On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:14:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The EU didn't the UK chose too.
If the EU had said we were going metric why do will still use miles?

because they couldn't work out the conversion

--
www.abelard.org

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2019 09:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 22:56, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/09/2019 21:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 16:44, Steve Walker wrote:

There is a huge difference between wanting to repatriate control to
the UK and MPs ignoring the result of a domestic referendum. Returning
sovereignty to parliament was never intended to overrule a democratic
vote by the people.

but that's how our democracy works, mps do what's best for the country.
unlike boris,

Then why won't they vote for a general election? We have a government
in office but not in power. It's stymied at every turn. It is being
prevented from governing. The best for the country is to have a general
election. Why are they so reluctant to have one?

We have been through this, if they call a general election then boris
gets to decide when and he will abuse it to his advantage.

And of course Labour are doing no such thing, are they? Oh no, not at
all. They wouldn't dream oplaying such political games, would they?

They said they will support a GE after a suitable extension to brexit is
agreed so boris can't just dissolve parliament for however long he
decides to take on an election.

I have no doubt that if an extension is agreed boris will not be calling
for an election. Neither will the brexiteers.

Can you tell us how it is in the national interest to have a government
that is not allowed to function to be maintained in office any longer than
is absolutely necessary?

It functions fine. All the parliament has tried to do is make it ask
for an extension and it remains to be seen if boris will do that and
if the EU will agree to that.

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

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

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

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

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

Do try to avoid talking cock.

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

What you outline is true at all elections.

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


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

On 2019-09-25, charles wrote:
In article , Incubus
wrote:
On 2019-09-24, michael adams wrote:

"Incubus" wrote in message
...

Being told which weights and measures we can use, enforced by law, has
long been a sticking point and one example of how EU legislation
affects people directly.

Indeed.

Why would anyone want to use the same weights and measures as their
major trading partners ?

Its political correctness gone mad,

If I go to the shop to buy a pound of cheese having my whole life used
imperial measures, and my trading partner at the counter having his whole
life used imperial measures is happy to weigh out a pound of cheese, why
should the EU tell us we have to use metric weights?

Did the EU tell us - or was it DEFRA (or its previous incarnation) that
added this little bit?

Council Directive 80/181/eec.

On 2019-09-25, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:59, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-24, michael adams wrote:

"Incubus" wrote in message ...

Being told which weights and measures we can use, enforced
by law, has long been a sticking point and one example of
how EU legislation affects people directly.

Indeed.

Why would anyone want to use the same weights and measures as
their major trading partners ?

Its political correctness gone mad,

If I go to the shop to buy a pound of cheese having my whole life used imperial
measures, and my trading partner at the counter having his whole life used
imperial measures is happy to weigh out a pound of cheese, why should the EU
tell us we have to use metric weights?


The EU didn't the UK chose too.
If the EU had said we were going metric why do will still use miles?

80/181/eec.

abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:14:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The EU didn't the UK chose too.
If the EU had said we were going metric why do will still use miles?

because they couldn't work out the conversion


I think they need to decimalise Time itself. The whole hours, minutes,
seconds thing is too illogical. Then there is the mess that is the two
systems of angular measurement; each of them completely ridiculous. :-)

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 20:39:49 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Can you tell us how it is in the national interest to have a government
that is not allowed to function to be maintained in office any longer than
is absolutely necessary?

It functions fine.

Nobody asked YOU anything, senile pest! tsk

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 09:24:57 +0100, The Todal wrote:

In the minds of many Leave supporters, it's about ordinary
citizens being sovereign, not Parliament. Would you agree? To
them, the debates in Parliament are incomprehensible, a sort of
white noise, a meeting of posh folk who don't represent us. We
want the man in the street, and all his neighbours, to be the
real decision makers now!

I see these weird opinions expressed in posts are shared on several
newsgroups which perhaps explains the unusual or obsolete viewpoints
held by such posters. The readers of uk.d-i-y are much happier
discussing how to nail pieces of wood together, change a tap washer
or paint a door. Grappling with legal concepts and high politics is
too much for our simple minds. Have a heart, and stop cross posting!

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dan S. MacAbre
wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:14:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The EU didn't the UK chose too.
If the EU had said we were going metric why do will still use miles?

because they couldn't work out the conversion

I think they need to decimalise Time itself.Â* The whole hours,
minutes, seconds thing is too illogical.Â* Then there is the mess that
is the two systems of angular measurement; each of them completely
ridiculous. :-)

We should also fix the length of the second so that there's a whole
number of them in the year.


If there isn't already, then yes, we ought to do that, too.

And this business of π being 3.142 etc is rubbish too. We should pass a
law that it be 3.0 exactly.


Indeed. Who on Earth decided that pi would be an irrational number?
Perverse and, er, irrational. :-)

Actually, I believe that someone somewhere did (and fairly recently)
legislate that pi be equal to 3. I prefer an even number, myself.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That you try to insist that somehow the referendum is different from
ordinary elections in that the pre-election bumf must be 100% accurate
and must be complete and cover all possible eventualities. Only a fool
would expect that.

You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision, and
one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

--
*If at first you do succeed, try not to look too astonished.

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

On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:05:44 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That you try to insist that somehow the referendum is different from
ordinary elections in that the pre-election bumf must be 100% accurate
and must be complete and cover all possible eventualities. Only a fool
would expect that.

You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision, and
one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Define a lifetime as that varies depending on culture and life expectance of the country.
And GE's don't reverse decisions every 5 years or less.

On 2019-09-25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That you try to insist that somehow the referendum is different from
ordinary elections in that the pre-election bumf must be 100% accurate
and must be complete and cover all possible eventualities. Only a fool
would expect that.

