Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8,655 Excellent

About 7by7

  • Rank
    Star Member
  • Birthday 09/09/1955

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Surrey and Bangsu

Recent Profile Visitors

32,086 profile views
  1. All referendums in the UK are, by convention, advisory. But, the Prime Minister can, when calling one, make a referendum binding. As already stated, and ignored by you, when Cameron resigned and May took over, unopposed as Boris didn't want the job then as he was afraid of being held responsible for the mess in the way that May has been, she stood by Cameron's commitment to honour the result, and her commitment in the 2017 manifesto. Left to her, we would have left the EU on 29th March last. She was blocked by Parliament, and much of the blame for that lies with Rees-Mogg with his ERG and others who put personal ambition above the best interests of the country. This is why the result of another referendum, the call for which is gaining more and more support here in the UK, must be binding, so that Parliament has to abide by the will of the people. Leave with a deal, leave with no deal or remain. Vote for first and second choice. If no option receives at least 50% plus 1 of the first choice votes, then eliminate the choice with the fewest first choices and allocate those papers second choices accordingly to give the winner. Brexiteers love to bang on and on about democracy, yet are afraid of giving us this final, democratic choice. Why? The answer's obvious.
  2. 'This referendum' being the potential one under discussion! The one which anyone who believes in democracy must support in order to give the final decision back to us, rather than leave it with politicians who after three years still can't, or wont, decide. The one you Brexiteers don't want because you know that whilst all of the people can be fooled some of the time and some of the people can be fooled all of the time; it is impossible to fool all of the people all of the time. Leaving on 31st October in the same way we were leaving on 29th March? I wouldn't put money on it; in fact I've put money on the opposite!
  3. It seems that you have changed your mind and now agree that any individual in the UK has the right to approach the courts and that the courts are, and must remain, independent of the government of the day! Marcus Ball used that right. Shame that you call him a chancer but approve of the lies, subterfuge and, as found by the Electoral Commission, illegal tactics used by Cummings, Johnson and the rest of Vote.Leave. Remember that their illegal activities mean that had the referendum been binding rather than advisory, the result would have been declared null and void! Brexit would have happened last March if Rees-Mogg and others had put the interests of the country above personal ambition and voted for the government rather than against!
  4. Represent; yes. We elect MPs as representatives; they are not delegates. Delegates have to vote the way those who appoint them dictate; representatives vote according to their conscience; in theory anyway, voting as the whips tell them to is more accurate. I repeat: the 2016 referendum was advisory, not binding. Do you really need me to explain the difference between advisory and binding?
  5. Ah yes, a bit like this then? The 2016 referendum was advisory, not binding. As you can see, i am suggesting, or rather agreeing with the many politicians etc. who have suggested, that this referendum be binding. Do you really need me to explain the difference between advisory and binding? Even though the 2016 referendum was only advisory, May's government did commit to abiding by the result; but were blocked by Parliament. As Parliament cannot, or will not, decide, put the decision back into the hands of the people; let us make the democratic decision on how we want to proceed. Isn't democracy something you Brexiteers believe in? You lot go on about it often enough! But make the result of this referendum binding so it cannot be blocked by the likes of Cobyn and Rees-Mogg in Parliament.
  6. @JAG, I don't dispute the facts in your post, but The voters did not vote for a no deal Brexit; Vote.Leave and other leave campaigns never mentioned that nor the consequences of same. Neither did we vote in two elections to leave with no deal. Parliament has voted against a no deal Brexit. So if Johnson insists on leaving without a deal, not only is he aiding and abetting the subterfuge of the various leave campaigns, not surprising as he was a part of that subterfuge; more importantly he is also ignoring the will of Parliament. Yet again a Brexiteers is in favour of the will of Parliament, except when you disagree with it!
  7. Not quite. As I understand it from the various media, the national government would ask the EU to postpone Article 50 until after we have had a general election. Assuming the EU agree, the country can then decide via a general election which government we want; one who pushes through an increasingly unpopular no deal Brexit which no one voted for, or one which gives us, the British public, the democratic right to make the final decison, via a final, and this time binding, referendum.
