Why can't we have a vote - out with deal or no deal?

Surely the easiest way to sort out Brexit is to set a fixed out date and then have a UK vote on the current deal or choose no deal which Govt must back by law - or am I missing something

Next general election if the sitting party don’t like the result, could we muddle on (meanwhile insulting those who voted for an alternative party) for 3 years and then have another vote, maybe a choice between the two parties with the most votes…but that might not work in fptp voting, maybe between the two parties with the most seats won in the ignored election instead.

Maybe we could see who exactly voted wrongly by comparing those numbered ballot slips with the voting lists at the polling station , then wait long enough for a few hundred thousand of the deplorable/xenophobes/'ists to die, simultaneouly brainwashing the next generation of voters to do as they were damned well told by their betters.

The political system in this country is utterly discredited, most in the two houses have proved beyond all doubt they are unfit to govern, they cannot be trusted, they must be forced from their ivory towers by the people using democracy as it was intended.

The law means nothing to these people, they make it up as they go along, using it as and when it suits and ignoring it completely when that suits, liars and traitors sadly now make up a large proportion of the political class, maybe they always have been like this but now they are exposed thanks in no small way to the internet, thanks to the internet people can find out what is really going on, yes they’re busy trying to put that genie back in the bottle by getting their multi billionaire mates who own social media to do the censoring for them, but those who value true freedom have developed a liking for the truth, or rather an aversion to the state sanctioned versions they want us to see read and hear.
Their manifestos mean nothing any more either, if the three main parties told you it was daylight outside you’d have to pop outside and most likely find for yourself in total darkness.

The main reason we’re not having another referendum is because, as is usual with EU philosophy they didn’t like your first answer so vote again till you get it right, they’ve done this many times in other parts of europe, and it’s high time some bugger stood their ground and said no, once again its the bloody Brits who are standing up to the euro bullies (despite once again being led by appeasers)…and yet again in another repeat of history the French resistance have already started the fight against their present day stormtroopers.

ROG:
Surely the easiest way to sort out Brexit is to set a fixed out date and then have a UK vote on the current deal or choose no deal which Govt must back by law - or am I missing something

Assuming you mean another referendum.How can you possibly have any further referendum when we know the original referendum was a non binding document and assuming any further vote was binding the obvious question would then be why whichever way it goes.While leave by definition obviously means no deal because you can’t possibly ‘leave’ the EU and at the same time remain part of its Common Market principles.While why would we even want to remain part of that market anyway being nothing but a deficit liability to us.The only possible way to leave the EU was always on the basis of annulment of the European Communities Act within 24 hours of the referendum result and saying if Germany wants a trade war bring it on.Which is why 3 years later we’re still in the EU with obviously no intention of leaving it.

Carryfast:

ROG:
Surely the easiest way to sort out Brexit is to set a fixed out date and then have a UK vote on the current deal or choose no deal which Govt must back by law - or am I missing something

Assuming you mean another referendum.How can you possibly have any further referendum when we know the original referendum was a non binding document and assuming any further vote was binding the obvious question would then be why whichever way it goes.While leave by definition obviously means no deal because you can’t possibly ‘leave’ the EU and at the same time remain part of its Common Market principles.While why would we even want to remain part of that market anyway being nothing but a deficit liability to us.The only possible way to leave the EU was always on the basis of annulment of the European Communities Act within 24 hours of the referendum result and saying if Germany wants a trade war bring it on.Which is why 3 years later we’re still in the EU with obviously no intention of leaving it.

Utter bollox, how is it non binding ? The people voted to leave democratically, I’m sure you’d be able to spin similar crap to justify if the end result had been remain.

