Nigel Farage Exposes Extinction Rebellion’s Plan to Topple Representative Democracy

Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, source Breitbart
Donald Trump and Brexit Party Leader Nigel Farage, source Breitbart. Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage was the only British leader to wholeheartedly support the Trump campaign. Farage travelled to the USA and spoke on Trump’s behalf during the election campaign.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Extinction Rebellion’s Sarah Lunnon, representative democracy, at least on climate policy and economic management, should be subordinated to citizens assemblies composed of people who are already running citizens assemblies, and people nominated by organisations invited to participate.

Farage: Do you understand the argument, if I was a London taxi driver, right, I would say there are people being paid to sit in the street to stop me earning a living. Do you understand how upset some people in central London are about your behaviour?

Sarah: Yes of course, and the whole philosophy of Extinction Rebellion is to disrupt, that is what we set out to do. There is no easy way of saying that, and every time I say that I am sitting in studios and I say to somebody, I am setting out to disrupt your every day life. I feel very, very uncomfortable about it. And it’s accepting that it has been the lack of action for over 30 years from our governments that has meant we have had to take this action to raise this action to raise these issues. If we stand on the streets and hand out leaflets, nobody takes any notice of us, the politicians don’t take any notice of us, and interestingly Nigel, the only reason I am on this programme today is because we’ve camped out on the streets of London for the last week.

Farage: To some extent that is true. But if you really want to move this on, I am somebody who 26-7 years ago, I took the view that our relationship with the European Union was heading in the wrong direction, I wanted to do something about it, I found at the time there were no more than a couple of dozen people in Westminster who were even interest frankly in the issue, and so I had a point of view that was very, very very polar opposite to where political debate in Britain was, and so what did I do, I went out and campaigned around the country, helped formed political parties, gained elected representation, and managed to succeed. I don’t think I’ve ever broken the law in doing what I am doing, so isn’t the real argument here that we are a peaceful democratic society, and that what you have brought to London is frankly anarchy in the last week.

Sarah: So, that’s a really good question. And you, and the idea that we can address the ecological emergency via our democratic system has been one that has been taken forward over the last 30 years. We’ve tried very very hard, like through the green party, through motions, through campaigning, through marching, we’ve tried very very hard to do that, to raise it up the agenda, and to be honest, we haven’t done it as well as you raised the issue of our relationship with Europe,

Farage. Maybe your problem Sarah, maybe your problem is you are making claims which are frankly hysterical. Your website says that there is the possibility of billions dying. That is just not credible, is it?

Farage: … What is it you actually want the government to do? Would people be able to go to Marbeya on their holidays? Would they be able to to own a 4×4 motor car? What is it you actually think government needs to do? Government here has actually already made a commitment which is impossible to keep, by saying that by 2050 we shall be zero net neutral on carbon, but you want this to happen by 2025. To do that we would effectively have to close down the whole of British industry, wouldn’t we?

Sarah: We should have to totally refocus British industry, it would be a mobilisation like we did in 1939

Farage: Hang on, hang on, it’s the opposite, isn’t it, in 1939 we built factories to produce munitions for war…

Sarah: Actually we refocussed our factories, Nigel is what we did. We took the infrastructure that was in place, and refocussed it towards the war effort, and also what we also did was we rationed what was available, and brought the country together, we unified the country and we mobilised to fight a common enemy. Unfortunately the enemy that we’re looking at at the moment, we can’t see it. But it is there, and that is why we are calling for zero carbon by 2025, to defend and protect.

Farage.: So steel would go, chemical production would go, refining would go, what would we have left?

Sarah: So the choices that we’re looking at are really, really grim. And that’s why Extinction Rebellion is asking for a citizens assembly, so the people come together to decide how and what the change that is required looks like. Rather than politicians sitting in Westminster and saying you have to do this, and need to do that, we bring together a…

Farage: How?

Sarah: Well we do it in various ways, we already do it for juries for example, and in the past juries decided life or death of people, we bring it together using um…

Farage: Who? Who brings them together?

Sarah: Well there are a number of people who are already running citizen’s assemblies, there are external bodies, you ask a body of people to set up the citizens assembly, you bring together people from across the united kingdom so it represents people in terms of their age, in terms of their social status, in terms of their wealth, you get a cross section of people, you explain to them, you educate, and then you ask their opinion of how to move forward. Its what the Irish did in terms of their abortion question, which was very controversial…

Farage: And then what do you do, do you put this to a referendum?

Sarah: You implement it through government. You have to keep the structures of the state in place

Farage: An appointed citizen’s assembly would tell government what to do?

Sarah: They would lead and advise government, and it then becomes very difficult for government to say we are not going to do this, because it has been requested by the people, by representatives of the people.

Farage: I have to say I am very skeptical about that.

British politician Nigel Farage, a friend and supporter of President Trump, is living proof that the democratic process works if your cause is legitimate.

Over 30 years Farage has overcome every obstacle, and built what is hopefully irresistible public support for Britain to leave the European Union.

By contrast Extinction Rebellion’s Sarah Lunnon has experienced 30 years of utter frustration. People simply don’t care about her cause. She is so fed up with people not listening to her she wants to change the rules of the game, to force people to listen.

Sarah demands elected government representatives subordinate their decision making to self appointed citizens assemblies, at least when it comes to climate change and economic policy.

If I have understood correctly, Sarah intends that Citizen’s Assembly members would be composed of people who already call their group a citizens’ assembly, and representatives nominated by organizations invited to participate.

Citizens assemblies would advise on the “grim” task of imposing wartime levels of rationing, and would decide what economic activity would be allowed to continue, to fulfil their paramount goal of drastically cutting Britain’s carbon footprint to address the climate crisis by 2025.

Sarah compares citizens assemblies to court jurors, who once decided on whether people could live or die, before Britain abolished the death penalty.

Extinction Rebellion’s intention is that “advice” provided by the assemblies would be very difficult for elected politicians to refuse.

Breaking news: the British Conservative Government has just agreed Extinction Rebellion’s demand to form a climate change citizen’s assembly. 30,000 invitations will be sent at random, then 110 of the respondents will be chosen to sit on the assembly. The budget allocated for the assembly is £520,000. £120,000 will be provided by the government, the rest will provided by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and the European Climate Foundation.

Advertisements

238 thoughts on “Nigel Farage Exposes Extinction Rebellion’s Plan to Topple Representative Democracy

      • Capitulating to morons never turns out well. The implausible, hysterical claims of Extinction Rebellion is primary evidence of their stupidity. No one should take them seriously. The proper response is to laugh them out of the room. They’re ridiculous.

        • Yup, it will break because the government makes stupid, useless changes in response to an hysterical, threatening, group of agitators. Those folks are mostly supported, behind the curtain so to speak, by overly wealthy “charity” foundations, socialist billionaires, and many naifs in the media.

          Nigel- if you read this great job getting her to layout just how off the wall and ridiculous their proposals are.

      • Eric Worrall

        Our government can’t run the simplest of electoral campaigns, a referendum, to withdraw from the EU without screwing it up. Of course they are going to encourage these nutters!

        • Exactly, the Gov’t does not list XR, despite calls for illegality, on any terrorist action list. In other words openly supports them.

          • You are absolutely right. They had a meeting with Environment Minister Michael Gove earlier this year, https://rebellion.earth/2019/04/30/extinction-rebellion-today-8-45am-john-mcdonnell-11-30am-michael-gove-4-30pm-xr-families-the-treasury/.

            Labour MP Ed Miliband, he who gave the UK the Climate Change Act, is hand in glove with XR. The Institute for Public Policy Research is a Labour Think Tank and in April this year they launched the IPPR Environmental Justice Commission. Miliband and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party, are co-founders. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/30/green-new-deal-climate-change-social-transformation

            They have a group of “Commissioners”:
            https://www.ippr.org/environment-and-justice/commissioners/

            One of their “commissioners” is Farhana Yamin, Associate Fellow at Chatham House, founder Track 0 and Extinction Rebellion activist. “An internationally recognised environmental lawyer, climate change and development policy expert, Farhana has advised leaders and countries for 20 years.

            In addition to founding Track 0, https://track0.org/ (includes European Climate Foundation as one of its supporters, also Rockefeller Foundation, Prince of Wales Corporate Leaders Group and other well known leftist groups and funders, https://track0.org/about/partners-supporters/ ), she is an associate fellow at Chatham House, a visiting professor at University College London and a member of the Global Agenda Council on Climate Change at the World Economic Forum, (the Davos crowd).

            The Board of Trustees for the WEF includes Al Gore, Mark Carney of the Bank of England and Christine Lagarde, now head of the European Central Bank. . https://www.weforum.org/about/leadership-and-governance

            Yamin is lead author for three assessment reports for the IPCC on adaptation and mitigation issues. [She is not a scientist but contributes to reports that are described as by “the world’s top scientists”]. She continues to provide legal, strategy and policy advice to NGOs, foundations and developing nations on international climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC.”

            XR co-founder and Corbyn supporter Gail Bradbrooke has a long association with them: https://www.ippr.org/files/uploadedFiles/research/projects/Digital_Society/gail_bradbrook_speech.pdf.
            There is some background on Bradbrooke here, https://nowhere.news/index.php/author/un-extinction/
            https://nowhere.news/index.php/2019/04/01/dr-gail-marie-bradbrook-compassionate-revolutionary-for-hire/
            “Gail epitomises the new generation of ‘professional activists’, having positioned herself at the epicentre of the revolving door between big business, government bureaucracies and establishment-friendly NGOs, campaign groups and charitable organisations, all of which increasingly function as the public face of international corporate and financial power. The fact of the matter is, Dr Gail Bradbrook is one of the UK State’s go-to ‘experts’, chosen to give (the right kind of) evidence at various parliamentary hearings and committees.

            Before she was engaged in (pre-approved) rabble rousing, or pretending to glue herself to the Department of Energy Headquarters, Gail was more likely to be found attending meetings held under Chatham House Rules, sat alongside people like Anthony Walker, former communications officer for the American Chamber of Commerce, who previously worked for the European Commission’s PR firm Rowland Company (owned by Saatchi & Saatchi).”

            https://nowhere.news/index.php/2019/04/06/political-charities-and-the-brave-new-world-of-professional-activism/

            It is clear that XR is no spontaneous arising of concerned citizens, although many of those who support them will believe their message. XR’s costumes, their banners, their material, are all professionally produced and they are being funded to lobby government, which in turn will say it is responding to public concerns, when they introduce ever more draconian energy control measures, as with Theresa May’s orders that tightened the noose around the economy with more and more ambitious “carbon reduction.”

            There will be much gesture politics next year when the UN circus comes to Glasgow, with thousands of delegates flying in from around the world, telling the rest of us not to fly.

            Unfortunately, the UK is unlikely to pull out at the last minute and re-direct delegates to the opposite hemisphere.

          • dennisambler

            And the UK the first country in the world to roll over for extinction rebellion and announce they will organise a citizens assembly.

            Yet that same parliament couldn’t organise to have Britain leave a simple trading bloc.

            Our politicians are certifiably insane.

          • Suggest everyone re-read this – the extremists’ plan is the same for Canada, the USA, the UK, and … … a so-called socialist dictatorship – but really an absolute monarchy – King Justin on top, supported by a corrupt military, with lots of peasants to serve them.

            THE LIBERALS’ COVERT GREEN PLAN FOR CANADA – POVERTY AND DICTATORSHIP
            by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 1, 2019
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/01/the-liberals-covert-green-plan-for-canada-poverty-and-dictatorship/

            TRUDEAU’S ZERO-CARBON PLEDGE MEANS, EXCEPT FOR HIS ELITE:
            NO PRIVATE CARS OR TRUCKS; NO AIRPLANE FLIGHTS; NO MEAT.

            Proof: “CLIMATE CHANGE: BIG LIFESTYLE CHANGES ‘NEEDED TO CUT EMISSIONS’- DEFRA CHIEF SCIENTIST”, BBC News, August 29, 2019
            https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49499521

            Zero-carbon means huge changes for society. Prof Sir Ian Boyd, the government’s chief environment scientist, said the public had little idea of the scale of the challenge from Britain’s “Net Zero CO2” emissions target.

            “People must use less transport, eat less red meat and buy fewer clothes if the UK is to virtually halt greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government’s chief environment scientist has warned.

