23 hours ago, Slip said:

They are not 'claims' Boris.  They are the judgement of a UK court of law.  The clink is full of old lags saying "I never done it boss, I was stitched up".

You asked the Queen...?

4 hours ago, Jip99 said:

5 hours ago, Basil B said:

But everybody has the right to change their minds.

 

Including 17.4 million who voted Brexit...

 

 

 

...or the minority who voted to remain. 

 

Seems quite a few, like Boris, have seen the light and are changing their view of the EU.

 

You're right; quite a few who voted Leave are changing their minds.

 

So let's have a final, binding referendum so we, the people, can settle the matter once and for all via the most democratic method.

 

As you are convinced that the majority still support Brexit, how can you object to that?

9 hours ago, Emdog said:

Boris and Donald are two plods in a pee. Both lie so often we simply expect whatever they say to be lies.

Okay, I'm a simple Yank: what is so clock stopping vital about 'the Queen's speech"? That it takes a month to cook up?  Lincoln wrote Gettysburg address on back on envelope while on the train to Gettysburg...

Your words "Simple yank" were apt in your case...????

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

You're right; quite a few who voted Leave are changing their minds.

 

So let's have a final, binding referendum so we, the people, can settle the matter once and for all via the most democratic method.

 

As you are convinced that the majority still support Brexit, how can you object to that?

So...what you're saying is that for every election we should have a "second election" where we give the majority the chance to change their opinion?

And then what if the losers of the second election feels the need for a "third election"?

And a "fourth election"?

Best out of five?

 

The concept of democracy is in immensely difficult. For some.

 

 

4 hours ago, Forethat said:

What IS interesting is that voters claim the EU is NOT heading towards a centralised political institution, reducing sovereignty and political power for individual member states. It doesn't even matter that political groups in the EU Parliament are openly agitating for that direction. The boiling frog principle...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

 Which political groups in the EU Parliament are involved in this agitating?

 

What percentage of MEPs do they represent?

 

How many member countries do they represent? Such a move would surely require not the consent of the majority, but the unanimous consent of member governments?

 

I suspect this is the same as the claims about a EU army; suggested by a few many times over the last 50 years, never taken seriously by the majority.

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

You're right; quite a few who voted Leave are changing their minds.

 

So let's have a final, binding referendum so we, the people, can settle the matter once and for all via the most democratic method.

 

As you are convinced that the majority still support Brexit, how can you object to that?

You quote democratic but are in fact dismissing a democratic peoples vote in 2016..

 

People like you are the worse kind of Brit, stitch folk up just for YOUR goal....Sad, very sad....

14 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Which political groups in the EU Parliament are involved in this agitating?

 

What percentage of MEPs do they represent?

 

How many member countries do they represent? Such a move would surely require not the consent of the majority, but the unanimous consent of member governments?

 

I suspect this is the same as the claims about a EU army; suggested by a few many times over the last 50 years, never taken seriously by the majority.

That would be the Renew Europe Group. 108 MEPs from ALDE and EDP. They are the third largest group in the EP.

The leaders of ALDE and EDP are openly agitating for increased power of the EU, reduced sovereignty as well as a federal Europe where all power is concentrated to a central governing body.

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/20190712STO56959/parliament-group-priorities-renew-europe-group

Edited September 13, 20196 yr by Forethat

4 minutes ago, Forethat said:

So...what you're saying is that for every election we should have a "second election" where we give the majority the chance to change their opinion?

And then what if the losers of the second election feels the need for a "third election"?

And a "fourth election"?

Best out of five?

 

The concept of democracy is in immensely difficult. For some.

 

 

 

Elections? We have general elections every 5 years at most! At which the people can, and have been known to, change our minds about who should govern us!

 

Are you really suggesting we should abandon all that; abandon our democracy developed over centuries?

 

If instead of 'elections' you really meant 'referenda' then your argument means that the issue of our membership was settled in 1975 and so the 2016 referendum was undemocratic!

 

But, as Brexiteers are fond of pointing out, the situation has changed since 1975; just as the situation has changed since 2016 as the real effects of Brexit as opposed to the pie in the sky promises of Cummings become more and more apparent.

 

The 2016 referendum was advisory; Parliament is under no obligation to follow that advice; despite what individual party leaders, past and present, have promised.

 

We now have three options:

1. leave with May's deal as amended by Boris by x date;
2. leave with no deal by x date;
3. cancel Article 50 and remain.

Most of us, at least those of us here in the UK, are far more aware of the consequences of each of these options than we were in 2016. So give us the choice in the type of transferable vote referendum described here and elsewhere many times. But this time make it binding so parliament cannot waste another three years plus.

