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.

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.

There is a well argued article from "UK Constituional Law Association" see

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016...pensable-role/

The only way that this or any future PM could justify triggering Article
50 without a statute voting for it passed by parliament would be by "royal
prerogative" but case law going back to "the case of proclamations of
1610" right through to the more recent "fire brigades union case of 1995"
limit the ability of the government or crown to use "royal prerogative"
and could not be used in this case.

"This case law forms a core part of the separation of powers in the
British Constitution: the Government cannot take away rights given by
Parliament and it cannot undermine a statute. For the courts to hold
otherwise would place the rights of British citizens at the mercy of the
Government and would be contrary to Parliamentary supremacy."

Read the article and the follow ups and make up your own mind as to what
the government can legally do.

Alan

--


Using an ARMX6

On 27/06/16 16:32, dennis@home wrote:
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

No.

or withdraw them?

No
Shame they are on public record.
What is on public record is him saying he thought they were a mistake.
He never actually made them.



--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 27/06/16 17:57, pamela wrote:

Maybe you didn't pick up on why I said "under the existing
system". I was referring to FPTP.


So was I.

My comment stands. You don't understand the mathematics of FPTP.


--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 27/06/16 18:02, pamela wrote:
On 16:13 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15:37 27 Jun 2016, pamela wrote:

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

Sorry dear, but the demographics are against you.


The demographics can't be against me because I haven't supported one
side or the other. I chose not to vote in the referendum.

I simply made an observation to expect underhand manoeuvering.


And the demographics are against that particular manoeuvre working.

Its not a credible scenario.

There are of course others.

Don't infer too much from it! :-)



--
€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 18:16, pamela wrote:
On 17:32 27 Jun 2016, Alan Dawes wrote:

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.

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.

There is a well argued article from "UK Constituional Law
Association" see

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-
tom-hickma
n-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-
indispensable-role/

The only way that this or any future PM could justify triggering
Article 50 without a statute voting for it passed by parliament
would be by "royal prerogative" but case law going back to "the
case of proclamations of 1610" right through to the more recent
"fire brigades union case of 1995" limit the ability of the
government or crown to use "royal prerogative" and could not be
used in this case.

"This case law forms a core part of the separation of powers in
the British Constitution: the Government cannot take away rights
given by Parliament and it cannot undermine a statute. For the
courts to hold otherwise would place the rights of British
citizens at the mercy of the Government and would be contrary to
Parliamentary supremacy."

Read the article and the follow ups and make up your own mind as
to what the government can legally do.

Alan


That's an interesting article. This caught my eye amongst other
points.

"Before an Article 50 declaration can be issued, Parliament must
enact a statute empowering or requiring the Prime Minister to
issue notice under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, and
empowering the Government to make such changes to statutes as are
necessary to bring about our exit from the European Union."

Even earlier than all this is Cameron's pre-referendum claim that
Article 50 would be invoked immediately if he lost the vote. Now
he is saying he will leave such an action to a succeeding prime
minister. I wonder if such a successor has any obligation at all
to organise the ruling party to advance Article 50.

In other words, Cameron promised the UK electorate Article 50 if
he lost (within the constraints of the article you mention) but is
his successor bound by such a promise?

No one is bound by promises. Cameron has already broken his.
THAT is not the issue. You are seeing all this in narrow legal and
constitutional terms, but laws can be repealed and constitutions changed.

What is at stake is if the clear majority will of the people of the
united kingdom is going to be allowed to prevail,. and if not, what are
the political consequences of abandoning any pretence of democracy.

Before the referendum, it was possible to claim that actually most
people wanted to remain in the EU, and therefore there was no point in
holding a referendum. Now we know that 32% want to say in the EU, more
want out and the rest are presumably undecided or indifferent.

That piece of data cannot be put back in the box. Schrödingers cat has
been revealed to be comprehensively dead.


And the political consequences of finagling a 'remain' against that
clear data are to finally admit that we don't live even in the pretence
of a democracy. And to demonstrate to the brexiteers that everything
they feared about the establishment and the EU, was in fact true.

It would amount to a totalitarian coup. The final admission that the UK
is a police state run by a narrow elite for a narrow elite and its
democracy is a sham.

Its a no win situation. The rest of Europe would look on aghast if it
happened.

OTOH if Britain successfully leaves, its is also the nucleus of a
breakaway alliance of similar countries.

And that's why European bourses are getting hammered. The EUs bluff has
been called, If they give in, they look weak, If they use force, they
look undemocratic and like a police state.

Whichever way it goes, the EU is a laughing stock globally, and a big
risk financially.

WE will never know the secret feelings of the major players, Cameron,
Johnson, Corbyn...maybe they secretly wanted the remain vote to fail.
They certainly were supremely incompetent at delivering a truthful and
convincing message.

Politics itself and the establishment has been massively damaged.

WE cant turn the clock back. WE have to now go on.

--
€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 19:18, pamela wrote:
On 18:55 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 17:57, pamela wrote:

Maybe you didn't pick up on why I said "under the existing
system". I was referring to FPTP.


So was I.

My comment stands. You don't understand the mathematics of FPTP.


There's nothing in the arithmetic of FPTP that a semi-sentient 15
year old couldn't understand. What do you need me to do? Prove
Duverger's?

I need you to understand that 'Ukip cant translate votes into seats'
becomes a false statement when the vote share climbs above 25% or so in
a three way election.

Duvergers's expresses the 'barrier to entry' of new parties. By and
large they either tend to have a local base, or fail.