            Sir Ian Boyd has lifted the lid on the reality of the programme. We will all have to accept big lifestyle changes – travel less, eat less, consume less.

            But eventually some form of compulsion or rationing will be necessary, if climate targets are to be met.

            The Science and Technology Select Committee let the cat out of the bag last week, when they officially announced “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation”.
            https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49425402

    • If they did the same protest claiming that all blue-eyed people should be executed, where would they be? With no cogent argument behind their radical position, one they can clearly state, they fail form the beginning.

      As there is no cogent support for the idea that a trace gas can drive the climate, these people have absolutely no standing.

    • Boris Johnson simply cannot afford to be distracted by coming down hard on the rebellion at this point of time – or ignoring it. With all the Brexit kerfuffle going on, he simply has to placate the rebels for a while. His government’s contribution towards a conference is a cheap way of achieving peace on that front – for a while.

      • I remember when David Cameron was running for Prime Minister, I heard Conservative association members arguing that Cameron was really a sound Conservative, and all the pandering to the green left was just a ploy to beat Labour. Their argument was since the opponents use dirty tricks to win elections, the Conservatives have to use dirty tricks to stay in the game.

      • No I think that he and the conservatives believe in this and are competing to be the green party in this election. The right in the UK do not support climate realism if you write a letter to them about this then a green (civil servant) advisor will send a reply to you.

        • A decade ago things were very different. In 2005, during the leadership challenge, then leadership candidate David Cameron’s promotion of green policies upset a lot of traditional Conservatives, who saw such ideas as thinly veiled big state socialism. Some of Cameron’s supporters cleverly deflected this outrage by spreading the claim that Cameron’s green policy initiatives were all just a trick to convince swing voters to support the Conservatives.

        • I am in the UK these last three months at a university. In general, for perspective, I am an American libertarian. What I see all around me in the university setting, but also in reading daily papers, is that the intellectual class has taken on belief in imminent catastrophic climate change as uniformly as 18th century England believed in Christianity. It is public religion. Disagreement is scowled at as heresy. To be sure, there are sects within the green movement.

          Indeed, there are doctrinal disagreements about this or that detail, but the fundamental faith is powerful. It is said to see a land that brought liberal and rational thinking to the fore in the Age of Enlightenment to now succumb to fully to environmental religiosity. It is Orwell’s “groupthink” demonstrated.

          • As far as I can tell from this side of the Atlantic, there is no party with any hope of electing any MPs that has a manifesto in the least critical of Greenchurch pieties.

            That might change if the Brexit Party’s demand for replacing first-past-the-post with proportional representation could ever become reality, but obviously that pipe dream will never happen when both the Tories and Labour oppose it.

        • The conservatives are not to the right. David Cameron declared that he was leading a progressive party. That’s left wing. Gove is a Green supporter. They are all half witted career politicians who have no ability to think critically.

      • It wont work they the rebels will just come back next year or the year after that, if they are allowed to be elected again, and stop us leaving the EU by using the courts again.

      • This cannot end well!
        These people are already violent; what will happen when the government “listens” to their insane, impossible proposals and then does not implement them?

        diverse collection of people together to hear from experts and those with lived experience of the topic

        1. Just who will choose the “experts”?
        2. Who in the British Isles “have lived experience” (of Climate Change supposedly)? Some one who experienced one of those annual weather extremes that have happened since recorded time?

        In addition to the story of someone who has recently experienced weather, who is going to specifically describe to the “citizen assembly” exactly what their 24 hour living experience will be like in 2025 after the ER has implemented Sarah’s rationing and elimination of every day luxuries and conveniences?

        Let’s say they achieve the impossible and “refocus” British industry and the standard of living of all it’s citizens and get to 0 “carbon” by 2025; have any of their “experts” calculated the impact on global CO2 emissions, and more importantly global temperatures given the overwhelming planned emissions of India and China? (BTW those countries will gladly absorb all of that industry that has been “refocused” without batting an eye, thank you very much!) All this sacrifice in Britain for exactly what Global gain?

        If you have a small fire, you don’t extinguish it by feeding it kindling. That is a great way to burn the whole house down!

    • Looks like Parliament just admitted that they don’t represent the people and they need to be replaced by an unelected body: “They would lead and advise government, and it then becomes very difficult for government to say we are not going to do this, because it has been requested by the people, by representatives of the people.”
      Tricky thing that-relinquishing power.
      Why not just dissolve Parliament and walk away en masse?

      • “Looks like Parliament just admitted that they don’t represent the people”

        No, they did that months ago when they refused to leave the EU.

        To be fair, tens of thousands of randomly-chosen Britons would represent the people much better than Parliament ever has.

        • But there is a trick : it is not “tens of thousands of randomly selected people”, it is 300 of those that will be selected by the NGO…

        • Yes – but it ain’t gonna be random! Going by the usual Socialist way of handling the ‘sheeple’, the organisers (self-chosen, of course) will hold meetings that go on and on and on, until people who have to WORK the next day give up and go home. Then, once the ‘meeting’ consists of ‘the committed’ the organisers can get them to vote on stuff that any normal working person would abhor. After all, that’s the way the unions and the Labour party worked in the 60’s and 70’s!

      • Barbee:

        Some people wanting something does NOT mean Parliament has (or would) agree to it.

        Indeed, when the UK Government recently attempted to impose its version of Brexit on the UK then Parliament and the Supreme Court both successfully defended the mixture of desires for Brexit which the public displayed in the Brexit Referendum.

        The recently demonstrated reality that Parliament represents ALL the people – n.b. not only the desires of a few – applies to some interviewee on a radio programme as much as it applies to the government.

        And before any far-right nutters jump in to say Parliament’s refusal of the government’s imposition was against the referendum result they should note that even Nigel Farage says the government’s desired version of Brexit “is not Brexit”.

        Richard

      • Ed Zuiderwijk:

        HRH Elizabeth 2 wears the Crown at present. She is our Monarch and every member of Her Majesty’s armed forces swears allegiance to the Monarch.

        In the extremely unlikely event that the XR rabble were to usurp Parliamentary democracy then I think we can rely on HRH to fulfil her duty with the same quiet and unassuming efficiency as she has every day since she ascended to the throne in 1952.

        It is wise to not fall out with GCHQ, MI6, the SAS, and other agencies that answer to the Crown.

        Richard

        • Prince Charles prince harry prince Andrew are all confessed global warmests,prince harry recently attended a exclusive gathering of film stars and the such, were amongst other things they debated what they could do about global warming,the royaltys role in military circles is honory only ,they make no decisions in any military action.be they actively deplored in the lower ranks or not,the queen has never interfered in any military capacity because she cant, you or anyone else can not look to the royal household for any saving of the nation,

          The royals apart from the queen have made their intentions quite clear, in fact their probably financing XR in a indirect way.

          • B d Clark,

            HRH Queen Elizabeth 2 wears the Crown because she alone is the Monarch, and each and every member of UK armed forces swears allegiance to the Crown and only the Crown. That is reality here in the UK.

            What you think is “probably” is merely supposition from an anonymous internet pop-up.

            If you want to discuss what may occur in the event that Charles mounts the throne then you can, but present reality is as I have stated.

            Richard

          • B d Clark,

            I stated Constitutional reality and everybody can see I refuted all your relevant points.

            Now have your ‘last word’: I shall ignore it.

            Richard

          • You never replied to 90% of my rebuttal of your leading post, the queen is the leader of the armed forces in name only, unless there is out right war any military action is signed off by the prime minister even in the event of out right war the prime minister instructs the queen to declare war, she has no power to instigate war.

          • HRH Queen Elizabeth 2 wears the Crown because she alone is the Monarch

            For how much longer, Richard? She’s in her 90s. With the best will in the world, she doesn’t have many years left on the throne and then it’s Chuckles turn as being the lone Monarch.

          • John Endicott,

            Thank you for your sensible comment.

            As I said to B d Clark,
            “If you want to discuss what may occur in the event that Charles mounts the throne then you can, but present reality is as I have stated.”
            Unfortunately, Clark ignored that invitation preferring to display his ignorance instead.

            As you say, HRH is very old. Her Consort has retired and it has to be assumed that she will leave the throne before long. Charles will elevate to the throne immediately upon HRH vacating it.

            Charles is completely in the thrall of his neighbour, Jonathon Porrit, who is an evangelising environmentalist; see https://wiki2.org/en/Jonathon_Porritt
            Having spent his entire adult life awaiting the job for which he was trained, Charles needed a roll and Porritt’s environmentalism has provided it. We have been fortunate to have had so competent a monarch as HRH Elizabeth 2 for so long. The reality that she will be replaced by Charles must be a cause for concern.

            I have no fears that if necessary our Queen would act to stop our Parliamentary democracy being usurped but nobody can know how Charles will wear the Crown.

            Richard

          • you really are something arent you Richard you imagine the queen or who ever sits on the throne has power they have nothing they just endorse what there told to say .

          • B d Clark,

            Your ignorant and misinformed drivel is becoming annoying.

            The Prime Minister has a weekly meeting with the Monarch (usually on a Tuesday) and that would have ended long ago if the Monarch were as powerless as you pretend to yourself.

            The Monarch appoints the Prime Minister.
            This is usually a simple matter because the Monarch usually appoints the Leader of a majority of the Commons. However, in 1970 the Queen took more than a week to decide to appoint Harold Wilson as Prime Minister of a minority government following no political party having gained a majority in the General Election and Ted Heath having said he wanted to remain as Prime Minister.

            In effect, the Monarch has a practical veto on actions of Parliament.
            Each bill passed by both Houses of Parliament must obtain the Royal Assent if it is to become law. Prior to a Session of Parliament the government provides the Monarch with a draft speech which relates the actions the government wants to take in the Session. The Monarch assisted by her personally selected advisors then decides the matters she agrees in the speech and deletes the rest. Thus, she decides the Queen’s Speech. At the State Opening of Parliament she reads out the Queen’s Speech. The government then usually drops any plans that were in its draft but not in the Queen’s Speech because there is no point wasting Parliamentary time discussing things that will not obtain the Royal Assent. However, two Bills that did not obtain Royal Assent were passed by Parliament in the twentieth century: both pertained to possible abolition of the House of Lords.

            The Monarch has the authority to decide when the UK goes to war.
            This authority was devolved to the government during the Cold War because a nuclear attack may have only had a four minute warning. That devolved power still exists, but it is only devolved from the Monarch as a ‘gift’ of the Monarch who retains the overall authority to declare war.

            Our Constitutional Parliamentary Monarchy is a result of a thousand years of history.
            Everyone in the UK is governed by the Rule Of Law which protects everyone from mob rule while giving representation to everyone.

            Richard

          • B d Clark,

            I have too much self respect to want to “do battle” with an unarmed opponent such as yourself.

            Richard

          • So let’s see dick you were told politely you were wrong,I gave dialogue why you were wrong,yet you persist no single link to any thing to back your claims ,yet I did here it is again https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative as you can see the queen has little to no powers,what you assume are powers are a trade off for to be seen have powers but with no substance, a ploy and agreement with a early parliament to save face for a monarchy that had literally been defrocked, and you dick 400 years later have not wised up to basic English history and deception , that’s why you dont quote my links dick and provide any evidence of your own,the best you can do is act like a global warmest and throw insults.

          • B d Clark,

            I gave you factual information that refuted your silly assertions.

            You responded with rudeness, abuse and a challenge together with a link that does NOT support your untrue assertions.

            I refused your challenge and I will ignore any more of your ignorant and abusive twaddle.

            Richard

          • Friends,

            For the record, I copy content of the trolls link to here. The links’ entire statements pertaining to the UK Monarch are these:

            United Kingdom
            Main article: Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom
            In the Kingdom of England (up to 1707), the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800), and the United Kingdom (since 1801), the royal prerogative was one of the central features of the realm’s governance.

            Constitutional theorist A. V. Dicey gives the standard definition of what prerogative powers as follows:

            … the remaining portion of the Crown’s original authority, and it is therefore … the name for the residue of discretionary power left at any moment in the hands of the Crown, whether such power be in fact exercised by the King himself or by his Ministers.[10]

            The scope of the royal prerogative is difficult to determine due to the uncodified nature of the constitution. It is clear that the existence and extent of the power is a matter of the common law of England, making the courts the final arbiter of whether a particular type of prerogative exists or not. Nevertheless, certain prerogative powers have been widely acknowledged and accepted over time, while others have fallen out of use.

