Posts by casablanca

    Whether it is defensive in nature all depends on the number of troops. If its a few thousand, that's defensive, if its fifty thousand, that's invasion level.

    Why the hell can't the Saudis defend themselves? They've got enough money from oil revenues to purchase any amount of weapons systems they want.

    Don't forget that America charges for their services. It took Britain ages to pay off America for their help in defending us in WW2

    If we joined in, it would nice little earner! It's just that we haven't much to offer in the way of hardware

    But even if we had the hardware it might not be a good investment if we ended up with loads of Muslims in Britain engaged in acts of terrorism.

    Then again, Iran are already sponsoring terrorism beyond the Middle East.

    The big question is whether in an invasion of Iran by the West whether there are enough countries in the Middle East prepared to step up to the plate. Because if they're not publicly supportive they are bound to become our foes, if they aren't already.

    If Saudi dissociates itself from the planned American incursion/invasion, if I was the US I would call it off.

    How much oil does America still need oil from the Middle East?


    It's bad enough knowing that this creature is on the same planet as me. Does he really have to be on the same forum? And if so, do we have to fell into the trap of acknowledging that he exists by answering his posts? I kick myself for having done so. If he was in an mental asylum and I was a member of staff, I might feel obligated to respond .... but even then, in his case, I'd make an exception

    1 You may have felt welcome but either your feelings were delusional or they were incredibly polite or they were frightened of being attacked or it was a case of birds of a feather flocking together

    2 Okay, you're slightly ahead of the Sha, and Hitler, and Dr Mengele, and Mao, and Pol Pot, and Stalin, and all the other evil tyrants and depots and psychotics. Have you ever thought of raising the bar any higher? Correction: have you ever thought, full stop?

    3 Our democracy needs improving. Our society needs improving. Yours, if you are any example, is unrepairable.

    4 You people don't have a religion. Or anything resembling spirituality, morality or goodwill.

    5 You don't say anything. Someone gives you a bunch of words and sentences and you pick them at random. It's amazing what they can do with people who are mentally damaged

    6. What angers you is that I´m patriotic. For me, "nausea" would be a better description than "anger". The quotations below are not meant for you but others who might be reading this. In fact nothing in this posting is really meant for you.

    “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” Samuel Johnson
    “It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind.” Voltaire

    “To abolish war it is necessary to abolish patriotism, and to abolish patriotism it is necessary first to understand that it is an evil. Tell people that patriotism is bad and most will reply, ‘Yes, bad patriotism is bad, but mine is good patriotism.” Leo Tolstoy

    "Heroism on command, senseless violence and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism” Albert Einstein

    7 Want Iran as vasall? You don't know what vassal means. Heck, you can't even spell it.

    8 It doesn't make any difference whether you do or don't act submissive. The key point is that any reasonable thinking person knows that you are inferior. The fact that you and those you represent in your terrible country refuse to accept that you're inferior is the key problem.. In the final analysis, I believe and hope that Darwin is right, that it is a case of survival of the fittest and I hope in this modern world, fittest means brains at least as much as brawn, in which case, in the long run, you'll be on a diet of sand rissoles.

    9 You say you don't kneel in front a poodle. You ought to. God knows what you do actually do with a poodle.

    10 Tankers vs other ships: You know very who started ship seizure. Is there no end to your lies, deceptions and shallowness?

    11 There is no way the West could treat guys like you as slaves and cattle. You're just not up to it.

    BTW: You have consistently ignored any comments made by forum members that pose difficult questions on Iran's behaviour to the world at large. I don't know why you're on this forum. I don't even know why you're on this planet. To say there is less to you than meets the eye is a huge overstatement.

    Is there anyone on this forum who actually admires the climate protesters? To my mind they just seem a depressingly accurate example of dumb youth.

    Has anyone noticed that when interviewers ask the climate protesters what they are going to do next, the answer is always about when, where and how they plan to stage their next protest, never about what they are going to say that is any different to what they are saying now. Could it be that the media interviewers are as dumb as the protesters and don't know what needs to be done other than a lighter carbon footprint? Has any media interviewer dared to these kids whether birth control should be considered?

    Is there anyone on this forum (who isn't a teenage protester or Lib or Green Peace supporter) who would seriously think twice about flying rather than railing to their next holiday abroad just to lower their carbon footprint?

    1 You say: "if Boris loses, the court wins". Actually, if the decision goes against Boris no one wins. Funnily enough, Boris wins. Let me explain my perverse logic: if the court wins, the law loses, as does Parliament, as does democracy, as does UK citizens (whether remain or leave, as both factions are placed in suspended animation). Neither the legal system nor government system can ever be trusted. The sadly perverse bit is that Boris wins in the sense of being the only guy who stuck his neck out in a truly democratic way and was knifed by his peers, and I'm not just talking about Labour but his own party.

    2 You say it's because the PM doesn't have a majority. But what's the point of a party majority if your party votes against the PM and his cabinet? It becomes like the Labour Party!

    3 You say Parliamentary power in most cases is illusionary. I agree. That's the problem. If the power is illusory, then so is the decision-making.

    4 You say executive can force its decisions through parliament using whipping system and with a majority it normally holds. I fear you're talking about the good old days and for decisions which were either trivial or bloody obvious, But when it really matters, that system is, to say the least, flaky. Even with a majority whipping it is no use if Tories defy the whip. After what's happened this month (and the 3 years leading up to it), defying the whip can become an odious habit. Bottom line: MP's only want a leader who agrees with them. Otherwise he's dead meat. So they choose a safe pair of hands like Theresa May! God help the Tory Party. God help this country.

    5 You express doubt whether this system continues into the future. I fear it will. That's the horror of it all, that it will continue

    6 You point out that in many countries governments are separate. Too right! And one can see why. When you have surplus/dead weight politicians it's best to stow them away and use just for trivial stuff, so they do no serious damage. It's a slight hint towards meritocracy. Boy, do we need that! Bigly!


    7 You say Boris needs a general election to force Brexit through and why parliament won't give him one. Nice Catch 22. The great irony here is that Boris is forced to leave without a deal because with a deal it becomes subject to parliamentary approval and, even with a majority, the madness and maliciousness of Parliament, including within Boris's own party, puts a real question mark against that approval. If only Boris, with his (previous?) mastery of words could explain that without a deal we can develop a positive amicable mutually beneficial political and trade arrangements with the EU while exercising the necessary freedom and worldwide trade of an entrepreneurial sovereign nation whereas, with a deal, the resultant prolonged negotiation for a EU-UK relationship will leave usn in no-man's land for God knows how long

    8 You raise the point about the Fixed Parliaments Act ...... another example The Great Appeaser Cameron's gigantic intellect and vision. Surely the downside was bleeding obvious.