We voted OUT so we go out = legal result so must be done and a fixed date must be set

HOW we go out seems to be the sticking point so why not have a referendum on two options again - out with current deal OR out with no deal

Seems so simple as a resolution to the current debacle

ROG:
We voted OUT so we go out = legal result so must be done and a fixed date must be set

HOW we go out seems to be the sticking point so why not have a referendum on two options again - out with current deal OR out with no deal

Seems so simple as a resolution to the current debacle

Exactly ROG, this whole farce has been hijacked by remainers moaning and whinging it’s unfair, tough ■■■■■■■ guys we voted to leave so accept it, just like we would have to do if the vote had swung the other way

ROG:
We voted OUT so we go out = legal result so must be done and a fixed date must be set

HOW we go out seems to be the sticking point so why not have a referendum on two options again - out with current deal OR out with no deal

Seems so simple as a resolution to the current debacle

What’s the difference between leaving with a deal and staying in? You can be ■■■■ sure that we’ll never be allowed any concessions that dont favour Europe.

The strongest hand you have in any negotiation is the option to walk away, our set of limp wristed fools have taken that off the table so dont expect anything.

The only way forward from this point is to walk away with no deal and treat Europe like a brand new trading partner.

Grumpy Dad:

Carryfast:
Assuming you mean another referendum.How can you possibly have any further referendum when we know the original referendum was a non binding document and assuming any further vote was binding the obvious question would then be why whichever way it goes.While leave by definition obviously means no deal because you can’t possibly ‘leave’ the EU and at the same time remain part of its Common Market principles.While why would we even want to remain part of that market anyway being nothing but a deficit liability to us.The only possible way to leave the EU was always on the basis of annulment of the European Communities Act within 24 hours of the referendum result and saying if Germany wants a trade war bring it on.Which is why 3 years later we’re still in the EU with obviously no intention of leaving it.

Utter bollox, how is it non binding ? The people voted to leave democratically, I’m sure you’d be able to spin similar crap to justify if the end result had been remain.

Have you actually read the terms of the 2016 EU referendum act.

Although being a red herring in itself on the grounds since when was it ok to vote a nation state out of existence and into foreign vassalage.

ROG:
We voted OUT so we go out = legal result so must be done and a fixed date must be set

HOW we go out seems to be the sticking point so why not have a referendum on two options again - out with current deal OR out with no deal

Seems so simple as a resolution to the current debacle

No we voted out in an intentionally drafted non binding referendum.Which the Fedralist establishment would have conveniently made binding if the rigging exercise had worked.As for another referendum based on BRINO ( which is all that a deal really means ) or No deal what would be the point assuming it isn’t binding.While if it is binding and BRINO inevitably ‘wins’ all you’re left with is remain,but with no say at all,based on a conveniently now binding referendum.Be careful what you wish for.

When the real question should be how could anyone be stupid enough to think that it’s ok to vote the country out of existence and into EU vassalage in either case and that’s the real subterfuge going on here.Just as Farage is a shill put in place to destroy what patriotic movement we might have had left here and the sheep have swallowed it again.

Nite Owl:
The only way forward from this point is to walk away with no deal and treat Europe like a brand new trading partner.

That actually was the way forward on the morning of 24/6/2016 including unilaterally ditching article 50.

Carryfast:

Grumpy Dad:

Carryfast:
Assuming you mean another referendum.How can you possibly have any further referendum when we know the original referendum was a non binding document and assuming any further vote was binding the obvious question would then be why whichever way it goes.While leave by definition obviously means no deal because you can’t possibly ‘leave’ the EU and at the same time remain part of its Common Market principles.While why would we even want to remain part of that market anyway being nothing but a deficit liability to us.The only possible way to leave the EU was always on the basis of annulment of the European Communities Act within 24 hours of the referendum result and saying if Germany wants a trade war bring it on.Which is why 3 years later we’re still in the EU with obviously no intention of leaving it.

Utter bollox, how is it non binding ? The people voted to leave democratically, I’m sure you’d be able to spin similar crap to justify if the end result had been remain.

Have you actually read the terms of the 2016 EU referendum act.

Although being a red herring in itself on the grounds since when was it ok to vote a nation state out of existence and into foreign vassalage.

