[Nonsense]

Welcome to the party David Lammy!!

Blame is at home not over the channel. We executed our steps on lies and falsehood. The EU didn't push and as such we alone must take accountability.

Plus Corbyn is gearing up for a general election and has weakened his Brexit Rhetoric. Obviously he knows the Remainers can't be silenced. Can't wait for manifesto time. And should his confidence vote fail, it is clear Labour default position is EUREF2. Let the commons vote commence.

Nonsense-

The ONLY 'meaningful' vote that matters, has already taken place,that is the Referendum, what individuals or any MP's think of that is totally irrelevent, ALL that matters is that the people voted LEAVE, they did not vote for a 'LEAVE' version called, 'BREXIT'(Chequers-Norway-ad infinitum), which is a Westminster invention that leaves this country with 'one-foot-IN the E.U & one-foot-OUT'- that is NOT what 'LEAVE' means.

Those MP's will not be able to avoid their facing the music when the next election comes, for ACTING AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS,because MP's are effectively voting twice on the UK leaving the E.U-once in the referendum, the other as parliamentarians, with no MANDATE TO VOTE AGAINST OUR DEPARTURE FROM THE E.U.

[B0ycey]

Well no referendum is the UK is meaningful. They are all advisory. Although I do like it when people claim the first vote is democratic and any successor isn't - as if too much democracy is bad.

If the only outcome from division is more democracy, I don't think it is an insult to the first vote to ask the question again. The first vote was based on falsehood and lies and the second would be based on facts. If people want Brexit they can vote for it again. And if they don't, I suggest that is because opinion has changed by facts and the lies being exposed. If you fear another vote you must be scared of the possible outcome. Why is that?

[JohnRawls]

The Guardian is not a pro-Labour resource. You are wrong. The Guardian openly endorses the Lib-Dem party officially, reports only Tory politics and proactively trashes Labour.

Labour is supposed to have the New Statesman, openly endorsing it.

MMM, if you are saying it then perhaps i am wrong. The reason why i am saying that The Guardian is pro-labour is because it has been the place where i tried to get the news about what is going on in the UK since Brexit started. (Ingliz linked some articles and i went from there)

But as i read it, i noticed that it rarely has any critical peaces on labour or its policies. Most critisism goes against the Tories or UKIP or "hardliner Brexiteers". Regarding labour the only thing that they critisize mostly is Corbyns in between stance of sorts.

[Beren]

Although I do like it when people claim the first vote is democratic and any successor isn't - as if too much democracy is bad.

So you don't share the precious opinions on democracy and referendums of such great experts on democracy and referendums as Vladimir Vladimirovich Kremlin of Russia, who also believes a second referendum would be tragically undemocratic?

[B0ycey]

So you don't share the precious opinions on democracy and referendums of such great experts on democracy and referendums as Vladimir Vladimirovich Kremlin of Russia, who also believes a second referendum would be tragically undemocratic?

We currently have representional democracy in the UK Beren. I would prefer proportional representation, but until the system changes, I have to accept the system we have. And so should everyone else in the UK. Referendums are advisory. A second vote will be advisory. But by executing one our MPs will be able to gage public opinion better in regards to what should happen when the vote gets rejected on Tuesday. The opinions of Russian Premiers are no concern of mine.

[Beren]

The opinions of Russian Premiers are no concern of mine.

So it has never occurred to you that perhaps you should learn something about democracy and referendums from them?

[B0ycey]

So it has never occurred to you that perhaps you should learn something about democracy and referendums from them?

I have learnt much about Russian politics, but little about Democracy from there. I can only assume you are playing Devils advocate here Beren. Or are you pinning for the return of the Iron Curtain?

[Nonsense]

[quote="B0ycey"]Well no referendum is the UK is meaningful. They are all advisory. Although I do like it when people claim the first vote is democratic and any successor isn't - as if too much democracy is bad.


Nonsense -

I think that you have previously stated the false notion that referendums are purely 'advisory' & I have stated that the E.U referendum was NOT 'advisory'.
It seems that your prejudices do take precedence over FACT.

BOycey - If the only outcome from division is more democracy, I don't think it is an insult to the first vote to ask the question again.

Nonsense -
Well, 'YOU' might want to change your mind, but when people voted LEAVE , they meant what they meant when they voted.

In your world perhaps people ought to have the 'right' to change their minds over which Party they voted for at election time...Oh! wait a minute, we have a 5 year FIXED TERM PARLIAMENT... silly me.

BOycey - The first vote was based on falsehood and lies and the second would be based on facts.

Nonsense -

Oh! somehow, I do not think that "FACTS" mean much to you, as the comment on referendum's being "advisory" in the case of the 2016 referendum has been disproven many times.

Really, the rhetoric is irrelevent, like the N.H.S 'LIES' told by remainers, making false accusations against Leave campaigners, who NEVER said that £350 MILLION 'would' be spent each week on the N.H.S.

In FACT, they said, "We send the EU £350 MILLION a week"......"Let's fund the NHS instead"...."Vote LEAVE".

