"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/06/16 21:58, Capitol wrote:

There won't be an election. Boris isn't that stupid.

I am not so sure.

If Labia get a leader they think has a chance to improve their vote, they
would be up for it.

SNP would out of sheer ****ishness.

It doesn't take too many tories to join and you have the vote of no
confidence.

You really, really, don't want that. The most important thing at the
moment is to get Art. 50 in the post.

Boris has just said that there is no urgency to do that
and he will be the one that decides that, you watch.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:07:42 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
On 27/06/16 08:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/06/16 22:27, Tim Watts wrote:
On 26/06/16 22:19, TimW wrote:

Boris won't have a majority, so his stupidity won't enter into it.
There
isn't going to be a Boris Government.

TW

You're probably right there - he's ****ed to many people off. And
apart from the share value of popcorn[1] I don't think Bojo will be
good for the job.

[1] He'll certainly light a load of fireworks under the EU which for a
limited time may be very amusing to watch - but in effect we just did
that, so what we need now is a skilled negotiator to take full
advantage
of the situation, not start WW3.

I just hope it's not May.

A sensible and intelligent outsider would be very welcome at this
point.
Nigel.



Tricky, with him not being an MP...

Douglas Home?

I always thought he renounced his peerage /before/ taking the post of
Prime Minister, but it seems I was wrong. He renounced it /after/ taking
up office, to take up a seat in the House of Commons for the remainder of
his premiership. So in effect there is nothing to stop any peer putting
their name forward, & the Tories electing them as Prime Minister....

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

UKIP would be in power within weeks as the only bunch of swine who hadn't reneged on
their promises.

Nigel Farage: £350 million pledge to fund
the NHS was 'a mistake'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...was-a-mistake/



michael adams

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:07:32 +0100, pamela wrote:

A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

This referendum isn't legally binding AT ALL.

Nobody NEEDS to invoke Article 50, ever, off the back of it.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:24:19 +0100, michael adams wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
UKIP would be in power within weeks as the only bunch of swine who
hadn't reneged on their promises.

Nigel Farage: £350 million pledge to fund the NHS was 'a mistake'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...e-350-million-
pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/

To which, of course, TurNiP will say that since Farage wasn't part of the
official campaign, that's not a UKIP promise at all...

pamela wrote

If a party campaigned not to leave the EU
and won a general election later this year

Not going to happen given the referendum result.

And the Torys arent going to do that and Labour
hasn’t even the remotest possibility of being the
government now that it is ripping itself to shreds.

then would they have a mandate
to over rule the referendum result?

You might as well ask what would happen
if one party farted itself to the moon.

On 27/06/16 11:25, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:07:32 +0100, pamela wrote:

A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

This referendum isn't legally binding AT ALL.

Nobody NEEDS to invoke Article 50, ever, off the back of it.


Technically nothing is ever binding (I omitted the word legally on purpose).

A future leader could just ignore the law and do what he wants.

The consequences of that of course are varied - the Queen remains
Colonel in Chief of the armed forces for that reason so he'd need a way
to pull off a stunt like that.

However, the consequences would be that he would have destroyed all
legal and democratic process, which would have to be rebuilt from the
ashes with much difficulty.


The consequences of ignoring a majority vote to leave the EU will be
less serious, but they will be serious: severe loss of confidence in the
democratic process and representation; a major division of the UK;
probable swing to UKIP or the far right parties in the next Election.

On 27/06/16 11:07, pamela wrote:
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

My question is whether a general election mandate could overturn a
referendum. There is a lack of full democracy about such an approach
but I wonder if it would be consitutionally valid.

Sure, legally it could

'No government is bound by the actions of a previous' is a part of UK
constitution.

The constitutional position would be even more secure if the
referendum is seen not as a mandate but as a consultation. Ignoring
the reply of such a consultation may be politically very unwise but
that does not make it unconstitutional.


It would I think be political suicide.

Leaving Scotland and NI Ireland aside what's left is pockets of massive
'we want EU' and huge swathes of 'we don't'.

The facts that the urban pockets like Cambridge, London and Norwich to
name some I am aware of are massively remain doesn't detract from the
fact that they only return one or two MPs(apart from London)

WE haven't had a Eurosceptic government because all four main parties
have been Europhile. UKIP has changed that.

Maybe it wouldn't get a majority, but if the other parties are going in
on a remain ticket, it will make enough to be a huge nuisance and hold
the balance of power.