You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision, and
one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Just how many instances in a lifetime would we have to vote on this issue,
then? If once isn't even, would two get the job done? What if people say
things that Snopes disagrees with? Will there then be a third?

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:05:44 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That you try to insist that somehow the referendum is different from
ordinary elections in that the pre-election bumf must be 100% accurate
and must be complete and cover all possible eventualities. Only a fool
would expect that.

You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision, and
one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Define a lifetime as that varies depending on culture and life expectance
of the country.

rather like a twenty year old newspaper writing "within living memory".
That means "I've never heard of it"

And GE's don't reverse decisions every 5 years or less.

but, the point is that they could.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision, and
one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Define a lifetime as that varies depending on culture and life
expectance of the country. And GE's don't reverse decisions every 5
years or less.

Ask one of your students to explain to you what 'can' means.

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

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

In article ,
Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That you try to insist that somehow the referendum is different from
ordinary elections in that the pre-election bumf must be 100% accurate
and must be complete and cover all possible eventualities. Only a fool
would expect that.

You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision, and
one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Just how many instances in a lifetime would we have to vote on this
issue, then? If once isn't even, would two get the job done? What if
people say things that Snopes disagrees with? Will there then be a
third?

The job has been done. So no need for a second referendum. Unless
parliament can't agree on a deal. And a decent deal is what leave promised.

--
*How about "never"? Is "never" good for you?

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

On 2019-09-25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That you try to insist that somehow the referendum is different from
ordinary elections in that the pre-election bumf must be 100% accurate
and must be complete and cover all possible eventualities. Only a fool
would expect that.

You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision, and
one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Just how many instances in a lifetime would we have to vote on this
issue, then? If once isn't even, would two get the job done? What if
people say things that Snopes disagrees with? Will there then be a
third?

The job has been done. So no need for a second referendum. Unless
parliament can't agree on a deal. And a decent deal is what leave promised.

Indeed, the only acceptable referendum in my view is one that contains the
choices of leave with the deal that has been negotiated or leave without it.

On 25/09/2019 15:11, Incubus wrote:

Indeed, the only acceptable referendum in my view is one that contains the
choices of leave with the deal that has been negotiated or leave without it.


You have to get the brexiteers to agree on what they want and that looks
impossible so the only way is to put it to the people.

to do that takes time so a delay is required which is what the HoC has said.

A ge after an extension is in place and not to let boris decide.

On 25/09/2019 15:11, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That you try to insist that somehow the referendum is different from
ordinary elections in that the pre-election bumf must be 100% accurate
and must be complete and cover all possible eventualities. Only a fool
would expect that.

You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision, and
one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Just how many instances in a lifetime would we have to vote on this
issue, then? If once isn't even, would two get the job done? What if
people say things that Snopes disagrees with? Will there then be a
third?

The job has been done. So no need for a second referendum. Unless
parliament can't agree on a deal. And a decent deal is what leave promised.

Indeed, the only acceptable referendum in my view is one that contains the
choices of leave with the deal that has been negotiated or leave without it.

It's the only logical one that honours the result of the referendum, and
does not merely re-run it.

On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:46:38 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision, and
one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Define a lifetime as that varies depending on culture and life
expectance of the country. And GE's don't reverse decisions every 5
years or less.

Ask one of your students to explain to you what 'can' means.

I know what can means it what you call reverse confuses me.
When voting in a GE there;s little option to reverse anything you just vote for an individual or party nothing about reversing anything.

Maggies did a U turn is that reversing?

On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:48:35 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:05:44 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That you try to insist that somehow the referendum is different from
ordinary elections in that the pre-election bumf must be 100% accurate
and must be complete and cover all possible eventualities. Only a fool
would expect that.

You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision, and
one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Define a lifetime as that varies depending on culture and life expectance
of the country.

rather like a twenty year old newspaper writing "within living memory".
That means "I've never heard of it"

it usually means the editor, owner or the journalists living memory.
Although it could be within the living memory of the oldest person they know.



And GE's don't reverse decisions every 5 years or less.

but, the point is that they could.

Depedning on what uo are refering too, we can NEVER reverse the decision we made in 1975 to continue in the EEC, what we can do is leaver the EU I don;t consider that reversing.
It's like reversing in a car is quite differnt from doing a 3 point turn and going back the way you came.

But then again perhaps some arent; quite so literate and think such things are the same, just as illegal and unlawfull are the same according to some.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:46:38 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision,
and one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Define a lifetime as that varies depending on culture and life
expectance of the country. And GE's don't reverse decisions every 5
years or less.

Ask one of your students to explain to you what 'can' means.

I know what can means it what you call reverse confuses me. When voting
in a GE there;s little option to reverse anything you just vote for an
individual or party nothing about reversing anything.

Maggies did a U turn is that reversing?

Government changing from Con to Lab or vice versa is often a reversal

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:48:35 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:05:44 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
That you try to insist that somehow the referendum is different
from ordinary elections in that the pre-election bumf must be
100% accurate and must be complete and cover all possible
eventualities. Only a fool would expect that.

You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision,
and one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Define a lifetime as that varies depending on culture and life
expectance of the country.

rather like a twenty year old newspaper writing "within living memory".
That means "I've never heard of it"

it usually means the editor, owner or the journalists living memory.
Although it could be within the living memory of the oldest person they
know.

I agree, but it rarely is. If I can remember things which, according to
the newspaper, are not within living memory, then they haven't done their
research very well.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:29:07 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dan S. MacAbre
wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:14:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The EU didn't the UK chose too.
If the EU had said we were going metric why do will still use miles?

because they couldn't work out the conversion

I think they need to decimalise Time itself.* The whole hours,
minutes, seconds thing is too illogical.* Then there is the mess that
is the two systems of angular measurement; each of them completely
ridiculous. :-)

We should also fix the length of the second so that there's a whole
number of them in the year.


