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

[grandpa]

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.

1. It has already been explained to you. It’s why there was a referendum to decide who should rule Britain.

2. A referendum is not binding, but the government agreed on this occasion the result would be. That’s why the outcry because the government went back on its promises.

Stop the gibberish about command of the forces. The Queen has a duty to protect British sovereignty, but that doesn’t override the wishes of the voters. We do not have an absolute monarchy, we have parliamentary democracy and the people had the opportunity to vote for British sovereignty, or against it. The people voted to retain sovereignty and parliament has voted several times against further ‘deals.’ You did have the opportunity to vote Britain ‘out of existence’, but the majority thankfully voted not to. You want your (EU) socialist paradise? You’ll have to hope Corbyn gets in.

[grumpy_dad]

Grandpa:

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.

1. It has already been explained to you. It’s why there was a referendum to decide who should rule Britain.

2. A referendum is not binding, but the government agreed on this occasion the result would be. That’s why the outcry because the government went back on its promises.

Stop the gibberish about command of the forces. The Queen has a duty to protect British sovereignty, but that doesn’t override the wishes of the voters. We do not have an absolute monarchy, we have parliamentary democracy and the people had the opportunity to vote for British sovereignty, or against it. The people voted to retain sovereignty and parliament has voted several times against further ‘deals.’ You did have the opportunity to vote Britain ‘out of existence’, but the majority thankfully voted not to. You want your (EU) socialist paradise? You’ll have to hope Corbyn gets in.

The 2016 Referendum WAS NOT illegal, it was a delayed promise by labour that was eventually upheld by the Tories.
When the Treaty of Rome was resigned by the member states in 2004 is was a unanimous decision by all member state leaders to give the people a vote / referendum within a 2 year grace period, this was the time it would take for the laws within the treaty become binding within each nations laws.
Labour failed to give us the vote, it was permanently postponed. Tony Blair ■■■■■■ this country over, it doesn’t matter what you think the EU is, Blair openly admitted to being anti democratic and removing the act of treason from our laws to protect him from being accused of acting against the people proves his guilt.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:

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.

1. It has already been explained to you. It’s why there was a referendum to decide who should rule Britain.

2. A referendum is not binding, but the government agreed on this occasion the result would be. That’s why the outcry because the government went back on its promises.

Stop the gibberish about command of the forces. The Queen has a duty to protect British sovereignty, but that doesn’t override the wishes of the voters. We do not have an absolute monarchy, we have parliamentary democracy and the people had the opportunity to vote for British sovereignty, or against it. The people voted to retain sovereignty and parliament has voted several times against further ‘deals.’ You did have the opportunity to vote Britain ‘out of existence’, but the majority thankfully voted not to. You want your (EU) socialist paradise? You’ll have to hope Corbyn gets in.

So you agree with the principle that it’s ok for anyone to vote the country out of existence.

As for the Queen.Yes we do have an absolute monarchy.
In the case of a parliament having gone rogue and handing the country over to a foreign power for example.In addition to usurping the Queen’s ultimate command of our forces by also handing them over to a foreign power as part of the deal.Oh wait in this case the Queen has also gone rogue together with parliament.

As for a Socialist paradise.As I said there’s a big difference between left wing nationalism v bolshevik style Soviet Socialism.There’s more chance of Hoey delivering that than Farage.

On that note good luck with expecting Farage to deliver anything other than derailing UKIP.Which is now the mission that his Conservative Federalist establishment handlers have obviously given him and the sheep are all too keen to follow the agenda.Just like the idea that it’s ok to vote a de Facto nation state out of existence and into EU vassalage or believing that it isn’t the Queen’s job to fix this or would be if she wasn’t ‘in on the illegal scam’.

It’s not and never was something that can be settled by a vote either parliamentary or referendum ( unless you believe that it’s ok/legal to vote the country out of existence ).

[the_nodding_donkey]

Grumpy Dad:

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 ?

1. Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.

Dont people who wish to regain sovereign independsnce from the EU see the irony in not wanting other countries to wish the same, but not letting them?

[grandpa]

So you agree with the principle that it’s ok for anyone to vote the country out of existence.

As for the Queen.Yes we do have an absolute monarchy.
In the case of a parliament having gone rogue and handing the country over to a foreign power for example.In addition to usurping the Queen’s ultimate command of our forces by also handing them over to a foreign power as part of the deal.Oh wait in this case the Queen has also gone rogue together with parliament.

