Were Brexit campaigners straight with voters over claims?

[ilostmypassword]

Farage is a con man, plain and simple... which is why his target demographic are the least educated in UK society.

As for all the bullshit about freedom and self-determination ....radically changing the infrastructure of your nation with no plan thus devaluing your assets and currency? ....is the apex of stupidity!

Bullshit about freedom and self-determination. The apex of stupidity?

Really?

Nice try. "apex of stupidity" obviously referred to "radically changing the infrastructure etc....

[pitrevie]

There seems to be some confusion ( I think from scots ) how British Democracy works, let me try and help you out

We have a general election where we the people vote MP's into office, these ELECTED MP's then ELECT a prime minister from one of the ELECTED MP's

so you will see our prime minister is ELECTED not once but twice, the prime minister then appoints cabinet ministers from the ELECTED MP's

So now you see ALL our MP's are ELECTED into office by we the people.

You are mistaken the PM is never elected he is appointed on the basis that being the leader of the majority party he can command a Commons majority. He is not elected by MPs in fact the wider Conservative Party membership will vote on who gets to be the new Conservative leader. Normally the Conservative Party in Parliament would accept that result and support the new leader but there would be nothing stopping those same MPs from refusing to support his program and he would then be forced to ask for a dissolution's unless some other person could command majority support and the process would begin again. We had a general election and the people gave that majority and mandate to Cameron. Now he has resigned and we are about to get a new PM and a new government that will take far reaching decisions without first seeking a new mandate approving those decisions.

Its amazing that the very people who complain about the Brussels bureaucracy haven't got the first idea of how their own operates.

[teatree]

It is not perfect, I accept that. But at least the people have a voice and can do something about it.

Here is a good example of why it is important to have the people governing you be directly accountable to you.

Suppose the UK government introduced a new law that was unpopular. The people can lobby the government to get it changed. If the people don't get what they want they can vote them out and get a new party in. There is incentive for the government to listen to the people or they risk losing power.

Contrast this with the EU Commission. They can introduce an unpopular directive and there is no line of communication between the people and the Commission. The Commission is not elected by the people, it can't be lobbied by the people, and it can't be voted out by the people. There is no risk to the Commission in ignoring the people's wishes (except when they vote to leave the EU in a referendum!). The people turn to the ELECTED government and they just shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing that they can do - EU law overrides national law. This is not democracy!

There must be a line of accountability from those who make your laws to the people.

In the UK people fought for centuries to get this right, and paid for it in blood. Now we are very close to getting it back.

The EU President is elected by a majority vote of the EU Parliament his term expires in 2019. The commissioners also have the same period and are nominated by each country belonging to the EU. MEPs can vote them out of office. Each country in the EU elects MEPs to the European Parliament. Just how much accountability do you want. Apart from every five years exactly what sway do you have over government legislation they can and do introduce unpopular measures and you will have to wait up to 5 years to get them out. We are now going to get a PM and a new government none of whom were given a mandate by the British people when they voted for Cameron.

Of course governments take unpopular decisions that is their job which is why Margaret Thatcher opposed referendums. Perhaps every time a minister of the crown proposes something we should submit it to the people that should ensure progress after all the electorate is so well informed on these matters, I thought that is why we have representative democracy.

As for being overruled by European law welcome to the 21st century. Do we make our own maritime, telecomms, aeronautical etc laws or are they something agreed in International bodies by our representatives. Our representative attend international forums where they agree to whole rafts of regulations which govern the way we live. Time to get all that power back I guess.

They are not DIRECTLY elected by the people and not DIRECTLY accountable to the people.

That is the level of accountability I expect and hopefully will have very soon.

And he tries to equate aviation and maritime law with locally relevant laws of all types with one big swish of his logic!

You seem to be having a conversation with yourself.

I did not mention aviation or maritime laws. Of course, there are international laws that all countries agree to adhere to, what is your point?

My point is that the people governing you need to be directly elected by you, accountable to you and able to be voted out by you. That is not the case with the EU, as you have admitted.

