‘It was RIGGED for Remain!’ Brexiteer makes BRILLIANT point to silence complaints


Exactly.

Also we are told we should respect Democracy, so there was a Referendum in 2016 where the turnout was above 70% way above the general 60% or even lower percentages and these other elections are respected and the result not queried.

The electors were lied to, Yes but by both sides. If one side lied more than the other does this make the lying by the lower party any more believable than the majority party. In fact, the Electorate are lied to at all elections by all Parties. In fact the electorate are lied to by Politicians every day.

The result was a win for leave , yes, by a small amount, but some General Elections have been won by even smaller amounts and they were not queried and a rerun requested.

As it was a leave win and MPs say they are there for their electors, why is there a majority of MPs on the side of remain. Is it that they really do not respect the wishes of their electorate, but follow their own opinions, even when this is the opposite of that of their electors, is that respecting Democracy.

If we do not leave the EU then Democracy within the UK is Dead.

Yes, it may be the wrong decision, but so may be the election of particular Parties in a General Election, but we do not have the losing side demanding a rerun.

If we remain in the EU this just proves that some, may be all, MPS are in it for themselves and they do not care or respect the views of the electorate.

ukgovernmentwatch

Brexiteer Tim Montgomerie V Remainer Amrou Al-Kadhi

During BBC’s Politics Live BrexiteerTim Montgomerie claimed if the referendum hadbeen rigged it would have been in favour of Remain, not Leave.  He said the massive spending by the government on the Remain campaign supported this.

Politics Live panel guest Remainer Amrou Al-Kadhi brought attention to the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has been reluctant to support a second referendum or a Remain campaign.

Mr Kadhi called on the Labour leader to rally his party because more MP’s are more Remain than leave.  BBC presenter Jo Coburn asked the political commentator Mr Montgomerie how he felt on the claims that the 2016 referendum was moot because people were lied to.

Mr Montgomerie responded:

  • “I think if we cancelled elections or referenda in which politicians hadn’t told the whole truth, I’m not sure we would have any government or referendum outcome ever…

View original post 551 more words

Democracy and the ‘Voice of the People’.


Democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

democracy means rule by the people.[1] The name is used for different forms of government, where the people can take part in the decisions that affect the way their community is run. In modern times, there are different ways this can be done:

  1. The people meet to decide about new laws, and changes to existing ones. This is usually called direct democracy.
  2. The people elect their leaders. These leaders take this decision about laws. This is commonly called representative democracy. The process of choosing is called election.[2] Elections are either held periodically, or when an officeholder dies.
  3. Sometimes people can propose new laws or changes to existing laws. Usually, this is done using a referendum, which needs a certain number of supporters.
  4. The people who make the decisions are chosen more or less at random. This is common, for example when choosing a jury for a trial. This method is known as sortition or allotment. In a trial, the jury will have to decide the question whether the person is guilty or not. In Europe, trials with a jury are only used for serious crimes, such as murderhostage taking or arson.

To become a stable democracy, a state usually undergoes a process of democratic consolidation.

The above is a definition of Democracy, but there are many others.

My own view is Democracy is the free voting by the population of a country to elect members to enact the views of the population.

Mainly this is done by a General Election here the population elect members (MPs or Members of Parliament) to represent them in a collective body, in the UK this is in Westminster, the House of Commons. Each candidate in each constituency issue their own Manifesto or is it the manifesto of their party. Ideally the voters in each constituency vote for their representative from the information contained in the such Manifesto. But in reality do they for each household my not receive details of each prospective parliament candidates manifesto and in many instances not even their name. When they vote on Poling Day the voting paper contains the name of each person up for election and also the Party they represent. So are the electorate voting for a named person, a named party, or both. Well who knows for this information is not available.

Then in the Manifesto there are so many areas contain within it. The voter my believe in all of the stated areas, but in reflection do they for who collects this information. However, the winning candidate in each constituency is them the MP for that constituency and when all results or in the Party who has the most elected MPs is requested to form a Government, if they can or a coalition of other parties or party. When this process is concluded are there any rules that the winning party progress through their 5 years on the basis of the manifesto, short answer is no, but it is assumed that they will and if they do not there is an opportunity at the end of 5 years to vote them back in or not.

