Have you seen her wiggling ability? — unenlightened

Yes, she does a very amusing wiggle to the tune of 'Dancing Queen'. :rofl:

Brexit is a criminal conspiracy against the British people. — karl stone

Grab your tin foil hats, folks! (It's incompetence, not conspiracy. You're giving Cameron & Co. too much credit).

Well, in the specific case of Brexit, democracy is embodied in the referendum, its result. and the government's promise to implement the result. This culminated in the EU (Withdrawal) Act which became law in June 2018. The well-funded attempts by the Establishment, the Elites, and Corporatists to undermine the democratic process, will have repercussions far beyond Brexit, if they succeed. — Inis

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.

Brexit is a criminal conspiracy against the British people.
— karl stone

Grab your tin foil hats, folks! (It's incompetence, not conspiracy. You're giving Cameron & Co. too much credit). — S

Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.

p.s. check youtube, Cameron, 2009, Lisbon Treaty

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. — karl stone

Who represents you on the EU Commission?

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways.
— karl stone

Who represents you on the EU Commission? — Inis

Lord Hill resigned if I recall correctly. But in fact, national appointees to the EU Commission represent the EU. Nation state governments are represented in the Council of Ministers, and the people are represented in the EU Parliament.

Contrary to common misconceptions, while the EU Commission alone proposes legislation, legislative proposals are developed in coordination with the Council and Parliament. Proposals are then voted on by the Council and the Parliament, but the Commission has no voting rights whatsoever. It's actually a very transparent and elegantly democratic system.

You're right. I just can't think of any other examples of clever and qualified politicians whose plans have backfired. Is that even possible? It must therefore have been a clever conspiracy from the start.

He didn't want Brexit. He was playing with fire and got burnt.

You're right. I just can't think of any other examples of clever and qualified politicians whose plans have backfired. Is that even possible? — S

My informed and well worth reading posts have disappeared up the page under this progression of mindless pro brexit nonsense.

My informed and well worth reading posts have disappeared up the page under this progression of mindless pro brexit nonsense. — karl stone

You must be referring to Inis's posts. If you think that this is bad, you should see his posts in the Trump discussion.

No. These:

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies. — karl stone

and:

Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius. — karl stone

Lord Hill resigned if I recall correctly. But in fact, national appointees to the EU Commission represent the EU. Nation state governments are represented in the Council of Ministers, and the people are represented in the EU Parliament. — karl stone

You note correctly, that you have no representation on the EU body with monopoly on legislative initiative, monopoly on fiscal initiative, and which enforces EU treaties. You seem to be happy with this anti-democratic arrangement, yet complain that when people actually vote, the process is undemocratic.

This makes no sense, unless you really don't care for democracy, but are happy to smear your opponents as undemocratic, because you know they care about such things.

I was talking about your reference to a "progression of mindless pro-Brexit nonsense".

Speak of the Devil... :lol:

Lord Hill resigned if I recall correctly. But in fact, national appointees to the EU Commission represent the EU. Nation state governments are represented in the Council of Ministers, and the people are represented in the EU Parliament. — karl stone

You note correctly, that you have no representation on the EU body with monopoly on legislative initiative, monopoly on fiscal initiative, and which enforces EU treaties. You seem to be happy with this anti-democratic arrangement, yet complain that when people actually vote, the process is undemocratic. This makes no sense, unless you really don't care for democracy, but are happy to smear your opponents as undemocratic, because you know they care about such things. — Inis

Why did you respond to me with a subject entirely unrelated to anything I wrote? If you don't recall, I said this:

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.
— karl stone

and:

Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius. — karl stone

Do I bore you?

I was talking about your reference to a "progression of mindless pro-Brexit nonsense". — S

You mean pro-Democracy nonsense, surely.

The UK cancelled their referendum on EU membership in 2006 because it was clear that the people would vote the same way as France and the Netherlands. At that point the idea that a referendum should be ignored, as they did on the continent, was anathema to even the Europhiles. How things change.

You mean pro-Democracy nonsense, surely. — Inis

But we agree that it's nonsense either way, so let's not quibble over what kind of nonsense it is.