As for a Socialist paradise.As I said there’s a big difference between left wing nationalism v bolshevik style Soviet Socialism.There’s more chance of Hoey delivering that than Farage.

On that note good luck with expecting Farage to deliver anything other than derailing UKIP.Which is now the mission that his Conservative Federalist establishment handlers have obviously given him and the sheep are all too keen to follow the agenda.Just like the idea that it’s ok to vote a de Facto nation state out of existence and into EU vassalage or believing that it isn’t the Queen’s job to fix this or would be if she wasn’t ‘in on the illegal scam’.

It’s not and never was something that can be settled by a vote either parliamentary or referendum ( unless you believe that it’s ok/legal to vote the country out of existence ).

Yes. That’s what the referendum was about, vote to retain British sovereignty, or not. You get a choice, that’s democracy. Democracy is about the majority voice, whether we individually, the parliament or the Queen like it or not. The Queen has no say in the decisions of parliament and no power to over-ride the voice of the majority. As Cameron said on his pre-referendum tour:

“Everyone is going to have to make their own decision. This is not a debate between politicians. It’s a debate for the whole of the country to get involved in and to make their decision. It’s a very simple question on the ballot paper. You either remain in the European Union or you leave the European Union. It’s a single decision, it’s a final decision.” The British voted leave. What more need is there for a UK Independence Party?

Farage’s ‘Brexit Party’ is now tasked with taking the country out of the EU against the minority remainers, led by PM May’s wishes to keep it in. If May had honoured her promises of out and no deals and extensions, Farage would have faded into history and there would be no Brexit Party. Note the words in the above quote – ‘This is not a debate between politicians.’

Although parliament can legally over-ride a referendum, both Cameron and May said they wouldn’t. I hope that the EU election results tomorrow give both the Labour and Conservative elite the slap in the face they deserve.

Wrong. The last absolute monarch was Charles 1st. The civil war was about parliament being able to over-rule the absolute power of monarchs.
Left wing isn’t nationalist, it’s internationalist. ‘Soviet socialists’ are Marxists.

This is also embarrassing for me. We all have opinions, but how can one person get 90% of what they say factually wrong and still hammer away at it? Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society? You didn’t know Scargill was a communist? You think the left are nationalists? You weren’t aware that we have a parliament and not an absolute rule by a monarchy? Where on earth did you go to school? Aren’t you ashamed of your lack of basic knowledge?

[carryfast]

Grandpa:

So you agree with the principle that it’s ok for anyone to vote the country out of existence.

As for the Queen.Yes we do have an absolute monarchy.
In the case of a parliament having gone rogue and handing the country over to a foreign power for example.In addition to usurping the Queen’s ultimate command of our forces by also handing them over to a foreign power as part of the deal.Oh wait in this case the Queen has also gone rogue together with parliament.

As for a Socialist paradise.As I said there’s a big difference between left wing nationalism v bolshevik style Soviet Socialism.There’s more chance of Hoey delivering that than Farage.

On that note good luck with expecting Farage to deliver anything other than derailing UKIP.Which is now the mission that his Conservative Federalist establishment handlers have obviously given him and the sheep are all too keen to follow the agenda.Just like the idea that it’s ok to vote a de Facto nation state out of existence and into EU vassalage or believing that it isn’t the Queen’s job to fix this or would be if she wasn’t ‘in on the illegal scam’.

It’s not and never was something that can be settled by a vote either parliamentary or referendum ( unless you believe that it’s ok/legal to vote the country out of existence ).

Yes. That’s what the referendum was about, vote to retain British sovereignty, or not. You get a choice, that’s democracy. Democracy is about the majority voice, whether we individually, the parliament or the Queen like it or not. The Queen has no say in the decisions of parliament and no power to over-ride the voice of the majority. As Cameron said on his pre-referendum tour:

“Everyone is going to have to make their own decision. This is not a debate between politicians. It’s a debate for the whole of the country to get involved in and to make their decision. It’s a very simple question on the ballot paper. You either remain in the European Union or you leave the European Union. It’s a single decision, it’s a final decision.” The British voted leave. What more need is there for a UK Independence Party?