            The royal prerogative is not constitutionally unlimited. In the Case of Proclamations (1611) during the reign of King James VI/I, English common law courts judges emphatically asserted that they possessed the right to determine the limits of the royal prerogative. Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which brought co-monarchs Queen Mary II and King William III to power, this interpretation of there being a separate and distinct power of the Judiciary has not been challenged by the Crown. It has been accepted that it is emphatically the province of the court(s) to say what the law is, or means. This is a crucial corollary and foundation to the concept of the judicial power; and its distinct and separate nature from the executive power possessed by the Crown itself, or its ministers.”

            I point out that the the trolls link directly refutes the trolls assertion that,
            “the queen has little to no powers”.
            when it says,
            “The scope of the royal prerogative is difficult to determine due to the uncodified nature of the constitution.”
            and
            ” certain prerogative powers have been widely acknowledged and accepted over time, while others have fallen out of use.”

            Importantly, the ONLY statement in the troll’s link which pertains to any part of my explanation of the specific Powers of the UK Monarch says,
            “It is clear that the existence and extent of the power is a matter of the common law of England, making the courts the final arbiter of whether a particular type of prerogative exists or not. Nevertheless, certain prerogative powers have been widely acknowledged and accepted over time, while others have fallen out of use.”

            This agrees with the concluding point in my explanation which said,
            Our Constitutional Parliamentary Monarchy is a result of a thousand years of history.
            Everyone in the UK is governed by the Rule Of Law which protects everyone from mob rule while giving representation to everyone.”

            Richard

          • Well done dick you just blew your first post out of the water and verified what I said .if the queen had powers numbnuts the parliament would not need to ask a court to rule on some ancient law, and dick what you reproduced had nothing to do with my link here it is againhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative

          • Friends,

            One mouse click will reveal that I copied and pasted ALL of the correct passage from the troll’s link. The copied passage directly refutes the troll’s assertions and it does not contradict any of the facts I have provided.

            Richard

          • Dick the crown is granted powers through parliament not by it’s own design see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative a bit you failed to explain. the queen can not go to war or instigate war she can only announce we are at war after being told by parliament to do so parliament makes the decision not the queen your original point right the queen will go to war ,not only are you wrong the queen can not mobilise eg the SAS another one of your original points , you some how think the queen is willing to start a civil war be commanding the armed forces,get a grip dick these XR clowns are at best children playing at terrorists,.

          • B d Clark,

            I do not dispute anything in the link which you have repeatedly provided..

            I write to ask why you are contradicting the link you have provided.

            You say,
            “the crown is granted powers through parliament not by it’s own design see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative “.

            But your link does NOT mention UK Parliament; n.b. no mention of Parliament, none, not any.

            Your link rightly says – as I said – the Royal powers are limited by the “judiciary”; i.e. it says,
            “Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which brought co-monarchs Queen Mary II and King William III to power, this interpretation of there being a separate and distinct power of the Judiciary has not been challenged by the Crown. It has been accepted that it is emphatically the province of the court(s) to say what the law is, or means. This is a crucial corollary and foundation to the concept of the judicial power; and its distinct and separate nature from the executive power possessed by the Crown itself, or its ministers.”

            Why have you repeatedly posted your link that I agree and you say is wrong?

            Richard

          • Ah dick is now trying trolling tactics the very thing you accuse me of,dick has also said twice he would not respond again theres just no end to your contradictions hey dick royalty have no power, there infested with global warmests there not going to save you dick there going to cripple you.

          • But your link does NOT mention UK Parliament; n.b. no mention of Parliament, none, not any.

            Richard, your selective reading missed out huge chunks of the article, I suggest you read the part under “evolution” where the word Parliament appears several times (and specifically in reference to the UK).

        • Friends,

          I remind that this thread was started by Ed Zuiderwijk who wrote,
          “Time for the army to wake up. If democracy is to be ditched then I prefer the armed forces over the XR rabble.”

          In my reply to him I wrote,
          “In the extremely unlikely event that the XR rabble were to usurp Parliamentary democracy then I think we can rely on HRH to fulfil her duty with the same quiet and unassuming efficiency as she has every day since she ascended to the throne in 1952.”
          And I pointed out,
          “It is wise to not fall out with GCHQ, MI6, the SAS, and other agencies that answer to the Crown.”

          Clearly, effective actions by the mentioned agencies would not be noticed except by those on the receiving end.

          Anybody who thinks I was suggesting HRH would or should start a civil war is out of his tiny mind.

          Richard

          • Hahaha ya dick the SAS go out and shoot the rabble and no one notices unless you think there going round under cover to threaten them over a cup of tea ,talking of tea dick it’s time you chilled out with one your clearly upset .

          • Friends,

            The dimwit trolling this thread posted a link which I agree but the troll disputes.

            In attempt to distract from that fact, the troll has said he thinks my comment saying,
            “In the extremely unlikely event that the XR rabble were to usurp Parliamentary democracy then I think we can rely on HRH to fulfil her duty with the same quiet and unassuming efficiency as she has every day since she ascended to the throne in 1952”
            means
            “the SAS go out and shoot the rabble”.

            It is astonishing that anybody – even someone with so clear a mental disability as the troll – could think that!

            Richard

          • Ah dick so part quotes now dick we must add desperate to the list, so il ask again in the fictitious event of the queen sending out the SAS your scenario dick what exactly do you expect them to do ?

          • B d Clark,

            What is your real name and who is paying you to conduct your inane disruption?

            Richard

          • So still not answering the question put to you dick, just exactly what did you envisage the SAS being used for dick, why do you avoid the question dick?you do understand what the SAS are do you dick, you do understand dick the queen has no powers dick , if she tried to do something against customary practice dick the courts let alone parliament would over rule her dick.

          • Moderators,

            I have twice checked if the troll is really someone called “B d Clark” or is posting under an alias. It is clear that the troll is using a false identity.

            I think I know the true identity of the troll, and if I am right he has been banned from WUWT for misbehaviour but has used a series of false identities to repeatedly return to WUWT with the sole purpose of disrupting sensible discussion.

            I know how busy you are doing your difficult job so well, but if you have time I think it would be good if the identity of the troll could be checked.

            Richard

          • What’s wrong dick you accuse me of being a troll I have on topic disagreed with you and given my reasons that’s not trolling dick, now you accuse me of not using my real name and you have checked,checked were dick ?

            My name is my user name here dick my email is the same, if you cant stand debate dick perhaps this open forum is not the place for you.

  1. If you have to reach for a gun to get your way, you’re already wrong. The reason the collectivists want to take your guns is that they couldn’t do to you what they want to do if you’re armed. ER’s rep just proved that.

    • Yeppers, Mike. That one always gets me.

      “We’re going to force you to emit more CO2 so we can reduce CO2 emissions.”

      Joe and Jane Q. Public recognize stupid when it stares them in the face. They also resent being inconvenienced for a problem that they don’t see.

      Joe & Jane: Yeah, yeah… apocalypse today film at 11:00, oceans rising at a terrifying rate, garden burned to a crisp, ice free Arctic… if you say so. Masses of people escaping unbearable heat while wildlife drops in their tracks anywhere and everywhere…. ummmmm, no. Not seeing it. Today looks much the same as yesterday and the boss still wants that report by next Thursday.”

      If XR persists in disrupting the day-to-day existence of the vast majority of the public that are just going about the daily business of their mundane lives, which puts food on the table, a roof over their heads, and the odd relaxing or diversionary holiday here and there that gives them a bit of respite, I think XR will soon experience more and worse than the minor backlash of the recent train station incident.

      It’s not cute. It’s not funny. It is p!$$ing people off.

      • They need to get some diesel 4x4s to back up to their blocked intersections and rev their engines belching noxious black smoke in their faces.

        • With a big banner that says BLACK SMOKE MATTERS!
          I think a couple of combines fitted with bean heads would clear the way pronto.

      • The BS is unreal .One thing needs to be sorted right now and that is stop cutting trees down to grow stuf we don’t need. When trees are cut down plant more as they do in certain parts of the world. Why are we not using caption which is available this produces fuel that can be used in all vehicle but with no detrimental effects from it you dont have to buy a new whicle. More Stop the belief that you have to have debt live within your means stop buying stuff you don’t need shop when you need to buy.
        Same old nonsense from theses sort of fanatical people They have no idea. When people are up in court because they haven’t paid there council tax and you say it’s ER it’s the new policy I am unable to earn the money I used to it will be 30 days send them down they will also be reprocessing your house because you can’t pay your mortgage where does it end. ER dictating its our way and no other way it will be the same old story not allowed to do or have the things you used to but certain people you will find will still have because it’s ok for them. Rashioning no that’s a good one heard it all now .I hear switch to electric vehicles more jobs lost but more people in debt which to me is what this is all about. No sorry I am not going to be bullied by anyone

  2. Declare war on Extinction Rebellion and the Left in general, and then mobilize. Problem solved. They get their mobilization, and we purge society of the influence of these murderous communists before they can put us in their death camps. Win/win, what’s not to like?

    • Agreed. It’s time we fought back with hard facts and alarmist talk of our own, instead of just being nice and polite about it all. Accuse them of mass murder and causing death and starvation with their insane demands- how many have died already because these fools force through bans on pesticides and GMOs for example? How many are in abject poverty because they are not allowed to earn their way out of it and will never be allowed to do so? How many will freeze to death because there will not be enough power to keep them warm? This is all down to these lunatics who seem to have some romantic notion of peasant life from hundreds of years ago.

  3. What ER doesn’t get is that people don’t necessarily agree with their cause in the first place. That is, depending on how you define it, there may not be an ‘ecological emergency’ in the first place. Plants like C02, the world has been warmer before with no disasters, etc etc.

    People-as in citizens -are often very skeptical of what a collection of academics are saying, and they have good cause to be, there are numerous historical examples of one-sided academics getting things wrong, or more often, just wildly over-stated their particular angle.

    So, there is a stand-off between ER, and what most people are skeptical about. ER thinks the only way to solve this is to then change the rules, driven by being certain about something where others are not. This has been tried before numerous times, it won’t work.

    Aristotle would have said to ER that the first thing to recognize is what one doesn’t know.

  4. ” the British Conservative Government has just agreed Extinction Rebellion’s demand to form a climate change citizen’s assembly. ”

    Boris Johnson is so desperate for votes to stay in power he is willing to agree to anything, he’s already pledged £billions that we haven’t got, on things that will never happen, but then look at his record… a liar a cheat, a bullyboy.

  5. “Sarah: They would lead and advise government, and it then becomes very difficult for government to say we are not going to do this, because it has been requested by the people, by representatives of the people.”

    Who chooses these “representatives, do we hold a vote?

  6. I find it frankly very offensive that she compares this to 1939 and the fight against a true existential threat.. I hope the ghosts of the millions who died in that conflict come back to haunt her and her ilk..

    I’m starting a new group Extinction Rebellion Extinction.. anyone care to join?

  7. Holy moly, I read the link in that last paragraph. Britain is actually going forward with a citizens’ assembly to discuss how to destroy Britain’s economy and society. The only hope I can see is that the assembly’s recommendations will be so destructive and extreme that the population will reject them and the whole “climate emergency” narrative once and for all.

    • The farmers won a small battle a month ago forcing a rewilding campaign out, yet again this very night a counter measure is announced https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-50169027 all the links I’ve reproduced tonight came out tonight on the left wing rag the BBC ready for the Sunday readers,

      What we are seeing live is a orchestrated attack on our democracy ,well planned ahead there two steps in front we are being relentlessly bombarded with this takeover every single angle has been covered from the media to politics climate change is a means to a ends ,its not about the climate its about destroying your way of life.

    • I suspect Parliament will let them have their assembly – at the taxpayers’ expense, of course – then simply ignore their input. The correct response will be, stand for Parliament. if the people want that course of action, you will be elected and get your way. There is no ‘controlling authority’ for them to force government to do anything as long as they don’t represent the majority of voters.

      More than likely, they will be quite happy being a powerless group as long as they are living well off the taxpayers. And I bet they fly to a lot of off-site meetings in sunny locations.

  8. Some people think abortion is homicide & their biological arguments are a lot stronger than catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Do they get to have a “Citizens Assembly” if they cannot persuade people at the polls?