You mean pro-Democracy nonsense, surely.

The UK cancelled their referendum on EU membership in 2006 because it was clear that the people would vote the same way as France and the Netherlands. At that point the idea that a referendum should be ignored, as they did on the continent, was anathema to even the Europhiles. How things change. — Inis

Again, you seem to be sidestepping the issues raised in my posts. The 2016 referendum was undemocratic and corrupt, and a valid democratic result cannot follow from an undemocratic and corrupt process. The vote should be ignored. It was a split decision in an advisory referendum. Despite rampant corruption, leave won by a nose. It's not the will of the people. There's no plan that commands a majority in the House of Commons, or the Lords, and the policy is a failed policy - certain to result in a damaging no-deal exit. Absolutely it should be ...set aside.

But we agree that it's nonsense either way, so let's not quibble. — S

If UK abandons democracy, it will be like France on a Saturday, except it will be every day.

But we agree that it's nonsense either way, so let's not quibble.
— S

If UK abandons democracy, it will be like France on a Saturday, except it will be every day. — Inis

Great comment mate. Compared my comments:

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.

and:


Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius. — karl stone

That's a very compelling argument. Thanks for that!

Again, you seem to be sidestepping the issues raised in my posts. The 2016 referendum was undemocratic and corrupt — karl stone

And had Remain won, I'm sure you would be complaining about the corruption.

Again, you seem to be sidestepping the issues raised in my posts. The 2016 referendum was undemocratic and corrupt
— karl stone

And had Remain won, I'm sure you would be complaining about the corruption. — Inis

A hypothetical scenario? Do you expect me to respond to that? Something dredged from your fevered brexiteer imagination - when you won't respond to the facts laid out before you? So let's get this straight - your position is: brexit no matter what. Yes? So now you can STFU. You have nothing else to say.

A hypothetical scenario? Do you expect me to respond to that? Something dredged from your fevered brexiteer imagination - when you won't respond to the facts laid out before you? — karl stone

You haven't laid out a single fact though.

A hypothetical scenario? Do you expect me to respond to that? Something dredged from your fevered brexiteer imagination - when you won't respond to the facts laid out before you?
— karl stone

You haven't laid out a single fact though. — Inis

Another from the "brexit no matter what" club? The facts don't matter to you. Nothing else does. You have nothing to say, so STFU. Or engage with the facts:

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.

and:


Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.

If UK abandons democracy, it will be like France on a Saturday, except it will be every day. — Inis

We'll still have our democracy though, so your premise is flawed. It's far from ideal that we've got ourselves in such a mess that one possible resolution which needs to be considered is going back on the results of a democratic vote. A democratic vote the result of which both main parties committed to honouring. But a no-deal Brexit is not a price worth paying for that. Not out of my wallet, anyway. On the other hand, if we little people are going to be financially compensated by the richest of bastards, then go for it. But there's a greater chance of hell freezing over than that happening, so...

Cue the pro-Brexit propaganda, cherry picking, etc.

By the way, remind me, how did the French feel about having less money in their pockets as a result of decisions implemented by the political elite? The very political elites that they, as a majority, themselves democratically voted into power. I could've sworn that they've been out on the streets in their droves causing a ruckus for precisely that reason.

We'll still have our democracy though, so your premise is flawed. It's far from ideal that we've got ourselves in such a mess that one possible resolution which needs to be considered is going back on the results of a democratic vote. A democratic vote the result of which both main parties committed to honouring. But a no-deal Brexit is not a price worth paying for that. Not out of my wallet, anyway.

Cue the pro-Brexit propaganda, cherry picking, etc. — S

It wasn't democratic, for the reasons stated, at length, repeatedly above - and let's face it, probably below! The fact the referendum was well attended is not in dispute. The fact people had their reasons, is also not in dispute. The idea the myriad of reasons people voted Leave relate directly and solely to EU membership is a far more dubious proposition. To funnel all that generalized discontent into a specific policy that would disadvantage those very people most, is the rotten cherry atop the huge shit sundae that is brexit.