Farage’s ‘Brexit Party’ is now tasked with taking the country out of the EU against the minority remainers, led by PM May’s wishes to keep it in. If May had honoured her promises of out and no deals and extensions, Farage would have faded into history and there would be no Brexit Party. Note the words in the above quote – ‘This is not a debate between politicians.’

Although parliament can legally over-ride a referendum, both Cameron and May said they wouldn’t. I hope that the EU election results tomorrow give both the Labour and Conservative elite the slap in the face they deserve.

Wrong. The last absolute monarch was Charles 1st. The civil war was about parliament being able to over-rule the absolute power of monarchs.
Left wing isn’t nationalist, it’s internationalist. ‘Soviet socialists’ are Marxists.

This is also embarrassing for me. We all have opinions, but how can one person get 90% of what they say factually wrong and still hammer away at it? Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society? You didn’t know Scargill was a communist? You think the left are nationalists? You weren’t aware that we have a parliament and not an absolute rule by a monarchy? Where on earth did you go to school? Aren’t you ashamed of your lack of basic knowledge?

Democracy means voting for which MP’s represent the electorate within the NATIONAL parliament.Voting to hand that process over to a foreign power,in the form of foreign MP’s,elected under a foreign mandate,serving a foreign parliament,is treason.Just as holding a vote to join the 3rd Reich would have been treason.

The Queen does have the ultimate perogative regarding matters of defence of the realm against foreign takeover.Of which the above example is clearly one.

Left wing means what’s good for the working class.How can you be an ‘inter’ ‘nationalist’ if you don’t believe in the idea of Nation States to ‘’ inter’’ relate between.The clue is in the bleedin name.

On that note how do you explain the status of Shore’s and Benn’s vision of a sovereign Britain outside of the European Federation v Stalin’s and Tito’s vision of a Soviet Union and Yugoslav Federation,or for that matter Spinelli’s vision of a European Union,within your ridiculously simplistic idea of the definition of what constitutes the so called ‘left’.IE you’re confusing Supranationalist with ‘Internationalist’.The Soviet Union,Yugoslav Federation and even the USA and UK were/are all Supranationalist organisations/Federations all artificially created by taking out the individual sovereignty of their former sovereign constituent states usually by force.

[grandpa]

Democracy means voting for which MP’s represent the electorate within the NATIONAL parliament.Voting to hand that process over to a foreign power,in the form of foreign MP’s,elected under a foreign mandate,serving a foreign parliament,is treason.Just as holding a vote to join the 3rd Reich would have been treason.

The Queen does have the ultimate perogative regarding matters of defence of the realm against foreign takeover.Of which the above example is clearly one.

Left wing means what’s good for the working class.How can you be an ‘inter’ ‘nationalist’ if you don’t believe in the idea of Nation States to ‘’ inter’’ relate between.The clue is in the bleedin name.

On that note how do you explain the status of Shore’s and Benn’s vision of a sovereign Britain outside of the European Federation v Stalin’s and Tito’s vision of a Soviet Union and Yugoslav Federation,or for that matter Spinelli’s vision of a European Union,within your ridiculously simplistic idea of the definition of what constitutes the so called ‘left’.IE you’re confusing Supranationalist with ‘Internationalist’.The Soviet Union,Yugoslav Federation and even the USA and UK were/are all Supranationalist organisations/Federations all artificially created by taking out the individual sovereignty of their former sovereign constituent states usually by force.

Carryfast, I can’t keep answering this nonsense, I’m wasting my time.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:

Democracy means voting for which MP’s represent the electorate within the NATIONAL parliament.Voting to hand that process over to a foreign power,in the form of foreign MP’s,elected under a foreign mandate,serving a foreign parliament,is treason.Just as holding a vote to join the 3rd Reich would have been treason.

The Queen does have the ultimate perogative regarding matters of defence of the realm against foreign takeover.Of which the above example is clearly one.

Left wing means what’s good for the working class.How can you be an ‘inter’ ‘nationalist’ if you don’t believe in the idea of Nation States to ‘’ inter’’ relate between.The clue is in the bleedin name.

