dexxy57:
Franglais:
NO.
Hansard 7th Sept 2015, division 61 shows:
316 Aye
53 No.
277 Absent.
So, as I said, hundreds did not vote in favour of the referendum.Stinking federalist, communist, fascist propoganda.
Yeah, but my Soviet taskmaster is forcing me to type this stuff, in my festering, freezing, gulag!
Franglais:
Buzzer:
Franglais:
ramone:
MPs in parliment are voting for the good of their selves not the good of the country but if and when there’s a general election lets hope the MPs who want to remain promote that .Like i’ve said before Labour = Remain
Lib Dems = Remain
Tories = Leave.
Then throw Farage into the equation.
Just a thought if there’s a 4 million majority will we have to go through all this again because its not enough , some aren’t old enough to vote yet , some haven’t been born yet and the ones who didn’t vote might not like the result eitherMany MPs are voting against their party and are being de-selected, they are knowingly doing themselves out of their jobs. It’s unjust to say they are behaving from self interest in those cases.
Quite the contrary they should be towing the party line and having the whip removed from themselves is there decision and there’s only, they were told this before they took action and fully knew the consequences of those actions. Now lets be serious as if Brexit is not delivered by the Conservatives they are finished, obviously they are being majorly hampered by opposition led mainly by Labour but they are also mega divided on the issue of Brexit just wait till there party conference and sit back and watch the fireworks.
Corbin is not suitable to be PM and run this country but if they had a more credible leader then they could have half a chance. Corbin has been calling for an general election for over two years and has been offered one by Boris but is now running away from the idea as he fears he would not win.
To my mind there are far too many MP’s it would be far better with about fifty and a hell of a lot less expensive plus they might even to agree on decisions a lot more quickly, on another note a lot of our MP’s don’t need there salaries as they have private wealth far exceeding most of us minions, Buzzer.Would you be happy if an MP obeyed his/her party head office rather than do what is best for their constituencies? Just do what they are told by their boss?
Surely that’s more like a centralised dictatorship?
You’re right they need to be mostly in line with their party, but I think there are exceptional cases, and Brexit is exceptional.
You can’t disagree with your bosses (the constituents) and the company (your party)
ramone:
You can’t disagree with your bosses (the constituents) and the company (your party)
Yes you can, anyone can. You have to take the consequences though.
In an MP’s case if the constituents aren’t happy they say so via the ballot box.
Brexit is a bigger issue than most MP’s have experience of voting on. Some of them are going against their constituents wishes.
Fair enough, they’ll find out at the next election if they’ll be forgiven for that. Probably they won’t, but at least they’re standing by their beliefs.
Franglais:
dexxy57:
Franglais:
NO.
Hansard 7th Sept 2015, division 61 shows:
316 Aye
53 No.
277 Absent.
So, as I said, hundreds did not vote in favour of the referendum.Stinking federalist, communist, fascist propoganda.
Yeah, but my Soviet taskmaster is forcing me to type this stuff, in my festering, freezing, gulag!
So hundreds didn’t actually vote ‘against’ the referendum act.Why was that and how many of the 316 were for Leave as opposed to Remain.Bearing in mind that rabid xenophobic little Englander Leave MP oops …remainer Hammond was put in charge of the whole thing to go with the public funded remain campaign supported by both him and Cameron.All to divert attention from the fact that they were going to rig it anyway.With the plan B of sabotaging the process with May’s and BoJo’s BRINO ‘deal’,enforced by the ‘withdrawal act’,reinforced by the ‘surrender act’,if by some miracle they lost it.
Strange how he never turned down the job of referendum deputy fuhrer if he thought that a referendum wasn’t the right way to settle it in that case.
As for EUSSR propaganda that Bolshevik rabble are just the useful idiots who’ve bought into the 4th Reich project because they think the Germans are on their side. 
A bit like they did in 1939-41 in that case.
dexxy57:
ramone:
You can’t disagree with your bosses (the constituents) and the company (your party)Yes you can, anyone can. You have to take the consequences though.
In an MP’s case if the constituents aren’t happy they say so via the ballot box.
Brexit is a bigger issue than most MP’s have experience of voting on. Some of them are going against their constituents wishes.
Fair enough, they’ll find out at the next election if they’ll be forgiven for that. Probably they won’t, but at least they’re standing by their beliefs.
They lost any credibilty or right to any beliefs when those ‘beliefs’ say that it’s ok to hand parliament’s responsibilities and with it democratic accountability over to the 4th Reich.Forget the laughable pseudonym of the ‘EU’ let’s call a spade a spade.
Franglais:
Carryfast:
Franglais:
The referendum was part of the manifesto of the Cameron Gov wasn’t it?