    Now the European Court has ruled that we can't leave the EU without a deal. They can fcuk off.

    Looks like everybody else is deciding what we can do, except the majority that voted to leave the EU.

    Isn't that a pointless announcement if it doesn't describe the deal? After all, they're not saying the UK can't leave the EU without accepting whatever deal we in the EU decide to give the UK. Isn't this what I was talking about - the misleadingness of the media? And you're fault for believing it!?!?

    1 Excellent point. Hadn't thought about it that way. Are most Iran chief negotiators of similar profundity? Really? Amazing!

    2 Appreciate the compliment, as well as recognition that normalising Iran will be an expensive operation and it is only fair that the miscreant nation should pay the cost. Look at this way, a primitive or unsocial household or country that creates garbage has to pay for it to be cleared away before it becomes a plague that spreads to other better-behaved households or countries.

    3 The US doesn't care if Iran reimburses it for garbage clearance by paying with oil or money. It's not "stealing" from a country when that country is a mad dog that has got of control and is beginning to foam at the mouth (always a dangerous sign)

    4 Excellent thoughtful assessment. Always stimulating to exchange thoughts on a higher plane

    5 Maybe mad but not a monster. Or maybe a monster but not mad. But, thinking about it, yes, probably both

    6 Certainly true. It will take more than one country in Europe or Middle East to fix Iran. Or the US alone can do it

    7 Mad dogs don't want war. They just can't help it. Iran seems to be a human version of rabies. It's always hard to tell where evil ends and madness begins.

    8 It's hard to visualise Iran kneeling when one imagines them as on all-fours to begin with

    Eventually most people, even Australians, will realise Iran is not a safe place to visit

    Not that Iran needs any further visitors to detain, torture and imprison - Iran will always find ways to be mad and bad


    There is no doubt to my mind that Iran feels ready to battle with the West.

    It is part of their Islam Awakening

    But they want to do it anyway, because death & destruction of the West satisfies Iran's erotophonophilia


    Trump can't attack before he is voted in for a second term

    Israel is at the moment in a state of election limbo but probably will be ready when Trump is

    The US probably won't get support from Chicken Europe - not that America needs support

    The US might get support from some decent & sane Middle East nations, even though the definition of decent & sane has to be relaxed and extended to those who are not completely psychotic. (Saudi Arabia might just qualify!)


    Well, I don't think sanctions can ever work

    The Iranians will always find a way to sell their oil even it has to be sold cheaper

    So Iran can and will carry on being mad and bad


    Iran will probably get (more) support from China and/or Russia and/or goodness knows what other crummy country

    Quite what China or Russia will get out of it I'm not sure

    Take geo-political control of the Middle East?

    Use Iran as a spearhead/military base to attack or intimidate the West?


    America can't drop a nuclear bomb on Iran because that makes it impossible to separate the killing of Iran's mad or mad citizens from saving those who are decent, non-fanatical, frightened, keeping their head down and eeking out a miserable existence

    So America will have to blitz Iran in a more targeted way. The priority will be to kill or imprison the theocracy and its mad and bad supporting citizens and try and rescue and make safe Iran's decent frightened downtrodden citizens

    Iran oil will be allocated to those countries that attacked, defeated and helped rebuild Iran into a normal nation

    Iran's defeated armed forces - the ones that survive - will need to be filtered and sorted into those that need locking up and those who are willing to serve Iran under a normal non-theocratic government


    With the increasing support of Russia or China or North Korea, the counter defence of a rapidly developing nuclear-armed Iran could kill a lot of people in Europe and maybe the US

    Best not to wait too long for this mad monster country to develop further

    You know, we're really on the same waveband on all of this, I'm just trying to avoid deliverable or accidental/careless misrepresentation of facts

    1 Sorry, I misunderstood - you thought I was questioning your definition of a majority but all I was questioning was you exaggerating its size. And I wasn't ever touting 60% as the definition of a majority but rather the action/implementation criterion for this particular referendum.

    2 Sorry, didn't realise I was pressuring or haranguing you when you were under the clock. Indeed, I wonder how you do find enough time! The demographic data is interesting. The most striking difference between the profile of Leave vs Remain was that Leavers were proportionately more manual than white collar, more C2DE than ABC1 and that is probably why their views tended be more belligerent and more easily characterised as Little Britishers or jingoistic or racist. Much of it is the usual snobbism that still divides our country.

    3 I know what drilling down to smaller areas will show. More variability. I don't reject that. Such variation is normal. The geodemographics industry has been built on those small area variations. But in the end you have to count the people. You can't keep making exceptions. If you want to remove the exceptions to your viewpoint, you're either fooling yourself or trying to fool others. It's like saying I would have won this grand Prix race if I had a faster engine or better tyres. It is what it is. Besides, the smaller the area (town, constituency, village ...) the more likely it will show a high deviation from the average (a factory closure, a worried farming community, concentration of Muslims, boarded up shops etc ) - but here's the rub: the smaller the area the less its effect on the overall total.

    4 You say, "behind the areas are people". Right! So don't count the area result, count the people result. You say "what people is key". Right! So what do you propose? Exclude those types of people or small areas that undermine a Leave result? Obviously not. Besides, Remainers could play that same game in reverse. But then again, that's your argument for excluding London. But you are not talking of excluding them and their result, are you? Because you're a fair person. You just want to say that without those all those immigrants in London the overall referendum result would have been a bigger majority. That's true. But so what? It is what it is. I don't like what it is and nor do you. All I'm arguing is that the referendum result showed a near equal division between Leave and Remain rather than a clear majority in favour of Leaving and it behoves us not to lie about that. I don't care whether call it a majority or a de facto majority, 52%-48% it's still a near equal dividedness, and so is 55%-45% if one excludes London. Even if one also excludes those crazy-mixed-up Scots it's still only 55%. It's regrettable that the dividedness has come from citizens being so ill-informed or lied to by the Government and people of influence and the media and it is disgracefully regrettable that subsequent Parliamentary debate couldn't raise the bar. But I guess that's what happens if the electorate select MP's who think like the electorate!

    I've only seen bits of the hearing so far, but Pannick seems to be going after the prorogation powers of the PM full stop and he just mentioned that May abused this power when she tried to trigger article 50 without the approval of parliament, triggering the original Miller case.