If there isn't already, then yes, we ought to do that, too.

as long as we speed up the earth orbit is corrected to keep up

And this business of ? being 3.142 etc is rubbish too. We should pass a
law that it be 3.0 exactly.


Indeed. Who on Earth decided that pi would be an irrational number?
Perverse and, er, irrational. :-)

Actually, I believe that someone somewhere did (and fairly recently)
legislate that pi be equal to 3. I prefer an even number, myself.

--
www.abelard.org

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:18:17 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 25/09/2019 15:11, Incubus wrote:

Indeed, the only acceptable referendum in my view is one that contains the
choices of leave with the deal that has been negotiated or leave without it.


You have to get the brexiteers to agree on what they want and that looks
impossible so the only way is to put it to the people.

you don't have to 'agree'...just vote and carry it out...

the first stage is already done

to do that takes time so a delay is required which is what the HoC has said.

A ge after an extension is in place and not to let boris decide.

--
www.abelard.org

abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:29:07 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dan S. MacAbre
wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:14:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The EU didn't the UK chose too.
If the EU had said we were going metric why do will still use miles?

because they couldn't work out the conversion

I think they need to decimalise Time itself.* The whole hours,
minutes, seconds thing is too illogical.* Then there is the mess that
is the two systems of angular measurement; each of them completely
ridiculous. :-)

We should also fix the length of the second so that there's a whole
number of them in the year.


If there isn't already, then yes, we ought to do that, too.

as long as we speed up the earth orbit is corrected to keep up


Whatever it takes, I say.

And this business of ? being 3.142 etc is rubbish too. We should pass a
law that it be 3.0 exactly.


Indeed. Who on Earth decided that pi would be an irrational number?
Perverse and, er, irrational. :-)

Actually, I believe that someone somewhere did (and fairly recently)
legislate that pi be equal to 3. I prefer an even number, myself.

On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 15:57:33 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:46:38 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision,
and one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Define a lifetime as that varies depending on culture and life
expectance of the country. And GE's don't reverse decisions every 5
years or less.

Ask one of your students to explain to you what 'can' means.

I know what can means it what you call reverse confuses me. When voting
in a GE there;s little option to reverse anything you just vote for an
individual or party nothing about reversing anything.

Maggies did a U turn is that reversing?

Government changing from Con to Lab or vice versa is often a reversal

I don't call that a reversal, sure it's a change in politics but it;s not a reversal. What might be possible is to reverse Brexit which means we'll go back to being in the EU with the same deals as we had before we left.
I doubt both labour and/or conservative parties will reverse into what they were campaigning for in 2016 and I doubt the consertavive govenment will reverse and have cameron as their leader, and every other memeber of the parties reverse to who was in the job in 2016.
Presently the world can only go in one direction (not the group) and we can't reverse time either.

On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 15:57:34 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:48:35 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 14:05:44 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
That you try to insist that somehow the referendum is different
from ordinary elections in that the pre-election bumf must be
100% accurate and must be complete and cover all possible
eventualities. Only a fool would expect that.

You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision,
and one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Define a lifetime as that varies depending on culture and life
expectance of the country.

rather like a twenty year old newspaper writing "within living memory".
That means "I've never heard of it"

it usually means the editor, owner or the journalists living memory.
Although it could be within the living memory of the oldest person they
know.

I agree, but it rarely is. If I can remember things which, according to
the newspaper, are not within living memory, then they haven't done their
research very well.

Do you remeber building stonehendge.

or perhaps you could give me an example.

But the term wasn't within living memory regarding voting to be in europe, the phrase was closer to once in a lifetime vote, nothing about memory.

I do NOT remeber voting to join or to be in the EEC in the 1970s although it is within my living memory.

EU Citizen Brian Reay G8OSN wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2019 16:55, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-24, Steve Walker wrote:
On 24/09/2019 14:02, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 12:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
8

I suppose Leave supporters do have difficulty with literacy.

If you missed Lady Hale's speech this morning here it is.

I heard her speech.

The reconvening of parliament is in Bercow's hands
The introduction of legislation is in Bercow's hands, and parliaments.
The government has no majority.
But Parliament will not hold an election.
The full horror of Blairs attack on democracy and its institutions is
now apparent

Its democracy Jim, but not as brexiteers want.

TNP was saying parliamentary democracy was the reason he voted leave so
now what does he want to vote for?

There is a huge difference between wanting to repatriate control to the
UK and MPs ignoring the result of a domestic referendum. Returning
sovereignty to parliament was never intended to overrule a democratic
vote by the people.

Dishonest Romoaners have seized upon such an idea by saying that this is what
we actually voted for. Of course, if you look at a number of campaign items,
it should be rather clear that it was about Britain being sovereign, not
Parliament per se, which also includes our courts, an end to freedom of
movement etc.


In the minds of many Leave supporters, it's about ordinary citizens
being sovereign, not Parliament. Would you agree? To them, the debates
in Parliament are incomprehensible, a sort of white noise, a meeting of
posh folk who don't represent us. We want the man in the street, and all
his neighbours, to be the real decision makers now!



The numbers speak for themselves:

Leave 17.4m | Remain 16.1m
By Constituency:
Leave 406 | Remain 242
By Constituency Party:
Labour - Leave 148 | Remain 84
Conservatives - Leave 247 | Remain 80
By Region:
Leave 9 | Remain 3
By MP:
Leave 160 | Remain 486

The Remainers are trying to usurp the democratic decision.


