Discussion:
Hypocrisy With knobs On
Add Reply
Yellow
2019-09-06 15:25:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".

This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
R. Mark Clayton
2019-09-06 15:40:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
So do people now want Brexit - do they want a no deal Brexit. By holding a general election now the people would be prevented on deciding on the one thing they do want.
Post by Yellow
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
It has been a Whitehall farce with buffoon Boris trying every trick in the book to deprive the people of any real choice of where we go now on Brexit.
Norman Wells
2019-09-06 16:29:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
So do people now want Brexit - do they want a no deal Brexit. By holding a general election now the people would be prevented on deciding on the one thing they do want.
An election doesn't prevent anything of the sort. Those to whom Brexit
is important can vote for the party whose policy on it corresponds most
closely with their own. And then it will have the necessary authority
to carry it out.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
It has been a Whitehall farce with buffoon Boris trying every trick in the book to deprive the people of any real choice of where we go now on Brexit.
A general election is hardly a 'trick in the book'. It's in fact the
constitutional way of resolving such impasses and government impotence
as we have at the moment.

As that nice Mr Corbyn posited as recently as 2 September this year.
tim...
2019-09-06 16:57:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
So do people now want Brexit - do they want a no deal Brexit. By holding
a general election now the people would be prevented on deciding on the
one thing they do want.
An election doesn't prevent anything of the sort. Those to whom Brexit is
important can vote for the party whose policy on it corresponds most
closely with their own. And then it will have the necessary authority to
carry it out.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
It has been a Whitehall farce with buffoon Boris trying every trick in
the book to deprive the people of any real choice of where we go now on
Brexit.
A general election is hardly a 'trick in the book'. It's in fact the
constitutional way of resolving such impasses and government impotence as
we have at the moment.
As that nice Mr Corbyn posited as recently as 2 September this year.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/06/timing-election-could-difference-huge-tory-majority-hung-parliament/

you just need to read the "free" bit

tim
Norman Wells
2019-09-06 17:13:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
So do people now want Brexit - do they want a no deal Brexit.  By
holding a general election now the people would be prevented on
deciding on the one thing they do want.
An election doesn't prevent anything of the sort.  Those to whom
Brexit is important can vote for the party whose policy on it
corresponds most closely with their own.  And then it will have the
necessary authority to carry it out.
Post by Yellow
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
It has been a Whitehall farce with buffoon Boris trying every trick
in the book to deprive the people of any real choice of where we go
now on Brexit.
A general election is hardly a 'trick in the book'.  It's in fact the
constitutional way of resolving such impasses and government impotence
as we have at the moment.
As that nice Mr Corbyn posited as recently as 2 September this year.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/06/timing-election-could-difference-huge-tory-majority-hung-parliament/
you just need to read the "free" bit
Indeed. Labour principles do fly very quickly out of the window when
confronted with self-interest, don't they?
tim...
2019-09-06 20:57:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
So do people now want Brexit - do they want a no deal Brexit. By
holding a general election now the people would be prevented on
deciding on the one thing they do want.
An election doesn't prevent anything of the sort. Those to whom Brexit
is important can vote for the party whose policy on it corresponds most
closely with their own. And then it will have the necessary authority
to carry it out.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
It has been a Whitehall farce with buffoon Boris trying every trick in
the book to deprive the people of any real choice of where we go now on
Brexit.
A general election is hardly a 'trick in the book'. It's in fact the
constitutional way of resolving such impasses and government impotence
as we have at the moment.
As that nice Mr Corbyn posited as recently as 2 September this year.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/06/timing-election-could-difference-huge-tory-majority-hung-parliament/
you just need to read the "free" bit
Indeed. Labour principles do fly very quickly out of the window when
confronted with self-interest, don't they?
not for the first time

you don't think that Boris has chosen the date entirely for his own self
interests

tim
Yellow
2019-09-07 19:40:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:40:00 -0700 (PDT) R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
So do people now want Brexit - do they want a no deal Brexit. By holding a general election now the people would be prevented on deciding on the one thing they do want.
Post by Yellow
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
It has been a Whitehall farce with buffoon Boris trying every trick in the book to deprive the people of any real choice of where we go now on Brexit.
Hold up....

Boris is not the one standing in the way of a General Election.

It is your lot, the LibDems, and Labour.
pensive hamster
2019-09-07 22:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
So do people now want Brexit - do they want a no deal Brexit. By holding a general election now the people would be prevented on deciding on the one thing they do want.
Post by Yellow
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
It has been a Whitehall farce with buffoon Boris trying every trick in the book to deprive the people of any real choice of where we go now on Brexit.
Hold up....
Boris is not the one standing in the way of a General Election.
The LibDems, and Labour, and Tory rebels, and all the other
non-Conservative parties, are not so much standing in the way of a
General Election, rather they have failed to swallow Boris' bait.

They all suspect Boris wants to hold the tempting election after
31 Oct, to prevent Parliament being able to stop a no-deal Brexit
(because Parliament will be suspended in the run-up to an election).

You seem to be the one indulging in Bald faced (attempted) deceit
with knobs on, accompanied by a full 100-piece philharmonic
orchestra.
Post by Yellow
It is your lot, the LibDems, and Labour.
Oh, bring on the violins ...
MM
2019-09-08 09:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:40:00 -0700 (PDT) R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
So do people now want Brexit - do they want a no deal Brexit. By holding a general election now the people would be prevented on deciding on the one thing they do want.
Post by Yellow
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
It has been a Whitehall farce with buffoon Boris trying every trick in the book to deprive the people of any real choice of where we go now on Brexit.
Hold up....
Boris is not the one standing in the way of a General Election.
Not Boris, but a significant number of Conservatives did.

MM
GB
2019-09-06 15:51:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
Grikbashhir®™
2019-09-06 16:16:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 16:51:33 +0100, jewboi GB (jb)
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
Oh, the irony! A jew accusing a Human of dishonesty! Hilarious!

Up this shit, you just can't make!
Tall Henry
2019-09-06 17:15:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbashhir®™
Oh, the irony!
Indeed. Jews witn Nobel Prizes, and this is what the "superior"
nazoid pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron does:

<quote>

Original Microsoft CD in jewel case with CD key sticker on the back.
Full version.
GBP 30=00 incl recorded delivery postage.
(sorry, spamtrap in original message)
e-mail to: ***@ukgateway.net

</quote>

LOL!
Yellow
2019-09-07 19:41:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
GB
2019-09-07 20:28:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
The purpose of Boris's proposed election was to foist a no-deal Brexit
on the country. Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority
of people do not want that and have not voted for it.

So, Boris was the one saying "let's have an election because we think we
can now get through what WE want".

Surely, you can see that? If you cannot, then it was wrong of me to
accuse you of dishonesty, but you must be the only person in the country
unable to see through Boris's ploy.
Grikbaharr®™
2019-09-07 21:07:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 21:28:15 +0100, jewboi GB (jb)
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
The purpose of Boris's proposed election was to foist a no-deal Brexit
on the country. Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority
of people do not want that and have not voted for it.
It was never PUT to the people, jewboi.
Post by GB
So, Boris was the one saying "let's have an election because we think we
can now get through what WE want".
Surely, you can see that? If you cannot, then it was wrong of me to
accuse you of dishonesty, but you must be the only person in the country
unable to see through Boris's ploy.
For VHY you haven't left for 'Israeel' yet, yiddo?
Loose Cannon
2019-09-07 21:30:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbaharr®™
For VHY
For WHY did all those British ladies shit and
piss all over you, Andrzej?