  8. Here in the UK, the judiciary is independent of the executive and of Parliament. If a lower court gives a person leave to appeal to a higher one, that is their right. Yet again, a Brexiteer who bangs on about freedom and democracy doesn't like it when those rights are applied to those with whom they disagree!
  9. Here was I thinking Cameron was a Remainer! Why can't any of you find someone from Vote.Leave talking about trading on WTO terms during the campaign? Answer, because they didn't!
  10. See my response to CGI Blue above. BTW, the Boris bus and other lies from the leave campaign occurred during the campaign, not after. Yes, the full consequences of leaving without a deal did not become known until well after the vote. A very strong argument for allowing the British public the democratic right to change their mind now that those consequences are more widely known. But we all know why you Brexiteers are so against that!
  11. I have watched the video, and the possibility of leaving without a deal and having to revert to WTO terms is mentioned many times; by Remainers such as Cameron! I repeat, the whole Vote.Leave campaign was based upon us leaving all the bits of the EU we didn't like, whilst retaining all the bits we did. Not once did the Vote.Leave campaign mention the consequences of leaving without a deal nor the consequences of joining Mauritania in becoming only the second country to trade on WTO terms alone. Of course I am not suggesting that the public only listened to the leave campaign; I would think that many voters had already made up their mind about the UK's membership of the EU long before the campaigns started. But enough of them did, particularly amongst those who usually took no interest in politics and rarely, if ever, voted; who rarely, if ever, watched current affairs, political discussions or election broadcasts; who usually put election leaflets straight in the bin without reading them.. A group Cummings saw as a blank canvas upon which he could paint his views; and so they were targeted by Vote.Leave by various means, including illegal text messages. A tactic which succeeded in swinging the balance narrowly in Leave's favour. Neither Vote.Leave nor any other leave campaign group produced any argument in response to any warnings of what could happen if we left the EU, especially if we left without a deal. Instead they simply dismissed these warnings as 'Project Fear.'
  12. Utter tosh. Vote.Leave told us that voting leave meant ditching all the bits we didn't like about the EU and keeping all the bits we did like. Not once was becoming just the second country, alongside Mauritania, trading on WTO terms alone mentioned! Whenever the Remain side brought up the dangers of leaving Vote.Leave merely chanted their mantra; "Project Fear, Project Fear, Project Fear......." rather than actually address the issues.
  13. The UK's EU membership fee As the article says, the actual figure net of the rebate of £13.2 billion does not include money spent in the UK by the EU; £4.4 billion public sector receipts such as farm subsidies and a further £2.3 billion to the private sector such as research grants. This brings the net figure to around £6.5 billion. Still a lot, but almost a third of what Boris claimed. Boris knew all this and deliberately lied; unless he is an incompetent and not capable of running a whelk stall, let alone a country!
  14. Correct, I do not know here; wherever 'here' is. I also do not know the Duchess of Sussex; so, unlike you, I refrain from making ignorant personal comments about her. My racist agenda? What racist agenda? Farage has a proven history of making racist comments; I challenge you to you find anything which justifies your accusation that I have a racist agenda. Not amongst a certain sector of the population; true. But amongst the majority, as the article I linked to previously shows, she's popular even amongst republicans. I hate labelling people based upon race, but as society still insists on such labels she is of mixed race; black mother, white father. Not that it should matter to anyone; but unfortunately a section of the population think differently; a section whose bigotry has, not for the first time, been fed by Farage's remarks.
  15. A known mentally ill man with a proven interest in white supremacy shouting in the back of a police van. Evidence of what, exactly? That he's mentally ill? That is already known. That he is a convert to Islam? Possibly. That he is an Islamist terrorist? Maybe, but given his known interest in white supremacists he could equally be looking to cause unrest and spread hate between non Muslims and Muslims. Most likely to be neither, though. But I prefer to wait for real evidence from the police. Here's what his sister has to say
  • Create New...