Darthlaw wrote:Just in the same way it is perfectly democratic in our representative parliamentary democracy for Boris to suspend parliament, as he is doing.

John's issue was 'An unelected PM shutting down Parliament to force through a No Deal Brexit which has no public mandate. It really is appalling stuff'

Whats the issue here? Its perfectly democratic.

Wrong again. Whilst what Johnson is doing may be technically legal in our system, it goes against the spirit of our representative parliamentary democracy in a way that our elected representatives voting to rescind Article 50 never would, in that it’s a brazen attempt to deny our elected representatives their say.

You’re back to proving my point about brexiters who don’t understand how our system should work again.

Roosterbooster wrote:Could you point out just one single occurrence where the leave campaign suggested voting to leave meant a no deal Brexit?? Because I remember them telling us a very different story. So next time you fool yourself into thinking this is what the country voted for, just think back to all those times you slated a politician for not delivering on their promise. Nobody is getting what was promised here. Instead, Boris is dictating his way around democracy, jumping off a cliff, and taking us all with him. There are only 2 sets of people who think today's actions are justified. Hardcore Tories, and hardcore brexiteers. And neither of those groups give a rats @*** about what really happens. As long as Corbyn stays out of number 10, and we leave the EU, then they are happy, irrespective of the repercussions. It's a sad, sad story.....

Nobody needed to point out that no deal was a possibility, as the majority of people understand that it is a likely scenario when a negotiation takes place.
People voted to leave.
They didnt vote to remain on even worse terms than we have now. Or to only leave if the EU dont play hardball.

In any case, I believe we will get a deal that suits most people, now that hardcore remainers are no longer able to cripple the UK's bargaining position.
If not then no deal it is

You're saying it "goes against the spirit of our representative parliamentary democracy" for Johnson to prorogue parliament, albeit legal under our representative parliamentary democracy.

Then you suggest it would be within 'the spirit of our representative parliamentary democracy" to ignore the wishes of their electorate by going against the result of a referendum. A referendum the representatives themselves sanctioned. Legal, of course, but within the spirit?

Go home, you're drunk.

Which Battle for Brexit do you reckon this one is?
I think it's Helm's Deep.
It's possibly not the final final battle but it's a biggie.

BennyD wrote:Even from you this is complete bolloxcs; you were all happy and jokey when the remainers were foiling the (majority) public wish to leave the EU. When it was looking like a second referendum would be dumped on the public you were so soooo happy, because you said that it was all part of the democratic process. Suspending Parliament is an established part of UK politics, so much so that The Queen said YES to the request. Is she an extremist? FYI, there is nothing happening that indicates a dictatorship unless you are calling Auntie Betty a dictator? If she is, why would she need anyone to ask her to suspend Parliament? Let’s face it, you are massively p!ssed off because Boris is cutting through the remainer’s games and taking us out, wether they like it or not. Do us all a favour and quit bitchin’ about the democratic process when the worst abusers are the remainers. Caretaker PM, interim government indeed. Btw, people were laughing at you because you are a ****.

Nope. I'm happy for a second referendum not because it's part of the democratic process but because there is significant and compelling evidence to suggest that the public has changed its mind.

This is you just making up reasons behind my opinions to fit your preferred narrative. Probably because you know how indefensible for a Prime Minister to suspend parliament purely for the purposes of blocking parliament from interfering in his political agenda.

This is the stuff of failed democracies, and you're clearly a big fan of it which means you've lost all claims to supporting democracy. Which we've all long suspected, of course, but it's nice to finally have it confirmed.

Darthlaw wrote:You're saying it "goes against the spirit of our representative parliamentary democracy" for Johnson to prorogue parliament, albeit legal under our representative parliamentary democracy.

Then you suggest it would be within 'the spirit of our representative parliamentary democracy" to ignore the wishes of their electorate by going against the result of a referendum. A referendum the representatives themselves sanctioned. Legal, of course, but within the spirit?