    If the judges rule against Boris, this could mean that the government may never be able to prorogue parliament again, at least that's my reading of things. The judges were particularly interested in what Bills got ditched when parliament got prorogued, so it could end up that the MPs become more powerful at the end of this process...

    If Boris loses, the MP's win. This means MP's run the country and the Prime Minister becomes a chairman rather than ceo, to preside or mediate over the board rather than lead them. This is inevitable when a "board" comprises as many as 650 MP's, Such a number is unleadable, especially when partisanship takes precedence over searching for common ground, and even more especially when there is sub-partisanship, where MP's form into cabals, which creates rebellion, disorder and hostility. Each of these MP's seek fame for at least a few minutes and the ones who have managed to convert that into a longer-lasting recognition and influence will insist that their stance is is highly principled, for the good of the nation and the constituents who voted for them, for our children and children's children, for jobs, health, education, housing, transport, the list is endless; and their high-principled stance, in competition with other so-called right-honourable MP's, morph into a self-righteous, evangelistic, messianic fervour which is unbudgeable and non-negotiable.

    Maybe all of this is part of a long trend that began with the decline of feudalism and all its environmental, economic and social contradictions, leading to the gradual erosion of class segregation based on entitlement through background and, in its place, the emergence of the "mass affluents" who effortlessly seeped or elbowed through such outmoded class barriers. From all of that it isn't hard to see why permissiveness and popular democracy became the new order, of "everyone a winner", which necessitated a lower common-denominator, which took the form of a decline in proper parenting, education, manners, civil order and hence the rise from popular democracy to mob democracy.

    It is bound to be the case that all of this is reflected in Parliament rather than simply outside. After all, the long-standing traditional political system based on MP's as our elected representatives can also be defined as MP's who were voted for as representative of our electorate. Unfortunately, that's the whole idea of democracy. It is therefore hardly surprising that lower common-denominator in society will have reproduced itself in Parliament.

    Thus, the difference between democracy and meritocracy simply boils down to quality. It is axiomatic that this must produce in Parliament both leaders and followers. But the mob democracy that now infests Parliament wants to tear down leadership. If you look at what the British PM is entitled to do (after advice sought within his small well-selected cabinet (the "executive"), it is "diddly squat". His decisions are all dependent on the consent of Parliament. Almost any decision by the PM that MP's feel iffy about can be raised as an issue and voted upon in Parliament and the decision defeated. Such dissenting MP's will accuse a PM who is trying to lead as being a dictator. That's how society's lowest common denominator affects the quality of Parliament. That is why Brexit has taken 3 years to negotiate and why Boris's October 31 deadline for resolving Brexit is likely to be brushed aside by Parliament with the aid of Britain's high supreme court. Let's get real: Boris cannot leave with a deal because Parliament will never vote for that deal, regardless of its merit..

    The sad thing in all of this is that an increased number of voters are now crying out for leadership. If Boris Johnson doesn't prevail it won't be his fault. There was no alternative way available to him. If he fails, Britain fails. Remaining in the EU won't cure what ails Britain. We will still have a Parliament that is rotting our country. Evolution can't reverse a strongly established. Only revolution will do that. Therefore it's either "fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride" or "tighten your belt and be grateful for mortality". (The Prime Minister of Luxembourg was 100% right in how he described Britain's Parliament).

    1 You asked me for a definition of a majority and I agreed with your definition, of more than half; or 50%+1. So I don't understand why you keeping asking me. Can you get someone to help you or at least slow you down a bit? Because this is getting weird.

    2 The figures you give me for each of the 8 regions (which excludes London, Scotland and NI) are the same as those on the web link I gave you. So there's no problem with the data itself. It's how you are reading it. It's true that a clear majority of areas voted to leave. But you're counting areas as if they are people. You're supposed to count people. This isn't like a General Election where one totals up the number of conservative versus Labour constituencies. Let me explain (and if you regard this as a paragraph of "waffle", then get back to your library and colour in another of your "books"): In a general election, constituency A gets 80-20 for Tories, constituency B gets 70-30 for Tories, C gets 49-51 for Labour and D gets 45-56 for Labour, E get gets 48-52 for Labour. On that basis, Labour gets 3 MP's into Parliament and the Tories get 2 MP's. Now let's count it by people (we can assume 100 people per constituency as constituencies are designed to be roughly equal in population size): on that basis, across those 5 constituencies, there are 292 votes for Tories and 208 for Labour (ie 58% versus 42%). The referendum was not counting areas, it was counting people. Don't you understand that? Pleeeeeaaase spare me your gibberish about counting areas as if they are people. You may just as well say a clear majority of people in each of 8 blood types voted to leave. No one is denying that the tilt to Leave is consistent. It probably also shows that the vote to leave is stronger in the areas with a high percentage of blue collar workers facing a hard time as the nation drifts into a white collar workforce and/or getting fed up with too many immigrants taking their jobs and/or trying to bring Islamic values into schooling and/or free loading on already strained benefits, including NHS. Yet in spite of all of that, none of those percentages voting to Leave hits 60%, whereas in the South it is between 51-52%. Across all of England it averages 55-56%. So my point remains. It is not a clear majority. Perhaps only to you and other hard Brexiteers to whom figures just get in the way of their delusions or prejudices or simply have an allergy to numbers.

    Ages ago I showed you and other forum members where the biggest variation lay in Leave vs Remain. It wasn't by area. It was by demographics, particularly socio-economic class. But neither you (nor anyone else) wanted to know that. I'm sure you know why there was a studied disinterest!

    1 Have no fear! Horizon is more robust, swings with the punches and, besides, deserves it more!

    2 The 60% action criterion applies when 60% vote is to Leave, which means abandoning the status quo of Remaining. It's a safeguard against citizens making an ill-considered leap into the unknown or unfamiliar or unpredictable. The way you have phrased your point I can't tell whether you are recommending the very opposite, of abandoning the status quo of Remain if the vote to Leave is 41% or higher. Surely not.

    3 You don't have humble opinions, so you can't rib me on that one!

    4 The 10-20% inbuilt advantage of the status quo is a fair head start but not an unfair advantage. I say that because it reflects people's sense of caution and need for stability and predictability in a tumultuous world. If such people can be persuaded with facts, common sense and a clear vision that the status quo (Remain) has become an intolerable or highly unsatisfying state of affairs that is handicapping our potential or making life unnecessary miserable, frustrating or even potentially calamitous (like appeasing Hitler), then an action criterion of 60% should be quite attainable. If people can't be persuaded of those reasons to Leave then either they are cautious in nature or the argument for a more enterprising self-determining or courageous approach are unconvincing or the government lacks the necessary qualities to lead us into that new but unknown promised land.