"You may have something there. This touchy-feely 'New Man' attitude
isn't getting me anywhere. Perhaps I should go for the more basic
Neanderthal approach." -- sick old nazoid pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron
Message-ID: <***@news.ukgateway.net>#1/1.
Peeler
2019-09-07 22:06:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:07:55 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbaharr®™
For VHY you haven't left for 'Israeel' yet, yiddo?
For WHY haven't you yet applied for euthanization, you clinically insane,
frustrated pedophilic asshole?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
GB
2019-09-08 06:01:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:07:55 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbaharr®™
For VHY you haven't left for 'Israeel' yet, yiddo?
For WHY haven't you yet applied for euthanization, you clinically insane,
frustrated pedophilic asshole?
Poor Andrzej cannot help the attention-seeking behaviour. If you notice,
virtually every post on this NG is by him or about him. That's just
rewarding and reinforcing his insanity, poor fellow.
MM
2019-09-08 09:21:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:07:55 -0700, Grikbaharr®?
Post by Grikbaharr®™
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 21:28:15 +0100, jewboi GB (jb)
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
The purpose of Boris's proposed election was to foist a no-deal Brexit
on the country. Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority
of people do not want that and have not voted for it.
It was never PUT to the people, jewboi.
Vote Leave never campaigned for a no-deal Brexit.

MM
Grikbahhar®™
2019-09-08 12:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:07:55 -0700, Grikbaharr®?
Post by Grikbaharr®™
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 21:28:15 +0100, jewboi GB (jb)
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
The purpose of Boris's proposed election was to foist a no-deal Brexit
on the country. Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority
of people do not want that and have not voted for it.
It was never PUT to the people, jewboi.
Vote Leave never campaigned for a no-deal Brexit.
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Peeler
2019-09-08 14:37:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Post by MM
Vote Leave never campaigned for a no-deal Brexit.
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
<snicker> Poor clinically insane idiot!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
MM
2019-09-09 07:56:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Post by MM
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:07:55 -0700, Grikbaharr®?
Post by Grikbaharr®™
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 21:28:15 +0100, jewboi GB (jb)
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
The purpose of Boris's proposed election was to foist a no-deal Brexit
on the country. Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority
of people do not want that and have not voted for it.
It was never PUT to the people, jewboi.
Vote Leave never campaigned for a no-deal Brexit.
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed. The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.

On the very first page of the leaflet:

"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."

MM
Norman Wells
2019-09-09 08:24:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed. The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."
But *despite* that blatant propaganda shoved through everyone's
letterbox in the land at the taxpayers' expense, the people still voted
against it.

That legitimises even more the decision they made to leave.
MM
2019-09-10 12:26:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed. The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."
But *despite* that blatant propaganda shoved through everyone's
letterbox in the land at the taxpayers' expense, the people still voted
against it.
That legitimises even more the decision they made to leave.
What? A difference of 1.2 million people in a snapshot on a particular
day after being lied to for weeks by the Vote Leave campaign? That's
legitimate, is it?

MM
Grikbaster®™
2019-09-10 12:40:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed. The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."
But *despite* that blatant propaganda shoved through everyone's
letterbox in the land at the taxpayers' expense, the people still voted
against it.
That legitimises even more the decision they made to leave.
What? A difference of 1.2 million people in a snapshot on a particular
day after being lied to for weeks by the Vote Leave campaign? That's
legitimate, is it?
What? How is it any less legitimate than a snapshot general election
on a particular day after being lied to for weeks by all parties
concerned?
Peeler
2019-09-10 13:45:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 05:40:17 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbaster®™
Post by MM
What? A difference of 1.2 million people in a snapshot on a particular
day after being lied to for weeks by the Vote Leave campaign? That's
legitimate, is it?
What? How is it any less legitimate than a snapshot general election
on a particular day after being lied to for weeks by all parties
concerned?
Because it can't be corrected every few years as is the case with general
elections! Just HOW retarded are you, pedophilic serb peasant?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
MM
2019-09-11 08:35:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 05:40:17 -0700, Grikbaster®?
Post by Grikbaster®™
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed. The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."
But *despite* that blatant propaganda shoved through everyone's
letterbox in the land at the taxpayers' expense, the people still voted
against it.
That legitimises even more the decision they made to leave.
What? A difference of 1.2 million people in a snapshot on a particular
day after being lied to for weeks by the Vote Leave campaign? That's
legitimate, is it?
What? How is it any less legitimate than a snapshot general election
on a particular day after being lied to for weeks by all parties
concerned?
But we can have another general election well within a generation. I
suggest we do the same for referendums. It's only fair.

MM
Peeler
2019-09-11 09:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:35:54 +0100, Mental Moron, the mentally deficient
Post by MM
But we can have another general election well within a generation. I
suggest we do the same for referendums. It's only fair.
Mental Moron
You just LOVE to suck filthy troll cock, eh, Mental Moron? <tsk>
Grikbasterr®™
2019-09-11 11:17:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 05:40:17 -0700, Grikbaster®?
Post by Grikbaster®™
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed. The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."
But *despite* that blatant propaganda shoved through everyone's
letterbox in the land at the taxpayers' expense, the people still voted
against it.
That legitimises even more the decision they made to leave.
What? A difference of 1.2 million people in a snapshot on a particular
day after being lied to for weeks by the Vote Leave campaign? That's
legitimate, is it?
What? How is it any less legitimate than a snapshot general election
on a particular day after being lied to for weeks by all parties
concerned?
But we can have another general election well within a generation.
And we do. Routinely.
Post by MM
I suggest we do the same for referendums. It's only fair.
You are making an unwarranted comparison between general elections and
referendums.
MM
2019-09-12 07:55:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:17:54 -0700, Grikbasterr®?
Post by Grikbasterr®™
Post by MM
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 05:40:17 -0700, Grikbaster®?
Post by Grikbaster®™
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed. The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."
But *despite* that blatant propaganda shoved through everyone's
letterbox in the land at the taxpayers' expense, the people still voted
against it.
That legitimises even more the decision they made to leave.
What? A difference of 1.2 million people in a snapshot on a particular
day after being lied to for weeks by the Vote Leave campaign? That's
legitimate, is it?
What? How is it any less legitimate than a snapshot general election
on a particular day after being lied to for weeks by all parties
concerned?
But we can have another general election well within a generation.
And we do. Routinely.
Post by MM
I suggest we do the same for referendums. It's only fair.
You are making an unwarranted comparison between general elections and
referendums.
How is it "unwarranted"?

MM
Peeler
2019-09-12 08:16:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:55:30 +0100, Mental Moron, the mentally deficient
Post by MM
How is it "unwarranted"?
Mental Moron
Your idiotic constant feeding of the troll is more than unwarranted, senile
idiot!
Grikbasterd®™
2019-09-12 12:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:17:54 -0700, Grikbasterr®?
Post by Grikbasterr®™
Post by MM
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 05:40:17 -0700, Grikbaster®?
Post by Grikbaster®™
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed. The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."
But *despite* that blatant propaganda shoved through everyone's
letterbox in the land at the taxpayers' expense, the people still voted
against it.
That legitimises even more the decision they made to leave.
What? A difference of 1.2 million people in a snapshot on a particular
day after being lied to for weeks by the Vote Leave campaign? That's
legitimate, is it?
What? How is it any less legitimate than a snapshot general election
on a particular day after being lied to for weeks by all parties
concerned?
But we can have another general election well within a generation.
And we do. Routinely.
Post by MM
I suggest we do the same for referendums. It's only fair.
You are making an unwarranted comparison between general elections and
referendums.
How is it "unwarranted"?
They are not comparable. A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.

Apples and doughnuts.
Ian Jackson
2019-09-12 12:48:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com>,
=?UTF-8?B?R3Jpa2Jhc3RlcmTCrsKZIDxHcmlrYmFzdGVyZEBza2F0YS5uZXQ+?=@?.?.inva
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?

A GE needs to take place fairly promptly, otherwise there might be no
legal government in charge.