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 10:40 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 10:28, pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?

That's a bit like saying if a man ran naked to from Norwich to
the North pole would he deserve a dog biscuit?


I'd say canonisation would be more appropriate as it would be a
bloody miracle.

Do you HONESTLY expect, with just about every region bar half a
dozen in England and wales voting OUT, someone campaigning on an
'I'll keep us in' ticket would win?

Its a UKIP landslide dear. They only need another 5-7% of the
vote.

The likelihood is nothing as bizarre as you are suggesting

Yes it is on an election held now getting a party that
campaigns on staying in the EU getting to be the govt.

Most MPs are pro Remain.

That is less clear given the referendum result.

If they stand on a Remain mandate

Those in marginal seats will mostly lose their seats.

and get re-elected in a general election

But a party campaigning on a platform of staying
in the EU isnt going to be the govt. The torys certainly
arent going to campaign on that basis with Boris driving
that bus and Labour hasn’t got a hope in hell of being
the govt. In spades if their platform was to stay in the EU.

then, as part and parcel of representative democracy,
they are not required to consult the public about
decisions they may take.

But do have to have an eye to what the
voters will do to them at the next election.

At best, the referendum mandated this government who
called it but the government may change in an election.

Not any year soon, you watch.

On 27/06/16 11:14, pamela wrote:
If they stand on a Remain mandate and get
re-elected in a general election t
They wont get re-elected on that mandate. That is the point. Did you
think we were ****ing around? All 17m of us?

Having made this the issue of the age, are we really going to re-elect a
bunch of remainiacs and give in?

If the tory party doesn't go eurosceptic in its policies, it faces
electoral wipeout and so does labour.



--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 27/06/16 11:25, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:07:32 +0100, pamela wrote:

A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

This referendum isn't legally binding AT ALL.

Nobody NEEDS to invoke Article 50, ever, off the back of it.

Not legally no.

Suicide isn't technically illegal either*.

*or is it?


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 27/06/16 11:26, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:24:19 +0100, michael adams wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
UKIP would be in power within weeks as the only bunch of swine who
hadn't reneged on their promises.

Nigel Farage: £350 million pledge to fund the NHS was 'a mistake'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...e-350-million-
pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/

To which, of course, TurNiP will say that since Farage wasn't part of the
official campaign, that's not a UKIP promise at all...

No what turnip will say is that ("£350 million pledge to fund the NHS")
wasn't what he said anyway.

I.e. I dont think it was ever a UKIP claim, or aeven a grass roots out.
It was a leave slogan IIRC.



--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 27/06/16 07:21, Rod Speed wrote:


"Graham." wrote in message
...
Capitol Wrote in message:
Michael Chare wrote:
On 26/06/2016 13:24, bm wrote:
Mark my words.


I pray that you are right. The petition now tops 3.16 million. It must
have broken records for the speed it has collected signatures


Pity they are invalid!


Dimbleby made an interesting aside on Friday morning. Something
to the effect that the electorate had indicated its preference to
the government. The implication being it was not necessarily
binding.

In practice it is, because if the govt chose to ignore such an unambiguous
result, at the next election the govt would get severely punished at the
ballot box and quite a few UKIP MPs would get elected and Britain
would leave and the govt would be stuck with those UKIP MPs.

the result was totally ambiguous, split right down the middle. Round
here we can't change the constitution of the Village Hall Committee
without a 2/3 majority. Why you clowns think you can take the country
out of the EU and break up the United Kingdom with a crappy plebiscite
is beyond me.

TW

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/06/16 11:26, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:24:19 +0100, michael adams wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
UKIP would be in power within weeks as the only bunch of swine who
hadn't reneged on their promises.

Nigel Farage: £350 million pledge to fund the NHS was 'a mistake'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...e-350-million-
pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/

To which, of course, TurNiP will say that since Farage wasn't part of the
official campaign, that's not a UKIP promise at all...

No what turnip will say is that ("£350 million pledge to fund the NHS") wasn't what he
said anyway.

I.e. I dont think it was ever a UKIP claim,

Except it was made and then subsequently withdrawn by someone called
Nigel Farage who looks and sounds suprisingly similar to the Nigel Farage
who claims to be the leader of UKIP. They even seem to wear the same
same clothes, and live in the same house. Lets just hope Mrs Farage,
assuming there's only one of her of course, can tell the difference.

