Is holding another general election anti-democratic?

[MM]

Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

MM

[The Todal]

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

It wouldn't be anti-democratic but it would not solve the Brexit Crisis.

[MM]

Post by The Todal

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

It wouldn't be anti-democratic but it would not solve the Brexit Crisis.

It could, if Labour stated it would revoke Article 50, then look again
in a few years' time.

MM

[Vidcapper]

Post by MM

Post by The Todal

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

It wouldn't be anti-democratic but it would not solve the Brexit Crisis.

It could, if Labour stated it would revoke Article 50, then look again
in a few years' time.

And you think *that* would be an election winning strategy? :P

[MM]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by MM

Post by The Todal

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

It wouldn't be anti-democratic but it would not solve the Brexit Crisis.

It could, if Labour stated it would revoke Article 50, then look again
in a few years' time.

And you think *that* would be an election winning strategy? :P

What, you think the Tories would have any hope in hell of winning?

MM

[Vidcapper]

Post by MM

Post by Vidcapper

Post by MM

Post by The Todal

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

It wouldn't be anti-democratic but it would not solve the Brexit Crisis.

It could, if Labour stated it would revoke Article 50, then look again
in a few years' time.

And you think *that* would be an election winning strategy? :P

What, you think the Tories would have any hope in hell of winning?
MM

Are you kidding, that strategy would hand the election to the Tories on
a plate!

[Nightjar]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by MM

Post by The Todal

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

It wouldn't be anti-democratic but it would not solve the Brexit Crisis.

It could, if Labour stated it would revoke Article 50, then look again
in a few years' time.

And you think *that* would be an election winning strategy? :P

For the past year, opinion polls have shown that more people think that
leaving is wrong, compared to those who think it was right. In recent
weeks, the gap has widened to 49% wrong against 34% right. Dropping
Brexit could well be a good election promise.

[Vidcapper]

Post by The Todal

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

It wouldn't be anti-democratic but it would not solve the Brexit Crisis.

Quite so - whoever won it would still the same issues.

[MM]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by The Todal

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

It wouldn't be anti-democratic but it would not solve the Brexit Crisis.

Quite so - whoever won it would still the same issues.

But with different solutions if Labour or Lib Dem.

MM

[Joe]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.

And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

[Pamela]

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.

The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

[Fruitiest of Fruitcakes]

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

The problem with parliament holding all the cards, is that those who are
likely to vote against the proposed deal will do so because of two wildly
opposing views; both of which seem to have little to do with the wishes of
the British public on Brexit.

One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

The other will vote against because it thinks it can force a leadership
change where the new leader will stick two fingers up to the EU and leave
with no deal at all.

[Ophelia]

"Fruitiest of Fruitcakes" wrote in message news:***@news.giganews.com...
The problem with parliament holding all the cards, is that those who are
likely to vote against the proposed deal will do so because of two wildly
opposing views; both of which seem to have little to do with the wishes of
the British public on Brexit.

One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general
election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

The other will vote against because it thinks it can force a leadership
change where the new leader will stick two fingers up to the EU and leave
with no deal at all.


==

I reckon you have that spot on!

[Vidcapper]

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

You're assuming that none of the 17.4 million have reconsidered the
situation (and the same goes for the 16 million remainers). And then
there are those who didn't vote (12 million, wasn't it?). And, of
course, this takes no account of those who previously were too young to
vote, and those who are now dead.

Care to make another prediction?

[Vidcapper]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

You're assuming that none of the 17.4 million have reconsidered the
situation (and the same goes for the 16 million remainers). And then
there are those who didn't vote (12 million, wasn't it?). And, of
course, this takes no account of those who previously were too young to
vote, and those who are now dead.
Care to make another prediction?

This would be a GE where Brexit would be just one issue amongst many, so
relatively few people will be deciding on it alone.

There are always that many, or more non-voters, so they can be disregarded.

As for young voters replacing deceased ones, you forget the fact that
voters tend to become more conservative as they get older, countering
the trend of youngsters being more radical.

[MM]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

You're assuming that none of the 17.4 million have reconsidered the
situation (and the same goes for the 16 million remainers). And then
there are those who didn't vote (12 million, wasn't it?). And, of
course, this takes no account of those who previously were too young to
vote, and those who are now dead.
Care to make another prediction?

This would be a GE where Brexit would be just one issue amongst many, so
relatively few people will be deciding on it alone.
There are always that many, or more non-voters, so they can be disregarded.
As for young voters replacing deceased ones, you forget the fact that
voters tend to become more conservative as they get older, countering
the trend of youngsters being more radical.

But the new voters are not going to become more conservative in the
space of one or two years.

MM

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by MM

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

You're assuming that none of the 17.4 million have reconsidered the
situation (and the same goes for the 16 million remainers). And then
there are those who didn't vote (12 million, wasn't it?). And, of
course, this takes no account of those who previously were too young to
vote, and those who are now dead.
Care to make another prediction?

This would be a GE where Brexit would be just one issue amongst many, so
relatively few people will be deciding on it alone.
There are always that many, or more non-voters, so they can be disregarded.
As for young voters replacing deceased ones, you forget the fact that
voters tend to become more conservative as they get older, countering
the trend of youngsters being more radical.

But the new voters are not going to become more conservative in the
space of one or two years.
MM

He means the ones who were 50-60 in 2016.

There will be an effect, but slight compared to the passing on and achieving majority of millions of voters.

[MM]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 04:11:14 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by MM

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

You're assuming that none of the 17.4 million have reconsidered the
situation (and the same goes for the 16 million remainers). And then
there are those who didn't vote (12 million, wasn't it?). And, of
course, this takes no account of those who previously were too young to
vote, and those who are now dead.
Care to make another prediction?

This would be a GE where Brexit would be just one issue amongst many, so
relatively few people will be deciding on it alone.
There are always that many, or more non-voters, so they can be disregarded.
As for young voters replacing deceased ones, you forget the fact that
voters tend to become more conservative as they get older, countering
the trend of youngsters being more radical.

But the new voters are not going to become more conservative in the
space of one or two years.
MM

He means the ones who were 50-60 in 2016.

They won't have changed either. Sure they may have *changed their
minds*, but not whether they are fundamentally right or left.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
There will be an effect, but slight compared to the passing on and achieving majority of millions of voters.