The numbers do, indeed, speak for themselves, OM;

€œLeave voters dying and Remainers reaching voting age means majority will
soon oppose Brexit, study finds€�

€œDemographic changes mean number of Remain supporters grows by 235,000 each
year, while number of Leave backers falls by 260,000€�

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8541971.html

Every single day that Brexit is delayed makes it more likely that Remain
will win the next referendum by a landslide. LOL

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:18:32 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:29:07 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dan S. MacAbre
wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:14:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The EU didn't the UK chose too.
If the EU had said we were going metric why do will still use miles?

because they couldn't work out the conversion

I think they need to decimalise Time itself.* The whole hours,
minutes, seconds thing is too illogical.* Then there is the mess that
is the two systems of angular measurement; each of them completely
ridiculous. :-)

We should also fix the length of the second so that there's a whole
number of them in the year.


If there isn't already, then yes, we ought to do that, too.

as long as we speed up the earth orbit is corrected to keep up

Whatever it takes, I say.

ambition is good


--
www.abelard.org

On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:08, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2019 22:56, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/09/2019 21:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 16:44, Steve Walker wrote:

There is a huge difference between wanting to repatriate control to
the UK and MPs ignoring the result of a domestic referendum.
Returning sovereignty to parliament was never intended to overrule
a democratic vote by the people.

but that's how our democracy works, mps do what's best for the country.
unlike boris,

Then why won't they vote for a general election?Â* We have a
government in office but not in power.Â* It's stymied at every turn.
It is being prevented from governing.Â* The best for the country is to
have a general election.Â* Why are they so reluctant to have one?

Please explain why an election would help to solve the Brexit crisis.

The Brexit crisis as you call it is a simple result of Parliament not
being representative of the people's views, and being determined to go
against the free choice of the people expressed in a single issue
referendum.

Well, that's not true. It's Boris's version of the truth.

The Brexit crisis is a simple result of a referendum result that
instructed the government to "leave" the EU but failed to give any
guidance about what deal if any should be negotiated. There are major
differences of opinion about what sort of deal should be made with the
EU. Maybe you somehow missed this, by not following the debates? Thus,
the ERG opposed Theresa's deal because they really want a no-deal
Brexit. A large number of people but not enough, support Theresa's deal.

Having a new bunch of MPs does not solve this difference of opinion. You
can get them to sign up to thirty nine articles when they are being
selected as candidates, but when they are in the Commons they still
might have their own opinions having heard all the arguments.


The way to resolve that, if it's possible, is to have a general election
where, hopefully, Parliament will become rather more properly
representative.

But more likely it will result in no clear majority in favour of any
exit deal and a majority against a no-deal.


Are you hoping that by shuffling the pack and dealing the cards again
you'll end up with a Royal Flush? A majority of MPs in favour of any
particular course of action?

Who knows?Â* What is clear, though, is that we need a functioning
government, which we do not have at present.Â* It needs to deal with more
than just a single issue.

I think you know, in your heart of hearts, that the demand for a general
election has only one purpose: to secure the future of the Tory party.

An election before 31st October would result in many people voting for
"Boris the man who is determined to get us out of the EU by 31st
October". An election after 31st October would result in many people
laughing at the man who failed to keep his promises, which turned out to
be all bluster and bluff.

The Tories are desperate for that early election and Cox was so furious
he was almost in tears.



Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to get
itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:41:26 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
and former shyster wrote:

On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:08, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2019 22:56, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/09/2019 21:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 16:44, Steve Walker wrote:

There is a huge difference between wanting to repatriate control to
the UK and MPs ignoring the result of a domestic referendum.
Returning sovereignty to parliament was never intended to overrule
a democratic vote by the people.

but that's how our democracy works, mps do what's best for the country.
unlike boris,

Then why won't they vote for a general election?* We have a
government in office but not in power.* It's stymied at every turn.
It is being prevented from governing.* The best for the country is to
have a general election.* Why are they so reluctant to have one?

Please explain why an election would help to solve the Brexit crisis.

The Brexit crisis as you call it is a simple result of Parliament not
being representative of the people's views, and being determined to go
against the free choice of the people expressed in a single issue
referendum.

Well, that's not true. It's Boris's version of the truth.

The Brexit crisis is a simple result of a referendum result that
instructed the government to "leave" the EU but failed to give any
guidance about what deal if any should be negotiated. There are major
differences of opinion about what sort of deal should be made with the
EU. Maybe you somehow missed this, by not following the debates? Thus,
the ERG opposed Theresa's deal because they really want a no-deal
Brexit. A large number of people but not enough, support Theresa's deal.

Having a new bunch of MPs does not solve this difference of opinion. You
can get them to sign up to thirty nine articles when they are being
selected as candidates, but when they are in the Commons they still
might have their own opinions having heard all the arguments.


The way to resolve that, if it's possible, is to have a general election
where, hopefully, Parliament will become rather more properly
representative.

But more likely it will result in no clear majority in favour of any
exit deal and a majority against a no-deal.


Are you hoping that by shuffling the pack and dealing the cards again
you'll end up with a Royal Flush? A majority of MPs in favour of any
particular course of action?

Who knows?* What is clear, though, is that we need a functioning
government, which we do not have at present.* It needs to deal with more
than just a single issue.

I think you know, in your heart of hearts, that the demand for a general
election has only one purpose: to secure the future of the Tory party.

An election before 31st October would result in many people voting for
"Boris the man who is determined to get us out of the EU by 31st
October". An election after 31st October would result in many people
laughing at the man who failed to keep his promises, which turned out to
be all bluster and bluff.

The Tories are desperate for that early election and Cox was so furious
he was almost in tears.



Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to get
itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

LOLOK! Too funny for words. And who is to *lead* this new Labour
government? The bearded uncharismatic pleb Corbyn???

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:30:19 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , abelard
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:29:07 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dan S. MacAbre
wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:14:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The EU didn't the UK chose too.
If the EU had said we were going metric why do will still use miles?

because they couldn't work out the conversion

I think they need to decimalise Time itself.* The whole hours,
minutes, seconds thing is too illogical.* Then there is the mess that
is the two systems of angular measurement; each of them completely
ridiculous. :-)

We should also fix the length of the second so that there's a whole
number of them in the year.


If there isn't already, then yes, we ought to do that, too.

as long as we speed up the earth orbit is corrected to keep up

The second will have to get longer each year, sure. No doubt the
Supreme Court can ordain that.

it is good to see the increasing rise of practical common sense
in this forum
i prefer adjusting the orbit, thus allowing those who believe in
the sacrosanct nature of the long honoured second be not
conflicted in their noble religion nor daunted in their loyalty
to mother earth


--
www.abelard.org

In article , Grik-bustard™
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:41:26 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite and
former shyster wrote:

On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:08, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2019 22:56, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/09/2019 21:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 16:44, Steve Walker wrote:

There is a huge difference between wanting to repatriate control
to the UK and MPs ignoring the result of a domestic referendum.
Returning sovereignty to parliament was never intended to overrule
a democratic vote by the people.

but that's how our democracy works, mps do what's best for the
country. unlike boris,

Then why won't they vote for a general election? We have a
government in office but not in power. It's stymied at every turn.
It is being prevented from governing. The best for the country is
to have a general election. Why are they so reluctant to have one?

Please explain why an election would help to solve the Brexit crisis.

The Brexit crisis as you call it is a simple result of Parliament not
being representative of the people's views, and being determined to go
against the free choice of the people expressed in a single issue
referendum.

Well, that's not true. It's Boris's version of the truth.

The Brexit crisis is a simple result of a referendum result that
instructed the government to "leave" the EU but failed to give any
guidance about what deal if any should be negotiated. There are major
differences of opinion about what sort of deal should be made with the
EU. Maybe you somehow missed this, by not following the debates? Thus,
the ERG opposed Theresa's deal because they really want a no-deal
Brexit. A large number of people but not enough, support Theresa's deal.

Having a new bunch of MPs does not solve this difference of opinion. You
can get them to sign up to thirty nine articles when they are being
selected as candidates, but when they are in the Commons they still
might have their own opinions having heard all the arguments.


The way to resolve that, if it's possible, is to have a general
election where, hopefully, Parliament will become rather more
properly representative.

But more likely it will result in no clear majority in favour of any
exit deal and a majority against a no-deal.


Are you hoping that by shuffling the pack and dealing the cards again
you'll end up with a Royal Flush? A majority of MPs in favour of any
particular course of action?

Who knows? What is clear, though, is that we need a functioning
government, which we do not have at present. It needs to deal with
more than just a single issue.

I think you know, in your heart of hearts, that the demand for a general
election has only one purpose: to secure the future of the Tory party.

An election before 31st October would result in many people voting for
"Boris the man who is determined to get us out of the EU by 31st
October". An election after 31st October would result in many people
laughing at the man who failed to keep his promises, which turned out to
be all bluster and bluff.

The Tories are desperate for that early election and Cox was so furious
he was almost in tears.



Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one. It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to
get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that? It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

LOLOK! Too funny for words. And who is to *lead* this new Labour
government? The bearded uncharismatic pleb Corbyn???

the Thornberry

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"charles" wrote in message ...

In article , Grik-bustard„¢
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:41:26 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite and
former shyster wrote:

On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:08, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2019 22:56, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/09/2019 21:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 16:44, Steve Walker wrote:

There is a huge difference between wanting to repatriate control
to the UK and MPs ignoring the result of a domestic referendum.
Returning sovereignty to parliament was never intended to overrule
a democratic vote by the people.

but that's how our democracy works, mps do what's best for the
country. unlike boris,

Then why won't they vote for a general election? We have a
government in office but not in power. It's stymied at every turn.
It is being prevented from governing. The best for the country is
to have a general election. Why are they so reluctant to have one?

Please explain why an election would help to solve the Brexit crisis.

The Brexit crisis as you call it is a simple result of Parliament not
being representative of the people's views, and being determined to go
against the free choice of the people expressed in a single issue
referendum.

Well, that's not true. It's Boris's version of the truth.

The Brexit crisis is a simple result of a referendum result that
instructed the government to "leave" the EU but failed to give any
guidance about what deal if any should be negotiated. There are major
differences of opinion about what sort of deal should be made with the
EU. Maybe you somehow missed this, by not following the debates? Thus,
the ERG opposed Theresa's deal because they really want a no-deal
Brexit. A large number of people but not enough, support Theresa's deal.

Having a new bunch of MPs does not solve this difference of opinion. You
can get them to sign up to thirty nine articles when they are being
selected as candidates, but when they are in the Commons they still
might have their own opinions having heard all the arguments.


The way to resolve that, if it's possible, is to have a general
election where, hopefully, Parliament will become rather more
properly representative.

But more likely it will result in no clear majority in favour of any
exit deal and a majority against a no-deal.


Are you hoping that by shuffling the pack and dealing the cards again
you'll end up with a Royal Flush? A majority of MPs in favour of any
particular course of action?

Who knows? What is clear, though, is that we need a functioning
government, which we do not have at present. It needs to deal with
more than just a single issue.

I think you know, in your heart of hearts, that the demand for a general
election has only one purpose: to secure the future of the Tory party.

