Of course they don't want to go. Most of them will lose their jobs. That's why they're trying to force a surrender to the EU - yes, let's use that word; they ARE collaborators and Quislings as complicit as Petain, Laval and Darlan in selling their nation in order to cram their mouths with Euro gold. Surrender is right.
Never before in the history of this nation have a tiny, unrepresentative cabal of saboteurs of democracy, who lied to their electors in 2017, denied the ballot box to our forty-five million voters. Never before have these wreckers, these selfish, entitled arses, this political elite, felt so emboldened in denying democracy to the masses of the British people.
They're Frit, scared of the ballot box, frightened of the verdict of the voters, afraid of democracy itself. Of course they love the EU - whose anti-democratic, corrupt and crooked regime requires no elections at all to win and hoard power - oh how the opponents of democracy in our own Parliament must long for that!
But even a bent Speaker, a dishonest BBC and MSM in thrall to the enemies of democracy cannot hide the anger starting to build in the country, from a proud nation being denied access to the ballot box in order that we can sort out the mess this Quisling political class have created. WE DEMAND AN ELECTION. Hear us.
When even the Daily Remain reports polling that suggests that 64% of those who voted Labour in 2017 want an election, you know the time is nigh.
24 comments:
Since her majesty is already involved, by being referred to by law lords as some sort of amoeba that is easily fooled by a criminal prime minister, perhaps she should be further involved by deliberating on the current constitutional crisis.
She is the head after all.
Perhaps she should order a general election?
I cannot believe that her father or grandfather would have stood back from events like this whilst blithely carrying on with their summer break.
Yes, we need a General Election. But the reality is that under our stitched-up party-political system and FPTP, many (if not most) of the liars, shysters and Quislings who infest the green benches will be returned. (As they were after they deliberately stole from the public purse.)
Because, without having a method of changing the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, we will simply be presented with the same people. And under a FPTP system, unless Boris does a deal with Nigel to unite the Brexit vote, there is a reasonable chance that a coalition of Quislings (Labour, LibDem, SNP, Plaid) will win.
Sadly, DeeDee99 is right, which is why I regret the 2011 Referendum - in which AV was vigorously opposed by both main parties - failed to change the system, As things stand, only some 220 MPs command a majority of votes cast in their own constituencies and very many MPs who oppose Brexit do so against a majority of their own constituents. In my lifetime so far, only referendums have given me a fairly weighted voice.
Not that I think referendums should be the way to decide all matters, but what greater decision is there than which country you belong to?
I watched a lot of the proceedings yesterday.
I thought that Geoffey Cox's style of delivery was a bit over-the-top, but the content was 100% correct. This Parliament has lost its legitimacy but refuses to give us a General Election.
I really hope that Boris does a deal with Nigel.I think that would bring a huge majority.
As for Boris at the Despatch Box yesterday, I was impressed and I can hardly recognise the BBC's reports on R4 'Today' this morning.
James Strong
@Sackerson
I reckon that the referendum to which you refer was offering the wrong choice, and that is why it was rejected. I remember Nigel's attitude was that we should vote in favour of the change, despite that. Merely making a change, even to something essentially worse than had gone before, would let the genie out of the bottle. We could get a better system subsequently. At the time, he was not the force that he is now, and Cameron won. Indeed it was so easy, that he called another referendum shortly afterwards.
Personally, I would rather see prospective MP's either "volunteered" in the same way as jurists, or perhaps, once successful, have a responsibility to retire from the MP role after two elections.
I still prefer the idea of FPTP, which of course doesn't work at all with the existence of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, which is another vile piece of ill thought through legislation from idler Cameron.
They don't have the balls to go for Revoke--as far as I am concerned the time for violence would have arrived if they did--ZaNu esp hasn't the stones as 60% of their seats are leave.
They won't try to jail BoJo--they wouldn't be able to and it would create a martyr instantly if they could.
They will try to fix it so that short-arsed cunt Bercow gets to write their EU crawl surrender/extension letter instead of Johnson.
At that point the govt will have to act decisively. Close the Westminster shithole again and arrest for treason any that try to start up again in another venue.