On that note how do you explain the status of Shore’s and Benn’s vision of a sovereign Britain outside of the European Federation v Stalin’s and Tito’s vision of a Soviet Union and Yugoslav Federation,or for that matter Spinelli’s vision of a European Union,within your ridiculously simplistic idea of the definition of what constitutes the so called ‘left’.IE you’re confusing Supranationalist with ‘Internationalist’.The Soviet Union,Yugoslav Federation and even the USA and UK were/are all Supranationalist organisations/Federations all artificially created by taking out the individual sovereignty of their former sovereign constituent states usually by force.

Carryfast, I can’t keep answering this nonsense, I’m wasting my time.

More like you’ve got no answers because you know you’re talking stereotypical bollox.

In your la la land Left can only mean communist,Internationalist somehow translates as anti nation state/Federalist along the lines of the Soviet Union and Yugoslav Fedrations and the reason we are now a net importer of energy and manufacturing products we can make for ourselves is all the fault of Scargill and because the Australians and Canadians declared independence in 1901 and 1867 respectively cutting off our supplies of raw materials from those dates.

Not to mention Thatcher didn’t know what the treaty of Rome meant.But obviously knew enough to know that,like Heath,she needed to keep FCO 30/1048 buried and somehow people like Powell,Shore,Benn and Heffer knew exactly what it meant.

[the_nodding_donkey]

You all keep going back and forth about Britain being an independent sovereign natiin, and not wanting to be ruled by people from another country. That in itsrlf is fair enough, but you bring the atgument as if Britain is the mother of independent sovereignty, and has an inalienable right to be independently sovereign. What you forget is that these things, over time, change. In the past usually with bloodshed, in our time it is done by politicians. Britain was created, over a few 1000 years, by various tribes overcoming other tribes, creating small independent tribal ereas, which in time through amalgamation and violent conquest turned into small independent sovereign kingdoms, which turned into three independent sovereign kingdoms, which turned into one kingdom. Indeed, even after several hundred years, the Scots still want their independence back. But England wont let them, saying that its better for them to remain part of the United Kingdom…

[grandpa]

More like you’ve got no answers because you know you’re talking stereotypical bollox.

In your la la land Left can only mean communist,Internationalist somehow translates as anti nation state/Federalist along the lines of the Soviet Union and Yugoslav Fedrations and the reason we are now a net importer of energy and manufacturing products we can make for ourselves is all the fault of Scargill and because the Australians and Canadians declared independence in 1901 and 1867 respectively cutting off our supplies of raw materials from those dates.

Not to mention Thatcher didn’t know what the treaty of Rome meant.But obviously knew enough to know that,like Heath,she needed to keep FCO 30/1048 buried and somehow people like Powell,Shore,Benn and Heffer knew exactly what it meant.

Carryfast, you talk absolute nonsense and even when you’re proved wrong you just carry on with more of it. I’ve given pages of explanations and answers to someone who thinks Scargill wasn’t a communist, the civil war didn’t abolish the absolute rule of English monarchs and doesn’t know what democracy is. If I told you the world wasn’t flat you’d argue it is. Explaining something or proving it just goes way over your head. You’re just one of those people best left to get on with it.

[carryfast]

Grandpa:

More like you’ve got no answers because you know you’re talking stereotypical bollox.

In your la la land Left can only mean communist,Internationalist somehow translates as anti nation state/Federalist along the lines of the Soviet Union and Yugoslav Fedrations and the reason we are now a net importer of energy and manufacturing products we can make for ourselves is all the fault of Scargill and because the Australians and Canadians declared independence in 1901 and 1867 respectively cutting off our supplies of raw materials from those dates.

Not to mention Thatcher didn’t know what the treaty of Rome meant.But obviously knew enough to know that,like Heath,she needed to keep FCO 30/1048 buried and somehow people like Powell,Shore,Benn and Heffer knew exactly what it meant.

Carryfast, you talk absolute nonsense and even when you’re proved wrong you just carry on with more of it. I’ve given pages of explanations and answers to someone who thinks Scargill wasn’t a communist, the civil war didn’t abolish the absolute rule of English monarchs and doesn’t know what democracy is. If I told you the world wasn’t flat you’d argue it is. Explaining something or proving it just goes way over your head. You’re just one of those people best left to get on with it.