 

How is giving the final choice to the people not democratic?

 

 

12 minutes ago, Forethat said:

That would be the Renew Europe Group. 108 MEPs from ALDE and EDP. They are the third largest group in the EP.

The leaders of ALDE and EDP are openly agitating for increased power of the EU, reduced sovereignty as well as a federal Europe where all power is concentrated to a central governing body.

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/20190712STO56959/parliament-group-priorities-renew-europe-group

 Thanks for that.

 

Whilst from their website it is obvious that Renew Europe want increased power for the EU in certain areas such as climate control and workers rights, I can not find anything in which they are agitating for reduced sovereignty for member states and a federal Europe. Individuals? Yes. Group policy? Not that I can see.

 

Have I missed it; if so, can you link me to the correct page.

 

But it matters not what they want in this area; unless the 27 (28 if we change our minds and remain) member governments agree to it.

 

So, how many of those governments do agree?

Edited September 13, 20196 yr by 7by7
Addendum

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Elections? We have general elections every 5 years at most! At which the people can, and have been known to, change our minds about who should govern us!

 

Are you really suggesting we should abandon all that; abandon our democracy developed over centuries?

 

If instead of 'elections' you really meant 'referenda' then your argument means that the issue of our membership was settled in 1975 and so the 2016 referendum was undemocratic!

 

But, as Brexiteers are fond of pointing out, the situation has changed since 1975; just as the situation has changed since 2016 as the real effects of Brexit as opposed to the pie in the sky promises of Cummings become more and more apparent.

 

The 2016 referendum was advisory; Parliament is under no obligation to follow that advice; despite what individual party leaders, past and present, have promised.

 

We now have three options:

1. leave with May's deal as amended by Boris by x date;
2. leave with no deal by x date;
3. cancel Article 50 and remain.

Most of us, at least those of us here in the UK, are far more aware of the consequences of each of these options than we were in 2016. So give us the choice in the type of transferable vote referendum described here and elsewhere many times. But this time make it binding so parliament cannot waste another three years plus.

 

How is giving the final choice to the people not democratic?

 

 

There you go again, democratic when it suits you....

30 minutes ago, transam said:

You quote democratic but are in fact dismissing a democratic peoples vote in 2016..

 

People like you are the worse kind of Brit, stitch folk up just for YOUR goal....Sad, very sad....

Not dismissing it, anymore than I am dismissing the people's vote in 1975.

 

But people here in the UK are far more aware of all the options and each option's consequences than we were in 2016. 

 

Not looking to stich anyone up, just wanting us to be granted the final, legally binding choice on our future. A choice you from 6000 miles away would deny us because you fear it would frustrate YOUR goal.

 

4 minutes ago, transam said:

There you go again, democratic when it suits you....

 

 I asked a question, I'll ask it again.

 

How is giving the final, legally binding choice to us the people not democratic?

 

Care to answer?

 

It's only Brexiteers who don't want a final, legally binding referendum; and we all know why that is!

 

What is really pathetic is that some of them called Johnson's attempt to shut Parliament up until November a 'people's choice!'

 

 

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Not dismissing it, anymore than I am dismissing the people's vote in 1975.

 

But people here in the UK are far more aware of all the options and each option's consequences than we were in 2016. 

 

Not looking to stich anyone up, just wanting us to be granted the final, legally binding choice on our future. A choice you from 6000 miles away would deny us because you fear it would frustrate YOUR goal.

 

 

 I asked a question, I'll ask it again.

 

How is giving the final, legally binding choice to us the people not democratic?

 

Care to answer?

 

It's only Brexiteers who don't want a final, legally binding referendum; and we all know why that is!

 

What is really pathetic is that some of them called Johnson's attempt to shut Parliament up until November a 'people's choice!'

 

 

Yes I will answer, you are not happy with leaving the EU so you want the vote again, shameful.

You quote "we in the UK", which tells me because I am not that makes a difference, what bloody stupid reasoning...

 

All you do is dodge, dodge, dodge with really daft assumptions and link requests..

Everything in YOUR eyes that isn't going your way, including me is "pathetic", when in reality some of your own replies really are pathetic.....

18 minutes ago, transam said:

Yes I will answer, you are not happy with leaving the EU so you want the vote again, shameful.

You quote "we in the UK", which tells me because I am not that makes a difference, what bloody stupid reasoning...

 

All you do is dodge, dodge, dodge with really daft assumptions and link requests..

Everything in YOUR eyes that isn't going your way, including me is "pathetic", when in reality some of your own replies really are pathetic.....

So you say you will answer the question but you don't. And then accuse others of dodging questions.