Incidentally, earlier you mention that the President of the Commission was elected by the EU parliament. Do you know the process? The Parliament was given a shortlist of ONE name to vote on! Sounds more like a good old Saddam Hussein style 'democracy' than a modern liberal democracy.

[R123]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/this-is-now-project-betrayal-%E2%80%93-and-we-are-all-victims/ar-AAhGoNc?li=AA9SkIr&ocid=spartandhp

[pitrevie]

You seem to be having a conversation with yourself.

And he tries to equate aviation and maritime law with locally relevant laws of all types with one big swish of his logic!

I did not mention aviation or maritime laws. Of course, there are international laws that all countries agree to adhere to, what is your point?

My point is that the people governing you need to be directly elected by you, accountable to you and able to be voted out by you. That is not the case with the EU, as you have admitted.

Incidentally, earlier you mention that the President of the Commission was elected by the EU parliament. Do you know the process? The Parliament was given a shortlist of ONE name to vote on! Sounds more like a good old Saddam Hussein style 'democracy' than a modern liberal democracy.

Yet you are now prepared to accept a man/woman and a new government that was never directly elected by the British people at the last election who voted on the basis that Cameron was to be the new PM if he won a majority. In fact Boris is now on record as saying that he sees no need to seek a new mandate if elected Tory Leader, sounds very democratic to me.

I know you didn't mention any of the laws that we are required to follow it seems you are perfectly prepared to accept those that influence our lives profoundly at all levels and in all areas but object to laws about bendy bananas and vacuum cleaners.

It is very easy for the EU Parliament if they object to the President elect to vote against him and another name comes forward.

[happy Joe]

I believe the UK is far, far better off without the EU. It may take some time to adjust, and some money may be lost in the short run, but in the long run, the UK will emerge far stronger, and the currency will maintain it's supreme edge over most other currencies. The EU is a bit like the UN. In drastic need of reform, and way too liberal for it's own good. Their policies just do not seem in step with the current times. The leave voters will be proven to be far wiser than the worried pundits make them out to be, at this point in time.

Another great mathematician ...

For your information the pound has lost 10% of its value and is depleted of united kingdom of $ 270 billion.

In passing it is roughly 27 years of contribution to the EU !!!

Before winning anything it will start by retrieve the losses and the unanimous opinion is that it will take several years, perhaps even dozens.

There will also be other losses related to relocation in some areas to avoid customs problems and more expensive credit with an already downgraded by 2 points.

All this not to mention a likely bursting of the kingdom where even Gibraltar and the Falklands are now disputed.

In summary we understand that you need optimism for some solace but then your post demonstrates a dangerous delusion.

Edited June 29, 2016 by happy Joe

[Andreas2]

Andreas, this is by far the best explanation of what we, the British, have avoided (hopefully!) . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2-cQ8TfU4A

Great and powerful video contribution.

I wonder, how many Remainers have seen it and what their response to it could be.

Thanks.

[spidermike007]

I believe the UK is far, far better off without the EU. It may take some time to adjust, and some money may be lost in the short run, but in the long run, the UK will emerge far stronger, and the currency will maintain it's supreme edge over most other currencies. The EU is a bit like the UN. In drastic need of reform, and way too liberal for it's own good. Their policies just do not seem in step with the current times. The leave voters will be proven to be far wiser than the worried pundits make them out to be, at this point in time.

Another great mathematician ...

For your information the pound has lost 10% of its value and is depleted of united kingdom of $ 270 billion.

In passing it is roughly 27 years of contribution to the EU !!!

Before winning anything it will start by retrieve the losses and the unanimous opinion is that it will take several years, perhaps even dozens.

There will also be other losses related to relocation in some areas to avoid customs problems and more expensive credit with an already downgraded by 2 points.

All this not to mention a likely bursting of the kingdom where even Gibraltar and the Falklands are now disputed.

In summary we understand that you need optimism for some solace but then your post demonstrates a dangerous delusion.

