For I give a helpful and constructive warning now, that unless a candidate favoured by the Party as a whole is dropped into the vacancy, there will no longer be a Conservative Party. A new Conservative Party in which Nigel Farage could find a home, a reforming and forward looking party, would emerge - and would garner members, backers and support rapidly. I am loyal to the Conservative Party, but that loyalty must be reciprocal. If the Parliamentary Party continues to ignore, frustrate and oppose the will of the vast majority of Party members, it will be crushed.
For now, look to your constituencies and prepare for a Brexit election - with one candidate to stand, and one only, in each constituency as the Pro-Brexit candidate, be they Conservative, UKIP or Independent. A liaison group must be effected rapidly to ensure this is done - we cannot afford to have the Brexit vote split.
43 comments:
What impasse?
The UK is leaving The EU
That's the opposite of an impasse, it's a clearly charted course.
The Remoaners are calling for an election as a last ditch effort to stop Brexitiers
There's not reason to indulge their wishes.
We need a Real Brexit Party to vote for. The CONs simply can't be trusted and our stitched-up electoral system will ensure that whoever "wins," the Establishment rules.
Hell will freeze over before I vote for my MP, Oliver Letwin, who is working with Grieve, Boles and others to overturn the result of the Referendum or force EEA/EFTA on us, rendering Brexit meaningless.
DeeDee - some may suggest that UKIP should stand 'moderate' candidates in all Tory Remainer constituencies - Grieve's, Soubry's and Letwin's...
The campaign might have started with May's hint that she would repeal the Human Rights Act.
Now consider this.
There is the recently announced over seven trillion pounds worth of equity in UK residential property, and I'm sure that the usual would very much like some of that. There are ways that they can get it, but at the moment HRA1998 stands in the way.
Let's imagine, say, that a man needs long term twenty-four hour health and social care, but his wife remains in the family home. At the moment the Right To Peaceful Enjoyment Of Possessions in HRA1998 means that she cannot be thrown out and the house sold to pay for that.
That possibility is just one repeal act away, as would be people's company pension pots being used to defray creditors in bankruptcies once more, as used to happen. The BBC was silent on that change in the law to employee's benefit, incidentally, as I'm sure it will be on these implications of HRA repeal.
And HRA does not stop the deportation of criminals. ECHR ruled on that very point for Russia not long ago, that they could do that very thing. Again, the BBC does not challenge the opposite assertion.
What's the latest, on Farage's moves to form a new party?
That would put a fox in the brexit hen-house, wouldn't it?
Anon - Please tell us about "May's hint that she would repeal the Human Rights Act."
Or I shall assume you are a troll and delete your comment.
Raed:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-human-rights-act-repeal-brexit-echr-commons-parliament-conservatives-a8734886.html
Anon - thank you. I was not aware.
However, its no more than a distant red herring at the moment.
How many times do I have to say that leaving is not an event, it's a process, and that will take years.
EEA/EFTA is a much better alternative to the current deal on offer, although both do put us outside the political EU. Which is a useful first step.
"or force EEA/EFTA on us, rendering Brexit meaningless."
DeeDee:
"No one is thinking of leaving the single market" - Daniel Hannan.
No one in the lying Leave campaigns contradicted him, did they?
If you consider a very hard brexit as evolutionary, then moving from the EU to EEA is a major step in that process, as Owen Paterson - another liar - said before the referendum.
You cannot complain is the UK adopts that path, therefore.
I think Hannan, Patterson, Farage and others who mentioned meant that nobody was even thinking, let alone suggesting, that we stop trading with the EU/Single Market because that was the Remainer 'debate': scare stories of no trade, no planes no visas etc (still is)
I wouldn't worry about Blair's "ooman rights" act, that is actually the polar opposite of the rights of the British, which are implicit in our constitution...
Every Briton knows about them. They are the difference between what I refer to as Habeas corpus and Corpus Juris. What Raedwald has been describing as internationalism and globalism.
Any government official or puppet that tried to move us from our castles would be in for a shock, the thin blue or red line is only so-thick.
As to a rallying point, whether it has legs, I don't know yet, but I have tentatively put my name down as a member of "Leavers of Britain", which seems like a logical thing to do. It is grass roots based, and its purpose is to have social gatherings and events involving real people meeting with each other.
This is something that is missing from internet gatherings.
I remember doing a tour of the London coffee house sites that formed the backbone of the "city of London" financial system.
The most important part of it was that one was within "nutting" distance of those that would see it fail.
Anyone can join, but deviants will soon be found out and made short shrift of.
Just learn something about the English legal system, right-writes, instead of parroting bits of Latin without a clue as to their context or proper meaning.
There is NO written constitution beyond Parliament Alone Is The Law.
Equity trumps the common law.