  9. Its what the Irish did in terms of their abortion question, which was very controversial…

    The wicked solution is a controversial policy. Even more than diversity (i.e. color judgment), political congruence or selective exclusion, and other classes of bigotry that have been normalized in liberal societies.

    • I am reminded of another Winston Churchill quote: “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”

      • This just typifies Churchill IMO. He thought he was above the “average voter”. Well, he was a product of the ruling elite so no surprise there. It took him the 10 years or so up to just before WW2 to work out why he failed so badly at politics.

  10. “30,000 invitations will be sent at random, then 110 of the respondents will be chosen to sit on the assembly”

    A “chosen” 110 out of 30,000 “invitations” sent at “random” to represent the wishes of 65 million and then “advise” Govn’t?

    What could possibly go wrong there?

    • Who chooses the 110?

      And out of the 30 000 people, those who aren’t interested in green policies won’t answer. Those who don’t think there’s a climate emergency won’t want to waste four weekends on this assembly. Only people who already believe the ER’s claims will answer the invitation, thus only alarmists will sit on the citizen’s assembly.

      • You’re probably correct that the “randomly-selected” will respond disproportionately based on whether they sympathize with XR. But in my cynical view, the initial lists will likely also be suspect (maybe derived from XR membership and donor rolls?). Or perhaps the final selection process will be based on whether the candidate is “knowledgeable” about the risks of climate change—meaning that they must be faithful congregants in the Greenchurch.

        As an American with a mostly British heritage, I take considerable interest in UK politics. It is very sad to see the state of affairs in the mother country. No doubt this ersatz parliament of fools will be treated as sacrosanct by the rabid media. How dare the government ignore the voice of the people? This will be expressed without a scintilla of irony, probably immediately after reporting joyfully that the other parliament of fools has again successfully thwarted the Brexit referendum. Sad, truly.

    • They say insanity is doing same thing (relinquishing parliamentary procedure) over and over and expecting the same result. Doing it 30,000 times, based on irrational thinking and hysterical ranting only amplifies the inane premise and then legislates malfeasant governance.

    • Patrick MJD, WSC represented working class electorates most of his long career. The problem was Pollies were self-serving like the current mob. I noticed the similarity to his time in the wilderness, and also the voices in the wilderness then and now.
      Once again, reckoning is beckoning at last, and it is called Nigel, I hope…….. Brett in NZ

      • Nigel Farage? He’s the guy who says the EU is a waste of space, and yet, he was an “elected” MEP? Really? And says the EU, his elite, is a waste?

        Yup! That is Churchill all over.

        • Patrick MJD

          Have you ever watched videos of NF’s in the EU parliament?

          He’s like a rabid attack dog, including the infamous “You’re not laughing now!” in 2016 following the Brexit referendum vote.

          Clearly, you don’t understand UK politics.

          • “HotScot November 4, 2019 at 5:28 am

            Patrick MJD

            Have you ever watched videos of NF’s in the EU parliament?”

            No, not those videos however, I have seen his videos about the EU Parliament where he states its a waste of time, even though he was “elected” to be an MEP, has no real power and every month the whole EU Parliament in Brussels gets trucked to Strasbourg, and then trucked back again. The EU Commission on the other hand has the power to control member states, is not elected and cannot be disbanded.

          • Well hmm a bit brief in your explanation the eu parliament is handed down what to put into law from the commision as you rightly stated, but it is not under obligation to legislate the commission’s directive ,it has equal footing with the EU council, and can interestingly cause the EU commission to resign, now theres a thought.

          • “B d Clark November 4, 2019 at 3:18 pm”

            Never going to happen in the current structure. Brexit will bring about an “adjustment”.

        • Patrick MJD

          Along with Thatcher, the most internationally celebrated PM Britain has ever had, and you dismiss him because he went back into the Army operating in combat regions.

          What Labour MP has ever left politics to return to combat zones?

          I’ll tell you……None!

          socialism is a disease.

          • Common misconceptions about famous people throughout history. You have to study the man rather than listen to commentary or the media. He left politics because he failed in politics. It took him 10 years to work out why. He never was in the army to go back to. He was in the Admiralty before and during WW1, a supporter of the “feeble minded” people’s act of 1913 (In his view, if people didn’t want to fight in a war they were of “feeble minds” and should be sent to “labour camps”) and eugenics. You can actually go and visit where he spent most of those 10 years before WW2 in his old stately home.

            Many many famous people that were held high in public opinion, people such as John Lennon and Mother Theresa. John Lennon was pretty nasty to women and hated his son. Mother Theresa, a Saint, the helper of the poor when in fact she didn’t care one hoot about poor people, she was all about the Church and it’s promotion.

  11. “Farage: An appointed citizen’s assembly would tell government what to do?

    Sarah: They would lead and advise government, and it then becomes very difficult for government to say we are not going to do this, because it has been requested by the people, by representatives of the people.”

    Now, I know the Brits system is different than the US; however, they do have elections and it is considered a representative form of government. Sooooo, the way I read this and I could be wrong, the Extinction Rebellion wants to have the current REPRESENTATIVES, to be commanded by a “citizens assembly” that is supposedly to be the actual REPRESENTATIVES of the people.

    Let me get this straight; the duly elected Representatives of the People, will be lead and advised by un-elected and unaccountable Representatives of the People, who according to the XR, ACTUALLY are the TRUE voice of the people.

    OMFG…When did Monty Python start running the show?

    • An XR committee is the definition of a ‘Soviet:’ a People’s Committee. I thought we got rid of those types in 1989 when the wall came down and the USSR collapsed.
      When I was on a plane to England years ago after the fall of the wall, since I knew Polish and Russian, I was privy to a conversation of a group of university teachers talking in Russian about how they’re going to spread communism around the world at the university level. I asked them what their justification was for such a heinous scheme, and their answer was, “In time communism will prevail around the world whether you like it or not.” That’s when I started to worry about the young people in our school system; it’s getting very scary out there!

  12. And happen when this “Citizens Assembly” does no do what the XR leadership wants? Will dissenting voices be heard? Who gets to decide who is in the Assembly? How are members removed? How are members replaced? So many questions…

  13. Extinction Rebellion has been nowhere near ’round my usual haunts.

    I am hoping beyond hope that does not remain the case

    Should they choose to grace my neighborhood, I am fully prepared to relieve myself on any unlucky XR idiot who deigns to glue him/her/itself to something in order to inconvenience me.

    I’m retired and am unworried about any negative effects on my employment prospects. A few days in the pokey might afford me the opportunity to expand my skills in areas such as hot wiring cars or jimmying windows and doors. A “Public Indecency” conviction would be a badge of honor if I received it while “inconveniencing” an XR useful idiot.

    • Sadly there are plenty of them in our village- they’ve taken over the local magazine, telling everyone how to make non toxic cleaning products at home, using electric bikes, green energy, etc. There’s no talking to them. They’re on a mission from God, as it were. I’m still waiting for an answer to the question; ‘If the cleaning product is non toxic, how the hell does it clean anything?’ So far, all I’ve had is grief…..

  14. The citizens thing is a PR excercise and has very little to do with XR, they won’t get to decide anything. Unfortunately this country is going through a green crisis and there isn’t a massive amount of advantage to push against it as part of an election manifesto. Brexit has to be the main issue at this election and all other areas are merely sweeteners to different factions.

    Farage is about to go from hero to zero because he’s threatening to open a gap for Labour or should I say the Communist Party to take power because he wants a purist Brexit. Unfortunately the ‘no deal’ Brexit opportunity is gone. There are only two options, reverse Brexit altogether or take the Tory’s deal, which while not ideal, would be a stepping stone to real Brexit. Farage says otherwise but he’s… motivated and not in a good way it seems.

    Farage was key to the Tories offering a referendum because they were scared of UKIP – Farage’s first Brexit party, but it would never have happened without the Tories themselves. UKIP would never have got enough votes to get into power. The Tory party has been riven apart by Brexiteers and Remainers and unfortunately in Parliament and other places of power the Remainers have outnumbered the Brexiteers. The Remainers have had a big hand in almost wrecking Brexit but now it’s Nigel’s turn. While under May, who was just too cowardly and inept to be leader during such a tricky time, there was a taste for a new direction and the Brexit Party was born almost overnight. I voted for them in the EU elections, an event notorious for being an opportunity for the public to protest. It was a massive success. Had May still been at the head of the Conservatives, I would be seriously considering them for any upcoming General Election. However, Boris got the job of PM and has done a credible negotiation given that he has no control over Parliament because first May lost MPs at the last election and then Remainer Tories thought they could wreck Brexit by teaming up with other parties. They legally removed ‘no deal’ from the table. Every plan that went through Parliament for stuff bolted on to give Boris less and less power. Most of the Tory Remoaners have now jumped ship or been pushed. However without a decent majority in the up coming election Boris can’t get any kind of Brexit done anyway. If they don’t get a majority at all and there are no partners to team up with * then the next largest party gets to try and form a government. A rainbow of parties who are not only determined to kill Brexit but to turn us into a failed, communist green state. Labour, the SNP (which wants another chance to split off from the UK and rejoin the EU), the Lib Dems and the Greens. The UK would not only not get Brexit, it would never be able to afford it. Anyone even mentioning the idea of a new attempt at leaving the EU would get punched.

    * Nigel has set out his plan to be the king maker after the election, offering the Tories The Brexit Party MPs’ support in Parliament (assuming they get any) and not fielding candidates in seats the Tories can win. All that in exchange for certain demands – first drop the Brexit transition deal (it’s not a trade deal) and then step aside in seats the Tories would be unlikely to win. There are several problems with this ultimatum. It assumes that the 52% who voted for Brexit want ‘no deal’ and that’s just not true. It assumes that the people who voted for the Brexit Party in the EU elections want the Brexit Party running the country and that they all want ‘no deal’ which are also not true.

    A lot of support for the Tories relies on the deal Boris made, both to reassure the soft Brexiteers and tempt the soft Remainers. The Tories would lose as much by dropping the deal as they gained from the Brexit Party pact. Unlike a pact made after an election where you give concessions to MPs of another party for their support, Nigel wants the Tories to make the deal before the Brexit Party has won anything.

    The UK system in a general election is called first past the post. The country is divided into roughly equal bundles of people. The party with the most votes in an area wins the seat. The party with more than half the seats in the country wins the election. The two main parties dominate England with vastly more seats than the other regions. The SNP dominate Scotland but Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories sometimes win seats. Northern Ireland has its own parties and Wales is a bit of a mix. It’s possible for a party like the Brexit Party to get 15% of the votes but not win a single seat. See UKIP. Farage may object to this but it’s our system and when we had a referendum on the issue we voted to keep it. He’s the guy who thinks we should respect referendums. I support the FPTP system because it gives the leading party the chance to make radical changes. Farage and even the Brexit Party just doesn’t have that much support.

    Bottom line, the Tories can’t do a deal with Farage. Especially since Nigel made such a thing about it, and involved Trump, they absolutely can’t. Outside interference, even by friendly leaders is not appreciated. Obama helped Brexit by supporting Remain and threatening us with the ‘back of the queue’. Trashing Boris’ deal is a serious affront to the Tory Party. Why Farage has threatened and insulted the Tories I don’t know. He’s hinted that he’d prefer Labour to win, Brexit to be cancelled and seek power at the election in 5 years time, rather than accept Boris’ departure deal with the EU. He thinks that we’ll be ready for a real right wing party with a no deal Brexit. He’s dead wrong. This is Brexit’s last chance. We are pig sick of it. We’d also loath any party that helped get Labour into power. You cannot believe the things Corbyn is planning to do. You think the Tories are pro green? You ain’t seen nuttin’. Labour are planning to steal companies from their owners. They will make landlords sell their properties to renters at a knock down price. Air fares would double after the green taxes were added. Homeowners would be forced to make their homes green, including adding solar panels. All this will be funded by robbing from the rich… and then the middle and finally the poor. Billionaires are ready to shift all their money the moment Corbyn gets elected as PM. The country would crash financially. We would never recover. We’d bein a worse state than the one that caused us to join in the 70s. And Nigel is playing games over this? It would be like finding out Trump is planning to give the southern states to China so long as they built that wall.

    With all that at stake, do you really think we give flip about some PR climate panels?

    • “Trashing Boris’ deal is a serious affront to the Tory Party.”

      Boris’ deal is just May’s surrender agreement with some of the most egregious parts removed. It should be trashed.

