'Parliament makes decisions, not the people' - anger as Peers say public cannot be trusted on EU vote

If this doesn't sum it up I don't know what does. What was the point of fighting the Nazis and then the Soviets in a cold war if the left are to eradicate democracy through dictat from the EU with compliance from the traitors in the left wing parties.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/10564931/Parliament-makes-decisions-not-the-people-anger-as-Peers-say-public-cannot-be-trusted-on-EU-vote.html

No doubt Scatman and Dobbin will seek to defend this act but hey what will they not defend if its Labour orientated.

Of course Parliament will make decisions.
You use a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy like every other democracy on the planet.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:Of course Parliament will make decisions.
You use a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy like every other democracy on the planet.

Not when you decide to give your powers loaned to you for 5 years to a foreign power.

We joined a Common Market. We were conned into a Soviet Union. We have never been given a chance to vote on giving away powers through successive treaties.

The biggest con was Labour who guaranteed us a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty and then renege in the knowledge we would reject it.

That is treason.

Elect different politicians then.

I couldn't believe it when I saw this.

But then again it shouldn't be a surprise - Labour said this quite a lot when In power.

Pure arrogance.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:Elect different politicians then.

Watch the next elections.

Seriously even a representative democracy is formed on the basis that the representatives listen to the majority - right now that is most definitely not happening. When a member of the the representatives states that the majority should not be asked or their wishes considered what you have is no longer a democracy by any definition.

QofH are you content to sleep walk into a Pan European Dictatorship?

If you are fine but what about the majority that aren't?

The Labour and Liberal party do not want the public to know about their shenanigans in the Lords. The Liberals would sell us out hook line and sinker as would the Labour leadership. There are many decent Labour MPs who are rightly against the position taken by the leadership because they recognire this is wholly undemocratic.

I might add for some years the Tories were as bad though in fairness it wasn'rt clear earlier on that we were being steered in to a United States and that was denied right up until now. Senior commissioners have now stated that is indeed the objective.

It was those same commissioners who bullied bribed cajoled the various countries leaders to avoid plebiscites.

There are many malign folk some on here who have applauded such actions.

Once you lose democracy it is very very difficult indeed to get it back.

I have a question - if we have a vote to leave in 2017 and the result is yes, when will we be forced to have another, like those wimps in Ireland?

Firstly the whole 2017 referendum thing is sneaky confidence trick - Re negotiation of powers is simply not possible and will not happen - the only way renegotiation might happen is if we invoked article 50 which means giving formal notification of our intent to leave - and it is possible that in such case the rest of the EU would simply wave bye bye instead of renegotiating. Also Cameron has already been heard to state that he would not be tied by the outcome of the referendum anyway so a vote to leave will not necessarily result in us leaving.
Secondly the thing going through the Lords at the moment which is a backbench effort to get the promise of said referendum enshrined in law is also smoke and mirrors - the only reason it passed parliament was because of abstaining by Labour and Liberals and a 3 line whip in the Tories, now it is in the Lords those who have stated the public should not be allowed a say are quite capable of holding it up so it does not get passed by the deadline and there have been strong indications they will do so. Finally and most importantly even if it is passed - with use of the parliament act from the Tories - it is worthless as no such law can hold a future government to commitments made by this one - it will have less value than a certain famous piece of paper waved in the late 1930s.

Put simply all the three traditional parties are doing is trying to win votes by misleading the public, and keep their own grass roots memberships happy with shiny baubles - they have no intention of leaving the EU and are simply hoping a United States of Europe can be bought in before voting public realize this.

There is only one party who is dedicated to leaving Europe. They are the same party that wants to see minimum wage taken out of the tax bracket so those on minimum wage do not pay any tax. They are the party that want to bring back grammar schools and proper trade training. They are the party who want to see a move towards a more majority democracy with a much larger number of referendums on major policies at both local and national level. They are the party with candidates who are ordinary people who have lived ordinary lives with ordinary jobs not people who studied philosophy economics and politics at university before going straight to work in party politics.

I am afraid the electorate of this country is running out of time to stop the impending disaster - more and more people are recognizing the disaster approaching but there is still too much fear of taking the necessary action to avoid it - too many people still want to close their eyes and pretend that the traditional main parties will look after them really. Right now - for the next 18 months British People still have the power to choose what happens to them. After the 2015 general election that may no longer be the case. Dont leave it too late folks.

Clarkson wrote:QofH are you content to sleep walk into a Pan European Dictatorship?

If you are fine but what about the majority that aren't?

The Labour and Liberal party do not want the public to know about their shenanigans in the Lords. The Liberals would sell us out hook line and sinker as would the Labour leadership. There are many decent Labour MPs who are rightly against the position taken by the leadership because they recognire this is wholly undemocratic.

I might add for some years the Tories were as bad though in fairness it wasn'rt clear earlier on that we were being steered in to a United States and that was denied right up until now. Senior commissioners have now stated that is indeed the objective.