There's probably no such urgency with a referendum, so it can be
organised at a more leisurely pace - but there's no reason why things
could not be speeded up when necessary.
--
Ian
Grikbasterd®™
2019-09-12 13:09:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:48:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?
The last one did.
Post by Ian Jackson
A GE needs to take place fairly promptly, otherwise there might be no
legal government in charge.
And the necessary legislation and mechanisms are already in place.
Post by Ian Jackson
There's probably no such urgency with a referendum, so it can be
organised at a more leisurely pace - but there's no reason why things
could not be speeded up when necessary.
That would be very un-British.
Peeler
2019-09-12 14:00:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:09:19 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?
The last one did.
Post PROOF, driveling psychopath!
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
A GE needs to take place fairly promptly, otherwise there might be no
legal government in charge.
And the necessary legislation and mechanisms are already in place.
More meaningless, pseudo-intellectual bullshit from the bigmouthed resident
psychopath! LOL
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
There's probably no such urgency with a referendum, so it can be
organised at a more leisurely pace - but there's no reason why things
could not be speeded up when necessary.
That would be very un-British.
Are you sure, you ridiculous serb peasant and hilarious "Brit" and "WASP"
wannabe? LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
MM
2019-09-12 17:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:09:19 -0700, Grikbasterd®?
Post by Grikbasterd®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:48:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?
The last one did.
Post by Ian Jackson
A GE needs to take place fairly promptly, otherwise there might be no
legal government in charge.
And the necessary legislation and mechanisms are already in place.
Post by Ian Jackson
There's probably no such urgency with a referendum, so it can be
organised at a more leisurely pace - but there's no reason why things
could not be speeded up when necessary.
That would be very un-British.
Like the Prime Minister lying to the Queen, perhaps?

MM
Grikbashtar®™
2019-09-12 18:01:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:09:19 -0700, Grikbasterd®?
Post by Grikbasterd®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:48:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?
The last one did.
Post by Ian Jackson
A GE needs to take place fairly promptly, otherwise there might be no
legal government in charge.
And the necessary legislation and mechanisms are already in place.
Post by Ian Jackson
There's probably no such urgency with a referendum, so it can be
organised at a more leisurely pace - but there's no reason why things
could not be speeded up when necessary.
That would be very un-British.
Like the Prime Minister lying to the Queen, perhaps?
That would be VERY British.

But prove that the Prime Minister lied, perhaps?
Peeler
2019-09-12 18:13:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:01:44 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbashtar®™
That would be VERY British.
But prove that the Prime Minister lied, perhaps?
You'd better really cling to that Remoaner scum, dreckserb Razovic! You
won't find another senile idiot like him who keeps taking your very dumbest
baits! LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-09-12 18:08:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:55:21 +0100, Mental Moron, the mentally deficient
Post by MM
Post by Grikbasterd®™
That would be very un-British.
Like the Prime Minister lying to the Queen, perhaps?
Mental Moron
Or like senile Brits like you feeding the filthiest, dumbest and most
perverted troll around, Mental Moron?
Ian Jackson
2019-09-12 19:30:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com>,
=?UTF-8?B?R3Jpa2Jhc3RlcmTCrsKZIDxHcmlrYmFzdGVyZEBza2F0YS5uZXQ+?=@?.?.inva
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:48:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?
The last one did.
What we were being asked to decide was something very unusual (ie to
turn the clock back over 40 years) - and it was much more important than
your bog-standard, run-of-the-mill GE. Time was needed for the
protagonists on both sides to prepare their cases and to get their
message over to us - and for us to absorb it, and come to a reasoned
decision. [But of course, no matter how long we had had, it would have
probably been simply used to feed us more and more ludicrous lies, and
for us to reach even more-entrenched positions.]
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
A GE needs to take place fairly promptly, otherwise there might be no
legal government in charge.
And the necessary legislation and mechanisms are already in place.
All of basis the legislation pertaining to the 2016 referendum still
exists. All we have to do is to ask the EU for a further extension of
A50 - long enough to hold enough to have another referendum. This time,
it would be already known that Parliament would have to ratify the
referendum result, and that the PM did NOT have the power of bypass
(like the last one did).
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
There's probably no such urgency with a referendum, so it can be
organised at a more leisurely pace - but there's no reason why things
could not be speeded up when necessary.
That would be very un-British.
But when pushed, we really CAN pull our collective fingers out:

"In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect
.........................................
.........................................
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' "
--
Ian
Grikbashtar®™
2019-09-12 20:33:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:30:24 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:48:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?
The last one did.
What we were being asked to decide was something very unusual (ie to
turn the clock back over 40 years) - and it was much more important than
your bog-standard, run-of-the-mill GE. Time was needed for the
protagonists on both sides to prepare their cases and to get their
message over to us - and for us to absorb it, and come to a reasoned
decision. [But of course, no matter how long we had had, it would have
probably been simply used to feed us more and more ludicrous lies, and
for us to reach even more-entrenched positions.]
And that is why it took over a year.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
A GE needs to take place fairly promptly, otherwise there might be no
legal government in charge.
And the necessary legislation and mechanisms are already in place.
All of basis the legislation pertaining to the 2016 referendum still
exists.
None of which would be relevant to any future referendum.
Post by Ian Jackson
All we have to do is to ask the EU for a further extension of
A50 - long enough to hold enough to have another referendum.
Why do we need another one? So that the results can be ignored again?
Post by Ian Jackson
This time,
it would be already known that Parliament would have to ratify the
referendum result, and that the PM did NOT have the power of bypass
(like the last one did).
Ratifying the referendum result is one thing, honouring it is
something totally different.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
There's probably no such urgency with a referendum, so it can be
organised at a more leisurely pace - but there's no reason why things
could not be speeded up when necessary.
That would be very un-British.
It would take a nuclear bomb to pull the collective British finger
out.
Post by Ian Jackson
"In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect
.........................................
.........................................
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' "
Anyone flying St George's flag these days is immediately condemned as
a white nationalist.
Peeler
2019-09-12 21:01:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:33:45 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Anyone flying St George's flag these days is immediately condemned as
a white nationalist.
Anyone feeding a perverted psychopathic swine like you is immediately
exposed as a prize idiot and sick asshole!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Ian Jackson
2019-09-12 21:26:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbashtar®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:30:24 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:48:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?
The last one did.
What we were being asked to decide was something very unusual (ie to
turn the clock back over 40 years) - and it was much more important than
your bog-standard, run-of-the-mill GE. Time was needed for the
protagonists on both sides to prepare their cases and to get their
message over to us - and for us to absorb it, and come to a reasoned
decision. [But of course, no matter how long we had had, it would have
probably been simply used to feed us more and more ludicrous lies, and
for us to reach even more-entrenched positions.]
And that is why it took over a year.
Which is exactly the reasons I gave! [Please try to keep up.]
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
A GE needs to take place fairly promptly, otherwise there might be no
legal government in charge.
And the necessary legislation and mechanisms are already in place.
All of basis the legislation pertaining to the 2016 referendum still
exists.
None of which would be relevant to any future referendum.
Why would they be much different?
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
All we have to do is to ask the EU for a further extension of
A50 - long enough to hold enough to have another referendum.
Why do we need another one? So that the results can be ignored again?
The result of the referendum has hardly been 'ignored'! The Government
has spent over three years trying to deal with it, and most of the
population has done little else but argue about it.
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
This time,
it would be already known that Parliament would have to ratify the
referendum result, and that the PM did NOT have the power of bypass
(like the last one did).
Ratifying the referendum result is one thing, honouring it is
something totally different.
It's difficult to 'honour' something that is more-or-less impossible.
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
There's probably no such urgency with a referendum, so it can be
organised at a more leisurely pace - but there's no reason why things
could not be speeded up when necessary.
That would be very un-British.
It would take a nuclear bomb to pull the collective British finger
out.
Post by Ian Jackson
"In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect
.........................................
.........................................
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' "
Anyone flying St George's flag these days is immediately condemned as
a white nationalist.
Not any more. It's been reclaimed.
--
Ian
Grikbashtar®™
2019-09-12 21:46:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:26:23 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:30:24 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:48:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?
The last one did.
What we were being asked to decide was something very unusual (ie to
turn the clock back over 40 years) - and it was much more important than
your bog-standard, run-of-the-mill GE. Time was needed for the
protagonists on both sides to prepare their cases and to get their
message over to us - and for us to absorb it, and come to a reasoned
decision. [But of course, no matter how long we had had, it would have
probably been simply used to feed us more and more ludicrous lies, and
for us to reach even more-entrenched positions.]
And that is why it took over a year.
Which is exactly the reasons I gave! [Please try to keep up.]
So why did you ask why a referendum needs to take over a year when you
already knew the answer? [Please try to be logical.]
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
A GE needs to take place fairly promptly, otherwise there might be no
legal government in charge.
And the necessary legislation and mechanisms are already in place.
All of basis the legislation pertaining to the 2016 referendum still
exists.
None of which would be relevant to any future referendum.
Why would they be much different?
For the same reason that the legislation pertaining to the 1975
referendum wasn't used for the 2016 referendum.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
All we have to do is to ask the EU for a further extension of
A50 - long enough to hold enough to have another referendum.
Why do we need another one? So that the results can be ignored again?
The result of the referendum has hardly been 'ignored'! The Government
has spent over three years trying to deal with it, and most of the
population has done little else but argue about it.
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
This time,
it would be already known that Parliament would have to ratify the
referendum result, and that the PM did NOT have the power of bypass
(like the last one did).
Ratifying the referendum result is one thing, honouring it is
something totally different.
It's difficult to 'honour' something that is more-or-less impossible.
There is nothing impossible about Brexit. Either more or less.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
There's probably no such urgency with a referendum, so it can be
organised at a more leisurely pace - but there's no reason why things
could not be speeded up when necessary.
That would be very un-British.
It would take a nuclear bomb to pull the collective British finger
out.
Post by Ian Jackson
"In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect
.........................................
.........................................
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' "
Anyone flying St George's flag these days is immediately condemned as
a white nationalist.
Not any more. It's been reclaimed.
I suggest you start waving the flag around in public (preferably
around some diverse people) and see what happens.
Peeler
2019-09-12 22:30:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:46:09 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbashtar®™
I suggest you start waving the flag around in public (preferably
around some diverse people) and see what happens.
Found another senile Remoaner who is senile and retarded enough to keep
feeding a subnormal psychopathic and pedophilic swine like you, dreckserb
Razovic? <G>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Ian Jackson
2019-09-13 07:35:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbashtar®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:26:23 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:30:24 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:48:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?
The last one did.
What we were being asked to decide was something very unusual (ie to
turn the clock back over 40 years) - and it was much more important than
your bog-standard, run-of-the-mill GE. Time was needed for the
protagonists on both sides to prepare their cases and to get their
message over to us - and for us to absorb it, and come to a reasoned
decision. [But of course, no matter how long we had had, it would have
probably been simply used to feed us more and more ludicrous lies, and
for us to reach even more-entrenched positions.]
And that is why it took over a year.
Which is exactly the reasons I gave! [Please try to keep up.]
So why did you ask why a referendum needs to take over a year when you
already knew the answer? [Please try to be logical.]
I think you've mis-read what I wrote. I didn't ASK a question. I made
SUGGESTIONS as to why it took over a year.
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
A GE needs to take place fairly promptly, otherwise there might be no
legal government in charge.
And the necessary legislation and mechanisms are already in place.
All of basis the legislation pertaining to the 2016 referendum still
exists.
None of which would be relevant to any future referendum.
Why would they be much different?
For the same reason that the legislation pertaining to the 1975
referendum wasn't used for the 2016 referendum.
That's a reasonable question.