We are not a nation state, we are a member state of the corrupt socialist collective known as the EU. England, Ireland and Scotland are individual Nations ( Wales is a principality ) within the United Kingdom.
Being as you used the term foreign vassalage, I take it you actually agree with it seeing as that’s what being a member of the EU means.
Explain to the forum Carryfast your stance on being a British National but subject to laws and statutes made by foreign politicians and enforced by a non public elected leader.
What are your views import and export quotas being set by other nations and if exceeded are met with excessive duties paid to the EU and not the nations involved ?
How do you feel about the open borders that allow non EU nationals to roam freely, the open borders that allow drug and arms smuggling, people carrying and terrorism to pass undetected, because they disagree with the Dublin treaty ?
Are you prepared to accept your national identity to be erased ?

We had a vote. Two choices; in/out. Simple.

Grumpy Dad:

Carryfast:

Grumpy Dad:
Utter bollox, how is it non binding ? The people voted to leave democratically, I’m sure you’d be able to spin similar crap to justify if the end result had been remain.

Have you actually read the terms of the 2016 EU referendum act.

Although being a red herring in itself on the grounds since when was it ok to vote a nation state out of existence and into foreign vassalage.

We are not a nation state, we are a member state of the corrupt socialist collective known as the EU. England, Ireland and Scotland are individual Nations ( Wales is a principality ) within the United Kingdom.
Being as you used the term foreign vassalage, I take it you actually agree with it seeing as that’s what being a member of the EU means.
Explain to the forum Carryfast your stance on being a British National but subject to laws and statutes made by foreign politicians and enforced by a non public elected leader.
What are your views import and export quotas being set by other nations and if exceeded are met with excessive duties paid to the EU and not the nations involved ?
How do you feel about the open borders that allow non EU nationals to roam freely, the open borders that allow drug and arms smuggling, people carrying and terrorism to pass undetected, because they disagree with the Dublin treaty ?
Are you prepared to accept your national identity to be erased ?

How do you equate what I’ve said with being the views of a Remainer.

1 Heath signed us up to the Treaty of Rome in addition to parliament and the Head of State going along with it in the form of the European Communities Act and giving assent to the act in question.That was the first illegal act in handing over the country’s sovereignty to a foreign power.

2 Wilson among others then set the equally illegal precedent that it’s ok to confirm that act of treason with an illegal referendum.( See 1 no one has the right to vote the country out of existence and into EU vassalage including parliament ).

3 Then Cameron,helped by controlled opposition Farage,obviously tried to use the illegal precedent set by 2,to create yet more illegal confirmation,regarding the illegal handing over of even more of the country’s sovereignty,in the form of the even more onerous Lisbon Treaty,with yet another illegal referendum.

Remind me again why saying all that makes me a bleedin remainer and how yet another illegal,not to mention pointless by definition non binding,referendum would fix anything in that regard ?.

IE we can vote in as many illegal referenda,to illegally hand the country over to a foreign power,or not,as ROG wishes.But that ain’t going to make the Queen of the Saxe Coburgs suddenly admit that she did wrong by illegally signing the Royal Assent to the illegal European Communities Act.Thereby illegally handing over the country to the foreign power of the illegal,unrecognised,self appointed,not even declared,de Jure,EU Federation.

Which part of,you’ve all been fooled and had by a treasonous agenda which goes right to the top,don’t you understand.

While on that note yes I also recognise the contradiction between pro UK v anti EU Federalist which is why I am anti Federalist UK and EU but what is certain is that no one has the right to sign over the recognised de Facto nation state of the UK to the EU to start with.We can sort out a Confederal UK after.

There should be no second, third, or fourth referendum to vote on a deal until a minority get the right result. The 2016 referendum was in or out, no mention of deals and further negotiations and future referendums.

Here’s some facts. Britain is a parliamentary democracy and that means that every four years we give a government authority to rule based on their manifesto pledges. Legally, referendums are non-binding and the government are entitled to ignore them and let parliament decide on behalf of the people. However, both remainers Cameron and May promised the 2016 result would be binding and May went back on her word.

That’s the big upset at the moment and the last time parliament decided they were more powerful than those they represent, Cromwell dissolved parliament. It’s that serious. Brexit throws into question the whole meaning of democracy, because if a majority is over ruled by a minority that were voted into power to represent them, what point is there in voting? How could we ever trust a parliament again that breaks its promises to the nation and blatantly lies to them?