    5 It's precisely because you can't change the rules that one needs to define the action criterion as 60% plus. Look at this way: 60% is a clear majority. Horizon thinks 52% is a clear majority. But I think her and many others do so because they have a deep seated need to justify Leaving on the grounds that it is supported by a clear majority. The problem here is that the truth of the matter is only a charlatan or fool or delusionist would judge 52% to be a clear majority.

    6 Why on earth would you find that a satisfactory state of affairs? Surely you understand the point I'm making. When someone is described as literal minded you do realise, don't you, that it is not a compliment?

    7 It doesn't matter if this whole country is chocobloc full of mental retards. Because then it won't make much difference whether we Remain or Leave. Either way the EU would be the least of our problems! Actually, I fear that might be a fair description of the problem this country faces, whether we leave or remain.

    I'm still none the wiser. I'll try one last time, what is your definition of "more than half." 50.1%? 51%? 55%? 58%? 60%? 70%?

    I cannot make an argument about why I think there is a clear English majority until I know what you consider a majority to be. If its 70%, I've no case to make because most of the results were not 70% or over to vote leave.

    Then define what you consider a majority to be. A figure, not a page of waffle.

    It's your definition of a majority: "more than half". Can't you even understand your own definition?! It means more than 50.0%. It means 50% + 1. I said it in my point 1. Can't you even read that far? Jesus! In other words, you are content to have a "majority" (50% +1 ) in favour of leaving, where that 1 person could be a half-blind retard ticking whatever box impacts on his addled brain. There are other civilised countries, with governments and citizens (who can absorb a whole page of words without describing it as "waffle", which is usually to conceal an admission of having reading or comprehension difficulties) and these civilised countries (eg Switzerland) would hold a referendum on an important issue like Brexit and only abandon the status quo (look it up) if at least 60% voted to do so. But you don't seem willing to get to mental grips with that alternative. For you that half blind retard is enough to change everyone's life. And you think it's democracy. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so f-ing tragic.

    I've just watched on BBC a public announcement by Xavier Bettel, Luxembourg's PM, usually a mild amiable fellow, making his position - and that of the EU - brutally clear, that they think the UK have been behaving for the last few years - and are still behaving - like a bunch of time-wasting wankers.

    It's probably too early to capture an unedited video recording of that speech but the weblink is at least quoting verbatim some of the key points of what Mr Bettel said…ker-live-news-latest-news

    I would not be at all surprised if one of these four things happen:

    1) the EU will breathe a huge sigh of relief when Britain leaves without a deal - anything just to get rid of a bunch of nutcases

    2) the EU will be more relieved if (1) happens than if Britain rescinds Article 50 - having us in the EU is a horror version of Groundhog Day

    3) the EU will give us a better deal (and get away with charging us for it) just to make sure we leave rather than rescind article 50

    4) the EU won't grant an extension. What for? A 2nd referendum that says "Remain"? EU response: "aaargggh! Thanks but no thanks"

    Fairly soon the whole world will see us the same way the EU does

    1 Before I proceed further, what do you define as a majority? Clearly, your definition is the not the legal definition of a majority which is more than half. The country (UK) voted by more than a half to leave the EU and in the bulk of most areas of each English region, the vote was way above 50% voting leave in most cases with only the cities skewing the figures giving a much closer overall figure.

    2 I should be impartial, who says? You?? I'm about as impartial as Dominic Grieve is to leaving the EU. I'm not impartial on this or any other subject.

    1 In any vote or preference I define the winner or the most preferred as the one with the biggest number, whether by just a tiny or huge amount. In the case of a binary choice (yes-no, leave-remain), as you say, "more than half" is the majority.

    2 On impartiality you raise an admirable point which I fully respect.

    I'm not sure any of us can be impartial. Indeed, I hope that remains case; after all, how can you have a stimulating conversation with someone who doesn't have an opinion ...... without losing the will to live! This is why I cringe when people say "in my humble opinion ...."

    However, as a good conversation develops, intellectual honesty has a role to play, in distinguishing between a fact and opinion. Failing to bring facts into a conversation risks the anticlimactic impasse of "we must agree to differ". I know sometimes that as to be the ending but surely a preferred outcome is some exchange of ideas, enlightenment or modification of a previous dogma.

    What I hate about judges is the way they employ fine legal points to camouflage their bias, seeking to rationalise their decision. As with some judges, so with some of us lesser mortals, I think it is deceitful and intellectually dishonest to promote a genuine opinion by citing facts which you have faked, distorted, exaggerated or have selected only those facts which support your opinion.

    For example, it is the adjectives you use to preface a noun that can turn partiality or favouritism into deceit. When you refer to a quantitative phenomenon like "majority", "skewness", "bulk", "most", "closer" but withhold the figures and instead embroider the description with words like "way above", "massively", "clearcut", "almost exclusively", "overwhelmingly", you are about as reliable a commentator of factual information as Murray Walker was on Formula One motor racing. But with Murray, his excessive enthusiasm just made him seem a buffoon where, in your case, it makes you as intellectually honest as a Scottish high court judge deciding on the Boris and the EU, or a rabid Brexiteer, or a snake oil salesman or an MP like Dominic Grieve (and Parliament has become infested with such MP's). Only an ignoramus or deceiver or someone who talks before he thinks would describe 52% as a clear or decisive majority.

    There was a time in market research when clients has enough intellectual honesty to criticise a researcher's report whose conclusions and recommendation were at variance with the data (ie facts). Such a client would feel that when making business decisions they couldn't trust that researcher. Sadly, today's clients who use research data of people have become rather like yourself - who just want data that confirms their opinions or prejudices (in much the same way as a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination).

    In conclusion then, do carry on enjoying your partiality and I'll carry on enjoying exposing it as blind unbridled partisanship or, more simply, bullshit!

    When I said the majority of the country, I meant England, but I think you knew that. Of course I don't dispute the overall UK figures because that includes London, Northern Ireland and the pesky Scots, that skews the figures massively.

    If you want to go through each region, excluding London, we can. The results are clear cut, a majority of areas in England voted to leave.