From Wikipedia, I see that in the 1975 pamphlet Prime Minister Harold
Wilson said: "I ask you to use your vote. For it is your vote that will
now decide. The Government will accept your verdict." The pamphlet also
said: "Now the time has come for you to decide. The Government will
accept your decision — whichever way it goes."

Do you spot the similarity with what David Cameron said?
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
All we have to do is to ask the EU for a further extension of
A50 - long enough to hold enough to have another referendum.
Why do we need another one? So that the results can be ignored again?
The result of the referendum has hardly been 'ignored'! The Government
has spent over three years trying to deal with it, and most of the
population has done little else but argue about it.
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
This time,
it would be already known that Parliament would have to ratify the
referendum result, and that the PM did NOT have the power of bypass
(like the last one did).
Ratifying the referendum result is one thing, honouring it is
something totally different.
It's difficult to 'honour' something that is more-or-less impossible.
There is nothing impossible about Brexit. Either more or less.
OK - it's not 'impossible'. We could simply pay our bar bill, and hand
in our locker keys and membership card. But apart from maybe a PAYG
second-class membership, we would no longer get the facilities of the
club - and we would also tend to lose the regular contacts and
friendships we have with the club members. [For some, the last might be
more important than most of the other benefits.]
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
There's probably no such urgency with a referendum, so it can be
organised at a more leisurely pace - but there's no reason why things
could not be speeded up when necessary.
That would be very un-British.
It would take a nuclear bomb to pull the collective British finger
out.
Post by Ian Jackson
"In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect
.........................................
.........................................
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' "
Anyone flying St George's flag these days is immediately condemned as
a white nationalist.
Not any more. It's been reclaimed.
I suggest you start waving the flag around in public (preferably
around some diverse people) and see what happens.
Personally, I'm not much of a flag-waver - but I'm not ashamed of the
either the flag of my country, or the flag of our nation. [Are you
ashamed of them?] Neither am I averse to the EU flag.
--
Ian
Peeler
2019-09-13 09:22:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:35:01 +0100, Idiot Jackson, another absolutely brain
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
So why did you ask why a referendum needs to take over a year when you
already knew the answer? [Please try to be logical.]
I think you've mis-read
I think you are another absolutely brain dead, troll-feeding, senile
asshole, Idiot Jackson.

<FLUSH demonstration of your troll-feeding and idiocy>
Grikbashtar®™
2019-09-13 12:15:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:35:01 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:26:23 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:30:24 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:48:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
lid writes
Post by Grikbasterd®™
A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?
The last one did.
What we were being asked to decide was something very unusual (ie to
turn the clock back over 40 years) - and it was much more important than
your bog-standard, run-of-the-mill GE. Time was needed for the
protagonists on both sides to prepare their cases and to get their
message over to us - and for us to absorb it, and come to a reasoned
decision. [But of course, no matter how long we had had, it would have
probably been simply used to feed us more and more ludicrous lies, and
for us to reach even more-entrenched positions.]
And that is why it took over a year.
Which is exactly the reasons I gave! [Please try to keep up.]
So why did you ask why a referendum needs to take over a year when you
already knew the answer? [Please try to be logical.]
I think you've mis-read what I wrote. I didn't ASK a question. I made
SUGGESTIONS as to why it took over a year.
I think you've forgotten what you wrote. Here is the question you
ASKED: "Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a
year?"
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
A GE needs to take place fairly promptly, otherwise there might be no
legal government in charge.
And the necessary legislation and mechanisms are already in place.
All of basis the legislation pertaining to the 2016 referendum still
exists.
None of which would be relevant to any future referendum.
Why would they be much different?
For the same reason that the legislation pertaining to the 1975
referendum wasn't used for the 2016 referendum.
That's a reasonable question.
From Wikipedia, I see that in the 1975 pamphlet Prime Minister Harold
Wilson said: "I ask you to use your vote. For it is your vote that will
now decide. The Government will accept your verdict." The pamphlet also
said: "Now the time has come for you to decide. The Government will
accept your decision — whichever way it goes."
Do you spot the similarity with what David Cameron said?
The difference being that the 1975 government DID accept the verdict
of the people.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
All we have to do is to ask the EU for a further extension of
A50 - long enough to hold enough to have another referendum.
Why do we need another one? So that the results can be ignored again?
The result of the referendum has hardly been 'ignored'! The Government
has spent over three years trying to deal with it, and most of the
population has done little else but argue about it.
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
This time,
it would be already known that Parliament would have to ratify the
referendum result, and that the PM did NOT have the power of bypass
(like the last one did).
Ratifying the referendum result is one thing, honouring it is
something totally different.
It's difficult to 'honour' something that is more-or-less impossible.
There is nothing impossible about Brexit. Either more or less.
OK - it's not 'impossible'. We could simply pay our bar bill, and hand
in our locker keys and membership card. But apart from maybe a PAYG
second-class membership, we would no longer get the facilities of the
club - and we would also tend to lose the regular contacts and
friendships we have with the club members. [For some, the last might be
more important than most of the other benefits.]
But that's the whole point of Brexit...leaving the club behind and
moving on to bigger and better things.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by Ian Jackson
There's probably no such urgency with a referendum, so it can be
organised at a more leisurely pace - but there's no reason why things
could not be speeded up when necessary.
That would be very un-British.
It would take a nuclear bomb to pull the collective British finger
out.
Post by Ian Jackson
"In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect
.........................................
.........................................
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' "
Anyone flying St George's flag these days is immediately condemned as
a white nationalist.
Not any more. It's been reclaimed.
I suggest you start waving the flag around in public (preferably
around some diverse people) and see what happens.
Personally, I'm not much of a flag-waver - but I'm not ashamed of the
either the flag of my country, or the flag of our nation. [Are you
ashamed of them?] Neither am I averse to the EU flag.
You can wave the Union Jack all you like and nobody will think the
worse of you. Wave the flag of St George and you will immediately be
branded as a racist.

