How right we were

PS. It's often said (and I believe it's true) that Hitler never broke the law - he just changed them. That's why it's so important that we have good constitutional laws laws, which must be upheld and can only be changed by a sovereign parliament.

I'm afraid that you are completely missing the point of the analogy with pre-war Germany, Jabberwok. No, we are not intending to do those things, though with the increase in racism and racial hate crimes which has been unleashed since the referendum seems to indicate that it could happen here.

But the analogy is with the rise of a dictatorship. Which looks frighteningly imminent in the UK.

The people who voted for the Nazis in 1933 didn't know what the outcome would be either. Germany was one of the most cultured and educated countries on the planet, but the people were conned, manipulated and bullied. France was a more anti-Semitic country at the time.

We must never forget!

I know I'm repeating myself here but democracy is not, and never was about following through an ill informed decision when more information is available just because a decision was made at a point in time. As for Iraq, imo one of the biggest mistakes was not thinking it through/planning for what would happen to the country after Sadam Hussein was gone etc. And no one thought through what would happen if vote leave won. Whatever one thinks of Blair I do believe that, as with Ireland and Yugoslavia he did want to protect innocent people and it must haunt him constantly that he miscalculated.

That's the point! It's not perfect, but parliament has to obey the law. Agreed the law is sometimes an ass, but what's the alternative? The UK doesn't have a constitution set in stone, so the law has to be supreme. Parliament does have the power to change the law, but it needs MPs (our representatives) to agree.

That's the way Britain's democracy works. It's imperfect and quirky and causes foreigners to scratch their heads in amazement that it could work, but it's creaked along for a long time and, until an alternative is found, I'm happy for it to continue.

Pre war Germany?! We want to leave the EU (which we are perfectly entitled to do,) not lock up and murder Jews, considered undesirables and the less able amongst us. I see no concentration camps, the armed forces goose stepping down Whitehall, people being threatened with arrest and imprisonment for going about their daily business (apart from Boris) our neighbours threatened with invasion?! shops looted or books burned! or people in sinister uniforms!!

All your whataboutery, Jabberwok does not change the fact that neither Blair nor Cameron broke the law.

Tony Blair, however iniquitous the Iraq war was, did not break the law. Johnson is threatening to break the law. Prime Ministers are not above the law.

David Cameron too if you count bombing Libya and plunging that country into chaos for years on end. I just find the hypocrisy and duplicity of politicians of all partys unbelievable and deeply depressing! I suppose money is at the bottom of it and what doesn't affect their piggybanks and kudos is ok, never mind the misery it brings to others often in far away lands who are conveniently out of sight and certainly out of mind! conscience and compassion are certainly dead and buried in today's brave new world!

Maybe lessons were learned after Iraq; if we don't learn lessons from history what hope is there for us all. We also keep pointing out the frightening similarities about the current situation and pre was Germany, but leavers seem to conveniently ignore them...

Tony Blair might have got away with mass murder, but the Labour Party hasn't. It was responsible for rise of anti-Blairites and a more left wing Labour Party, which is why the Labour Party is split and weak.

Well said, Maizie. It would have been a loss of face for Cameron (who resigned anyway), but that's exactly what he should have done.

You could try "in my opinion", Jabberwok. No such thing has ever been taken to court let alone proved to be true and we wouldn't want GN up on a libel charge.

I feel that those who keep saying "but we were told" probably believe in common-law marriage too. If you don't have a legal and binding agreement, you don't have an agreement.

Whose son has joined GN by the way. I missed that.

Isn't it strange that Tony Blair literally got away with mass murder, conning and conniving to justify an illegal war with the help of a crooked attorney general, yet the H of C hardly raised a murmur. The inquiry into that war took 5 years to see the light of day! and guess what, no action was deemed necessary! People years later are still suffering with ruined lives, a country now lies in complete ruins, a young woman languishes stateless, her babies dead her life in ruins, just to scratch the surface, but no matter, it was all justified, covered up and TB has flourished! (OH and don't forget Dr Kelly!)
Now Boris, is trying to deliver what people voted for in a referendum and is being threatened with prison! I would have said that death and destruction is a bigger crime! but I'm clearly wrong!!

Are you saying that the government of the day should have said, yes, we see how you have voted, but we’re not going to do anything about it?

When the government of the day saw the very close result they should have said that they needed to think about it and see how they were going to deal with it. They could have used it as a negotiating tool to go back to the EU for more concessions than DC had previously been able to achieve (though, I'll remind you that he did achieve some meaningful ones; no requirement to join the euro and no 'ever closer' political union among them). They could have formulated a plan which would have been more acceptable to both 'sides', such as gradual withdrawal by rejoining EFTA.

And once they realised (which they did, as admitted in court by May's Counsel) that fraud and illegality had been involved on the Leave side of the campaign they could have declared the result void; set about formulating controls to ensure a 'clean' campaign and rerun the referendum (as happens in countries where referendums are commonly used as part of the political process) to confirm that there was a real 'will' to leave the EU.

What they shouldn't have done is precisely what May did.

OK! In simple terms, my understanding is that the Withdrawal Agreement (the deal) is about Ireland, citizens' rights and the divorce "bill".

Detailed trade negotiations can't start until a WA has been agreed.

Therefore, if there is no WA, Ireland and citizens are left in limbo AND trade negotiations can't even start, so we're automatically on WTO terms, which in many cases will push up prices. That's without starting on all the hundreds of other agreements for services, etc.

We were warned, but it was dismissed as Project Fear.

maddyone Quote [ The referendum was advisory, we all know that, BUT the public were told that the result would be implemented ] End Quote.

maddyone, the electorate were also told that Britain would leave the European Union in an orderly manner, and that a leave agreement would be the easiest negotiations ever concluded.

Leaving with no deal fulfils neither of the above.

I think the triggering of Article 50 changed the game plan. Once that had been done, it was "legal", but I'm expect your barrister son would know more.

Lies! Lies! Lies! They give me a headache and I can't keep up. Seriously, values really have been all turned upside down.

Maddyone is correct that people were promised that the result of the referendum should be implemented, but I'm not so sure that everybody realised that a referendum is only advisory.

The £350,000 a week was dismissed nonchalantly, despite the fact that people did believe it. The promise to implement the result come hell or high water could have been dismissed too.

Yes Gracesgran, I do understand that, but what do you think should have happened? Are you saying that the government of the day should have said, yes, we see how you have voted, but we’re not going to do anything about it?
And what about the fact that Parliament then went on to vote to trigger Article 50, and to implement Brexit? I don’t know what you think should have happened?

graykat I totally agree.

Worse still is the continuing propogandising and lying. There really is no such thing as a no-deal. It's as meaningless as "Brexit". It is either a deal before leaving, when we have something to barter with or a deal after leaving when we don't. The week after we leave, without agreeing a deal, our politicians will have to sit down and start negotiations once again while the country is in some level of turmoil.

In simple words maddyone. No one, saying anything, over-rules the law. The fact that someone said something does not over-rule the law and you are still, as in your last post, inferring that carried some weight. It didn't. Although you still seem to be saying it did. They lied. They often lie. Why do you think there word carried any weight at all?

A question many of us ask graykat

I am astonished that some people seem to be okay with the idea of trashing the economy, causing people's deaths, impoverishing the worst off, removing protection of our rights, taking away our freedom of movement, giving people who are most affected and yet had no vote sleepless nights about the break-up of their families and now even attacking our democracy!! Are you bots or have you just been reading the Sun/Mail/Express/Telegraph for too long?