Go home, you're drunk.

Who's saying that?

If you were truly interested in the wishes of the electorate being fulfilled you'd support a second referendum given how much evidence there is that a no deal brexit is against the wishes of the electorate.

Darthlaw wrote:You're saying it "goes against the spirit of our representative parliamentary democracy" for Johnson to prorogue parliament, albeit legal under our representative parliamentary democracy.

Then you suggest it would be within 'the spirit of our representative parliamentary democracy" to ignore the wishes of their electorate by going against the result of a referendum. A referendum the representatives themselves sanctioned. Legal, of course, but within the spirit?...

That’s exactly what I’m saying, and I’m right.

It’s not my fault you don’t understand how our system is supposed to work.

I’ll try to explain it in simple terms for you, because it’s never too late to learn stuff...

We elect our MPs as representatives, not as delegates. They are supposed to do what they think is best for their constituents, not what the constituents think is best for themselves. Like a GP should prescribe the drugs you need, not just the ones you ask for.

So if enough MPs believe cancelling Article 50 is the best thing to do for their constituents, they would be complying fully with the spirit and the letter of our representative parliamentary democracy by voting to do so.

And just to prevent you from misunderstanding or misrepresenting my point again, I’ll clarify that I’m not saying Article 50 will be rescinded, nor that it should be.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Nope. I'm happy for a second referendum not because it's part of the democratic process but because there is significant and compelling evidence to suggest that the public has changed its mind.

Can you post some evidence of the please

Greenmile wrote:Like a GP should prescribe the drugs you need, not just the ones you ask for.

To use your analogy, it’s like the GP offering the decision of which hospital you want to go to for treatment. You make your decision then the doc disagrees, overrules you, takes the options off the table and sends you to their choice.

Sure, he can do it as it’s within his power but It thoroughly undermines the ‘choice’ you had. Is that the spirit we’re looking for?

Then again, maybe that’s what you’re looking for ultimately? Give people the illusion of choice, just not the actual choice itself?

Have you tried North Korea? That sounds right up your street.

Darthlaw wrote:Yikes!

Never go full Colburn

Darthlaw wrote:Have you tried North Korea? That sounds right up your street.

Damo wrote:Can you post some evidence of the please

Damo wrote:Can you post some evidence of the please

The polls

Darthlaw wrote:To use your analogy, it’s like the GP offering the decision of which hospital you want to go to for treatment. You make your decision then the doc disagrees, overrules you, takes the options off the table and sends you to their choice.

Sure, he can do it as it’s within his power but It thoroughly undermines the ‘choice’ you had. Is that the spirit we’re looking for?

Then again, maybe that’s what you’re looking for ultimately? Give people the illusion of choice, just not the actual choice itself?

Have you tried North Korea? That sounds right up your street.

If my GP strongly believes that the hospital I’ve chosen is more likely to end up making my health worse then I would absolutely want her to over-rule me. Wouldn’t you?

After all, my GP spends her working life thinking about this sort of thing where I might have just chosen the hospital with better parking facilities or nicer-looking nurses because I don’t really know much about medicine - I think everything will either give me cancer, or prevent me from getting cancer (often both at the same time) because all of my medical knowledge comes from reading the Mail and the Express.

Of course, my GP would have to be pretty incompetent to even offer me the choice in the first place.

It’s pretty accurate this analogy, isn’t it?

Imploding Turtle wrote:

He said "significant and compelling evidence" Charlie.
Not a tiny swing on a poll of a handful of people

Damo wrote:He said "significant and compelling evidence" Charlie.
Not a tiny swing on a poll of a handful of people

You managed to be wrong 3 times in a 12 word sentence.

It's not a tiny swing, it's a swing much bigger than the margin of victory for Leave in the 2016 vote. So if the swing is too small then surely so is the margin of victory 3 years ago on which we're basing everything on.