Sorry forgot the link

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/06/16 11:26, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:24:19 +0100, michael adams wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
UKIP would be in power within weeks as the only bunch of swine who
hadn't reneged on their promises.

Nigel Farage: £350 million pledge to fund the NHS was 'a mistake'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...e-350-million-
pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/

To which, of course, TurNiP will say that since Farage wasn't part of the
official campaign, that's not a UKIP promise at all...

No what turnip will say is that ("£350 million pledge to fund the NHS") wasn't what he
said anyway.

I.e. I dont think it was ever a UKIP claim,

Except it was made and then subsequently withdrawn by someone called
Nigel Farage who looks and sounds suprisingly similar to the Nigel Farage
who claims to be the leader of UKIP. They even seem to wear the same
same clothes, and live in the same house. Lets just hope Mrs Farage,
assuming there's only one of her of course, can tell the difference.

Sorry forgot the link

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7102831.html

michael adams



...

On 27/06/16 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/06/16 11:14, pamela wrote:
If they stand on a Remain mandate and get
re-elected in a general election t
They wont get re-elected on that mandate. That is the point. Did you
think we were ****ing around? All 17m of us?

Having made this the issue of the age, are we really going to re-elect a
bunch of remainiacs and give in?

If the tory party doesn't go eurosceptic in its policies, it faces
electoral wipeout and so does labour.


Frankly yes, a total **** about. the leave side have promised everything
and anything that popped into their heads, lower taxes higher spending,
better trade, more employment more democracy, better freedoms, better
NHS, better welfare better education and all without any any clue how to
deliver beyond a nasty implication that somehow immigrants and
foreigners have been holding us back, and some outright lies about the
econimics of EU membership.

And they scraped through to a slim majority. You can't repeat that kind
of bull**** in a real election. Already the leaders are being called out
on their deception. Government is a bit harder than rabble rousing.
These people aren't up to it.

Tim W

On 27/06/16 12:01, TimW wrote:
On 27/06/16 07:21, Rod Speed wrote:


"Graham." wrote in message
...
Capitol Wrote in message:
Michael Chare wrote:
On 26/06/2016 13:24, bm wrote:
Mark my words.


I pray that you are right. The petition now tops 3.16 million. It must
have broken records for the speed it has collected signatures


Pity they are invalid!


Dimbleby made an interesting aside on Friday morning. Something
to the effect that the electorate had indicated its preference to
the government. The implication being it was not necessarily
binding.

In practice it is, because if the govt chose to ignore such an
unambiguous
result, at the next election the govt would get severely punished at the
ballot box and quite a few UKIP MPs would get elected and Britain
would leave and the govt would be stuck with those UKIP MPs.

the result was totally ambiguous, split right down the middle. Round
here we can't change the constitution of the Village Hall Committee
without a 2/3 majority. Why you clowns think you can take the country
out of the EU and break up the United Kingdom with a crappy plebiscite
is beyond me.

Because people like you left us no other way.

And once again I remind you that we never ever had a referendum to join,
and the only other referendum we got was only marginally in favour of
staying with a very low turnout


To do things your way means that any government elected on 30% of the
turnout can radically change the constitution, as was done on 1973, and
a 51% objection by 72% of the voters cant get them out.

THis is the first time we have had a proper debate and a proper
referendum on the EU, and the answer is **** EU.

I suggest you listen

There is legal evidence and a good case for saying that Heath committed
an act of treason.

That joining was ultra vires.

Worse was to come:

The Maastricht Treaty of 1993 €” The official name is: Treaty on European
Union

Agreed by John Major, it changed the European Community to the European
Union. Article 8 made all citizens of the United Kingdom citizens of the
European Union, including Her Majesty the Queen, and could be deemed an
act of treason by any who signed it, including Douglas Hurd, the Foreign
Secretary, and Francis Maude who both formally signed the document.

Indeed, a citizens charge of treason was taken out against them by
Norris McWhirter, of Guinness Book of Records fame. This was successful
in the magistrates court, but the case then had to go to a higher
court. At this point the Attorney General in the Conservative government
exercised his power to take over any private citizens right to go to
law, and having replaced Norris McWhirter, he failed to take it any
further, thus ending the treason procedure against Douglas Hurd and
Francis Maude.