An election before 31st October would result in many people voting for
"Boris the man who is determined to get us out of the EU by 31st
October". An election after 31st October would result in many people
laughing at the man who failed to keep his promises, which turned out to
be all bluster and bluff.

The Tories are desperate for that early election and Cox was so furious
he was almost in tears.



Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one. It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to
get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that? It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

LOLOK! Too funny for words. And who is to *lead* this new Labour
government? The bearded uncharismatic pleb Corbyn???

the Thornberry

====

LOLOL

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:11:14 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-bustard™", farted again:


LOLOK!

"LOLOK"??? Is that the sound you make when you choke on dick, cocksucking
Razovic? Whose cock is it this time? BG

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID:

On 25/09/2019 19:41, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:08, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2019 22:56, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/09/2019 21:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 16:44, Steve Walker wrote:

There is a huge difference between wanting to repatriate control
to the UK and MPs ignoring the result of a domestic referendum.
Returning sovereignty to parliament was never intended to overrule
a democratic vote by the people.

but that's how our democracy works, mps do what's best for the
country.
unlike boris,

Then why won't they vote for a general election?Â* We have a
government in office but not in power.Â* It's stymied at every turn.
It is being prevented from governing.Â* The best for the country is
to have a general election.Â* Why are they so reluctant to have one?

Please explain why an election would help to solve the Brexit crisis.

The Brexit crisis as you call it is a simple result of Parliament not
being representative of the people's views, and being determined to go
against the free choice of the people expressed in a single issue
referendum.

Well, that's not true. It's Boris's version of the truth.

The Brexit crisis is a simple result of a referendum result that
instructed the government to "leave" the EU but failed to give any
guidance about what deal if any should be negotiated.

That was never going to be a matter for the electorate. The electorate
gave the steer, and it was simply to leave the EU. We were all told
*the government* will implement what we decided, presumably on the basis
of the best deal it could achieve. It was never expected that the
public would know enough about all the details to make an informed
decision on the deal itself, nor was that promised.

There are major
differences of opinion about what sort of deal should be made with the
EU. Maybe you somehow missed this, by not following the debates? Thus,
the ERG opposed Theresa's deal because they really want a no-deal
Brexit. A large number of people but not enough, support Theresa's deal.

Having a new bunch of MPs does not solve this difference of opinion. You
can get them to sign up to thirty nine articles when they are being
selected as candidates, but when they are in the Commons they still
might have their own opinions having heard all the arguments.

Better than not having them sign up to anything. At least you then have
some fire you can hold their feet to.

It is likely that any new MPs will toe the party line for a significant
time before they become rebellious.

The way to resolve that, if it's possible, is to have a general
election where, hopefully, Parliament will become rather more properly
representative.

But more likely it will result in no clear majority in favour of any
exit deal and a majority against a no-deal.

You'll never know until you try.

With the Remain vote hopelessly split between Labour, the LibDems, the
Greens and the SNP, the route is open for the Conservatives, who are
leading considerably in the polls, possibly in cahoots with the Brexit
Party, to waltz through the middle and clear up.

That is what is putting the fear of God up that nice Mr Corbyn, even if
he does dress it up in holy no-deal prevention clothes.

Are you hoping that by shuffling the pack and dealing the cards again
you'll end up with a Royal Flush? A majority of MPs in favour of any
particular course of action?

Who knows?Â* What is clear, though, is that we need a functioning
government, which we do not have at present.Â* It needs to deal with
more than just a single issue.

I think you know, in your heart of hearts, that the demand for a general
election has only one purpose: to secure the future of the Tory party.

The country isn't being governed, and can't be governed given the
current state of the parties. That in the past would always, and very
sensibly, have resulted in a general election. That's what the country
desperately needs, whatever the end result, but is being prevented from
having by Labour whose only interest is self-interest.

An election before 31st October would result in many people voting for
"Boris the man who is determined to get us out of the EU by 31st
October". An election after 31st October would result in many people
laughing at the man who failed to keep his promises, which turned out to
be all bluster and bluff.

That's wishful thinking on your part. It's not 'bluster and bluff' if
others conspire to prevent you doing what you sincerely want and try
very hard to do. Nor will a temporary delay be held against him. It's
not his fault, you see. Frustration by vacillating Labour and the
Liberal Undemocrats I think will rebound on them rather than on Boris.

The Tories are desperate for that early election and Cox was so furious
he was almost in tears.

You're not very good at reading body language, are you?

Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to
get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

Not if there's no general election. And almost certainly not if there is.

On 25/09/2019 20:19, abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:30:19 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , abelard
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:29:07 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dan S. MacAbre
wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:14:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The EU didn't the UK chose too.
If the EU had said we were going metric why do will still use miles?

because they couldn't work out the conversion

I think they need to decimalise Time itself.Â* The whole hours,
minutes, seconds thing is too illogical.Â* Then there is the mess that
is the two systems of angular measurement; each of them completely
ridiculous. :-)

We should also fix the length of the second so that there's a whole
number of them in the year.


If there isn't already, then yes, we ought to do that, too.

as long as we speed up the earth orbit is corrected to keep up

The second will have to get longer each year, sure. No doubt the
Supreme Court can ordain that.

it is good to see the increasing rise of practical common sense
in this forum
i prefer adjusting the orbit, thus allowing those who believe in
the sacrosanct nature of the long honoured second be not
conflicted in their noble religion nor daunted in their loyalty
to mother earth



Of course the second is not defined as so many per year so its the
length of a year you need to change, oh..thats what they do now.

Also there are a whole number of seconds in a year with some years
having an extra day and some an extra second.

I blame it on farmers, they should have been able to cope with the
seasons changing all the time.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2019 19:41, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:08, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2019 22:56, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/09/2019 21:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 16:44, Steve Walker wrote:

There is a huge difference between wanting to repatriate control to
the UK and MPs ignoring the result of a domestic referendum.
Returning sovereignty to parliament was never intended to overrule a
democratic vote by the people.

but that's how our democracy works, mps do what's best for the
country.
unlike boris,

Then why won't they vote for a general election? We have a government
in office but not in power. It's stymied at every turn. It is being
prevented from governing. The best for the country is to have a
general election. Why are they so reluctant to have one?

Please explain why an election would help to solve the Brexit crisis.

The Brexit crisis as you call it is a simple result of Parliament not
being representative of the people's views, and being determined to go
against the free choice of the people expressed in a single issue
referendum.

Well, that's not true. It's Boris's version of the truth.

The Brexit crisis is a simple result of a referendum result that
instructed the government to "leave" the EU but failed to give any
guidance about what deal if any should be negotiated.

That was never going to be a matter for the electorate. The electorate
gave the steer, and it was simply to leave the EU. We were all told *the
government* will implement what we decided, presumably on the basis of the
best deal it could achieve. It was never expected that the public would
know enough about all the details to make an informed decision on the deal
itself, nor was that promised.

Or what the EU would agree to or even that it would demand
and immense exit fee which isnt even mentioned in Article 50.

And the leave campaign could never promise anything
given that it wasnt the govt.

There are major differences of opinion about what sort of deal should be
made with the EU. Maybe you somehow missed this, by not following the
debates? Thus, the ERG opposed Theresa's deal because they really want a
no-deal Brexit. A large number of people but not enough, support
Theresa's deal.

Having a new bunch of MPs does not solve this difference of opinion. You
can get them to sign up to thirty nine articles when they are being
selected as candidates, but when they are in the Commons they still might
have their own opinions having heard all the arguments.

Better than not having them sign up to anything. At least you then have
some fire you can hold their feet to.

Thats not what a parliamentary democracy is about.

It is likely that any new MPs will toe the party line for a significant
time before they become rebellious.

Not with such a divisive issue as brexit.

The way to resolve that, if it's possible, is to have a general election
where, hopefully, Parliament will become rather more properly
representative.

But more likely it will result in no clear majority in favour of any exit
deal and a majority against a no-deal.

You'll never know until you try.

But the risk of trying is an even worse unviable govt than there is now.

With the Remain vote hopelessly split between Labour, the LibDems, the
Greens and the SNP, the route is open for the Conservatives, who are
leading considerably in the polls, possibly in cahoots with the Brexit
Party, to waltz through the middle and clear up.

But given that there are so many remainers in the Tory party,
the result could well be an even bigger mess in parliament
than currently and no possibility of a Tory/LimpDim coalition
this time given that the Limp/Dims are so rabidly remain now.

And even a Tory/Brexit party coalition is unlikely with a general
election after 29-Oct which has see a no deal brexit by default.

That is what is putting the fear of God up that nice Mr Corbyn, even if he
does dress it up in holy no-deal prevention clothes.

The real reason he wont support a general election now is that
he knows that Boris gets to set the date and will have it after the
29-Oct with the no deal brexit happening completely automatically.

Are you hoping that by shuffling the pack and dealing the cards again
you'll end up with a Royal Flush? A majority of MPs in favour of any
particular course of action?

Who knows? What is clear, though, is that we need a functioning
government, which we do not have at present. It needs to deal with more
than just a single issue.

I think you know, in your heart of hearts, that the demand for a general
election has only one purpose: to secure the future of the Tory party.

The country isn't being governed, and can't be governed given the current
state of the parties.

Its doing fine with all but the brexit issue.

That in the past would always, and very sensibly, have resulted in a
general election.

And then you lot went for fixed term parliaments
which changed things completely in that regard.

That's what the country desperately needs,

The last thing the country needs an even more
ungovernable country than there is currently.

whatever the end result, but is being prevented from having by Labour
whose only interest is self-interest.

Corse Boris isnt doing anything like that, eh ?

An election before 31st October would result in many people voting for
"Boris the man who is determined to get us out of the EU by 31st
October". An election after 31st October would result in many people
laughing at the man who failed to keep his promises, which turned out to
be all bluster and bluff.

That's wishful thinking on your part.

Nope, yours is with your claim about what
a general election now would produce.

It's not 'bluster and bluff' if others conspire to prevent you doing what
you sincerely want and try very hard to do.

There is no conspiracy when parliament chooses to
force Boris to ask for an extension. It isnt even ignoring
the referendum if they are stupid enough to believe
that more time will produce a viable brexit deal.

Nor will a temporary delay be held against him.

Hard to predict what the voters will
do. May got that drastically wrong.

It's not his fault, you see.

It remains to be seen if the voters see it that way.

Frustration by vacillating Labour and the Liberal Undemocrats I think will
rebound on them rather than on Boris.

Also hard to predict, particularly if there is a real demographic
effect and there is no longer a majority in favour of brexit.

Or even enough who assumed that the result of
the referendum would be to remain and who will
now vote in a general election once that realise that
there are so many in favour of brexit and want to
ensure that doesnt happen by voting LimpDim.

The Tories are desperate for that early election and Cox was so furious
he was almost in tears.

You're not very good at reading body language, are you?

Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one. It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to get
itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that? It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

Not if there's no general election. And almost certainly not if there is.

That last is nothing even remotely like almost certain.

On 26/09/2019 02:13, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2019 19:41, The Todal wrote:

Having a new bunch of MPs does not solve this difference of opinion.
You can get them to sign up to thirty nine articles when they are
being selected as candidates, but when they are in the Commons they
still might have their own opinions having heard all the arguments.

Better than not having them sign up to anything.Â* At least you then
have some fire you can hold their feet to.