It was those same commissioners who bullied bribed cajoled the various countries leaders to avoid plebiscites.

There are many malign folk some on here who have applauded such actions.

Once you lose democracy it is very very difficult indeed to get it back.

The Tories are just dancing to the tune of UKIP who are now dictating Tory policy over EU membership. It's a political stunt to get the Tories out the crap whilst at the same time trying to pin some of it on Labour and the LibDems who have rumbled them.

Here's what 'Dave' said just a couple of years ago...

Cameron rejects EU referendum call ahead of MPs debate

David Cameron has rejected calls for a referendum on Europe ahead of a Commons debate on the subject next week.

At Prime Minister's Questions, he said he shared MPs' frustrations with how the European Union worked but would oppose calls for a vote on whether to quit the EU as it was "not our policy".

What a chancer he is in making up policy on the hoof to try and see off UKIP by offering a referendum in around 4 years time. Why couldn't he have one in this parliament? Because he doesn't want to have to face up his own party by campaigning to stay in because he may well get rumbled out by the rabid RW is the answer.

The Labour policy is that they will give a referendum if there is any further legislation presented that would mean the loss of any sovereign powers to the EU.

Heath signed the Treaty of Rome and said that there would be no further transfer of power to Europe without the consent of the British people - he lied. Then Thatcher came along and she didn't bother asking the British people before signing the Single European Act. Next up was John Major and told the rebels they were bastards and went ahead and signed the Maastricht Treaty and our fate was sealed from there on in.

There's the history for you Drinky and it's all on record for you to weep over.

Dread the thought that we might get real democracy Irn Bu.

Thought about defecting to North Korea. If you despise plebiscites so much don't you think youwould be happier in a country where you got no say.

Actually you are right that is here if Labour win. Good of you to make it clear that the comrades despise democracy.

Honest of you for once.


As to Heath and Thatcher. We had a referendum after Heath signed.

Thatcher stated that her biggest mistake in office was to sign Maastricht.

As to Labour they made a clear cut promise to give us a vote in advance of the Lisbon Treaty they lied through their teeth at least Brown did. Why you defend this treachery and indeed seem to admire it is a mystery to me. Are you all so untrustworthy?

Clarkson wrote:Dread the thought that we might get real democracy Irn Bu.

Thought about defecting to North Korea. If you despise plebiscites so much don't you think youwould be happier in a country where you got no say.

Actually you are right that is here if Labour win. Good of you to make it clear that the comrades despise democracy.

Honest of you for once.


As to Heath and Thatcher. We had a referendum after Heath signed.

Thatcher stated that her biggest mistake in office was to sign Maastricht.

As to Labour they made a clear cut promise to give us a vote in advance of the Lisbon Treaty they lied through their teeth at least Brown did. Why you defend this treachery and indeed seem to admire it is a mystery to me. Are you all so untrustworthy?

Yes, we had a referendum after Heath signed the Treaty of Rome and that was under the Wilson Labour government and the country voted to remain in the EEC.
And Thatcher never signed the Maastricht Treaty, that was John Major's government so you even got that wrong. The Tories gave a commitment that no further powers would be transferred to Europe without the will of the British people and Heath, Thatcher and Major are all guilty of reneging on that by signing the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. These are the facts Drinky and it's all on record.
Labour never gave a commitment to having a referendum on signing the Lisbon Treaty. They gave a commitment to have a referendum on any new constitution that was called for. However, 'Dave' gave a cast iron commitment to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but wiggled out of it on the back of the claim that he couldn't because it had already been signed. It's bollocks that he couldn't because after he came to power there were several amendments presented that needed to be signed to finally ratify certain elements of the treaty and he signed them off when he could have said no - We'll have a referendum first.
And the Lisbon Treaty was never an in/out of the EU option so not much would have changed anyway, would it.

Treason at Maastricht - Read it

On the 9th September a luncheon will be held in London to mark the 10th anniversary of the laying by Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter of the 1993 "treason charges" against Government Ministers for signing the Maastricht Treaty on European Economic and Monetary Union. Atkinson and McWhirter, using a process called "misprision", presented their 7 cases to magistrates at Hexham in Northumberland (Norris McWhirter subsequently laid an eighth charge in Scotland). They pointed out that the British Constitution clearly states that "undermining the constitution" is "treason" and that on a total of 8 counts the terms of the Maastricht Treaty overturned the fundamental pillars of the 800 year old British Constitution. The Crown Prosecution Service after some 5 months consideration refused to prosecute but NEVER provided a satisfactory reason for not doing so.

http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/news-treason.html

That's the Tories for you. Liars, chancers and corrupt to the very core.

You guys can argue about who did what in the past all you like. I am concerned with now and the future. Cameron may only be pretending about people getting a referendum but it is Lord Mandleson who has crudely put that the people should be given no say in the matter.

Clarkson wrote:QofH are you content to sleep walk into a Pan European Dictatorship?