However, if that barrier to entry is overcome, the speed with which a
three party system will actually tend to a *new* two party system is not
mentioned in that theorem.

You need to go back to basics statistics to understand that.

UKIP stands on the threshold. As a national party they are polling more
than the liberal democrats have ever done in my memory. What has held
them back has been a local stronghold. BUT if they have aspirations to
be a national party, a local stronghold is not what they need.

There is every chance that if Labour continue to shoot themselves in the
foot, UKIP will overtake them in a small landslide to become the main
party of opposition. That's when Duverger's starts to work in their
favour, driving down labour seats to localised core support in e.g.
London, and the 'University' towns.

And we end up with a globalist corporatist tory party, and a libertarian
socialist UKIP party, in the sense of 'caring about little people'
rather than Marxist ideals.

Duverger says UKIP shouldn't exist, and shouldn't be in the least bit
successful. That it is, shows that something is wrong with the current
two parties, and there exists a demographic that isn't represented by
either of them.

If the tory party goes small c conservative, no one is left to represent
the corporate interests, and they have big money. So they wont go that
way. If Labour goes hard marxist left, they leave the real working class
behind, and that means UKIP will replace them as the small c
conservative party with a real (as opposed to faux) social conscience,
but with a pragmatic outlook. IF Labour goes for the real working class,
all the luvvies and the ******ati will desert them as being vulgar
plebby and politically incorrect.

You can have Bob Geldof, or Mrs Duffy, but not both.


Either way, its death for the hard left. They simply don't represent
anything more than a bunch of spoilt over privileged white middle class
******s, to whom its all a grand romantic enthusiasm. And a few dyed in
the wool commies, who are more of a joke than anything else.



--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On 27/06/16 19:27, pamela wrote:
Your near outrage at the remote possibility I raise is well
placed. There are many tactics aimed at outflanking democracy.
For example the majority in the US Senate can be thwarted from
passing a law by a filibuster.


Of course. Politics is, as we have found, a very very dirty game. But as
the old boys around here say with a wink 'I done been as far as
Cambridge'.


One can wail "democratic rights" all you like but realpolitik will
prevail. Best not to be impervious to the possibility of such
tricks.

My point is that realpolitik is what I am talking about, not 'legal rights'

I am no stupid lefty****, expecting the world to be run by rules.

My point has always been to address the actual reality of 17m+ people
voting for something, winning a referendum, and then being told 'we are
not going to listen to you after all'.

Even people who believe firmly in 'remain' would be shocked by that I
think. Some shocked enough to support any force that looked like it
could be democratic.

I half expect them in the wake of a narrowly won referendum
following many dubious claims in the campaigns.

They are all happening, already, but none seem likely to have traction.

The Saxon in us is sitting there saying' that ain't right' and when the
Saxon says that, beware.

IT isn't a question of what the Law says is right, or the constitution,
or the politically correct ******ati. It's what 17m + citizens of this
country feel is right, in their guts, and you **** on that at your peril.

WE were promised a referendum and we were promised action that would
abide by the outcome. Otherwise what was the point? Good bad or ugly, we
had the debate, and we gave our votes. Wasn't nice, the way its bin
played, but that was RIGHT. Now we want the outcome. WE may have ****ed
up. Well we must take that in the chin, because not getting the action
AINT RIGHT.

It's like when paedophiles get let off, or muslims get away with rape,
because its politically sensitive cos they are muslims. Or Bob Geldof
jeers at fishermen who only want the right to fish. It just AINT RIGHT.

And its that instinctive understanding of that sense of right and wrong,
that Nigel Farage has, and the other parties have completely lost.
---------
"You can call it racist, bigoted, plebeian, unsophisticated, all you
want, and all you will do is make people even more stubborn. Foreigners
coming and filling up our school, our surgery, our social housing and
acting like they don't respect our way of life and our laws, that AINT
RIGHT.

EU plonkers coming here and telling us we have to build a gypsy camp for
600 gippos, who we know do 90% of the crime in our area (cos when they
move on, it stops), AINT RIGHT.

Then bloody bird chopping windmills that the EU wants us to have, all on
account of it haint got one whit warmer'n'when I were a bhouy, that AINT
RIGHT, And we know whose makin a money on em.

And when ole jack takes a pretty good wheatfield out of production and
plants it with a seed that dont barely grow cos he get paid more that
way than if he grows wheat or barley, THAT AINT RIGHT.

Now Girl, I tell yer, I used to vote tory, when a tory were a chap wi'
gumboots and a tweed jacket, that you could talk farming at, and he
unnerstood it, and you could talk about wanting things to stay the way
they is, cos this is a good place, and he used to try and get stuff
sorted. Then he retired and now we have a young whipper-snapper an he
come up here wiv patent leather shoes and suit fer chrissakes!. I nearly
larfed. He was so wet behind the ears, and he tole us this and he tole
us that like we were a bunch of dumb kids at primary school, and then he
****ed off back to Lunnon. And that's our MP. A coming man, they say.
Well I tell ya. I met the UKIP bloke, and he has a beer in the fox and
hounds most friday nights, and he's from round here, and I tell ya, I'm
voting for him. Comin man or not that Tory just doesnt unnerstand
anything about the country. And if the UKIP man says the reasons for
those windmills, and that stupid farm subsidy, and those gippos being
foisted on us, is because that's the way Brussels wants it, I believe
him. And that's why I voted LEAVE. It just AINT RIGHT.

