People's Vote

^In a nutshell which makes a People's Vote/2nd Referendum/Confirmatory Vote (or whatever else Remainers want to call it) a legal minefield as to what the the Question on another vote should be as Referenda are by nature binary vote yes/no answers.But every MP,political commentator etc actively coming out for a 2nd Referendum are saying the question put back to the public should be either support Theresa May's Deal (which is supposed to represent Leave the EU) against Remain.So the people who say they accept the result of the 1st Ref (when they don't) but want a 2nd Ref but rig the vote by putting TM'S deal that was rejected twice in parliament against Remain & expect us to buy it.If it looks,smells & sounds like a stitch-up it must be a stitch-up.

Tin-Pot Dictatorships & Banana Republics tend to rig/load ballots & elections in their favor with such biased one-side questions for the public to choose from.

Tin Pot dictators and Bannana republics usally have military coups im quite liking the idea of that at the moment

(13-03-2019 02:28 )Dan Volatile Wrote:  The expression "People's Vote" is only used by militant remainers

Well, I didn't know that, so that's my mistake.


What's worse -- and God help me for saying this -- I think I actually agree with Rees-Mogg on something.

When interviewed after yesterday's vote, he boiled the whole shitshow down to one simple issue: 52% of the country wants to leave, but 60% of MPs want to remain.

I think that's a fair way of describing how we've landed in this mess.

But he then seemed to suggest that in any conflict between a referendum result and the will of Parliament, the former should take precedence. It's a perspective shared by everyone who suggests that a second referendum or anything short of leaving on March 29 is a failure of democracy and a 'betrayal' of the democratically expressed will of the people from June 2016.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

In any conflict between the "will of the people" as gleaned from a referendum and the "will of the people" as expressed by the people's representatives in Parliament, then the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty -- which has always applied in the past -- should continue to apply.

It follows that if Rees-Mogg is right and it all boils down to the fact that 60% of MPs want to remain -- irrespective of the referendum result -- then we don't need a second referendum at all.

We could just Remain.

And I'm not saying that that shouldn't be absolutely infuriating for the 52% who voted Leave and they'd have every right to go berserk. I'm just saying that it would be factually incorrect to say that that is "undemocratic". It is, in fact, exactly how our particular democracy is meant to work.

(13-03-2019 20:08 )HannahsPet Wrote:  Tin Pot dictators and Bannana republics usally have military coups im quite liking the idea of that at the moment

They also use the ID's of people who died 10,20+ years ago (as well as ID's of newborn babies that have died) to manipulate & rig votes with a ridiculously high 90%+ turnout.There are pretty well confirmed rumours that in certain countries many citizens are forced to vote at gunpoint.

(13-03-2019 20:13 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  When interviewed after yesterday's vote, he boiled the whole shitshow down to one simple issue: 52% of the country wants to leave, but 60% of MPs want to remain.


It follows that if Rees-Mogg is right and it all boils down to the fact that 60% of MPs want to remain -- irrespective of the referendum result -- then we don't need a second referendum at all.

We could just Remain.

And I'm not saying that that shouldn't be absolutely infuriating for the 52% who voted Leave and they'd have every right to go berserk. I'm just saying that it would be factually incorrect to say that that is "undemocratic". It is, in fact, exactly how our particular democracy is meant to work.

It also suggests the notion that the Houses of Parliament & it's MP's don't truly reflect the electorate & people of this country & no matter how Remain Groups like Best for Britain etc tries to spin or overturn things with magical new polls is that two thirds of constituencies voted for Leave in the 2016 EU Ref.

Your comment suggests Revoking Article 50 & scrapping it altogether that sounds like a Dictatorship.

(13-03-2019 20:56 )Jack the Nipper Wrote:  Your comment suggests Revoking Article 50 & scrapping it altogether that sounds like a Dictatorship.

There is nothing remotely dictatorial about what I said. It's just the rules of the game.

MPs are meant to vote their conscience -- they aren't bound to do what a majority of their constituents might want them to do.

Look at Lambeth. Almost 80% of Lambeth residents voted to remain. It was one of the most 'remainer' constituencies in the country. Yet their MP has been an extremely vocal Leave campaigner.

Naturally, Lambeth residents are entitled to be pissed off about that. But it didn't stop them from re-electing her, even after the referendum. Go figure. That's democracy for ya.