I think the EU is a load of shit.
Never said anything to imply otherwise.

sphinx wrote:You guys can argue about who did what in the past all you like.  I am concerned with now and the future.  Cameron may only be pretending about people getting a referendum but it is Lord Mandleson who has crudely put that the people should be given no say in the matter.

When people come out with a whole load of tripe and try to dismiss the role that the Tories have played in the mess then it needs to be challenged and the record corrected.
And the prime minister we have NOW was just two years ago stating quite clearly that there would be no EU referendum because it was not Tory policy but NOW he has changed his mind and is dancing to UKIPs tune because he's scared of losing votes. But for that he would do as all Tory governments have done previously and give the electorate no say on whether we should be in or out of Europe.
Now he's saying you can have one in about 4 years time and when the crunch comes at that time he will be right behind the barricades campaigning for a yes vote to remain in the EU and there is no doubt we will.
Mandleson isn't in the government and we also don't know for sure how many Tory Lords would also say the same as him because of the whip being lashed on them.
Get real - it's all a stunt by the Tories and nothing more than an attempt to see off UKIP.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:You guys can argue about who did what in the past all you like.  I am concerned with now and the future.  Cameron may only be pretending about people getting a referendum but it is Lord Mandleson who has crudely put that the people should be given no say in the matter.

When people come out with a whole load of tripe and try to dismiss the role that the Tories have played in the mess then it needs to be challenged and the record corrected.
And the prime minister we have NOW was just two years ago stating quite clearly that there would be no EU referendum because it was not Tory policy but NOW he has changed his mind and is dancing to UKIPs tune because he's scared of losing votes. But for that he would do as all Tory governments have done previously and give the electorate no say on whether we should be in or out of Europe.
Now he's saying you can have one in about 4 years time and when the crunch comes at that time he will be right behind the barricades campaigning for a yes vote to remain in the EU and there is no doubt we will.
Mandleson isn't in the government and we also don't know for sure how many Tory Lords would also say the same as him because of the whip being lashed on them.
Get real - it's all a stunt by the Tories and nothing more than an attempt to see off UKIP.

Yes this is a stunt - but it remains a fact that Mandleson is the one who said the public should not be asked.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

When people come out with a whole load of tripe and try to dismiss the role that the Tories have played in the mess then it needs to be challenged and the record corrected.
And the prime minister we have NOW was just two years ago stating quite clearly that there would be no EU referendum because it was not Tory policy but NOW he has changed his mind and is dancing to UKIPs tune because he's scared of losing votes. But for that he would do as all Tory governments have done previously and give the electorate no say on whether we should be in or out of Europe.
Now he's saying you can have one in about 4 years time and when the crunch comes at that time he will be right behind the barricades campaigning for a yes vote to remain in the EU and there is no doubt we will.
Mandleson isn't in the government and we also don't know for sure how many Tory Lords would also say the same as him because of the whip being lashed on them.
Get real - it's all a stunt by the Tories and nothing more than an attempt to see off UKIP.

Yes this is a stunt - but it remains a fact that Mandleson is the one who said the public should not be asked.

Mandleson isn't in the government and but for the Tory whip there are probably a few from there as well. Cameron didn't want the electorate to have a say either and I bet he still doesn't but can't admit to it for fear of UKIP.

Wise up.

Yep but Mandleson is the one that said it.

sphinx wrote:Yep but Mandleson is the one that said it.

Openly. which is surely what you would want rather than people cowering behind their true beliefs or their whips?

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Yep but Mandleson is the one that said it.

Openly. which is surely what you would want rather than people cowering behind their true beliefs or their whips?

What I want is for more of the electorate to wake up to the true beliefs of the three established parties.

Could you honestly vote for Labour knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy? I would put the same question to a dedicated Tory supporter.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:


Openly. which is surely what you would want rather than people cowering behind their true beliefs or their whips?

What I want is for more of the electorate to wake up to the true beliefs of the three established parties.

Could you honestly vote for Labour knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy?  I would put the same question to a dedicated Tory supporter.

Why would you ask me that question about Labour?

Maybe you would like to tell me what alternative vote I could use to get to what you call proper democracy.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What I want is for more of the electorate to wake up to the true beliefs of the three established parties.

Could you honestly vote for Labour knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy?  I would put the same question to a dedicated Tory supporter.

Why would you ask me that question about Labour?

Maybe you would like to tell me what alternative vote I could use to get to what you call proper democracy.

There are plenty of parties other than the traditional three - that before you get to independents standing.

I just cannot understand how anyone can see it clearly demonstrated that the people they are voting for care nothing for their opinion and still vote for them.

Like I said I would ask a Tory voter the same question because as you have pointed out the Tories show little more respect for democracy than Mandleson has expressed.

However I fear the majority of people are going to deny what their own senses are telling them or explain it away and carry on voting the same way they have always done.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Why would you ask me that question about Labour?