And if we don't leave after all that flummel and flapdoodle on the
telly, and all those poncy BBC types saying this and that, then I reckon
that UKIP bloke was right when he done said we couldn't trust any of em
further than we could spit. And I done plenty of that in my time, har har.

So I'll vote UKIP next time if we dont leave. Why? Cos he aint some
poncy Lunnoner, that's why. He's from round here, even if he done bin as
far as Cambridge har har. Its his nest he'll be ****ting in aint it?
That lunnon ponce, he don't care what happens to us, we are just a
career path.

Axshully, I'll probly vote UKIP even if we DO leave. Cos he's a decent
bloke and you can talk to him, and he wears gumboots too. Just like the
old tory chap used to.

And He knows what AINT RIGHT, too, without of me having to tell un..




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

Mary Wollstonecraft

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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?

Hasnt been for a long time now.

TimW wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Graham wrote
Capitol wrote
Michael Chare wrote

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.

Referendums are done differently, for a reason. And that
referendum wasn’t about changing the constitution either.

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.

How odd that Britain joined with the same 'crappy
plebiscite' and we didn’t see you howling about that,
because that is what you wanted to see happen.

And there wasn’t even a 'crappy plebiscite' about
the formation of the United Kingdom either.

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...
"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

Clearly completely blotto, as usual.

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

Irrelevant to how many MPs are no longer pro remain now
that it has become clear that the majority of the voters want.

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

Irrelevant to how many MPs are no longer pro remain now
that it has become clear that the majority of the voters want.

Its now perfectly acceptable to dislike foreigners again

Irrelevant to how many MPs are no longer pro remain now
that it has become clear that the majority of the voters want.

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.

You really should give up on that whacky weed, boy.

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.

Not even Boris eh ?

There's a nasty smell about it.

That's just your feet, boy.

Which might not worry Nigel Farage and his
supporters but it would most "respectable" MP's

So you are predicting that they will ignore the
referendum result and commit political suicide ?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

But there again, the UK is an advanced nation, after all.

Yep, advanced enough to have noticed that the EU
isnt working and that it will be much better out of
it when the eurozone implodes spectacularly.

On 27/06/2016 19:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Before the referendum, it was possible to claim that actually most
people wanted to remain in the EU, and therefore there was no point in
holding a referendum. Now we know that 32% want to say in the EU, more
want out and the rest are presumably undecided or indifferent.

Its a margin that the leavers were not going to accept if it was against
them so why do they think the remainers should accept it?

"charles" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes it does, spelt out very unambiguously in Article 50 of the Lisbon
Treaty.

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 27/06/16 22:01, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/06/2016 19:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Before the referendum, it was possible to claim that actually most
people wanted to remain in the EU, and therefore there was no point in
holding a referendum. Now we know that 32% want to say in the EU, more
want out and the rest are presumably undecided or indifferent.

Its a margin that the leavers were not going to accept if it was against
them so why do they think the remainers should accept it?

Stop lying dennis.


--
"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

dennis@home wrote
pamela wrote
Capitol wrote
pamela wrote

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.

And wear the political consequences at the next election if they do that.

I think there should be a judicial review to see who was telling the truth

Not even possible with the claim that Britain will implode
economically outside the EU, or even do worse economically
outside the EU than inside it. Or with the claim that the EU will
implode economically even if Britain remains in it. Or with the
claims about what the EU will try to do to Britain if it leaves either.

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.

And why isnt that true of general elections ?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
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.

Not necessarily. It wouldnt ruin mine if I was the train driver.
I have always believed that plenty are better off dead.

dennis@home wrote
pamela wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
pamela wrote

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

Even sillier than you usually manage.

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.

Fantasy with Labour ripping itself to shreds
and with Boris driving the Tory bus.

dennis@home wrote
michael adams wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

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.

He wouldn’t need to grab the media attention that way.

dennis@home wrote
Capitol wrote
TimW wrote
Huge wrote
Graham. wrote
Capitol wrote
Michael Chare wrote

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.

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

That's because if boris is PM labour will win.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about how politics works.

It would be the first time I voted labour or someone else if there is ever
another candidate.

Irrelevant to how the country would vote.

Even you should have noticed that Boris did
manage to get elected to run London, TWICE,
in an electorate that naturally votes Labour.

pamela wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
pamela wrote

If they stand on a Remain mandate and
get re-elected in a general election

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.

You don’t know that is still true post the referendum result.

Already there's talk that MPs could refuse to pass
any act based on the outcome of the referendum.

From those who don’t have a clue how politics works.

Maybe the Lords could too.

They are completely irrelevant.

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 wouldn’t be.

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

The voters would punish anyone stupid
enough to run on that platform severely.

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?

Heaps. And what matters is how many of those are marginal seats.

Not that many.

BULL****.

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.

And the number would be MUCH higher if the two
major partys were actually stupid enough to campaign
on the basis of ignoring the referendum result.

And with Boris driving the Tory bus, he wouldn’t be
that stupid. And with Labour ripping itself to shreds
much more comprehensively than it has EVER done
before and being the only party that matters campaigning
on the basis of ignoring the referendum, the Torys
would get back in a landslide the likes of which
Britain has never seen in living memory.
result,

pamela wrote
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
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.

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

Sure, but with Labour currently ripping itself to
shreds very spectacularly indeed and Boris replacing
Cameron for sure, there isnt even the remotest
possibility that Boris will have an election and
campaign to ignore the referendum result.

