolution', which, in a sense, is what the E.U issue is about.

The irony of all of this is, of course, that, it was the Labour Party, under Harold WILSON, that got parliament into accepting referendums for the explicit, singular purpose, of answering a binary question to which the public should have their say on.

Those referendums were all eventually delivered on by parliament no less(irony of ironies), you see, it's not that there is inherently anything wrong with alternate forms or methods of doing democracy, bhecause, whether it's directly, as by referendum's, or by elections, the sole purpose of 'democracy' is to give expression of the people's will'.

To then act as if nothing has happened(it hasn't in that the result has not been implemented), so that the instruction of the people can be ignored by those who think that the position they hold by virtue of the people, is nothing more than a calculated slap in the face to democracy itself.

In fact, they do this whenever they are elected as a government, because they think that the manifesto is just like a piece of blank paper, like that which Neville CHAMBERLAIN waved to the people on his return from seeing HITLER, is just what you want it to be & not what it actually is.

If parliament wishes to disregard the people's instructions, why bother asking question's in the first place, which then begs the other question, why ask people to vote anyway(many don't, including myself, for obvious reasons), which then begs the next question, what is the point of 'democracy' anyway if everything that follows from it completely ignores the people?

To answer your question in the way that you posited it, a referendum questtion is binary, there is only one democratic answer, there is nothing relative about it, it's 'all or nothing', you 'win' or you 'lose', that's democracy in action.

Once you accept that, you also acknowledge that politicians have been instructed(ordered) into i9mplementing what the electorate decided by the result.

Now, if politicians disagree with that, they should resign themselves to accepting it, or stand down, because they are not democrats if they ignore the people's
referendum orders.

There is an alternative which I have stated in my post, which, for some reason, which I cannot fathom,you seem to ignore, in favour of 'offering people a vote in a democracy', which is a complete & utter nonsense.

People have already voted democratically, they have already decided, they told MP's to pass the legislation(by implication)to deliver the people's orders & leave the E.U.
They have no choice, they have to deliver leave, or suffer the untold consequences for decades to come, I say that because those who seek to confound those orders to leave, will reap the whirlwind of their actions, which will be impacted on the people whose votes they & their political party depend on.

[B0ycey]

...in the context of leaving the E.U, I will repeat what I have posted so many times about the issue, but which certain posters seem not to understand the reality is from the 'democractic viewpoint.

What happens when democracy contradicts? Which is precisely why UK referendums can only be advisory and never binding because parliament is sovereign not the plebs. Huge court case to determine that little fact. You might have heard of someone called Miller? Still surprised you haven't learnt this little truth yet actually and continue to write long posts of bollocks that don't have any legal facts attached to them. Nevermind.

Nonetheless people also democratically elect their MPs. So if MPs quash Brexit that is democracy at work also FYI. Perhaps more so than a referendum as it is legally valid. Although I never heard complaint when May called an early election allowing the public to change their minds and their MPs before fives years were up a few years back. Perhaps because democracy is about changing your mind. Thwart that and you no longer live in a democracy.

Which makes me question you thinking. why fight a confirmation vote? If people still support Brexit, leave still wins and we leave. But at least we know what the public want today not three years ago if they don't.

[Nonsense]

What happens when democracy contradicts? Which is precisely why UK referendums can only be advisory and never binding because parliament is sovereign not the plebs. Huge court case to determine that little fact. You might have heard of someone called Miller? Still surprised you haven't learnt this little truth yet actually and continue to write long posts of bollocks that don't have any legal facts attached to them. Nevermind.

Nonetheless people also democratically elect their MPs. So if MPs quash Brexit that is democracy at work also FYI. Perhaps more so than a referendum as it is legally valid. Although I never heard complaint when May called an early election allowing the public to change their minds and their MPs before fives years were up a few years back. Perhaps because democracy is about changing your mind. Thwart that and you no longer live in a democracy.

Which makes me question you thinking. why fight a confirmation vote? If people still support Brexit, leave still wins and we leave. But at least we know what the public want today not three years ago if they don't.

"What happens when democracy contradicts"?

'Democracy' doesn't 'contradict', BOycey, you seem to conflate democracy by election, with voting by referendum, the former is specific in purpose, as is a refrerendum, the difference is, an election is when people vote on a range of issues.

