The Case Against a Second Referendum....

...is simply that if the public vote to leave again, the MPs will simply ignore it again. Or worse still conspire against it. Again. They are only hoping for a different outcome (remain). But then can we not have the excuse that it's now tied 1-1 for Leave and Remain, so now we go for a tie-breaker referendum? Of course not, as soon as they win, then everything clams shut again.

There has to be an election. Let each MP stand on a truthful pro or anti Brexit stance. No hiding behind party lines this time. Each MP must state where exactly they stand on Brexit on an individual basis.

We had the liars last time get in on a false premise and then swap parties, vote against their own party and effectively work in opposition to the stand that got them into power.

Clear house and start again, hopefully with a bucketful more integrity than the current shower.

Class War 2: Democracy for the Rich Only.

It seems that democracy is under a very real threat.

The Scottish court result is just one of a number of lawsuits brought by monied litigants against the Government.

Were the Government has failed in their legal duty and a judicial review is called and examines the evidence, then that's a fair use of the litigant's money.

But to use a court in a different legal system (in this case Scottish) with different rules just to return a spiteful judgement, is to me reprehensible. If you're hurt by losing, fuck off and cry into your lemonade (stay away from beer, you're not grown up enough top handle it).

But what we're seeing is a massive assault on democracy.

I'd be minded to allow Parliament it's objections to the government's position, if MPs had stayed in their original positions from the last election. But a significant number of MPs have taken a more fluid attitude to their accountability to voters. The majority that sat on a pro-Brexit ticket have defected to other parties or set up as independents, without triggering a local election and getting a mandate from their electorate on that new position. Instead they jumped ship, changed sides or parties (in some cases several times) willy-nilly and then claim a democratic mandate and accuse the government of suspending democracy… incredulous.

As far as I can see, we have a democratically elected government attempting to enact a democratically voted for decision by the people is under attack from wealthy litigants and rebellious undemocratic MPs.

The only way to solve this is a general election: let those that switched sides stand on their new found principles and see if their new position garners enough support to go back to Parliament and fight for their new position.

I personally doubt many, if any of those MPS would be returned in an election, hence their cowardly refusal to grant the government leave to hold one.

So where do we go from here? No idea other than the Boris non-payment/no-deal scenario when he meets the EU negotiating team.

Other than that, the only solution would be for MPs to start dying in mysterious or not-so-mysterious circumstances, so local bye-elections can be triggered and new hopefully pro-Brexit candidates elected to Parliament to replace the rebels.

Prorogation is deemed unlawful in Scotland

Not sure how it affects the British Parliament in Westminster, but a Scottish court has declared the prorogation of Parliament unlawful.

They say that are convinced the prorogation was for the "improper purpose of stymying Parliament".

Completely ignoring the fact that Prorogation happens every year at conference time anyway and the extension to allow the Queen's speech is a mere four days. I bet her Madg' isn't impressed one of her courts is playing fast and loose with the constitution, the government's intent and context.

But then again, Scottish courts have a habit of ignoring context and making up the intentions of defendants. Re: Count Dankula.

Interesting: does that mean all the Scottish MPs can return to Parliament to sit and twiddle their thumbs while the English MPs stay away as commanded by the Queen?

This really is the mother of all constitutional fuckups.

So really, what this all says is: you can vote for anyone you want, but if someone has the money to pay the court costs, they can stymy any government voted into power and even worse reverse the democratically voted intention of the population.

Okay:

I want the details of where I can find a bunch of guys that know how to operate challenger tanks and where the ammo is stored. They also need to know where the small arms are and their ammo. I want a people's army. No fucking about, I want heavy armour and I want a properly equipped Army.

We may need to go to war with these cunts. A proper, fighting war....

Indeed we need tanks on the Westminster lawn.

Democracy only works with the consent of the losers. They have refused to consent. It seems now is the time to enforce democracy.