    The percentage voting to leave in England was 53%

    In NI it was 44%

    In Scotland it was 55%

    In Wales it was 53%

    In London it was 40%

    In England excluding London it was 55%

    With or without Wales, with or without London, with or without Scotland, with or without Northern Ireland, the percentage voting to leave did not exceed 55%

    Even across the 12 UK regions the Leave vote never reached 60%. Only in a few selected cities in NE, W Mids and Yorkshire/Humber did it reach 60% or over. But then there other Cities in England where it reached down to 40% or lower voting to Leave

    The moral of this being that you're supposed to be honest and impartial when talking about statistics .......unless you're a crooked pension salesman dependent on commission ...... or a hard Brexiteer ..... or an MP !

    Or unless have an allergy to figures. You're not alone. I gather that 17 million adults in England - half of the working age population - have everyday maths skills roughly equivalent to those expected of a primary school child (Entry Levels)

    It would be more to your credit to concede that your argument doesn't hold water rather than try weaseling out of it

    Agreed. Also, nobody ever questions how they expect to get anything close to a 'good' deal from the EU, which is what they 'claim' to want. I note Jo Swinson has admitted the truth now, and says she wants to revoke A50 without a referendum. I do hope she realises she isn't the PM, and is never likely to be PM unless she graciously allows us plebs to have a GE.

    Swinson is incapable of a straight answer. Every time she was asked a question about specific issues she deflected and gave a soapbox response. I would have loved it if the interview (not a hope it being Marr) would say to her: I've asked you about three issues which affect British citizens and you deflect and talk in generalities about what the Liberal Party stands for. If you intend carrying on in that way when there is a general election, good luck with that. Thanks for coming on today and helping viewers to get to know you better

    To be honest, if would put the matter to rest, I'd be okay with another referendum, but what guarantee would there be that the result would be accepted the second time around? None, me thinks.

    Yes, that the whole damn point. The next referendum will suffer from the same handicap as the previous referendum, which is that it will be "subject to consideration" by the dead hand of Parliament. I have yet to find any tv or press journalist or interviewer raising this point with any politician. Which is really weird. As far as I've noticed, only Nigel Farage has dismissed a second referendum on the very point. So when dumb members of the electorate shout "we just want to have our say", it's a futile and mindless request.

    BTW: I just noticed Bibbles posting on thread last Thursday afternoon and my response and our subsequent conversation have all been deleted. Is that a computer glitch or just your of settling a debate you realise you can't win? Are you going to remove this posting too?! Will I wake up one day and wonder if I'm in Beijing?

    I've made this particular point about ten thousand times before, but here we go again. A majority of this country did vote to leave, if you go by constituency. Take a look here. Now, the result was severely skewed because London with its huge population almost exclusively voted remain. But you may say, why does that matter and my reply to that would be that it matters because London has a majority foreign population now. So, as far as our own people goes, we did vote overwhelmingly to leave.

    I've gone through this with you over a year ago with actual figures rather than your non-numerical impressions from a Leaver rag. With actual figures you don't have to gloss over your argument with bullshit phrases like "severely skewed", "almost exclusively","majority", "overwhelmingly".

    Here are those figures again:

    Of the 33.5m votes across the UK, 48% voted to remain and 52% to leave

    Of the 3.78m votes in London, 60% voted to remain and 40% to leave

    Of the 29.7 votes elsewhere in UK, 47% voted to remain and 53% to leave

    These are the actual figures…by_United_Kingdom_regions

    The point is that even leaving out London only changed the Leave vote from 52% to 53%. Hardly "severely skewed"!

    This is because London accounted for 11% of all votes made. If you want to use a broader definition of London, one which accounts for a higher percentage of the population, then you would have a smaller percentage than 60% voting to leave, so you will still fail to make a case fr London "severely skewing" the overall UK result.

    This is the third time I've told you this. I have to believe you are just playing dumb. "Severely skewed"? My arse! Either you are running a proper forum or you are are deliberately peddling Brexit propaganda/lies. It's one thing to have a strong conviction, it's quite another to lie and deliberately ignore facts that contradict your lie. Why don't you go into politics? You'd be a natural!

    1 In some cases they are. Dominic Grieve has been photographed going into the London HQ of the EU which as I'm sure you're aware was the former conservative HQ. His motives are purely self-serving.

    2 And we'll talk about constitutional reform in another thread. I think there's one already, but if not and if someone doesn't do it before me, I'll create one at some point too. It's my hobby horse too and you've made good points on this subject spread across several different threads, so we'll try to formulate a plan together for revolution evolution of the system.

    3 I and several others have (constitutional reform). Pay attention or it'll be bread and water for your dinner!^^

    1 Dominic Grieve is a walking talking argument for bringing back capital punishment.

    2 It's easy to bitch about the way it is. Harder to propose improvements. I had a plan under my previous screen name (Rob Alka) and you raised some useful points that helped sharpen up those improvements. No one else in "Forlorn Box" commented! Better luck next time. My suggestion this time around was to force a choice that cuts through a natural parliamentary pedantry or negativism by direct comparisons of the proposals, to arrive at a most preferred or least unpreferred proposal rather than a string of 51% rejecting each individual proposal. In market research it's called comparative preference measurement and it is used to pin down a preference when a series of independent standalone tests don't identify a clear winner.

    3 With Brexit/Wrexit, bread & water is all that's left!

    1 Cut it out.:cursing:

    2 And it's probably me your referring to, not him

    1 Don't be so humourless. It's a fair yet lighthearted dig when someone has an aggressive by line in all their postings viz "don't make me angry" and also sneeringly dismisses my comments because they're it's too long. I absolutely refuse to be dragged down to other people's limited power of concentration

    2 No, it isn't you. You are fairly robust, as well as forensic!

    What a majestic posting! When I write stuff that long you sneer or slag me off!

    I think you've provided much food for thought. Let me try and do it justice. (Try your best not to get angry!)

    1 You're right, it is "relatively simple from where you sit". It's also relatively simple from where I sit. It's relatively simple from where everyone sits. If only we all sat in the same place. As we don't it is relatively quite un-simple. This is as true in Parliament as it is in the electorate. The reasons will vary. Very few people - in or out of Parliament - will admit it's for their own selfish reasons, as if somehow thinking of their own standard of living - and that of their family - is somehow reprehensible. Yet can you imagine the stupidity of us all voting for other people rather than ourselves? It would end up being hearsay voting, votes by proxy. It is okay to vote for your business; that somehow isn't selfish, especially if you can say it's for the sake of those you employ. So everyone has to generalise or socially justify their vote, for jobs, for sovereignty, for putting the Great back into Britain, not falling off a cliff, not crashing out, not a catastrophe, thinking of one's children and grandchildren.