I do not think this is a dangerous delusion, though the major banks, brokerage houses, and the powers that be, would love you to be convinced of that. Sure, there are going to be major short term losses. That was to be expected. Anytime a major shift like this occurs, that is going to happen. But, by leaving the EU, England has made a brilliant, wise, visionary move, one that will pay with major dividends in the long run. They are distancing themselves from a failed experiment, and avoiding the massive liabilities that comes with supporting the P.I.G.S., and other nations that will require massive support down the road, in addition to silly, inane, churlish, naive, destructive, and idiotic immigration policies, that are mandatory for members. That alone was worth the price of an exit!

For many, a visionary move never appears to be so, at the time. Just wait and see. Time will prove the leave camp to be wise indeed.

Edited June 29, 2016 by spidermike007

[pitrevie]

Andreas, this is by far the best explanation of what we, the British, have avoided (hopefully!) . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2-cQ8TfU4A

Great and powerful video contribution.

I wonder, how many Remainers have seen it and what their response to it could be.

Thanks.

Oh dear it opens with Patrick Moore a man who wrote, that "homosexuals are mainly responsible for the spreading of AIDS (the Garden of Eden is home of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve)". He was chairman of the anti-immigration United Country Party, He wrote in his autobiography that Liechtenstein – a constitutional monarchy headed by a prince – had the best political system in the world. Proudly declaring himself to be English (rather than British) with "not the slightest wish to integrate with anybody". He expressed appreciation for the science fiction television series Doctor Who and Star Trek, but stated that he had stopped watching when "they went PC - making women commanders, that kind of thing". In an interview with Radio Times, he asserted that the BBC was being "ruined by women", commenting that: "The trouble is that the BBC now is run by women and it shows: soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. he was a supporter and patron of the (guess who).until his death in 2012. Do you need any clues.

Is this what we have avoided?

[bkkcanuck8]

My point is that the people governing you need to be directly elected by you, accountable to you and able to be voted out by you. That is not the case with the EU, as you have admitted.

Agreed, but at this point you are still "ruled" by your own parliament.... The EU has not reached the point where it is a full state, more of just a bunch of regulatory bodies that are pulling the states together in a common framework for economic purposes - a harmonization process that is still ongoing. At this point the leaders of each of the countries have not fully handed over federal or confederate powers fully to the federal government - and thus want to keep some sort of link between the local country government and the EU government level.

At a certain point it will make sense for the EU to take over the central bank, securities regulations, foreign service / embassies, defense -- while leaving quite a lot of the real bread and butter responsibilities at the state level (education, healthcare, cultural, transportation inside state borders, etc.). Eventually it would not have made sense for there to be a third level of government in Scotland - which means at a certain time Scotland should have always been elevated to the state level of government inside the EU and outside of the UK.

This is why Charles de Gaulle was so adamant on vetoing the UK in the first place - he understood that UK would always be a one foot in and two feet out the door while thwarting the European project. Eventually it would become the United States to Canada type of relationship with the UK - where eventually the EU will be where all the important economic decisions are made and Britain is just on the outside trying not to be squished by the elephant. It will mean that over the next 30 or so years London will not be the financial capital it is now, it will be very much limited to just being the largest in the UK and international related financial capital will be moved bit by bit within the new Europe.

[Andreas2]

Andreas, this is by far the best explanation of what we, the British, have avoided (hopefully!) . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2-cQ8TfU4A

Great and powerful video contribution.

I wonder, how many Remainers have seen it and what their response to it could be.

Thanks.

Oh dear it opens with Patrick Moore a man who wrote, that "homosexuals are mainly responsible for the spreading of AIDS (the Garden of Eden is home of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve)". He was chairman of the anti-immigration United Country Party, He wrote in his autobiography that Liechtenstein – a constitutional monarchy headed by a prince – had the best political system in the world. Proudly declaring himself to be English (rather than British) with "not the slightest wish to integrate with anybody". He expressed appreciation for the science fiction television series Doctor Who and Star Trek, but stated that he had stopped watching when "they went PC - making women commanders, that kind of thing". In an interview with Radio Times, he asserted that the BBC was being "ruined by women", commenting that: "The trouble is that the BBC now is run by women and it shows: soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. he was a supporter and patron of the (guess who).until his death in 2012. Do you need any clues.

Is this what we have avoided?