Even if there were enough fools actually stupid
enough bring on an election now because they
don’t like the referendum result, Boris wouldn’t
be stupid enough to run on a platform of ignoring
the referendum result and the result would be that
the Labour vote would be decimated and we would
see the Torys returned in a landslide the likes of
which hasn’t been seen in living memory and
Britain would still leave the EU with the best
conditions it could get, without the free movement
of any EU citizen who wants to come to Britain,
or billions being paid to the EU every year or with
the EU having any say what so ever on policy.

And likely with the eurozone imploding too.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 17:32 27 Jun 2016, Alan Dawes wrote:

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.

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.

There is a well argued article from "UK Constituional Law
Association" see

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-
tom-hickma
n-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-
indispensable-role/

The only way that this or any future PM could justify triggering
Article 50 without a statute voting for it passed by parliament
would be by "royal prerogative" but case law going back to "the
case of proclamations of 1610" right through to the more recent
"fire brigades union case of 1995" limit the ability of the
government or crown to use "royal prerogative" and could not be
used in this case.

"This case law forms a core part of the separation of powers in
the British Constitution: the Government cannot take away rights
given by Parliament and it cannot undermine a statute. For the
courts to hold otherwise would place the rights of British
citizens at the mercy of the Government and would be contrary to
Parliamentary supremacy."

Read the article and the follow ups and make up your own mind as
to what the government can legally do.

Alan


That's an interesting article. This caught my eye amongst other
points.

"Before an Article 50 declaration can be issued, Parliament must
enact a statute empowering or requiring the Prime Minister to
issue notice under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, and
empowering the Government to make such changes to statutes as are
necessary to bring about our exit from the European Union."

Even earlier than all this is Cameron's pre-referendum claim that
Article 50 would be invoked immediately if he lost the vote. Now
he is saying he will leave such an action to a succeeding prime
minister. I wonder if such a successor has any obligation at all
to organise the ruling party to advance Article 50.

Doesn’t matter if he has any obligation or not, that is what Boris will do.

In other words, Cameron promised the UK electorate Article 50 if
he lost (within the constraints of the article you mention) but is
his successor bound by such a promise?

Doesn’t matter whether he is or not, that is what Boris will do.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:12 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 18:16, pamela wrote:
On 17:32 27 Jun 2016, Alan Dawes wrote:

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.

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.

There is a well argued article from "UK Constituional Law
Association" see

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-
tom-hickma
n-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-
indispensable-role/

The only way that this or any future PM could justify
triggering Article 50 without a statute voting for it passed
by parliament would be by "royal prerogative" but case law
going back to "the case of proclamations of 1610" right
through to the more recent "fire brigades union case of 1995"
limit the ability of the government or crown to use "royal
prerogative" and could not be used in this case.

"This case law forms a core part of the separation of powers
in the British Constitution: the Government cannot take away
rights given by Parliament and it cannot undermine a statute.
For the courts to hold otherwise would place the rights of
British citizens at the mercy of the Government and would be
contrary to Parliamentary supremacy."

Read the article and the follow ups and make up your own mind
as to what the government can legally do.

Alan


That's an interesting article. This caught my eye amongst other
points.

"Before an Article 50 declaration can be issued, Parliament
must enact a statute empowering or requiring the Prime Minister
to issue notice under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, and
empowering the Government to make such changes to statutes as
are necessary to bring about our exit from the European Union."

Even earlier than all this is Cameron's pre-referendum claim
that Article 50 would be invoked immediately if he lost the
vote. Now he is saying he will leave such an action to a
succeeding prime minister. I wonder if such a successor has any
obligation at all to organise the ruling party to advance
Article 50.

In other words, Cameron promised the UK electorate Article 50
if he lost (within the constraints of the article you mention)
but is his successor bound by such a promise?

No one is bound by promises. Cameron has already broken his.
THAT is not the issue. You are seeing all this in narrow legal
and constitutional terms, but laws can be repealed and
constitutions changed.

What is at stake is if the clear majority will of the people of
the united kingdom is going to be allowed to prevail,. and if
not, what are the political consequences of abandoning any
pretence of democracy.

Before the referendum, it was possible to claim that actually
most people wanted to remain in the EU, and therefore there was
no point in holding a referendum. Now we know that 32% want to
say in the EU, more want out and the rest are presumably
undecided or indifferent.

That piece of data cannot be put back in the box. Schrodingers
cat has been revealed to be comprehensively dead.


And the political consequences of finagling a 'remain' against
that clear data are to finally admit that we don't live even in
the pretence of a democracy. And to demonstrate to the
brexiteers that everything they feared about the establishment
and the EU, was in fact true.

It would amount to a totalitarian coup. The final admission that
the UK is a police state run by a narrow elite for a narrow
elite and its democracy is a sham.

Its a no win situation. The rest of Europe would look on aghast
if it happened.

OTOH if Britain successfully leaves, its is also the nucleus of
a breakaway alliance of similar countries.

And that's why European bourses are getting hammered. The EUs
bluff has been called, If they give in, they look weak, If they
use force, they look undemocratic and like a police state.

Whichever way it goes, the EU is a laughing stock globally, and
a big risk financially.

WE will never know the secret feelings of the major players,
Cameron, Johnson, Corbyn...maybe they secretly wanted the remain
vote to fail. They certainly were supremely incompetent at
delivering a truthful and convincing message.

Politics itself and the establishment has been massively
damaged.