    2 The nation did NOT, as you so sweepingly say, vote to "leave". Only half of them did. Or to be precise, 52%. Horizon will take your side - his view is that if the result was 50.0000000001% ticking Leave and 49.99999999% ticking Remain, he'd consider that a slam-dunk winner-takes-all. In other words, our future and our children's and our children's children, and all that crap, could be in the hands of just one drunken semi-retard in urgent need of cataract surgery who ticked the wrong box. A civilised country with common sense would have a referendum where the abandonment of the status quo on such an important issue would need 60%.

    3 For some reason, when politicians say these things about democracy and sovereignty and jobs and children and children's children, they are, as you put it, self-serving pigs or hypocrites because they are concealing selfish motives. This implies the presumption that they live in Parliament and have no home to go to, no personal life to live, no wife, kids, mortgage - and God help them if they were educated in a public school and holiday in France or have a big expensive house - what a bunch of self-seeking bastards! - how dare they consider their own life style! Don't worry, the looters (aka Labour), will soon get rid of all that capitalistic garbage about equal opportunity and, in its place, have unconditional equality, including edukashen, free privileges such government paid-for unemployment pay, etc etc - thanks to a looting - oops, I mean a redistribution of wealth, taken from those who didn't get themselves and their money out of this f---ed-up country quick enough. Quite how this r-o-w can continue when eventually there won't be any wealth lying around to redistribute.

    3 continued: Democracy is a nice principle if only it worked better. I suddenly realised why the Parliamentary method of democracy has fu--ed up this country. Not just the absurdity of letting 650 MP's be entitled to vote on various proposals - can you imagine a commercial company with 650 board members each voting on various issues that arise in running their company - least of all when half of them want to take over the company rather than let it prosper. Okay, that's been my hobby horse for a while now - and of course no one has commented on how archaic and unmanageable it is. But I suddenly realised another major improvement that could make Parliament more decisive, ie do it's bloody job properly. Don't have yes-no proposals. Britain is a nation of negative nitpickers or pedants, so there is an almost ingrained higher percentage of noes to almost any proposal, especially with bi-partisanship and within-party sub-partisanship weaving its deadly tentacles around democracy. Instead, give Parliament a multiple choice, deal A vs B versus C versus no deal and implement the one with most votes. Those abstaining will, of their own making, be spectators to action that is then taken. I would contend that this is absolutely fair and democratic, reflecting a tough real world, where a decision has to be taken which may be the least worst rather than the best. If Remain has to be included in that multiple forced choice, so be it, let Parliament be prepared for civil unrest among either the 3-years ago Leavers or the 3 years-ago Remainers - protests these days are a dime a dozen - those who didn't bother voting in the referendum 3 years ago will either shrug their shoulders or toss a coin to decide which protest they fancy joining.

    4 You say "very few Brexiteers were not aware there would be hardships but believed in the long term it would be best for the country". I think you mean "not unaware" (the peril of double negatives!). But in any case you make this assertion with a tone of much authority. Is this research or just your feeling? Back to my opening point - it's all so simple just so long as it is based on views you hold that are incontestable. I wish I had that confidence of being right. Just because I don';t use that pathetic opener IMHO doesn't mean I'm certain of what I say.

    5 You're right that uncontrolled immigration needed controlling, along with breaking free of irrelevant and daft laws, and pumping ridiculous sums into countries unable or unwilling to help themselves or, worst still, not needing the money (eg India). But Britain could have disobeyed or bent the EU rules, while staying in the EU, as did Italy and a couple of the East Europe member states. I contend that the problem was us, not the EU. The EU could be reformable - especially these days as they see whata is looming on the horizon. I think we can and should help the EU - regardless of whether we do so as members or well-meaning friendly associates (detente cordiale!).

    6 I think it's an equal contest as to who is doing the best job of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I think Cameron-the-smooth-talking-toff queered our pitch and May-the-inarticulate-deadhead then made the pitch unplayable and demolished the Conservative party working majority. At least we've stopped sneering at the EU's lack of democracy (I mean, we're not a shining example of the success of democracy, are we?). If MP's could keep their stupid mouths shut and starve the media of being able to sensationalising every tiny revealed development and portray Britain as arrogantly over-confident, we might have come to an agreement with the EU that was mutually acceptable. But instead we just seemed arrogant and obnoxious. I think Boris could have remedied this impasse but Parliament's 650 polecats dragged him down - and yet, like you, I still think he could hang in there and play a winning hand.

    7 You're right, it is indeed daft that we're protecting a generation who want to remain. Well, more fool us. We are supposed to vote for ourselves not for others. Otherwise it's a like comical garden party of good manners.

    8 If Boris delivers (with or without a deal, provided the deal is not BINO), he will get a big majority in the next election. If he loses and the extension turns into a resumption of groundhog day, I don't fancy his changes.

    9 You conclude that it was a "straightforward thing" made difficult by parliament. I think if it was a straightforward thing it would have survived a stupid and self-serving parliament and a type of democracy that is has become historically quaint but unfit for purpose, or extremely high risk, or too easily subverted when the stakes are high. Almost anything can be straightforward apart from its complications! But I do so agree with you, that Britain has created those complications. Britain has been so uncool.

    As to the last point, the Muslims have Saudi Arabia with Mecca and Medina as their holy land and I guess for Christians, beyond the holy sites in Israel itself, I guess Rome would be considered the centre of Christianity.

    I should have defined what I meant by a homeland. It wouldn't have have included Rome inasmuch as Christians and Catholics are scattered throughout Europe and the US and none of them would view Rome or Italy as their homeland sanctuary if discrimination elsewhere got ugly.

    As for the Middle East, you're right, that Saudi Arabia has Mecca and Medina as a holy land but, again, it's not a homeland sanctuary for Islam. Muslims are scattered across the globe and it is only in recent years that they became reviled, accused of trying to replace non-Islam religious and lifestyle values - but even that doesn't caused them to run home to Saudi Arabia.

    Against all of that that I keep wondering why Jews insist on heightening their identity as Jews rather than just assimilate with mainstream live-and-let-live Christians and Catholics. Louise Berger, who joined the Liberals after complaining about antisemitism in the Labour party, recently objected to being referred to as a Jewish MP rather than just an MP. If that bugs her, why did she name her newborn son Zion? And then there is that MP who wears a skullcap in Parliament. The problem with promoting one's identity is that one gets identified that way! When that happens stop bitching about it.

    Increasingly it will be judged by neighbouring states that there isn't enough room in the Middle East for Israel and there will be a war. Until that tipping point Israel carries on expanding its geo-sovereignty based on the threat or use of their massive firepower.