Edited September 13, 20196 yr by stevenl

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

You're right; quite a few who voted Leave are changing their minds.

 

So let's have a final, binding referendum so we, the people, can settle the matter once and for all via the most democratic method.

 

As you are convinced that the majority still support Brexit, how can you object to that?

 

 

I don’t object to that at all.

 

I am against the principle of a second referendum because too many people were shouting for one because they lost the first one!

 

What I would prefer to see is a general election. The current parliamentary impasse needs unblocking.

 

Tories and Brexit party campaigning on a Leave platform (deal OR no deal) and Labour, Lib Dems campaigning for remain...... battle to the death, hopefully someone will get a working majority. No need fo4 a referendum.

 

That is what I would like to see - an¥ i5 doesn’t get more democratic than that.

23 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

The privy council meeting which was organised to propose proroguing parliament consisted of only 3 members plus the Queen - Mogg along with Baroness Evans, the leader of the Lords, and Mark Spencer, the Tory party Chief Whip, all 3 hardcore brexiteers.

 

Good to see an impartial representation!

 

Boris wouldn't know the truth if it bit him!

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Not dismissing it, anymore than I am dismissing the people's vote in 1975.

 

But people here in the UK are far more aware of all the options and each option's consequences than we were in 2016. 

 

Not looking to stich anyone up, just wanting us to be granted the final, legally binding choice on our future. A choice you from 6000 miles away would deny us because you fear it would frustrate YOUR goal.

 

 

 I asked a question, I'll ask it again.

 

How is giving the final, legally binding choice to us the people not democratic?

 

Care to answer?

 

It's only Brexiteers who don't want a final, legally binding referendum; and we all know why that is!

 

What is really pathetic is that some of them called Johnson's attempt to shut Parliament up until November a 'people's choice!'

 

 

 

Don't disagree with your sentiments. But, referendums cannot be binding under the current British Constitution and its law. Changing that would be extremely difficult and long winded and have a lasting effect. 

 

Any second referendum could only be advisory, parliament consulting the views of the people formally, just like the first. You would need agreement from all parliament, all MP's and political parties that they would vote in accordance with the result and not play political games as they have been doing.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, transam said:

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 I asked a question, I'll ask it again.

 

How is giving the final, legally binding choice to us the people not democratic?

 

Care to answer?

 

Yes I will answer, you are not happy with leaving the EU so you want the vote again, shameful.

 

I am not happy with leaving the EU, true. But, as I said at the time, I, like most Remainers, accepted the result.

 

But the longer it went with Parliament being unable to agree on whether to leave with a deal, and what that deal should be, or leave with no deal then the more I came to believe that as they couldn't decide, we should take that decision out of the politicians hands and give it to the people.

 

Then as more and more details of the leave campaign's dirty tricks came to light, and when the High Court ruled that had the referendum been legally binding these tricks would have meant the result being declared null and void, that belief became stronger. What is more, I came to agree that Remain should be an option on the ballot paper in a form of transferable vote as I have described many times before.

 

That is why I am in favour of a final, legally binding referendum.

 

1 hour ago, transam said:

You quote "we in the UK", which tells me because I am not that makes a difference, what bloody stupid reasoning...

I have nothing against anyone expressing an opinion, whether they agree with me or not, no matter where they live nor what their nationality may be.

 

I do have an issue with people who live in Thailand telling me what day to day life is like here in the UK, what ordinary people here in the UK are thinking when I talk to them and you don't.

 

1 hour ago, transam said:

All you do is dodge, dodge, dodge with really daft assumptions and link requests..

Everything in YOUR eyes that isn't going your way, including me is "pathetic", when in reality some of your own replies really are pathetic....

This last paragraph kind of destroys any validity your post had! No real argument, so resort to insults; as is depressingly usual for you.

 

 

2 hours ago, transam said:

On 9/12/2019 at 12:57 PM, Slip said:

They are not 'claims' Boris.  They are the judgement of a UK court of law.  The clink is full of old lags saying "I never done it boss, I was stitched up".

You asked the Queen...?

 Yet you lambast me for sometimes asking for links!!!!!!!

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

I don’t object to that at all.

 

I am against the principle of a second referendum because too many people were shouting for one because they lost the first one!

 

What I would prefer to see is a general election. The current parliamentary impasse needs unblocking.

 

Tories and Brexit party campaigning on a Leave platform (deal OR no deal) and Labour, Lib Dems campaigning for remain...... battle to the death, hopefully someone will get a working majority. No need fo4 a referendum.

 

That is what I would like to see - an¥ i5 doesn’t get more democratic than that.

 

I have previously give my objections to deciding this via a general election; but will do so again.

