Bollox To Democracy

[Toodles McGinty]

noticed "Local" liked the above ... probably trigger happy and clicked Like after reading the first 5 words, missing the irony of the last 10 !!!

Made me laugh. You can't take 'em back, either

[seivad]

Is that the same Heath that supported our membership of the Euro ?

You could go on to mention Wilson renegotiating before our referendum or even better France vetoing our entry years earlier because of our close ties with the US.

All of which has absolutely no relevance to my comment, which was a rebuttal of Said's contention that Heath lied to "persuade the people to join up"

People complain they didn't know what they were voting for after our 2016 vote which bombarded us with comment and analysis 24/7.
Imagine how little we got back in the 70's ?]

I don't have to imagine. In 1973 I was 26 years of age and living in the UK. As I said in another post, had there been a referendum on whether or not to join, I would probably have voted against it.

We may not have had the internet then, and the resulting social media sites. However, as you can imagine, it dominated the print media and TV. Politicians always gild the lily when presenting their position. Left/right wing media does likewise. The big difference from back then, is the huge volume of disinformation posted on today's social media sites. I don't think it helped a lot of people to arrive at an informed decision.

[grassroots]

Sick and tired of positions of all parties, none of them have the wishes of the people at heart. Just a bunch of money grabbing *******s. Excuse my French.

[local]

Nope read it all.

[Ceam]

Sick and tired of positions of all parties, none of them have the wishes of the people at heart. Just a bunch of money grabbing *******s. Excuse my French.

Problem is the wish of the people is very split.

[local]

Problem is the wish of the people is very split.

Which takes us neatly back to 23 June 2016 where we had a referendum to settle the issue.

That exercise in pure democracy would have been fine if the outcome had been remain, our pseudo representatives would have embraced this vote and flocked to Brussels to chummy up to our "friends in Europe"


When those pesky people voted "the wrong way" the mask quickly dropped from the "democrats" in Parliament who turned on the electorate for having the temerity to vote how they felt.

Those voters were then bombarded with bitter bile and our society rang to accusations of racism,xenophobia,stupidity and the courts filled with vexatious challenges, thankfully sanity has reigned in the Courts so far ?

The fake democrats have conspired to frustrate the will of the people culminating in perhaps the worst period in our countries political history.

The thin veneer of democracy has dropped and parties openly campaign to rip up votes.

The new leader for the anti-democrats Jo Swindle has swivelled 180 degrees on her parties constitution;



We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people.






Apparently their belief was paper thin when they wrote that.

[AdmiralAckbar]

Which takes us neatly back to 23 June 2016 where we had a referendum to settle the issue.

Nope. The 2016 Referendum was non-binding so didn't settle anything.

You need to sit down, put your feet up, and have a nice cup of tea to relax.

You're getting all muddled up and confused again with the subsequent Tory manifesto, which they were then elected on, where they promised to honour the referendum result.

Shame they went about it in totally the wrong way, by not making it a cross party initiative presumably wanting to take the glory all for themselves ...

Not only did the Tories succeed in dividing the people in 2016, but they've since gone on to divide parliament and caused splits within every party including their own.

At least they're good at something.

[Ceam]

Which takes us neatly back to 23 June 2016 where we had a referendum to settle the issue.

You make it sound like a land slide victory, Which is was far from. Even the ones that voted for Brexit have different opinions on what that should be.
So as I said the people are very split.

[local]

The "victory" pyrrhic it may turn out to be, was enough to determine the outcome.

It would certainly have been enough for the remainers if the numbers had been reversed.

But to put you on the spot,

if a simple majority was not enough for you, what numbers would you have thought satisfactory to determine the vote ?

[local]

Nope. The 2016 Referendum was non-binding so didn't settle anything.

You need to sit down, put your feet up, and have a nice cup of tea to relax.

You're getting all muddled up and confused again with the subsequent* Tory manifesto, which they were then elected on, where they promised to honour the referendum result.

Shame they went about it in totally the wrong way, by not making it a cross party initiative presumably wanting to take the glory all for themselves ...

Not only did the Tories succeed in dividing the people in 2016, but they've since gone on to divide parliament and caused splits within every party including their own.