      “This is Brexit’s last chance. We are pig sick of it. ”

      Then why support Boris’ deal, which is a never-ending Brexit?

      • Nigel’s new posters say that Boris’ deal will keep us in the EU for years. Note the wording, it doesn’t say ‘forever’. It might be as short as 1 year, it might be 3. I can wait 3 years. Heck, after May/Hammond’s lack of preps we’re not even entirely ready. I’d support anything rather than Corbyn. If we stay 5 years paying into the EU and Corbyn wrecking the economy till the next election £39 billion will be peanuts.

        • +1

          I have waited 40 years (my entire adult life) to be able to vote on leaving the EU.

          I can wait a few years longer if that’s what it takes to see it through. I could not support May’s deal, I can accept Boris’. The only hope for the UK is a Conservative majority. Anything else will be reversion to the 1970’s. Many voters are too young to remember what that was like.

          • Who cares who’s in Number 10 if Britain is just a minor province run from Brussels? What power would Corbyn actually have?

            Britain will be in a much worse place than the 1970s if the government refuse to do what the British people vote for. Failure to leave the EU will utterly destroy any belief in democracy in half the population.

          • “MarkG November 3, 2019 at 9:34 am”

            Most Brits, such as myself, have no faith in the “democratic” process because we have seen it been abused for decades, and certain as bold as brass, in your face blatant disrespect for democracy since at least 1973 in my memory.

          • “ThinkingScientist November 3, 2019 at 7:11 am

            Anything else will be reversion to the 1970’s. Many voters are too young to remember what that was like.”

            Many voters, including those on some sort of benefit, never got to experience what Britain was like in the late 60’s and the 70’s up to 1979. Apart from the very cold winters, which I liked BTW, there was the perpetual “industrial action”, strikes in pretty much all sectors from health to education to fire workers to car and power workers to refuse collection to morticians etc etc. I think “workers” were punch drunk on European socialism. The UK was practically bankrupt and still paying for WW2, bailing out the French. It’s ironic that the EU is in effect a Franco-German controlled entity anyway.

        • The deal keeps Britain under the thumb of the EU for at least a decade, while removing any control Britain has over the EU policies and diktats that it will still be forced to follow. And making it responsible for EU bank bailouts, which may cost hundreds of billions of pounds in that time. Plus, quite likely, for handing the British military over to Brussels.

          It’s The Never-Ending Brexit. And it won’t end until the EU collapses.

          • @MarkG

            The current iteration of the withdrawal agreement sees us right out (implementation and all) in less than two years.

            On bailing out the banks – no. Paragraph 52 of the notes to the agreement make it quite clear that “The Bill allows payments to be made only in order to meet financial commitments that are required by the Withdrawal Agreement. This finance authority (the agreement) cannot be used for payments relating to the future relationship between the UK and the EU. So no bailouts.

            As for handing over the military (and I assume you are not being serious by this point) we will of course continue to work with (not for) EU countries in the face of international threats. However this would be the case whether in or out, and is not even mentioned in the Withdrawal Agreement. In fact our strongest military ties are with NATO and thus the USA rather than EU member states.

    • Tiny CO2
      Sadly, that is a very clear and cogent analysis.
      The Remainers have scotched any prospect of a proper Brexit so we can only go with Boris or lose Brexit and a lot more besides.
      I approve of Farage up to now and am a keen supporter of a true Brexit but thanks to May and Hammond there is no longer any other option.
      Farage needs to back off or he will be forever be labelled as a useful idiot leading to a Marxist takeover of the U.K.

        • Farage is after seats , his party will not win but aim for a voice in parliament akin to the DUP.A unheard voice that can argue ,block some of this very dangerous left wing agenda.if we get this, we will have some resemblance to what a parliament should be, no more (the science is settled) no more biased speakers controlling parliament for left agendas. Get rid of and or stop secret lobbyists dictating policy sercumnavigating
          what should be democratic decisions.

          • What happens if TBP plus the Tories aren’t enough to form a government? How powerful will TBP be if the Green Party gets to be Labour’s king maker?

          • How many constituencies voted out in the 2016 whatever the general political bias of a given constituency.if a given constituency was a labour seat and voted out,then the constituents would have a choice vote labour who obviously went against and hindered parliament to carry out their wish.how many seats would the Brexit party reasonably expect to gain in these constituencies, who at the present time has the biggest lead in the poles.

            What % of the above let down constituencies will vote conservative to get some form of Brexit

            What % of the above let down constituencies will vote for the Brexit party to get a full Brexit,

            What we must remember is the referendum was advisory ,the advice was acted upon and made into law ,that law had no caveats, the whole political party system and government acted and do act against this law.

            The people be them road sweepers to barristers know they have been cheated, some will agree with the cheating and vote accordingly the real question here is how many will vote against the blatant cheats =labour SNP PC the greens and liberal Democrats.

            In my opinion the Cs will gain the majority of votes but be in a minority in parliament the FBP will take up the slack how much FBP take is debatable 12,20 seats will be crucial for FBP more and they will have considerable weight in any parliamentary votes, with a majority of centre right to right MPS we will see at the least the other side of the coin being played be it climate to exposing the left agenda takeover in this country. In my opinion.

          • How people voted in the Referendum and what they wanted isn’t necessarily clear cut. As you say, people feel let down and Brexit isn’t one sided. There are other issues too. It’s a dangerous game assuming the number of seats. It’s wishful thinking that TBP will have the whip hand. Maybe it will be the Lib Dems again, demanding a new referendum as their bargaining chip. After all, Nigel’s fans are saying that Boris and The Tories are really remainers. Wouldn’t such a group favour making a remainer part the boss over The Brexit Party? Boris would have 5 years to squat in the job. Or is he really a leaver who has got the best deal he could with the hand he was dealt?

    • I think the conservatives are the right wing party not the Brexit Party it is just that the conservative party have no interest in protecting manufacturing jobs in the UK and never have , they have allowed the North to become an industrial wasteland and just rely on creating service jobs. The Brexit Party want to help British manufacturing industry in the north in particular not to be destroyed completely by this parliaments drive for “carbon neutral energy”. Manufacturing industry faces the same threat in the UK as it does in the USA from climate alarmism it is just that in the UK that the areas hit hardest by this have been in traditional labour areas. We must not allow the conservatives in the UK to portray the Brexit Party as far right because then those who have lost out in the demise of UK manufacturing firstly by the conservatives and now by climate alarmism will not vote for the Brexit party.

      • I agree that the Tories have little interest in manufacturing jobs but the future of that is automation anyway. Low wage jobs will always be taken by people or countries who are prepared to work hard for less. Labour are worse, trying to cling onto the past. I sometimes wonder if they’d have miners dig out coal and another lot putting it back. With a fully propped open door policy.

        The majority of current Brexit supporters are ex Labour and they meet the far right round the back as politics isn’t a line, it’s a sphere. That doesn’t mean that some if not many of their policies aren’t good ones but with zero chance of being in government, they might as well support a free pixie for everyone.

        Maybe if they’d kept their heads down and won some Labour seats now, then built upon it over the next 5 years with by-elections and local elections, they could have had their no deal Brexit in 5-10 years. Now they’ll just go the way of UKIP.

      • “donald penman November 3, 2019 at 4:37 am

        I think the conservatives are the right wing party not the Brexit Party it is just that the conservative party have no interest in protecting manufacturing jobs in the UK and never have…”

        Nissan and Honda to name two encouraged to setup in Britain under Tory rule. Manufacturing in the UK was well in decline after WW2 and then just dropped in to obscurity from the mid 1950’s, eventually destroying itself in the 1970’s.

    • Regarding labour doing all these things, it is actually a small cabal within the parliamentary labour party, led by Corbyn. Most – that is more than half – of the parliamentary labour party are Blairites and will likely vote against their own party on a number of these points. If they do succeed in implementing these policies, Labour will find themselves out of office for a generation.

      • Like the departure of most Tory remoaners, Labour has lost a lot of the middle ground Labour. Those left are too comfy in their jobs to seriously fight against McDonnell, who is the true power. Blairites are much soiled by Blair and aren’t popular amongst core Labour voters. Labour has been two parties for a log time and many have left to become Lib Dems. With the SNP, Greens, and the Welsh parties, Labour could get enough power to take back the utilities, the rail, the Post Offiece, Buses, all with the excuse to fund an enact a green revolution. All Labour MPs bar Graham Stringer love all things green and expensive.

        Thinks of the Labour MPs actually standing, do you really see them defending the economy?

        • Isn’t nationalisation against the EU rules? Something to do with state subsidy of industry and unfair competition? However, I think taking back rail would be very popular across the country. Privatisation of British Rail was always more ideological than economic. It was so obviously a bad idea that even Thatcher didn’t go that far. But as I say, I don’t think the EU would allow it.

          • Not as far as I can tell. Railtrack went back into government ownership. These companies were in state onership when we joined the EU. In theory they won’t be subsidising them, the government will be raking in profits to spend on climate change. They won’t be making these companies more competative, just the opposite. The proof is the damage to share price of the utilities every time Labour threaten. Labour plan to take shares at less than market price.

        • Absolutely agree McDonnell is the true power within the labour party. Corbyn is the “useful idiot”. If labour get in with a majority expect Corbyn to “retire” within a year and McDonnell to take over.

          McDonnell is probably the most dangerous man in Britain currently. He is a real threat to our future.

    • Just amazed that the UK Parliament can ignore the will of the people for 3+ years; still no Brexit but they get another election, the 2nd since the Brexit referendum. Does the Queen have powers to take appropriate action?

  15. 5.52 … ‘so we haven’t had huge changes in weather and climate over the last 10,000 years, its been an incredible stable period…’
    what. the. hell?

    • errr yes I couldn’t believe I was hearing this…!
      It’s Mann’s hockey stick all over again.

      We erased the MWP, the famines in Scotland & Ireland, the Vikings didn’t call that country “GREENLAND”, the history books have all been altered and the Romans didn’t grow grapes near Scotland.
      The Thames has never frozen over.. (The seine froze for a month in 1984-5…it was a salutary warning with temps of -25 daily for a month, just over the channel in nearby Normandie!)

      WTF!
      It really looks like Orwell’s 1984 is coming true!

  16. Breaking news: the British Conservative Government has just agreed Extinction Rebellion’s demand to form a climate change citizen’s assembly.

    They’re out of their bloody minds. That’s not a mistake. It’s suicide.

    So much for Boris, the savior of Britain.

  17. Back in the day, what she is proposing were known as Soviets. But since even every Dog and Cat in the world is aware that Marxism turned out to be a total bust, the beta types have taken to rebranding, hence Citizen Assemblies, and Socialism being co-opted to mean Communism. Added to which, and having recently performed jury service, her comparison to juries hardly fills one with confidence.

    I’m still tending towards thinking that XR and Greta are so ridiculous that they must have been inserted into the game to slow things down, sort of like boron control rods 🙂

  18. Exactly what is happening in Chile now.
    Cuba and Russia are funding a revolution. A revolution because the stupid democrattically elected government bowed to the climate scam to impose higher prices on the middle class.

    • Yep, as soon as stupid rules, the organization falls apart. I happens to town councils, large corporations, and great nations.

    • That’s bull.
      Pinochet, the Chicago Boy, put in place a fascist Constitution, and Pinera, the multi billionaire has a problem. The people want a new Constitution.

      Interestingly Maggie Thatcher invited that fascist. Pinochet, to tea.

      • I know a bit or two about Chile, having lived there. And I also know that I will not believe anything you say about anything.

  19. Here is “A Purge for Legislatures” by H.L. Mencken, which
    advocates sortition in his inimitable style:
    https://equalitybylot.com/2018/10/06/mencken-a-purge-for-legislatures/

    The idea of electorates or legislatures composed of a sample of the citizen body has been getting a lot of attention in political science circles in the past decade. There are hundreds of academic articles on “sortition,” as it is technically known—many are on the academia.edu site; others can be found in Google Scholar.

    A recent best-seller in Europe has been Against Elections (intro by Kofi Annan), available on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/Against-Elections-David-Van-Reybrouck-ebook/dp/B071DZ1KR1/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Against+Elections

    See also https://equalitybylot.com, where ongoing news and views on sortition are presented. The site’s owner is a radical egalitarian and leftist, but he is tolerable, and the contributors are more balanced. They are mostly academics. The discussion is quite advanced.

