UK lacks a proper constitution but blames EU for threatening UK's "constitutional integrity" when not allowing UK to have an open border to EU within UK after leaving EU, European Court of Justice (ECJ), and in practice, Human Rights!

UK (and in practice only England - not N. Ireland and Scotland) voted itself out of Ireland - which is till an EU country.

"British" hypocrisy

England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland are all competing as different countries in e.g. football - yet somehow these "countries" (except Ireland) are all either UK or "british" whenever it suits them.

Listening to BBC, England seems to be England only when it comes to cricket*  - otherwise it's all "british".

* BBC squeezes in cricket in every news hour - and almost invarably folowed up by interviews etc. And when there were no cricket "matches" BBC for almost a month filled it up with the important question about a cricketer's possibilities to play after a pub brawl or something. In BBC's main "news" day after day, week after week! Paid mostly by cricket hating (is it already a "hate crime" not to love cricket?) compulsory fee paying listeners.
Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Is UK EU's main security threat? UK's Br?exit "vote" was unconstitutional (UK lacks a modern democratic constitution) and without known content. And only England barely voted .

* A vote of such dignity as questioning a country's democratically agreed on constitutional status as an EU member state, is a given candidate for an informed (i.e. not without stated meaning) vote with usually 2/3 majority (and possibly even repeated). The "British" Br?exit vote was a dangerous joke from the perspective of civilized democracy. England lacks a functioning constitution - not to mention that it also lacks a constitutional court. "UK" is a sloppy old creation based on England's institutional colonization of a Scotland that was on the brink of bankruptcy many hundred years ago.

A referendum result is democratically legitimate only if voters can make an informed decision.

The Br?exit question assumed a binary choice — Remain or Leave the EU — while voting theory warns that allowing only two options can easily be a misleading representation of the real choice. When the true situation is more complex, and especially if it is one that arouses strong passions (especially by playing the race card against EU citizens), then reducing the question to a binary one might suggest a political motivation. As a result we actually don’t know how people would have voted when they had been offered the true options - comparable with when they joined EU (the Maastricht treaty which was open for everyone to see and hear about).

Frank Gardner is BBC's plaster when the islamofascist Saudi dictor families terror links around the world and war crimes in Syria and Yemen etc. need some silencing and calming down of BBC's in deep ignorance kept listeners who not only have to pay a compulsory fee for being fed with worse propaganda than Goebbels managed, but also to give all their personal details if they want to listen to BBC later on the web. Why?

UK didn't vote Br?exit. However England barely did so with the help of "British" non-UK/non-EU citizens while EU citizens weren't allowed to have a say about their own status in what is legally and democratically their country of home. UK citizens within EU are still within EU and protected by Human Rights. EU citizens in England are not.

People need to claim back legal right to democratic representation and
preventing the anti democratic and Human Rightsphobic  dark forces which are against democracy and nurtured by playing the race card against EU citizens and Human Rights.

The strange racist cooperation between museum items from Eton/Oxford and what Hillary would call "deplorable" "British" EU haters. And all for Sunni muslim Arab billionaire dictator families who have been behind most of the world's security breaks after WW2 - not the least on a low profile (i.e. hidden as "sensitive") street level jihad.

Human Rightsphobe Jacob Rees-Mogg is either incredibly dumb when it comes to democracy and the role of the individual and basic (negative) Human Rights -
 or alternatively, he is deliberately using methods not distinguishable from fascism.

Klevius seems to have been wrong when he noted in his article 'Social Democracy and the Rights of the Individual' (1993) that state socialism is the main opponent to individual (negative) Human Rights. But Klevius excuse is that he thought fascism died 1945 - and was ultimately erased by the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration.

Little could Klevius imagine Saudi based and steered OIC sharia against Human Right taking over UN and figures like Jacob Rees-Mogg taking over in the English parliament - and eagerly of course supported by BBC.

.
.