Our Tickle 50

Little punning there, sorry, serious subject. Well, to people that understand it!

The people of this country, under a law of 2015 voted to request and require their democratically elected government to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union. It is amazing, after years of propaganda, threats of doom from all and sundry, apathy and the general fear that maybe we should cling to nurse for fear of something worse, that we voted to leave.

But we did. And Jeremy Corbyn thinks that is the reason his party should not think it knows better, rather carry out the will of the people. Article 50 of course is an article of an EU treaty. It is the formal way to inform them we are leaving. Some of his MP's think their view more important than the public's though.

But wanting to leave is only something that stupid people and fascists voted for, according to the liberals. Now these are interesting people, because they call themselves liberals, which suggests freedom and tolerance (as it is intended to).

The manifestation though is that they are deeply and often violently intolerant of people having different ideas from them. So, a narrow, dictatorial society is what they are after, as long as the power rests with them.

This is OK though, because they are cleverer than you (clearly, you voted to leave the EU) and are lovely people who would never do you any harm (unless you disagreed with them).

I was trying to think if any country has ever been run on these principles and how it went. Nearest I can come up with is Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, oh and the very similarly structured EU.

Judges Cogitation Over

It was a nice delay wasn't it? The judges 'deciding' on the powers of government. I mean, you know they really thought about it. In a democracy, should the people be allowed a say? Once given a mandate, should a government be allowed to carry it out if they haven't checked with 8 judges first?

Well, no apparently. The delay though was a con. How long do you suppose a group of judges, who are mainly either in the pay of or associated with organisations reliant on the EU, would take to decide that they should interfere in the political process of leaving the EU?

Add to that the fact that judges have for quite a while now felt that they are the pinnacle of decision making in the UK, not parliament. So they could have said 'no' within seconds, but you know, propriety and image requires a delay. Let the idiots think you are serious people.

They should be completely ignored and the government continue with their legal obligation, under an Act of Parliament to withdraw the UK from the EU. Parliament can have all kinds of input in the workings of the process, but informing the EU formally of our intention, Article 50, needs to be triggered immediately. It is only fair on the 27 other member states.

Oh Go On David, Tell The Truth

David Cameron has found himself painted into a corner. First he didn't want any discussion of the EU whatsoever. It is a non-democratic institution along Marxist lines, who is going to vote for that (while we are allowed)?

Then he had to give a 'cast iron' guarantee that he would give us a referendum, which turned out to be anything but cast iron and failed to materialise. Then, with the eurozone going breasts uppermost, he had to actually promise one, far in the future and only if we elect him again and then finally to have a law requiring it. He could do without this you know.

David Cameron loves the EU. He couldn't explain why to you, as it only causes harm to little people, like you. He wants to be a good EU apparatchik and ignore the people, but we still have some semblance of democracy, so he has to appear to care what you think. Consequently, he tells you he is going to renegotiate our terms of membership with that nasty EU Commission.

And if they won't play ball, we will have an in/out referendum. But they will give in, he assures us. Funny that. There is only one mechanism by which he can possibly negotiate with his EU masters and that is by invoking Article 50. But he hasn't mentioned that, ever.

He hasn't told you about it, he hasn't explained what it is, or threatened 'Europe' with it. He just hasn't brought it up at all. Yet it is the negotiating tool. Why hasn't he mentioned it? Do you think he might be lying again? That he has no intention of negotiating anything, nor leaving the EU under any circumstances? Shirley Knot.