Manifesto

Original post by handsome-gypsy

Who is Nigel Farage?
Sorry I’ve only recently moved to the uk, so I don’t know much about politics here

A national hero to all Brits who love their country and respect democracy and the democratic process.

For those desperately trying to install the Authoritarian Chinese Communist social credit system here in Britain he's an absolute thorn in their side.

He's the man that stood up in the European Parliament and warned them that if they didn't reform their corrupt crony ways the UK would leave and he was derided and laughed at, right up to the moment the UK people voted to leave the EU. Now they ain't laughing at all. They're waist deep in the mire with other member states rebelling and calling for their own Exits.

Reply 22

Original post by PilgrimOfTruth

A national hero to all Brits who love their country and respect democracy and the democratic process.
For those desperately trying to install the Authoritarian Chinese Communist social credit system here in Britain he's an absolute thorn in their side.
He's the man that stood up in the European Parliament and warned them that if they didn't reform their corrupt crony ways the UK would leave and he was derided and laughed at, right up to the moment the UK people voted to leave the EU. Now they ain't laughing at all. They're waist deep in the mire with other member states rebelling and calling for their own Exits.

Parody account?

Farage has tried but failed to be elected an MP seven times. He's an unapologetic racist, funded by Dark Money. Approximately one third of the UK electorate voted leave, having been bamboozled by a blizzard of lies propagated by Farage and others. Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster.

Reply 23

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jun/14/he-was-a-deeply-unembarrassed-racist-nigel-farage-by-those-who-have-known-him

Reply 24

Stiffy Byng

Approximately one third of the UK electorate voted leave

Yep. More people voted for it than any other single electoral option in British political history. In fact slghtly more voted to leave in 2016 than voted to stay in the fraudulent 1975 retrospective referendum (which imo was illegal and unconstitutional).

Stiffy Byng

having been bamboozled by a blizzard of lies propagated by Farage and others.

There were lies and propaganda on all sides. The people decided which were the greater lies and deceits. They made the right decision thank goodness.

Stiffy Byng

Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster.

BrExit has delvered the most vital things it was intended to do. Therefore a great success.

The periphery of issues is the result of corrupt EU servng MPs trying to scupper BrExit and leave us tied to the EU in any way possible. The UK people were denied a clean proper BrExit. In addition it's only been 3-4 years since we left which is way way too early to determine success or failure on such terms. Come back in 20 years. Of course by then the EU will have collapsed or at the very least dramatically changed form. So it doesn't matter either way.

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 25

Do share with us your qualifications and experience in Constitutional Law.

Reply 26

The British Constitution (whilst not encoded in the same way as the US Constitution) is laid out in :

•

the Magna Carta (1215)

•

the Bill of Rights (1689)

•

the Petition of Right (1628)

•

the Act of Settlement (1701)

This Constitution requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly for any change to the constitution which would impact our sovereignty. That means either a General Election or Referendum.

In addition as you probably know the Bill Of Rights contains the oath:

`I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm.'

Heath knew from opinion polls that the electorate was dead against joining the Common Market so instead of consulting them he just went ahead and signed the 1972 European Communities Bill.

This was unconstitutonal. Heath had neither a legal or moral right to do what he did.

Ironically, just 2 years earlier Heath had declared that:

"it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people'."

What he did was wholly wrong in all respects and constitutionally illegal.

The subsequent Wilson government recognised this and to try and put right the wrong held a restrospective referendum in 1975 asking the populace if it wanted to STAY in the EU now that it had already been fraudulently taken into it.

This was just another fraudulent act for you can not correct one crime with another. It's fraudulent to ask if people want to stay in the EU if they never gave consent to be in it in the first place. It was a complete fudge and it was accompanied by lots of propaganda and lies stating that it was just a (cough) "Common Market" for trading and nothing more.

How well we can look back in hindsight now and see how false that was. Bothh Heath and Wilson knew exactly what they were doing and that they were ceding Britain's sovereignty to the European power. Totally unconstutional.

The rest is history.

We are extremely lucky that we got the opportunty again to vote on our existence in the EU and luckier still to have gotten out. We must never rejoin.

Thankfully the whole shebang will have collapsed before anyone gets the chance to fraudulently push us back towards the EU again.

The lesson to be learned is that all these Common Purpose stooges are serving unseen, unelected and unaccountable masters. They are not serving ths country or its people and thus they should have no place in UK politics or Westminster.

