That referendum ...

[nemesis45]

Re: That referendum ...

Hi
Just read this thread and I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
1 Amethyst ECHR never has had s thing to do with the EU the common market or anything. It was signed after WW 2 and Britain was a founding signatory

2 Openlaw. Since when did 6 x 20 million equal 120 billion. You are only out by a factor of 1000

3 Nemesis. To compare Nazi Germany with the EU just shows stupidity

4 PAWS. I applaud you for you common sense and compassion

5 The Common Market was just that, guess who championed the single market. Maggie when PM

I am convinced if there was a rerun tomorrow the result would be different

Why should the people who will be dead before this cock up is sorted be allowed to screw it up for everyone.

Bertie,
The prospect of any military force under the control of unelected bureaucrats is a terrifying thought, the every increasing influence of the EU on our daily lives is appalling!
A single market is what the UK signed up to not the grotesque machine now run by megalomaniacs who are milking millions if not billions in salaries and expenses it is you
showing stupidity by ignoring the fact of what is really going on in this corrupt organisation.

nem

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Thanks xx



I should be a politician lol

The UK as a state has immense powers. I think the referendum was the most foolhardy thing for David Cameron to have done. He has given the keys to the relatively un-educated public. The political elite just didn't care enough to approach this subject in mind of fore-see-ability, ie a Br-exit plan for the aftermath.

It's a bit like NATO, the Council of Foreign Relations [Cfr] (for North America, the continent) et al, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, all persuading the then president George Dubya to invade Iraq...even though all these interests had commerce in mind, even though the Cfr had business motivations. They just didn't care about Iraq or was it because the world had in mind for Iraq a new business system, did they consider the consequence could be an ISIS product? What about the Arab Springs, why were these citizens trying to take over their country's central government? I think the answer lies somewhere in Washington, an IMF, World Bank product perhaps.

Iraq was like a school yard bully (Hussein) controlling the school and its yard, so Hussein decides who purchases and what price from his tuck shop. For instance, Hussein said that the Americans were not going to be supplied with his oil. So, with the business interests of the 3 countries affected: USA, Canada, and Mexico, they banded together and persuaded said president with the argument for war. Not only this - it was mainly the Western governments who had their own political rhetoric for the Hussein invasion. USA: 'harbouring terrorists.' There was no connection of Hussein to Osama Bin Laden (educated at Oxford University) whatsoever. In fact the CIA - via its anti-terrorist training programme - trained the would be Al Qaeda (the Afghan elite soldiers led by Osama) to fight against the Russians. So there was a stronger correlation of Osama to the USA (indirectly) than Osama to Hussein. Hussein was a barrister (a very intelligent man), who loathed Osama (allegedly), and knew the West were turning against Him even though he had enjoyed a relationship with the Western elite for years. Hussein was a dictator, let's make no mistake.

However, the interests of the West were not benign they were in fact to keep the supply of the oil or destroy counties like Iraq, Afghanistan for control and in readiness for the Western economic system: universities, student loans = business sense. So, once Hussein was publicly hanged on tv for his crime, the West could move in on Iraq to control its resources. It's like the analogous school yard bully being expelled and other bullies taking control of the tuck shop. So, immediately post war Iraq as its infrastructure was devastated, they put a Western friendly government in place so that the government has sovereignty for Iraq, with the power to make sovereign decisions. So, in the simple analogy the school's new bullies had taken control of the tuck shop but employing someone who they knew could be controlled or bribed (possibly). The effect was that the new tuck shop supplier would to do what they (the bullies) wanted. Those sovereign decisions included IMF and World Bank loans albeit forced on Iraq in effect. Iraq's Central Bank didn't have a choice. The caveats included were privatisation of its previously state owned oil; cutting (the term: stream-line) the Iraq's state's welfare. The other caveat was oil for food programs, including beneficiaries in the UK and other western countries/ governments. A further one was using Western oil experts to enhance oil's capability. Libya is pretty much the same story, as apparently Libyan oil also had US connection. The UK media just tell you want you want to hear!