    I myself believe that we should replace mass democracy with “mini” or “micro” democracy. I.e., democracies in which officials are elected by grand- jury-sized electorates (of 23), chosen in part by lot and in part by “ballotery,” in which names are drawn from a pot containing ballots cast by citizens for their fellow citizens. I’ve written an 8-page article on this proposal, titled “Demarchy—small, sample electorates electing officials.” It’s at:
    https://www.academia.edu/38701375/Demarchy_small_sample_electorates_electing_officials

    • In theory, it’s a much better idea to randomly choose people instead of having votes. A large-enough, truly random selection would guarantee to represent the people.

      But…

      That then puts control of the country in the hands of those who choose.

      Today, elections are rigged, but it’s hard work. They have to fake enough votes to put their men in place, or they have to ensure that they own all the candidates who are likely to win, so the result doesn’t matter.

      In the future, they’ll just need to rig one algorithm on one computer and they get all their people in place.

      • “But… That then puts control of the country in the hands of those who choose.”

        No t at the first stage, because the phone numbers of the persons called are generated randomly by a computer. That’s how it’s being done in France.

        The next stages would be heavily scrutinized to ensure fairness. They involve profiling each of the contacts who’s willing to serve by various personal characteristics, to ensure the social and economic representativeness of the ultimate sample. Then drawings are held from names in various characteristic-boxes in accordance with their proportion in the whole populace. (This is why, I assume, so many invitations are sent out—to ensure that every combination-of-characteristics box is filled.)

        There wouldn’t be much room for hanky-panky here, especially if respected figures from all parts of the political spectrum were involved in overseeing the process.

        As for the bias in membership arrising from the disinclination of skeptics to be part of a group deciding which sort of “climate action” to take, that could be countered by mentioning that “adaptation” rather than “mitigation” would be an option, and so would “nuclear power” instead of “renewables.”

  20. Regarding Boris Johnson putting taxpayers money into a political movement which wants to destroy democracy, I am reminded of what happened in Egypt.

    The Army had run the country for a long time, and war unpopular. So they had a election, a real one , and the Moslem Brotherhood was elected. Then all of
    the previously secret members came out of the woodwork.

    A few months went by and the real policies of this new government came out.

    Then we had crowds rioting and asking the Army to get rid of the Brotherhood, the Army obliged and was back in Government and they then arrested all
    of the now known members of the Brotherhood.

    Now if you think that such a thing could never happen in the UK, the country which created Parliament I suggest that you bring up a old BBC series called “”The Guardians”.

    And if during the election due soon that Labour is elected, read “”The Forth Protocol” as to just what can happen in a legal political party.

    MJE VK5ELL

  21. The UK has an election on November 12. Watch it anxiously.

    Whatever the polls show right now, there is a serious chance of a Corbyn government. If that happens it means that the UK will be in the grip of an anti-Semitic clique of Trotskyite terrorist sympathizers. The agenda will include leaving Nato, disarming, recognizing Hamas as the legitimate ruler of the territory of present day Israel, wholesale state takeovers of businesses and property confiscations, punitive taxation, and the breakup of the United Kingdom. It will be the economics of Venezuela, the politics of the Soviet Union, and the hatred of Jews of the Nazi Party.

    Continued toleration and encouragement of the kind of anti-Semitic abuse that has come to dominate the party at a local level.

    What is happening in the UK is the same as happened in Germany in the late twenties and early thirties or in the Soviet Union in the thirties. You have a bunch of deranged fanatics targeting a particular group over and over again with abuse and threats. You have the majority members of the Labour Party passively going along with it, while wringing their hands, but still campaigning for Corbyn. And the rest of the population simply says, well, its not us is it, nothing to do with us.

    Until it is something to do with us.

    Or, when it finally starts to happen, it may be that the British will wake up and say no. Either way its going to get very, very ugly.

    Just under 50% of British Jews say they are actively preparing to leave the country if Corbyn comes to power. Its appalling. But we should also congratulate them on their realism. Its the only sensible thing to do. And not just for them.

    • The comments here seem to think that a Tory Party flirting with the green obsession is the worst thing us Brits face. They ignore the Big Watermelon in the room, the Labour Party, determined to ruin the economy to pay for a massive green movement. They seem to think Farage and the Brexit Party can stop that. Just the opposite, Nigel is working hard to make it a reality.

      • The green obsession will hurt rural areas and businesses in rural areas and destroy a way of life, this is not about conning a section of society for there vote and it will go away, there forward planning laws,infrastructure and environmental laws are either on the statutory book or waiting in the wings, the climate/green agenda is a cross party conspiracy without any mandate from the people,they the politicians have circumnavigated democratic decisions through the electoral mandate of the people.

        • In many ways I don’t disagree but the people do give the different parties a mandate to go green – they don’t complain. They lap up the BBC output. Only the cost and hardship of cutting CO2 futher can undo this obsession and we’re not there yet. The Brexit Party don’t yet have a single MP and threatening the Tories would have made those in a Labour stronghold think twice before endorsing TBP with a vote.

  22. Well, now at least the gloves are off. Anyone that votes Tory in this election will be showing themselves to be supporters of Extinction Rebellion and their extremism. As far as I’m concerned at least, they will have made themselves into traitors to our human civilization. And that can never be forgiven.

    Hopefully Farage will pick up his cudgels and go full-on anti-green, which is what I and others have been suggesting he should do. It won’t win an election, but it can provide the nucleus for a major backlash against the establishment when the time comes.

    • You’re missing the point (as are the two commenters above).

      Britain is facing an election on Dec 12 in which one of the two main parties is, institutionally and at a constituency and membership level, openly anti-Semitic, and the country is sleep walking into it.

      Open to the point that it is under investigation by the Equalities Commission, joining one of the tiny neo-Fascist parties as the second political party ever to be investigated for this.

      Open to the point that British Jews are making serious plans to leave the country if Corbyn is elected.

      Open to the point that its leader associates with the most extreme elements in Islamic terrorist circles. No, he did not endorse IS. But he’s associated with others who were as extreme but less successful. He attended a ceremony in Algeria at which Black September were honoured. His explanation: he was present but not involved.

      This is the point. Britain is unique in the West in this respect. The British look back on the Germany experience of the 1930s as if it has no bearing on their situation, and mainstream politicians, particularly the Labour moderates, go along with it, and are campaigning for Corbyn. Britain is replaying it.

      Climate is trivial by comparison. It starts with the Jews, but it never ends with them. They are simply the first target. If Corbyn gets in, Britain will be ruled by a gang of anti-Semitic terrorist sympathizers. Be afraid. The implications don’t end with the Jews.

      • They certainly do not- if Corbyn gets in and he and his band of lunatics and terrorists will do all they can to make sure it will be the last free, democratic election we ever have. You have Abbott saying Mao did more good than harm, they favour Hamas and North Korea- be afraid? Be bloody petrified!

  23. I think that XR’s idea of a Citizen’s Assembly is a cunning trick to avoid the need to do tedious stuff like having a sane manifesto, finding credible candidates, standing for parliament and winning enough seats to actually achieve change via our established democratic process.
    Er, and by the way to avoid being seen to be guilty of:

    Subversion – “the act of trying to destroy or damage an established system or government”

    XR are just a bunch of thinly veiled Marxists, using the fiction of a ‘climate emergency’ to achieve a socialist revolution instead of Marx’s similarly fictional ‘class war’ theme.

    Any government that cannot see through this trick deserves to be given the ‘Order of the Boot”, as Churchill called it.

    As the British-born UK citizen I am deeply ashamed at the parlous state of UK politics, and gobsmacked by the lack of any capacity for objective political analysis by the parliament. Except for Nigel Farage, of course.

    • The Bolshevik “Soviets” are exactly the same thing as citizens assemblies. Soviet means council in Russian. Soviets were established in every organisational structure – factories, hospitals, government departments, service providers, police, etc. XR are following the Bolshevik model to the letter.

      • “The Bolshevik “Soviets” are exactly the same thing as citizens assemblies.”

        No, because members of soviets were 1) elected rather than chosen at random and 2) communists—no other political parties were allowed.

        Google “Citizens assemblies” for links to what they are really like, or click:
        https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=citizens+assemblies&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

        Citizens assemblies will be publics that will finally give a fair hearing to the skeptical side of the climate change story. I hope Monckton is warming up his vocal chords. ER has shot itself in the foot. These councils embody the common sense and common decency of the community, far more than do covens of careeristic professional party politicians beholden to or terrified of special interest groups and the media.

        • Where’s my effing invitation then?

          Having spent the last ten years or so examining claims about climate change from both sides, I can confidently conclude that a Warmer planet is, without a doubt, much better than a Colder planet!

        • Only 110 will be chosen. If you seriously think that those 110 will be representative of the 30,000 invitations that are to sent out (and I would like to know just how “random” those invitations will be anyway!) then, as the saying goes, I have a bridge you may be interested in!

        • If you think any of the 110 will be anything but members of the Green Party, I have a bridge to sell you.

          I wouldn’t be surprised if the 30,000 invitees came from the list of Green Party contributors.

          So the difference is, the Soviets elected people from withing their party, whereas the ‘assembly’ will be chosen. Only a group like the XR could make the Soviets look democratic.

        • It’s being organised by John Selwyn Gummer AKA Lord Deben.

          A notoriously corrupt Tory who has had his trotter in the Green trough for years.
          It will not be an honest discussion.

          When Corbyn talks of Green and the poor you know he is genuine about not hurting the poor. He is genuinely Socialist. Johnson is not genuine about anything. Chaos abounds where the clown blunders and the leeches are ready to suck up the bloody remains of the UK.

          No bloodsucker worse than Deben.

          • Corbyn might be genuine about not hurting the poor but in the same way priests saved children by beating them to death. Saving them from themselves.

  24. For the second time I have been blocked from commenting on extinction rebellion’s Facebook page, obviously heretics are to be banned.

  25. Eric Worrall writes, “you bring together people from across the united kingdom so it represents people in terms of their age, in terms of their social status, in terms of their wealth, you get a cross section of people, you explain to them, you educate, and then you ask their opinion of how to move forward. Its what the Irish did in terms of their abortion question, which was very controversial…”

    I don’t think so. Here’s the exchange between Sarah Lennon & Farrage:

    Farage: Who? Who brings them together?

    Sarah: Well there are a number of people who are already running citizen’s assemblies, there are external bodies, [she means, I think, that in other countries there are such organizations already in existence—RK] you ask a body of people to set up the citizens assembly, you bring together people from across the united kingdom so it represents people in terms of their age, in terms of their social status, in terms of their wealth, you get a cross section of people, you explain to them, you educate, and then you ask their opinion of how to move forward. Its what the Irish did in terms of their abortion question, which was very controversial…

    Farage: And then what do you do, do you put this to a referendum?
    [This is what was done in Ireland.—RK]

    Sarah: You implement it through government. You have to keep the structures of the state in place…
    [This is another alternative—there is no referendum, but the advice is not binding on the government.—RK]
    Farage: An appointed citizen’s assembly would tell government what to do?

    Sarah: They would lead and advise government, and it then becomes very difficult for government to say we are not going to do this, because it has been requested by the people, by representatives of the people.
    [Nothing wrong with that.Provided no funny business goes on in the decision-making process. There’s been a lot of writing on this topic over at least the past ten years. WUWTers need to get up to speed. Check out Wikipedia on Citizens Assemblies at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_assembly. Or browse through the 46,000 papers on the topic at academia.edu, at https://www.academia.edu/people/search?utf8=✓&q=citizens+assemblies—RK%5D

    • ” … you explain to them, you educate ”

      This would seem to be the problem with Sarah’s conception of a citizens’ assembly. Bet any money she and her confreres consider any degree of scepticism an indication of uneducatabilty. I find it a bore just to hear out the Green idiots in the local garden club once a month. Basically, if you do not believe ‘all chemicals’ are ‘bad’ by definition, you are an ‘outsider’ in a mostly woman’s group. There is a considerable literature on how women deal with outsiders, and it is not pretty.

      • “Bet any money she [Sarah] and her confreres consider any degree of scepticism an indication of uneducatabilty. ”

        Sure, but they wouldn’t have veto power over the membership.

        “There is a considerable literature on how women deal with outsiders, and it is not pretty.”