Kill the messenger comes to mind.

I don't know Patrick Moore and I don't argue about other articles he contributed. But the one I was referring to is just great and impressive... At least to me.

[pitrevie]

Andreas, this is by far the best explanation of what we, the British, have avoided (hopefully!) . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2-cQ8TfU4A

Great and powerful video contribution.

I wonder, how many Remainers have seen it and what their response to it could be.

Thanks.

Oh dear it opens with Patrick Moore a man who wrote, that "homosexuals are mainly responsible for the spreading of AIDS (the Garden of Eden is home of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve)". He was chairman of the anti-immigration United Country Party, He wrote in his autobiography that Liechtenstein – a constitutional monarchy headed by a prince – had the best political system in the world. Proudly declaring himself to be English (rather than British) with "not the slightest wish to integrate with anybody". He expressed appreciation for the science fiction television series Doctor Who and Star Trek, but stated that he had stopped watching when "they went PC - making women commanders, that kind of thing". In an interview with Radio Times, he asserted that the BBC was being "ruined by women", commenting that: "The trouble is that the BBC now is run by women and it shows: soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. he was a supporter and patron of the (guess who).until his death in 2012. Do you need any clues.

Is this what we have avoided?

Kill the messenger comes to mind.

I don't know Patrick Moore and I don't argue about other articles he contributed. But the one I was referring to is just great and impressive... At least to me.

I just know I wouldn't like to live in a country where his views prevailed.

[Khun Han]

^And I wouldn't like to live in a country where arrogant, condescending and manipulative views such as yours prevail. Thankfully, they don't, as shown by the referendum. And, if the referendum result gets followed up on properly, in a few years time people will laugh in astonishment that such views were ever aired by someone who claimed to be talking in the best interests of the UK.

[pitrevie]

^And I wouldn't like to live in a country where arrogant, condescending and manipulative views such as yours prevail. Thankfully, they don't, as shown by the referendum. And, if the referendum result gets followed up on properly, in a few years time people will laugh in astonishment that such views were ever aired by someone who claimed to be talking in the best interests of the UK.

Perhaps you could show me where I have stated any such views.

[Andreas2]

I just know I wouldn't like to live in a country where his views prevailed.

The actually very popular war cry and sjw's request for Diversity(!!!) comes to mind - To them, diversity meaning uniformity in opinions, of course. After all, they are just plain and simple collectivists.

Having said that, I'm not implying that you are one of them or even a snowflake. But come on, is there any country on earth where your views - Or mine, for that matter - in every aspect prevail? Thailand?

What the video proposes and defends is exactly the right for everyone to express his opinion, diversity in opinions and views. Here, even political correctness is identified and dismantled by Vladimir Bukovsky as what it is: Intellectual Gulag.

Whatever else Sir Patrick Moore may have said or done during his life, his document European Union Conspiracy - Britain on the Brink is great and very informative, hands down.

Back on topic: Were Brexit campaigners straight with voters over claims?

I think every human being would be overwhelmed with such a task at hand. Give it some time but on the other hand make sure the government stays on course, don't let details distract you. That's all.

It can't be done in one week, one month or one year. Just stay on course. After having watched the video, you know that it is too important for Europe as a whole that the sovereignty of Great Britain prevails and the EU is dismantled.

[Khun Han]

^And I wouldn't like to live in a country where arrogant, condescending and manipulative views such as yours prevail. Thankfully, they don't, as shown by the referendum. And, if the referendum result gets followed up on properly, in a few years time people will laugh in astonishment that such views were ever aired by someone who claimed to be talking in the best interests of the UK.

Perhaps you could show me where I have stated any such views.

There is a search function whereby you can search for your own posts. Most of them discussing Brexit will do as examples.

[HappyDazed]

Farage is a con man, plain and simple... which is why his target demographic are the least educated in UK society.

You seem to be taking an interest, HappyDazed. How did you education turn out?

Turned out well enough to spot your poor grammar!