Acts of Parliament trump both equity and the common law, so any rights, freedoms and protections which people may have under them can always be removed by Parliament.
That is not the case in other countries, where a super majority or Constitutional Convention would be needed to remove a constitutional right, but it is in still-feudal England.
It is why, amongst other things, it can remove the rights that people have as citizens of the EU - part of most other members' constitutions.
Wake up.
er ....right.
We should adopt something that would prevent us leaving the EU or any other Globalist organisation, and that gives corrupt and unelected capos jurisdiction over the British people.
Why would we want to do that?
Our non-constitution has worked well for a about a thousand years. When the French (1958) German (1949) Italian (1947) or Spanish (1978) constitutions have lasted even a tenth as long the question might be worth asking.
But as a reminder, the Weimar constitution, a model of liberal intentions, human rights and proportional representation, didn't make it past 14 years.
It's you that has no clue anon.
Just like all those people that were in thrall to the USSR, they thought that Russian people had a different set of rules, but when it came down to it, they were just waiting for the return of the Tsar.
There is nothing new under the sun and habeas corpus still rules here.
I suspect that your teachers' time was wasted on you too, righty.
Here's an example of why the Tory-ukip media etc. are lying about ECHR:
https://www.dw.com/en/echr-permits-germanys-preemptive-deportation-of-teen-to-russia/a-41596834
Incidentally, read the earlier sub-thread about the thuggish tendency of the Leave-rightists. Thanks for proving our point in your previous post.
I didn't express any argument on this thread in favour of any change to the UK's constitution Raed.
I'm trying to stick to topic, the possible election, and what appeared to me to be a ploy by May to hoover up the ukip vote as part of that campaign.
For the reasons I give, I'd inspect the implications of that very closely.
Single/widowed people are already having their homes, their castles, sold to pay for care. Aren't they?
HRA repeal would enable other family members to be thrown out. Then there's the matter of pension pots and bankruptcies...
Sigh. They've got nothing but insults, have they? An intelligent reasoned dislogue would be nice. I suspect this is Conceited-Anon, who claims to know something about the law, rather than Innumerate-Anon or Eel-Anon of the post below. As to the silly and uninformed quip about 'feudalism' I have a certain academic standing in this matter. One story.
Back in the 13th century the first nascent independent boroughs were formed in England - amidst a land that still suffered under feudal obligations. The boroughs paid the king a big bag of gold, and in return got a Charter that allowed many things. One such common vein was a provision that if a Serf from outside the town managed to stay there for a year and a day without discovery, they were immune from 'recapture' by their feudal lords. So did the populations of towns grow and thrive. The boroughs also paid taxes direct to the king - not to local lords. They paid cash for labour. One - Dunwich - even ensured in a Charter of 1215 that girls should not be married against their will. Extraordinary for the time. They also ensured that they were subject only to their own courts and not to the justice of the feudal lords.
Of course folk flooded to the Charter boroughs. After the Black Death, they formed the spine of a new social order that effecively ended feudalism by the close of the 14th century, though relics remained in minor quaint porpert obligations in some areas not covered by charters. If effect Serfdom in England was at an end.
Read Dunwich's 1215 charter here and enjoy a declaration of freedom that still shines as a beacon of English enterprise - http://suffolkinstitute.pdfsrv.co.uk/customers/Suffolk%20Institute/2014/01/10/Volume%20XXIII%20Part%203%20(1939)_The%20Dunwich%20Charter%20of%20King%20John%20of%201215%20E%20R%20Cooper_230%20to%20235.pdf
Europe didn't follow for a further 500 years.
Merchants from the boroughs - many of whom owned a Cog, a small trading vessel that could cross the sea to the Hanseatic ports and to France and Flanders - invested speculatively in each other's voyages. Risks were high - ships and cargoes lost through storm, seizure, piracy or war - and sharing the risk meant sharing the profits. Thus in the 13th century we also saw the start of capitalism in England.
Our laws, yes, including Equity - 'a shield not a sword' as my old Chancery barrister tutor taught me - have evolved through precedent as well as act of parliament. We still have no statute against murder - it remaining a common law offence.
And it works. A damn sight better than the corrupt, double-dealing, compromised and anti-democratic nonsense in the 'constitutional' nations.
Back to the potential election.....
I'd have suggested some form of chicanery over the actions of Corbyn - a life-long opponent of the EU until a 'certain point in time' - as Labour could have adopted a true Brexit stance and commanded the support of a massive proportion of the electorate to wipe the floor with the Tories in a similar fashion to UKIP but with the advantages of FPTP that Labour enjoys.
The fact that none of the mainstream parties will adopt the actual wishes of the electorate illustrates the hidden agenda being enacted to maintain the Globalist move towards a United States of Europe and the destruction of individual democratic rights.
