The European Union: We're out...!!!

[Gullscorer]

Forever that link to the daily mail is from two years ago and has nothing to do with the referendum. It is about social and economic exclusion.

I think Forever’s point is that the article not only shows Chuka Umunna’s own blind ignorance and bigotry, it indicates the attitudes of many in the Remain camp towards UKIP and those who support Brexit.

Chunkygull makes excellent points regarding Remainers' attitudes. The Remainers accuse Leave supporters of causing divisions in the country and of inciting extremism, conveniently forgetting that the issues, and the EU itself, are divisive, and that the recent extreme and despicable hate crimes and attitudes towards foreigners would have happened regardless of the referendum and are in fact ignorant reactions to the levels of immigration caused by the EU and its supporters, who must take a major share of the blame for this situation. As Labour Leave’s photo shows, extremism, ignorance, and intolerance can be found anywhere.

However, it is noticeable that intolerance and mob rule are more amply demonstrated by the young, who have been subjected for years in the education system to pro-EU propaganda, and to subtle indoctrination by feminists into their man-hating ideology. Distorted history, false statistics, and downright lies are their modus operandi, together with more than a few false accusations and claims to be victims of their political opponents.

As for Stefano, he demonstrated his own pig ignorance and bigotry in not opening those links. One wonders who is the ‘woman hating twat’ Stefano refers to; certainly there has never been any expression of hatred towards women on this forum, unless he believes that criticisms of feminism constitute expressions of misogyny. Is he so blinded by his own prejudices that he cannot read this forum’s posts, nor open the many links provided? Who is the ****, Stefano?

And now Leave campaigners face their toughest tests in the struggle to ensure we leave the EU. Already there is talk by Remainers of a second referendum to follow the Brexit negotiations, which will be presented in such a way as to ensure, as far as possible, that the nation decides to reject Brexit and to remain in the EU. Such are the Machiavellian depths to which EU supporters are prepared in sink in pursuit of their discredited cause.

[Dave]

I think Forever’s point is that the article not only shows Chuka Umunna’s own blind ignorance and bigotry, it indicates the attitudes of many in the Remain camp towards UKIP and those who support Brexit.

Correct GS, it has to be remembered calls for an EU referendum were on the cards at the time of this link, just a few short months later such a referendum promise appeared in the Tory party manifesto.

It has everything to do with it. Maybe choice of words could have been better in the description however, it's also relevant in terms of the attitude displayed by Chuka Umunna is indicative of the general malaise around Westminster, and across the London 'bubble' where by no one seems to have the first clue of day to day problems happening around the country that affect peoples lives, which is what has led to this Brexit vote.

Also agreed the general sentiment in the post from chunkygull, although Stefano is a thoroughly decent man.

[Gullscorer]

OK Forever I accept that Stefano is a decent man, albeit prone to occasional error, as are we all. So if I need to admonish him in future I'll be gentle with him, and simply give as good as I get..

[Plainmoor78]

I think Forever’s point is that the article not only shows Chuka Umunna’s own blind ignorance and bigotry, it indicates the attitudes of many in the Remain camp towards UKIP and those who support Brexit. i

If you actually read the article it has Suzanne Evans, a high profile ukip member, saying the reason for ukip's failure to break through in London is because of a well educated electorate. She is the one implying that ukip voters lack education.

[S4fedr1ve]

Suzanne Evans

I think she was the ukip spokesperson on one of the live tv debates running up to the referendum who said if we leave we can have a points system like Australia. Then we can have doctors (or was it dentists) coming here who can speak English unlike the Europeans. What a statement. If it wasnt her i apologise. But it was definately a female member of ukip who said it.

M

[Gullscorer]

I wouldn't have Suzanne Evans as Prime Minister any more than the Conservative two. This man should be PM:

[youtube]WrAHJ9fDHUU[/youtube]

[Gullscorer]

A Lucky Escape! You must read this: http://www.ukipdaily.com/a-lucky-escape/

[Dave]

Turns out the referendum may not be quite as advisory as some people claim.

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/brexit ... ding.shtml

[Gullscorer]

That's an excellent link Forever. I love the bit which proves the referendum is not merely advisory, but decisive and binding, and also the commentary at the end. So much so that they are worth quoting here:

Secondly, Parliament enacted the European Union Referendum Act 2015, whose formal title stated that its purpose was “To make provision for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union”. That Act authorised the holding of the referendum, regulated who would be legally entitled to vote in it and other matters about the conduct of the campaign, and specified that the question would be: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

The Act does not contain any provision saying that its result is subject to a minimum turnout threshold or a mininum percentage vote in favour of either remain or leave. Such thresholds can be imposed, for example a 40% of the electorate threshold was specified by Parliament in the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum. What would be unprecedented would be restrospectively imposing a threshold after the vote has taken place, as proposed by the petition mentioned above.

The letter from 1,000 barristers claims that the result of the referendum is “advisory” because that Act “does not make it legally binding”. Clearly there is something seriously wrong with legal education today if 1,000 barristers can be found with such deep ignorance of the British constitution. It is true that the Act does not contain a section at the end expressly saying that the government is under a legal duty to proceed to implement the result of the vote.

But that does not mean that the referendum result is “advisory”. The Act itself does not say that it is advisory. At no point did ministers in their public statements either to Parliament or outside say that the referendum result would only be advisory. On the contrary, they repeatedly said that the referendum would allow the British people to decide the question of whether we remain or leave.