During the course of the Parliament there my be occasions to call a Referendum on a stated subject with various options available from 2 or more.

One such referendum was the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and this should have been a simple process for there was only 2 options to leave the EU or to remain. Facts were produced by all the various parties on either remaining or leaving, but were the fact mentioned correct. No they were not in many instances from both sides remain or leave.

The result was 52% to 48% to leave the EU, so this should have been cut and dried that all persons involved should have been working together to obtain the best possible result to leave. But remain did not honour that result and started an all out campaign to reverse the result.

The result was, in no question, a result to leave based on the percentage of those that were prepared to vote and the turnout was 72.21%, way above the usual percentage turnout for a General Election being

‘In 2001, turnout fell to 59.4%, its lowest level since 1918 and down 12% points compared with 1997. Although turnout rose again in 2005-2010, it was still below its 1997 level. In 2017 UK turnout was 66.8%, and turnout in each of the countries of the UK was below the 1918-2017 average for the UK, which was 72.9%.’ according to Turnout at electionsContains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Based on that information the elected representatives should have supported the leave vote as it was a turnout large than any General Election, certainly since 2001 and the results of General Election are not normally questioned.

This brings into question do elected representatives, MPs have to follow the views of their electorate, or can they do as they please, surely with such a turnout and a result not based on party allegiance, they should have abided by the result.

During our negotiations with the EU there should have been no question to query that the UK was going to leave the EU, but with the strong demand by persons not respecting the result, did they believe such or was there a strong feeling that the remainers would succeed in overturning the 2016 result.

Many points have been raised to invalidate the result, the people did not understand what they were voting for, leave lied during their campaign, the views of the younger generation (those under 18 years of age at the time of the Referendum) were not represented, leave voters had now changed their minds and therefore there should be another’s Peoples Vote. The later, in fact, implying that the 2016 Referendum was not a people’s vote.

All of the above could be said of General Elections, but there is never such a campaign to overthrow General Election results.

However, with the winning margin being so small, although there have been winning margins as small, if not smaller in General Election, it could be said that the winning vote may not have been definitive, as the remainers do claim, but if they are correct then the results of General Elections should also be declared invalid.

Labour are now campaigning as are many remainers for a’People’s Vote. but should they not be saying another ‘People’s Vote’ for are not all votes a ‘People’s Vote’, for if they are not, who then is voting, are they not people?

These are purely ‘sound bites’ to emphasise their cause, for they do not want a people’s vote, but a vote that they agree with, a vote to remain in the EU.

However, as I have already said, the People’s Vote. on this question has already been done, the 2016 Referendum. If it is deemed that another referendum is required, which I do not agree with, then the only questions to vote on should be on how we leave the EU, of which, ‘No Deal has to be one option and in effect the nearest option to the 2016 referendum, which stipulated that a vote to leave would mean ‘No Customs Union’ and ‘No Single Market’.

As the elected representatives, MPs, are to some extent not proceeding on how their constituents voted in 2016, in which case any constituency that voted to leave, then their MPs should be conducting themselves likewise and then the same for MPs of constituencies that voted to remain.

Do we need a revision of the voting system?

Whereby in every aspect the MP of any constituency has to vote in accordance with the majority of all of their constituents, whether they voted for the MP or not, for a MP is the representative for all the constituents, not just those that voted from them.

It also beggars the question, that in General Elections can both the Party and the Candidate be mentioned on the ballot paper. surely it should be only one and then the people would be clear who or what they are voting for, either a Party or a Person, for you can not have both.

Should it be a Party then the MPs always for as the Party wishes irrespective of what their constituents wish, or if a named MP, then the MP should always vote how their constituents wish irrespective of how their Party wishes.

No matter what our current system of voting and the conduct of elected representatives is a shambles and drastic changes are in need of being required.

 

Voters less likely to back Labour with ‘stop Brexit’ policy, leaked poll suggests | Politics | The Guardian


A leaked poll commissioned by the pro-EU Best for Britain campaign suggests that voters would be less likely to back Labour if the party was committed to stopping Brexit.