On the contrary, the additional votes from *new* voters who were
ineligible to vote in 2016 and the lost votes from Brexiters who
are,sadly, no longer with us would make a big difference.

Also, if there is another referendum I believe far more (previously
complacent) Remainers will rush to the polling stations in larger
numbers, whilst last time the Brexiters got out just about every man
and woman possible, so there's not many of them who didn't vote,
compared to Remainers who didn't vote.

MM

[Vidcapper]

Post by MM
Also, if there is another referendum I believe far more (previously
complacent) Remainers will rush to the polling stations in larger
numbers, whilst last time the Brexiters got out just about every man
and woman possible, so there's not many of them who didn't vote,
compared to Remainers who didn't vote.

I see little evidence to support that - if anything, the effect could
well be the other way, as Remain were expected to win, and that may have
put off potential Leavers.

[Vidcapper]

Post by MM

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Vidcapper
One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

You're assuming that none of the 17.4 million have reconsidered the
situation (and the same goes for the 16 million remainers). And then
there are those who didn't vote (12 million, wasn't it?). And, of
course, this takes no account of those who previously were too young to
vote, and those who are now dead.
Care to make another prediction?

This would be a GE where Brexit would be just one issue amongst many, so
relatively few people will be deciding on it alone.
There are always that many, or more non-voters, so they can be disregarded.
As for young voters replacing deceased ones, you forget the fact that
voters tend to become more conservative as they get older, countering
the trend of youngsters being more radical.

But the new voters are not going to become more conservative in the
space of one or two years.

Why not - if, as you claim, they can change their mind over Brexit that
quickly, why not on who they vote for?

[Col]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.

[abelard]

Post by Col

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.

war is peace...

[Fruitiest of Fruitcakes]

Post by Col

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.

They could, but that policy might backfire if people point out that the
result of a 2nd referendum would only be advisory.

After all, if you don’t accept the result of the first one, why must anyone
accept the view expressed in a second one?

What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.

They could, but that policy might backfire if people point out that the
result of a 2nd referendum would only be advisory.
After all, if you don’t accept the result of the first one, why must anyone
accept the view expressed in a second one?
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

The result would not be credible, OTOH if the remain vote goes up turnout could be more than 40% even if every Leave vote refused to vote - and remember they are the ones with low intellectual attainment.

[Vidcapper]

On Wednesday, 5 December 2018 18:15:57 UTC, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest,
and turnout slumped to 35% or so?

The result would not be credible, OTOH if the remain vote goes up
turnout could be more than 40% even if every Leave vote refused to
vote - and remember they are the ones with low intellectual
attainment.

FFS, I can't believe you are still peddling that discredited falsehood!

[MM]

Post by Vidcapper

On Wednesday, 5 December 2018 18:15:57 UTC, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest,
and turnout slumped to 35% or so?

The result would not be credible, OTOH if the remain vote goes up
turnout could be more than 40% even if every Leave vote refused to
vote - and remember they are the ones with low intellectual
attainment.

FFS, I can't believe you are still peddling that discredited falsehood!

It is not a falsehood. The results have been studied ad nauseam by
numerous organisations with absolutely no axe to grind, therefore
impartial..

Perhaps the finding re low educational attainment is just too painful
for you?

MM

[Ian Jackson]

Post by MM
Perhaps the finding re low educational attainment is just too painful
for you?

Depending on how it's measured, it's possible that quite a lot of those
with 'low educational attainment' tended also to be those who are simply
'old'. Both groups tended to more towards Leave.

[Vidcapper]

Post by MM

Post by Vidcapper
FFS, I can't believe you are still peddling that discredited falsehood!

It is not a falsehood. The results have been studied ad nauseam by
numerous organisations with absolutely no axe to grind, therefore
impartial..
Perhaps the finding re low educational attainment is just too painful
for you?

IT was lower educational *opportunity* they faced, not attainment! Until
the 90's relatively few had the opportunity of going to Uni - but that
doesn't make them thick!

[JNugent]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by MM

Post by Vidcapper
FFS, I can't believe you are still peddling that discredited falsehood!

It is not a falsehood. The results have been studied ad nauseam by
numerous organisations with absolutely no axe to grind, therefore
impartial..
Perhaps the finding re low educational attainment is just too painful
for you?

IT was lower educational *opportunity* they faced, not attainment! Until
the 90's relatively few had the opportunity of going to Uni - but that
doesn't make them thick!

Exactly.

And conversely, those who nowadays have the opportunity to go into
higher education (because the sector has swelled so much) but would
never have made it in (say) the sixties or seventies are not necessarily
more intelligent than average.

The correct proportion of folk who can properly benefit from a higher
education course in a demanding subject is at least 10%, but it isn't at
all likely to be more than 20% (if as high as that).

[Pamela]

Post by JNugent

Post by Vidcapper

Post by MM

Post by Vidcapper
FFS, I can't believe you are still peddling that discredited falsehood!

It is not a falsehood. The results have been studied ad nauseam by
numerous organisations with absolutely no axe to grind, therefore
impartial..
Perhaps the finding re low educational attainment is just too
painful for you?

IT was lower educational *opportunity* they faced, not attainment!
Until the 90's relatively few had the opportunity of going to Uni -
but that doesn't make them thick!

Exactly.
And conversely, those who nowadays have the opportunity to go into
higher education (because the sector has swelled so much) but would
never have made it in (say) the sixties or seventies are not
necessarily more intelligent than average.
The correct proportion of folk who can properly benefit from a higher
education course in a demanding subject is at least 10%, but it isn't
at all likely to be more than 20% (if as high as that).

Which reminds me of:

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/09/-from-o-level-to-no-
level.html

[JNugent]

Post by Pamela

Post by JNugent

Post by Vidcapper

Post by MM

Post by Vidcapper
FFS, I can't believe you are still peddling that discredited falsehood!

It is not a falsehood. The results have been studied ad nauseam by
numerous organisations with absolutely no axe to grind, therefore
impartial..
Perhaps the finding re low educational attainment is just too
painful for you?

IT was lower educational *opportunity* they faced, not attainment!
Until the 90's relatively few had the opportunity of going to Uni -
but that doesn't make them thick!