The treaty created obligations of its citizens to the newly created
European Union, or EU, but did not state what they were. That was left
to the European Court of Justice to decide. The ECJ was officially given
full authority by the Treaty, to be the Supreme Court of Europe, under
articles 169-172

================================================== =

Let me say this once again. WE WERE TAKEN IN TO THE EEC BY A GOVERNMENT
THAT POLLED A LITTLE OVER 46% ON A 72% TURNOUT AND NEVER HAD IT IN THEIR
MANIFESTO.

And you want me to agree that we shouldn't be taken OUT by 52% on 72%
turnout?

You can **** right off.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:14:43 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Lets just hope Mrs Farage, assuming there's only one of her of course,
can tell the difference.

Pfft. What would she know? She's German.

Unlike the last one. Who was Irish.

Or unlike that nice Dan Hannan. Who was born and brought up in Peru, and
whose father is Irish.

Or unlike that nice Giesla Stewart. Who was German until she took British
nationality to further her career in British politics.

Or unlike that nice Boris Johnson. Who was born in the US, and has plenty
of Turkish ancestry.

On 27/06/16 12:28, TimW wrote:
On 27/06/16 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/06/16 11:14, pamela wrote:
If they stand on a Remain mandate and get
re-elected in a general election t
They wont get re-elected on that mandate. That is the point. Did you
think we were ****ing around? All 17m of us?

Having made this the issue of the age, are we really going to re-elect a
bunch of remainiacs and give in?

If the tory party doesn't go eurosceptic in its policies, it faces
electoral wipeout and so does labour.


Frankly yes, a total **** about. the leave side have promised everything
and anything that popped into their heads, lower taxes higher spending,
better trade, more employment more democracy, better freedoms, better
NHS, better welfare better education and all without any any clue how to
deliver beyond a nasty implication that somehow immigrants and
foreigners have been holding us back, and some outright lies about the
econimics of EU membership.

And they scraped through to a slim majority. You can't repeat that kind
of bull**** in a real election. Already the leaders are being called out
on their deception. Government is a bit harder than rabble rousing.
These people aren't up to it.

You lost. get over it. Remainer lies and sour grapes are beginning to be
boring.

No one gives a ****.



Tim W


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 27/06/16 12:37, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:14:43 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Lets just hope Mrs Farage, assuming there's only one of her of course,
can tell the difference.

Pfft. What would she know? She's German.

Unlike the last one. Who was Irish.

Or unlike that nice Dan Hannan. Who was born and brought up in Peru, and
whose father is Irish.

Or unlike that nice Giesla Stewart. Who was German until she took British
nationality to further her career in British politics.

Or unlike that nice Boris Johnson. Who was born in the US, and has plenty
of Turkish ancestry.

Yep. Its strange how the people with considerable experience of life
beyond the UK, feel that we would be better out of the EU.



--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


Most MPs are pro Remain.

That is less clear given the referendum result.

Yes you're right again Rodders. Thats why there's all that
footage of triumphant MP's jumping up and down and cheering
Boris, and IDS and Michael Gove as they made their speeches
at the victory parades held upo and down the Country.
It was like just VE day all over again, so it was.

Whereas back down here on planet Earth everyone knows except
the denialists on here that what decided the referendum was
immigration.

Its now perfectly acceptable to dislike foreigners again

The UK is now being mocked abroad as the country which
once invaded three quarters of the world, but is now running
scared of its fellow Europeans.

Nobody really wants to be associated with any of that or the
knuckle draggers out in the sticks who really though Brexit
would solve all their problems.

There's a nasty smell about it. Which might not worry Nigel
Farage and his supporters but it would most "respectable" MP's

But there again, the UK is an advanced nation, after all.
Whereas having only just failed to successfully exterminate
the indigenous population of your own Country along with
their culture, quite possibly a lot of this is rather over
your head; old bean.


michael adams

....

On Sunday, 26 June 2016 15:49:47 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/06/16 15:40, Graham. wrote:
Capitol Wrote in message:
Michael Chare wrote:
On 26/06/2016 13:24, bm wrote:
Mark my words.


I pray that you are right. The petition now tops 3.16 million. It must
have broken records for the speed it has collected signatures


Pity they are invalid!



Dimbleby made an interesting aside on Friday morning. Something
to the effect that the electorate had indicated its preference to
the government. The implication being it was not necessarily
binding.

Dream on.

