On 25/09/2019 10:56, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Steve Walker
writes
On 24/09/2019 18:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Steve Walker wrote:
There is a huge difference between wanting to repatriate control
to the
UK and MPs ignoring the result of a domestic referendum. Returning
sovereignty to parliament was never intended to overrule a democratic
vote by the people.
Â*Really? You want to redefine sovereignty too now?

When parliament has specifically asked the question of the people,
yes. We normally elect MPs to take make most decisions on our
behalf, but when those MPs ask us in a referendum, that they have
stated that they will abide by, then the people's decision should be
final.

But at the risk of being boring.......

When so much of the information that The People were given - and on
which they based their decision - was wrong (either because it was
speculative over-pessimism or over-optimism, or deliberate lies
intended to deceive), who in their right mind would insist on
ploughing ahead and implementing that decision without referring the
matter back to The People for reconsideration?

Do try to avoid talking cock.

But which bits do you disagree with? How much of the pre-referendum
propaganda was factually accurate - and, in the light of the events of
the last three years, how much are you prepared to concede was inaccurate?

What you outline is true at all elections.

Which we have ('no ifs, buts') every five years (and occasionally
sooner) - and the outcome of which usually doesn't have the possibility
of having serious and immediate consequences for the UK.
so you accept that normnal elections are in general meaningless because
the EU sets the rules?


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.