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 27

You appear to have no qualifications or practical experience in Constitutional law. If you had such knowledge or experience, you would know that Parliament is supreme, and that entry to the EEC was authorised by Parliament, as was leaving the EU. The UK retained sovereignty at all times. Parliament can make changes to the Constitution without a Referendum, and has often done so.

By the way, most of Magna Carta has been repealed, and you omitted the Acts of Union, the Representation of the People Acts, and the Parliament Acts, all key parts of the UK Constitution.

You also seem to be ignorant of history. In the 1975 Referendum, both sides made it clear to the electorate that the (then) EEC was intended to be a political union. Heath had made this clear to the public at the time of joining the EEC. You can see the materials published by both sides online. The claim that "it was only going to be a trade deal" is a falsehood propagated by the Leave camp since 1975.

That was then, this is now -

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/45910-britons-would-vote-rejoin-eu?redirect_from=%2Ftopics%2Fpolitics%2Farticles-reports%2F2023%2F07%2F18%2Fbritons-would-vote-rejoin-eu

https://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-uk-eu-brexit-has-failed/

Brexit has brought not a single benefit to the UK. It has harmed the economy and the NHS, reduced environmental and employment protections, diminished the UK's international influence, and made the UK a rule-taker instead of (as it was) a key decision maker in the formulation of EU rules. Brexit was mainly influenced by ill-informed opposition to immigration, but immigration has increased since Brexit, so it hasn't even achieved the xenophobic purposes of Farage et al.

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 28

Original post by Stiffy Byng

Nigel Farage is a far right wing demagogue, who may or may not be working for Putin. He's a proven liar, an open racist, and in all respects a charlatan. He was one of the main proponents of Brexit, the biggest act of self-harm committed by a democracy since WW2.

I see

Reply 29

Original post by Stiffy Byng

The consequences are electoral. A Government which does not deliver on its pledges may not be re-elected. The promises have no binding force.

oh ok

Reply 30

what is the EU?
is it an organisation?

Reply 31

Stiffy Byng

Parliament is supreme

No you are incorrect and regardless the term required here is Sovereign not supreme.

It is the people that are sovereign.

Bagehot, author of The English Constitution, 1867, describes the nation, through Parliament, as `the present sovereign'.

The electorate temporarily lends its sovereignty to parliament for a short term and parliament are merely the electorates representatives.

When Heath took us illegally into the Common Market, he used Parliament's legal sovereignty to deny and permanently limit the political sovereignty of the electorate. He did not have the right (legal or moral) to do that. Heath's Bill used Parliament's legal sovereignty, and status as representative of the electorate, to deny the fundamental rights of the electorate. That is patently ridiculous and plan wrong.

Reply 32

Original post by handsome-gypsy

what is the EU?
is it an organisation?

It's a supranational political and economical union of many member states run by an unelected and unaccountable bunch of cronys whom not even the EU Parliament can remove. It is essentially a dictatorship which seeks to create the United Federal States Of Europe and in so doing assimlates countries into its system whereby they lose ther sovereignty and nationalities and the people consequently become ruled by EU dictats and EU law and are controlled by the EU judiciary. They lose the power to manage their own laws, to manage their own justice systems and their vote becomes more or less meaningless.

Reply 33

Original post by PilgrimOfTruth

No you are incorrect and regardless the term required here is Sovereign not supreme.
It is the people that are sovereign.
Bagehot, author of The English Constitution, 1867, describes the nation, through Parliament, as `the present sovereign'.
The electorate temporarily lends its sovereignty to parliament for a short term and parliament are merely the electorates representatives.
When Heath took us illegally into the Common Market, he used Parliament's legal sovereignty to deny and permanently limit the political sovereignty of the electorate. He did not have the right (legal or moral) to do that. Heath's Bill used Parliament's legal sovereignty, and status as representative of the electorate, to deny the fundamental rights of the electorate. That is patently ridiculous and plan wrong.

You really don't understand the Constitution. I've been practising and teaching law for years, and you'd fail an exam on the Constitution if you came out with the stuff you post here.

Reply 34

Original post by handsome-gypsy

what is the EU?
is it an organisation?

Ignore Pilgrim of Truth. He/she talks utter nonsense.

The EU is a union of democratic states which agree to co-ordinates policy on trade and many other matters. The EU operates through democratic means. It is opposed by the far right, including far right demagogues such as Nigel Farage.