As for the 'EU flag', that's as ridiculous a construct as the rainbow
flag beloved by the GBLTPQC+ brigade.
Tall Henry
2019-09-13 12:19:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbashtar®™
But that's the whole point of Brexit...leaving the club behind and
moving on to bigger and better things. No more dumb, lazy polacks,
romanians, etc.
Idiot!
Ian Jackson
2019-09-13 13:48:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbashtar®™
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:35:01 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
I think you've mis-read what I wrote. I didn't ASK a question. I made
SUGGESTIONS as to why it took over a year.
I think you've forgotten what you wrote. Here is the question you
ASKED: "Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a
year?"
I see your problem.

I asked (rhetorically) "Is there any reason why a referendum needs to
take over a year?" [where it's obvious that I'm referring the next one]
- to which you replied, "The last one did".

I then when on to suggest a few reasons why the last one did.

A second referendum shouldn't take anything like the time needed for
preparation of the first. If pushed, we could probably have one in a few
weeks - just like a GE.
--
Ian
Grikbashtar®™
2019-09-13 14:26:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:48:30 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:35:01 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
I think you've mis-read what I wrote. I didn't ASK a question. I made
SUGGESTIONS as to why it took over a year.
I think you've forgotten what you wrote. Here is the question you
ASKED: "Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a
year?"
I see your problem.
There isn't one. But I do see yours.
Post by Ian Jackson
I asked (rhetorically) "Is there any reason why a referendum needs to
take over a year?" [where it's obvious that I'm referring the next one]
- to which you replied, "The last one did".
I then when on to suggest a few reasons why the last one did.
In other words, you answered the (rhetorical) question you yourself
asked.
Post by Ian Jackson
A second referendum shouldn't take anything like the time needed for
preparation of the first. If pushed, we could probably have one in a few
weeks - just like a GE.
No, we couldn't. As I said before, being pushed to action is very
un-British. We could probably have one in just under a year - quite
unlike a GE.
Peeler
2019-09-13 14:30:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:48:30 +0100, Idiot Jackson, an especially retarded,
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Grikbashtar®™
I think you've forgotten what you wrote. Here is the question you
ASKED: "Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a
year?"
I see your problem.
I see that YOUR problem IS that you are a senile troll-feeding blathering
idiot, Idiot Jackson! <BG>
Peeler
2019-09-13 14:28:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:15:13 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Ian Jackson
I think
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-09-12 21:51:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:26:23 +0100, Idiot Jackson, an especially retarded,
Post by Ian Jackson
Not any more. It's been reclaimed.
You are doing this on purpose, right, you troll-feeding senile cretin? Guess
what, I'm doing this on purpose too, my newest punching bag! LOL
Peeler
2019-09-12 20:59:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:30:24 +0100, Idiot Jackson, an absolutely brain dead,
Post by Ian Jackson
I see you stand
I see you troll-feeding piece of senile shit feeding a trolling piece of
shit, Idiot Jackson!
Peeler
2019-09-12 13:55:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:48:53 +0100, Idiot Jackson, the retarded,
Post by Ian Jackson
Is there any reason why a referendum needs to take over a year?
Is there any reason why you keep feeding the perverted pedophilic and
psychopathic troll, you senile shithead?
Peeler
2019-09-12 13:53:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 05:30:20 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbasterd®™
They are not comparable. A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
Are you sure, psychopath? Psychopathically sure? <BG>
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Apples and doughnuts.
Nope, trolls and troll-feeding idiots, that's what you are!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
MM
2019-09-12 17:54:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 05:30:20 -0700, Grikbasterd®?
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by MM
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:17:54 -0700, Grikbasterr®?
Post by Grikbasterr®™
Post by MM
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 05:40:17 -0700, Grikbaster®?
Post by Grikbaster®™
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed. The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."
But *despite* that blatant propaganda shoved through everyone's
letterbox in the land at the taxpayers' expense, the people still voted
against it.
That legitimises even more the decision they made to leave.
What? A difference of 1.2 million people in a snapshot on a particular
day after being lied to for weeks by the Vote Leave campaign? That's
legitimate, is it?
What? How is it any less legitimate than a snapshot general election
on a particular day after being lied to for weeks by all parties
concerned?
But we can have another general election well within a generation.
And we do. Routinely.
Post by MM
I suggest we do the same for referendums. It's only fair.
You are making an unwarranted comparison between general elections and
referendums.
How is it "unwarranted"?
They are not comparable. A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
But if we have more referendums, the process will obviously become
more efficient, like elections.

MM
Grikbashtar®™
2019-09-12 18:03:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 05:30:20 -0700, Grikbasterd®?
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by MM
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:17:54 -0700, Grikbasterr®?
Post by Grikbasterr®™
Post by MM
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 05:40:17 -0700, Grikbaster®?
Post by Grikbaster®™
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed. The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."
But *despite* that blatant propaganda shoved through everyone's
letterbox in the land at the taxpayers' expense, the people still voted
against it.
That legitimises even more the decision they made to leave.
What? A difference of 1.2 million people in a snapshot on a particular
day after being lied to for weeks by the Vote Leave campaign? That's
legitimate, is it?
What? How is it any less legitimate than a snapshot general election
on a particular day after being lied to for weeks by all parties
concerned?
But we can have another general election well within a generation.
And we do. Routinely.
Post by MM
I suggest we do the same for referendums. It's only fair.
You are making an unwarranted comparison between general elections and
referendums.
How is it "unwarranted"?
They are not comparable. A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
But if we have more referendums, the process will obviously become
more efficient, like elections.
Why would we have more referendums when the conclusive results of the
last one we had are being ignored by Parliament?
Peeler
2019-09-12 18:16:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:03:12 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Why would we have more referendums when the conclusive results of the
last one we had are being ignored by Parliament?
If it weren't for that senile prize idiot, you'd be pretty much lost in this
group, eh, you filthy perverted troll?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
MM
2019-09-13 10:09:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:03:12 -0700, Grikbashtar®™
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Post by MM
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 05:30:20 -0700, Grikbasterd®?
Post by Grikbasterd®™
Post by MM
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:17:54 -0700, Grikbasterr®?
Post by Grikbasterr®™
Post by MM
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 05:40:17 -0700, Grikbaster®?
Post by Grikbaster®™
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed. The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."
But *despite* that blatant propaganda shoved through everyone's
letterbox in the land at the taxpayers' expense, the people still voted
against it.
That legitimises even more the decision they made to leave.
What? A difference of 1.2 million people in a snapshot on a particular
day after being lied to for weeks by the Vote Leave campaign? That's
legitimate, is it?
What? How is it any less legitimate than a snapshot general election
on a particular day after being lied to for weeks by all parties
concerned?
But we can have another general election well within a generation.
And we do. Routinely.
Post by MM
I suggest we do the same for referendums. It's only fair.
You are making an unwarranted comparison between general elections and
referendums.
How is it "unwarranted"?
They are not comparable. A general election can be called at six
weeks' notice. A referendum takes over a year to organise.
But if we have more referendums, the process will obviously become
more efficient, like elections.
Why would we have more referendums when the conclusive results of the
last one we had are being ignored by Parliament?
The conclusive result of the last one was,and remains to this day, an
*advisory* result. Parliament is NOT legally obiged to fulfil the
"wishes of the people".