Maybe you would like to tell me what alternative vote I could use to get to what you call proper democracy.

There are plenty of parties other than the traditional three - that before you get to independents standing.

I just cannot understand how anyone can see it clearly demonstrated that the people they are voting for care nothing for their opinion and still vote for them.

Like I said I would ask a Tory voter the same question because as you have pointed out the Tories show little more respect for democracy than Mandleson has expressed.

However I fear the majority of people are going to deny what their own senses are telling them or explain it away and carry on voting the same way they have always done.

So tell me who you should think I should vote for to experience proper democracy?

So tell me who you should think I should vote for to experience proper democracy?

SKYNET

краљица, that Cyrrilic is messing with my head ...

This is totally unrelated:

YOUNGSTOWN, OH—According to records obtained from the Mahoning County registrar’s office, local man David Kearney, who eats breakfast at Dunkin’ Donuts every day and is a passionate fan of the Saw film franchise, is actually allowed to vote in today’s general election.

Reports confirmed that Kearney, 34, enjoys sitting down in a Dunkin’ Donuts location and eating a sausage, egg, and cheese croissant each morning before work, has seen every Saw movie multiple times, and is freely able to play an active role in the democratic process like every other registered voter in the United States.

“I just can’t get going in the morning without a Dunkaccino,” said Kearney, who possesses the right to visit a polling center and help decide, quite literally, the political direction of the entire nation over the next four years. “They’re so good. Goes great with a Boston Kreme.”

“And you gotta love the Munchkins, man—I usually get a half dozen of those,” added the man who will help choose the next president of the United States, which, reportedly, is the most important and powerful position in the world. “I’ve got a Dunkin’ Donuts Perks card, too, so it’s pretty cheap.”

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-eats-breakfast-at-dunkin-donuts-every-morn,30259/

Ben_Reilly wrote:краљица, that Cyrrilic is messing with my head ...

Do you want me to change it?

Clarkson wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:
Of course Parliament will make decisions.
You use a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy like every other democracy on the planet.

Not when you decide to give your powers loaned to you for 5 years to a foreign power.

We joined a Common Market. We were conned into a Soviet Union. We have never been given a chance to vote on giving away powers through successive treaties.

The biggest con was Labour who guaranteed us a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty and then renege in the knowledge we would reject it.

That is treason.

 


GEES, you're a clueless doofus, Drinky !!!

TELL US again what a bunch of "communists" we all are on here..

BUT FIRST ~ please try explaining just what YOU understand by the term "communist", you silly old git !     :-:bravo:-:

краљица од Хартс wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:краљица, that Cyrrilic is messing with my head ...

Do you want me to change it?

Nah, I'm just joking

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

There are plenty of parties other than the traditional three - that before you get to independents standing.

I just cannot understand how anyone can see it clearly demonstrated that the people they are voting for care nothing for their opinion and still vote for them.

Like I said I would ask a Tory voter the same question because as you have pointed out the Tories show little more respect for democracy than Mandleson has expressed.

However I fear the majority of people are going to deny what their own senses are telling them or explain it away and carry on voting the same way they have always done.

So tell me who you should think I should vote for to experience proper democracy?

In a proper democracy nobody tells anyone else who they should vote for - each individual looks at the candidates and chooses who they believe to be best.

I simply cannot understand how anyone comparing 2 candidates can decide a candidate who believes they should not be allowed any input to decisions made about them is ever better that a candidate who does. I extend this into party candidates because it is easy for a party candidate to say they believe in something but cannot put it into practice because the party they are from does not believe in something - hence the whip system.

While I will not tell you who to vote for I can tell you who I vote for and why - I vote for a party that has rejected the whip system and has instruction on candidates to vote as their constituents wish and whose policy is use of referendums at both national and local level for deciding far more of governmental decisions. UKIP.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

So tell me who you should think I should vote for to experience proper democracy?

In a proper democracy nobody tells anyone else who they should vote for - each individual looks at the candidates and chooses who they believe to be best.

I simply cannot understand how anyone comparing 2 candidates can decide a candidate who believes they should not be allowed any input to decisions made about them is ever better that a candidate who does.  I extend this into party candidates because it is easy for a party candidate to say they believe in something but cannot put it into practice because the party they are from does not believe in something - hence the whip system.

While I will not tell you who to vote for I can tell you who I vote for and why - I vote for a party that has rejected the whip system and has instruction on candidates to vote as their constituents wish and whose policy is use of referendums at both national and local level for deciding far more of governmental decisions.  UKIP.

So in order to experience proper democracy you are telling me that I should vote UKIP?

Controversial Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom loses party whip after calling women 'sluts' at conference event and hitting television reporter around the head

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/controversial-ukip-mep-godfrey-bloom-loses-party-whip-after-calling-women-sluts-at-conference-event-and-hitting-television-reporter-around-the-head-8829838.html

I know I shouldn't but...