Personally, I think this is so serious the Queen should break centuries old royal protocol, address parliament and give her view on all this.

Carryfast:

Grumpy Dad:

Carryfast:

Grumpy Dad:
Utter bollox, how is it non binding ? The people voted to leave democratically, I’m sure you’d be able to spin similar crap to justify if the end result had been remain.

Have you actually read the terms of the 2016 EU referendum act.

Although being a red herring in itself on the grounds since when was it ok to vote a nation state out of existence and into foreign vassalage.

We are not a nation state, we are a member state of the corrupt socialist collective known as the EU. England, Ireland and Scotland are individual Nations ( Wales is a principality ) within the United Kingdom.
Being as you used the term foreign vassalage, I take it you actually agree with it seeing as that’s what being a member of the EU means.
Explain to the forum Carryfast your stance on being a British National but subject to laws and statutes made by foreign politicians and enforced by a non public elected leader.
What are your views import and export quotas being set by other nations and if exceeded are met with excessive duties paid to the EU and not the nations involved ?
How do you feel about the open borders that allow non EU nationals to roam freely, the open borders that allow drug and arms smuggling, people carrying and terrorism to pass undetected, because they disagree with the Dublin treaty ?
Are you prepared to accept your national identity to be erased ?

How do you equate what I’ve said with being the views of a Remainer.

1 Heath signed us up to the Treaty of Rome in addition to parliament and the Head of State going along with it in the form of the European Communities Act and giving assent to the act in question.That was the first illegal act in handing over the country’s sovereignty to a foreign power.

2 Wilson among others then set the equally illegal precedent that it’s ok to confirm that act of treason with an illegal referendum.( See 1 no one has the right to vote the country out of existence and into EU vassalage including parliament ).

3 Then Cameron,helped by controlled opposition Farage,obviously tried to use the illegal precedent set by 2,to create yet more illegal confirmation,regarding the illegal handing over of even more of the country’s sovereignty,in the form of the even more onerous Lisbon Treaty,with yet another illegal referendum.

Remind me again why saying all that makes me a bleedin remainer and how yet another illegal,not to mention pointless by definition non binding,referendum would fix anything in that regard ?.

IE we can vote in as many illegal referenda,to illegally hand the country over to a foreign power,or not,as ROG wishes.But that ain’t going to make the Queen of the Saxe Coburgs suddenly admit that she did wrong by illegally signing the Royal Assent to the illegal European Communities Act.Thereby illegally handing over the country to the foreign power of the illegal,unrecognised,self appointed,not even declared,de Jure,EU Federation.

Which part of,you’ve all been fooled and had by a treasonous agenda which goes right to the top,don’t you understand.

While on that note yes I also recognise the contradiction between pro UK v anti EU Federalist which is why I am anti Federalist UK and EU but what is certain is that no one has the right to sign over the recognised de Facto nation state of the UK to the EU to start with.We can sort out a Confederal UK after.