        It wouldn’t matter much if, as I propose, gatherings occur over the Internet.

        • Correct. The UK is in the EU. And the UK’s decision counts.

          Scotland’s decision, London’s decision, Luton’s decision, or the decision of 52 Festive Road has no right to over-rule the member’s decision.

          The member is the UK.

    • Hans Erren: Scotland is not a separate country. It is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Membership of the EU is a matter for the entire nation, collectively. A democratic vote was held and a vote in favour of leaving was returned by majority 52:48. Regions don’t get an opt-out or veto.

      As for the “young voter” argument, its pathetic. I was too young to vote in the original referendum to join the Common Market in the 1970’s. Since then successive governments have extended membership to the EU, to join the ERM, to join a Customs Union etc all of which has been done without any mandate from the people.

      I have been denied for 40 years (my entire adult life) from having my say on our EU membership, but now you say that finally after I get to vote on the matter, after just a couple of years my vote is meaningless and that young people who were 16 in 2016 should be given a veto? What wisdom have 16 year olds suddenly acquired in the last 2 years that negates my experience of the EU over the last 40 years as an adult? My future based on a choice I would have made was stolen from me for 40 years by not allowing a vote on the huge decisions taken by government over that period with respect to ever deeper EU integration, decisions that had no mandate from the voters.

      • +1 Kids have been as easy a target for the Brexit catastrophists as they are for warmists. The alarmist claim the other day was that Brexit would cause a loss of £70 billion over 10 years… in growth. Looking at the chart it was obvious that we’d still grow under the scary headline just not as much as the concocted figure they came up with for remaining in the EU. Kids think we’d become a 3rd World basket case… ironic when kids also support Labour.

    • Yes. The same Scots who want ‘independence’ also want to suck on the EU’s teats.

      Britain would be in a much better position today if the English had been allowed to vote in the Scottish Independence referendum, because they would have voted to kick Scotland out.

    • Hans, Scotland is part of the UK. It doesn’t get to veto what the UK decides. The UK decided via referendum to exit the EU. As long as Scotland is part of the UK, they have to abide by the decisions of the UK government, same as any other part of the UK. like it or not.

  26. Oops. My lead-in quote from Eric Worrall wasn’t the one I meant to use, which was actually:

    “According to Extinction Rebellion’s Sarah Lunnon, representative democracy, at least on climate policy and economic management, should be subordinated to citizens assemblies composed of people who are already running citizens assemblies, and people nominated by organisations invited to participate.”

    She didn’t mean that, I don’t think. She meant that in other countries, or perhaps in a few British cities, there are people already running and participating in such bodies—not that the membership of the climate change assembly she wants has already been chosen.

    Note: There are 206 books on Amazon on Citizens Assemblies, at https://www.amazon.com/s?k=citizen+assemblies&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss
    Another term to look for is Deliberative Democracy—376 titles at https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Deliberative+Democracy&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

    • Yes, Sarah’s statement was a bit ambiguous, which is why I said “if I have understood this correctly…”. Either way she is describing a pretty murky process for choosing people whom Sarah expects to be more sympathetic to Extinction Rebellion’s goals than politicians chosen by the people.

  27. Nothing novel about this. Every time the Government wants to avoid controversy, they set up appointed arms length bodies to ‘produce reports’. They then quote those bodies to say ‘it wasn’t me, guv, honest!’ Every public enquiry is like this. Child sexual abuse, Grenfell fire, you name it, they want some unelected figure ‘guiding them’.

    Politicians are just glorified PR Executives nowadays. The thought that any of them might actually develop and guide policy is for the birds.

  28. The unasked question here is: – Who decides which people serve on these citizen assemblies? Some hidden elitist cabal would do that and woe betide anyone who was considered persona non grata.
    Your voting rights would be totally subject to the current consensus opinion.
    In fact what is proposed by this ER organisation is what is happening in the climate debate.
    If you happen to query what is going on you get classified as a Denier and thus subjected to all manner of disciplinary measures.
    Escalate that into the general political system and you wind up with either a Nazi or a Communist situation. This is what Extinction Rebellion is proposing. All piggybacked on the now consensus fears and hysterias over a changing Climate.

    • “Who decides which people serve on these citizen assemblies? Some hidden elitist cabal would do that and woe betide anyone who was considered persona non grata.”

      It’s all being done by computerized formula in France, and as it has been done in selecting members in other, lesser-known, Citizens Assemblies. Potential members are not questioned about their beliefs and positions—that’s a no-no.

  29. France is setting up a Citizens Assembly on climate already—it voted to do so a couple of months ago. The UK is just following along. Here are links to some threads about them on the Equality By Lot site:

    “The French Citizen Convention on the Climate”
    [Lots of info on the mechanics, which the UK will probably follow.]
    https://equalitybylot.com/2019/09/12/the-french-citizen-convention-on-the-climate/

    “Sortition in France – discussion and application”
    https://equalitybylot.com/2019/09/20/sortition-in-france-discussion-and-application/

    “Minipublics beyond representation”
    https://equalitybylot.com/2019/10/08/minipublics-beyond-representation/

    ‘More on the French Citizen Convention on the Climate”:
    https://equalitybylot.com/2019/10/18/more-on-the-french-citizen-convention-on-the-climate/

    BTW, here is criticism of Extinction Rebellion and sortition, by Michael Cook:
    Cook: “Sortition is an element in a war on civilization”
    https://equalitybylot.com/2019/10/11/cook-sortition-is-a-element-in-a-war-on-civilization/

    Keep scrolling down the Blog’s home page for snippets of and links to other recent threads (often reprints) on the topic and recent developments in it.

    I’ve been very interested in sortition for over 50 years, but never mentioned it here, fearing I’d jinx it. I.e., fearing that the PR specialists who advise the warmist movement would recognize that these citizen assemblies would give a public platform to climate skeptics and thus enable a public debate on the matter—something that they have strenuously advised warmists to avoid. This is a fantastic opportunity for our side to finally get a “public” hearing. Let’s just hope we get more than just an opportunity to get a word in edgewise.

    • Oops—I’ve just checked out the first Equality By Lot thread I listed above, “The French Citizen Convention on the Climate” at https://equalitybylot.com/2019/09/12/the-french-citizen-convention-on-the-climate/ It states:

      The allotment of 150 Frenchpeople who will take part in the Citizen Convention on the Climate has begun on Monday, August 26th and will last until the end of September, before meeting for the first time at the beginning of October. This citizen convention, aimed by Emmanuel Macron as one of the responses to the grand debate that followed the “Gilets Jaunes” crisis, will propose measures to combat global warming, as France is far from meeting its obligations.”

      Oops—That implies that skeptics will not have a voice—that the science is settled. Maybe the elite in France can get away with that, but I doubt that the organizers in the UK will be able to. If the attempt is made, I trust Farage, Monckton, and others will say that the CA is illegitimate.

      “Telephone numbers are going to be automatically generated – 85% mobile numbers and 15% landline numbers – and about 25,000 people will be called, in order to select 150.”

      So all of the final 150 must volunteer to serve.

      Six three-day weekend of work are planned, with a final day at the end of January 2020. “The 150 citizens will receive compensation based on the jury-member model [86 Euros per day and reimbursement of loss of income]. The cost of transportation, lodging and meals will also be reimbursed, as well as the cost of child care”

      So everyone will have to travel to Paris six times. This, plus the volunteering requirement, will bias representation toward highly motivated activists.

      Some criteria have been set in order to get the best representation: 52% women and 48% men, 6 age groups (starting at age 16), levels of educational attainment, a diversity of professions. Regional population will also be taken into account with 4 oversea representatives, as well as representation of urban centers, their surrounding areas and the rural areas.

      This is known as stratified sampling. OK by me.

      • In the US, the House of Representatives and the Senate are citizen assemblies, and we have them in each state, called state legislatures. The last thing we need is more government, especially unelected government.

        The only exception I would make would be for temporary assemblies that addressed a specific, single issue for the purpose of implementing a Constitutional Amendment that a bureaucratically-heavy government refused to address, like a balanced budget amendment or term limitations. Addressing a major overhaul of the country for any reason is far too nebulous for such an assembly.

        • jtom says: “In the US, the House of Representatives and the Senate are citizen assemblies, and we have them in each state, called state legislatures.”

          Elected professional (careeristic) party-politicians lack the quality of mere citizens, and mostly in a bad way.

          “The last thing we need is more government, especially unelected government.”

          Under Mencken’s version of sortition (and mine), existing legislatures would not merely be supplanted, but replaced. (My version is at https://www.academia.edu/38701375/Demarchy_small_sample_electorates_electing_officials )

          “Addressing a major overhaul of the country for any reason is far too nebulous for such an assembly.”

          We can start small, at lower levels of government, and/or with a Citizens Assembly having authority over only a small segment of public life—for instance, it might investigate politicians and public officials (say police departments) for malfeasance, and indict them if justified—or report them to prosecutors.

          Here is the meat of Mencken’s “A Purge for Legislatures”:
          ———-
          So I propose that our Legislatures be chosen as our juries are now chosen—that the names of all the men eligible in each assembly district be put into a hat (or, if no hat can be found that is large enough, into a bathtub), and that a blind moron, preferably of tender years, be delegated to draw out one. Let the constituted catchpolls then proceed swiftly to this man’s house, and take him before he can get away. Let him be brought into court forthwith, and put under bond to serve as elected, and if he cannot furnish the bond, let him be kept until the appointed day in the nearest jail.

          The advantages that this system would offer are so vast and so obvious that I hesitate to venture into the banality of rehearsing them. It would in the first place, save the commonwealth the present excessive cost of elections, and make political campaigns unnecessary. It would in the second place, get rid of all the heart-burnings that now flow out of every contest at the polls, and block the reprisals and charges of fraud that now issue from the heart-burnings. It would, in the third place, fill all the State Legislatures with men of a peculiar and unprecedented cast of mind—men actually convinced that public service is a public burden, and not merely a private snap. And it would, in the fourth and most important place, completely dispose of the present degrading knee-bending and trading in votes, for nine-tenths of the legislators, having got into office unwillingly, would be eager only to finish their duties and go home, and even those who acquired a taste for the life would be unable to do anything to increase the probability, even by one chance in a million, of their reëlection.

          The disadvantages of the plan are very few, and most of them, I believe, yield readily to analysis.

          Do I hear argument that a miscellaneous gang of tin-roofers, delicatessen dealers and retired bookkeepers, chosen by hazard, would lack the vast knowledge of public affairs needed by makers of laws? Then I can only answer (a) that no such knowledge is actually necessary, and (b) that few, if any, of the existing legislators possess it. The great majority of public problems, indeed, are quite simple, and any man may be trusted to grasp their elements in ten days who may be—and is—trusted to unravel the obfuscations of two gangs of lawyers in the same time. In this department the so-called expertness of so-called experts is largely imaginary. My scheme would have the capital merit of barring them from the game. They would lose their present enormous advantages as a class, and so their class and so their class would tend to disappear.

          Would that be a disservice to the state? Certainly not. On the contrary, it would be a service of the first magnitude, for the worst curse of democracy, as we suffer under it today, is that it makes public office a monopoly of a palpably inferior and ignoble group of men. They have to abase themselves in order to get it, and they have to keep on abasing themselves in order to hold it. The fact reflects itself in their general character, which is obviously low. They are men congenitally capable of cringing and dishonorable acts, else they would not have got into public life at all. There are, of course, exceptions to that rule among them, but how many? What I contend is simply that the number of such exceptions is bound to be smaller in the class of professional job-seekers than it is in any other class, or in the population in general.

          What I contend, second, is that choosing legislators from that population, by chance, would reduce immensely the proportion of such slimy men in the halls of legislation, and that the effects would be instantly visible in a great improvement in the justice and reasonableness of the laws.

      • I later commented on EBL:

        Here’s how to get the rejection rate way down, which is crucial to the acceptance of sortition: Let minipublics “gather” over the Internet, in a site accessible only to members and officials. Persons lacking a personal computer would be given one—or they would be given the use of one in a public building. Assemblies would occur in evenings and weekends. This would be much less inconvenient to initial contactees.

        (I assume a personal computer’s full screen will be more useful for such Citizen Assembly deliberations than the restricted screen of a smartphone. (But in poor countries smartphones may have to be accepted.))

        If there is felt to be a need to insulate proceedings from public view, or to protect members from being influenced by outsiders, a policeman or other official could visit members’ homes and ensure they were alone in a room while participating.