Exactly.
And conversely, those who nowadays have the opportunity to go into
higher education (because the sector has swelled so much) but would
never have made it in (say) the sixties or seventies are not
necessarily more intelligent than average.
The correct proportion of folk who can properly benefit from a higher
education course in a demanding subject is at least 10%, but it isn't
at all likely to be more than 20% (if as high as that).

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/09/-from-o-level-to-no-
level.html

An excellent article, though it left much of value still unsaid. In
paricular, hitchens didn't say enough about the odious Crosland, who
bears a disproportionate share of the blame for the current state of the
UK. Well, England and Wales, at any rate.

[MM]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by MM

Post by Vidcapper
FFS, I can't believe you are still peddling that discredited falsehood!

It is not a falsehood. The results have been studied ad nauseam by
numerous organisations with absolutely no axe to grind, therefore
impartial..
Perhaps the finding re low educational attainment is just too painful
for you?

IT was lower educational *opportunity* they faced, not attainment! Until
the 90's relatively few had the opportunity of going to Uni - but that
doesn't make them thick!

So you concede that the people who tended to vote Leave hadn't had the
level of education that Remain voters had had?

MM

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Vidcapper

On Wednesday, 5 December 2018 18:15:57 UTC, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest,
and turnout slumped to 35% or so?

The result would not be credible, OTOH if the remain vote goes up
turnout could be more than 40% even if every Leave vote refused to
vote - and remember they are the ones with low intellectual
attainment.

FFS, I can't believe you are still peddling that discredited falsehood!

It is neither and the information is all in the public domain for anyone to deduce the same result.

For it to be false the ONS would have had fiddle ~36M returns in the 2011 census with prescient knowledge of a referendum five years later and / or the Electoral Commission falsified the result of the referendum (~33.5M votes).

So which were false?

As so typical of Brexiteers inconvenient facts are simply denied and new fake ones invented.

Post by Vidcapper
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[MM]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:15:56 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.

They could, but that policy might backfire if people point out that the
result of a 2nd referendum would only be advisory.
After all, if you don’t accept the result of the first one, why must anyone
accept the view expressed in a second one?
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

Then we would stay in, because the status quo would hold sway. After
all, the referendum was about no longer accepting the status quo.

MM

[Col]

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.

They could, but that policy might backfire if people point out that the
result of a 2nd referendum would only be advisory.
After all, if you don’t accept the result of the first one, why must anyone
accept the view expressed in a second one?

Because the 2nd one would at least be based upon the then known
implications of Brexit, May's deal/renegotiated deal/no deal.

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.

[Fruitiest of Fruitcakes]

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general
election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.

They could, but that policy might backfire if people point out that the
result of a 2nd referendum would only be advisory.
After all, if you don’t accept the result of the first one, why must anyone
accept the view expressed in a second one?

Because the 2nd one would at least be based upon the then known
implications of Brexit, May's deal/renegotiated deal/no deal.

Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.

It is Remainers (so confident they would win) who had not considered any
alternative scenario, which is why they are now trying every trick they can
think of to insist the result Brexiteers wanted is not the result Brexiteers
wanted; when what they really mean it is not the result Remainers wanted and
is therefore unacceptable.

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.

Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.

Post by Col
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.

Come off it. Pull the other one!

Most voted Leave because they thought that either personally or as a
nation, they would be better off or have a better lifestyle. [In short,
they succumbed to a general feeling of dissatisfaction with things as
they were.] This is obviously a laudable aspiration - but a heck of a
lot had not really thought through the REAL whys and wherefores - and,
in particular, ANY of the hows.

[MM]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 23:16:06 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.

Come off it. Pull the other one!
Most voted Leave because they thought that either personally or as a
nation, they would be better off or have a better lifestyle. [In short,
they succumbed to a general feeling of dissatisfaction with things as
they were.] This is obviously a laudable aspiration - but a heck of a
lot had not really thought through the REAL whys and wherefores - and,
in particular, ANY of the hows.

Yep, and they thought the way to achieve a better lifestyle would be
to get rid of all those foreigners with strange accents on trains,
bring back pounds, shillings and pence, and make sure bananas remain
bent for all eternity.

What do you reckon how many Brexiters right this minute pray for the
moment when a new Empire Windrush docks at Southampton and Nigel
Farage's poster boys queue up to embark? We would hear the cheers go
up louder than on VE day.

MM

[Col]

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.

No they didn't know the implications, and we still don't.
During the referendum campaign there was much talk of what Brexit
*could* mean, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Norwegian model, Swiss model etc
etc but people who voted leave voted on the basis of what they thought
would constitute a good Brexit for them , not what was actually on the
table. And 2½ years later we *still* don't know what is on the table.
May's deal, a renegotiated deal, no deal? Brexiteers still don't know
exactly what they voted for!

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.

Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.

It would indeed but the argument would have been far from over. Leavers
would no doubt have been pushing for another referendum. Remember
Farage's 'unfinished business'?

[Vidcapper]

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.

It would indeed but the argument would have been far from over. Leavers
would no doubt have been pushing for another referendum. Remember
Farage's 'unfinished business'?

He's never gonna live that down... :p

[MM]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.

It would indeed but the argument would have been far from over. Leavers
would no doubt have been pushing for another referendum. Remember
Farage's 'unfinished business'?

He's never gonna live that down... :p

No, and why should he? It was his heartfelt belief that too close a
result would not be a meaningful expression of democracy, and he was
right to do so.

Equally, it is wrong to disenfranchise 16 million voters and
additionally several million others who didn't vote but were eligible
to do so, whether Leaver or Remainer.

MM

[Fruitiest of Fruitcakes]

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.

No they didn't know the implications, and we still don't.
During the referendum campaign there was much talk of what Brexit
*could* mean, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Norwegian model, Swiss model etc
etc but people who voted leave voted on the basis of what they thought
would constitute a good Brexit for them , not what was actually on the
table. And 2½ years later we *still* don't know what is on the table.
May's deal, a renegotiated deal, no deal? Brexiteers still don't know
exactly what they voted for!

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.

Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.

It would indeed but the argument would have been far from over. Leavers
would no doubt have been pushing for another referendum. Remember
Farage's 'unfinished business'?

No one will ever know, of course; but I am not so sure that scenario would
have come about.