It's not a handful of people, it is many tens of thousands of people polled over the course of the last 3 years which shows a very clear trend away from the public believing that it was the right decision in 2016 to now believing it was the wrong decision.

And it's not "a" poll. It is over 100 polls over 3 years.

This is way more evidence that we need a second referendum than there was evidence that we needed a first one, so yes, it's significant and compelling evidence.

Damo wrote:He said "significant and compelling evidence" Charlie.
Not a tiny swing on a poll of a handful of people

Damo’s legendary comprehension skills strike again.

Greenmile wrote:If my GP strongly believes that the hospital I’ve chosen is more likely to end up making my health worse then I would absolutely want her to over-rule me. Wouldn’t you?

After all, my GP spends her working life thinking about this sort of thing where I might have just chosen the hospital with better parking facilities or nicer-looking nurses because I don’t really know much about medicine - I think everything will either give me cancer, or prevent me from getting cancer (often both at the same time) because all of my medical knowledge comes from reading the Mail and the Express.

Of course, my GP would have to be pretty incompetent to even offer me the choice in the first place.

It’s pretty accurate this analogy, isn’t it?

I see how it is to you. You’re the one happy to hand over all the power and decision making to someone you admit is incompetent. You’re happy to concede that any decision offered to you is merely an act and that they will do what they like, regardless, as you (in some romantic notion), believe they have your best interest at heart with no possible hidden agenda whatsoever such as to line their own pockets.

Hey, now I get why you voted remain!

Anyway, tomorrow is another day to watch it continue to unfold.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You managed to be wrong 3 times in a 12 word sentence.

It's not a tiny swing, it's a swing much bigger than the margin of victory for Leave in the 2016 vote. So if the swing is too small then surely so is the margin of victory 3 years ago on which we're basing everything on.

It's not a handful of people, it is many tens of thousands of people polled over the course of the last 3 years which shows a very clear trend away from the public believing that it was the right decision in 2016 to now believing it was the wrong decision.

And it's not "a" poll. It is over 100 polls over 3 years.

This is way more evidence that we need a second referendum than there was evidence that we needed a first one, so yes, it's significant and compelling evidence.

You posted some polls that showed around 65 people decided one thing over another.
That is not significant or compelling, even with my apparent poor comprehension skills

Damo wrote:Can you post some evidence of the please

What again??

Also, the "significant and compelling" evidence omitted the fact that most people (who took part in these polls) believe there shouldn't even be another referendum.
I.E they respect the result of the original one.
Not that it even matters, because the poll that everyone took part in gave us a definitive answer, and now we have a government that seems to be delivering upon it
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/d ... en-agreed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Damo wrote:You posted some polls that showed around 65 people decided one thing over another.
That is not significant or compelling, even with my apparent poor comprehension skills

Do you know what a "sample" is? It's a smaller representative version of a larger whole.
This is how opinion polls work. And yes, when done well they work at accurately measuring public opinion.

For about 60 straight YouGov polls a plurality of the public think it was the wrong decision to vote to Leave. There is no reasonable way any reasonable person can argue that this is not significant or compelling evidence in favour of measuring the Will of the People™ again. No one who values democracy, at least.

Damo wrote:Also, the "significant and compelling" evidence omitted the fact that most people (who took part in these polls) believe there shouldn't even be another referendum.
I.E they respect the result of the original one.
Not that it even matters, because the poll that everyone took part in gave us a definitive answer, and now we have a government that seems to be delivering upon it
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/d ... en-agreed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know for sure whether you are being mendacious or just uncritical, but that link you provided is only counting 19 YouGov polls upto September last year. There are much more recent data which you could have found if you had went to the wikipedia page that compiles these polls.

Since September 2018, when your preferred data set ends, there have been a further 12 YouGov polls asking the public whether they support a second referendum, and in 10 of those polls the plurality was in favour of a second referendum.