Otherwise Johnson loses.
Whatever twisted notion of democracy isn't the highest ideal of any society.
Very civilisation is.
In its defence, it is necessary to protect the whole against tyrannies of an electoral majority. In this case, to defend the sixty-seven million from a few million barbarians and fanatics, amongst a further minority of seventeen million, who nonetheless happened to win an advisory vote, and yet who claim to be "the" people.
That is Parliament's job, and they're doing quite well.
I think the trollbot has a virus
@JPM: unsurprised yet still disappointed, that you resort to emotive and highly derogatory language. Please stop goading other commenters here in that way, it brings out the worst in them as well as yourself.
The logic of your argument implies that any political decision is invalid unless it has 100% express electoral support.
And the firm and repeated oral assurances from many quarters among politicians, plus the wording of the Government pamphlet issued to all households, turned an "advisory" referendum into a binding plebiscite. Even the Opposition has not dared to suggest otherwise.
Btw I am trying to understand your mathematics: 67m + 17m = a UK population of 84 millions? Also, are you implying that adults are not qualified to vote on matters potentially affecting minors?
I feel that making Boris a 'hero' and giving all the adulation we see in the eyes of the public will give him the motivation/confidence of the public he needs to present the old WA (Mk-whatever) as the solution to a deal. And he'll get it.......
He won't need TBP assistance, he won't be refused by the same pols that refused it last time .... he'll get us Brexit and claim that he's fulfilled his stated task and go to the country HIDING (with the assistance of the media, natch) the horrors that the WA (Mk-whatever) means for us all.
Just in time to sign up to the Lisbon Agreement where after all bets are off.
"it is necessary to protect the whole against tyrannies of an electoral majority. In this case, to defend the sixty-seven million from a few million barbarians and fanatics, amongst a further minority of seventeen million, who nonetheless happened to win an advisory vote, and yet who claim to be "the" people."
In that case no government in the the UK's history was or ever will be legitimate. We do not have to pay our taxes or obey any laws they have passed because they have never been supported by over 50% of the voting population. Is that what you mean? Or is that what you mean only when you're on the losing side?
If by some amazing turn of events the Lib Dems were the government on say 40% of the vote (not electorate mind you) I assume you'd say they weren't able to enforce their manifesto pledge to revoke A50, because that would be the tyranny of the majority? Or would that be different, because reasons?
Sobers.
No.
Personally I trust Boris about as far as I could piss up Niagara Falls but nobody should lose sight of the EU itself and the increasing stink from its decay.
Even the troll(s) knows its finished, which probably explains its increasing rage and laughable attempts at "wit".
I don't know what Boris is really up to, or if he even knows himself. There can't be many - in this grotesque rocky horror show "parliament" at least genuinely supportive of no deal (or at least using it as a proper bargaining chip).
We need an election whatever
JPM
It doesn't matter what the highest ideal is, what matters is that if we chose democracy to be our system of government. We had to suffer the tyranny of the majority under Major, Bliar and Call me Dave, well now the boot is on the other foot, so suck it up. Leave won a democratic vote and it MUST be honoured. If it is not honoured we do not live in a democracy. Endov.
67 + 17 equals 84, which is not the population of the UK, and most certainly isn't the voting population. JDo buck up for fuck's sake, it makes you look like you make it up as you go along. Lastly it may have been an advisory vote legally, but the moment Cameron declared that the vote would be implemented that made it political, and that trumps your advisory shite.
Parliament is a nest of despicable reptiles elected on a false premise and if I had my way the bastards would be swinging from lamp posts outside Parliament for treason and for trashing what was a functioning democracy.
Can you rabid brexiteers give me one reason that the average UK family will be better off with Brexit?
IMHO the HOC is doing a first class job holding the executive to account. Bypassing parliament and appealing to 'the people' is straight out of the would be dictator's handbook.
Mike W 19:27
There are no rabid Brexiteers here. the ones here, even Mr ecks and r_writes esq. are calmness personified compared to some things I am hearing.
"IMHO the HOC is doing a first class job holding the executive to account. Bypassing parliament and appealing to 'the people' is straight out of the would be dictator's handbook."