WE cant turn the clock back. WE have to now go on.

Your near outrage at the remote possibility I raise is well
placed. There are many tactics aimed at outflanking democracy.
For example the majority in the US Senate can be thwarted from
passing a law by a filibuster.

One can wail "democratic rights" all you like but realpolitik will
prevail. Best not to be impervious to the possibility of such
tricks.

I half expect them in the wake of a narrowly won referendum
following many dubious claims in the campaigns.

More fool you. Boris isnt that stupid.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/06/16 19:18, pamela wrote:
On 18:55 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 17:57, pamela wrote:

Maybe you didn't pick up on why I said "under the existing
system". I was referring to FPTP.


So was I.

My comment stands. You don't understand the mathematics of FPTP.


There's nothing in the arithmetic of FPTP that a semi-sentient 15
year old couldn't understand. What do you need me to do? Prove
Duverger's?

I need you to understand that 'Ukip cant translate votes into seats'
becomes a false statement when the vote share climbs above 25% or so in a
three way election.

Duvergers's expresses the 'barrier to entry' of new parties. By and large
they either tend to have a local base, or fail.

However, if that barrier to entry is overcome, the speed with which a
three party system will actually tend to a *new* two party system is not
mentioned in that theorem.

You need to go back to basics statistics to understand that.

UKIP stands on the threshold.

Nope, it has just passed its useby date now that Britain is
leaving the EU and is about to lose its source of funding too.

As a national party they are polling more than the liberal democrats have
ever done in my memory.

That was before the referendum.

What has held them back has been a local stronghold. BUT if they have
aspirations to be a national party, a local stronghold is not what they
need.

But they do need to have a purpose in life.

They dont anymore now that Britain is leaving the EU.

There is every chance that if Labour continue to shoot themselves in the
foot, UKIP will overtake them in a small landslide to become the main
party of opposition.

Not now that they are completely politically
irrelevant now that Britain is leaving the EU.

That's when Duverger's starts to work in their favour,

Not now that UKIP is now completely politically
irrelevant now that Britain is leaving the EU.

driving down labour seats to localised core support in e.g. London, and
the 'University' towns.

Not now that UKIP is now completely politically
irrelevant now that Britain is leaving the EU.

And we end up with a globalist corporatist tory party, and a libertarian
socialist UKIP party,

Not now that UKIP is now completely politically
irrelevant now that Britain is leaving the EU.

in the sense of 'caring about little people' rather than Marxist ideals.

Duverger says UKIP shouldn't exist,

And it doesnt seats wise in Westminster. Carswell
would keep his seat regardless of what party was part of.

and shouldn't be in the least bit successful.

It isnt in the HoC which is the only place that matters.

That it is, shows that something is wrong with the current two parties,
and there exists a demographic that isn't represented by either of them.

Not seats wise in the HoC it isnt.

If the tory party goes small c conservative, no one is left to represent
the corporate interests, and they have big money. So they wont go that
way. If Labour goes hard marxist left, they leave the real working class
behind,

Yes.

and that means UKIP will replace them as the small c conservative party

Not now that UKIP is completely politically
irrelevant now that Britain is leaving the EU.

with a real (as opposed to faux) social conscience, but with a pragmatic
outlook.

Not now that UKIP is completely politically
irrelevant now that Britain is leaving the EU.

IF Labour goes for the real working class, all the luvvies and the
******ati will desert them as being vulgar plebby and politically
incorrect.

But they wont be heading for UKIP as it
is now completely politically irrelevant.

You can have Bob Geldof, or Mrs Duffy, but not both.

Either way, its death for the hard left. They simply don't represent
anything more than a bunch of spoilt over privileged white middle class
******s, to whom its all a grand romantic enthusiasm. And a few dyed in
the wool commies, who are more of a joke than anything else.

And UKIP is even more completely politically
irrelevant now that Britain is leaving the EU.

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.

In Australian parlance it looks like it was a plebiscite -
non binding - not a referendum, which is.

We're promised a plebiscite on gay marriage after our next
election (this Saturday) and several conservative MPs have
come out and said that they will vote against any change
regardless of the result.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

"TimW" wrote in message
...
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.

Bet there isnt.

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.

If they are stupid enough to try that, the voters will **** them over
very comprehensively indeed the next time they get to vote and will
elect quite a few UKIP MPs and any party but Corbyn's knows that.
And since Corbyn hates the EU, even he wouldn’t be that stupid.
It is certainly possible that his replacement might be tho. Boris
aint that stupid.

"pamela" wrote in message ...
Am I supposed to read all that?

You really don't have to read anything.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:56:52 +1000
"Rod Speed" wrote:

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.

And the number would be MUCH higher if the two
major partys were actually stupid enough to campaign
on the basis of ignoring the referendum result.

In my area, East Anglia, there is a lot of support for UKIP, but
Conservatives got the vote at the last election, as voting UKIP was
seen as a waste of a vote that could have let Labour in.
Now with the Labour Party in total, total disarray, almost
committing hara-kiri, that is not a possibility, and a General Election
right now would see UKIP win seats, especially if the Conservative MPs
went against the Referendum.

--
Davey.

On 28/06/16 11:36, pamela wrote:
On 20:31 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 19:27, pamela wrote:
Your near outrage at the remote possibility I raise is well
placed. There are many tactics aimed at outflanking democracy.
For example the majority in the US Senate can be thwarted from
passing a law by a filibuster.