Afghan/ Iraqi women were not permitted an education. Is it for the West to force its moral view in these Islamic run countries? Do the elites really care about the individuals' education or it is more a positive effect of war in the Islamic countries in that the fortuitous consequence will be education for female so either way the elites look far from bad? Or is it really about providing education systems to include women because of business and future student loan system for a new business economy?

In the UK, prior to the Iraq's invasion MI6 (international branch) were telling the UK's main media systems, ie ITV that Hussein could supply Weapons of Mass Destructions in 24 hours. The UK media swallowed it and reported the story as fact to the undiscerning public albeit not the ones - the million strong approx - who marched around Parliament in dissent. Other MI5/ MI6 operatives who tried to whistle-blow were sentenced under the Official Secrets Acts.

The people behind the USA's Council of Foreign Relations are also behind the EU's. So, in short the elites caused the problem of the current migration - ie they created Al Qaeda and ISIS either directly or indirectly. Yet the UK politicians especially the Tories are still using terms such as 'racist' to describe the British public who voted OUT.

[Amethyst]

Re: That referendum ...

Blimey, over 1 million people signed that petition now ! 1,000,295 signatures !! and rising at about 1000 a minute.

I only managed 900 on the court fee's petition lol.

[Amethyst]

Re: That referendum ...

1,017,082 signatures

Okay maybe 2000 a minute....

that website server is doing bloody well holding up !

[pt2537]

Re: That referendum ...

Bertie,
The prospect of any military force under the control of unelected bureaucrats is a terrifying thought, the every increasing influence of the EU on our daily lives is appalling!
A single market is what the UK signed up to not the grotesque machine now run by megalomaniacs who are milking millions if not billions in salaries and expenses it is you
showing stupidity by ignoring the fact of what is really going on in this corrupt organisation.

nem

LOL unelected? now thats exactly the point thats missed by those who voted leave. Those who control the EU arent unelected, we elect our MEPS and also so do the other countries.

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

Just for reading and interest - completely unbiased.

The Commons Library and Lords Library has produced impartial analysis of the UK’s referendum for remaining in or leaving the European Union.

impartial and informative briefings are there to help you understand the key issues and decisions that now have to be taken.


These include the following briefing papers:

• Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011
• Tax after the EU referendum
• Pensions after the EU referendum
• Financial services after the referendum
• EU Referendum: the process of leaving the EU
• EU referendum: UK proposals, legal impact of an exit and alternatives to membership
• EU referendum: impact of an EU exit in key UK policy areas
• Implications of the referendum on EU membership for the UK's role in the world

A fuller analysis of issues in a wide range of areas can be found in a previous Library Note CBP-7213 EU referendum: impact of an EU exit in key UK policy areas (February 2016).

It won't be exactly democratic but the rather than let these consequences happen, the state has the power to use ancient royal prerogatives, which could go against Parliament if it didn't support it, to restore a relationship with the EU. It could also force a 2nd referendum than the consequence of the country being economically harmed.

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

LOL unelected? now thats exactly the point thats missed by those who voted leave. Those who control the EU arent unelected, we elect our MEPS and also so do the other countries.

Did the MEPs write the Treaty of Rome; Treaty of the European Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); Consolidated TFEU; the Lisbon Treaty and its amending effects to TFEU? Is the Council of Europe elected? Is the European Commission elected? MEPs is not the same distribution of power as UK's Parliament's MPs.

[Amethyst]

Re: That referendum ...

The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission.

Council of Europe - There are no fixed members of the EU Council. Instead, the Council meets in 10 different configurations, each corresponding to the policy area being discussed. Depending on the configuration, each country sends their minister responsible for that policy area. For example, when the Council meeting on economic and financial affairs (the "Ecofin Council") is held, it is attended by each country's finance minister.

(I don't know so I looked it up and that seems to me to be elected ? )



European Commission - The Commission is composed of the College of Commissioners of 28 members, including the President and Vice-Presidents. The Commissioners, one from each EU country, are the Commission's political leadership during a 5-year term. http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019_en

[leclerc]

Re: That referendum ...