No need to ask about yours

[pitrevie]

^And I wouldn't like to live in a country where arrogant, condescending and manipulative views such as yours prevail. Thankfully, they don't, as shown by the referendum. And, if the referendum result gets followed up on properly, in a few years time people will laugh in astonishment that such views were ever aired by someone who claimed to be talking in the best interests of the UK.

Perhaps you could show me where I have stated any such views.

There is a search function whereby you can search for your own posts. Most of them discussing Brexit will do as examples.

I thought so, you cannot produce anything. What this amounts to is that you have stated is that "you wouldn't like to live in a country where arrogant, condescending and manipulative views such as yours prevail" even though you cannot find anything to justify that remark. However it appears that you you can live in a country where someone like Patrick Moore can state his anti immigrant, anti women and anti gay prejudices and that is acceptable.

[HappyDazed]

Farage is a con man, plain and simple... which is why his target demographic are the least educated in UK society.

As for all the bullshit about freedom and self-determination ....radically changing the infrastructure of your nation with no plan thus devaluing your assets and currency? ....is the apex of stupidity!

Bullshit about freedom and self-determination. The apex of stupidity?

Really?

Nice try. "apex of stupidity" obviously referred to "radically changing the infrastructure etc....

So you think radical change with no plan thus devaluing your assets and currency...is not stupid?

Me thinks you didn't read to the end of the sentence?

radically changing the infrastructure of your nation with no plan

[Thaiwine]

There seems to be some confusion ( I think from scots ) how British Democracy works, let me try and help you out

We have a general election where we the people vote MP's into office, these ELECTED MP's then ELECT a prime minister from one of the ELECTED MP's

so you will see our prime minister is ELECTED not once but twice, the prime minister then appoints cabinet ministers from the ELECTED MP's

So now you see ALL our MP's are ELECTED into office by we the people.

You are mistaken the PM is never elected he is appointed on the basis that being the leader of the majority party he can command a Commons majority. He is not elected by MPs in fact the wider Conservative Party membership will vote on who gets to be the new Conservative leader. Normally the Conservative Party in Parliament would accept that result and support the new leader but there would be nothing stopping those same MPs from refusing to support his program and he would then be forced to ask for a dissolution's unless some other person could command majority support and the process would begin again. We had a general election and the people gave that majority and mandate to Cameron. Now he has resigned and we are about to get a new PM and a new government that will take far reaching decisions without first seeking a new mandate approving those decisions.

Its amazing that the very people who complain about the Brussels bureaucracy haven't got the first idea of how their own operates.

The best I can find is wiki about party leader

"It is thus typical in such states (e.g., in the Westminster system) for the party leader to seek election to the legislature and, if elected, to simultaneously serve as the party's parlimentary leader"

so my point stands that the PM gets elected twice, once by his peers and once by the electorate in his constituency.

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

[ilostmypassword]

^And I wouldn't like to live in a country where arrogant, condescending and manipulative views such as yours prevail. Thankfully, they don't, as shown by the referendum. And, if the referendum result gets followed up on properly, in a few years time people will laugh in astonishment that such views were ever aired by someone who claimed to be talking in the best interests of the UK.

Perhaps you could show me where I have stated any such views.

There is a search function whereby you can search for your own posts. Most of them discussing Brexit will do as examples.

You made the claim. You should be honorable enough to provide the proof.

[Khun Han]

^And I wouldn't like to live in a country where arrogant, condescending and manipulative views such as yours prevail. Thankfully, they don't, as shown by the referendum. And, if the referendum result gets followed up on properly, in a few years time people will laugh in astonishment that such views were ever aired by someone who claimed to be talking in the best interests of the UK.

Perhaps you could show me where I have stated any such views.

There is a search function whereby you can search for your own posts. Most of them discussing Brexit will do as examples.

I thought so, you cannot produce anything. What this amounts to is that you have stated is that "you wouldn't like to live in a country where arrogant, condescending and manipulative views such as yours prevail" even though you cannot find anything to justify that remark. However it appears that you you can live in a country where someone like Patrick Moore can state his anti immigrant, anti women and anti gay prejudices and that is acceptable.

Pretty much your entire posting history on this subject is what I've produced . I see you've gained an ally. He also tries (and fails miserably) to be condescending .