Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

This is the ultimate goal of the Socialists. To destroy nations, to destroy the family unit, To control public opinion through social media and the MSM, to inhibit popular opinion (have you heard of the new buzzword popularism?). You know the kind of popularism they don't like and therefore attribute the word fascism to it and compare them to the Nazi Party?

Strange! I thought this was the goal of the capitalists and the new world order

the mandate in 2016 was very clear. the terms of the vote were made very clear by Cameron himself and within the pamphlet that was sent to every household which on the last page explained that BREXIT meant leaving the common market.

I always disagreed it was clear. Leaving the EU could be with a deal or no deal. Therefore the referendum question put 2 options in one. Furthermore they assured the people the deal on leaving would be the easiest thing to do. If I were a British I would also vote for leaving under these conditions.

[Paphitis]

This is the ultimate goal of the Socialists. To destroy nations, to destroy the family unit, To control public opinion through social media and the MSM, to inhibit popular opinion (have you heard of the new buzzword popularism?). You know the kind of popularism they don't like and therefore attribute the word fascism to it and compare them to the Nazi Party?

Strange! I thought this was the goal of the capitalists and the new world order

the mandate in 2016 was very clear. the terms of the vote were made very clear by Cameron himself and within the pamphlet that was sent to every household which on the last page explained that BREXIT meant leaving the common market.

I always disagreed it was clear. Leaving the EU could be with a deal or no deal. Therefore the referendum question put 2 options in one. Furthermore they assured the people the deal on leaving would be the easiest thing to do. If I were a British I would also vote for leaving under these conditions.

No. The Capitalists don't have much to do with this at all, and already have a lot of power. MONEY = power, and they have a lot of that.

this is about usurping that power to an extent but it goes much deeper than that. It's really about changing everything and about control.

the capitalists only want to control when and how we spend money and they use scientific market forces, supply and demand to turn a profit.

This is about Globalism and reducing the Nation State to nothing, or destroying the homogeneous states such as Greece, and Japan. It's about controlling the way we all think and the way you vote for the things the elites approve of.

the elites are not so much the capitalists like Shell, Apple and Coca Cola, but its the woke Hollywood A Listers, Royals, and other socially significant people around the globe who virtue signal.

Global Warming is not something Shell would promote so they have little to do with this movement that is trying to shut them down because of the so called "climate emergency"

It's not just about destroying the nation, but also about destroying the family and old traditional virtues and values so that people lose their support network and become isolated, lonely and helpless. Therefore also weak and dependent on the elites who pretend to love us and will come along and save the day.

This they hope will also bring down the capitalists.

In a referendum you can only have 2 options. For instance:

The referendum in Australia: Should Australia be a Republic?

Choices: 1YES or 2 NO

You can't have a Yes and describe a number of other options because that dilutes the Yes voters into different categories and you construct a vote which is literally splitting the Republicans and making it impossible for the Republicans to win.

[Pyrpolizer]

This is the ultimate goal of the Socialists. To destroy nations, to destroy the family unit, To control public opinion through social media and the MSM, to inhibit popular opinion (have you heard of the new buzzword popularism?). You know the kind of popularism they don't like and therefore attribute the word fascism to it and compare them to the Nazi Party?

Strange! I thought this was the goal of the capitalists and the new world order

the mandate in 2016 was very clear. the terms of the vote were made very clear by Cameron himself and within the pamphlet that was sent to every household which on the last page explained that BREXIT meant leaving the common market.

I always disagreed it was clear. Leaving the EU could be with a deal or no deal. Therefore the referendum question put 2 options in one. Furthermore they assured the people the deal on leaving would be the easiest thing to do. If I were a British I would also vote for leaving under these conditions.

No. The Capitalists don't have much to do with this at all, and already have a lot of power. MONEY = power, and they have a lot of that.

this is about usurping that power to an extent but it goes much deeper than that. It's really about changing everything and about control.

the capitalists only want to control when and how we spend money and they use scientific market forces, supply and demand to turn a profit.

This is about Globalism and reducing the Nation State to nothing, or destroying the homogeneous states such as Greece, and Japan. It's about controlling the way we all think and the way you vote for the things the elites approve of.

the elites are not so much the capitalists like Shell, Apple and Coca Cola, but its the woke Hollywood A Listers, Royals, and other socially significant people around the globe who virtue signal.

Global Warming is not something Shell would promote so they have little to do with this movement that is trying to shut them down because of the so called "climate emergency"

It's not just about destroying the nation, but also about destroying the family and old traditional virtues and values so that people lose their support network and become isolated, lonely and helpless. Therefore also weak and dependent on the elites who pretend to love us and will come along and save the day.

This they hope will also bring down the capitalists.

In a referendum you can only have 2 options. For instance:

The referendum in Australia: Should Australia be a Republic?

