How can we 'take back control' - by going totally against our own Sovereign Parliamentary Democracy?

geese and ganders ...

hmmm I often meant to say this, but really I could not be so rude. Paddyann makes sense to me actually.

Tbh, paddyann, I think some of us scratch our heads as to what you do mean!! I'm glad you consider yourself intelligent, because, not wishing to be rude, some of your comments do leave some of us pretty bemused!

Old? It was yesterday's! They picked it up at Birmingham airport?!?

Can you help me here- as I am not quite sure what the point of your post is. Care to enlighten me, please.

I dont hate ENGLAND .Nigglynellie I hate Westminster ...with very good reasons.Thats a common mistake unionists make,they think ENGLAND and Westminster are the same thing .We who are a bit more intelligent understand the difference.I have many friends and relatives who are English,including my GD ....I'm sure they would be most surprised to hear I hated them or their country

Nothing like an old newspaper, eh Jura.
At least it hadn’t come off their fish and chips.

So, there were 3 instead of 2 - does it make any better?

paddyann has it escaped your notice that France under President Macron also took part in the raid? Or is your almost hysterical hatred of England and America completely blinding you to that fact?!

What I cannot get over is the way there seems to be no thought given to how the talks are showing it will not really be a good outcome in many areas such as Euratom, Open Skies etc etc but no one mentions that this could be a problem. Just keep reiterating the result of the referendum which was a very small majority

Good post Varian, though very depressing.
Especially: "we are in a very weak bargaining position. We need them more than they need us."

There is no doubt that "take back control" was a very effective slogan which worked because so many people did not realise that we actually had control, and still do, but if brexit actually happens we will have GIVEN UP CONTROL.

If we want to continue to trade with the other 27 EU countries we will have to conform to all EU rules and standards without having any say in setting the rules.

44% of our exports go to the EU, compared to only 5% of their exports coming here, so we are in a very weak bargaining position. We need them more than they need us - the exact opposite of the lies peddled by the Leave campaign, whose talk of German cars and French cheese fooled people into voting for us all to be so much worse off.

We were then badly let down by most of our elected representatives, who were not fooled, but were prepared to go against their own better judgements because of the three line whips imposed by both the Conservative and Labour parties.

The only good thing which might just possibly come out of this disgraceful episode could be a realisation that we need a written constitution and electoral reform.

I wish I could be more optimistic about the chances of enough of the stark reality of brexit giving enough people a wakeup call.

Sorry Baggs, but I strongly object to your misuse of this:

'He calls what jura is doing with her posts on this subject "sanctimonious posturing".'

it so happens that a uk friend came for coffee this morning- to pick up their cat I have been looking after whilst they were in the UK visiting. And she gave me The Times.

I carefully read Matthew Parris's article - The last but one paragraph says 'A serious military response is unlikely. Hypocrisy is the likely winner. Donald Trump will want to crow about 'taking out' this or that runway, and we might discreetly warn the Russians not to be there at the time. We would then have 'given butcher Assad a bloody nose' and everything, including his slow advance, would continue as before.

IN THIS SANCTIMONIOUS POSTURING, SADLY, BRITAIN MUST COLLUDE. We don't call the tune and it's not worth infuriating the US President, or undermining President Macron simply to keep our hands clean of hypocrisy. So pin back your ears, prepare for the canting headlines, as we Brits lend an airfield, abomber, a radar, or two ... AND SIGH'.

Comparing this to my posts is, at best a dishonest distortion, at worse... worse. So glad I got The Times today of all days.

honestly Kitty there isn't a single unionist MP I would trust ,the labour party are every bit as bad as the tories and as for the lib dems..least said soonest mended .The sad thing is a lot of people put their trust in these eegits and time after time are disappointed or worse

Jura - I do agree with your original premise. We are moving away from the British form of democracy. Following the referendum Brexit should have been debated in Parliament and decided by our MPs. We seem to be bypassing Parliament altogether now with most things decided by Cabinet - how is this taking back sovereignity which Brexiters voted for? We are moving further away from democracy. We lose our vote in the European parliament and become subjects instead of citizens.

www.facebook.com/Syrianewsdaily/videos/809911002538636/

Good lord, paddy, I only asked a simple question. There is no need to shout!

I presume that if we had a PM of whom you approved there would be no question of lying.

His phrase "able to start a war" that the PM shouldn't be able to start a war without parliamentary permission and, it would seem by implication, that it could do so even if the PM disagreed which is obvious nonsense.

Matthew Parris argues in the Times Comment section today that "not every advance for 'democracy'—crudely conceived—is an advance for good governance".

He calls the idea that parliament should be able to start a war merely a "nascent constitutional doctrine" which I read to mean that the PM and Cabinet do not, constitutionally, have to get parliament's approval for things such as the current air strikes, which he distinguishes from a "serious attack"—all out war intent on taking Assad down.

He calls what jura is doing with her posts on this subject "sanctimonious posturing".

Kitty do you REALLY think MS May and her cohorts here and in the USA EVER tell us the truth? Lies flow freely every time they open their mouths

jura on what do you base your assertion that we are being lied to?

So you want Sovereignty- and use a process that totally goes against our own Laws (Referendum is advisory) and against our historical style of Democracy- Parliamentary Democracy- where we elect MPs, our representatives, to make major decisions on our behalf?

Does it make any sense at all?

And now, the worst part - Our Prime Minister totally ignores Parliament in making a decision about a war which puts us all in great danger, on the flimsiest of evidence- as the poodle of Trump and the USA.

Take back control ... you really could not make it up. And the world lives in terror. We were lied to about Irak- we are being lied to now.

loopyloo you always HAD sovereignty....

paddyann - NONE, none whatsoever ...

We want sovereignty back was the message of the referendum. And government listens to public opinion or disregards it at its peril.

the really stupid thing is the Westminster government has always had control....they voted in all the decisions in the EU ,they had control over borders and didn't use it and a lot of the awful things people say are down to the EU were in fact all the work of Westminster ...their OWN government .Now they may have to pay megabucks every year and have no control ...how much sense does that make ?