According to the poll, passed to the Guardian, almost a third of respondents said they would be less likely to vote Labour, a similar number to those who said it would not make a difference. Twenty-five per cent said it would make them more likely to back Labour, with the rest saying they did not know.

The campaign group, which is pushing for a second EU referendum, commissioned the as yet unreleased snap poll shortly before MPs voted down Theresa May’s Brexit deal. The Populus poll asked 2,000 people whether they would be more or less likely to vote Labour “if they commit to stop Brexit”.

The polling also showed the party would lose around the same number of Labour voters as it would gain from the Conservatives.

Just 9% of Conservative voters would switch to Labour in those circumstances, but 11% of current Labour voters said it would make them less likely to vote for the party.

 

Source: Voters less likely to back Labour with ‘stop Brexit’ policy, leaked poll suggests | Politics | The Guardian

Theresa May Brexit deal hammered in parliament, but be wary of prospects of a new ‘consensus’ approach : The Conversation


Another day, another record. The 230 majority against the motion to approve Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement on the UK’s exit from the EU smashes pretty much any parliamentary record one cares to discover.

That May’s immediate response was to make time for the house to debate and vote on Labour’s motion of no-confidence in her the day after her loss was thus hardly a surprise: how else to respond to such a heavy blow against the central platform and policy of the government?

And yet the abiding impression of these events was of avoiding a resolution, for as long as possible. Most obviously, May did not offer her resignation. That was a reflection not of her principles but rather her analysis of the situation. As she noted in her statement, a lack of majority for her deal doesn’t mean there’s a majority for another course of action. Without that alternative majority, she clearly feels there is still everything to play for and she is the right person for the job.

In essence, what May offered parliament was a “put-up or shut-up” proposition. Should the government win the confidence motion – which looks very likely indeed – she will hold a series of cross-party talks, inviting parliament to bring ideas and suggestions about how to build a majority position. The results will then be put to the EU for negotiation and agreement.

 

Source: Theresa May Brexit deal hammered in parliament, but be wary of prospects of a new ‘consensus’ approach : The Conversation

Would a Norway option break the Brexit stalemate? Here’s what new polling tells us : The Conversation


The Labour politician Jim Callaghan famously remarked to his colleagues in 1970 that a referendum on Europe might end up being “a little rubber life raft” into which they all might one day have to climb. Just five years later they did so, holding a vote that ensured the UK remained a member of what was then the EEC for more than four decades.

The decision taken two-and-a-half years ago in the 2016 referendum reversed the verdict the public arrived at back in 1975. But so controversial has it become, and so difficult to implement, that many are calling for what would be a third “people’s vote”.

Opposition to another referendum is intense – and not just among those desperate to see the UK leave the EU. Many who would, in their heart of hearts, prefer to remain in the EU worry that seeking to overturn the 2016 result would send a damaging message to “the people”.

For some, the so-called Norway-plus option, which would see the UK remain in the customs union and the single market, is now the safest life raft available. Prime Minister Theresa May has lost the meaningful vote, and it is increasingly clear that parliament, by hook or by crook, is going to do its damnedest to prevent a no-deal departure. We can therefore expect to hear a lot more in the coming days about Norway-plus – and about the EEA, EFTA, “cross-party consensus”, and a so-called “soft” (or “softer”) Brexit.

Whether any of this is feasible – at least in the time available and with May still prime minister – who knows? But what we do know is that, if it is to stand any chance of working, then advocates of the Norway-plus option are going to have to work very hard and very fast to persuade both the public and the members of Britain’s two biggest political parties that it’s something worth trying. How much chance do they have?

Party members

Just before Christmas, Our ESRC-sponsored Party Members Projectsurveyed 1,034 Labour Party members and 1,215 Conservative Party members, together with a representative sample of 1,675 ordinary voters. We asked all three groups of respondents how they would feel if Britain “ended up leaving the European Union but remaining in the single market and customs union – an arrangement that is sometimes called Norway-plus”. Their answers suggest the latter won’t necessarily be an easy sell – but that it shouldn’t be written off.