Can you imagine what would happen if they turn round and say 'well you
have had your fun, but it means nothing so **** you all'


Half the country would descend on Westminster and blockade it.

No only about 30% at the most would just like in the reforedum.
Because there's a large number that didn't vote 27% so if they couldn't be bothered to vote what makes you think they'd travel all the way to London to protest.
I doubt those that did vote leave (well the majority) will travel to london either. But they might well vocally protest.

The other half would turn the M1 into a car park

1/2

can you show your maths.

Half the population did not vote to leave
Half the population did not vote to remain .


a significant section of teh population didn't get a vote.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

But leaving theb EU does not have the "return" option.

My question is whether a general election mandate could overturn a
referendum. There is a lack of full democracy about such an approach
but I wonder if it would be consitutionally valid.

The constitutional position would be even more secure if the
referendum is seen not as a mandate but as a consultation. Ignoring
the reply of such a consultation may be politically very unwise but
that does not make it unconstitutional.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Monday, 27 June 2016 10:40:33 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/06/16 10:28, pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general election
later this year then would they have a mandate to over rule the
referendum result?

That's a bit like saying if a man ran naked to from Norwich to the North
pole would he deserve a dog biscuit?


I'd say canonisation would be more appropriate as it would be a bloody
miracle.

Do you HONESTLY expect, with just about every region bar half a dozen in
England and wales voting OUT, someone campaigning on an 'I'll keep us
in' ticket would win?

If it could be proved that the basis of the result was on a known lie.
But would polititions really want a clause as to if they have been found to knowingly lie they loose their job, get fined and or go to prison.





--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

exactly... so....

On 27/06/2016 11:07, pamela wrote:
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

The referendum is not at all binding it is the government asking for the
peoples thoughts which they can then choose to ignore if they want.

I think there should be a judicial review to see who was telling the
truth and to decide if a rerun is needed based on facts rather than
lies. I can't see why its legal if its based on lies.

On 27/06/2016 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/06/16 11:25, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:07:32 +0100, pamela wrote:

A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

This referendum isn't legally binding AT ALL.

Nobody NEEDS to invoke Article 50, ever, off the back of it.

Not legally no.

Suicide isn't technically illegal either*.

*or is it?



No it isn't so you can do it any time you like while in the UK.
Please don't jump in front of a train, etc. as it will ruin someone's life.

On 27/06/16 14:36, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/06/2016 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/06/16 11:25, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:07:32 +0100, pamela wrote:

A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

This referendum isn't legally binding AT ALL.

Nobody NEEDS to invoke Article 50, ever, off the back of it.

Not legally no.

Suicide isn't technically illegal either*.

*or is it?



No it isn't so you can do it any time you like while in the UK.
Please don't jump in front of a train, etc. as it will ruin someone's life.

It wouldn't do mine much good to be sure


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 27/06/16 12:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]

You lost. get over it. Remainer lies and sour grapes are beginning to be
boring.

No one gives a ****.


Says the man who is still bitter about what Heath did in the 1970s LOL

TW

On 27/06/2016 11:14, pamela wrote:
On 10:40 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 10:28, pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?

That's a bit like saying if a man ran naked to from Norwich to
the North pole would he deserve a dog biscuit?


I'd say canonisation would be more appropriate as it would be a
bloody miracle.

Do you HONESTLY expect, with just about every region bar half a
dozen in England and wales voting OUT, someone campaigning on an
'I'll keep us in' ticket would win?

Its a UKIP landslide dear. They only need another 5-7% of the
vote.

The likelihood is nothing as bizarre as you are suggesting

Most MPs are pro Remain. If they stand on a Remain mandate and get
re-elected in a general election then, as part and parcel of
representative democracy, they are not required to consult the public
about decisions they may take.

At best, the referendum mandated this government who called it but
the government may change in an election.


If say the labour party said we are going to stay and the conservatives
and ukip said we are going to leave then the vote would be mainly for
labour with ukip and conservatives splitting the rest.

If both major parties say stay or leave then the results will be
entirely different as the issue is big enough to make people switch side
to get a sensible result.

On 27/06/2016 11:24, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

UKIP would be in power within weeks as the only bunch of swine who hadn't reneged on
their promises.

Nigel Farage: £350 million pledge to fund
the NHS was 'a mistake'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...was-a-mistake/

One of many "mistakes" that were corrected later after the initial
impact had been made.
He makes so many mistakes you have to wonder what he would do if the
electorate were stupid enough to elect him.