You call it "ignoring". I call it allowing Parliament to debate
various aspects of the result and vote on a deal. So far, Parliament
has not voted in favour of the deal on the table, therefore the only
conclusion is that a majority of MPs, especially Tory ERG members, do
not believe that the deal is acceptable.

So are the Tory ERG members "ignoring" the result, in your view?

MM
Peeler
2019-09-13 10:28:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:09:37 +0100, Mental Moron, the mentally deficient
Post by MM
The conclusive result of the
The conclusive result of this thread is that HE is a filthy troll and YOU
are a demented troll-feeding senile idiot!
Ian Jackson
2019-09-13 13:12:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Parliament is NOT legally obiged to fulfil the "wishes of the people".
In fact, Parliament is NOT legally obliged to ignore "the wishes of
the people".
That's just a double-negative way of saying that Parliament IS legally
obliged to fulfil the wishes of the people. And it isn't.
--
Ian
Grikbashtar®™
2019-09-13 13:48:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:12:09 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Parliament is NOT legally obiged to fulfil the "wishes of the people".
In fact, Parliament is NOT legally obliged to ignore "the wishes of
the people".
That's just a double-negative way of saying that Parliament IS legally
obliged to fulfil the wishes of the people. And it isn't.
It's no more of a double negative than saying "Parliament is NOT
legally obiged to fulfil the "wishes of the people".

Of course Parliament is legally obliged to fulfil the wishes of the
people...that's why the people vote them in!
Peeler
2019-09-13 14:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:48:11 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbashtar®™
Of course Parliament is legally obliged to fulfil the wishes of the
people...that's why the people vote them in!
It's as much legally obliged to so, as some senile idiot (such as Idiot
Jackson) is obliged to feed a perverted filthy troll like you, dreckserb
Razovic!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-09-13 14:33:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:12:09 +0100, Idiot Jackson, an especially retarded,
Post by Ian Jackson
In fact, Parliament is NOT legally obliged to ignore "the wishes of
the people".
That's just a double-negative way of saying that Parliament IS legally
obliged to fulfil the wishes of the people. And it isn't.
Nope, Idiot Jackson, it's just another way of you saying that you ARE a
sucker of troll cock!
Peeler
2019-09-13 14:32:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:21:58 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by MM
The conclusive result of the last one was,and remains to this day, an
*advisory* result.
So you keep saying. There is nothing in the Act to that effect. Nor
is there any default position that you've been able to show.
Even Farage claimed it's "advisory". While he is a prize idiot, he yet isn't
as much of a prize idiot as you, pedophilic gay Razovic!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-09-12 18:14:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:54:31 +0100, Mental Moron, the mentally deficient
Post by MM
But if we have more referendums, the process will obviously become
more efficient, like elections.
Mental Moron
Talking about efficiency: If you weren't that senile, you'd have noticed
that the filthy troll has become VERY efficient in making you take all his
retarded idiotic baits, Mental Moron! <BG>
Norman Wells
2019-09-12 21:02:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
But if we have more referendums, the process will obviously become
more efficient, like elections.
It seems very odd to me that the very people who don't want to honour
the result of one referendum should want another which they will
consider binding.
pensive hamster
2019-09-12 23:17:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
But if we have more referendums, the process will obviously become
more efficient, like elections.
It seems very odd to me that the very people who don't want to honour
the result of one referendum should want another which they will
consider binding.
Advisory.
MM
2019-09-13 10:12:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
But if we have more referendums, the process will obviously become
more efficient, like elections.
It seems very odd to me that the very people who don't want to honour
the result of one referendum should want another which they will
consider binding.
"consider" binding? Is that like "consider" advisory?

An expectant mother IS pregnant. Not a little bit pregnant, but
p-r-e-g-n-a-n-t. An advisory result is not there to be considered, but
*accepted* as fact, just like the pregnant mother's situation.

MM
Grikbashtar®™
2019-09-13 12:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
But if we have more referendums, the process will obviously become
more efficient, like elections.
It seems very odd to me that the very people who don't want to honour
the result of one referendum should want another which they will
consider binding.
"consider" binding? Is that like "consider" advisory?
Yes, since the Act of Parliament failed to identify the result as
either.
Post by MM
An expectant mother IS pregnant. Not a little bit pregnant, but
p-r-e-g-n-a-n-t. An advisory result is not there to be considered, but
*accepted* as fact, just like the pregnant mother's situation.
Similarly, a binding result is not there to be considered, but
*accepted* as fact.
Grikbahhar®™
2019-09-09 11:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 05:38:00 -0700, Grikbahhar®™
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Post by MM
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:07:55 -0700, Grikbaharr®?
Post by Grikbaharr®™
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 21:28:15 +0100, jewboi GB (jb)
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
The purpose of Boris's proposed election was to foist a no-deal Brexit
on the country. Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority
of people do not want that and have not voted for it.
It was never PUT to the people, jewboi.
Vote Leave never campaigned for a no-deal Brexit.
Vote Remain never campaigned against a no-deal Brexit.
Indeed.
Yes indeed. Vote Remain was never opposed to a no-deal Brexit.
Post by MM
The government's leaflet plainly stated that staying in was
the recommended decision that voters should make.
A classic case of attempted voter manipulation...which failed
miserably.
Post by MM
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European
Union is the best decision for the UK."
On page 14 of the same leaflet:

"This is your decision. The Government will implement
what you decide."

That was a lie. Why should we believe what was on page 1?
Peeler
2019-09-09 11:42:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 04:39:40 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbahhar®™
That was a lie. Why should we believe what was on page 1?
Why should ANYONE care what a serb peasant, troll and retard like you spouts
and even engage in a psychopathic "discussion" with you, pedophilic
Retardovic?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Yellow
2019-09-07 22:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
The purpose of Boris's proposed election was to foist a no-deal Brexit
on the country.
The people voted for Brexit in 2016 and at this time the House is aiming
to overturn that result so it is surely right to ask the people if that
is what they want.

And this time, it will be clear who is supporting what - the Tories and
TBP are for Brexit while the LibDems and Labour et all are for Remain.
GB
2019-09-08 05:58:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
The purpose of Boris's proposed election was to foist a no-deal Brexit
on the country.
The people voted for Brexit in 2016 and at this time the House is aiming
to overturn that result so it is surely right to ask the people if that
is what they want.
Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority of people do not
want a no-deal Brexit and have not voted for it.

Of course, they should be asked again what they really want. So, you
must agree that we shouldn't leave the EU by default, as Boris plotted
to do, until the people have voted in a new government.
tim...
2019-09-08 11:56:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
The purpose of Boris's proposed election was to foist a no-deal Brexit
on the country.
The people voted for Brexit in 2016 and at this time the House is aiming
to overturn that result so it is surely right to ask the people if that
is what they want.
Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority of people do not
want a no-deal Brexit and have not voted for it.
I don't want one

but it's preferable to No Brexit

and it's also Preferable to May's deal

HTH
Post by GB
Of course, they should be asked again what they really want.
provided all the option on the ballot are alternative Leave options

I can go with that

But if this is an attempt to subvert the original result

you can fork off

tim
GB
2019-09-08 13:29:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
you can fork off
You've made it clear previously that you do not believe the people
should have their say.
Post by tim...
tim
Grikbaskar®™
2019-09-08 16:08:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 14:29:27 +0100, jewboi GB (jb)
Post by GB
Post by tim...
you can fork off
You've made it clear previously that you do not believe the people
should have their say.
You've made it clear previously that you do not believe the result of
the people's referendum means anything.