Cameron may have remained as PM with a working majority, and support for
Farage had been sliding into a noisy rump which would have been continually
portrayed as a bunch of racists by the left. I’m not sure that leavers
would have been in the mood for another referendum so quickly - certainly I
wouldn’t.

Maybe in another ten years or so, but I was resigned to remain getting a
narrow majority anyway, and I had lived with EU nonsense for 40 years
already. If the majority were happy with that then my attitude would have
been “so-be-it”.

[MM]

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.

No they didn't know the implications, and we still don't.
During the referendum campaign there was much talk of what Brexit
*could* mean, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Norwegian model, Swiss model etc
etc but people who voted leave voted on the basis of what they thought
would constitute a good Brexit for them , not what was actually on the
table. And 2½ years later we *still* don't know what is on the table.
May's deal, a renegotiated deal, no deal? Brexiteers still don't know
exactly what they voted for!

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.

Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.

It would indeed but the argument would have been far from over. Leavers
would no doubt have been pushing for another referendum. Remember
Farage's 'unfinished business'?

I find it so frightening that Brexiters can so easily ignore the truth
and prefer to believe lies. This is the same mental block which
enabled Hitler to come to power. Despite Kristallnacht, despite Jews
being marched to the train stations, despite the storm troopers on
street corners, despite the false denunciations already happening, too
many Germans just closed their eyes and ears and supported the Nazis.
And look what happened.

MM

[abelard]

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,
which is why they voted for it.

No they didn't know the implications, and we still don't.

so what...nobody knows the future...

the rest of your post is superfluous ramble

Post by Col
During the referendum campaign there was much talk of what Brexit
*could* mean, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Norwegian model, Swiss model etc
etc but people who voted leave voted on the basis of what they thought
would constitute a good Brexit for them , not what was actually on the
table. And 2½ years later we *still* don't know what is on the table.
May's deal, a renegotiated deal, no deal? Brexiteers still don't know
exactly what they voted for!

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.

Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.

It would indeed but the argument would have been far from over. Leavers
would no doubt have been pushing for another referendum. Remember
Farage's 'unfinished business'?

[Col]

Post by abelard

Post by Col
No they didn't know the implications, and we still don't.

so what...nobody knows the future...

Of course nobody knows the future but the point is that in 2016 people
voted for Brexit based upon a complete unknown as to what it might
entail. If there was to be a 2nd referendum we would at least have a far
clearer idea exactly what it was we werer voting for.

Post by abelard
the rest of your post is superfluous ramble

LOL, you certainly are an expert in that!

[Pamela]

Post by abelard
so what...nobody knows the future...
the rest of your post is superfluous ramble

The whole of your post is a superfluous ramble.

[MM]

On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 20:07:24 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general
election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

No, but they could very well campaign on the promise of a 2nd referendum.

They could, but that policy might backfire if people point out that the
result of a 2nd referendum would only be advisory.
After all, if you don’t accept the result of the first one, why must
anyone
accept the view expressed in a second one?

Because the 2nd one would at least be based upon the then known
implications of Brexit, May's deal/renegotiated deal/no deal.

Most Brexiteers knew the implications of Brexit before the first referendum,

An absolute lie. Whether Leaver or Remainer, nobody envisaged the
current chaos. Leavers believed a bunch of lies, like it would be the
easiest deal in human history and related bollocks, and they were
gullible enough to ignore such obvious propaganda.

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
which is why they voted for it.

No, Brexiters voted by and large to remove foreigners from this
country, starting with those from the EU. That was the be all and end
all for most Brexiters.

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
It is Remainers (so confident they would win) who had not considered any
alternative scenario, which is why they are now trying every trick they can
think of to insist the result Brexiteers wanted is not the result Brexiteers
wanted; when what they really mean it is not the result Remainers wanted and
is therefore unacceptable.

You are certainly correct in saying, in terms, that too many Remainers
were complacent. But when you saw even Nigel Farage even at the
eleventh hour just before the Sunderland result came in saying that
Remain had the edge, I'd say a fair bit of complacency was present on
both sides, with Brexiters never thinking they would win.

Oh, and what else did Nigel Farage say? He said a close result would
be "unfinished business", and 48/52 is close.

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.

Just as the result of the first referendum would have stood if it had been
51% to Remain.

Yes, because we would have simply *confirmed* the status quo!

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Col
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.

Yes, and the advice would have been to maintain the status quo.

God, it's like teaching granny to suck eggs here sometimes!

MM

[Vidcapper]

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.

If Leavers abstained there might be a 99% Remain vote, but on a low-30's
turnout, rendering the result farcical.

[Col]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.

If Leavers abstained there might be a 99% Remain vote, but on a low-30's
turnout, rendering the result farcical.

If disgruntled Brexiteers wanted to throw a hissy fit by boycotting the
poll then that's up to them. But imagine if you could determine whether
the result of a vote was recognised or not by *not* taking part?
Now that really would be farcical.

[kat]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.

If Leavers abstained there might be a 99% Remain vote, but on a low-30's
turnout, rendering the result farcical.

If disgruntled Brexiteers wanted to throw a hissy fit by boycotting the poll
then that's up to them. But imagine if you could determine whether the result of
a vote was recognised or not by *not* taking part?
Now that really would be farcical.

LOL, if only I had a pound for every time the number of people who didn't vote
in the referendum was mentioned here, as "evidence" that only a minority want to
leave!

[Ian Jackson]

Post by kat

Post by Col

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.

If Leavers abstained there might be a 99% Remain vote, but on a
low-30's turnout, rendering the result farcical.

If disgruntled Brexiteers wanted to throw a hissy fit by boycotting
the poll then that's up to them. But imagine if you could determine
whether the result of a vote was recognised or not by *not* taking part?
Now that really would be farcical.

Large-scale boycotting of an election is a well-established technique by
those who know that there is little chance of their side winning.
However, this is generally used where the government is oppressive and
totalitarian, and where it's pretty obvious that the election will be
'fixed'. This will enable the opposition to claim that the result is not
valid.

Other examples are more personal. Many people don't bother to vote when
they believe that there will be so few votes for their favoured
candidate that their vote will be a waste of time. Others don't bother
for exactly the opposite reason, ie when they believe there will be more
than enough votes for their candidate to win with out needing theirs.

Post by kat
LOL, if only I had a pound for every time the number of people who
didn't vote in the referendum was mentioned here, as "evidence" that
only a minority want to leave!