Delusional. Parliament is making governing impossible, jeapodising internaional relations, dozens are commiting treason (literally), most being unbelievably ludicrous in its partisan shenanigans, endangering the very future of the UK...etc.
"Can you rabid brexiteers give me one reason that the average UK family will be better off with Brexit?"
Much cheaper food due to DOUBLE saving of not paying the EU to send us inflated food and goods we have already paid for via CAP and other gifts.
Your turn: give us a reason that staying in the EU is more advantageous than leaving it...
trollbot is,
Either or,
A purblind socialist fuqwit or deranged or both, are you, emma bent coad, polly zero IQ, with a villa in tuscany entailing a carbon hypocrite footprint stretching to the piedmont + I've got a the ferrari in my drive, or carol codswallop?
Sackerson @ 08:05 & r_writes esq @ 08:22
I believe a better system than either FPTP or PPR is AV (Alternative Vote) as it combines proportional representation with the benefits (in my opinion) of a single MP representing a specific constituency (as in FPTP).
It enables voters to vote for whom they really want (party and/or candidate), so that their real preference is recorded, followed by voting if necessary for the least worst option (as in FPTP in many cases).
The winning candidate has always over 50% of the votes cast which is far more democratic than the FPTP system.
It also stops the ridiculous scenario where a constituency does not get the representation they want through vote splitting.
It is a shame we did not vote for it when we had the chance.
Had we done so, I don't think we would have had today such an unrepresentative and consequently undemocratic Parliament where, although leave won 64:36 by constituency, we have a large majority of remainers in Parliament.
@John Brown:
I think that the system that you mention is not quite what was on offer. What you describe looks more like AV+, which is indeed a sort of half way house between PR and FPTP. It was I read (just now) devised by some wonk on the Jenkins Commission which was set up to look at this sort of thing. Presumably Cameron didn't go for that (he went for AV) because it was invented by someone from Labour, and we can't have that.
However, my point was that however they are elected, they have a tendency to go native and begin to believe that they really are popular people. If one selects them (almost at random) from say the electoral register, or the council tax database, and then volunteered for a set term, with excellent compensation for their trouble...
They will KNOW for whom they really work.
There is a better Alternative, (sorry).
Approval Voting. Wikipediia.
Basically, it's the same ballot but you vote for all the candidates you approve of rather than having to pick just the one.
Whoever gets the most votes wins.
It's mathematically fair (closest to the Condorcet result) and tends to elect more consensus winners.
It's also arguably the system that our Democracy was supposed to be using, having being used for some elections in the 19th Century.
Incidentally, I'd also make an additional change.
Every Parliamentary seat should be represented by a Man and a Woman. Two MPs, voted for by everybody. The Man you want to represent you and the Woman.
Instant gender balance with no ridiculous anti-male "Women-only Shortlists", and gives you two options when you need to see an MP.
Both elected by Approval Voting of course.
Wildgoose @ 07:58 :
Sorry, but I believe a ranking system is important.
No voting system will work if the elected representative doesn't (won't) abide by the will of the majority vote that put them there.
This is less about HOW we elect them and a lot more about their behavior when they have been.
They must be compelled by law to act on the majority vote and held responsible for failure to do so. Recall would not be enough and would require a 'process' that can delay events. A simple legal charge made against the MP should remove them from the HoC, negate their voting influence and suspend them from their office until the charge is cleared/addressed.
We, the public, are held to vastly higher standards in law than politicians and I see no reason why THEY shouldn't be held to an even HIGHER standard than that.
I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.
ANY change to the voting system they can use as an excuse going forward. Not saying it shouldn't be necessarily be changed but to beware of ulterior motives.
If the last three years has shown anything, it's just how low they have sunk. It is a zombie parliament alright. They are trying to resurrect the Jo Cox zombie!!
When remainiacs call us names, I am reminded of Gladstone's put down of Disraeli (or was it the other way round): "I may be a low, mean snake but you could walk under me wearing a top hat!"
Now that is how to put someone down. The contrast with the shit flinging apehouse of today is just agony.
Post a Comment