It wasn't democratic, for the reasons stated, at length, repeatedly above - and let's face it, probably below! The fact the referendum was well attended is not in dispute. The fact people had their reasons, is also not in dispute. The idea the myriad of reasons people voted Leave relate directly and solely to EU membership is a far more dubious proposition. To funnel all that discontent into a policy that would disadvantage those very people most, is the corrupt cherry on the huge shit sundae that is Brexit. — karl stone

You're wrong on that point, as I've also argued throughout this discussion. The referendum was indeed democratic, and not only was it democratic, if it wasn't democratic for the stated reasons, then many other votes that have been held would be likewise undemocratic. It's all or nothing, as I see it. But that's hogwash. I can't think of a single undemocratic referendum or general election in the U.K. unless, for example, you go way back to the days when women and poor people couldn't vote, rotten boroughs, and the like. Baden tried to argue that the referendum is a unique situation which warrants exceptional and unprecedented treatment. I don't buy that argument. It ain't that unique.

It wasn't democratic, for the reasons stated, at length, repeatedly above - and let's face it, probably below! The fact the referendum was well attended is not in dispute. The fact people had their reasons, is also not in dispute. The idea the myriad of reasons people voted Leave relate directly and solely to EU membership is a far more dubious proposition. To funnel all that discontent into a policy that would disadvantage those very people most, is the corrupt cheery on the huge shit sundae that is brexit.
— karl stone

You're wrong on that point, as I've also argued throughout this discussion. The referendum was indeed democratic, and not only was it democratic, if it wasn't democratic for the stated reasons, then many other votes would be likewise undemocratic. But that's hogwash. Baden tried to argue that the referendum is a unique situation which warrants exceptional and unprecedented treatment. I don't buy that argument. It ain't that unique. — S

I'm really not wrong though. That's the sad thing. You're only saying that, not actually challenging the facts as I've set them out. Because you can't. Am I right?

The 2016 referendum was utterly corrupt, and brexit is a bad idea. It really is a bad idea. It serves merely to empower a group of people who opted out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty to create a low wage, low regulation jobs market, while selling off all the council housing, and selling off the utilities for peanuts to their city slicker pals, who failed to put accession controls in place on the 2007 expansion of the EU, so all those immigrants came to Britain to work in that low wage, low regulation jobs market, who refused to build council housing while subsidizing shitty wages with tax payers money, starving public services of funding. None of which is the EU's fault. So yes, people had their reasons - but to funnel their discontent into a policy that will give those Thatcherite Tory bastards a clean slate and absolute power is the very worst thing those with real grievances could possibly do.

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. — karl stone

Why don't you list the 16 different corruptions?

Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. — karl stone

Both the Conservatives and the Greens had manifesto commitments for an EU referendum. Cameron was never a eurosceptic, and campaigned strongly for Remain. The claim of yours that Cameron was a eurosceptic is entirely fictional.

And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig! — karl stone

Now you're being hysterical.

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament — karl stone

Fiction again.

The EU Referendum Act 2015 was passed by 544-53 votes in the Commons, and laid the legal foundation for holding a referendum.

The EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 passed in the Commons by 494-122.

So, it took two pieces of primary legislation, passed by overwhelming majority of MPs to hold a referendum, and to give power to the prime minister to implement the result. Cameron wasn't even around for the second part.

We'll still have our democracy though, so your premise is flawed. It's far from ideal that we've got ourselves in such a mess that one possible resolution which needs to be considered is going back on the results of a democratic vote. A democratic vote the result of which both main parties committed to honouring. But a no-deal Brexit is not a price worth paying for that. Not out of my wallet, anyway. — S

What do you think you get for £13billion membership fee, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, and a £95billion deficit in traded goods?

I'm really not wrong though. That's the sad thing. You're only saying that, not actually challenging the facts as I've set them out. Because you can't. Am I right? — karl stone

Nice try. Maybe leave the goading to the experts. I'm not challenging any facts. I'm challenging your evaluation of them. And I've already been there, done that.

You've had my expert advice - for free! Take it or leave it. I'll leave you to it.