Thats not what a parliamentary democracy is about.

Oh, but it is. Votes in Parliament are not usually free votes except on
matters of conscience. Toeing the party line is essential if any
government or opposition is to function properly. MPs are elected on
the basis of their party's manifesto and are expected both by their
electorate and their party to do what the party says. In general of
course they do. The consequence if they don't is a rather short
political career.

It is likely that any new MPs will toe the party line for a
significant time before they become rebellious.

Not with such a divisive issue as brexit.

They will. They will have been elected on the basis of their party's
manifesto pledges on which they will have been campaigning. It would be
utterly hypocritical to do anything else.

The way to resolve that, if it's possible, is to have a general
election where, hopefully, Parliament will become rather more
properly representative.

But more likely it will result in no clear majority in favour of any
exit deal and a majority against a no-deal.

You'll never know until you try.

But the risk of trying is an even worse unviable govt than there is now.

Nevertheless, the country desperately need to try.

With the Remain vote hopelessly split between Labour, the LibDems, the
Greens and the SNP, the route is open for the Conservatives, who are
leading considerably in the polls, possibly in cahoots with the Brexit
Party, to waltz through the middle and clear up.

But given that there are so many remainers in the Tory party,
the result could well be an even bigger mess in parliament
than currently and no possibility of a Tory/LimpDim coalition
this time given that the Limp/Dims are so rabidly remain now.

The Tories are committed to leave. The LibDems are committed to
remain. Ne'er the twain shall meet. There will be no Tory/LibDem
coalition, that much is absolutely clear.

And even a Tory/Brexit party coalition is unlikely with a general
election after 29-Oct which has see a no deal brexit by default.

It won't be necessary then. If we've left without a deal, the Brexit
Party ceases to have anything to offer. Its voters will all switch to
the Tories, and there will be nothing more for the Tories to gain.

That is what is putting the fear of God up that nice Mr Corbyn, even
if he does dress it up in holy no-deal prevention clothes.

The real reason he wont support a general election now is that
he knows that Boris gets to set the date and will have it after the
29-Oct with the no deal brexit happening completely automatically.

He doesn't want a general election full stop. His party would be
decimated. He's therefore looking round for any excuse at all to avoid
an election, and a no-deal Brexit is just a convenient one at the moment.

Are you hoping that by shuffling the pack and dealing the cards
again you'll end up with a Royal Flush? A majority of MPs in favour
of any particular course of action?

Who knows?Â* What is clear, though, is that we need a functioning
government, which we do not have at present.Â* It needs to deal with
more than just a single issue.

I think you know, in your heart of hearts, that the demand for a
general election has only one purpose: to secure the future of the
Tory party.

The country isn't being governed, and can't be governed given the
current state of the parties.

Its doing fine with all but the brexit issue.

No it isn't. If the government doesn't have a majority, it can't get
its legislation through.

That in the past would always, and veryÂ* sensibly, have resulted in a
general election.

And then you lot went for fixed term parliaments
which changed things completely in that regard.

Actually, the last Conservative Party manifesto said it would repeal the
Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which is, as we've seen by the current
impasse, a very faulty piece of legislation, and can be used in ways
that were clearly not anticipated.

That's what the country desperately needs,

The last thing the country needs an even more
ungovernable country than there is currently.

That's why we need a general election.

whatever the end result, but is being prevented from having by Labour
whose only interest is self-interest.

Corse Boris isnt doing anything like that, eh ?

By doing what exactly?

An election before 31st October would result in many people voting
for "Boris the man who is determined to get us out of the EU by 31st
October". An election after 31st October would result in many people
laughing at the man who failed to keep his promises, which turned out
to be all bluster and bluff.

That's wishful thinking on your part.

Nope, yours is with your claim about what
a general election now would produce.

I haven't said what a general election will produce. It's in its nature
that no-one knows but can only speculate about it.

It's not 'bluster and bluff' if others conspire to prevent you doing
what you sincerely want and try very hard to do.

There is no conspiracy when parliament chooses to
force Boris to ask for an extension.

Of course there is. Everything in Parliament is MPs conspiring to do
something or other. It's how it works.

It isnt even ignoring
the referendum if they are stupid enough to believe
that more time will produce a viable brexit deal.

I don't think anyone believes it will. We've made no real progress
towards a deal acceptable to both sides despite three years of
discussion and deadlock already. It's time the whole matter was brought
to a conclusion.

Nor will a temporary delay be held against him.

Hard to predict what the voters will
do. May got that drastically wrong.

It's not his fault, you see.

It remains to be seen if the voters see it that way.

If it was in his hands but did nothing then there would be grounds for
complaint. Trying to do something he said he would but being frustrated
at every turn by others is rather different.

Frustration by vacillating Labour and the Liberal Undemocrats I think
will rebound on them rather than on Boris.

Also hard to predict, particularly if there is a real demographic
effect and there is no longer a majority in favour of brexit.

So you say. But I think you're wrong now, and you were certainly proved
wrong in the only vote that mattered.

Or even enough who assumed that the result of
the referendum would be to remain and who will
now vote in a general election once that realise that
there are so many in favour of brexit and want to
ensure that doesnt happen by voting LimpDim.

Which splits the Remain vote even further. That only helps the
Conservatives.

The Tories are desperate for that early election and Cox was so
furious he was almost in tears.

You're not very good at reading body language, are you?

Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an
election when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is
the first opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the
electorate to get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

Not if there's no general election.Â* And almost certainly not if there
is.

That last is nothing even remotely like almost certain.

Have you looked at the polls recently?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:13:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH 194 !!! lines or the usual retarded blather

Learn to trim your quotes, you brain dead senile Ozzie troll!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: