Brexit Fiasco and Fraud

It had to happen, the minority trying to ride roughshod over the majority in a democratic process, but is there more to this?

We live in a constitutional democracy which means the people have the power and nobody else and this is confirmed by the fact that we are governed by CONSENT and this is the concent of the people through the process of voting. MP's have no power unless we LEND it to them, and if we lend something to anyone we can take the power back at anytime. We had a legitimate vote and the majority voted to leave the EU and this is democracy in action and as MP's are public servants and we are the public, we give them the orders and they undertake them on out behalf.

Look back to Edward Heath, he took us into the EEC and he did this without the consent of the British people and did so with a selective concensus and this was done by taking a concensus of a small number of the British people within areas who they thought would agree to go into the EEC; my parents had a concensus form, yet people on the next street didn't so straight from the outset it was abuse of a position of authority and it was fraudulent and abused the power of the people as everyone should have had a vote on such an important issue.

We lent MP's our power and they gave it away to Europe as it morphed from a common trading agreement to the huge controlling monolith we have today and if you lend something to someone, they do not have the power or authority to give it away and MP's did just that; if you lent your neighbour your car you wouldn't expect them to give it away or if your mate lent you his ride on lawnmower he wouldn't expect you to give it away; and MP's have done it for so long that they expect they can do it and they ASSUME they have the authority to do it; they haven't.

Back to Brexit, as soon as the people spoke and exercised their power and gave their servants (MP's) a direct order, following al electoral process, they had spoken and exercised their power and told MP's what to do and suddenly everything broke into two ranks, the remainers and the leavers and the play on words began, what also began was the majority of MP's as public servants, disobeyed a direct order from their masters, the same masters who lent them their power and the same servants who would have been sacked from any other industry. At this point all the remainers should have been taken out of the equation by being sacked as MP's as they had committed several offences such as abuse of a position of authority, misfeasance in public office, and yes, treason, so this began a clear and deliberate effort to ignore the direct orders of their masters who followed a lawful process of giving the order, so why have they even been allowed to speak and give a view, and yes it is all bluff and deflection away from the issue being dealt with, it is also the end of democracy as MP's assume they have power when in fact they have no power. Next we had the play on words and deflection such as "16 million people voted to remain" and this is irrelevant as more voted to leave, this is democracy, and Anna Soubry gave the greatest piece of B/S ever when she claimed:

"People of Broxtowe voted for me, my ideals and morals, and my ethics" so did they? some may have but the majority voted for her as the Conservative candidate for Broxtowe and the overwhelming majority voted for the Conservative party and its manifesto and not Anna Soubry and her ideals as they were never mentioned at election time, and she reverted back to her former profession of being a Criminal Barrister, so whay is a Barister and why are they so many of them sitting as MP's?

Barristers are nothing more than professional mouthpieces whose only role is to convince a jury that black is white, that clouds are made from cotton wool, and that coal slack is made from ice cream, and this is the reason so many MP's are former or even current Barristers as they are nothing more then professional con men and women. Ironically I have a copy of her election leaflet as my Mother lives in Broxtowe and still has one and this makes no mention of Anna Soubry's morals, ethics, or ideals; so she is caught out as a liar , cheat, and fraudster. Broxtowe voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU by a big margin so Soubry is not only a liar, she is a cheat and a fraudster as she is taking her salary as an MP by fraudulent means, so why aren't all these MP's not respecting the wishes of the majority of their constituents all facing criminal charges of fraud and obtaining money by deception; and why has Soubry (among many others) claiming she is representing the entire country, more lies as she was elected to represent Broxtowe, if she were representing the whole country she woudn't be an MP as she would be the Prime Minister.

It all starts from day one. They try to convince you they are there to represent you ,but the very first
thing they do is to swear allegiance to the queen and the crown . You cannot serve two masters.


Members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords are required to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown before they take their seats in Parliament after a general election or by-election and after the death of the monarch. Any MP or Member of the House of Lords who objects to swearing an oath can make a solemn affirmation instead. This process is known as swearing in.

Why Members take an oath of allegiance
Wording of the oaths
Wording of the solemn affirmation
A new Parliament
Taking the oath in the House of Commons
Taking the oath in the House of Lords
State Opening
Determining order of seniority of MPs
By-elections and MPs
Commons Library briefing

Why Members take an oath of allegiance

Oaths of allegiance to the Crown are fairly common in British public life and are similar to those in other countries where a declaration of loyalty is made to the state.

Members of both Houses of Parliament are required by law to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown on taking their seat in Parliament.

Until the oath or affirmation is taken, an MP may not receive a salary, take their seat, speak in debates or vote. They could also be fined £500 and – more important – have their seat declared vacant “as if they were dead” if they attempt to do so.

Similar restrictions apply to Members of the Lords: they may not sit, vote or receive allowances until they take the oath or affirmation.
Wording of the oaths

The wording of the oath is prescribed by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. The form and manner of administering the oath are set out in the Oaths Act 1978.

An MP takes the oath by holding the sacred text in his or her uplifted hand and says the words of the oath.
English wording

I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

The Act also permits the oath to be taken in the Scottish manner, with uplifted hand but not holding the sacred text. Members who want to do so may also take the oath as prescribed in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, by kissing the book and using the words:

I (name of Member) do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Texts of the oath and affirmation in Braille are available for use by Members of both Houses with impaired sight.

The oath/affirmation must be made/taken initially in English, but Members of both Houses may, if they wish, to follow this with an oath or affirmation in Welsh, Scottish Gaelic or Cornish.

Oath/affirmation cards in these languages are available at the time of swearing-in.