I don't doubt that the majority of voters won't abandon their usual voting practises to support genuine Brexit candidates but we NEED those candidates in the first place and it could be that TPTB will move quickly to bring about an election to prevent new parties/candidates being available to counter their plans.
Even potential candidates that are (currently) supportive of a true Brexit can't really be trusted to change their minds after the event - as many mainstream politicians have already.
Just what 'pressures' are they being put under? Blackmail? Bribery?
You are in a world of fantasy Radders. They can't get rid of her for a year. If Treason May leads that is a TOTAL TORY WIPEOUT. Jizza plans to replace her BRINO with a WORSE one. BRINOvsBRINO with May campaigning. Absolute fucking disaster all round and possible Marxist tyranny for a chaser. What the Hell are you using for brains?
The only possible chance is that enough millions would vote UKIP for them to seize enough seats to fuck up our tormenters.
She's already declared she won't lead the Party in a GE, Ecksy.
So, GE means new leader.
And to be frank, until Gerard drops the Muslim-baiting and sheds his twisted Ganymede, UKIP are unelectable.
And to be frank, until Gerard drops the Muslim-baiting and sheds his twisted Ganymede, UKIP are unelectable.
Not sure this is true. I think there are large parts of England where this plays well. Whether it'd be enough to get UKIP many MPs is another question.
Thank you, Raedwald, for this post, and a special thanks to commentors on both sides for that refresher course on English constitutional law.
I feel these last few decades we have become very lazy in defending our rights to natural justice, preferring, as in so many things, to leave the work to the Brussels mob.
I have a hope that once out from the umbrella of the ECHR, the British people will realise that we have to look to our own resources and will start to resist bad laws more actively.
Am I being naive? Has good living and bad education sapped our will to resist?
Ukip will vacuum up the EDL/BNP/BF/Football Lads votes on that ticket. Farage's new party will grab the disaffected-yet-genteel Tories.
It's looking good for Labour, and Farage too, if he wants to keep his 100kpa-for-making-paper-planes-and-flicking-food job, eh?
Who wouldn't?
Are you saying batten is a poofter?
"...anti-democratic nonsense in the 'constitutional' nations..."
As in the United States, Canada, and Australia, you mean? New Zealand too if you like, Raed.
Incidentally, the last three all have Human Rights Acts near-identical to ours, and no problems at all with that. Its absence in the US, meaning that it has Foreclosure as a remedy, caused the global crash, incidentally.
Yes anon, my headmaster asked me at prize giving whether I was still reading Peter Simple?
Even up to the headmaster, they knew that I understood their lefty game... The game called undermining our ancient rights, it has been going on for a while now.
In the same way that a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square...
The ECHR is a useful European convention that the EU has signed acceptance of, but whether a signatory nation has to be a part of the EU or not is clearly another of your red harings and just like the above, not a given fact. Indeed the convention was drafted by the Council of Europe, which had been set up a year or so before in London.
Its purpose was to bring British constitutional rights to European savages that could/would not stop fighting each other. The idea was to try to turn the Europeans into citizens.
At that point in time, we still had most of the empire until the feckin socialists destroyed it, we still had liberals and conservatives, until the feckin socialists destroyed that, and we still had a very special relationship to the USA, until the socialists took their money and then took the piss.
The nascent For Britain party deserves a mention. It is immensely broad based across the ConLibLab electorate without the baggage that the old socialist/capitalist, now defunct dogmas, won so many divisive and adversarial elections.
Sure it has a significant attitude to the growing power of Islamic culture. Yet surely the evidence as to that uncommon, common purpose of dominance, is sensible?
Certainly it's approach to animal rights versus ritual cruelty, national pride and conservative, small c, values and traditions are commendable. Te icing on the cake is Anne Marie Waters was plotted against by the male, borderline misogynists led and nudged by Farage on his departure.
Farage, as much as I admire and give thanks for what he achieved, lost my sympathy over that leadership "contest" which descended into the same old same attitudes of the LibLabCon conmen that even now seeks to shackle us, for evermore, to that despotic, nasty mess run by Merkel and her cronies.
Lefties depriving people of rights?
You really do stand things on their heads, Righty.
The entire right-wing agenda can be summed up as the de-emancipation of employed people, from hobbling access to tribunals, to shortening prescribed periods under Limitations Acts, from slashing legal aid, to removing a huge swathe of rights by EU exit, from nobbling the Commons Registration Act 2011 to simply holding elections on a Thursday rather than on a Sunday as in most places.
On and on it goes, and the HRA is in their sights now, for that equity in your home and for your pension pot.
You'll have to learn the hard way, I guess.
Yes I have never met or heard of a lefty (or far righty) that doesn't want to deprive me of one right or another.
It is hard to find a proper righty, mostly they keep their own counsel, they just want to be left alone.
Lefties are defined by hate, that is all they know.
A very simple definition of those positions is the original, as played out in the French court:
Those that sat to the king's left thought that something should be done for the poor, whilst those that sat to his right thought that nothing can be done for the poor.
So the moment that you start ordering me around, you qualify as a lefty.
Ah, you're one of those people, whom Tom Paine justly mocked, then Righty.
Willing to fight to the death, for the right to have no rights eh?
It's quaint how you're all still here, a couple of centuries on. The Tories depend 100% on it though.
That's another thing that hatey lefties like doing...
Labelling people and things that they can't understand or cope with.
Do you think this is all costing Mr Soros a lot of money? I mean, mine isn't the only site they've been targeting recently, and there are quite a few of them at it.
It does liven things up, though.
I post my sincere endeavours for truth just for the love of it Raed.
As I've mentioned, I don't need anyone's money. If I were paid, then I'd need to use an ID, as one of your other commenters kindly suggested, wouldn't I?
Incidentally, how many times did May "declare" that she would not call a snap election last time? So how much weight should we attach to a single thing that she might say about not leading in an election?
Now, that Robert Mercer and his money...
Re feudalsim,, we have significant relics of it today, in leasehold tenure and in rentcharges on freehold land. Positive covenants are another, though they are only enforceable against the actual parties to the promise, and not to successors-in title.
The 1660 Abolition of Tenures Act reduced its scope but did not eliminate it.
In fact serfs often suffered less precarity than today's wage-slaves. Provided they discharged their obligations to their overlords, their tenure was safe, and they could support their families with some confidence in the future.
Metaphorical serfdom is enjoying its Golden Age right now, and it's entirely down to neoliberalism.
out from the umbrella of the ECHR, aura
When did they, government, announce we would be leaving the Council of Europe?
It's a rumoured intention jack. Follow the link that I posted earlier in this thread.
It's a rumoured intention jack. Follow the link that I posted earlier in this thread Anon
Thank you, yes, I know there are rumours they want to scrap the Human Rights Act but that doesn't actually take us out of the Council Of Europe or does it?
Yep Serfs were so happy that everywhere in Europe, France to Russia, Courland to Romania, from 1770 until Serfdom in Europe was finally abolished in 1861, they were in a continuous process of revolt, protest and intense grievance against their condition.
"Serfdom in Russia was a form of chattel slavery in which the serf could be bought and sold, separated from his family, exiled to Siberia or conscripted into the army, and beaten with birches or
fl ogged with the fearsome knout, which could easily kill a
person. Labour services were heavy, varying from three to six days a week,and the tendency in the nineteenth century was for these to rise."
In 1848, when serfs in Europe were still struggling to achieve basic freedoms, England's freemen were securing the right to vote, to fair parliamentary constituencies and so on - serfdom in the UK having ended several hundred years before.
If you know Europe and her people, you know those scars of serfdom still mark those citizens. Those fears, those tales from family history, the ravages of recent wars, have all created in ordinary Europeans a quite understandable and reasonable need to feel for the security and protection that a Supernational organisation such as the EU offers. The ECHR offers them a similar reassurance - against the banging on the door at the dead of night, helplessness in the face of State power.
If you can understand this need in the European psyche, you can also understand why the British, having been freemen for so long, with an established middle class since Tudor times, the protection of our local and national charters, 1688, and of course our 1848 reforms, are less attracted to these supernational forms of authority.
You can respond intelligently if you wish. But I have no great hopes of it.
No, it makes no sense.
It would just mean vastly more legal aid being spent on hearings in Strasbourg. There is also talk of ECHR withdrawal however, which would make the UK a pariah state, and scupper any reasonable deal with the EU. There are forty-odd countries in it, including Russia, Serbia and Turkey after all.
But it's just dog-whistle electioneering I suppose.
If you think that England is historically a haven of civilisation, then remember that Henry VIII had 72,000 people tortured to death, and that the Pentrich rebels were sentenced - in 1817 - to be hung, drawn, and quartered, although that was eventually mere beheading. The Continental Enlightenment reached Scotland, but for all practical purposes missed out England.
Yes, different countries had different ways of being barbaric, Raed.
The landmark charters and Acts of old England may well have been ahead of some other countries, but any right here nowadays is only ever an Act of Parliament away from cancellation.
Anon--shite/scum that he is --is correct that May lies more easily than she breathes. She says she won't lead them --into a second election disaster--and you believe it Radders.
I suspect even the Tory hierarchy aren't that stupid tho. They know she is a fucking disaster and don't want a GE until 2022.
I've read that the anti-Brexit campaigners in the HoC (who are in the majority despite leaving the EU being in the manifestos of both main parties at the 2017 GE) intend to use HoC procedures to effect a coup to take over the running of Parliament and thus be able to introduce legislation to cancel Brexit.
Post a Comment