So, you're not even right on that. The public wants a second referendum, as evidenced by the most recent polling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... referendum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit: in fact, in March when they polled both on support for a second referendum AND on support for a second referendum on leaving without a deal or remaining in the EU if it looks like we're going to leave without a deal, support for a second referendum actually increased if it looks like we're going to leave with no deal.

Edit #2: And by the way, the 2 polls YouGov did that showed opposition to a second referendum was asking about a second EU referendum, not a referendum on the final deal.

You’re right Damo, we need a much larger sample. A national referendum perhaps?

Seem's the public aren't happy about today's events:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... suspension" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It would not be fitting to let this day pass without posting a big 'Thank You', to Boris Johnson.
It has been great to read all the desperate quotes from MPs and others who have been allowed to think they can stop what 17.4 million clearly voted for.
It's not over by a long way but at last it's a proper fight Parliament v The People.

The public are very happy thank you. The figures inflated by Remain voters. Now there's a big surprise

Elizabeth wrote:The public are very happy thank you

Not according to Yougov they aren't.

See edited post. And keep kidding yourself.

Elizabeth wrote:It would not be fitting to let this day pass without posting a big 'Thank You', to Boris Johnson.
It has been great to read all the desperate quotes from MPs and others who have been allowed to think they can stop what 17.4 million clearly voted for.
It's not over by a long way but at last it's a proper fight Parliament v The People.

17.4 clearly voted for

is a falsehood and you know it.

But your ringing the Ringo jingo populist bell loudly so I'd expect nothing less.

Elizabeth wrote:The public are very happy thank you. The figures inflated by Remain voters. Now there's a big surprise

Guess what Wrongo, remain voters are part of the public.

The Polls said " Remain " would win prior to June 23rd 2016 .... a " You-gov " Poll on the day predicted 52-48 % in favour of Remain ( sample size 4,772 ). In addition, the " You-gov " polls you cite are all conducted online, and take no account of people who've now become cautious of expressing any conservative views in public, but feel free to do so in the privacy of the voting booth ...

The Polls said Clinton would beat Trump in November 2016, and she'd win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin ....

Someone told me remain voters lost the only relevant vote in 2016. Is that right?

Clarets4me wrote:The Polls said " Remain " would win prior to June 23rd 2016 .... a " You-gov " Poll on the day predicted 52-48 % in favour of Remain ( sample size 4,772 ). In addition, the " You-gov " polls you cite are all conducted online, and take no account of people who've now become cautious of expressing any conservative views in public, but feel free to do so in the privacy of the voting booth ...

The Polls said Clinton would beat Trump in November 2016, and she'd win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin ....

And how on earth do you think Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson will decide when to call a general Election?

By looking at vast amounts of polling data!

Elizabeth wrote:Someone told me remain voters lost the only relevant vote in 2016. Is that right?

As a remain voter you should know. Or have you forgotten the origin story of your own character Wrongo?

Elizabeth wrote:Someone told me remain voters lost the only relevant vote in 2016. Is that right?

Someone told me in 2016 we've have an excellent free trade deal like Norway or Switzerland, it was Nigel Farage in fact, I never heard about this 'no deal' so I voted to leave. Is that right?

Spijed wrote:And how on earth do you think Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson will decide when to call a general Election?

By looking at vast amounts of polling data!

Exactly. And if the Tories lose the election, they won't get any credit for saying that the result was wrong because the opinion polls gave a different result from the vote.

The last desperate throes of some of our lesser resident remoaners is so satisfying to read.
I hope I am well prepared for the battle with the big remoaning hitters over the coming weeks.

Combat, you are one of few leave voters who are happy with what has gone on in Parliament over the last 3 years so forgive me if I disregard your comment as trivial

Elizabeth wrote:Combat, you are one of few leave voters who are happy with what has gone on in Parliament over the last 3 years so forgive me if I disregard your comment as trivial

Sorry I was playing the role of a leave voter. Just pointing out no deal was never campaigned on, nor is there is no mandate for it. So much so an unelected PM is trying to shut down Parliament which is the seat of sovereign power in the UK to push it through.

claret2018 wrote:You’re right Damo, we need a much larger sample. A national referendum perhaps?

