Petition

Tekkytyke lives in Italy does he not?
So he gets to remain in the EU.

 

Relevance of this is what, exactly?

 

I've posted this before, but the lack of a clear vision for leave *even now* is that they can't agree on one.

There was a competition a few years ago that was organized by UKIP or a similar organization with the usual names attached to select a clear path to present in a referendum. About 10 different methods were presented - including Flexcit, No Deal, EFTA, etc - and then came the fun. Once it got to the judging, it was clear that there was no agreement and the competition was abandoned without a winner.

As soon as any vision is presented, a large chunk of those who support leave find fault with it - too hard, too soft, too left wing, too right wing, too many unicorns, not enough unicorns, etc. So not presenting a version of leave in the referendum was a deliberate choice so it could be so as everything to everyone - reduce immigration, change immigration from EU to non-EU, kicking out the Muslims, more money for NHS, less crime, more investment in regions, no change in status, best deal ever, all the benefits with none of the costs - with the intention that none of it was actually true (or very little).

It is unlikely that any one version of Leave if presented clearly and rationally would gain more than 20% support of the general population.

 

Hypocrisy?

 

Your view, but Tekkytyke didn’t post the thing you replied to. So, relevance??

 

Only if you believe the lies and outright ********!
Just a couple of examples:
BJ announces there’ll be no border in Ireland within 24 hrs PP announces we’ll end freedom of movement on day1 (mutually exclusive)

BJ announces ultrafast broadband to every household by 2025 (previous target 50%). Just last month I listened to parliament debating the delays to the current target due to the international difficulties dealing with Huawei. There’s no way his ‘promise’ can be enacted, but no one cares it’s not true it’s a nice thing to hear (buses and the NHS?)

The ******** - from day 1 of his premiership every cabinet minister repeating we should believe in the country (Make America Great Again?) straight from Bannon’s playbook - nothing of substance - just a meaningless ‘feelgood’ Sound bite.

 

You’re absolutely right...
millions voted leave because they were fed up of being told what was best for them, telling them they are wrong only strengthens those feelings.

Unfortunately that’s precisely why the country is screwed - people using ‘feelings’ instead of thoughts. It makes them easy to manipulate and I don’t think I’m ‘better’ than you because of this.

I don’t know the answer, but I’m not happy to be living in a country where those feelings once fed lead to MPs facing death threats, a rise in hate crimes and now an unelected PM closing down parliament to enact the wishes of a couple of dozen of his most right wing colleagues.

 

Before I consider signing, would you please explain what the PM has done wrong by following this process ?. I like to fully understand the issue before putting pen to paper

 

Just trying to aid understanding

 

It depends whether you mean legally or morally. Whether it was legal or not remains to be seen, to be fair it probably was. But morally, I think it's totally wrong as it's a cynical attempt to stop elected MPs taking a view on things. You probably don't agree with that, and I'm not getting into a debate about it. If you don't agree with it, just don't sign it. I posted it on here to bring it to the attention of those who do agree with it, so they could willingly sign it if they wanted.

 

Do you want me to write it on a big red bus for you?

 

Apart of course from the largest democratic mandate this country has ever seen being delivered in 2016. Worth also pointing out that if it was up to the weasels in parliament we wouldn't be leaving at all, so (much like the BBS) we know how unrepresentative of the actual majority public position they are. Anyone would think, listening to you lot, that the referendum never happened. Ah well, another irrelevant petition for the signing-bots et al to artificially inflate.

 

I think there have been plenty of examples in the media as to what he has done, and the intent behind it.

I'd ask the following questions.

Do you want a democratic country? Do you believe in sovereignty? Is it democratic and sovereign for an unelected PM to wilfully deny a sovereign parliament its ability to hold it to account?

If he were Jeremy Corbyn doing this, would your view be different, and if so, why?

If you're comfortable with one man (remember we aren't presidential, and this could be any man at all, with any intent at all) to have such control and deny scrutiny, then obviously you have no reason to sign that petition.

How would you feel if we left the EU, and an unelected PM took us back into it, prorogued on a time limited deadline which meant we joined the Euro and Schengen, lost all our vetoes, supported the ascension of Turkey, Albania and more, and were a main contributor to a European army. Something tells me you wouldn't be happy.

And that's the key point here. Its the act he's undertaking that's the issue, not what his views are or what side you're on.

 

F.u.ck me, they’re all out today.

 

How do you know they are unrepresentative of the majority public position *now*? Remember the electorate has changed by several million people since 2016 (roughly double the majority then). The position in 2016 is now as relevant as the position in the 1970s.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

I'm not debating it, but please edit your post and remove the alteration to my post. I don't want other posters to think I wrote that. Don't do it again.

 

Yes we need to clamp down on those signing bots. And anything that illegally assists voting. Whatever happened to Cambridge Analytica by the way? Wasn't there illegal activity in the 2016 referendum that because it was only advisory, was deemed illegal, but couldn't undo the vote? Wasn't Arron banks charged for a couple of shady activities and when quizzed, he couldn't demonstrate where millions of pounds came from, and that he used his insurance business data and employees to campaign to its customer base?

So since you want to ignore a petition for risk of tampering and being misleading… do you therefore agree that something found and proven to be illegal should be disregarded. therefore the 2016 referendum shouldn't stand?

Or do you only wish to abide by things that conveniently suit, irrespective of their legality and even if it may even contradict or been as a smidge hypocritical?