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

In a proper democracy nobody tells anyone else who they should vote for - each individual looks at the candidates and chooses who they believe to be best.

I simply cannot understand how anyone comparing 2 candidates can decide a candidate who believes they should not be allowed any input to decisions made about them is ever better that a candidate who does.  I extend this into party candidates because it is easy for a party candidate to say they believe in something but cannot put it into practice because the party they are from does not believe in something - hence the whip system.

While I will not tell you who to vote for I can tell you who I vote for and why - I vote for a party that has rejected the whip system and has instruction on candidates to vote as their constituents wish and whose policy is use of referendums at both national and local level for deciding far more of governmental decisions.  UKIP.

So in order to experience proper democracy you are telling me that I should vote UKIP?

Controversial Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom loses party whip after calling women 'sluts' at conference event and hitting television reporter around the head

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/controversial-ukip-mep-godfrey-bloom-loses-party-whip-after-calling-women-sluts-at-conference-event-and-hitting-television-reporter-around-the-head-8829838.html

I know I shouldn't but...

No I quite clearly said I was not telling you who to vote for.

The use of the word whip was the choice of the reporter not what was actually said by the party.

You are quite capable of looking at the candidates in your constituency and deciding who is worthwhile voting for - who is going to do what the people who elect them want them to and who is going to do what a party wants them to and who sees getting elected as simply the door to get through on the road to power which can be safely forgotten about once elected.

The left fear democracy as a rabid dog fears water.

It is obvious on here that faced with the embarrassment of their party being proved wrong time and time again since 2010 they would much rather their party never faced an election in 2010.

Another few years of the EU they will get their wishes I suspect.

What a shameless bunch preaching patriotism on another thread actually behaving in an anti democratic way in reality.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

So in order to experience proper democracy you are telling me that I should vote UKIP?

Controversial Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom loses party whip after calling women 'sluts' at conference event and hitting television reporter around the head

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/controversial-ukip-mep-godfrey-bloom-loses-party-whip-after-calling-women-sluts-at-conference-event-and-hitting-television-reporter-around-the-head-8829838.html

I know I shouldn't but...

No I quite clearly said I  was not telling you who to vote for.

The use of the word whip was the choice of the reporter not what was actually said by the party.

You are quite capable of looking at the candidates in your constituency and deciding who is worthwhile voting for - who is going to do what the people who elect them want them to and who is going to do what a party wants them to and who sees getting elected as simply the door to get through on the road to power which can be safely forgotten about once elected.

You were telling me who in your opinion I should vote for to experience proper democracy. Does that sound better?

From the UKIP Constitution

11.5 Upon the conclusion of any Disciplinary Hearing the Discipline Committee may:
a) issue oral or written advice to the Respondent Member as to future conduct;
b) give the Respondent Member a written caution as to future behaviour;
c) suspend the Respondent Member from attending constituency association meetings for a specified period;
d) suspend the Respondent Member from membership of the Party for a specified period;
e) suspend the Respondent Member from elected Party office and/or candidature for elective office for a specified period;
f) expel the Respondent Member from membership for a specified period or permanently;
g) take any other reasonable and proportionate action that it deems to be warranted by any particular circumstances;
h) take no action; or
i) if the member is elected to public office, remove the Party Whip.

What I said to you was I quote

While I will not tell you who to vote for I can tell you who I vote for and why

You have quoted a part of the constitution without context.

The word whip will be used at office level for any elected representative who is registered as a member of an official party (getting a candidate registered as a member of an official party is not quite as simple as you might think either) to describe that they may vote to a party line rather than what the people who elected them wish.
That UKIP clearly states it will not ever use the whip does not prevent the use of the word at office level.

I was slightly inaccurate in stating UKIP have no whip - in actual fact the only whip UKIP have is to do what the constituents want - however they are the only party that I know of that do it.

Like I said you are completely free to make your own mind up - you can look at candidates and seeing things like if a candidate or their party want to stop minimum wage being liable for tax. You are free to decide whether you vote for a candidate with a history of believing in democracy or one who only pays it lip service.

sphinx wrote:What I said to you was I quote

While I will not tell you who to vote for I can tell you who I vote for and why

You have quoted a part of the constitution without context.

The word whip will be used at office level for any elected representative who is registered as a member of an official party (getting a candidate registered as a member of an official party is not quite as simple as you might think either) to describe that they may vote to a party line rather than what the people who elected them wish.
That UKIP clearly states it will not ever use the whip does not prevent the use of the word at office level.

I was slightly inaccurate in stating UKIP have no whip - in actual fact the only whip UKIP have is to do what the constituents want - however they are the only party that I know of that do it.

Like I said you are completely free to make your own mind up - you can look at candidates and seeing things like if a candidate or their party want to stop minimum wage being liable for tax.  You are free to decide whether you vote for a candidate with a history of believing in democracy or one who only pays it lip service.

Within the context of this discussion you are implying that in order to experience proper democracy that in your opinion I should vote UKIP,,,,correct?