All I'm saying is that the supremacy of Parliament is a foundational principle of the UK constitution. It has been since the 18th Century. It stands above the courts; it stands above the Queen; and, yes, it stands above 'the people', if by 'people' you mean the results of a referendum.

So if Rees-Mogg is right and there is a disconnect between the referendum result and the instinct of most MPs, then the House could simply vote to revoke Article 50. And that may be unwise, it may be unethical, it would certainly be unpopular ... but it would NOT be undemocratic. It would actually be democracy in action -- in all its flawed, illogical, infuriating splendour.

(13-03-2019 08:58 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  

(13-03-2019 02:28 )Dan Volatile Wrote:  The answer is the millions of people who voted to leave in the 2016 referendum or "The Real People's Vote" and expected our disgusting political establishment to get us the fuck out of the EU as instructed.

And what exactly was the instruction? Leave with a deal, or leave without a deal?

Which choice did every one of the 17.8 million people vote for?

And, if it's just about leaving whatever, why won't Rees-Mogg & co support May's deal? If they did that we'd be out on the 29th, no problem.
Surely it can't be the Brexiteers who are stopping us from leaving?

We desperately need someone with all the answers to lead us out of this mess. I'm really glad you've stepped up to the plate

What the fuck are you talking about?

I was asked to vote if I wanted to leave the EU or stay and along with 17.4 million others I voted to leave. This vote wasn't contingent on getting a "deal" it was a vote to LEAVE.

Then In 2017 parliament voted by a massive majority to activate Article 50 and leave the EU on March 29th 2019. It wasn't a vote to leave on that date but only if we have a "deal"

Rees-Mogg and the rest voted against May's deal because it's a half in/half out, Hotel California, Brexit-in-name-only ie still taking orders from the Eurocrats without any right to have a say on these edicts - even worse than staying in.

Maybe you and the treacherous vermin in parliament and the wider establishment could "step up to the plate" and explain why you think you have the right to to frustrate what was the biggest vote for anything in British history.

^ We are leaving. The debate has moved on to how we leave. See if you can get your fucking head round that.
You don't give a fuck about the future of this country. You're just another spoilt brexiteer kid throwing a strop in the supermarket because he can't get his sweeties before the checkout.

I personally know people who voted leave on the expectation of a deal, because they believed the leave campaign promises that one would be available. So don't come here with your arrogant bullshit, claiming to speak for every one of the 17-odd million people who voted leave, when you clearly fucking don't.

I voted to leave in 2016, but f we forumnites could put up enough independent candidates in an election or by election - I'd love us to oust every last one of the current sitting MP's, (May & Corbyn included) then with me at the helm I would deport half of them to work in the paddy fields of Asia for the next five years and the other half to tend to the upkeep of Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. (Corbyn's job for the next five years).

They would only be allowed back home if they were to grovelingly publicly apologise to the British public for the cretinous fuck up they have made of the whole Brexit process

I know Brexiteers hate the idea of another referendum but with the struggle to agree in Parliament maybe the way to break with deadlock and respect the 2016 result is to delay BREXIT whilst the public are given the option to decide on what basis we leave.

There should be 2 options on the ballot paper

• Leave with No Deal
• Leave with a deal backed by a Parliamentary majority
  

The no deal option would be the current default option if no deal is agreed

The deal put forward for option 2 would be arrived at by taking a series of votes in Parliament to see what options would get the support of Parliament and then narrowing them down to the preferred option. Each of these votes should be a FRee Vote ie no party political whipping.

Mrs May's deal has been rejected on multiple votes in Parliament but could be considered yet again in the selection process for a preferred deal option.

I said on 25th June 2016 on this forum that I would probably support a Norway type deal. As we stand today I would vote for just about anything that was an alternative to no deal but I would like the alternatives discussed in an adult way in Parliament and a consensus reached which is then put to the public.

This route would honour the 2016 result but put to bed the nonsense that all brexiteers understood when they voted that No Deal was going to be the right way to leave. That is simply not true as my recent discussions with 8 leave voters has confirmed (even though 5 of them now would vote for a no deal option). They are educated people who felt agreeing an exit deal would be relatively easy and who considered themselves well informed at the time of the 2016 vote.