Of course. Politics is, as we have found, a very very dirty
game. But as the old boys around here say with a wink 'I done
been as far as Cambridge'.


One can wail "democratic rights" all you like but realpolitik
will prevail. Best not to be impervious to the possibility of
such tricks.

My point is that realpolitik is what I am talking about, not
'legal rights'

I am no stupid lefty****, expecting the world to be run by
rules.

My point has always been to address the actual reality of 17m+
people voting for something, winning a referendum, and then
being told 'we are not going to listen to you after all'.

Even people who believe firmly in 'remain' would be shocked by
that I think. Some shocked enough to support any force that
looked like it could be democratic.

I half expect them in the wake of a narrowly won referendum
following many dubious claims in the campaigns.

They are all happening, already, but none seem likely to have
traction.

The Saxon in us is sitting there saying' that ain't right' and
when the Saxon says that, beware.

IT isn't a question of what the Law says is right, or the
constitution, or the politically correct ******ati. It's what
17m + citizens of this country feel is right, in their guts, and
you **** on that at your peril.

WE were promised a referendum and we were promised action that
would abide by the outcome. Otherwise what was the point? Good
bad or ugly, we had the debate, and we gave our votes. Wasn't
nice, the way its bin played, but that was RIGHT. Now we want
the outcome. WE may have ****ed up. Well we must take that in
the chin, because not getting the action AINT RIGHT.

It's like when paedophiles get let off, or muslims get away with
rape, because its politically sensitive cos they are muslims. Or
Bob Geldof jeers at fishermen who only want the right to fish.
It just AINT RIGHT.

And its that instinctive understanding of that sense of right
and wrong, that Nigel Farage has, and the other parties have
completely lost. ---------
"You can call it racist, bigoted, plebeian, unsophisticated, all
you want, and all you will do is make people even more stubborn.
Foreigners coming and filling up our school, our surgery, our
social housing and acting like they don't respect our way of
life and our laws, that AINT RIGHT.

EU plonkers coming here and telling us we have to build a gypsy
camp for 600 gippos, who we know do 90% of the crime in our area
(cos when they move on, it stops), AINT RIGHT.

Then bloody bird chopping windmills that the EU wants us to
have, all on account of it haint got one whit warmer'n'when I
were a bhouy, that AINT RIGHT, And we know whose makin a money
on em.

And when ole jack takes a pretty good wheatfield out of
production and plants it with a seed that dont barely grow cos
he get paid more that way than if he grows wheat or barley, THAT
AINT RIGHT.

Now Girl, I tell yer, I used to vote tory, when a tory were a
chap wi' gumboots and a tweed jacket, that you could talk
farming at, and he unnerstood it, and you could talk about
wanting things to stay the way they is, cos this is a good
place, and he used to try and get stuff sorted. Then he retired
and now we have a young whipper-snapper an he come up here wiv
patent leather shoes and suit fer chrissakes!. I nearly larfed.
He was so wet behind the ears, and he tole us this and he tole
us that like we were a bunch of dumb kids at primary school, and
then he ****ed off back to Lunnon. And that's our MP. A coming
man, they say. Well I tell ya. I met the UKIP bloke, and he has
a beer in the fox and hounds most friday nights, and he's from
round here, and I tell ya, I'm voting for him. Comin man or not
that Tory just doesnt unnerstand anything about the country. And
if the UKIP man says the reasons for those windmills, and that
stupid farm subsidy, and those gippos being foisted on us, is
because that's the way Brussels wants it, I believe him. And
that's why I voted LEAVE. It just AINT RIGHT.

And if we don't leave after all that flummel and flapdoodle on
the telly, and all those poncy BBC types saying this and that,
then I reckon that UKIP bloke was right when he done said we
couldn't trust any of em further than we could spit. And I done
plenty of that in my time, har har.

So I'll vote UKIP next time if we dont leave. Why? Cos he aint
some poncy Lunnoner, that's why. He's from round here, even if
he done bin as far as Cambridge har har. Its his nest he'll be
****ting in aint it? That lunnon ponce, he don't care what
happens to us, we are just a career path.

Axshully, I'll probly vote UKIP even if we DO leave. Cos he's a
decent bloke and you can talk to him, and he wears gumboots too.
Just like the old tory chap used to.

And He knows what AINT RIGHT, too, without of me having to tell
un..

Am I supposed to read all that?

No. Just put your fingers in your ears and say 'nah nah ne nah'

Understanding other people's points of view is obviously too much for
your pretty little head.



--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 28/06/16 11:46, Richard wrote:
"pamela" wrote in message ...
Am I supposed to read all that?

You really don't have to read anything.

Except the guardian. That is compulsory


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:36:29 +0100
pamela wrote:

On 20:31 27 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/06/16 19:27, pamela wrote:
Your near outrage at the remote possibility I raise is well
placed. There are many tactics aimed at outflanking democracy.
For example the majority in the US Senate can be thwarted from
passing a law by a filibuster.


Of course. Politics is, as we have found, a very very dirty
game. But as the old boys around here say with a wink 'I done
been as far as Cambridge'.


One can wail "democratic rights" all you like but realpolitik
will prevail. Best not to be impervious to the possibility of
such tricks.

My point is that realpolitik is what I am talking about, not
'legal rights'

I am no stupid lefty****, expecting the world to be run by
rules.

My point has always been to address the actual reality of 17m+
people voting for something, winning a referendum, and then
being told 'we are not going to listen to you after all'.