I have no problem with another referendum.
But only when the result for the first one has been enacted, or when there is "significant and compelling" evidence that the populous craves one (I.E more than 65 people on an online poll, that has regularly shown results contrary to what the public actually believe)
I'm not interested in one just because Charlie, Martin and Greenmile off the internet want one though. Neither is anyone else

Damo wrote:I have no problem with another referendum.
But only when the result for the first one has been enacted, or when there is "significant and compelling" evidence that the populous craves one (I.E more than 65 people on an online poll, that has regularly shown results contrary to what the public actually believe)
I'm not interested in one just because Charlie, Martin and Greenmile off the internet want one though. Neither is anyone else

You’ve gone full Wrongo, not a good look for someone who’s taken a Mensa test.

'the seat of sovereign power' sounds far too grand for a bunch of scoundrels.
I can stomach the SNP stance as they have a lot to lose. The Parliamentary Labour Party on the other hand have blown any chance they had of capitalising on their good 2017 General Election result. Even the 6000 majority in Burnley has every chance of being overturned if Brexit isn't delivered.

CombatClaret wrote:Sorry I was playing the role of a leave voter. Just pointing out no deal was never campaigned on, nor is there is no mandate for it. So much so an unelected PM is trying to shut down Parliament which is the seat of sovereign power in the UK to push it through.

Does the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" mean nothing to you? Don't you remember Theresa May saying it several thousand times during the general election campaign? Apart from "strong and stable", it's about all she did say.

But in a sense you are right. At no time was it ever said that a vote to leave was dependent on the EU agreeing the terms of departure. Cameron clearly said "This is your decision. The Government will enact what you decide". He did not say that our decision was merely advisory and that the EU would be the ones to actually decide whether we can go.

dsr wrote:At no time was it ever said that a vote to leave was dependent on the EU agreeing the terms of departure.

I think you need to look up the word ‘deal’. Of course the EU has to agree the terms of departure, as does the U.K., that’s what a deal is! If leave voters thought we could unilaterally define and agree what the deal was then the stereotypes are true.

I must correct you on that dsr.

It reads more accurately as ' the EU thought they would be the ones to actually decide whether we can go'

Darthlaw wrote:I see how it is to you. You’re the one happy to hand over all the power and decision making to someone you admit is incompetent. You’re happy to concede that any decision offered to you is merely an act and that they will do what they like, regardless, as you (in some romantic notion), believe they have your best interest at heart with no possible hidden agenda whatsoever such as to line their own pockets.

Hey, now I get why you voted remain!

Anyway, tomorrow is another day to watch it continue to unfold.

I've seen this suggestion a number of times but so far I've not had an answer on how MPs are lining their own pockets by staying in the EU. Could you elaborate?

aggi wrote:I've seen this suggestion a number of times but so far I've not had an answer on how MPs are lining their own pockets by staying in the EU. Could you elaborate?

Of course he can’t.

Damo wrote:I have no problem with another referendum.
But only when the result for the first one has been enacted, or when there is "significant and compelling" evidence that the populous craves one (I.E more than 65 people on an online poll, that has regularly shown results contrary to what the public actually believe)
I'm not interested in one just because Charlie, Martin and Greenmile off the internet want one though. Neither is anyone else

You're literally a moron if you think that 65 people were all that was polled. Honestly. Stupid as ****.

As Darthlaw does not appear to be on line presently I bid remaining browsers goodnight.
Aggi, You're a first team player for the Remoaners and I look forward to locking horns with you over the coming weeks.
PS Don't think much of your ball boys

martin_p wrote:You’ve gone full Wrongo, not a good look for someone who’s taken a Mensa test.

"Everyone who upsets me is Wrongo"