Which of the two (personal) examples I have given do you think applies
in the case of the referendum? Were a lot of the non-voters Leavers at
heart, but didn't vote because they knew that there would be a
sufficient majority without them needing to support the Leave side?

Or were they Remainers who similarly didn't think their vote was
necessary?

Or was it for a large variety of other reasons - such as they didn't
know what all the fuss was about, and were happy, in a passive way, to
remain neutral, and for things to go on as they were.

Or, of course, they simply just couldn't be bothered.

[MM]

Post by kat

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.

If Leavers abstained there might be a 99% Remain vote, but on a low-30's
turnout, rendering the result farcical.

If disgruntled Brexiteers wanted to throw a hissy fit by boycotting the poll
then that's up to them. But imagine if you could determine whether the result of
a vote was recognised or not by *not* taking part?
Now that really would be farcical.

LOL, if only I had a pound for every time the number of people who didn't vote
in the referendum was mentioned here, as "evidence" that only a minority want to
leave!

Well, what do YOU think right now? If *every* eligible voter (that's
46 million of us) stated his or her preference today, would the
outcome be:

Leave

or

Remain

?

Here is an interesting chart:
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-52-48-per-cent-voter-turnout-electoral-register-charts-7399226

Not on the electoral register: 18,099,999
Did not vote: 12,948,018
Remain: 16,141,241
Leave: 17,410,742

Now, do you want to try that question again?

MM

[MM]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Col

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
What might happen if leavers boycotted the second one in protest, and turnout
slumped to 35% or so?

That would be their problem. Unless there was a provision for turnout
the result would stand.
But of course as you say, it would still only be 'advisory'.

If Leavers abstained there might be a 99% Remain vote, but on a low-30's
turnout, rendering the result farcical.

Ah, so you DO believe that a small turnout would not be
representative, yet you believe a margin of 1.2 million in a nation of
62 million *IS* representative!

What did Humpty Dumpty say? Ah, yes: "When I use a word,it means just
what I choose it to mean."

MM

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a general election
where its leader will be swept to power and can halt the entire Brexit
process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to reverse
Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as they'd
immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

Rubbish. Opinion will have changed, the electorate turned over, even at the time the slight swing to Leave was pretty much in the last three weeks and probably most of all for many voters Brexit is not the most important issue in determining how they vote in elections.

Post by Vidcapper
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[Vidcapper]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a
general election where its leader will be swept to power and can
halt the entire Brexit process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to
reverse Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as
they'd immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

Rubbish. Opinion will have changed, the electorate turned over, even
at the time the slight swing to Leave was pretty much in the last
three weeks and probably most of all for many voters Brexit is not
the most important issue in determining how they vote in elections.

Congratulations, you've just laid why Brexit is unlikely to be a
deciding factor in the next GE.

[Pamela]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
One group will vote against because it thinks it can force a
general election where its leader will be swept to power and can
halt the entire Brexit process then remain within the EU.

One thing a GE will not do, is hand the winner a mandate to
reverse Brexit - and no party would a campaign on that basis, as
they'd immediately be throwing away 17.4m votes!

Rubbish. Opinion will have changed, the electorate turned over, even
at the time the slight swing to Leave was pretty much in the last
three weeks and probably most of all for many voters Brexit is not
the most important issue in determining how they vote in elections.

Congratulations, you've just laid why Brexit is unlikely to be a
deciding factor in the next GE.

You reckon?

[abelard]

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.

nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies

Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory

it wasn't

Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to

'the british public' is not person...

Post by Pamela
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

it wasn't advice...it was an instruction

you try so much logical error in just one post...your post is
self-serving dishonesty

[Pamela]

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe

... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.

nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies

Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory

it wasn't

BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.

===========

The European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16 states:

"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum"

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf

https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m

=========== An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords Committee
on the Constitution (UK Referendums) said:

"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of
public opinion."

Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm

===========

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.

it wasn't advice...it was an instruction

See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.

[abelard]

Post by Pamela

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe

... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.

nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies

Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory

it wasn't

BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
=========== An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords Committee
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of
public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.

it wasn't advice...it was an instruction

See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.

be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool

[Pamela]

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe

... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.

nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies

Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory

it wasn't

BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government
to implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
===========
An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords Committee
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression
of public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.

it wasn't advice...it was an instruction

See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.

be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool

So that's what you do when you are shown to be 100% wrong about
something .... you insult the person who showed you to be wrong.

I've seen you do it before.

It's hardly worth discussing anything with someone who behaves like
that. In truth, your posts rarely rise to the level of a discussion
these days.

Now tell me once again the referendum was not advisory and provide some
proof.

[abelard]

Post by Pamela

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe

... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.

nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies

Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory

it wasn't

BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government
to implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
===========
An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords Committee
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression
of public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.

it wasn't advice...it was an instruction

See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.

be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool

So that's what you do when you are shown to be 100% wrong about
something .... you insult the person who showed you to be wrong.
I've seen you do it before.
It's hardly worth discussing anything with someone who behaves like
that. In truth, your posts rarely rise to the level of a discussion
these days.
Now tell me once again the referendum was not advisory and provide some
proof.

go tell your dreadful story to your best friend in the infant's class

i'm sure she will console you

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Pamela

Post by abelard
be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool

So that's what you do when you are shown to be 100% wrong about
something .... you insult the person who showed you to be wrong.
I've seen you do it before.

Many times........ many, many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Marsden

[abelard]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 16:41:42 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela

Post by abelard
be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool

So that's what you do when you are shown to be 100% wrong about
something .... you insult the person who showed you to be wrong.
I've seen you do it before.

Many times........ many, many times.

you make a very common error of mediocre minds.....

you believe that when you can't understand something
someone else if in error

Post by Ian Jackson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Marsden

[Pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pamela

Post by abelard
be aware, i don't argue with fools...you qualify as a fool

So that's what you do when you are shown to be 100% wrong about
something .... you insult the person who showed you to be wrong.
I've seen you do it before.

Many times........ many, many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Marsden

I have to agree Abelard acts like a comedy character quite a lot these
days.