The formation of the EU began not long after WW2 had ended with various ideas and plans put forward, in 1946 Winston Churchill suggested a United States of Europe.
European countries began to see a way ahead for them to work together.
Starting with 6 nations, Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and West Germany the Union was formed and so began the centralised authority or Supranationalism that would govern Europe, the Schuman Declaration of 1950 was put in place which would see an end to war and enforce democracy among its members, The European Declaration or The Charter of the Community was finalised with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1951.
1958 and the birth of both the European Coal and Steel Community ( expired 2002 ) and European Atomic Energy Community ( still active ) through the signing of The Treaty Of Rome.
Prime minister Clemant Attlee stated in 1950 that the Labour government was not prepared to hand over this countries vital economic infrastructure to an undemocratic authority that is responsible to nobody, objection against joining the then named ECSC, was backed with concerns of possible disharmony between close trading allies the States and our former colonial territories.
In 1961 PM Macmillan sought membership of the EEC, though this was blocked in ‘61 and ‘67 by the French who claimed Britain was hostile to the European Project.
Britain finally got approval to join the EEC in 1973 after France dropped its objection, although Ted Heath signed the Treaty in 1971.
Britain was given its chance to voice its opinion in the form of a referendum in 1975, but this came as a result of division within Wilson’s cabinet as he faced criticism and objection, the public voted 67% in favour of remaining within the EEC, this decision to remain was backed by the new Tory leader Margaret Thatcher.
The Tories again became divided towards the EEC, and Thatcher became tedious of several European leaders, and was not in favour of the single currency, and on several occasions attacked the idea of too much power being centralised in Europe. In 1990 she objected to the French Presidents plans for increased integration.
This objection brought further unrest in the Tory camp and Pro Euro Micheal Heseltine challenged her leadership which she was forced from in Nov 1990.
Black Wednesday sept 1992 saw John Major pull the £ from the ERM, the system which would reduce exchange rates ahead of the single currency.
1993 was the start of the EU.
1997 brought us a Labour government and the Treacherous Tony Blair who cemented our future within the EU, conspired against the British public and secured his future within the EU elite, however Gordon Brown ruled Britain out of joining the single currency, this was achieved through a series of economic tests that were devised with Ed Balls in the back of a New York taxi.
2004 Rome and the resigning of the treaty, with an unconditional agreement among the leaders that referendums would be acceptable within a 2 year timescale, as the treaty was required to be assimilated into each nations laws.
Jack Straw announced our referendum would not be held until late 2006.
The referendum never appeared, within the limited timescale, Blair knew Britain held contempt towards the idea and holding a referendum would see the EU process come to a halt for all nations not just Britain.
Tony Blair removed laws from our system that would see him found guilty for acting against the people.
Everything from Blair’s first day in No.10 was corrupt, he was more than happy to walk away in 2007 as far as he was concerned he took away the rights of the common people for the good of the elite.

Grumpy Dad:

Carryfast:

How do you equate what I’ve said with being the views of a Remainer.

1 Heath signed us up to the Treaty of Rome in addition to parliament and the Head of State going along with it in the form of the European Communities Act and giving assent to the act in question.That was the first illegal act in handing over the country’s sovereignty to a foreign power.

2 Wilson among others then set the equally illegal precedent that it’s ok to confirm that act of treason with an illegal referendum.( See 1 no one has the right to vote the country out of existence and into EU vassalage including parliament ).

3 Then Cameron,helped by controlled opposition Farage,obviously tried to use the illegal precedent set by 2,to create yet more illegal confirmation,regarding the illegal handing over of even more of the country’s sovereignty,in the form of the even more onerous Lisbon Treaty,with yet another illegal referendum.

Remind me again why saying all that makes me a bleedin remainer and how yet another illegal,not to mention pointless by definition non binding,referendum would fix anything in that regard ?.

IE we can vote in as many illegal referenda,to illegally hand the country over to a foreign power,or not,as ROG wishes.But that ain’t going to make the Queen of the Saxe Coburgs suddenly admit that she did wrong by illegally signing the Royal Assent to the illegal European Communities Act.Thereby illegally handing over the country to the foreign power of the illegal,unrecognised,self appointed,not even declared,de Jure,EU Federation.

Which part of,you’ve all been fooled and had by a treasonous agenda which goes right to the top,don’t you understand.

While on that note yes I also recognise the contradiction between pro UK v anti EU Federalist which is why I am anti Federalist UK and EU but what is certain is that no one has the right to sign over the recognised de Facto nation state of the UK to the EU to start with.We can sort out a Confederal UK after.