    Meanwhile Palestinian's hatred of Israel - remaining unshakeable ever since the birth of Israel was allowed by the UN to displace Palestinian occupation - which is all the excuse Israel needs to adopt a hard line and decide they may as well be hung for a sheep as lamb.

    The fact that Netanyahu is confident his intended Hard Zionism policy is a vote-winner speaks volumes about the attitudes of Israeli citizens.

    The fact is that if anything I said above came from the office of the Labour Party, the usual howls of anti-semitism would resume, along with the wandering off of any remaining wondering Jews, until the Labour Party can promote itself to the electorate as, if not "pure aryan", then at least "semitic-free"!

    Has anyone ever wondered why, of all the religions there are in the world, only Judaism requires its very own homeland? And in suggesting an answer give thought to cause & effects.

    1 I agree. Mistake to overrate the understanding of our electorate

    2 Teenage answer: whatever. Grown up answer: you're oversimplifying as well as deflecting my point about ambivalence
    Also, I gave you the answer over a year ago which put paid to tour London argument about confounding the split - I showed you the %'s by area - it was pretty straightforward - I hope you were asleep at the time because that at least would be a less embarrassing excuse!

    3 After leaving school I worked for my father who was a cabinet maker. I got good at it. It was a furniture colony just off Great Eastern Street - great vibes but that kind of skill trade eventually vanished - and me too

    4 I do sleep on occasion.

    5 Absolutely.

    6 Towards the end I think the Romans probably said something like that about their empire

    7 Hope so. Probably with our customary arrogance

    8 Glad you feel that way. Just like us, they're stubborn bastards. I just wish we had a fraction of their savoir faire

    1 Why does there need to be another campaign? Have the 52% who voted to Leave forgotten why they did? Does the Brexit movement think they can increase that 52% with a new campaign? The Remainder movement would of course be justified in producing their own new campaign to rebut Brexit's. After 3 years that has exposed Parliament as rendering Brexit undeliverable, I think it is more likely that more Leavers would switch to Remain than vice versa

    2 Couldn't agree more that there are powerful challenges to the dishonesty or stupidity of Project Fear. I'm amazed that Leaver MP's haven't contested the deliberate lack of objectivity or evenhandedness of Project Fear. I think such challenges are being denied oxygen in the media. Worse still, there is a terrible arrogance among MP's (not only the Leavers) that the average voter lacks the mental ability or motivation to get to grips with the factual challenges that contradict or challenge Project Fear.

    3 I think the reason why the pre-referendum Project Fear has been discredited is that it made promises it couldn't keep or indeed prove (and I'm not just talking about the NHS cash promise - that was just an isolated poster of typical ad hype, hardly a solid manifesto (and since when do MP's keep to their Manifestos!?!)

    4 Couldn't agree more on the disturbing absence of pointing out the dangers of Remaining in the EU. No-one, not even in this Forum, is nailing down those dangers. All we do, at the most, is refer to the "labels" or "buzz words" like "sovereignty", "illegal immigration", "own laws", "non-EU trade deals" etc. Images and perception really ought not to be the new reality. Facts and substance need to make a comeback into people's belief system.

    5 As for pointing out the lies from politicians who promised to respect the referendum result, I'm pretty sure the whole of Britain is aware of those lies. Somebody should distribute a leaflet and a booklet of political Glossary of Terms & Phrases, which shows what is said and underneath what they really mean. eg "Let me be perfectly clear ....." = "I'm about to lie to you ...."

    6 You ask why politicians are allowed to lie with impunity. The short answer is because they are politicians? The slightly longer answer is because the media are too dumb or biased or both to understand or acknowledge the lie, let alone recognise it as a lie, let alone have the brainpower or objectivity to challenge the lie? It doesn't help that a large chunk of the media are "champagne socialists".

    7 The reason why politicians undermine and destroy our democracy is because their notion of democracy is different to ours. They think they understand better than us mere voters what democracy is supposed to be all about? MP's think they are the custodians of democracy. They think this custodianship was handed to them when they won the votes in their constituency.

    8 The reason why Britain is not being allowed a GE is because at this point in time it gets in the way of MP's concept of democracy. What we have here is a conflict of interest between MP's career progress (laughingly described as partisanship or principles) and voters' hopes, frustrations and difficulties (blithely dismissed by MP's as dissatisfactions to be assuaged and protesting divisions to united). Or as Groucho Marx said: "I have principles and if you don't like them, I have other principles"

    9 One of the reasons why Boris isn't "shouting the above from the rooftops" is that right now voters can't help him? Right now his overriding enemy to be vanquished is Parliament? Worse than that, if he does shout all this from the rooftops he will be accused by his enemy (parliament) of electioneering rather than delivering on Brexit as promised.

    10 You are right to think it's showmanship. But isn't that bound to happen in the spotlight of media? It doesn't automatically mean there isn't real political intent, good or bad, behind the showmanship. If you think there is "no real intention to take us out of the EU" are you referring to a clear majority in Parliament on all sides of the house, including a great many who say they are leavers; especially those who say they are being "loyal" to the Referendum or Democracy or the majority of their constituency - every reason except their personal convictions about Leaving - which you might feel, as I do, is a conspicuous absence of the key reason. Although I share your sense of cynical despair, I can't believe Boris also has Remain as his inward intention. I think he is a Leaver in heat and mind. In any case, if it ever became evident that he was really a Remainer, reluctant or otherwise, his days as Prime Minister - or even as an MP backbencher - would be terminated ASAP almost as quick as you can say b-e-r-c-o-w

    1 This is what I always feared about Boris and said so on this site last year, as he is essentially pro EU and then of course there were his two letters to the Telegraph, one being pro-EU and the other being anti-EU, but I'll still give him to the end of October.

    2 These public schoolboys are all of the same ilk, they just like all the "fun" and chaos and don't really believe in anything.

    3 As to your points, I think you should send that to the BBC, but I agree, we are universally only getting one viewpoint of events.

    1 I gather he wrote both a Leave and Remain article but only one was published. What's wrong with being of two minds? After all, there were +'s and -'s. His way of weighing them would be by writing two articles - pro Remain versus pro Leave - because, for goodness sake, that manner of thinking and weighing up things is what he did for a living, it's called being a writer, not a bean counter. Also, the referendum revealed that Britain as a whole was near-equally split between pro and remain. And we know today that this near-equal split is not only a simple dyed-in-the-wool split like being for or against Marmite but also includes many citizens that are in two minds about it, ambivalent, sensing or recognising the +'s and -'s but having to decide in a referendum which to vote for on balance. I cannot think of another country that can match us for superficiality - a less superficial electorate would choose less superficial MP's

    2 Let me guess, you didn't go to public school!I Instead you went to one of those schools where you could do woodwork. Is that how you got that chip on your shoulder?!