Or are UKIP just the same as all the other parties and I won't get proper democracy from them either?

How is the word WHIP out of context? They used it,,,,why?

Irn Bru will deflect all night long. Ask him a direct question did Labour renege on the promise to give a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty he will ignore it.
A disingenuous pious f--k might do that as well.

Clarkson wrote:Irn Bru will deflect all night long. Ask him a direct question did Labour renege on the promise to give a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty he will ignore it.
A disingenuous pious f--k might do that as well.

I answered that question on the other thread. Go and see and bring the answer back here.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:What I said to you was I quote


You have quoted a part of the constitution without context.

The word whip will be used at office level for any elected representative who is registered as a member of an official party (getting a candidate registered as a member of an official party is not quite as simple as you might think either) to describe that they may vote to a party line rather than what the people who elected them wish.
That UKIP clearly states it will not ever use the whip does not prevent the use of the word at office level.

I was slightly inaccurate in stating UKIP have no whip - in actual fact the only whip UKIP have is to do what the constituents want - however they are the only party that I know of that do it.

Like I said you are completely free to make your own mind up - you can look at candidates and seeing things like if a candidate or their party want to stop minimum wage being liable for tax.  You are free to decide whether you vote for a candidate with a history of believing in democracy or one who only pays it lip service.

Within the context of this discussion you are implying that in order to experience proper democracy that in your opinion I should vote UKIP,,,,correct?

Or are UKIP just the same as all the other parties and I won't get proper democracy from them either?



How is the word WHIP out of context? They used it,,,,why?

No within the context of the discussion I am implying you should look carefully at all the candidates on the ballot paper and see what they are offering.

UKIP are most definitely not the same as all other parties - they are significantly different from the 3 traditional main parties (Labour Conservative and Liberal Democrat) how much their differ from the smaller specific nationalist parties found in Wales and Scotland I am not sure as I have little exposure to them.

They definitely definitely believe in and practice democracy - hence the rule about doing as constituents wish. They actively promote the use of referendums on such things as wind/solar farms, badger culling, hunting, smoking bypasses etc. That they do indeed practice what they preach can be seen in the areas they get control of councils in - they started with a town council in Suffolk and have been taking further seats in the surrounding areas by Landslides ever since as people observe that UKIP does not just talk the talk it walks the walk as well.

I vote UKIP and I know exactly why and I am not ashamed to tell other people why. I am not going to claim we are cleaner than clean because we are not - we are after all ordinary people for the most part. We have the same normal power hungry idiots coming on board to try and use the party for their own nefarious purposes as other parties and we do our best to deal with that. I am not advising you to vote UKIP - they may not be the best party for what you want in your area. For all I know you might agree with Mandleson that ordinary people should not have a say although it is far more likely that you disagree with him but have specific policies you want instigated in your own area - UKIP might be the party campaigning for what you want but there might be an independent or nationalist candidate closer. If you look genuinely at the candidates in your area you will make the best choice for you - you just have to look genuinely and not write off people before you start because you think you know what their party stands for without ever actually finding out first hand.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Within the context of this discussion you are implying that in order to experience proper democracy that in your opinion I should vote UKIP,,,,correct?

Or are UKIP just the same as all the other parties and I won't get proper democracy from them either?



How is the word WHIP out of context? They used it,,,,why?

No within the context of the discussion I am implying you should look carefully at all the candidates on the ballot paper and see what they are offering.  

UKIP are most definitely not the same as all other parties - they are significantly different from the 3 traditional main parties (Labour Conservative and Liberal Democrat) how much their differ from the smaller specific nationalist parties found in Wales and Scotland I am not sure as I have little exposure to them.

They definitely definitely believe in and practice democracy - hence the rule about doing as constituents wish.  They actively promote the use of referendums on such things as wind/solar farms, badger culling, hunting, smoking bypasses etc.   That they do indeed practice what they preach can be seen in the areas they get control of councils in - they started with a town council in Suffolk and have been taking further seats in the surrounding areas by Landslides ever since as people observe that UKIP does not just talk the talk it walks the walk as well.

I vote UKIP and I know exactly why and I am not ashamed to tell other people why.  I am not going to claim we are cleaner than clean because we are not - we are after all ordinary people for the most part.  We have the same normal power hungry idiots coming on board to try and use the party for their own nefarious purposes as other parties and we do our best to deal with that.  I am not advising you to vote UKIP - they may not be the best party for what you want in your area.  For all I know you might agree with Mandleson that ordinary people should not have a say although it is far more likely that you disagree with him but have specific policies you want instigated in your own area - UKIP might be the party campaigning for what you want but there might be an independent or nationalist candidate closer.  If you look genuinely at the candidates in your area you will make the best choice for you - you just have to look genuinely and not write off people before you start because you think you know what their party stands for without ever actually finding out first hand.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t1696-ukip-s-far-right-sugar-daddy

    

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Within the context of this discussion you are implying that in order to experience proper democracy that in your opinion I should vote UKIP,,,,correct?