Choices: 1YES or 2 NO

You can't have a Yes and describe a number of other options because that dilutes the Yes voters into different categories and you construct a vote which is literally splitting the Republicans and making it impossible for the Republicans to win.

Your example also demonstrates a referendum where voting YES puts multiple options in one.
Therefore if there's a major split among the people on the final 2 models you end up with, you should do a 2nd referendum and let the people decide.

[Paphitis]

This is the ultimate goal of the Socialists. To destroy nations, to destroy the family unit, To control public opinion through social media and the MSM, to inhibit popular opinion (have you heard of the new buzzword popularism?). You know the kind of popularism they don't like and therefore attribute the word fascism to it and compare them to the Nazi Party?

Strange! I thought this was the goal of the capitalists and the new world order

the mandate in 2016 was very clear. the terms of the vote were made very clear by Cameron himself and within the pamphlet that was sent to every household which on the last page explained that BREXIT meant leaving the common market.

I always disagreed it was clear. Leaving the EU could be with a deal or no deal. Therefore the referendum question put 2 options in one. Furthermore they assured the people the deal on leaving would be the easiest thing to do. If I were a British I would also vote for leaving under these conditions.

No. The Capitalists don't have much to do with this at all, and already have a lot of power. MONEY = power, and they have a lot of that.

this is about usurping that power to an extent but it goes much deeper than that. It's really about changing everything and about control.

the capitalists only want to control when and how we spend money and they use scientific market forces, supply and demand to turn a profit.

This is about Globalism and reducing the Nation State to nothing, or destroying the homogeneous states such as Greece, and Japan. It's about controlling the way we all think and the way you vote for the things the elites approve of.

the elites are not so much the capitalists like Shell, Apple and Coca Cola, but its the woke Hollywood A Listers, Royals, and other socially significant people around the globe who virtue signal.

Global Warming is not something Shell would promote so they have little to do with this movement that is trying to shut them down because of the so called "climate emergency"

It's not just about destroying the nation, but also about destroying the family and old traditional virtues and values so that people lose their support network and become isolated, lonely and helpless. Therefore also weak and dependent on the elites who pretend to love us and will come along and save the day.

This they hope will also bring down the capitalists.

In a referendum you can only have 2 options. For instance:

The referendum in Australia: Should Australia be a Republic?

Choices: 1YES or 2 NO

You can't have a Yes and describe a number of other options because that dilutes the Yes voters into different categories and you construct a vote which is literally splitting the Republicans and making it impossible for the Republicans to win.

Your example also demonstrates a referendum where voting YES puts multiple options in one.
Therefore if there's a major split among the people on the final 2 models you end up with, you should do a 2nd referendum and let the people decide.

There can only be one option. That is the way it is suppose to be.

the minute you differentiate between the different types of Republic, the Republicans have lost. How? I will explain.

If there were multiple options for a republic, let's say the following:
1) USA style Republic,
2) French Style republic,
3) Greek Styles Republic,
4) you can add any other country of your choosing. etc etc

The Republican Vote has lost hands down.

Because there are republicans like myself who would vote for the Monarchy just to avoid a USA style Republic.

Don't get me wrong, the USA in my opinion is a model democracy. Everything from the way it was founded to the core of its constitution is a level of democracy that is unmatched by any country. But who in their right mind would want to endure the debauchery of a long and drawn out USA style presidential election? Not me. And many Republicans won't go for it.

People will not go for the French model just because its French and Aussies are a bit like that.

Greek model - well the Monarchists will say Greece isn't a good model because they are a dysfunctional and failed state and they had a fascist dictatorship. Plus Aussies associate Greece with things like Yiros and Souvlaki but not necessary look at Greece as a model of running Australia.

The Monarchists will therefore win with 90% of all the votes. I too would vote for the Monarchy because the system we have has proven to be a workable system whilst the USA system is chaotic, the French System is French and the Greeks don't look like they even function.

A referendum like that would be the Monarchists dream.

That is what I would call a rigged referendum that isn't fair.

Realistically, what the Republicans had in mind when voting for a Republic was just some cosmetic changes. In other words, maintaining the British Westminster System and just replacing a couple of the ceremonial entities with a non elected President that is appointed to conduct ceremonial duties in place of the Monarch. This could not be mentioned because the minute you mention it the Monarchist campaigners will accuse the Republicans of wanting a dictatorship (scare campaign). The only other alternative to that is the politicized USA campaign for POTUS, which is again something most republicans in Australia would not want. So the Republican Campaign is 1000% doomed to fail with no hope in hell.

You can't complicate referendums. if you complicate it, then the odds are stacked in favor of no change.

You also have no clue on how the Anglos think and operate.

[Paphitis]

You got to be very careful how you word referendums.

You can actually rig it to milk a particular result.