Reply 35

Stiffy Byng

The EU operates through democratic means

‘No one voted for Mr Juncker’

https://www.politico.eu/article/no-one-voted-for-mr-juncker/

"But certain MEPs have invented a new process whereby they are trying to both choose and elect the candidate. Each of the main political groups ran “lead candidates” – so called Spitzenkandidaten – during the elections and did a back-room deal to join forces after the elections in support of the lead candidate of the party that won the most seats. This concept was never agreed by the European Council. It was not negotiated between the European institutions. And it was never ratified by national parliaments. Yet, supporters of Spitzenkandidaten argue that the elections have happened, the people of Europe have chosen Jean-Claude Juncker as Commission president and that it would be undemocratic for elected national leaders to choose anyone else.

It is not an attack on Mr Juncker, an experienced European politician, to say this is nonsense. Most Europeans did not vote in the European Parliament elections. Turnout declined in the majority of member states. Nowhere was Mr Juncker on the ballot paper. Even in Germany, where the concept of Spitzenkandidaten got the most airtime, only 15% of voters even knew he was a candidate. He did not visit some member states. Those who voted did so to choose their MEP not the Commission president. Mr Juncker did not stand anywhere and was not elected by anyone."

The Undemocratic EU Explained - It Will Never Change

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/eu-referendum_b_9514608.html

"There are four key institutions of the EU: the European Commission, European Parliament, European Council and the Court of Justice of the EU. Each institution supposedly represents separate interests. The Commission represents the EU, the Parliament represents the people, the Council represents the Governments of each Member State and the Court interprets the law. However, these institutions do not do this in practice, as they all represent large multinationals and an integrationist agenda, as the intention is to create a federal United States of Europe.

This new country already has a flag, a Parliament, an anthem, Presidents, currency, a legal system, legal status and a navy - to name just a few.

The EU Commission is the guardian of the treaties and enforces EU law. More importantly, this means it is the Government of Europe which has the sole right to propose the laws which increasingly encroach on our lives here in Britain.
Secondly, the Parliament is made up of 751 MEPs who are elected by the people in EU Member States every five years in elections. National parties arrange themselves into European groups of similar parties throughout Europe. It also has a President (currently Martin Schulz) who was voted in by the Parliament, but once again he was the only candidate. Theoretically, the Parliament has the ability to remove the Commission; however the Parliament has never successfully been able to remove it - even when the Commission has been full of corrupt cronies. The Parliament didn't even remove the commission of 2004 to 2009 which was full of questionable characters. This Commission included Siim Kallas the Anti-Fraud Commissioner who was given this role despite being charged with fraud, abuse of power and providing false information after £4.4million disappeared while he was head of Estonia's national bank.
This is not a Parliament in any real sense, as they have no right to propose laws. Instead it is a façade, created to make the EU look democratic, rather than give the public a choice over those who makes their laws. The Parliament does vote and can make amendments on laws proposed by the Commission, but the Commission must accept any of the amendments proposed for the changes to become effective, showing where the power lies.

Additionally, once something becomes an EU law, the Parliament has no ability to propose a change to this law. All the power is given to the Commission. It is clear the public's elected representatives do not matter in the EU. It's a 'club' to push through laws which would be rejected by national Parliaments. Once the Parliament approves an EU proposal, it is sent to the European Council.

The European Council - sometimes called The Council - is the meeting of the Member States. It is called the European Council when the leaders of each Member State are in attendance, and The Council when it's the ministers for the policy area being discussed attending. This is the final hurdle any European proposal has to pass in order to become law. Decision-making at this stage is done almost entirely by Qualified Majority Voting. This means the UK Government can vote against a proposal and as long as it receives enough votes from the other Member States it becomes law in the UK anyway. The UK only has a veto to prevent EU laws impacting the UK in a very minor number of areas. If the European Council/Council approves proposals, they become EU law. They will be in the form of EU regulations or directives. If they are regulations the new EU law applies to all Member States without any of those states having to pass legislation in their own home Parliaments. If they are directives, the national Parliaments are forced to change their national laws within a specific time limit to comply with EU law - whether they want to or not.

Finally, the Court of Justice of the EU is supposed to interpret EU laws to ensure they comply with the EU treaties. Unfortunately, it does not do this. It happily ignores the treaties when it wants to if the EU is pushing its own federalist agenda. This is not a court like we have in this country; it is a kangaroo court wilfully ignoring the rule of law, as it did with the bailouts which should have been deemed illegal. The treaties clearly stated bailouts were illegal, but as the bailouts helped to prop up the failing Eurozone project, the EU court allowed them anyway.

The EU is a highly undemocratic organisation ratcheting more and more power with every passing day. It is impervious to public opinion. The people who matter in the law-making process are unelected and therefore unaccountable."

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 36