Please note that the grilled Clacton kipper is off the menu. House of Commons Terrace Cafeteria.

You seem delighted that millions (more than the whole of the snp vote) are now represented by no one. A great day for democracy.👍
Still people shouldn't be represented if they have views out of kilter. Eh....

Wonder what Jeremy has for breakfast? (Whenever he's not bewailing the death of a terrorist) whatever it is it gives him the Trots!! Boom boom!

Maybe you're thinking about some other form of government, because it's pretty much the definition of democracy that the majority view prevails and if you're out of kilter with that then you just have to deal with it.

Ha! And Ha again! Try telling that to the remoaners!

you sound like a bitter Tim Farron.

The lib dems wanted farron

Democracy guaranties nothing, including ensuring decency.

Yeah, sure, not everyone gets democracy, though you haven't heard me complain, but I do think it's a bit rich when people use the mandate of the referendum to take such an absolute position on Brexit but then demand concessions for their own minority views on other matters.

An election is different to a referendum. But then you know that. Or are you saying when we have an election whoever gets the biggest percentage should get all the seats in parliament?

And election results are different every time. People change their minds which so 52% v 48% one year could reverse 5 years later which is why such monumental changes would need a little more than a simple majority on a single day.

You were using a vague appeal to "democracy" to complain about how representative parliamentary democracy doesn't now represent your personal politics and then bolstering your argument by implying that the views of the 3.8 Million people that voted UKIP in the last GE share the entirety of your political outlook and are likewise unrepresented.

That's true, it's a nonsense to think that the result must stand for all time and that the question can't ever be returned to, but that doesn't negate the referendum result this time round and like it or not democracy has spoken so we need to negotiate an exit. However, once the negotiations are over and we can see what Brexit actually means, I think it would be reasonable for the government to call a general election to seek an informed mandate to Brexit.

So you think we should elect a government based on a single issue?

If the people are to get a second chance to speak on Brexit it be in another referendum, not a general election where a huge number of votes will be cast on totally different issues.

I forget, how many referendums did we have last time, you remember, when we made the momentous (and fatally flawed) decision to enter the common market? Bloody hypocrisy!

The 1975 referendum showed a large (35%) majority in favour of joining the common market. 40 years later a second referendum showed a narrow (4%) majority in favour of leaving. If a 35% majority can be reassessed after 40 years then a 4% majority should be reassessed far sooner.

I happen to think that the decision to leave is the fatally flawed one, but my point was not about whether we should have a third referendum just that to turn a general election into one was a mad idea.

I am, however, intrigued by leavers' fear of a second referendum - if the case for leaving is as good as they say they should be confident of an even larger majority in a second vote.

I see the major flaw of stating we will have a referendum after negotiations will be that the Europe negotiators will ensure that we have a very poor deal to ensure that the UK electorate will not accept it? Do we then keep on negotiating and having referendums?

Wot, like Scotland?

It's a fair point, but the trend at present seems to be aiming at leaving without a deal - which means the EU negotiators would only be relevant in terms of the blame Brexiteers can pile on them for the lack of a deal.

In reality two years is a seriously tight timescale for a trade deal (it would be the fastet ever negotiated by EU) and they have to fit in all the complex exit negotiations in the same time. I doubt if we have the capability to do it; the EU might, but they've also got to get the agreement of 27 governments.

That's just the point, this isn't a single issue. The details of the Brexit deal touch on every aspect of government - economy, defence, immigration, human rights, environment, employment law, tax - everything. The question at the June referendum was very narrow and for such a significant decision the government need a mandate for the totality of those changes, and more especially so because May has so far been reluctant to engage parliament in those details.

I have no fear of a second referendum. I think it would now be 60 40 in favour of leave. As the plagues of locusts and general rapture predicted by some has failed to materialise. Much to there disappointment I may add...

Agreed.

And now Reckless has left.

As a party it died when Nigel packed it in. To be honest its a bit shambolic now and I see it in its death throes. But, it achieved it's primary aim so give it that.

I'm glad it's in decline, but I don't necessarily agree that it achieved its aim.

I'm no Europhile and believe that people should be free to trade with whoever they want and I think that trade agreements are little more than a protection racket. OK, so it's a little more nuanced than that because I also accept that it is the legitimate role of the state to regulate in order to protect the citizen, so I actually welcome a lot of regulation that has come out of Europe that protects the consumer, employee, and environment, and I think if the UK is going to regulate to protect its citizens then it also has an obligation only to allow imports that have been produced under equivalent regulation because if it's objectionable for example to allow UK manufacturers to employ child labour or pollute the rivers then it's hardly acceptable to out-source those objectionable practices or allow foreign manufacturers the commercial advantage of manufacturing in an unregulated regime and then selling into a regulated one, but I don't agree that there is any need for an EU administration because I don't accept that there is anything that needs administering centrally. It would of course be useful if states were to standardize regulations so that products manufactured in one state could be shown to be compliant with the regulatory requirements of another state so as to ease internation trade, but that doesn't require any super-state administration, it just requires that states cooperate to draft international standards which all states are then free to mandate or not as they please.