Or are UKIP just the same as all the other parties and I won't get proper democracy from them either?



How is the word WHIP out of context? They used it,,,,why?

No within the context of the discussion I am implying you should look carefully at all the candidates on the ballot paper and see what they are offering.  

UKIP are most definitely not the same as all other parties - they are significantly different from the 3 traditional main parties (Labour Conservative and Liberal Democrat) how much their differ from the smaller specific nationalist parties found in Wales and Scotland I am not sure as I have little exposure to them.

They definitely definitely believe in and practice democracy - hence the rule about doing as constituents wish.  They actively promote the use of referendums on such things as wind/solar farms, badger culling, hunting, smoking bypasses etc.   That they do indeed practice what they preach can be seen in the areas they get control of councils in - they started with a town council in Suffolk and have been taking further seats in the surrounding areas by Landslides ever since as people observe that UKIP does not just talk the talk it walks the walk as well.

I vote UKIP and I know exactly why and I am not ashamed to tell other people why.  I am not going to claim we are cleaner than clean because we are not - we are after all ordinary people for the most part.  We have the same normal power hungry idiots coming on board to try and use the party for their own nefarious purposes as other parties and we do our best to deal with that.  I am not advising you to vote UKIP - they may not be the best party for what you want in your area.  For all I know you might agree with Mandleson that ordinary people should not have a say although it is far more likely that you disagree with him but have specific policies you want instigated in your own area - UKIP might be the party campaigning for what you want but there might be an independent or nationalist candidate closer.  If you look genuinely at the candidates in your area you will make the best choice for you - you just have to look genuinely and not write off people before you start because you think you know what their party stands for without ever actually finding out first hand.

After a tidal wave of meaningless words I'll take you right back to your question to me...

Could you honestly vote for Labour knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy?

You have now said that you vote UKIP so can I ask you...

Could you honestly vote for UKIP knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy?

I'll wring an answer out of you one way or another.

I didn't say I vote UKIP I said I sometimes feel like doing so. I have never actually voted for them.

I have given them money though. I have very strong feelings about the EU and very great concerns about the left blocking democracy. It is primarily the left.

If it were right wings parties at the helm I suggest comrade it would be you crying foul if the Tories had been in power and reneged on the referendum.


You are one cheeky bastard I have always had a clear cut stance on the EU you are a slithy toad trying to find no fault in labours treachery.

My problem has been determining which party to vote for to stop us integrating further without a clear cut referendum.

I am replacing disingenuous with outright liar in your case Irn Bru.

Give me A CLEAR CUT ANSWER DID LABOUR RENEGE AND DID THEY LIE YES OR NO.

Clarkson wrote:I didn't say I vote UKIP I said I sometimes feel like doing so. I have never actually voted for them.

I have given them money though. I have very strong feelings about the EU and very great concerns about the left blocking democracy. It is primarily the left.

If it were right wings parties at the helm I suggest comrade it would be you crying foul if the Tories had been in power and reneged on the referendum.


You are one cheeky bastard I have always had a clear cut stance on the EU you are a slithy toad trying to find no fault in labours treachery.

My problem has been determining which party to vote for to stop us integrating further without a clear cut referendum.

I am replacing disingenuous with outright liar in your case Irn Bru.

Give me A CLEAR CUT ANSWER DID LABOUR RENEGE AND DID THEY LIE YES OR NO.

I never claimed you voted UKIP. Are you getting me mixed up with someone else?

We're in the EU and it was the Tories that took us there despite having promised the nation that no more powers would be transferred to Europe without the will of the British people. That is a historical fact so you have to learn to deal with the fact that Heath, Thatcher and Major all reneged on it so just try and deal with it in a more dignified manner than you are doing right now.

And I can assure you that both my parents were married when I was conceived so please cut out the personal abuse on that score.

I have already answered your question on the other thread and having answered it once I don't see why I should have to answer it again. Go and get it and bring it back here - you know where it is or did you just ignore it?

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No within the context of the discussion I am implying you should look carefully at all the candidates on the ballot paper and see what they are offering.  

UKIP are most definitely not the same as all other parties - they are significantly different from the 3 traditional main parties (Labour Conservative and Liberal Democrat) how much their differ from the smaller specific nationalist parties found in Wales and Scotland I am not sure as I have little exposure to them.

They definitely definitely believe in and practice democracy - hence the rule about doing as constituents wish.  They actively promote the use of referendums on such things as wind/solar farms, badger culling, hunting, smoking bypasses etc.   That they do indeed practice what they preach can be seen in the areas they get control of councils in - they started with a town council in Suffolk and have been taking further seats in the surrounding areas by Landslides ever since as people observe that UKIP does not just talk the talk it walks the walk as well.