You can fork off to 'Israeel', jewboi.
Peeler
2019-09-08 17:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 09:08:26 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by GB
Post by GB
You've made it clear previously that you do not believe the people
should have their say.
You've made it clear previously that
You've made it previously clear -and you just did it again- that you ARE a
VERY VERY sick asshole, pedophilic gay Razovic!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
NEMO
2019-09-08 21:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbaskar®™
You can fork off
You can keep sucking Nicky Crane's dead dick, but really, with
the maggots crawling all over it... UNGH!

"Nazi Nicky sucked a dicky
and he surely wasn't picky
that is why the little sicky
lies under a filthy bricky!"

--In puking memory of the cocksucking nazoid
Nicky Crane who, much to the joy of decent people
everywhere, died of AIDS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Crane
tim...
2019-09-08 17:48:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
you can fork off
You've made it clear previously that you do not believe the people should
have their say.
they're already had their say

tim
GB
2019-09-08 17:53:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by GB
Post by tim...
you can fork off
You've made it clear previously that you do not believe the people
should have their say.
they're already had their say
Yes, they voted for Brexit with a wonderful deal. It's real B Ark stuff,
this. Let's use leaves for currency.
Post by tim...
tim
pensive hamster
2019-09-08 20:12:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"GB" wrote in message
Post by tim...
you can fork off
You've made it clear previously that you do not believe the people should
have their say.
they're already had their say
And they certainly shouldn't be allowed another say, at least not
for another 30 or 40 years. That would be most undemocratic.
Grikbaskar®™
2019-09-08 20:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 13:12:12 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
"GB" wrote in message
Post by tim...
you can fork off
You've made it clear previously that you do not believe the people should
have their say.
they're already had their say
And they certainly shouldn't be allowed another say, at least not
for another 30 or 40 years.
At least.
Post by pensive hamster
That would be most undemocratic.
And very Irish.
Peeler
2019-09-08 20:55:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 13:49:54 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbaskar®™
And very Irish.
Beats being very serbian like you, pedophilic gay Razovic!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Yellow
2019-09-08 14:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
The people voted for Brexit in 2016 and at this time the House is aiming
to overturn that result so it is surely right to ask the people if that
is what they want.
Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority of people do not
want a no-deal Brexit and have not voted for it.
Interestingly the polls (for what they are worth) seem to suggest people
are quite prepared to accept a no-deal exit and the numbers in favour of
that outcome increases when asked if they would prefer a no-deal exit or
a Corbyn government.
Post by GB
Of course, they should be asked again what they really want.
We have already said we want to leave so the government has a mandate
for that but what they do not have is a mandate to stop us from leaving
and if Parliament are going to do that they I believe it is essential
that we have a General Election.
Post by GB
So, you
must agree that we shouldn't leave the EU by default,
The people voted to leave and Parliament has passed legislation to
enable it. That is not "default".
Post by GB
as Boris plotted
to do, until the people have voted in a new government.
We are living in very strange times indeed, when one of the few
political leaders who is prepared to move forward with the people's
wishes is painted a "plotter" and is even being threatened with prison
time.
The Todal
2019-09-08 15:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
The people voted for Brexit in 2016 and at this time the House is aiming
to overturn that result so it is surely right to ask the people if that
is what they want.
Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority of people do not
want a no-deal Brexit and have not voted for it.
Interestingly the polls (for what they are worth) seem to suggest people
are quite prepared to accept a no-deal exit and the numbers in favour of
that outcome increases when asked if they would prefer a no-deal exit or
a Corbyn government.
But more interestingly, none of the parties in their various manifestos
ever said that they were willing to go for a no-deal Brexit and on the
contrary all of them were either against Brexit or against a no-deal or
in favour of a good withdrawal agreement.

Logically, that would support the call for another referendum to see
whether most of the electorate are stupid enough to support a no-deal
Brexit out of boredom or a mischievous desire to throw a spanner in the
works.
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Of course, they should be asked again what they really want.
We have already said we want to leave so the government has a mandate
for that but what they do not have is a mandate to stop us from leaving
and if Parliament are going to do that they I believe it is essential
that we have a General Election.
How would a General Election help?

When you vote for a government you do so on the basis of a detailed
manifesto covering many aspects of national and foreign policy.

If the Tories decide that their manifesto says "we will do our utmost to
get a good exit deal but failing that we will opt for a no deal" then
they will be lying to the electorate because there is no exit deal that
is better than Theresa's deal that can be put together within a few
months. But this fake promise might con some people into voting Tory.
They could ignore Amber Rudd and say to themselves, I'm sure behind the
scenes there are dozens of brilliant people working night and day to put
together a new, better deal. And Boris is such a charmer, I'm sure if I
sit by the phone for long enough he'll return my calls.
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
So, you
must agree that we shouldn't leave the EU by default,
The people voted to leave and Parliament has passed legislation to
enable it. That is not "default".
Post by GB
as Boris plotted
to do, until the people have voted in a new government.
We are living in very strange times indeed, when one of the few
political leaders who is prepared to move forward with the people's
wishes is painted a "plotter" and is even being threatened with prison
time.
We are living in very strange times when a Prime Minister declares that
he will break the law and disobey an Act of Parliament, and many voters
are inclined to say yeah, right on, fuck Parliament, we're behind you,
Boris. You and Tommy Robinson!
Norman Wells
2019-09-08 17:16:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
The people voted for Brexit in 2016 and at this time the House is aiming
to overturn that result so it is surely right to ask the people if that
is what they want.
Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority of people do not
want a no-deal Brexit and have not voted for it.
Interestingly the polls (for what they are worth) seem to suggest people
are quite prepared to accept a no-deal exit and the numbers in favour of
that outcome increases when asked if they would prefer a no-deal exit or
a Corbyn government.
But more interestingly, none of the parties in their various manifestos
ever said that they were willing to go for a no-deal Brexit and on the
contrary all of them were either against Brexit or against a no-deal or
in favour of a good withdrawal agreement.
None of the ones that matter were against Brexit. They said thery would
honour the result of the referendum and leave the EU.

All they could logically do would be to *try* to negotiate a good deal.
None of them said if that failed they would revoke Article 50. Everyone
was well aware that the alternative and default position was leaving
with no deal. They were only against that because it was not their
preferred option. They were not against it if the preferred option was
not available.
Post by The Todal
Logically, that would support the call for another referendum to see
whether most of the electorate are stupid enough to support a no-deal
Brexit out of boredom or a mischievous desire to throw a spanner in the
works.
We made that decision in 2016. It was not a draw.
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Of course, they should be asked again what they really want.
We have already said we want to leave so the government has a mandate
for that but what they do not have is a mandate to stop us from leaving
and if Parliament are going to do that they I believe it is essential
that we have a General Election.
How would a General Election help?
Let me quote yet again what that nice Mr Corbyn said only six days ago:

"When a government finds itself without a majority, the solution is not
to undermine democracy. The solution is to let the people decide and
call a general election. It is the people, not an unelected Prime
Minister, who should determine our country's future. An election is the
democratic way forward."



(from 3:02 in)
Post by The Todal
When you vote for a government you do so on the basis of a detailed
manifesto covering many aspects of national and foreign policy.
If the Tories decide that their manifesto says "we will do our utmost to
get a good exit deal but failing that we will opt for a no deal" then
they will be lying to the electorate because there is no exit deal that
is better than Theresa's deal that can be put together within a few
months. But this fake promise might con some people into voting Tory.
But it's totally hypothetical, based only on your own speculation.
Post by The Todal
They could ignore Amber Rudd and say to themselves, I'm sure behind the
scenes there are dozens of brilliant people working night and day to put
together a new, better deal. And Boris is such a charmer, I'm sure if I
sit by the phone for long enough he'll return my calls.
The success of negotiations is never guaranteed. Sensible people
realise that. In the case of Brexit, the negotiations have not
succeeded. We have not achieved a good deal, nor does one seem
available. That will be particularly so if the Bill going through
Parliament currently cuts off the implicit no-deal threat from being
used by the negotiating team.