Thirdly, in the course of the referendum campaign the government spent £9.5million of taxpayers’ money on printing a leaflet and distributing it to all households in the United Kingdom. That leaflet attracted widespread (and deserved) criticism for its gross bias in favour of remaining in the EU. However, on the consequences of the referendum it could not have been clearer. On the page headed “A once in a generation decision” it stated that:
“The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union.”

It did not say “it is your chance to advise on whether we should remain, the actual decision being taken by Parliament.”

But it went on to be even clearer and more emphatic:
“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
It is therefore clear that the referendum was not merely advisory, but was constitutionally decisive and binding. The clear, repeated and unequivocal promise made to the British people was that their vote in the referendum would decide the course which our country takes. Treating the result as merely advisory would be a flagrant breach of the repeated and unequivocal promises made to the British people. There should be no second guessing or reversal of the result by Parliament or by anybody else.

The government is therefore constitutionally mandated to exercise its legal power under the Royal prerogative to trigger the Article 50 process.

Political commentary
What is astonishing about these various moves to frustrate the result of the referendum is that the people involved have so little respect for democracy, and so little self-awareness. They arrogantly believe that their minority views should prevail in the face of the clear majority decision of the British people. Many of them seem coloured by the view that people who voted to Leave are stupid, uneducated, xenophobic, racist and live outside London, and accordingly their votes are worth less than their own educated and enlightened votes cast by people such as them in London or (even better) in Hampstead.

It is deeply disturbing that any citizens of this country should be so dismissive of the democratic rights of millions of their decent and intelligent fellow countrymen and countrywomen, who cast their votes in the poll with the highest national turnout for 24 years. The 17,410,000 people who voted to leave the European Union were the highest number ever to have voted in the history of the United Kingdom for a proposition or for a political party.

The astonishing arrogance, petulance, and desperate plotting to negate the democratic decision of the British people which has been displayed since the referendum result was announced is a deeply worrying symptom of the great damage which 40 years of EU membership has done to our sense of national and civic cohesion. The EU has persistently pursued policies which at every level are designed to weaken the bonds which bind us together as a nation. Its technique is to recruit an elite inside each Member State which regards its primary allegiance as being to the EU and not the country, and which is rewarded with power and influence in return for keeping the serfs under control.

It is by leaving the European Union that we can begin the long term process of healing our nation from this disease, and re-unify our people once again as a proud independent self-governing nation.

Now read this, and be glad the country voted for Brexit: http://www.ukipdaily.com/renaissance-after-brexit/

[Gullscorer]

BBC pro-EU bias is continuing on an industrial scale. So brazen has it become that it has posted on the BBC iPlayer the Brexit Collection, a selection of 15 Radio 4 programmes about the Brexit vote.

The bias across most of the programmes is so extreme that it is impossible to know where to begin in describing it. For 'balance', however, the BBC broadcast this guy's point of view. Listen or download MP3: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07l5y3d

[Gullscorer]

[youtube]fj5_oZBqcpo[/youtube]

Not sure I want him as UKIP leader. He's wearing a pink shirt..

[Gullscorer]

More BBC bias: http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/16266/

[S4fedr1ve]

Hi Gullscorer,

This is all well and good but i could point out that the vast majority of newspapers were very much campaign leaflets for exiting the EU. The Mail in particular was appalling with there scaremongering regarding immigration. So swings and roundabouts.

I will add that which ever side you are looking at this from newspapers and news on tv or radio they seem to have forgotten what they are there for(the clues in the name) to give us the news. Maybe they should rename themselves opinion papers and BBC 24 hour opinion channels.

M

[Gullscorer]

No S4fedrive, I'm not having that. Three newspapers were pro-Brexit: the Mail, the Express, and the Sun. Practically all the rest of the press and the media, the vast majority, were pro-Remain, with very few taking a neutral stance. As for scaremongering, most of this, by far, came from the Remain side.

I do agree with you though, regarding objectivity of the press and media in reporting news; these days, objective presentation and analysis of news is almost non-existent, and the BBC is as bad as any of them. For example, read this article on the Labour leadership challenger Owen Smith: as a propaganda piece it would not be out of place in Stalinist USSR. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36834096
Where is the equivalent article regarding Jeremy Corbyn ? If there is one, I couldn't find it..

[PhilGull]

No S4fedrive, I'm not having that. Three newspapers were pro-Brexit: the Mail, the Express, and the Sun. Practically all the rest of the press and the media, the vast majority, were pro-Remain, with very few taking a neutral stance. As for scaremongering, most of this, by far, came from the Remain side.

I do agree with you though, regarding objectivity of the press and media in reporting news; these days, objective presentation and analysis of news is almost non-existent, and the BBC is as bad as any of them. For example, read this article on the Labour leadership challenger Owen Smith: as a propaganda piece it would not be out of place in Stalinist USSR. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36834096
Where is the equivalent article regarding Jeremy Corbyn ? If there is one, I couldn't find it..

That SMith piece is a profiling explaining to the great unwashed who the hell this random bloke wh wants to lead the Labour Party is. I can't see any bias.

I can't read the conservativewoman page as its blocked at work - seems to be using an outdated version of Wordpress. Be careful, very high chance of virus infection!