So like I say, I'm no Europhile, but UKIP poisoned the argument by making it about xenophobia, so whereas I'd have been happy to support a political movement that genuinely wanted to create a more just and equitable world that put the welfare and happiness of people at the centre of its politics, UKIP had nothing to offer and positively scorned my hopes for the world.

So yes, we're coming out of Europe, but I think there was an infinitely better way to win that argument, one based on international cooperation that could lead to greater peace and justice in the world. What UKIP have done in playing on people's fears and prejudices is make the world a more hateful, more intolerant place.

Hear, hear.

And I know for a fact that unicorns live in greenham and a bunch of leprechauns ride them to work at the rainbow factory. Wake up, start to live in the real world not planet corbyn.

There's no magic in the last two paragraphs. They are spot on.

Well 'talking' certainly worked for Stockholm today! Congratulations.

Lack of talking and military action didn't do much good for the Syrians either.

Depends on which side!

There's a time for talking and a time for the big stick! Boo ya!

Which ofcourse can change.

Although I wonder what the civilian death score is between Saudi v Assad v USA?

Time tu dust off them missiles boys! Yee har!

...and then from the safety of the suburbs wring hands when Europe's capitals pay the price.

That's pretty much been it ever since the USA and its allies first invaded Iraq, and certainly since it toppled the regieme leaving 1Million dead and destabilised the region, provoking the creation of IS. In fact there's barely been a time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire when the west hasn't been playing off one middle east faction against another to manipulate the region for our own ends, and those pigeons are coming home to roost.

Notice it didn't stop tony Blair (Labour) and his cronies from taking us into the very same conflict with made up justification cos he thought it would make a good chapter in his memoirs!

If it read like I was obfuscating that fact then I apologise, that wasn't my intention. The invasion of Iraq under the fabricated pretext of WMD was a horrendous thing and the misery of that decision will be working itself out for the rest of the century. That was a decision made by a Labour government under Tony Blair and people should indeed be reminded of that.

Thank you for the clarification.

Why would someone use WMD, when they knew full well what the response would be. They're either mad or claim false flag in order to blame someone else.

I would say WMD are 'usually' a last resort, so why would Assad use them when he is gaining ground?

Maybe because trump had said he wanted nothing to do with the syrian conflict and Putin back them in anything they do so, the syrian regime thought they could get away with it and it met some local targeted aim in that location. Trump ordering that missile barrage was actually very out of character if you look at his previous stance.

Hope you preppers are ready for ww3. Most US Billionaires are already residing in New Zealand... Its coming....

And now the end is near... And we have reached the final curtain. Lead could be a good commodity buy.

The UK courts are reported in the Grauniad as saying the the UK head of state has an implied immunity from prosecution for war crimes but I don't understand that reasoning. I would like to see Blair and Straw prosecuted and let the court settle the question.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/a...r-over-iraq-war

I'd suggest the last paragraph in the report has it 'everyone should welcome this case'. It's not over and the Court has yet to decide. It's only the Government law officer that is claiming 'implied immunity', and in words used in another establishment cover up case back in the 1960's 'well, he would, wouldn't he'. The judge in that one was very keen on a saying 'no one us above the law', quite right, not even Tony Blair. Will be interesting to see the outcome, but let's just hope the understated 'reforms' Blair and his old puppet master made to our old legal system haven't mortally wounded our constitution.

There is a much bigger issue in this case, which is the offence on which it is founded. Tony Blair can't simply be prosecuted for 'war crimes' or even aggression, the breach must be specified. From what I can see, this aspect is where the deficiencies are. Sadly, that means the action could well be lost but that other wholly undesirable decisions collected along the way will get set in concrete.

I must admit, I've got serious doubts about the plantiff's legal team in this case. Perhaps I'm being too old fashioned, but they are coming across as being rather more interested in the commercial publicity as opposed to the legalities. It would seem to me, that this action would have been far better coming from another nation ideally via the UN.

Well, that was a surprise! Jeremy has his work cut out for him, but if he can strike a deal with lib Dems (who, let's face it will share anyone's bed) he may be able to pull this one off. Just need ukip to shut up now.

Going to be interesting this one. The old regime still haven't quite understood that the 'jam's' are the very ones who like Jeremy Corbyn.

Trouble is, rather too many pundits confuse charisma with leadership. Let's face it, Clement Atlee would have got nowhere today and look how well the Tory wannabes fared immediately post Thatcher.

Time to forget Esso Blue style opposition.