On 26/06/2016 21:58, Capitol wrote:
TimW wrote:
On 26/06/16 17:56, Huge wrote:
On 2016-06-26, Graham. wrote:
Capitol Wrote in message:
Michael Chare wrote:
On 26/06/2016 13:24, bm wrote:
Mark my words.


I pray that you are right. The petition now tops 3.16 million. It
must
have broken records for the speed it has collected signatures


Pity they are invalid!



Dimbleby made an interesting aside on Friday morning. Something
to the effect that the electorate had indicated its preference to
the government. The implication being it was not necessarily
binding.

If you're referring to the referendum, it *isn't* binding.


Not only that, the referendum is not law, it isn't a substitute for
parliamentary democracy, it doesn't trump the constitution.

It might be an indication of the will of the people, and as such it
has indicated that the people do not speak with one voice, but are
deeply divided.

There is no pro brexit majority in the commons, so there will be no
pro brexit government, and no article 50. It seems likely there will
be an election. A general election might produce a government with a
mandate and authority to invoke article 50. Then again the new
government may declare the referendum to be the ill-conceived nonsense
that it clearly is.

TW


There won't be an election. Boris isn't that stupid.

That's because if boris is PM labour will win.
It would be the first time I voted labour or someone else if there is
ever another candidate.

On 27/06/2016 08:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/06/16 22:27, Tim Watts wrote:
On 26/06/16 22:19, TimW wrote:

Boris won't have a majority, so his stupidity won't enter into it. There
isn't going to be a Boris Government.

TW

You're probably right there - he's ****ed to many people off. And apart
from the share value of popcorn[1] I don't think Bojo will be good for
the job.

[1] He'll certainly light a load of fireworks under the EU which for a
limited time may be very amusing to watch - but in effect we just did
that, so what we need now is a skilled negotiator to take full advantage
of the situation, not start WW3.

I just hope it's not May.

A sensible and intelligent outsider would be very welcome at this point.
Nigel.


Nigel who?

On 27/06/16 14:59, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/06/2016 11:14, pamela wrote:
On 10:40 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 10:28, pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?

That's a bit like saying if a man ran naked to from Norwich to
the North pole would he deserve a dog biscuit?


I'd say canonisation would be more appropriate as it would be a
bloody miracle.

Do you HONESTLY expect, with just about every region bar half a
dozen in England and wales voting OUT, someone campaigning on an
'I'll keep us in' ticket would win?

Its a UKIP landslide dear. They only need another 5-7% of the
vote.

The likelihood is nothing as bizarre as you are suggesting

Most MPs are pro Remain. If they stand on a Remain mandate and get
re-elected in a general election then, as part and parcel of
representative democracy, they are not required to consult the public
about decisions they may take.

At best, the referendum mandated this government who called it but
the government may change in an election.


If say the labour party said we are going to stay and the conservatives
and ukip said we are going to leave then the vote would be mainly for
labour with ukip and conservatives splitting the rest.

No, it would be mainly for conservatives with labour and ukip splitting
the rest

You simply haven't looked at the constituency maps.

Its like the old labour vote days, with the support for stay massive,
but concentrated in a very few constituencies, whilst the leave support
is spread across at least 3 times as many.

An election fought on those lines would be a landslide for leave

Sorry dense, but that's the facts


If both major parties say stay or leave then the results will be
entirely different as the issue is big enough to make people switch side
to get a sensible result.

We already have a sensible result Dense.


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 27/06/16 15:04, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/06/2016 11:24, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

UKIP would be in power within weeks as the only bunch of swine who
hadn't reneged on
their promises.

Nigel Farage: £350 million pledge to fund
the NHS was 'a mistake'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...was-a-mistake/


One of many "mistakes" that were corrected later after the initial
impact had been made.

NIgel farage did not run the leave campaign. UKIP did not take part in
the Leave campaign. They were running with the GO campaign


He makes so many mistakes you have to wonder what he would do if the
electorate were stupid enough to elect him.

You are a right royal **** sometimes Dense.



--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 27/06/16 15:37, pamela wrote:
On 11:51 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 11:14, pamela wrote:
If they stand on a Remain mandate and get
re-elected in a general election t

They wont get re-elected on that mandate. That is the point. Did
you think we were ****ing around? All 17m of us?