1,017,082 signatures

Okay maybe 2000 a minute....

that website server is doing bloody well holding up !

And yet we must surely accept the will of the majority of people. 74% voted this time as opposed to about 40% in local elections and 66.1% in the last general election.

It appears as though some people want to have a revote yet under the terms proposed maybe we would not get a turnout of 75% required under the petition proposals so we have to revote and revote until we get a remain vote.

I think a number of people have now said, let's accept the vote and work out what happens now and deal with the hand that we now have.

I voted leave as did others. We each have our reasons but I would say having a referendum in the middle of the European Championships was a mistake as most thug like fans were not going to watch the debates and read anything.....if only it was in a non champioship year/Olympic year like next year

[nemesis45]

Re: That referendum ...

LOL unelected? now thats exactly the point thats missed by those who voted leave. Those who control the EU arent unelected, we elect our MEPS and also so do the other countries.

The fact is the only UK MEP to speak up has been Nigel Farage the rest appear to be too frightened to speak up n case they lose their huge salaries and perks /expenses, it plain in my opinion that the bureaucrats think up all the rules/regulations/laws and the MEPs do what they are told>

nem

[Amethyst]

Re: That referendum ...

And yet we must surely accept the will of the majority of people. 74% voted this time as opposed to about 40% in local elections and 66.1% in the last general election.

It appears as though some people want to have a revote yet under the terms proposed maybe we would not get a turnout of 75% required under the petition proposals so we have to revote and revote until we get a remain vote.

I think a number of people have now said, let's accept the vote and work out what happens now and deal with the hand that we now have.

I voted leave as did others. We each have our reasons but I would say having a referendum in the middle of the European Championships was a mistake as most thug like fans were not going to watch the debates and read anything.....if only it was in a non champioship year/Olympic year like next year

Still quite fascinating - I think that must be the biggest petition on the gov site for quite a long time?

[wales01man]

Re: That referendum ...

If there is a rerun it kills Democracy stone dead in the UK

[enaid]

Re: That referendum ...

Well they all lost their jobs now and I have heard more than one say they were happy to do so.

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission.

Council of Europe - There are no fixed members of the EU Council. Instead, the Council meets in 10 different configurations, each corresponding to the policy area being discussed. Depending on the configuration, each country sends their minister responsible for that policy area. For example, when the Council meeting on economic and financial affairs (the "Ecofin Council") is held, it is attended by each country's finance minister.

(I don't know so I looked it up and that seems to me to be elected ? )



European Commission - The Commission is composed of the College of Commissioners of 28 members, including the President and Vice-Presidents. The Commissioners, one from each EU country, are the Commission's political leadership during a 5-year term. http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019_en

Appointed is a rather different concept to elected. A head of state being elected by the UK's electorate to have say in how the UK should be run legally is substantively different than the EU bureaucrats appointing someone from the UK's elected government to have a say in how the EU law is run. Isn't that a massive conflict of interest anyway, democratically speaking? It is simply removing the power of the UK citizens away from the public into the hands/ power of the political elite. In short, it's the EU political elite appointing the UK's political elite, with the UK citizens just having to accept it.

[pt2537]

Re: That referendum ...

funny thing is, those who voted out have voted to remove the protections that consumers HAD. The legal arguments on Unfair terms fall away now, whereas it was open to challenge the UKSC decision based on ECJ jurisprudence, that has now gone, so your bankcharges cases? Suck it up buttercup cos you aint getting them back now.

Your unfair terms arguments that fall within the OFT v Abbey decision, theyve gone, your challenge to the fairness of the terms of the contract whcih fall within Bevis, all dead.

A DJ yesterday has already thrown out a case which relied on ECJ jurisprudence.

Just rejoice at that news.

- - - Updated - - -

If there is a rerun it kills Democracy stone dead in the UK

Dont talk wet!!