The formation of the EU began not long after WW2 had ended with various ideas and plans put forward, in 1946 Winston Churchill suggested a United States of Europe.
European countries began to see a way ahead for them to work together.
Starting with 6 nations, Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and West Germany the Union was formed and so began the centralised authority or Supranationalism that would govern Europe, the Schuman Declaration of 1950 was put in place which would see an end to war and enforce democracy among its members, The European Declaration or The Charter of the Community was finalised with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1951.
1958 and the birth of both the European Coal and Steel Community ( expired 2002 ) and European Atomic Energy Community ( still active ) through the signing of The Treaty Of Rome.
Prime minister Clemant Attlee stated in 1950 that the Labour government was not prepared to hand over this countries vital economic infrastructure to an undemocratic authority that is responsible to nobody, objection against joining the then named ECSC, was backed with concerns of possible disharmony between close trading allies the States and our former colonial territories.
In 1961 PM Macmillan sought membership of the EEC, though this was blocked in ‘61 and ‘67 by the French who claimed Britain was hostile to the European Project.
Britain finally got approval to join the EEC in 1973 after France dropped its objection, although Ted Heath signed the Treaty in 1971.
Britain was given its chance to voice its opinion in the form of a referendum in 1975, but this came as a result of division within Wilson’s cabinet as he faced criticism and objection, the public voted 67% in favour of remaining within the EEC, this decision to remain was backed by the new Tory leader Margaret Thatcher.
The Tories again became divided towards the EEC, and Thatcher became tedious of several European leaders, and was not in favour of the single currency, and on several occasions attacked the idea of too much power being centralised in Europe. In 1990 she objected to the French Presidents plans for increased integration.
This objection brought further unrest in the Tory camp and Pro Euro Micheal Heseltine challenged her leadership which she was forced from in Nov 1990.
Black Wednesday sept 1992 saw John Major pull the £ from the ERM, the system which would reduce exchange rates ahead of the single currency.
1993 was the start of the EU.
1997 brought us a Labour government and the Treacherous Tony Blair who cemented our future within the EU, conspired against the British public and secured his future within the EU elite, however Gordon Brown ruled Britain out of joining the single currency, this was achieved through a series of economic tests that were devised with Ed Balls in the back of a New York taxi.
2004 Rome and the resigning of the treaty, with an unconditional agreement among the leaders that referendums would be acceptable within a 2 year timescale, as the treaty was required to be assimilated into each nations laws.
Jack Straw announced our referendum would not be held until late 2006.
The referendum never appeared, within the limited timescale, Blair knew Britain held contempt towards the idea and holding a referendum would see the EU process come to a halt for all nations not just Britain.
Tony Blair removed laws from our system that would see him found guilty for acting against the people.
Everything from Blair’s first day in No.10 was corrupt, he was more than happy to walk away in 2007 as far as he was concerned he took away the rights of the common people for the good of the elite.

It’s a bit more complicated than that but that’s more or less what I said.Starting with the illegal precedent that it’s ok to vote a de Facto nation state out of existence and into EU vassalage.

So let’s get this right.The EU was actually envisaged by Monnet and Spinelli etc long before the end of WW2.

As for Churchill he was a committed Federalist who killed loads of people in the name of keeping Ireland a part of the UK Federation.He was also a hypocritical liar who sent loads more to their deaths in the name of Serb nationalism/secession.When he could have just stayed neutral in 1914 bearing in mind that Belgian neutrality was unsustainable and Churchill and Gray knew it,with a belligerent France on Germany’s borders supporting Serbia.The fact that much later he also then went along with Spinelli’s/Monnet’s ideas,for a European Federation,is also beyond doubt.The really typically devious Conservative Federalist bit was pretending that we also wouldn’t be swallowed up by the resulting monster with his bs open sea v Europe comment.Just as Heath and Thatcher later tried to pretend that the treaty of Rome/EEC was something else to fool the public also burying FCO 30/1048 as part of that.

As for Blair he was arguably just a Conservative Federalist Party infiltrator taking advantage of the fact that the Labour Party historically couldn’t/can’t get its head around the difference between Supranationalist ( Soviet Socialist Federalist as pushed by Stalin and Tito ) v Internationalist ( co operation between sovereign ‘Nation States’ when it’s in their individual ‘NATIONAL’ interests to do so ).So there we have it Callaghan/Jenkins/Blair/Brown/Starmer v Shore/Benn/Heffer/Foot/Hoey.

So don’t try to fool anyone that Churchill or Thatcher were working in the interests of this country.As opposed to selling it out to European Federalism which is what Federalists do they can’t help themselves because that’s how the zb’s think.