 

Source: Would a Norway option break the Brexit stalemate? Here’s what new polling tells us : The Conversation

Surprising new evidence shows the UK is actually united on Brexit | The Canary


Survation has released new polling on people’s attitudes to Brexit and the political parties. And one statement unitedsupporters of the Conservatives and Labour, along with Leavers and Remainers, much more than usual:

All MPs, regardless of their party or position on Brexit, should compromise and agree on a Brexit deal that honours the referendum result.

 

Source: Surprising new evidence shows the UK is actually united on Brexit | The Canary

Brexit is not an end to Britain’s liaison with Europe. It’s just a new beginning | Dan Snow | Opinion | The Guardian


They are sick of the whole thing. They just want it to be over. No more uncertainty. Brexiteers want resolution. They will be disappointed. Willing something does not make it so. Aethelred wanted Viking raids to stop. The kingdoms of Wales, Scotland and Ireland wished the Norman and Plantagenet monarchs of England would cease their predatory lunges into their territory. Neville Chamberlain hoped that Hitler would be content with Czechoslovakia. Oliver Letwin wished there was an island we could send all migrants to. The hopes of politicians and rulers are whispers in a gale.

There is no end state in our relations with Europe. There is only millennia of collaboration, conquest, disputes, exchange, competition and alliance.

We live on a small archipelago just off the north-west coast of Europe. We are not a tribe cocooned by towering, razor-sharp mountain ridges in the New Guinea highlands. We are connected. At times, continental armies have marched across the fields of Wiltshire, Wexford and West Lothian. At others, the British have watered their horses in the Seine, Rhine and Danube. The seas around us have facilitated exchange, not prevented it. People, ideas and stuff have crossed the water, mocking the decrees of princes and parliaments.

 

Source: Brexit is not an end to Britain’s liaison with Europe. It’s just a new beginning | Dan Snow | Opinion | The Guardian

Company behind People’s Vote used controversial Blue Telecoms in referendum campaign | The SKWAWKBOX


  • Open Britain, the company behind the People’s Vote campaign, was originally The In Campaign/Stronger In
  • Blue Telecoms was the company exposed in a Channel 4 undercover operation that led to a warning to the Tories from the Information Commissioner and a lengthy police investigation
  • TIC/Stronger In also contracted Blue Telecoms for apparently identical services, according to Blue Telecoms’ CEO

For full disclosure, the author of this article voted ‘remain’ in the EU referendum.

Saturday’s march in London by the “People’s Vote” campaign that is run by the organisation Open Britain has highlighted the strength of feeling among a significant number of people eager to reverse the UK’s impending departure from the European Union.

Stronger In

Open Britain claims to be a ‘grassroots’ campaign, but is run by or associated with an array of centrists and Tories – and critics of the campaign have accused it of being a vehicle for attacks on the Labour leadership.

 

Source: Company behind People’s Vote used controversial Blue Telecoms in referendum campaign | The SKWAWKBOX

Brexit latest: EU plots Brexit deal with ‘ambitious future partnership’ | Politics | News | Express.co.uk


Speaking after talks with Spain’s industry minister in Brussels, Mr Barnier said: “The EU continues to work for an orderly Brexit and an ambitious future partnership with the UK that should include a close economic relationship.”

Diplomats earlier indicated the EU would wait until November before kicking off full-blown preparations for a possible no-deal scenario.

A senior Brussels official said: “We will wait for if and when the negotiations with Britain officially fail to kickstart more open work among the 27 on preparing for a no-deal.

“We’ve given ourselves until November. But there are areas where we need to act to have something in place on March 30th no matter what.”

 

Source: Brexit latest: EU plots Brexit deal with ‘ambitious future partnership’ | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

Brexit news: German businesses urge UK to soften negotiation stance | UK | News | Express.co.uk


Joachim Lang, director-general of Germany’s BDI industry federation, warned that the UK and EU do not have much time left to strike a deal.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Mr Lang said: “We have reached a critical phase. The time that remains is incredibly short.”

Mr Lang said the two sides are not prepared for the outcome if there is no deal.

He said: “In a no-deal scenario, and without a transition phase, we would end up with a border and customs regime that no one is prepared for.”

 

Source: Brexit news: German businesses urge UK to soften negotiation stance | UK | News | Express.co.uk