I vote UKIP and I know exactly why and I am not ashamed to tell other people why.  I am not going to claim we are cleaner than clean because we are not - we are after all ordinary people for the most part.  We have the same normal power hungry idiots coming on board to try and use the party for their own nefarious purposes as other parties and we do our best to deal with that.  I am not advising you to vote UKIP - they may not be the best party for what you want in your area.  For all I know you might agree with Mandleson that ordinary people should not have a say although it is far more likely that you disagree with him but have specific policies you want instigated in your own area - UKIP might be the party campaigning for what you want but there might be an independent or nationalist candidate closer.  If you look genuinely at the candidates in your area you will make the best choice for you - you just have to look genuinely and not write off people before you start because you think you know what their party stands for without ever actually finding out first hand.

After a tidal wave of meaningless words I'll take you right back to your question to me...

Could you honestly vote for Labour knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy?

You have now said that you vote UKIP so can I ask you...

Could you honestly vote for UKIP knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy?

I'll wring an answer out of you one way or another.

Seeing as I firmly believe they do believe in democracy of course I vote for them

If there comes a point where their policies are at odds with what I believe in they I will stop voting for them.  If there comes a point at which I see evidence that the top level do not practise the policies they advertise and want ordinary people kept out of the voting process I will stop voting for them.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

After a tidal wave of meaningless words I'll take you right back to your question to me...

Could you honestly vote for Labour knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy?

You have now said that you vote UKIP so can I ask you...

Could you honestly vote for UKIP knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy?

I'll wring an answer out of you one way or another.

Seeing as I firmly believe they do believe in democracy of course I vote for them

If there comes a point where their policies are at odds with what I believe in they I will stop voting for them.  If there comes a point at which I see evidence that the top level do not practise the policies they advertise and want ordinary people kept out of the voting process I will stop voting for them.

Just to clarify. Are you saying that if I vote for UKIP I will get proper democracy but if I vote for either Labour or the Tories then I won't?

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Seeing as I firmly believe they do believe in democracy of course I vote for them

If there comes a point where their policies are at odds with what I believe in they I will stop voting for them.  If there comes a point at which I see evidence that the top level do not practise the policies they advertise and want ordinary people kept out of the voting process I will stop voting for them.

Just to clarify. Are you saying that if I vote for UKIP I will get proper democracy but if I vote for either Labour or the Tories then I won't?

I believe UKIP will give you better democracy (and better protection for the poor working class but that is another argument) than either the Labour Party or the Tory Party. However I also believe that I do not know enough about your area specifically to say that UKIP would be better than a local independent or Nationalist party.

Incidentally proper democracy means everyone gets a vote regardless of age, mental condition, criminal record, etc etc - it is an ideal that can only be approached never achieved. I simply believe UKIP get a damn site closer than either Labour the Conservatives, or the Libdems.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Just to clarify. Are you saying that if I vote for UKIP I will get proper democracy but if I vote for either Labour or the Tories then I won't?

I believe UKIP will give you better democracy (and better protection for the poor working class but that is another argument) than either the Labour Party or the Tory Party.  However I also believe that I do not know enough about your area specifically to say that UKIP would be better than a local independent or Nationalist party.

Incidentally proper democracy means everyone gets a vote regardless of age, mental condition,  criminal record, etc etc - it is an ideal that can only be approached never achieved.  I simply believe UKIP get a damn site closer than either Labour the Conservatives, or the Libdems.

So based on that then you believe that prisoners should get to vote in elections. That's very much at odds with your views on another thread.

Re read what I put. I put UKIP deliver better democracy not UKIP deliver proper democracy. I described proper democracy to demonstrate that UKIP does not deliver it and nor does any other party.

I am not in favour of absolute proper democracy - because it would not work. I do not believe in votes for prisoners (do you see me voting Tory here?)

I believe that UKIP offer the widest ranging closest to proper democracy with best protections.

I am not asking you to believe what I believe.

sphinx wrote:Re read what I put.  I put UKIP deliver better democracy not UKIP deliver proper democracy.  I described proper democracy to demonstrate that UKIP does not deliver it and nor does any other party.

I am not in favour of absolute proper democracy - because it would not work.  I do not believe in votes for prisoners (do you see me voting Tory here?)

I believe that UKIP offer the widest ranging closest to proper democracy with best protections.

I am not asking you to believe what I believe.

Oh well that's that cleared up then. Doesn't matter who I vote for I'm not going to get proper democracy from any of them.

BTW, you said proper democracy means everyone gets a vote regardless of age.

So if people can vote regardless of age at what point in someone's life should that kick in?

@Irn Bru
I think kids have more rigth to vote than old people. (I would not let retired people vote, no point, they aren't contributing and Baby Boomers onwards have taken more than they gave during their working lives so any argument that they deserve it for past work is false)
After all the Kids have to live with the Consequences the Old People will die soon enough so they wont even see the long term affects of their stupidity.

As a 30 years old
I think its still 50/50 on whether I am made into Soylent Greens instead of getting to retire