[Joe]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:50:43 GMT

Post by Pamela

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe

... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another
general election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election
or referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert
here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity.
It holds only until the next general election.

nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies

Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory

it wasn't

BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end
of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government
to implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
=========== An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression
of public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to Parliament)
then that's fine.

it wasn't advice...it was an instruction

See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.

I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?

Mine said, among other things:

"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the government
which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?

Now, I'm aware that there has been a change of government, and that no
Parliament can bind its successors. If this or another government uses
this excuse for welshing on this commitment, then a future Parliament
can also revoke any deal which the current Parliament may reach now.

European and other diplomats who have seen how the British government
treats its promises to its own electorate might be wary of placing too
much trust in it in future.

[Pamela]

Post by Joe

Post by Pamela

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe

... edited for legibility
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another
general election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election
or referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert
here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity.
It holds only until the next general election.

nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies

Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory

it wasn't

BZZZT! Fail. Go back to class. Here are two quotations for you to
study.
===========
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the
UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the
end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK
Government
to implement the results of the referendum"
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m
=========== An earlier ruling in 2009-10 by the House of Lords
"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be
legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it
would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression
of public opinion."
Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
===========

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to change its advice (to
Parliament) then that's fine.

it wasn't advice...it was an instruction

See above and try to improve your comprehension skills.

I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you
decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?

The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.

Post by Joe
Now, I'm aware that there has been a change of government, and that no
Parliament can bind its successors. If this or another government uses
this excuse for welshing on this commitment, then a future Parliament
can also revoke any deal which the current Parliament may reach now.
European and other diplomats who have seen how the British government
treats its promises to its own electorate might be wary of placing too
much trust in it in future.

I guess we will all have to cry into our cornflakes with sorrow every
morning at the way of the world but the fact is politicians and
governments sometimes lie and do not always get held to account.

[The Marquis Saint Evremonde]

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?

The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.

Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any claim
to re-run the referendum.

[Pamela]

Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?

The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.

Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any claim
to re-run the referendum.

It wasn't a lie at the time. It was a promise that couldn't be kept as the
speaker did not have authority.

Anyone who looked into it at the time would have found that. It was no
secret.

[The Marquis Saint Evremonde]

Post by Pamela

Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?

The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.

Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any claim
to re-run the referendum.

It wasn't a lie at the time.

I am glad you agree it wasn't a lie.

Post by Pamela
It was a promise that couldn't be kept as the
speaker did not have authority.
Anyone who looked into it at the time would have found that. It was no
secret.

It was a promise that could and must be kept. The speaker did have
authority. He was PM at the time, and the decision to hold a referendum
had been supported by his party and by the Opposition.

[MM]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 04:47:24 +0000, The Marquis Saint Evremonde

Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde

Post by Pamela

Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?

The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.

Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any claim
to re-run the referendum.

It wasn't a lie at the time.

I am glad you agree it wasn't a lie.

Post by Pamela
It was a promise that couldn't be kept as the
speaker did not have authority.
Anyone who looked into it at the time would have found that. It was no
secret.

It was a promise that could and must be kept. The speaker did have
authority. He was PM at the time, and the decision to hold a referendum
had been supported by his party and by the Opposition.

Just because he was PM, that didn't give him the right to overrule an
Act of Parliament. Theresa May has found on several occasions that the
law can override her.

MM

[Pamela]

On 04:47 7 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde

Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde

On 22:00 5 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde

Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
Mine said, among other things: "This is your decision. The
Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?

The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.

Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any
claim to re-run the referendum.

It wasn't a lie at the time.

I am glad you agree it wasn't a lie.

It was a promise that couldn't be kept as the speaker did not have
authority. Anyone who looked into it at the time would have found
that. It was no secret.

It was a promise that could and must be kept. The speaker did have
authority. He was PM at the time, and the decision to hold a
referendum had been supported by his party and by the Opposition.

It was purely rhetoric. It's better to take a more mature view of these
things rather than obsessively latch onto some irrelevancy. I don't
expect this point to carry any weight whatsoever in what happens next.

[The Todal]

Post by Pamela
On 04:47 7 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde

Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde

On 22:00 5 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde

Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
I take it, then, that your household didn't receive the government
leaflet?
Mine said, among other things: "This is your decision. The
Government will implement what you decide."
How are your comprehension skills? Are you claiming that the
government which issued this leaflet was deliberately lying to us?

The misleading statament probably wasn't done deliberately but that
still doesn't make it true.

Do you mean that the Remain side lied to the electorate on such a
fundamental point as this? Surely that disqualifies them from any
claim to re-run the referendum.

It wasn't a lie at the time.

I am glad you agree it wasn't a lie.

It was a promise that couldn't be kept as the speaker did not have
authority. Anyone who looked into it at the time would have found
that. It was no secret.

It was a promise that could and must be kept. The speaker did have
authority. He was PM at the time, and the decision to hold a
referendum had been supported by his party and by the Opposition.

It was purely rhetoric. It's better to take a more mature view of these
things rather than obsessively latch onto some irrelevancy. I don't
expect this point to carry any weight whatsoever in what happens next.

It was no more a "binding promise" than any manifesto promise. Cameron
hadn't been instructed by a vote in the House of Commons to implement
the referendum result, nor even a vote from his own party conference. So
it's similar to "our party will not increase taxes during the life of
this parliament" or for that matter "our party will abolish student
loans" - an expression of intent with no binding force.

The other rather obvious point is that "this is your decision. The
government will implement what you decide" is not an assurance directed
to every citizen of this country, agreeing to implement Tom, Dick, Harry
and Joe's various views about what Brexit means. If Mr Bloggs complains
that he personally wants all the Romanians to be sent home and the
Tories have broken their promise, the correct response is to laugh at Mr
Bloggs because he's a halfwit.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.

nobody ever claimed anything about 'perpetuity'...you are trying
to make aa daft 'argument' out of your own fantasies

Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory

it wasn't

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
and if the British public wants to

'the british public' is not person...

it is a collection of persons - pedant!

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

it wasn't advice...it was an instruction

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html

Post by abelard
you try so much logical error in just one post...your post is
self-serving dishonesty

whereas your post appears almost delusional

Post by abelard
--
www.abelard.org

[The Marquis Saint Evremonde]

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.

But in the meantime the government must change to implement the result
of the first general election.

If it doesn't - if the PM just sits there despite having been voted out,
saying "I think we should have another general election and then we'll
decide who's going to be the government" - then *that* would be
undemocratic.