Nonsense you mean like knowing the difference between Internationalist v Supranationalist.Or that left doesn’t have to mean Communist.Or that Shore,Benn,Heffer and even Scargill were actually all Nationalists who,just like you,arguably didn’t even realise it themselves.Or that the ultimate authority of the Head of State is still there in the case of the specific issue of defence of the realm from foreign takeover.While the best that you can do is make the lame excuse that Thatcher didn’t actually know what she was supporting in the case of the treaty of Rome and/or the treaty of Rome wasn’t a blue print for what followed in the form of Single European Act and Maastricht.Remind us again what Powell/Shore/Benn/Heffer said on all that and which party it was that signed us up to it all.You’re avin a larf.

[grumpy_dad]

the nodding donkey:

1. Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.

Dont people who wish to regain sovereign independsnce from the EU see the irony in not wanting other countries to wish the same, but not letting them?

The Republic of Ireland is no longer part of the U.K. Northern Ireland is.

The Union Flag consists of the 3 kingdoms which were at the time Cross of St George, Cross of St Andrew and the Red Saltire of St Patrick

[wheel_nut]

Grumpy Dad:

the nodding donkey:

1. Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.

Dont people who wish to regain sovereign independsnce from the EU see the irony in not wanting other countries to wish the same, but not letting them?

The Republic of Ireland is no longer part of the U.K. Northern Ireland is.

The Union Flag consists of the 3 kingdoms which were at the time Cross of St George, Cross of St Andrew and the Red Saltire of St Patrick

There is no Emerald Green in my flag [emoji14]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dexxy57]

Grandpa:
Carryfast, you talk absolute nonsense and even when you’re proved wrong you just carry on with more of it. I’ve given pages of explanations and answers to someone who thinks Scargill wasn’t a communist, the civil war didn’t abolish the absolute rule of English monarchs and doesn’t know what democracy is. If I told you the world wasn’t flat you’d argue it is. Explaining something or proving it just goes way over your head. You’re just one of those people best left to get on with it.

[grandpa]

Re: Dexxy

Funny caption, but seriously … If you look at the campaign leading to the referendum, the remainers specifically targeted the young and the gullible, or to put it bluntly, those not too bright. The voting patterns showed that predominantly the young voted remain and the leavers were said not to have the necessary information to make an informed choice. Let’s hear it for the EU national anthem, the one I’ve been informed doesn’t exist.

Grandpa does the socialist EU space cadets anthem.

Ode to Joy / European Union Anthem (Rock Version)

[carryfast]

Grandpa:
Re: Dexxy
Let’s hear it for the EU national anthem, the one I’ve been informed doesn’t exist.

Grandpa does the socialist EU space cadets anthem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Gq_Avh1WQ

Oh wait.You do know the origins of the EU anthem.

You know inconvenient facts like it was actually adopted by the Council of Europe as the European Anthem in 1972.The same Council of Europe that was put in place by the Brussels Treaty countries in 1949.With the specific purpose of creating the European Union that Thatcher supposedly didn’t know she was supporting in 1975 and signed us up to with the Single European Act.Oh and just as I said it was the US that was pushing for Political not just economic ‘Union’ in Europe.What a surprise the US Federal government system wanted a Federal Europe.

cvce.eu/en/education/unit-co … 6d9b534633

The 4th Reich what 4th Reich I see no 4th Reich.

youtube.com/watch?v=Zpj1JDoiEco

[dexxy57]

Grandpa:
Re: Dexxy

Funny caption, but seriously … If you look at the campaign leading to the referendum, the remainers specifically targeted the young and the gullible, or to put it bluntly, those not too bright. The voting patterns showed that predominantly the young voted remain and the leavers were said not to have the necessary information to make an informed choice. Let’s hear it for the EU national anthem, the one I’ve been informed doesn’t exist.

Grandpa does the socialist EU space cadets anthem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Gq_Avh1WQ

It’s maybe going a bit far suggesting they targeted the gullible. A lot of people had their minds made up long before the campaign ended. The EU was a convenient scapegoat at the time for so much that was going wrong in the country.

It’s not really disputed though that the campaign was based more on emotion than facts. It’s not really disputed either that we currently have the most inept and incompetent government in history.

Anyway, we are where we are. It’s certainly made more people take an interest in politics, which can’t be bad.

[grandpa]

It’s maybe going a bit far suggesting they targeted the gullible. A lot of people had their minds made up long before the campaign ended. The EU was a convenient scapegoat at the time for so much that was going wrong in the country.

It’s not really disputed though that the campaign was based more on emotion than facts. It’s not really disputed either that we currently have the most inept and incompetent government in history.