Aa referendum is on one issue, each has it's own purpose, the 'problem' is, MP's, who are 'elected', have decided, of their own volition, how the other form of democracy(direct)should, or perhaps not, be implemented, that is constitutionally incorrect & parliament took that power on itself, when it should not have done so, for which I blame Theresa MAY's 'meaningful vote'.

What you say over the Gina Miller case is irrelevent because parliament invoked Article 50 anyway, it was compelled to do so, because of the manifesto promises to uphold the result, by 'honouring' that decision(with the exception of the Lib Dems).

IMHO, the High Court was wrong in it's judgement, which was not legal, it was political,outside of it's power & the above proves the point as parliament has to fall in line with the referendum result, proving the point, that the people's sovereignty trumps parliamentary sovereignty.

Only the Withdrawal Act(Article 50) was within parliament's remit,in order to facillitate the parliamentary preparation for leaving by unravelling the original Treaty & it's obligations in law.

In effect, the Gina MILLER case alters nothing, because we will be leaving the E.U, so, the whole reason that she brought the case for, was a pointless excercise that merely created the groundwork for which parliament is now up to it's neck in.

". So if MPs quash Brexit that is democracy at work also FYI".

The above exposes the extent of your ignorance in how democracy works.

As explained umpteen times, a referendum is not parliamentary business-only- the Treaty Withdrawal Act invoking Article 50 is parliamentary business, which merely unravels the successive treaty ammendments added on to the original treaty signed in the early 1970's, in preparation of our leaving the E.U.

Parliament, through MP's cannot quash BREXIT & no direct attempt by MP's as a whole has succeeded in doing so.
Were that to happen, the consequences would ensure that democracy was dead in this country, not that many people would mourn it's passing, because, CHURCHILL has already put the situation of democratic governance in it's proper place, for which he was correct.

A 'confirmation' vote is just more nonsense from remainers in their desire to delay leaving, in the now forlorn hope of a Labour government being in power to stop leaving, that was always one for the birds, we had a vote, we meant leave, the time for debate was before the vote.

Any election manifesto attempt by remainers in Labour, to produce a promise to negotiate a re-entry into the E.U will lead to decades more in opposition for Labour, during which that party will disappear, as should the Tory Party.

[Nonsense]

What you say over the Gina Miller case is irrelevent because parliament invoked Article 50 anyway, it was compelled to do so, because of the manifesto promises to uphold the result, by 'honouring' that decision(with the exception of the Lib Dems).

IMHO, the High Court was wrong in it's judgement, which was not legal, it was political,outside of it's power & the above proves the point as parliament has to fall in line with the referendum result, proving the point, that the people's sovereignty trumps parliamentary sovereignty.

Only the Withdrawal Act(Article 50) was within parliament's remit,in order to facillitate the parliamentary preparation for leaving by unravelling the original Treaty & it's obligations in law.

In effect, the Gina MILLER case alters nothing, because we will be leaving the E.U, so, the whole reason that she brought the case for, was a pointless excercise that merely created the groundwork for which parliament is now up to it's neck in.

". So if MPs quash Brexit that is democracy at work also FYI".

The above exposes the extent of your ignorance in how democracy works.

As explained umpteen times, a referendum is not parliamentary business-only- the Treaty Withdrawal Act invoking Article 50 is parliamentary business, which merely unravels the successive treaty ammendments added on to the original treaty signed in the early 1970's, in preparation of our leaving the E.U.

Parliament, through MP's cannot quash BREXIT & no direct attempt by MP's as a whole has succeeded in doing so.
Were that to happen, the consequences would ensure that democracy was dead in this country, not that many people would mourn it's passing, because, CHURCHILL has already put the situation of democratic governance in it's proper place, for which he was correct.

A 'confirmation' vote is just more nonsense from remainers in their desire to delay leaving, in the now forlorn hope of a Labour government being in power to stop leaving, that was always one for the birds, we had a vote, we meant leave, the time for debate was before the vote.

Any election manifesto attempt by remainers in Labour, to produce a promise to negotiate a re-entry into the E.U will lead to decades more in opposition for Labour, during which that party will disappear, as should the Tory Party.