    3 Which viewpoint are you referring to? You're a Brexiteer. So am I. And you've got a forum! All I keep hearing on this forum - and others - and in media - and in Parliament - is that:

    - Those running the EU are unelected (ie not democratic - wow, does that put us in a glass house?!?!)

    - And that they impose their rules and regulations on EU citizens (like our government does to us!)

    Why hasn't any Brexiteer on this forum (or in the media or in Parliament) raised or discussed points about ......

    - EU federalisation and an increasing cultural and political homogeneity across countries that are in the EU member states?

    - the EU being in economic difficulties that are greater than ours?

    - why we in Britain are so pedantic about adhering to every EU rule? ("the law's the law" is the mantra of morons)

    - why if given half the chance we blame EU rules & regulations for our failures and handicaps? Many of the other nation states- even France - ignore or circumvent many EU rules they don't like - and they get away with it. By contrast we use the EU rules & regulations - or invent their existence - as a standard excuse when our Government fails to do its job properly. Truly a nation of whingers! Just wait 'til next summer when someone loses an eye to a greedy/hungry pecking seagull. Would we still be saying that we can't cull seagulls because there is an EU regulation against doing so? Because that's been the excuse so far to culling seagulls.

    Let's face it, we're a nanny state. Are we really ready to leave home and to try and make a living in this big tough exciting world? Doesn't seem or sound like it. All I hear is "catastrophe", "falling off a cliff", "crashing out", and a "10% decrease of GDP 20 years from now .... and even then only if "all other factors are equal", ie if we just stand there looking out bewilderingly across the Channel and wondering what we should do now that the EU doesn't want to buy much from us. Duuurrrr!

    Amber Rudd’s main reason for quitting was that BJ’s government expended 80-90% of its efforts preparing for no deal and only 10-20% negotiating for a deal, ergo, government intends to leave without a deal.

    I can't decide if Amber Rudd is playing dumb or really is. It is shallow or stupid to think degree of importance determines percentage of time or effort devoted to it. What matters is prioritisation and efficient allocation of effort. The blindingly obvious first step is to be prepared for no-deal, requiring much effort to get necessary resources and logistics into place. It is also the Government's shrewd first step in negotiation, more powerful and convincing than mere words, in persuading the EU that Britain is preparing for no deal, and hence that rescinding Article 50 or accepting a BINO deal is not on the agenda.

    Besides, neither Britain nor the EU need spend much time negotiating a deal after three time-wasting ruinous years where all options have been debated to destruction and left gathering cobwebs. All that's needed now is for the EU, at the 11th hour, which is their modus operandi, to select what it knows BJ's cabinet would find acceptable as a deal for a self-ruling Britain to retaining a good political and trading relationship with the EU. It’s near enough Theresa May's last deal three times rejected by Parliament but this time with a backstop that either the EU or UK can unilaterally rescind; where in its place will be acceptance of a soft customs border arrangement that can be agreed upon and implemented within the next couple of years.

    I am convinced the EU would be willing to permit that amendment but sadly I’m equally convinced the EU realises it will be wasting its time even bothering to do so. This is because the EU knows that the UK Parliament will unable or unwilling to approve that amended deal ………. or indeed any deal. Britain today is governed by what the Government and civil service is able to implement without requiring parliamentary assent or being thwarted by a motion and proposal that ties its Government’s hands.

    This unwillingness of Parliament to agree is because the Labour party, with or without a Lib-Lab-SNP coalition, is hellbent on occupying 10 Downing Street by fair means or foul and will propose and vote against anything which the Conservative Party Government wants to implement. This Fools Gold Opportunity for a malignantly successful opposition to bring down a government was thanks to the seeds of destruction planted by that fatuous toff David Cameron in the form of a referendum (aka People Democracy), cultivated into bindweed by the pythonesque dead parrot non-leadership of Theresa May, who managed to reduce the Conservative government to a wafer-thin majority who then argued among themselves and couldn’t decide who should be their new leader and took a chance on real leadership with Boris Johnson but had forgotten what real leadership would mean for them.

    The EU realises all this, notably that Parliament has become chronically dysfunctional, therefore sees no point in negotiating with a government without a workable majority, only to end up offering an acceptable deal that will be debated to destruction by Parliament.

    The ghastly truth is that the majority of Parliament wants to remain in the EU but the pseudo leavers dare not admit it because that would alienate half of the electorate. Instead it is more expeditious for a coalesced opposition, united against their common enemy, to badmouth the Conservative Government. Sadly, Boris Johnson is the perfect fall guy for this tactic as Britain today has an incurable allergy to success, initiative, entrepreneurship and positive thinking, which enables the opposition to go to bat on a General Election campaign fake manifesto that promises to succeed where the Conservatives have failed, in “getting a deal”.

    Once the coalition opposition have won the election and the keys to Number 10 they will conspire with the EU, behind closed doors, to agree to rescind Article 50 ……. and persuade the EU to agree to some specific face-saving near-meaningless gesture that will enable the British electorate to imagine that Britain has gained the “reforming” influence it needed within the EU. Over half the electorate will be taken in by that ruse (or subliminally kid themselves) - it is the persuasion technique known as “a suspension of disbelief”). The disillusioned minority - the hard uncompromising Brexiteers - will protest in the streets, not least because protesting about something or anything is all the rage in Britain today (and it’s “something to do” if you’re unemployed, or self-employed, or in the gig-economy, or a student, or at a loose end, or with a screw loose). It can be shrugged off by a coalition government that is in power for 5 years. After all, if a week in politics is a long time, 5 years is an eternity and that so-called Vision Thing is just election-speak/political bull££it, along with “making a difference for one’s children and grandchildren”.

    It certainly doesn't help the fight in Hong Kong. China is unlikely to listen to requests to apply democracy in Hong Kong, when our own Parliament is in the process of destroying democracy in the UK.

    Great point

    The point you haven't made is that Parliament is actually celebrating what they claim to believe is the application of true democracy in defeating Boris's mandate to the electorate. And Parliament knows inwardly that their so-called protection of democracy is ultimately to rescind article 50 or settle for a deal that is actually worse than remaining a member.

    The Hong Kong protestors ought to know is that the democracy they're fighting, if Britain is an example, is a mirage.