 

Most people in a general election vote along party lines; I suspect many don't even read manifestos or watch PPBs.

 

My constituency is a prime example of this. Remain won here in the referendum, but our MP is a Brexiteer. However, this is an ultra safe Tory seat; a donkey would win if it wore a blue rosette! 

 

So, as with every general election, the result would depend upon the marginals.

 

Would that give any one party a majority in Parliament? Well it does so more often than not.

 

Would that party's Brexit policy match that of the majority of voters? Doubtful. The last time the winning party had more than 50% of the vote was 1931.

(source)

Indeed, the party with the most votes is not always the party which wins the most seats. From that same briefing paper

Quote

The highest share of the vote received by Labour in a general election was 48.8% in 1951, when the Conservatives won the most seats despite polling fewer votes.

 

In conclusion, a general election is not the most democratic way of giving the choice back to the people as it could easily mean the party with the most seats did not get the most votes.

23 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Yet you lambast me for sometimes asking for links!!!!!!!

I have learned to ignore that poster.  Not all brexiteers are empty vessels but...

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

Don't disagree with your sentiments. But, referendums cannot be binding under the current British Constitution and its law. Changing that would be extremely difficult and long winded and have a lasting effect.

 

Any second referendum could only be advisory, parliament consulting the views of the people formally, just like the first. You would need agreement from all parliament, all MP's and political parties that they would vote in accordance with the result and not play political games as they have been doing.

 

I disagree; Parliament has to pass legislation for a referendum to be held and whilst we have never had a legally binding UK wide referendum in the past, there is no reason why Parliament could not make a future one so. This would not need the agreement of all MPs, just the majority.

 

That would then stop the political games and we could move forward and make the best of the result; whatever that result is.

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

I have previously give my objections to deciding this via a general election; but will do so again.

 

Most people in a general election vote along party lines; I suspect many don't even read manifestos or watch PPBs.

 

My constituency is a prime example of this. Remain won here in the referendum, but our MP is a Brexiteer. However, this is an ultra safe Tory seat; a donkey would win if it wore a blue rosette! 

 

So, as with every general election, the result would depend upon the marginals.

 

Would that give any one party a majority in Parliament? Well it does so more often than not.

 

Would that party's Brexit policy match that of the majority of voters? Doubtful. The last time the winning party had more than 50% of the vote was 1931.

(source)

Indeed, the party with the most votes is not always the party which wins the most seats. From that same briefing paper

 

In conclusion, a general election is not the most democratic way of giving the choice back to the people as it could easily mean the party with the most seats did not get the most votes.

 

 

I wouldn’t trust this parliament to organize a pi55 up in a brewery, let alone a referendum.

2 hours ago, transam said:

Yes I will answer, you are not happy with leaving the EU so you want the vote again, shameful.

You quote "we in the UK", which tells me because I am not that makes a difference, what bloody stupid reasoning...

 

All you do is dodge, dodge, dodge with really daft assumptions and link requests..

Everything in YOUR eyes that isn't going your way, including me is "pathetic", when in reality some of your own replies really are pathetic.....

Seems to be a generic description of a remainer who just can't accept democracy, screams that they are not getting democracy, shouts over those that have a different opinion and then starts throwing the R word or B word at people..

 

If I can offer a bit of advice. I used the I word along time ago with this poster. Ignore.

16 hours ago, bizboi said:

OK - so you’ll be packing today then and selling the house? - and dont let the door hit you on the way out. and by the way @no food@ just laughable left wing remoaner garbage scaremongering - we had food before we joined the EU!!

Its amazing that people don't remember what food was like before we joined Europe.

 

Edited September 13, 20196 yr by wilcopops

Lying is not a problem for Brexiteers if it serves the cause.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

The whole Remain propaganda machine, particularly Project Fear, has been a pack of lies since well before the referendum.
Remainers have lied and cheated so much for the past three years that I’m quite comfortable with a small white lie to shut down Remainer Central for a few days.

Looks like the queen feels the same about the cause too.

The next problem will be Boris persuading Hungary to veto another Brexit extension.

A troll post and replies have been removed.   If you wish to troll and have a bit of fun, you might want to visit one of the forum sections for that.   It is not tolerated in the News Sections.  

 

On 9/13/2019 at 9:53 AM, JAG said:

Tch tch, we won't ignore it, just come to the conclusion that it is advisory...

as long as you don’t have a problem when we take left wing election wins as “advisory”. …Its only democratic to do the same

Some troll posts containing offensive comments have been removed. 

On 9/13/2019 at 3:35 PM, tebee said:

but they didn't vote for a nodeal brexit 

YES they did - read the ballot slip!!