So it was pretty much guaranteed passage, in spite of the hundreds of MPs who didn’t vote for it.It was 544 in favour and 53 against.More Federalist lies no surprise there.So why would remainers who are now saying that the referendum wasn’t good enough have conveniently been so keen then ?.
NO.
Hansard 7th Sept 2015, division 61 shows:
316 Aye
53 No.
277 Absent.
So, as I said, hundreds did not vote in favour of the referendum.
Both wrong, if they were ABSENT they are not counted on either side of the argument. Thety are NOT counted on whatever side of the argument ONE is on.
cav551:
Franglais:
Carryfast:
Franglais:
The referendum was part of the manifesto of the Cameron Gov wasn’t it?
So it was pretty much guaranteed passage, in spite of the hundreds of MPs who didn’t vote for it.It was 544 in favour and 53 against.More Federalist lies no surprise there.So why would remainers who are now saying that the referendum wasn’t good enough have conveniently been so keen then ?.
NO.
Hansard 7th Sept 2015, division 61 shows:
316 Aye
53 No.
277 Absent.
So, as I said, hundreds did not vote in favour of the referendum.Both wrong, if they were ABSENT they are not counted on either side of the argument. Thety are NOT counted on whatever side of the argument ONE is on.
I never said they were “against”.
I said “hundreds did not vote for it”.
.
And so far, I’ll stand by that.
Franglais:
316 Aye
53 No.
277 Absent.
So, as I said, hundreds did not vote in favour of the referendum.
As I said BOTH WRONG there were 316 aye and 53 no
So there were NOT 544 as per CF in favour and equally those 277 cannot be counted on either side. Which is why I have referred to ONE rather than YOU.
This is exactly the same issue which arises with the actual voting figures for the Referendum. 12 Million registered electors did not vote, yet we see paraded before us repeatedly attempts to claim that these 12 million people hold the same beliefs as whoever is proposing the argument. We don’t know why they didn’t vote and by not doing so their opinion is forfeit. We can argue forever why? Illness, late home, died but not yet recorded, abroad, couldn’t be bothered, considered theresult a foregone conclusion so a waste of their time? or a multitude of other reasons for not voting.
We just ignore them, we can’t claim them to be on OUR side; whichever side that might be.
Well, lively discussion aside, at least the font size has returned to normal thank ■■■■. I was just approaching the point of ordering a pair of specs like the ones that professor Hubert J Farnsworth wears from Amazon.
Can anyone explain to me why the print periodically, and increasingly frequently becomes minuscule ?.. Is it possible to select underdrive on these blasted devil’s devices ?
cav551:
Franglais:
316 Aye
53 No.
277 Absent.
So, as I said, hundreds did not vote in favour of the referendum.As I said BOTH WRONG there were 316 aye and 53 no
So there were NOT 544 as per CF in favour and equally those 277 cannot be counted on either side. Which is why I have referred to ONE rather than YOU.
This is exactly the same issue which arises with the actual voting figures for the Referendum. 12 Million registered electors did not vote, yet we see paraded before us repeatedly attempts to claim that these 12 million people hold the same beliefs as whoever is proposing the argument. We don’t know why they didn’t vote and by not doing so their opinion is forfeit. We can argue forever why? Illness, late home, died but not yet recorded, abroad, couldn’t be bothered, considered theresult a foregone conclusion so a waste of their time? or a multitude of other reasons for not voting.
We just ignore them, we can’t claim them to be on OUR side; whichever side that might be.
Firstly we are actually discussing the ‘principle’ of settling it by referendum which is what the second reading was about which was a vote of 544 in favour 53 against.So why the need to bother with voting at the 3 rd reading and what changed.While Franglais then trying to use the abstentions at the 3rd reading to make the case that remainers were supposedly ‘opposed’ to the idea of a referendum’ to settle it per se seems laughably selective.
Which leaves the question if the remainers were supposedly against the issue of the matter being settled by referendum,as Franglais is pretending,why did Hammond of all people take on the job of organising it and why did he and Cameron then campaign for remain.Is Franglais saying that Tory remainers are less worthy than other remainers ?.
The case that remainers were all for a referendum until they lost it stands.
Carryfast:
dexxy57:
ramone:
You can’t disagree with your bosses (the constituents) and the company (your party)Yes you can, anyone can. You have to take the consequences though.
In an MP’s case if the constituents aren’t happy they say so via the ballot box.
Brexit is a bigger issue than most MP’s have experience of voting on. Some of them are going against their constituents wishes.
You can disagree with your bosses but there’s more often than not only one winner
Fair enough, they’ll find out at the next election if they’ll be forgiven for that. Probably they won’t, but at least they’re standing by their beliefs.They lost any credibilty or right to any beliefs when those ‘beliefs’ say that it’s ok to hand parliament’s responsibilities and with it democratic accountability over to the 4th Reich.Forget the laughable pseudonym of the ‘EU’ let’s call a spade a spade.