Arguably in this case in large part to meet US Federal government geopolitical aims based on its own paranoia of secession at home and the threat of contagion,of secessionist fervour spreading from Europe,reigniting Southern States rebellion at least,assuming Europe had gone for a Confederation of Sovereign States not an EU/USE.Don’t underestimate just how strong that sense of resentment against US Federalism was in the 1950’s Southern States and even today.Which explains Trump running for the exit from his previous supposed bs support of Brexit.

Or that Blair wasn’t just another lying Conservative Federalist like Churchill.Who infiltrated the Labour Party under the false flag of the bs ‘New Labour’ Party.

Grandpa:
Here’s some facts. Britain is a parliamentary democracy and that means that every four years we give a government authority to rule based on their manifesto pledges. Legally, referendums are non-binding and the government are entitled to ignore them and let parliament decide on behalf of the people. However, both remainers Cameron and May promised the 2016 result would be binding and May went back on her word.

That’s the big upset at the moment and the last time parliament decided they were more powerful than those they represent, Cromwell dissolved parliament. It’s that serious. Brexit throws into question the whole meaning of democracy, because if a majority is over ruled by a minority that were voted into power to represent them, what point is there in voting? How could we ever trust a parliament again that breaks its promises to the nation and blatantly lies to them?

Personally, I think this is so serious the Queen should break centuries old royal protocol, address parliament and give her view on all this.

1 ) The government/parliament doesn’t have the authority to delegate its responsibility to a foreign locally unelected foreign power.( EU Federal government ).

2. How can a referendum be binding when we know it’s not a legally binding document.Which of course could also have been a double edged sword if remain had won it and then Leave side chose rightly to ignore the result.On the grounds that it couldn’t be binding and even if it was no one has the right to vote the country out of existence.

As for the Queen the Royal Perogative applies in the case of ultimate command of the forces and with it matters of National defence and obviously sovereignty.A government having gone rogue as above would obviously fit those circumstances of HM being able to order a coup against parliament on grounds of national emergency and in the national interest to stop a foreign takeover.Instead of which she chose to …sign the assent to the European Communities Act.As expected coming from a family history admired by chief architect of German Federalism Bismark.

While parliament then went one better by setting the precedent that it’s also supposedly ok to vote the country out of existence assuming that it can rig an illegal referendum sufficiently to get the right result.What could possibly go wrong.

Carryfast:
How do you equate what I’ve said with being the views of a Remainer.

How do you equate what I’ve said with being the views of a sane and rational person?

There, fixed it for you, you’re welcome.

Juddian:
Maybe we could see who exactly voted wrongly by comparing those numbered ballot slips with the voting lists at the polling station , then wait long enough for a few hundred thousand of the deplorable/xenophobes/'ists to die, simultaneouly brainwashing the next generation of voters to do as they were damned well told by their betters.

The political system in this country is utterly discredited, most in the two houses have proved beyond all doubt they are unfit to govern, they cannot be trusted, they must be forced from their ivory towers by the people using democracy as it was intended.

The law means nothing to these people, they make it up as they go along, using it as and when it suits and ignoring it completely when that suits, liars and traitors sadly now make up a large proportion of the political class, maybe they always have been like this but now they are exposed thanks in no small way to the internet, thanks to the internet people can find out what is really going on,

Two highlighted points Juddian.

1. Maybe we could trace back the numbered ballot slips to see who voted ‘wrongly’?
   Em, isn’t the point of democracy to allow the voter a free/private vote? You know, a personal choice? You’re saying there is a ‘wrong’ choice? Sounds a bit sinister to me, but if that’s your thing, fair enough.

2. Thanks to the internet? Well, it certainly allows individuals to state their case, and your opinion, Juddian, is as valid as anyone’s. That doesn’t make it the truth. It’s just your opinion.

Carryfast you carry on, it’s got to the stage where you’ve become the one and only go to person for the truths about the EU.
Doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks or knows as you couldn’t agree even if comments were the same,