It's a very silly and short-sighted measure. Because the default
position is no-deal, that is what will happen eventually if the now
weakened negotiations fail completely. It won't result in our accepting
a bad deal instead, or in revoking Article 50, however much some would
like that.
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
So, you
must agree that we shouldn't leave the EU by default,
The people voted to leave and Parliament has passed legislation to
enable it. That is not "default".
Post by GB
as Boris plotted
to do, until the people have voted in a new government.
We are living in very strange times indeed, when one of the few
political leaders who is prepared to move forward with the people's
wishes is painted a "plotter" and is even being threatened with prison
time.
We are living in very strange times when a Prime Minister declares that
he will break the law and disobey an Act of Parliament,
When and where has he said that explicitly?
Post by The Todal
and many voters
are inclined to say yeah, right on, fuck Parliament, we're behind you,
Boris. You and Tommy Robinson!
You'll see. He won't break the law, but you can't blame him if he tries
to find ways round it. It's a very bad law, and it's frankly what it
deserves.
GB
2019-09-08 17:46:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Logically, that would support the call for another referendum to see
whether most of the electorate are stupid enough to support a no-deal
Brexit out of boredom or a mischievous desire to throw a spanner in
the works.
We made that decision in 2016.  It was not a draw.
Just explain that, please, Norman.
Norman Wells
2019-09-08 20:50:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Logically, that would support the call for another referendum to see
whether most of the electorate are stupid enough to support a no-deal
Brexit out of boredom or a mischievous desire to throw a spanner in
the works.
We made that decision in 2016.  It was not a draw.
Just explain that, please, Norman.
There's no need for a replay.
GB
2019-09-09 07:29:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Logically, that would support the call for another referendum to see
whether most of the electorate are stupid enough to support a
no-deal Brexit out of boredom or a mischievous desire to throw a
spanner in the works.
We made that decision in 2016.  It was not a draw.
Just explain that, please, Norman.
There's no need for a replay.
You are saying the electorate voted for a no deal Brexit. That's not my
recollection, so I'm asking why you said that.
Norman Wells
2019-09-09 08:21:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Logically, that would support the call for another referendum to
see whether most of the electorate are stupid enough to support a
no-deal Brexit out of boredom or a mischievous desire to throw a
spanner in the works.
We made that decision in 2016.  It was not a draw.
Just explain that, please, Norman.
There's no need for a replay.
You are saying the electorate voted for a no deal Brexit. That's not my
recollection, so I'm asking why you said that.
It was always a possibility. In fact it was inevitable if a better deal
could not be agreed. That follows from Article 50 which had to be
triggered if we were to leave the EU in accordance with the referendum
decision.

There's no excuse for not knowing that.
The Todal
2019-09-09 08:32:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Logically, that would support the call for another referendum to
see whether most of the electorate are stupid enough to support a
no-deal Brexit out of boredom or a mischievous desire to throw a
spanner in the works.
We made that decision in 2016.  It was not a draw.
Just explain that, please, Norman.
There's no need for a replay.
You are saying the electorate voted for a no deal Brexit. That's not
my recollection, so I'm asking why you said that.
It was always a possibility.  In fact it was inevitable if a better deal
could not be agreed.  That follows from Article 50 which had to be
triggered if we were to leave the EU in accordance with the referendum
decision.
There's no excuse for not knowing that.
The fact of the matter is that both Theresa May and Boris Johnson
claimed that we must leave No Deal on the table in order to squeeze the
best deal out of the EU. That was plainly the reason for leaving No Deal
on the table. It does not follow that in agreeing to this, the Commons
was authorising the government to proceed to a No Deal. That would be a
bizarre way of looking at the facts.
Norman Wells
2019-09-09 09:25:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by GB
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Logically, that would support the call for another referendum to
see whether most of the electorate are stupid enough to support a
no-deal Brexit out of boredom or a mischievous desire to throw a
spanner in the works.
We made that decision in 2016.  It was not a draw.
Just explain that, please, Norman.
There's no need for a replay.
You are saying the electorate voted for a no deal Brexit. That's not
my recollection, so I'm asking why you said that.
It was always a possibility.  In fact it was inevitable if a better
deal could not be agreed.  That follows from Article 50 which had to
be triggered if we were to leave the EU in accordance with the
referendum decision.
There's no excuse for not knowing that.
The fact of the matter is that both Theresa May and Boris Johnson
claimed that we must leave No Deal on the table in order to squeeze the
best deal out of the EU. That was plainly the reason for leaving No Deal
on the table. It does not follow that in agreeing to this, the Commons
was authorising the government to proceed to a No Deal. That would be a
bizarre way of looking at the facts.
The Commons didn't need to authorise the possibility of no deal. It was
*always* a possibility acknowledged even in Article 50 itself, which the
Commons agreed by a massive majority to trigger in the first place.

There's no excuse for not knowing that, or for being surprised by it.
Yellow
2019-09-09 17:00:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Logically, that would support the call for another referendum to see
whether most of the electorate are stupid enough to support a
no-deal Brexit out of boredom or a mischievous desire to throw a
spanner in the works.
We made that decision in 2016.  It was not a draw.
Just explain that, please, Norman.
There's no need for a replay.
You are saying the electorate voted for a no deal Brexit. That's not my
recollection, so I'm asking why you said that.
I did not notice that "staying in the EU by stealth" was on the ballot
paper, yet that is what is happening. So it seems that exact wording
only counts when Remoaners are not getting what they want.
pensive hamster
2019-09-09 17:26:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Logically, that would support the call for another referendum to see
whether most of the electorate are stupid enough to support a
no-deal Brexit out of boredom or a mischievous desire to throw a
spanner in the works.
We made that decision in 2016.  It was not a draw.
Just explain that, please, Norman.
There's no need for a replay.
You are saying the electorate voted for a no deal Brexit. That's not my
recollection, so I'm asking why you said that.
I did not notice that "staying in the EU by stealth" was on the ballot
paper, yet that is what is happening.
Is it? Do you mean the Irish backstop will mean we are still
more-or-less tied into the EU, or do you mean something else?
Post by Yellow
So it seems that exact wording
only counts when Remoaners are not getting what they want.
Yellow
2019-09-09 23:10:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:26:34 -0700 (PDT) pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
Logically, that would support the call for another referendum to see
whether most of the electorate are stupid enough to support a
no-deal Brexit out of boredom or a mischievous desire to throw a
spanner in the works.
We made that decision in 2016.  It was not a draw.
Just explain that, please, Norman.
There's no need for a replay.
You are saying the electorate voted for a no deal Brexit. That's not my
recollection, so I'm asking why you said that.
I did not notice that "staying in the EU by stealth" was on the ballot
paper, yet that is what is happening.
Is it?
Yep.
tim...
2019-09-08 11:53:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
The purpose of Boris's proposed election was to foist a no-deal Brexit on
the country. Even a hardened Brexiteer must admit that the majority of
people do not want that and have not voted for it.
So, Boris was the one saying "let's have an election because we think we
can now get through what WE want".
Surely, you can see that? If you cannot, then it was wrong of me to accuse
you of dishonesty, but you must be the only person in the country unable
to see through Boris's ploy.
you've definitely got that wrong

there's bound to be millions of political numpties who can't see it

tim
MM
2019-09-08 09:12:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
So after a couple of years of "let the people decide", these very same
politicians are now saying "nah, let's not have an election because we
think we can now get through what WE want".
This whole process has been quite an eye-opener.
I must say that I had previously taken you as being misguided about
Brexit, but basically honest. I can see now that, when it comes to
Brexit, even the most decent people become downright dishonest. How you
can accuse others of hypocrisy, though?
If you think what is going on in Parliament at the moment is "honest"
then it is /you/ who needs their compass reset.
What on earth is dishonest by putting forward a motion and getting all
MPs to vote on it?

This was a perfectly legal course of action, as will be the rejection
on Monday of Johnson's second attempt to get a general election. This
is because no one trusts him to tell the truth (proven liar in the
past). Ergo if anyone is suspected of dishonesty, look no further than
Number 10.

MM
Loading...