Nigel Farage has already said that he won't even get out of bed to vote in such a scenario.

[Paphitis]

[cyprusgrump]

Just read this comment elsewhere...

Brexit isn’t a modern phenomenon: you’d have got pretty much the same result if you’d asked the question of the British electorate any time from the beginning of the EU.

If there had been a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in the UK, it never would have been ratified (it was barely ratified in Parliament and John Major’s tricks to get it through were as dirty as anything Boris has done) and the UK would never have been in the EU to start with. That’s why there wasn’t one.

In truth the 2016 referendum was just that referendum we should have had in 1992, delayed.

So no, Brexit is nothing to do with Trump, Salvini, the growth of the internet, and so on and so forth. Those are modern phenomena of the inter-net age, but Brexit happened because over twenty-five years ago, Parliament fundamentally altered the UK’s constitution without seeking the electorate’s consent and against its will. That’s not a sustainable situation, and the bubble had to burst sometime.

Perfect summary IMHO...

Clicky...

[Kikapu]

The problem is, the "leave vote" is a two headed monster.

1. leave with a deal
2. leave without a deal

So who chooses which one and why?

Surely the people should choose which one, just as they chose to leave or remain.

If the remain vote had won, then it would have been just one headed monster, which would have been "status quo". Easy!

Therefore, at this point in time, majority of parliaments and MPs time is spent on "deal or no deal" question, and I do not mean the TV games show.

So the question stands, who is to decide which deal we get Brexit if not the people, since the parliament has failed three times to do it.

[cyprusgrump]

The problem is, the "leave vote" is a two headed monster.

1. leave with a deal
2. leave without a deal

So who chooses which one and why?

Surely the people should choose which one, just as they chose to leave or remain.

If the remain vote had won, then it would have been just one headed monster, which would have been "status quo". Easy!

Therefore, at this point in time, majority of parliaments and MPs time is spent on "deal or no deal" question, and I do not mean the TV games show.

So the question stands, who is to decide which deal we get Brexit if not the people, since the parliament has failed three times to do it.

You Remainers are trying to re-write history.

Politicians on both sides of the argument pointed out that a 'Leave' vote meant leaving all of the institutions of the EU including the Single Market, ECJ, Customs Union, etc.

Nobody knows exactly which bit of the campaign on either side persuaded people to vote as they did, but ultimately it was a binary vote and the people voted Leave overwhelmingly...

Sure, a FTA would have been nice and most Leave voters believe as I do that if a different approach to negotiations had been taken the EU would have offered it...

But we voted Leave and we have to Leave.

Subsequent to Leaving we can (and will I'm sure) negotiate 'deals' with the EU as we have already done in so many areas (flights for one).

You could turn it round and say what sort of Remain did people vote for...?

I'm guessing that many voted for the status quo... But it is clear that the EU is evolving on a daily basis and many are calling for a 'European Empire, an 'European Army', etc. etc.

So it is clear that 'The Remain vote' is also a two headed monster...

1) Remain with the status quo
2) Remain with the EU evolving into a superstate with its own army and Brussels taking ever greater control and being forced into the €uro and Schengen, etc,

See how it works...?

[CBBB]

The problem is, the "leave vote" is a two headed monster.

1. leave with a deal
2. leave without a deal

So who chooses which one and why?

Surely the people should choose which one, just as they chose to leave or remain.

If the remain vote had won, then it would have been just one headed monster, which would have been "status quo". Easy!

Therefore, at this point in time, majority of parliaments and MPs time is spent on "deal or no deal" question, and I do not mean the TV games show.

So the question stands, who is to decide which deal we get Brexit if not the people, since the parliament has failed three times to do it.

You Remainers are trying to re-write history.

Politicians on both sides of the argument pointed out that a 'Leave' vote meant leaving all of the institutions of the EU including the Single Market, ECJ, Customs Union, etc.

Nobody knows exactly which bit of the campaign on either side persuaded people to vote as they did, but ultimately it was a binary vote and the people voted Leave overwhelmingly...

Sure, a FTA would have been nice and most Leave voters believe as I do that if a different approach to negotiations had been taken the EU would have offered it...

But we voted Leave and we have to Leave.

Subsequent to Leaving we can (and will I'm sure) negotiate 'deals' with the EU as we have already done in so many areas (flights for one).

You could turn it round and say what sort of Remain did people vote for...?

I'm guessing that many voted for the status quo... But it is clear that the EU is evolving on a daily basis and many are calling for a 'European Empire, an 'European Army', etc. etc.

So it is clear that 'The Remain vote' is also a two headed monster...

1) Remain with the status quo
2) Remain with the EU evolving into a superstate with its own army and Brussels taking ever greater control and being forced into the €uro and Schengen, etc,

See how it works...?

I've already started brushing up on my German and French!