Having made this the issue of the age, are we really going to
re-elect a bunch of remainiacs and give in?

Brexit does not command anything like a majority in the current
House. Already there's talk that MPs could refuse to pass any act
based on the outcome of the referendum. Maybe the Lords could too.

I was asking how much stronger their position would be if those MPs
were re-elected while promising to vote against a Brexit bill.


They wouldnt get re-elected pamela.

Perhaps such manouevering is unseemly but all's fair in love & war -
and politics.

Is profoundly undemocratic, and would probably lead to civil war.


If the tory party doesn't go eurosceptic in its policies, it
faces electoral wipeout and so does labour.

How many current voters would refuse to relect their MP if he or she
stood on a Bremain ticket?


All of them who votred exit


Not that many.

Good luck with that. You dont know what's happening ouutside your
little suburban bubble

Most of those sufficiently concerned about this voted
UKIP in the last general election but there were only 3.8m of them on
a 66% turnout.

No, they didnt

Round here 60%+ voted leave. Its a 'safe tory seat' and I've canvassed
it for UKIP.

The voters are nice, but they said 'well we want out of Europe too, but
we are sticking with the safe option, because Dave promised us a referendum'

If he then ****es on them and goes back in on a remain vote, we will get
this seat for UKIP.

Guaranteed.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

In article ,
TimW wrote:
On 27/06/16 12:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]

You lost. get over it. Remainer lies and sour grapes are beginning to be
boring.

No one gives a ****.


Says the man who is still bitter about what Heath did in the 1970s

Yes, he introduced Regions in Scotland which were so unpopular that he
decided not to do the same in England - but left the ones that had been
created

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 27/06/16 15:37, pamela wrote:
On 11:38 27 Jun 2016, Rod Speed wrote:

pamela wrote

If a party campaigned not to leave the EU
and won a general election later this year

Not going to happen given the referendum result.

And the Torys arent going to do that and Labour
hasnt even the remotest possibility of being the
government now that it is ripping itself to shreds.

then would they have a mandate
to over rule the referendum result?

You might as well ask what would happen
if one party farted itself to the moon.

There is such widespread disquiet over the referendum result that it
would not be surprising to see a ton of dodgy squirming and
manoeuvering.

Well you are doing it already

YOU have only noticed the disquiet, because you have been in a remainiac
bubble. Go UKIP canvassing and you get a different story. Serious anger
at the establishment parties and the EU.

Walk round with a UKIP rosette on and people toot their horns and wave
and yell 'stick it to the ****s'


There's a HUGE wave of pro UKIP pro leave sentiment that the people who
live in the remainiac parts simply do not understand.

UKIP won the European elections, where people thought it made no
difference anyway, they voted UKIP.

They didn't vote UKIP in the general because they didnt think UKIP would
win and were scared that labour might win, and because they didnt know
if UKIP had the talent to form a proper opposition


Right now, however Labour won't win. Not a cat's chance in hell. And
that means that labour voters will switch to UKIP big time. And
disaffected Tory brexiteers will vote UKIP because there is no danger of
Labour getting in.

An election now with an unresolved Brexit would give UKIP a lot of seats.

Last opinion poll was Tories 34%. Labour 30% UKIP 18%. Limp Dims 8 %,
leaving 10% to split amongst plaid Cymru, the SNP, Sinn Fein, Ulster
Unionists the greens etc etc . But that is all in local areas politics.
And apart from scotland ins pretty meaningless in terms of votes.

Suppose we take 5% off the tories and 6% off labour and give it to UKIP?

Tories now poll 29%
Labour now polls 24%
UKIP now polls *29%*


Guess who is now forming a coalition government with the tories?
But ONLY on the basis of a brexit.

Then you look at the brexit demographic, and as I pointed out earlier,
remain is heavily concentrated in a few constituencies, leave is the
majority across huge swathes of England and Wales. No party that wants
to win would be a remain party.

My guess is Labour would be remain to hoover up the metropolitan vote,
but lose the trad working class vote to UKIP in the midlands and the
north and the tories would go brexit, to retain a majority in the shires.

If they lost a few home counties remainers to the lib dems, so what?


Scotland and Ireland are lost causes for the tories anyway.


If you spin the numbers that way, tories lose a few votes, but not to
UKIP, labour at least hold their core metropolitan voters but lose
ground to UKIP elsewhere. Tories win on a leave ticket, and UKIP gain a
little ground at labours expense.