Hands Up!
I posted the result of the first reading of the Referendum Bill in 2015. The second reading is much more important and Carryfast`s figures are correct for that.
Sorry for my error.
Franglais:
Hands Up!
The second reading is much more important and Carryfast`s figures are correct for that.
Sorry for my error.
So you agree that parliament ‘was’ massively in favour of the ‘principle’ of settling the issue by way of a referendum ?.
If/when that’s settled we can move on to the fact that there weren’t 3 options ever called for by any Party on the ballot paper as part of that.In the form of let’s say Leave,EEA,Remain nor by implication were there ever meant to be ?.Because Leave was/is never meant to win.It’s a US/German Federalist inspired conspiracy and has been since 1972 and the hiding of FCO 30/1048.
Prepare for quisling ‘remainers’ and their German leadership’s next move being the end game of revocation and Lisbon here we come.If not BoJo’s ( May’s ) insurance policy of BRINO ( EEA minus ) effectively being the same thing.
Carryfast:
Franglais:
Hands Up!
The second reading is much more important and Carryfast`s figures are correct for that.
Sorry for my error.So you agree that parliament ‘was’ massively in favour of the ‘principle’ of settling the issue by way of a referendum ?.
If/when that’s settled we can move on to the fact that there weren’t 3 options ever called for by any Party on the ballot paper as part of that.In the form of let’s say Leave,EEA,Remain nor by implication were there ever meant to be ?.Because Leave was/is never meant to win.It’s a US/German Federalist inspired conspiracy and has been since 1972 and the hiding of FCO 30/1048.
Prepare for quisling ‘remainers’ and their German leadership’s next move being the end game of revocation and Lisbon here we come.If not BoJo’s ( May’s ) insurance policy of BRINO ( EEA minus ) effectively being the same thing.
Yes. At the second reading the bill was carried by a big majority, with Con, and Lab, support, but Lib-Dem opposition.
On your second point about the referendum:
In elections candidates are elected by a simple “X” being placed next to their name. Those candidates are usually chosen by voters because of party allegiance. The parties publish manifestos which promise what will happen if they are elected.
If the case of the referendum the Leave campaign said we would have easy negotiations to reach a better deal with the EU. They made many claims, (including blatant lies about £350m and Turkey etc) which are now clearly seen as false. The Referendum vote was based on “facts” and promises which have now proved wrong.
The Leave manifesto was, and is false.
What many voted for was the promised bright future promised in the Leave manifesto. Not the Hard Brexit and financial hardships we are now looking at.
.
You are right to say there was only a Yes/No choice.
As with General Elections we only got to put one simple “X” in a box. But that “X” is for the promised associated with the campaign behind it.
Voting out in 2016 was a vote for the Leave promises, and those promises aren’t being let. Indeed they cannot be met. The “easiest trade negotiation in history” new found cash etc is evidently not there. Going with a second or third rate, Brexit is not what was promised by the referendum campaign.
.
.
Edit to add.
Why was there no call for 3 options on the ballot?
Because No One was talking of a “No Deal” hard Brexit. The situation we are NOW in was envisaged by nobody that I can see. It certainly wasn’t in any of the literature from the time.
.
Any links from you, or anyone, to the Hard Brexit scenario we now have, from pre referendum days?
I notice that poor, misunderstood, little rich boy ‘call me Dave’ (vomit) Cameron, having recovered from its hissy fit and found its toys again, has stuck its snout firmly into the trough again all of a sudden. It couldn’t possibly be to do with being down to its last million and having a book coming out next week, which is reported to have bombed regarding pre-orders, with some bookshops even refusing to stock it?
Oh the chance of a little FREE publicity, that goes down so well with Cameron’s ilk.
Cameron’s book is already for sale on Amazon at HALF price ! So not much impact there then ! What a “hand galloper” he really is . Cheers Bewick.
I will look for it at 1 penny on Kindle, and then have a think before laying it out. 
Bewick:
Cameron’s book is already for sale on Amazon at HALF price ! So not much impact there then ! What a “hand galloper” he really is . Cheers Bewick.
Dennis bet they rushed that print run through a bit rapid just to take advantage of Boris bashing, what’s more how can you have a book of memoirs at his age he’s only a whipper snapper and another case of grabbing the cash as every one knows his history just by watching the television news over the last years he was any thing of significance, Buzzer.
I watched Last Night of the Proms as usual yesterday. It was definitely beyond the pale to see the romoaners waving their ■■■■■■■ EU flags both during Land of Hope and Glory and during Jerusalem, but to wave the ■■■■■■■ arsewipes during God Save the Queen was quite simply disgraceful. They should have been shown out of the Albert Hall before the National Anthem.
David Starkey on fire on the Brendan O’Neill show, this is a must listen.