At least they're good at something.

Sorry Sherlock you have got it wrong again, from the Easy Read version (for you) of the leaflet sent to every household before the vote it's clear the terms on which we all voted,

The referendum on 23rd June
is your chance to choose if we
should remain in or leave the


https://assets.publishing.service.go...AL_VERSION.pdf
European Union.


Just for good measure you might like to read this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U...hip_referendum


Its got some great stuff in it,

In May 2015, in accordance with a Conservative Party manifesto commitment following their victory at the 2015 UK general election, the legal basis for a referendum on EU membership was established by the UK Parliament through the European Union Referendum Act 2015


https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto2015

Spot the dates get your magnifying glass on it


*subsequent
/?s?bs?kw(?)nt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
coming after something in time; following.

[Ceam]

The "victory" pyrrhic it may turn out to be, was enough to determine the outcome.

It would certainly have been enough for the remainers if the numbers had been reversed.

But to put you on the spot,

if a simple majority was not enough for you, what numbers would you have thought satisfactory to determine the vote ?

It's not a case of a victory or loss, The whole thing was/is a mess. No plan, no details. Full of lies and scaremongering from both sides. 3 years on and we STILL don't have a clue what the out come or deal is going to be.

A huge brown stain on the history of the U.K.

[AdmiralAckbar]

Sorry Sherlock you have got it wrong again, from the Easy Read version (for you) of the leaflet sent to every household before the vote it's clear the terms on which we all voted,

The referendum on 23rd June
is your chance to choose if we
should remain in or leave the


https://assets.publishing.service.go...AL_VERSION.pdf
European Union.


Just for good measure you might like to read this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U...hip_referendum


Its got some great stuff in it,

In May 2015, in accordance with a Conservative Party manifesto commitment following their victory at the 2015 UK general election, the legal basis for a referendum on EU membership was established by the UK Parliament through the European Union Referendum Act 2015


https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto2015

Spot the dates get your magnifying glass on it


*subsequent
/?s?bs?kw(?)nt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
coming after something in time; following.

Interesting links there, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U...hip_referendum which states "legally the referendum was non-binding"... which is exactly what I said.

The best though was this link https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto2015 which, if you scroll down to the bottom of that webpage there is a link to download the pdf version which states "All access to this object has been disabled" and "This XML file does not appear to have any style ..."

However, having scrolled through the webpage version, I will graciously conceed that it does actually say "we will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the result" ... but do have to say, I wonder how many other promises they made in that manifesto and what the stats were for the ones they kept and the ones they didn't.

This bit was also interesting as in the context of your response it could be deemed quite misleading (although it wouldn't be a 1st in your case) ...

In May 2015, in accordance with a Conservative Party manifesto commitment following their victory at the 2015 UK general election, the legal basis for a referendum on EU membership was established by the UK Parliament through the European Union Referendum Act 2015

... that act provided the legal basis to actually have a referendum, but made no provision as to the referendum’s legal effect ... the latter being particularly different than the former as the government could have still decided, quite legally, not to implement the result.
https://constitution-unit.com/2016/0...te-for-brexit/

[local]

but made no provision as to the referendum’s legal effect ... the latter being particularly different than the former as the government could have still decided, quite legally, not to implement the result.



Don't panic Parliament accepted the validity of the referendum.

They backed the government's European Union Bill, supported by the Labour leadership, by 498 votes to 114.

Even Ken Clarke despite being against all things Brexit didn't vote against the bill he just abstained.

Even a few Lib Dems thought it was reasonable.

Those were the days democracy in action.

[silver fox]

but made no provision as to the referendum’s legal effect ... the latter being particularly different than the former as the government could have still decided, quite legally, not to implement the result.



Don't panic Parliament accepted the validity of the referendum.

They backed the government's European Union Bill, supported by the Labour leadership, by 498 votes to 114.

Even Ken Clarke despite being against all things Brexit didn't vote against the bill he just abstained.

Even a few Lib Dems thought it was reasonable.

Those were the days democracy in action.

Those were the days before everyone realised just how much horse **** the Tories would manage to produce in the easy transfer

[libraryguy]

Whooops...

https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/e...electoral-law/