Post by Pamela
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

You can campaign for that to happen after that "advice" has been
implemented.

[Vidcapper]

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...

[Incubus]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...

David Cameron made it unequivocally clear that it was not advisory:

"It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.

Your decision.

Nobody else's.

Not politicians'.

Not Parliament's.

Not lobby groups'.

Not mine.

Just you.

You, the British people, will decide.

At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.

This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.

And it will be the final decision.

So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave...
...would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay...
...I say think again.

The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.

An in or out referendum.

When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.

If we vote to leave, then we will leave.

There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum."

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-on-europe

[Ian Jackson]

And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.

Honest - he did!

[Fruitiest of Fruitcakes]

Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!

Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?

[Shitsack Moishe Goldberg]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!

Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?

London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?

[Fruitiest of Fruitcakes]

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!

Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?

London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?

No idea.

[Shitsack Moishe Goldberg]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:12:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!

Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?

London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?

No idea.

You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.

[Fruitiest of Fruitcakes]

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:12:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!

Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?

London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?

No idea.

You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.

Apparently not.

The London bus headline was London Bus Found In Antarctic.

A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.

[Shitsack Moishe Goldberg]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:43:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:12:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!

Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?

London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?

No idea.

You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.

Apparently not.
The London bus headline was London Bus Found In Antarctic.

Quite plausible.

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.

Quite implausible.

So the question remains: why did you ask him if he'd had a ride on
the London bus while he was up there? Is there something you know
that the rest of us don't?

[Fruitiest of Fruitcakes]

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:43:16 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:12:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!

Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?

London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?

No idea.

You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.

Apparently not.
The London bus headline was London Bus Found In Antarctic.

Quite plausible.

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.

Quite implausible.
So the question remains: why did you ask him if he'd had a ride on
the London bus while he was up there? Is there something you know
that the rest of us don't?

I couldn’t possibly comment further.

[The Peeler]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:03:48 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Apparently not.
The London bus headline was London Bus Found In Antarctic.

Quite plausible.

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.

Quite implausible.
So the question remains: why did you ask him if he'd had a ride on
the London bus while he was up there? Is there something you know
that the rest of us don't?

He knows what EVERYONE knows here: that you are a sick piece of psychopathic
shit, dumb anal Razovic!

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:12:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:55:06 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!

Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?

London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?

No idea.

You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.

Apparently not.
The London bus headline was London Bus Found In Antarctic.
A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.

That's nearly as far-fetched as claiming that the UK will leave the EU.

[Col]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
A WW2 Bomber was found on the moon - allegedly.

That's nearly as far-fetched as claiming that the UK will leave the EU.

You'd get kicked off the Sunday Sport's editorial team for writing
ludicrous headlines like that!

[The Peeler]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:25:22 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?

No idea.

You must have read about the London bus on the moon somewhere.

Still labouring under the delusion that the more retardedly you talk, the
more your alleged "intelligence" will show, poor deluded psychopath? LOL

[The Peeler]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:01:08 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass

Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg

Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes

Post by Ian Jackson
And he privately told me that the Moon was made of green cheese.
Honest - he did!

Did he have a ride on the London bus while he was up there?

London bus? Ah, a Daily Star 'reader'. Or is it National Enquirer?

Trying to start one of your insipid "conversations", psychopath? <BG>

[The Todal]

Post by Incubus

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...

"It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.
Your decision.
Nobody else's.
Not politicians'.
Not Parliament's.
Not lobby groups'.
Not mine.
Just you.
You, the British people, will decide.
At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.
This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave...
...would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay...
...I say think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum."
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-on-europe

What a brilliant speech. Thank you for that link.

Honest, direct and forthright. A speech crafted with great care. He
thought that his speech would swing public opinion in favour of
Remaining. I don't suppose all that many people heard the speech or
read it, but as it turned out he was backing a losing horse. And because
there was a vote to leave, David Cameron promptly left.

If we had another referendum we'd have lots more speeches like that.
What a dreadful prospect. We'd be bombarded with propaganda on an hourly
basis like troops in the trenches.

[Incubus]

Post by The Todal

Post by Incubus

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...

"It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.
Your decision.
Nobody else's.
Not politicians'.
Not Parliament's.
Not lobby groups'.
Not mine.
Just you.
You, the British people, will decide.
At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.
This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave...
...would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay...
...I say think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum."
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-on-europe

What a brilliant speech. Thank you for that link.
Honest, direct and forthright. A speech crafted with great care. He
thought that his speech would swing public opinion in favour of
Remaining. I don't suppose all that many people heard the speech or
read it, but as it turned out he was backing a losing horse. And because
there was a vote to leave, David Cameron promptly left.
If we had another referendum we'd have lots more speeches like that.
What a dreadful prospect. We'd be bombarded with propaganda on an hourly
basis like troops in the trenches.

He always had good speeches and delivered them well. I remember it at the time
but it certainly didn't influence me to vote to remain.

[Ophelia]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...

David Cameron made it unequivocally clear that it was not advisory:

"It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the
reforms we secure, or whether we leave.

Your decision.

Nobody else's.

Not politicians'.

Not Parliament's.

Not lobby groups'.

Not mine.

Just you.

You, the British people, will decide.

At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.

This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make
in our lifetimes.

And it will be the final decision.

So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave...
...would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second
referendum in which Britain would stay...
...I say think again.

The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows
will be a once in a generation choice.

An in or out referendum.

When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not
ignored.

If we vote to leave, then we will leave.

There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum."

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-on-europe

==

Exactly and it was on those terms we voted! Of course the remoaners didn't
like that and prefer to pretend it was never promised.

I guess it just goes to show how much they respect promises.

[MM]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 16:22:01 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained that
it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general election
soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It holds
only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...

"It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.

The only wording that counts is the wording of the European Union
Referendum Act 2015. Cameron had NO mandate for promising anything
other than giving voters the chance to vote in a referendum.

MM

[Pamela]

Post by Incubus

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office
in Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's*
anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants
to change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...

"It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis
of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.
Your decision.
Nobody else's.
Not politicians'.
Not Parliament's.
Not lobby groups'.
Not mine.
Just you.
You, the British people, will decide.
At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your
hands.
This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will
make in our lifetimes.
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to
leave... ...would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and
then a second referendum in which Britain would stay... ...I say
think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that
follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not
ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum."
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-
on-europe

Thing is, David Cameron gave incorrect information. All referendums are
advisory and, on that point, he misled those who listened to him. Sorry
about that. Here are the real facts.

===========

The European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16 states:

"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the
question of the UK's continued membership of the
European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not
contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum"

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-
7212.pdf

https://tinyurl.com/zfwrj6m

===========

That was left to the ruling in 2009-10 by the House of
Lords Committee on the Constitution (UK Referendums) which said:

"Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums
cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore
advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to
ignore a decisive expression of public opinion."

Para.222
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm

=============

[Joe]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:38:27 GMT

Post by Pamela
Thing is, David Cameron gave incorrect information. All referendums
are advisory and, on that point, he misled those who listened to
him.

And you're continuing to deliberately miss the point: the referendum
was in legal terms advisory but the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom promised to implement the result, *advisory* *or* *not*.

OK, we know now he was lying, and also lying about staying on as PM if
the vote was for leaving, but the promise remains. The referendum was
held on the basis that it was real, that the voters of the UK were being
given the choice to remain or leave. People voted in the referendum on
that basis.

It's no good saying now that it was all just a hoax. Oooops, sir, you've
bought the product, but it doesn't do what it says on the tin, and I
knew it didn't when I sold it to you, and you're not getting your money
back 'cos I'm the government. That won't do. The Conservative Party
either gets behind their former leader's promise or they die now as a
serious political force, and take what remains of the UK government's
reputation with them. The Lib-Dems will have company.

[Pamela]

Post by Joe

Post by Pamela
Thing is, David Cameron gave incorrect information. All referendums
are advisory and, on that point, he misled those who listened to him.

And you're continuing to deliberately miss the point: the referendum
was in legal terms advisory but the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom promised to implement the result, *advisory* *or* *not*.
OK, we know now he was lying, and also lying about staying on as PM if
the vote was for leaving, but the promise remains.

No promise remains. Theer is only the distant echo remains of words
uttered by a former politician, Cameron, which some die hard Brexiteers
still cling on to.

Post by Joe
The referendum was held on the basis that it was real, that the voters
of the UK were being given the choice to remain or leave.

The referendum was never more than advisory. Cook up as many arguments
as you like (about what was promised in the campaign or whatever) but
it's not going to change this.

If a whopping majority
wanted to leave the EU then MPs would be unwise to ignore them. As it
turned out, a slender majority (probably now gone) wanted Brexit and
government went about appeasing their wish.

Post by Joe
People voted in the referendum on that basis.
It's no good saying now that it was all just a hoax. Oooops, sir,
you've bought the product, but it doesn't do what it says on the tin,
and I knew it didn't when I sold it to you, and you're not getting
your money back 'cos I'm the government. That won't do. The
Conservative Party either gets behind their former leader's promise or
they die now as a serious political force, and take what remains of
the UK government's reputation with them. The Lib-Dems will have
company.

The referendum was always advisory. I am sorry for those who fooled
themselves or allowed themselves to be fooled that it was not.

After the referendum Leavers found, to everyone's amazement, that
opposition in Parliament to Brexit had collapsed. Brexiteers were given
a clear run but mucked it up royally with excessive and unrealistic
demands and behaving like children.

As the true nature of Brexit has revealled itself they have reasserted
themselves. Yesterday's votes in Parliament have given control back to
the House.

The adults are back in charge.

[abelard]

Post by Pamela
No promise remains. Theer is only the distant echo remains of words
uttered by a former politician, Cameron, which some die hard Brexiteers
still cling on to.

as usual in your dishonesty, you post rubbish...

the main parties also backed brexit...the government backed it

suck it up

[MM]

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:38:27 GMT

Post by Pamela
Thing is, David Cameron gave incorrect information. All referendums
are advisory and, on that point, he misled those who listened to
him.

And you're continuing to deliberately miss the point: the referendum
was in legal terms advisory but the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom promised to implement the result, *advisory* *or* *not*.

Show me where he actually said that.

Post by Joe
OK, we know now he was lying, and also lying about staying on as PM if
the vote was for leaving, but the promise remains.

The promise was worth diddly-squat in any legal framework whatsoever.
Cameron could not override the wording of the Act with a leaflet.

Post by Joe
The referendum was
held on the basis that it was real, that the voters of the UK were being
given the choice to remain or leave. People voted in the referendum on
that basis.

But did Cameron or any minister actually state to the public that the
referendum result would be *advisory*? So does this mean he/they were
trying to hoodwink voters? Is perhaps that he was about to be found
out the reason why he left so rapidly?

Post by Joe
It's no good saying now that it was all just a hoax. Oooops, sir, you've
bought the product, but it doesn't do what it says on the tin,

Well, it doesn't! The £350m per week for the NHS was a hoax. The
"easiest in human history" claim was a hoax, the whole campaign by
Vote Leave was a hoax. And as we now know, possibly illegal in some
respects, given that Arron Banks is facing a criminal inquiry about
the money spent/donated.

Post by Joe
and I
knew it didn't when I sold it to you, and you're not getting your money
back 'cos I'm the government. That won't do. The Conservative Party
either gets behind their former leader's promise or they die now as a
serious political force, and take what remains of the UK government's
reputation with them. The Lib-Dems will have company.

Good-o! That leaves us with Labour. Suits me. It's about time the
balance of power was reassessed.

MM

[Pamela]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Pamela

Post by Joe
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:37:05 +0000

Post by MM
Because Theresa May called for one in 2017 and no one complained
that it was anti-demodratic. We may be facing yet another general
election soon. Would that be anti-democratic?

No. As you know, it's anti-democratic when you hold an election or
referendum and refuse to accept the result. You're the expert here.
And the EU has refused to permit elected officials to hold office in
Austria, Italy and Greece (so far). Now *that's* anti-democratic.

The outcome of a general election is not accepted in perpituity. It
holds only until the next general election.
The Brexit referendum was advisory and if the British public wants to
change its advice (to Parliament) then that's fine.

FFS, if I had a penny for every time the referendum was advisory...

Yes, it's such a common mistake to claim it was mandatory.

Brexiteers now clucth at straws and invent new rules whenever true
democracy asserts itself.