Now, tell everyone, where the 'LIE' is in the above quotes?

If you,along with the rest of the 'remainers' assert that 'Leavers' lied, then complain to the Advertising Standards Authority, who will give you the answer that they have no power to regulate political Ads, however 'misleading', of which interest groups of 'remain' were much more blatant in using FAKE news in their campaign.

BOycey - If people want Brexit they can vote for it again. And if they don't, I suggest that is because opinion has changed by facts and the lies being exposed. If you fear another vote you must be scared of the possible outcome. Why is that?

Nonsense - People have already voted LEAVE, they do not "want" or need to vote again.
'Opinion''s change all the time, that doesn't make any difference whatsoever, in your world, we would be IN one week - OUT the next...Oh! wait a minute, that's just what Theresa MAY's deal means.
'LEAVERS' don't "fear" another vote, the 'vote' has been done, in fact, let's see who 'fears' another 'vote' most, by having CORBYN put that choice in Labour's next election manifesto.
The result will be ANOTHER 5 years in OPPOSITION for LABOUR.... that's why CORBYN is making ridiculous nonsensical policy decisions that are no different than Theresa MAY's objectives as a 'remainer', which she & her policy equate to.
CORBYN is just playing politics, just like MAY is with her 'Deal' & both are political 'LOSERS'.

[Beren]

I have learnt much about Russian politics, but little about Democracy from there.

I wonder how that can be when Russian politics is all about democracy.

[B0ycey]

Your just spouting ignorance Nonsense. The referendum was advisory. I won't go into why, but basically if MPs rejected Brexit, revoked article 50 and didn't even take a vote to make that decision, that is more illegitimate than the first referendum in terms of UK democracy.

[B0ycey]

I wonder how that can be when Russian politics is all about democracy.

You are on a platform, use your time and explain Russian democracy to PoFo.

[Beren]

You are on a platform, use your time and explain Russian democracy to PoFo.

It's been explained.

Guided democracy

[Nonsense]

Your just spouting ignorance Nonsense. The referendum was advisory. I won't go into why, but basically if MPs rejected Brexit, revoked article 50 and didn't even take a vote to make that decision, that is more illegitimate than the first referendum in terms of UK democracy.

Nonsense -

I think that YOU are the one that's spouting 'NONSENSE'.

YOU do not have an option to not go into why, I am calling you out on the statement you made on being 'advisory', answer it, or be damned for flaming other posters without any basis in what you post.


BOycey - " but basically if MPs rejected Brexit, revoked article 50 and didn't even take a vote to make that decision, that is more illegitimate than the first referendum in ".

Nonsense - More Nonsense from you BOyce, "if" doesn't apply, they haven't rejected 'BREXIT', which is NOT the same as rejecting the referendum result & Article 50 will NOT be "revoked".

Even 'if' the 'BREXIT' vote(MAY's 'Deal') is lost, we still leave on 29 March, that is LAW, voted on in parliament, cannot be 'revoked' as there is no MANDATE in which to do so.

[B0ycey]

Is that your evaluation as to why I should reject a second referendum Beren? As I said, the opinions of a Russian premier is not my concern. He is entitled to his opinion although I see no issue with additional democracy if it is to break deadlock - which is my concern.

[Beren]

Is that your evaluation as to why I should reject a second referendum Beren?

Sure, I'm seriously referring to Putin and his opinion on democracy and referendums to make a case.

[B0ycey]

Nonsense -

I think that YOU are the one that's spouting 'NONSENSE'.

YOU do not have an option to not go into why, I am calling you out on the statement you made on being 'advisory', answer it, or be damned for flaming other posters without any basis in what you post.

I suspect the name Gina Miller doesn't mean much to you. Here is something I found, but not read. I hope it has all you need to know as I am not bothered if Brexiteers don't believe me that the referendum was advisory.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/article-50-ruling-eu-referendum-was-only-ever-advisory

[Rich]

The referendum has been fascism from beginning to end.

What is fascism? Fascism is two things:

1 Thinking you are entitled to rule even though you have minority support.
2 Thinking you are entitled to continue ruling even if you lose support.

The Conservative party has ruled Britain for the majority of the time since universal male suffrage with only minority support. (Women's suffrage was one of the greatest non events in history. No one cares that French women didn't have the vote in the nineteen twenties and thirties.) The rise of UKIP threatened Tory rule, by splitting the right vote and letting Ed Milliband into Number 10. The referendum was to stop the advance of democracy and allow repeated Tory minority rule.

David Cameron promised in his manifesto that if he got a majority in 2015 he would have a referendum and then, if Leave won he would use his parliamentary majority to lead Britain out of the EU. Cameron resigned and then a year later, after initiating article 50 and giving away most of our negotiating power, Teresa May flushed the referendum mandate down the toilet by holding another general election.

Its time to tell pathetic whining Brexit snow flakes where to go!