And because tories like to win, that's what they do.


Sorry dear, but the demographics are against you.


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 27/06/16 16:01, pamela wrote:
On 15:43 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 15:37, pamela wrote:
On 11:51 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 11:14, pamela wrote:
If they stand on a Remain mandate and get
re-elected in a general election t

They wont get re-elected on that mandate. That is the point.
Did you think we were ****ing around? All 17m of us?

Having made this the issue of the age, are we really going to
re-elect a bunch of remainiacs and give in?

Brexit does not command anything like a majority in the current
House. Already there's talk that MPs could refuse to pass any
act based on the outcome of the referendum. Maybe the Lords
could too.

I was asking how much stronger their position would be if those
MPs were re-elected while promising to vote against a Brexit
bill.


They wouldnt get re-elected pamela.

Perhaps such manouevering is unseemly but all's fair in love &
war - and politics.

Is profoundly undemocratic, and would probably lead to civil
war.

If the tory party doesn't go eurosceptic in its policies, it
faces electoral wipeout and so does labour.

How many current voters would refuse to relect their MP if he
or she stood on a Bremain ticket?

All of them who votred exit

Not that many.

Good luck with that. You dont know what's happening ouutside
your little suburban bubble

Most of those sufficiently concerned about this voted
UKIP in the last general election but there were only 3.8m of
them on a 66% turnout.

No, they didnt

Round here 60%+ voted leave. Its a 'safe tory seat' and I've
canvassed it for UKIP.

"I've canvassed it for UKIP". I think you're probably letting your
emotions and enthusiasm cloud your judgement.

I have no emotion and enthusiasms. I canvass for UKIP because its a
tactivcal move to get a certain result. Brexit.

It would not be a
straight Brexit vote but require a choice between party line and
Brexit.

You are mnot even making sense. Its been hailed as the issue of the age.
The world reaction shows it is the issue of the age. No other issue
matters now. Its devolution versus full integrated globalisation.


The voters are nice, but they said 'well we want out of Europe
too, but we are sticking with the safe option, because Dave
promised us a referendum'

If he then ****es on them and goes back in on a remain vote, we
will get this seat for UKIP.

Guaranteed.

UKIP is not great at turning support into seats under the existing
system.

You dont have any mathematical understanding do you?

18% spread across the country evenly (UKIP) gets no seats, whereas 8%
in a few special constituency (LibDEmss) gets to 20 seats.

But 25% spread across the country gets a huge number of seats. And 29%
in a three way fight gets you as many seats as the tories.

And that's why this whole thing has happened. The tories wanted a
referendum to get rid of UKIP. It backfired.

By mistake the people got the chance to vote the way no one had let them
vote before.

Now the genie is out of the bottle.

If the people dont get what they want, they will vote UKIP. IF Camerons
or the tories dont become a brexit party, then they will lose to UKIP
massively.

There is no other issue.



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

dennis@home wrote:
On 27/06/2016 11:07, pamela wrote:
On 10:30 27 Jun 2016, Capitol wrote:

pamela wrote:
On 13:24 26 Jun 2016, bm wrote:

Mark my words.


If a party campaigned not to leave the EU and won a general
election later this year then would they have a mandate to over
rule the referendum result?


No.


A referendum is not binding for all time and it's result can be
overturned by a later referendum.

The referendum is not at all binding it is the government asking for
the peoples thoughts which they can then choose to ignore if they want.

I think there should be a judicial review to see who was telling the
truth and to decide if a rerun is needed based on facts rather than
lies. I can't see why its legal if its based on lies.

Another loser.

On 27/06/2016 15:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/06/16 15:04, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/06/2016 11:24, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

UKIP would be in power within weeks as the only bunch of swine who
hadn't reneged on
their promises.

Nigel Farage: £350 million pledge to fund
the NHS was 'a mistake'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...was-a-mistake/



One of many "mistakes" that were corrected later after the initial
impact had been made.

NIgel farage did not run the leave campaign. UKIP did not take part in
the Leave campaign. They were running with the GO campaign


So he didn't make those statements or withdraw them?
Shame they are on public record.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:23:11 +0100, pamela wrote:

But leaving theb EU does not have the "return" option.

There's not really anything to stop the UK rejoining the EU at any time
although the poorer terms on offer might be enough to put us off.

Except the possibility of one of the 27 vetoing us.