Even people who believe firmly in 'remain' would be shocked by
that I think. Some shocked enough to support any force that
looked like it could be democratic.

I half expect them in the wake of a narrowly won referendum
following many dubious claims in the campaigns.

They are all happening, already, but none seem likely to have
traction.

The Saxon in us is sitting there saying' that ain't right' and
when the Saxon says that, beware.

IT isn't a question of what the Law says is right, or the
constitution, or the politically correct ******ati. It's what
17m + citizens of this country feel is right, in their guts, and
you **** on that at your peril.

WE were promised a referendum and we were promised action that
would abide by the outcome. Otherwise what was the point? Good
bad or ugly, we had the debate, and we gave our votes. Wasn't
nice, the way its bin played, but that was RIGHT. Now we want
the outcome. WE may have ****ed up. Well we must take that in
the chin, because not getting the action AINT RIGHT.

It's like when paedophiles get let off, or muslims get away with
rape, because its politically sensitive cos they are muslims. Or
Bob Geldof jeers at fishermen who only want the right to fish.
It just AINT RIGHT.

And its that instinctive understanding of that sense of right
and wrong, that Nigel Farage has, and the other parties have
completely lost. ---------
"You can call it racist, bigoted, plebeian, unsophisticated, all
you want, and all you will do is make people even more stubborn.
Foreigners coming and filling up our school, our surgery, our
social housing and acting like they don't respect our way of
life and our laws, that AINT RIGHT.

EU plonkers coming here and telling us we have to build a gypsy
camp for 600 gippos, who we know do 90% of the crime in our area
(cos when they move on, it stops), AINT RIGHT.

Then bloody bird chopping windmills that the EU wants us to
have, all on account of it haint got one whit warmer'n'when I
were a bhouy, that AINT RIGHT, And we know whose makin a money
on em.

And when ole jack takes a pretty good wheatfield out of
production and plants it with a seed that dont barely grow cos
he get paid more that way than if he grows wheat or barley, THAT
AINT RIGHT.

Now Girl, I tell yer, I used to vote tory, when a tory were a
chap wi' gumboots and a tweed jacket, that you could talk
farming at, and he unnerstood it, and you could talk about
wanting things to stay the way they is, cos this is a good
place, and he used to try and get stuff sorted. Then he retired
and now we have a young whipper-snapper an he come up here wiv
patent leather shoes and suit fer chrissakes!. I nearly larfed.
He was so wet behind the ears, and he tole us this and he tole
us that like we were a bunch of dumb kids at primary school, and
then he ****ed off back to Lunnon. And that's our MP. A coming
man, they say. Well I tell ya. I met the UKIP bloke, and he has
a beer in the fox and hounds most friday nights, and he's from
round here, and I tell ya, I'm voting for him. Comin man or not
that Tory just doesnt unnerstand anything about the country. And
if the UKIP man says the reasons for those windmills, and that
stupid farm subsidy, and those gippos being foisted on us, is
because that's the way Brussels wants it, I believe him. And
that's why I voted LEAVE. It just AINT RIGHT.

And if we don't leave after all that flummel and flapdoodle on
the telly, and all those poncy BBC types saying this and that,
then I reckon that UKIP bloke was right when he done said we
couldn't trust any of em further than we could spit. And I done
plenty of that in my time, har har.

So I'll vote UKIP next time if we dont leave. Why? Cos he aint
some poncy Lunnoner, that's why. He's from round here, even if
he done bin as far as Cambridge har har. Its his nest he'll be
****ting in aint it? That lunnon ponce, he don't care what
happens to us, we are just a career path.

Axshully, I'll probly vote UKIP even if we DO leave. Cos he's a
decent bloke and you can talk to him, and he wears gumboots too.
Just like the old tory chap used to.

And He knows what AINT RIGHT, too, without of me having to tell
un..

Am I supposed to read all that?

Your choice. But I will honour your decision.

--
Davey.

On 28/06/16 07:18, Rod Speed wrote:


"TimW" wrote in message


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.

If they are stupid enough to try that, the voters will **** them over
very comprehensively indeed the next time they get to vote and will
elect quite a few UKIP MPs and any party but Corbyn's knows that.
And since Corbyn hates the EU, even he wouldn’t be that stupid.
It is certainly possible that his replacement might be tho. Boris
aint that stupid.

Things are not a clear as you make out. people voted leave for a lot of
different reasons, and depending on what happens in the next weeks and
months they will change their minds:

Voted for immediate departure? that isn't going to happen
Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed
Voted to end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.
Voted to fund the NHS with the mystery billions? You were had.
Voted because you are patriotic and royalist and believe in the UK? You
made a big mistake.
Voted because you want to strengthen democracy? Now watch someone else
choose a new government

Voted because you thought Boris and Nigel were honest and trustworthy
and could deliver on their promises? You may realise you have been made
to look a right Charlie and you may want to hold them to account in the
coming general election.

See?

TW

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 01:51 28 Jun 2016, Charlie wrote:


And UKIP is even more completely politically
irrelevant now that Britain is leaving the EU.



I wonder if support for UKIP at elections will diminish now that its
objective has been largely met.

Maybe not until Britain is actually out of the EU without
being stupid enough to agree to free movement of EU
citizens into Britain, or paying anything to the EU. While
ever say Boris might be stupid enough to agree to any
of that to get free trade, UKIP support may well continue,
but still not see any new MPs elected.

Of course with Britain out of the EU, there won't be any UKIP
MEPs and none of that funding for UKIP, so it isn't very likely
that it will be able to do much election campaigning either.