"But we voted once and expect an incredibly complex and incredibly undefined policy just to be implemented." Democracy requires a bit more than you getting out of bed once in your life to make a Boolean choice. The way these Brexit retards talk, you'd think that the Brexit referendum was some towering achievement of democracy. It resulted in less than 128 kilobytes of data. One bit of data per voter. One bit of data to determine our future relationship with the EU and everything impacted by our membership of the EU. Compare that to the amount of data Facebook uses to implement your page preferences.

Brexit is the ultimate in modern narcissistic entitlement politics. It came from the Conservatives belief in their entitlement to minority rule. And has led to this nonsense that government can be run by binary referendums. No just for starters it needs party's, and programmes, manifestos, representatives, committees, a bureaucracy, coalitions of differing agendas and compromises.

Its been said that some of the leave voters might not vote again.

- Good!

Until these know nothings actually learn something about governance and democracy, their participation has no value.

[Nonsense]

I suspect the name Gina Miller doesn't mean much to you. Here is something I found, but not read. I hope it has all you need to know as I am not bothered if Brexiteers don't believe me that the referendum was advisory.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/article-50-ruling-eu-referendum-was-only-ever-advisory

Nonsense -

I am quite aware of the person mentioned & what she was attempting to no avail.

She, like many others, wish to frustrate what is called BREXIT, we LEAVE 29 March 2019.

The U.K is unlike 'All' other countries in the world when it comes to referendums, in the U.K, the government or parliament initiates the process of a referendum.

Other countries allow members of the public, political parties, or governments themselves to enable referendums, which are ALWAYS single-issue questions, itself a method of enabling 'direct-democracy' where a political system mitigates against that democracy, it acts as a 'safety valve'.

Now, referenda, like elections, throw up unexpected results, sometimes perverse, but then, so do elections, when political parties coalesce like in the U.K under BLAIR, pressure builds for REAL change & referendums are the result to avert even greater consequences.

It or parliament decide the question & sometimes decides by what percentage margin the result must be to be ligitimate.

The E.U referendum Act was decided by David CAMERON in 2015, followed by the referendum on 23 June 2016 & the completion of the parliamentary afction was decided by parliament by carrying the Withdrawl Act with 29 March 2019 being the date for our departure.

The departure date also falls within the E.U's rules in which it must be completed(2 years to the day of a country's Article 50 being submitted).

The Withdrawl 'Deal' is a SEPARATE matter to the departure itself, which is set in law & motion.


Any political party can include the opportunity to hold another E.U referendum, or to 'negotiate' another 'Deal' as part of their election manifesto, unless they include an intention to uphold the result of any such new referendum, they could avoid doing so, thus making it 'advisory', but of course, the public would extract exactly what that party proposes before voting for them.

Therein lies the risk for LABOUR of including such a policy in it's next manifesto, although(possibly, believing current public opinion)by so doing, they may well lose, what otherwise was a 'winnable' election.

[Rich]

Neither Labour, Liberal Democrats nor the SNP promised to vote for a Tory Brexit in ether their 2015 or 2017 manifestos. To demand that Labour, Liberal or SNP MPs vote for a Tory Brexit is fascism pure and simple. Teresa May made no attempt to create a national government to implement Brexit in 2016 after she became Prime Minister or in 2017 after the general election. May has sought to create a Tory /DUP brexit, if the Toryies/ DUPers won't vote for their own Brexit deal why in God's name is up to oppostion MPs to bail her out? It is up to Labour party members whether they will tolerate their MPs voting for a Tory Brexit. If my constituency had a Labour MP I might well join the party to discourage them from thinking of that.

[Nonsense]

Neither Labour, Liberal Democrats nor the SNP promised to vote for a Tory Brexit in ether their 2015 or 2017 manifestos. To demand that Labour, Liberal or SNP MPs vote for a Tory Brexit is fascism pure and simple. Teresa May made no attempt to create a national government to implement Brexit in 2016 after she became Prime Minister or in 2017 after the general election. May has sought to create a Tory /DUP brexit, if the Toryies/ DUPers won't vote for their own Brexit deal why in God's name is up to oppostion MPs to bail her out? It is up to Labour party members whether they will tolerate their MPs voting for a Tory Brexit. If my constituency had a Labour MP I might well join the party to discourage them from thinking of that.

Nonsense -

You don't seem to understand the democratic process Rich.

Neither Labour, Liberal Democrats nor the SNP promised to vote for a Tory Brexit in ether their 2015 or 2017 manifestos.

It's totally irrelevent what those parties included, or excluded from their election manifesto's, the electorate voted 'TORY', by so doing they exclude everything that the other parties 'promised', 'pledged' or whatever, in order to get the popular vote.

They were rejected,in favour of the TORIES, for better or worse, IMHO, the latter.


In a 'hung' parliament, it's a slightly different matter(think DUP)getting the manifesto through the parliament process.

Rich - "May has sought to create a Tory /DUP brexit."

Nonsense - Kind of, but including the business interest & little else.

Remember the 'TORY' dictum, " Divide & Rule". It's in their ideological bloodstream & out of time.