Anyway, we are where we are. It’s certainly made more people take an interest in politics, which can’t be bad.

I’d disagree that it’s going too far. From Blair onwards, every PM promised a referendum and you have to wonder why it took so long to have one, or why PM May is trying to spin Brexit out for as long as possible. The reason is that each passing year produced more young remain voters and removed the majority leave voters who died out. There is truth in the suggestion that had Cameron been able to wait another five years he may well have got his remain majority. I’d also disagree that the EU is a scapegoat, it’s the reason why things have gone wrong.

You’re right though that remain minority vote was based on emotion. We can’t exist outside the EU, there will be massive job losses and no one will trade with us are based on belief, not fact. So there’s a degree of gullibility involved.

I also wonder whether PM May is as stupid as she performs. Leaders of any country aren’t known for their stupidity. Remainer PM May is doing her level best to delay Brexit with deals and extensions and recently had to backtrack quickly on her proposal that parliament vote for another referendum on one of her deals and the commons leader Leadsom resigned in protest followed by a huge outcry. Parliament know exactly what she’s doing it’s an old EU trick. Previously, the French, Dutch and Irish were also allowed a referendum on the European Constitution and voted no. A few paragraphs were changed, it was presented as the Lisbon Treaty so the original vote didn’t count and they were made to keep voting until the answer was yes. That’s exactly what May is trying to do with her ‘deals.’

And yes, it has certainly made more people interested in politics, but also in the deceit and lies that the current government is involved in. The problem is that many really do have low information and base those around their own subjective beliefs. I’m frankly amazed at a minority lack of basic general knowledge here.

[grumpy_dad]

Grandpa:

It’s maybe going a bit far suggesting they targeted the gullible. A lot of people had their minds made up long before the campaign ended. The EU was a convenient scapegoat at the time for so much that was going wrong in the country.

It’s not really disputed though that the campaign was based more on emotion than facts. It’s not really disputed either that we currently have the most inept and incompetent government in history.

Anyway, we are where we are. It’s certainly made more people take an interest in politics, which can’t be bad.

I’d disagree that it’s going too far. From Blair onwards, every PM promised a referendum and you have to wonder why it took so long to have one, or why PM May is trying to spin Brexit out for as long as possible. The reason is that each passing year produced more young remain voters and removed the majority leave voters who died out. There is truth in the suggestion that had Cameron been able to wait another five years he may well have got his remain majority. I’d also disagree that the EU is a scapegoat, it’s the reason why things have gone wrong.

You’re right though that remain minority vote was based on emotion. We can’t exist outside the EU, there will be massive job losses and no one will trade with us are based on belief, not fact. So there’s a degree of gullibility involved.

I also wonder whether PM May is as stupid as she performs. Leaders of any country aren’t known for their stupidity. Remainer PM May is doing her level best to delay Brexit with deals and extensions and recently had to backtrack quickly on her proposal that parliament vote for another referendum on one of her deals and the commons leader Leadsom resigned in protest followed by a huge outcry. Parliament know exactly what she’s doing it’s an old EU trick. Previously, the French, Dutch and Irish were also allowed a referendum on the European Constitution and voted no. A few paragraphs were changed, it was presented as the Lisbon Treaty so the original vote didn’t count and they were made to keep voting until the answer was yes. That’s exactly what May is trying to do with her ‘deals.’

And yes, it has certainly made more people interested in politics, but also in the deceit and lies that the current government is involved in. The problem is that many really do have low information and base those around their own subjective beliefs. I’m frankly amazed at a minority lack of basic general knowledge here.

The leaders of the EU member states in 2004 at the resigning of the treaty of Rome, all agreed that the people should have the final choice and that every nation offer referendums, but these had to be within a 2 year grace period as that would be the length of time required for the laws within the treaty of Rome to be embedded within the legal systems of each nation.
But if any nation had a no result, I’d would halt the process and things would need to be adjusted to compensate.
Jack Straw announced shortly after the signing of the treaty that Britain would hold a referendum late 2006, this was already leaving it a little late. It was later postponed indefinitely by Blair.
Blair took the decision on behalf of the people to accept the treaty and to continue with the process.

[grandpa]

Just heard that PM May is to resign on the 7th of June!

Now perhaps we can have a Brexit PM.