In the post-referendum euphoria, Nigel Farage hinted
at a possible new objective of dismantling the entire EU:

Can't see him getting many in Britain voting UKIP to get that result.

"The E.U.'s dying. I hope we’ve knocked the first brick out of the wall."

And there I was thinking his main idea was to limit immigration.

That was never his main objective. It was always to get Britain out of the
EU.

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:56:52 +1000
"Rod Speed" wrote:

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.

And the number would be MUCH higher if the two
major partys were actually stupid enough to campaign
on the basis of ignoring the referendum result.

In my area, East Anglia, there is a lot of support for UKIP, but
Conservatives got the vote at the last election, as voting UKIP
was seen as a waste of a vote that could have let Labour in.

I'm not convinced that there was ever enough there to elect an MP.

Now with the Labour Party in total, total disarray,
almost committing hara-kiri, that is not a possibility,

Correct.

and a General Election right now would see UKIP win seats,

I doubt it now that their objective has been achieved, to
see Britain leave the EU, unless it looks like the Torys are
fudging that or are about to be stupid enough to agree
to something like Norway and Switzerland have agreed to.

especially if the Conservative MPs
went against the Referendum.

Yes, but there is no evidence that they are going to be that
stupid and certainly won't be if Boris replaces Cameron.

On 28/06/16 11:51, pamela wrote:
On 01:51 28 Jun 2016, Charlie wrote:


And UKIP is even more completely politically
irrelevant now that Britain is leaving the EU.



I wonder if support for UKIP at elections will diminish now that its
objective has been largely met.

Its objective has most definitely not been met.

Especially with prominent members of the leave campaign arguing for
'brexit lite'


In the post-referendum euphoria, Nigel Farage hinted at a possible
new objective of dismantling the entire EU:

"The E.U.'s dying. I hope weve knocked the first brick out of the
wall."

And there I was thinking his main idea was to limit immigration.

He has been very badly treated by the EU for daring to question their
objectives and efficacy. Allow him his little moment of triumph.

And he has clearly stated that not only does he believe that the EU is
bad for Britain, but that it is bad for Europe.

A belief shared by an alarming number of Europeans.



--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 28/06/16 12:02, Davey wrote:
Am I supposed to read all that?
Your choice. But I will honour your decision.
LOL!


--
€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

On 28/06/16 12:07, pamela wrote:
On 11:51 28 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

For example, I raised the possibility of a new mandate from a general
election. You dismissed that in a very robust way which refused to
entertain even the possibility. Today I see Jeremy Hunt and
yesterday Kenneth Clarke raising exactly this possibility. So you
would take such a possibility off the map but I would wish to discuss
it. This is why I think you and I may find difficulty in discussing
politics with one another.


Well if you want to be an armchair theorist, that's down to you.
I was trying to explain why a general election would be a very bad thing
for everyone but UKIP right now.

To do that, I painted a little cameo of a typical would-be UKIP
supporter in the region where I live.

Because that within my sphere of competence. I've met people like that.
And its an accurate portrait of the local Tory MP too.


However the possibility exists, but both main parties would be mad to
try it.

I am not really that interested in theoretical discussions about
hypothetical events that I see no chance of happening. As a company
director, I had to make rapid decisions based on available (and always
insufficient) data, and elimination of the impossible was simply the
first step in the analysis.

I.e. to posit an early election is one thing. To posit it leading to a
victory for a remain parliament, is rather another. The first is
possible, not the second. If they had that support, they would have won
the referendum.

If you want to endlessely discuss things that I cant ever see happening
I am not your man.

I've spent too long arguing with people who tell me 'renewable energy
will work when we have the storage' without bothering to understand what
that storage will never materialise.




--
€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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
You know for once I almost agree with you. Yet when you
get what appears to be an honest man with at least some
principles not involving money - even if you think them
misguided - like Corbyn, he becomes the subject of derision.

He's subject to derision because he's a dinosaur who wants to
renationalise everything.

Given so much of our vital infrastructure is foreign owned, he may just
have predicted what will happen anyway. No one with sense invests in an
economy which is failing. As ours most certainly will without a deal with
the EU.

--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 01:51 28 Jun 2016, Charlie wrote:


And UKIP is even more completely politically
irrelevant now that Britain is leaving the EU.



I wonder if support for UKIP at elections will diminish now that its
objective has been largely met.

Don't be silly. It's just a slightly upmarket version of the BNP etc.
The sort that never meets its true objective. Or rather let's hope so.

In the post-referendum euphoria, Nigel Farage hinted at a possible
new objective of dismantling the entire EU:

Of course. 'Taking back control' doesn't refer to the UK. It refers to him
and his like having control. Of everything they can.

"The E.U.'s dying. I hope we’ve knocked the first brick out of the
wall."

Of course. He hates everything. Especially where even the slightest nod is
given to human rights.

And there I was thinking his main idea was to limit immigration.

And that would only be the start.

--
*WHOSE CRUEL IDEA WAS IT FOR THE WORD 'LISP' TO HAVE 'S' IN IT?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:03:37 +0100, TimW wrote:

Voted to stop immigration? You are going to be disappointed
Voted to end free movement within UK and EU? Can't be done.

Both are, in the context of EU membership, exactly the same thing. And -
yes, it can be done. But only at the expense of leaving the single
market, and shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

Some think that's a price worth paying to be rid of too many foreigners.

I'd call those people xenophobic.