[B0ycey]

What you say over the Gina Miller case is irrelevent because parliament invoked Article 50 anyway,

Sure it did. But only because parliament is sovereign and that is what they enacted. But the court case prevents the PM doing things without parliament approval. Why? Because that is how our democracy works.

[B0ycey]

IMHO, the High Court was wrong in it's judgement, which was not legal,

Also....

Massive lol



If The high Court judement isn't legal, what is?

[Nonsense]

Sure it did. But only because parliament is sovereign and that is what they enacted. But the court case prevents the PM doing things without parliament approval. Why? Because that is how our democracy works.

Yes, parliament was 'sovereign' & within it's power to invoke the Withdrawal Act.

That is because, when we entered the European Community, we did so as a result of a general election, in which the Tory Party, under Ted Heath, through their 1942 election manifesto, said that they would, "negotiate an entry into the European Community", < that was all there was on the issue in the manifesto, none of the present day nonsense & people accepted it as a fact like it or not.

That position of signing the original treaty via a general election, which had the above as a policy, gove the present government through parliament, the power to unravel the treaty once the referendum result decided the future direction of this country.

That is the difference between when we joined, with our leaving now, the decision to leave was made by the people directly, that then has to be implemented on by parliament, in that sense, it is not parliamentary sovereignty in action, it's parliament fulfilling the wishes of the people as per referendum, that's where the 'sovereignty' lies in respect of the issue of leaving europe.

[B0ycey]

Until you understand that the referendum can ever only be advisory you will just continue to spout ignorance won't you.

[Nonsense]

Also....

Massive lol



If The high Court judement isn't legal, what is?

The 'law' is an ass BOycey, examples abound to that.

In the case of MILLER, the judgement was highly questionable, IMHO wrong,as I believe that it was a political & not a 'legal' issue .

However, as I have stated, at the end of the day, it has affected the outcome only to the extent that parliament has brought itself into contempt, not just in this country, but the whole world.

From that point of view, MILLER could well have served our 'democracy' in the long term.

[Nonsense]

Until you understand that the referendum can ever only be advisory you will just continue to spout ignorance won't you.

More of your nonsense BOycey.

If what you say above is true, then, why is the country in it's present state, or haven't you noticed that yet?

The referendum result was not 'advisory' because there was election manifesto pledges to 'honour' the result by implementing the results.

Therefore, if that result is not 'honoured',, it brings trust & 'honour' in politics into serious question in this country.

Do you ever think what the long term political consequences for this country & it's people are BOycey?

I doubt that very much indeed.

Anyway, shouldn't this be discussed in another thread...again.. ?

[B0ycey]

The referendum result was not 'advisory' because there was election manifesto pledges to 'honour' the result by implementing the results.

Can't you imagine an election manifesto being legally binding? We may as well lock up every PM we have had and will have.

A manifesto is a pledge and on many occasions plenty of policies are usually ignored once a party is elected. Also ultimately parliament vote on things even within a party manifesto and sometimes they will not always pass FYI. Just like Brexit.

[Nonsense]

Can't you imagine an election manifesto being legally binding? We may as well lock up every PM we have had and will have.

A manifesto is a pledge and on many occasions usually ignored once a party is elected. Ultimately parliament vote on things even within a party manifesto and sometimes they will not always pass FYI. Just like Brexit.

As I keep repeating myself, referendums are not parliamentary business, in the case of leaving europe, it's only the fact that the original entry resulted by election accompanied by a Treaty to that effect, that made it parliamentary business.

The decision by the people to leave, was an order not a 'pledge' requested by the people, MP's & parliament have no choice in the matter as they have been told in no uncertain terms to get this country out of the E.U.

Are you missing 'something' BOycey, there seems to be a failure to communicate here, which is pretty 'strange' when you think about it & your post do not compute logically, if you know what I mean BOycey.

[ThirdTerm]

Referendums are dangerous because ordinary voters are more likely to make a popurist choice that the Establishment does not like. Spain wisely ruled out a referendum on Catalan independence. Otherwise, Spain would have been divided. In 2009, the minaret ban was approved by 57.5% of the Swiss voters. A second Brexit referendum held under Boris Johnson would be as close as the first one.