        And: avoiding physical get-togethers ought to defuse the operation of “crowd psychology” to some extent. But it would also be wise, I suspect, for members to be assigned to subgroups-only chatrooms, to create fire-breaks against the entire group being swept away by some bit of heated rhetoric or ill-considered brainwave.

  30. Mod: “Off with their heads” is Ok (see above) but “declare war on Extinction Rebellion and the Left in general before they put us in their death camps” is not?

  31. “Unfortunately the enemy that we’re looking at at the moment, we can’t see it.”

    Really? I’ve heard countless times that you can look out your window and see climate change.

  32. Well, if that ain’t a smack upside the head! Who knew the XRs were really after political power??? Holee Molee!!

    Those XR peeps generally inhabit London, right? And they’re on welfare, too? Never done a lick of work in their lives, probably never will, but they want everyone off of the use of carbon-based stuff.

    Okay, well, my proposal is simple: round them up, tell them they are going to a wonderful place where there is no use of carbon-based anything, free ride with meals and all that, and drive them to the part of the UK where there is little to no population (I think that’s mostly northwest, along the Atlantic coast where it gets stormy, isn’t it?) and drop them off, tell them ‘Bye, now, have fun”, and drive away. I want to see just how long they’d survive, especially with winter coming on. Since they have no skills and probably buy all their food as ‘made in the shop’ stuff, I don’t think they’d last more than about an hour and a half before they’d start calling for help and getting no response on their electronic gadgets.

    They aren’t about having a greener Earth, at all, never were. They’re about controlling everyone else. How is that different from Hitler’s Nazis and Stalin’s Commie goons???

    • Sara,

      There’s an aspect of this you’ve missed. The green agenda is supposed to be about “sustainability.” When have the greens ever proved that the system they propose is actually sustainable? Have they ever founded a colony on (say) a remote Scottish island, and followed its progress for – I’ll be kind – one generation? 25 years? Is their vision of the world “sustainable?”

  33. It’s all about marxist sh*t. Climate scare is just used as vehicle. All these people would give a sh*t about climate change if they couldn’t scare people towards their goal of a collectivist tyranny.

  34. So they’re going to write to 30,000 random households and choose 110 from whoever responds.

    Who chooses and based on what criteria?

    The parting shot from a rotten Parliament

  35. Any hope that a ‘climate skeptic’ might get a hearing at this citizens assembly is forlorn.
    Just like the IPCC, the terms of reference include the assumption that CO2 is the magic climate control knob and that we must reduce our output to ‘save the climate’ . The discussion is to be limited to how to achieve that.
    See here:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50264797
    We will have to fight this from the outside, as they are not going to let us do it from within.
    The probability that any climate realist ends up with a seat at this circus is close to zero.
    If some do get in, they’ll be told quite clearly what the scope of discussion is limited to.
    As to our December 12 election, I’ll probably have to vote Labour to keep the SNP/Green/Lib-Dem (Illiberal Anti-Dem in reality) twerps out. The so-called Conservative party , miracles excepted, probably haven’t a chance where I live.
    It’s a very much a case of choose your poison, all of them smell bad.
    Not fun at all.

    • “Any hope that a ‘climate skeptic’ might get a hearing at this citizens assembly is forlorn.
      Just like the IPCC, the terms of reference include the assumption that CO2 is the magic climate control knob and that we must reduce our output to ‘save the climate’ . The discussion is to be limited to how to achieve that.
      See here:
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50264797
      ——-

      There’s nothing in that link saying that “discussion is to be limited to” how to “save the climate.” That’s just what the CA’s proponents HOPE will occur, imagining that the populace shares their views, and only the politicians are in the way.

      “The probability that any climate realist ends up with a seat at this circus is close to zero.”

      At least a dozen will get in as members—there will not and cannot be a views-test prior tombs being seated, if the CA’s report is to have the legitimacy its proponents desire.

  36. What is most troubling is that Sarah Lunnon – having spent 30 years looking at this issue – is only interested in listening to the alarmist claims of many scientists. However, she ignores a group of reputable but skeptical scientists – the size does not matter. This indicates she has no idea of how science really works and yet she is pontificating on the climate.

    The elderly Irish broadcaster, George Hook, loves the word “horse manure.” I would not use this word to describe Lunnon’s comments. Horse manure has value in agriculture but her comments are not only worthless but actually harmful and poisonous.

    • Correct. Everything XR pushes is predicated on the ridiculous belief that all scientists know that our behavior is causing bad weather now and even worse weather in the future. All challenges to these cultist beliefs are to be rejected out of hand.

  37. 4:11 “I am watching pictures of houses being washed away in Japan, because they’ve just had the worst typhoon in 60 years”.
    #Natural60Years The clue is in the 60 year gap. The natural climate cycle is 60 years.

  38. When did we morph from a representative republic into a representative democracy? This may be more fact than fiction considering all the lobbyists ans special interests prowling around Washington DC.

    • we (meaning the US) haven’t “morph from a representative republic into a representative democracy”. At least not yet (give the left time though…..).

      That’s neither here not there, however, as XR & Farage (the subjects of this article) are in the UK (IE not anywhere near Washington DC).

  39. Following on from my previous, the UK cannot feed itself, 70 million
    needs to be about 30 million to do that. So they must export to earn sufficient money to feed the extra 40 million, then they need to export even more to enjoy a reasonable standard of living.

    The idea of a political party running the country which is intent on closing down most of its industry will soon lea to a Civil War.

    MJE VK5ELL

  40. XR doesn’t want a Citizens Assembly comprised of random people. It wants people that think like they do.

    The government is already doing what the majority of people want – if the majority wanted to destroy their economy to fight climate change then it would happen, but they don’t. Only the extremists of XR want that to happen.

  41. I am curious, but if so many people don’t care about climate change in the UK, then why aren’t there any UK political parties and/or politicians that are openly skeptical of the climate change hysteria?

    • Kyle in Upstate NY:

      You ask,
      “I am curious, but if so many people don’t care about climate change in the UK, then why aren’t there any UK political parties and/or politicians that are openly skeptical of the climate change hysteria?”

      That is a good question with an interesting answer.

      Firstly, it is simply a reality that many (probably most) “people don’t care about climate change in the UK”. But that ‘cuts both ways’ because individual politicians have nothing to gain by opposing an issue that electors don’t care about.

      Secondly, the UK has two main political parties; viz. the Conservative Party (aka the Tories) who are anti-socialists, and the Labour Party who are socialists.

      Global warming had been an obscure scientific hypothesis for a century before Margaret Thatcher came to power as a Tory Prime Minister of the UK and (for reasons of personal political advantage) she converted the hypothesis into the global warming scare.

      Thatcher’s political party were willing to go along with this because the scare could be used to support closing the UK coal industry and the Tories blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for the failures and collapse of the Tory government of PM ‘Ted’ Heath. Hence, the Tories became ‘locked’ into supporting the global warming scare which they had started.
      (I predicted the scare would exist before Thatcher had created it, and my analysis which induced that prediction can be read here,
      https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/ )

      The Tories lost office to Labour a decade later, and ‘Tony’ Blair then became PM. He had even less experience in government than Thatcher had possessed when she became PM, but by then the global warming scare had become a significant international issue and the Kyoto climate summit was planned.
      So, Blair adopted support for the scare. Simply, Thatcher had obtained credibility by making the UK the major promoter of global warming alarmism, and Blair inherited that credibility by maintaining the UK as the major promoter of global warming alarmism.

      Thus, both the two main UK political parties became promoters of the global warming scare decades ago.

      They could not obtain credibility for support of the scare without throwing money at it. Thatcher started this by ensuring that funding for research was targeted towards climate research and by establishing the Hadley Centre for climate research (which to this day remains as the operating agency for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC). Both Tories and Labour established laws and systems that are related to the global warming scare, and they promoted ‘renewables’ notably wind powered and solar powered subsidy farms. See the Section 1 on Page 3 of this item
      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
      Over the last four decades these laws, systems and promotions have established significant industries operating climate-related activities throughout the UK.

      Thus, in the UK many jobs have been created which depend on the global warming scare.

      Some minor UK political parties (e.g. the Green Party) are enthusiastic supporters of the global warming scare. Others ‘go along with it’ because opposition to the scare can gain nothing but would lose the possibility of votes from people whose employment only exists because of the scare: this includes the ‘Lib-Dems’ who support the scare and the Nigel Farage party (its present version is the Brexit Party) which does not support the scare.

      Meanwhile, the BBC is the most trusted information provider in the UK and the BBC has an official policy of promoting the global warming scare which it does both continuously and enthusiastically. And any opposition to the global warming scare gets ignored or misrepresented by the BBC.

      I hope this brief answer is sufficient.

      Richard

      • If that’s the brief answer, I’d hate to see the long one. 😉

        Seriously, though, thanks for the post, interesting stuff.

  42. “Breaking news: the British Conservative Government has just agreed Extinction Rebellion’s demand to form a climate change citizen’s assembly. 30,000 invitations will be sent at random, then 110 of the respondents will be chosen to sit on the assembly. ”

    I thought that was what Parliament was supposed to accomplish?
    Will the 110 now replace parliament?

    “By contrast Extinction Rebellion’s Sarah Lunnon has experienced 30 years of utter frustration. People simply don’t care about her cause. She is so fed up with people not listening to her she wants to change the rules of the game, to force people to listen.

    Sarah demands elected government representatives subordinate their decision making to self appointed citizens assemblies”

    Sarah Lunnon failed to accomplish anything over thirty years; including proving CO₂’s atmospheric effects; ot to convince a majority of voters; or to find and produce renewable energy sources that fully replace fossil fuels without requiring subsidies.

    Sarah’s utter failures mean that Sarah gets to rework government with a traditional unelected despotic communist politburo forcing their choices on the rest of the population.

    “Sarah: They would lead and advise government, and it then becomes very difficult for government to say we are not going to do this, because it has been requested by the people, by representatives of the people.”

    Sarah is truly rubber room material.
    Polls, whether parochial, regional, statewide, national or international clearly put climate worries at the bottom. And that is when pollsters use vague questions where they can increase the votes for a climate crisis.

    Just as every citizen, business and government must adhere to laws and regulations; so to does Sarah’s fantasy groups.
    That is; they must prove viability, effectiveness, costs control, environmental impacts and actual benefits for every squirrelly idea.

    Sarah’s groups must also be required to follow a job for job standard.
    Where Sarah’s group eliminates employment for a group of people; they must identify equivalent, in salary, benefits and labor positions before they can eliminate the jobs.

  43. Eric Worral and ATheoK:

    The UK has very recently entered a General Election campaign. All government reviews and decisions are not Crown investigations and, therefore, they cease when a General Election Result is declared.

    Simply, the announcement by Savid Javid of a “review” will be discontinued when the election result is declared in six weeks from now. In other words, Javid’s announcement of a “climate change citizen’s assembly” is ‘vote fishing’ and it means nothing unless it is included in the Tory Manifesto which has not yet been published.

    Those interested in this matter need to check the Tory Manifesto when it is published, and many XR supporters probably lack both the knowledge and the intellect to do that. Similar ‘vote fishing’ by political parties can also be expected on other subjects; e.g. the NHS.

    Richard

  44. I didn’t realize the horror film “Midsommar” was in fact a documentary about Extinction Rebellion. (sarc) The May Queen was quite clearly based on Greta Thunberg and and or the founder of XR, her May Queen dress even had the mirror image of the Extinction Rebellion abbreviation XR embroidered on it: (this is an analytical video by Truthstreammedia that features scenes from the film:) at 14:09 or 44:33 you can see the runes (meaning a journey through Extinction with a goal in sight leading to consciousness and rebirth) embroidered on her dress as the mirror image of XR or Extinction Rebellion’s abbreviated name; (sarc)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gt-DsWO4ks&list=PLE3G97oHTbUbT52fAibG5qVkTTe7XV7Z_&index=7&t=2673s

    And just for fun (for anyone who’s seen the film): https://imgur.com/07Pmthv

  45. “Sarah: They would lead and advise government, and it then becomes very difficult for government to say we are not going to do this, because it has been requested by the people, by representatives of the people.”

    You know, like the elected representatives in government… a lot like that, but different because the current representatives suck so we need better representatives that aren’t elected by people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *