Highcourt Ruling on Brexit

[Cherie]

Parliament have to vote

[Withano]

Interesting. So they can either vote for leaving, better in the short run, no riots or mistrust. Or they can vote for whats better in the long run, staying in and rebalancing the value of the pound. I wouldnt want to have their power right now, theyre either gonna piss off 52% of adults or all future generations of Brits.

Is there a date?

[Braden]

I'm interested to see how this will turn out.

I doubt the majority of them will want to piss off the 52% that voted to leave, fair and square. The consequences would be nasty and generate an even far worse state of Great Britain than we already have.

[Crimson Dynamo]

a supreme court tea

[MTVN]

Crikey didn't expect that

They will definitely vote in favour of it by a huge majority though, maybe the SNP will vote against and some MPs will abstain

[MTVN]

794129842392432640

[Livia]

I they reverse the vote they will never be trusted again to carry out the democratic intentions of their electorate.

[Crimson Dynamo]

794129842392432640

lol the pound is such a mess of avarice

[Cherie]

Interesting. So they can either vote for leaving, better in the short run, no riots or mistrust. Or they can vote for whats better in the long run, staying in and rebalancing the value of the pound. I wouldnt want to have their power right now, theyre either gonna piss off 52% of adults or all future generations of Brits.

Is there a date?

No it looks like there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court

[Rob!]

Good. Anything that halts this ridiculous decision can only be a good thing.

[Vicky.]

So...a referendum was pointless? Surely this should have been checked beforehand?

For what its worth I do think they will go along with the vote though. But this is a bit silly

[Kizzy]

They don't want to block it, surprised so many still confused by this.

'We will scrutinise. We will examine. But my Lords – we will not block. But neither will we be bullied into abdicating our responsibilities.

We have to be adult about this. We can’t have the most enthusiastic Brexiters crying foul every time Parliament asks for more details or seeks to scrutinise.

This can’t be the only issue on which the Government is allowed a blank cheque without any accountability. It’s complex, it’s difficult. And the Government should see this House as an asset and not try to avoid helpful scrutiny.'

NI need to appeal their decision now, surprised they rushed through their ruling, if they had waited to see what ours was?...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/nov/03/article-50-high-court-ruling-high-court-set-to-rule-on-whether-mps-should-vote-on-triggering-article-50-politics-live

[Crimson Dynamo]

So...a referendum was pointless? Surely this should have been checked beforehand?

For what its worth I do think they will go along with the vote though. But this is a bit silly

http://www.gocompare.com/coveredcontent/coveredimages/david-cameron-hand-on-mouth?view=Standard

[Kizzy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwVVmWTXUAAorYP.jpg

[UserSince2005]

if brexit doesnt go through then this country is not a democracy.

[Northern Monkey]

It's nothing to worry about.All the government has to do is ask parliament a binary question:To trigger article 50 or not
Only the SNP will dare vote against it.It'll still get triggered.

[Denver]

so basically the voters dont have a voice

[Vicky.]

I'm getting my conspiracy head on now and I have now decided Cameron stepped down as he found out this and didn't want to deal with it :laugh:

[Tom4784]

Living for the fumes if Brexit gets overturned tbh.

[Livia]

It will not be overturned. The people have spoken in a fair and democratic election. Politicians have to reflect that.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I'm getting my conspiracy head on now and I have now decided Cameron stepped down as he found out this and didn't want to deal with it :laugh:

his legacy gets worse and worse

[jaxie]

The people have spoken, the house of commons works for the people, therefore the house of commons isn't neccessary in this instance. Let's hope the appeal sorts it out. If they don't and it goes through, it's going to be fun next time Scotland has a referendum. :shrug:

[jaxie]

I'm getting my conspiracy head on now and I have now decided Cameron stepped down as he found out this and didn't want to deal with it :laugh:

I think you are right, but not over this. I think he realised it was going to be difficult, didn't have a plan and ran for the hills.

[Josy]

So much for democracy

[Kizzy]

This is democracy....The govt making all the decisions on brexit is autocracy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/596636528425697280/WI2D5I3N_400x400.jpg
Nigel Farage Verified account
‏@Nigel_Farage

Last night at the Spectator Awards I had a distinct feeling that our political class do not accept the 23rd of June referendum result.


https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eser p%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[jaxie]

This is democracy....The govt making all the decisions on brexit is autocracy.

The people made the decision.

[arista]

So...a referendum was pointless? Surely this should have been checked beforehand?

For what its worth I do think they will go along with the vote though. But this is a bit silly



No we have a appeal

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwVRP5rXcAE3f8W.jpg

[jaxie]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwVRP5rXcAE3f8W.jpg

I think he might be right. This could make the idea of a hard Brexit difficult and I would much prefer a hard Brexit.

We don't need to keep bits and pieces of the EU and we may be forced to if they start scoring points off each other in parliament over it.

[smudgie]

Ok, if the Govt lose the appeal, maybe time to call a general election and see if they get a bigger majority.
Wonder who will be quaking in their boots the most....perhaps the MPs who dare to go against their constituent voters.:shrug:

[Tom4784]

It would be beautiful to see Brexit fail and Farage's 'legacy' go up in flames after all the lies he told during the campaign.

[Livia]

There were lies on both sides. The outcome was clear though.

[Kizzy]

The people made the decision.

Yeah... right.

Anyhoo that's another story, this isn't about a 2nd referendum.

[Rob!]

It will not be overturned. The people have spoken in a fair and democratic election. Politicians have to reflect that.

It's their job to do what is best for the country and seeing as, months after the referendum result, we are still yet to see one single positive to come out of potentially leaving the EU that would be to halt this as quickly as possible.

[Kizzy]

It would be beautiful to see Brexit fail and Farage's 'legacy' go up in flames after all the lies he told during the campaign.

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

Remember all the rats deserting the sinking ship?... They're back and in the Telegraph! *and nobody anywhere was surprised*

[Livia]

It's their job to do what is best for the country and seeing as, months after the referendum result, we are still yet to see one single positive to come out of potentially leaving the EU that would be to halt this as quickly as possible.

Actually, their job is to represent their constituents in Parliament.

You will never see a positive out of Brexit because you don't choose to. Your mind is made up and nothing will change that, it's clear.

An election result cannot be overturned because you don't like it.

[Kizzy]

There were lies on both sides. The outcome was clear though.

Wasn't it ruled that referendums were not binding?... :idc:

[Livia]

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

Remember all the rats deserting the sinking ship?... They're back and in the Telegraph! *and nobody anywhere was surprised*

Rats?

Nice.

[Livia]

Wasn't it ruled that referendums were not binding?... :idc:

Only if the outcome doesn't suit you.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yeah... right.

Anyhoo that's another story, this isn't about a 2nd referendum.

Jesus Kizzy how arrogant is your post?

like you are somehow better than the millions who voted, tyhat you are "in the know"

what a terrible attitude to have

seriously

[Kizzy]

Only if the outcome doesn't suit you.

Hey... I don't make the rules Liv :)

[arista]

This is democracy....The govt making all the decisions on brexit is autocracy.


No keep your Rudder away from our ship

[Livia]

Hey... I don't make the rules Liv :)

It would do you well to remember that.

[Kizzy]

Jesus Kizzy how arrogant is your post?

like you are somehow better than the millions who voted, tyhat you are "in the know"

what a terrible attitude to have

seriously

I'm just having my say LT :shrug:

[Northern Monkey]

Ok, if the Govt lose the appeal, maybe time to call a general election and see if they get a bigger majority.
Wonder who will be quaking in their boots the most....perhaps the MPs who dare to go against their constituent voters.:shrug:

It would obliterate Labour.Last thing they want.

[Livia]

Jesus Kizzy how arrogant is your post?

like you are somehow better than the millions who voted, tyhat you are "in the know"

what a terrible attitude to have

seriously

Isn't that the same with all the remoaners?

[Kizzy]

It would do you well to remember that.

Ok, now back to the fact the govt made it so referendums are not binding, what could that mean do you think?

[Kizzy]

Isn't that the same with all the remoaners?

Aw... I can't say rats but you can say remoaners? naw :(

[Crimson Dynamo]

I'm just having my say LT :shrug:

incorrect you seem to be using this important news story to try and show people that somehow voting for Brexit was "wrong" (and how you...told em so)

Lets stick to the news at hand rather than branding half the electorate as fools

[Livia]

Ok, now back to the fact the govt made it so referendums are not binding, what could that mean do you think?

Do you have any idea how tedious it gets when you try to get this silly non-debates rolling with me?

I'll give you a clue. ****ing tedious.

[Kizzy]

No keep your Rudder away from our ship

I'll try Arista.

[Crimson Dynamo]

i fear that this baby is coming out...


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_t6mLs7rRdYI/So7aPx_nwWI/AAAAAAAAALc/Pxir9tuQgew/image20.png?imgmax=800

:worry:

[Kizzy]

Do you have any idea how tedious it gets when you try to get this silly non-debates rolling with me?

I'll give you a clue. ****ing tedious.

I asked a question and you called me a remoaner, I'm the injured party here.

[Northern Monkey]

It's honestly nothing to worry about.No serious politician would want to be seen voting against the will of the people.They won't block it.They would become very unpopular indeed.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It's honestly nothing to worry about.No serious politician would want to be seen voting against the will of the people.They won't block it.They would become very unpopular indeed.

what about endlessly delay it?

[Northern Monkey]

what about endlessly delay it?How?If the government give parliament a vote on triggering article 50 then they'll have to vote on it.The majority won't vote against it.Job done.

[kirklancaster]

I SERIOUSLY believe that it would bring some negative people the greatest pleasure to see the UK in smouldering tatters and completely permanently destroyed as a country. :shrug:

Where would all the 5 million 'Economic Migrants' go then?

What would happen to all those on benefits?

What would happen to the millions of sick and needy?

This country is not perfect but it is better than any other that I can think of.

True Democracy is impossible in its purest sense, but OUR form of Democracy ain't at all bad.

The REFERENDUM result was the Vox Populi - the VOICE and WILL of the people - learn to live with it.

[Kizzy]

Since when did a government care about the will of the people? If they wanted it stopped, it would be stopped.

[Kizzy]

I SERIOUSLY believe that it would bring some negative people the greatest pleasure to see the UK in smouldering tatters and completely permanently destroyed as a country. :shrug:

Where would all the 5 million 'Economic Migrants' go then?

What would happen to all those on benefits?

What would happen to the millions of sick and needy?

This country is not perfect but it is better than any other that I can think of.

True Democracy is impossible in its purest sense, but OUR form of Democracy ain't at all bad.

The REFERENDUM result was the Vox Populi - the VOICE and WILL of the people - learn to live with it.

Looks like that's the way it's going now thanks to the 'will of the people'

Thanks peeps! :thumbs:

[kirklancaster]

Looks like that's the way it's going now thanks to the 'will of the people'

Thanks peeps! :thumbs:

:laugh: Boy - the amount of members on here with Divine Insight - 'tis miraculous.

Do you fancy a REAL wager on the outcome of the result of this nonsense?

£100 proofed on here as a donation to any Charity of your choice from the loser.

I wager that NOTHING comes of it and Brexit remains 'On Course'.

[Kizzy]

incorrect you seem to be using this important news story to try and show people that somehow voting for Brexit was "wrong" (and how you...told em so)



Lets stick to the news at hand rather than branding half the electorate as fools

Your words not mine...

I 'seem to be'? Take your supposition LT, I don't need it thanks.

[Kizzy]

:laugh: Boy - the amount of members on here with Divine Insight - 'tis miraculous.

Do you fancy a REAL wager on the outcome of the result of this nonsense?

£100 proofed on here as a donation to any Charity of your choice from the loser.

I wager that NOTHING comes of it and Brexit remains 'On Course'.

Again just having my say, you don't have to like it or agree, tis not necessary.

[UserSince2005]

#DeathToGinaMiller

[arista]

The Appeal
can get it back to normal Kizzy

[joeysteele]

Not going over the whole sorry mess that was the campaign as to the EU from both sides but since a lot of it was about returning full powers back to the UK parliament,I am mystified at ....

Why this govt fears votes from MPs,why too does anyone particularly those who voted to leave fear any possible and much more highly unlikely new referendum, 'if' that is, they really know and believe the voters are still with them as to leaving the EU.

However, the referendum was voted for by all MPs, there was a Nationwide campaign by all MPs and parties from Westminster.
Whatever shape leaving takes, then why is this a govt issue only, the leaving terms and deal will affect the UK for the future totally, it will affect all future governments too.
Why couldn't this govt, make this a national negotiated deal with active representatives from all parties elected to Westminster.

No one then could say this was a bad deal or wrong deal but to just keep everyone in the dark save government Ministers, is dubious at best and wrong overall.
In my opinion.

Plan with all parties, properly consult, not pay just lip service and then bring forward the agreed date for all MPs to vote as to triggering article 50.
With a final vote on the deal concluded.
Why make this important decision so hard to head into by demanding to do it all by themselves,this govt could under Theresa May have made a massive step to uniting not only Parliament on this but also the UK as a whole, as best it could be.

Also the EU seeing a totally united UK parliament with all included may then just look to possibly being that bit more amiable too.

Failing all that, yes, have a general election, lets see what the voters and the new voters who have turned 18 since the EU vote, want as to the leaving deal.
The Lib Dems would likely campaign on remaining in the EU.
UKIP and the Conservatives would be going for a harder leaving deal.
Labour would be probably going for a softer leaving deal.

Why even fear an election on that issue, let's get not only the decision to leave out the way by the voters as we did in June,also now however get how the voters 'really want' the UK to leave the EU too.

If the overall view of the voters really does remain as it was on June 23rd, then any voting on the issue should not worry anyone at all, no matter how they voted.
Then, UK voters would then too get the leaving deal they asked and voted for at that time too.
What is to fear at all as to that.

Parliament wastes loads of time and has endless votes on trifling things, this issue is the biggest issue in over half a century at least.
So of course much more clarity and solid voting by all MPs in parliament is necessary.
It is a mystery to me why this govt and Prime Minister ever wanted to deny that.

I hope the appeal gets upheld in the Supreme court.
An arrogant dismissive govt, again just my opinion, is not going to be any better than the EU was in the end.

[Crimson Dynamo]

0Q_2Ml4af74

[kirklancaster]

Again just having my say, you don't have to like it or agree, tis not necessary.

Why post this? I NEVER said anything about "having to like it or agree" but once again Kizzy, your response has got NOTHING to do with the context of the post you are responding to.

Nice deflection. NOT.

[Denver]

this country will enter civil war as there will be riots and all sorts that will not be able to be handled

[Rob!]

Actually, their job is to represent their constituents in Parliament.

You will never see a positive out of Brexit because you don't choose to. Your mind is made up and nothing will change that, it's clear.

An election result cannot be overturned because you don't like it.

Actually I'm more than prepared to consider the positives but, as I said, I am yet to come across any. Tell me the positives!

[Crimson Dynamo]

Actually I'm more than prepared to consider the positives but, as I said, I am yet to come across any. Tell me the positives!

some positives according to the indie

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-what-next-reasons-to-be-positive-eu-referendum-jeremy-corbyn-a7104016.html

[Kizzy]

Why post this? I NEVER said anything about "having to like it or agree" but once again Kizzy, your response has got NOTHING to do with the context of the post you are responding to.

Nice deflection. NOT.

Well I don't have divine insight , I thought that was obvious, kind of goes without saying, what I do have though the next best thing...an opinion.

[jaxie]

Actually I'm more than prepared to consider the positives but, as I said, I am yet to come across any. Tell me the positives!

The falling pound is good for exporters and the tourism industry and people who are paid in dollars like me.

Most of the positive will be apparent after we actually leave, your need for proofs is premature as nothing has really happened yet.

We can then have a fishing industry again, we won't have to abide by EU quotas that cause overfishing in our waters by boats from other countries. We can stop this which is better for our environment.

We can have control over our laws. We can make our own decisions. We won't have to pay a hefty EU bill. We can trade more easily with countries outside the EU. Etc.

[Kizzy]

The falling pound is good for exporters and the tourism industry and people who are paid in dollars like me.

Most of the positive will be apparent after we actually leave, your need for proofs is premature as nothing has really happened yet.

We can then have a fishing industry again, we won't have to abide by EU quotas that cause overfishing in our waters by boats from other countries. We can stop this which is better for our environment.

We can have control over our laws. We can make our own decisions. We won't have to pay a hefty EU bill. We can trade more easily with countries outside the EU. Etc.

Oh well as long as you're ok... :laugh:

[Kizzy]

'The Prime Minister was trying to “reverse the result of the English Civil War” when she sought to use the power of the Queen to begin the process of leaving the European Union, according to a leading constitutional lawyer.

Theresa May wants to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty by invoking the Royal Prerogative – the power of the monarch vested in the Prime Minister. While the High Court ruled this would be illegal, the Government now plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.

But Geoffrey Robertson QC said this showed how “ignorant” Ms May and Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC were of the UK’s constitutional requirements, adding that the confusion added to the case for creating a formal written constitution.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-theresa-may-english-civil-war-constitution-lawyer-a7395586.html

[Scarlett.]

Parliament voting on issues is how this country is supposed to work. From what I've seen of May, she'd rather it doesn't exist.

[reece(:]

Cancel Brexit and lock up any rioters :clap1:

[Kizzy]

Don't be a banana...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/brexit-high-court-ruling-james-obrien-unleashes-tirade-theresa-may-article-50-a7395466.html

[Denver]

Cancel Brexit and lock up any rioters :clap1:

lets let out the rapists and murderers to make space for them

[Withano]

I dont know.. If 52% of people voted to exterminate all bees and then the planet started dying, wouldnt we admit we were wrong and let the proffesionals repopulate them instead of hoping for an upcoming miracle.. I know weve had enough of professionals with their logic and science and degrees relevant to the situation.. but wheres the line? sure the people voted but if its clearly the worse of two scenarios should we not just be grown ups and accept we voted unwisely?

[jaxie]

Oh well as long as you're ok... :laugh:

:thumbs:

[jaxie]

I dont know.. If 52% of people voted to exterminate all bees and then the planet started dying, wouldnt we admit we were wrong and let the proffesionals repopulate them instead of hoping for an upcoming miracle.. I know weve had enough of professionals with their logic and science and degrees relevant to the situation.. but wheres the line? sure the people voted but if its clearly the worse of two scenarios should we not just be grown ups and accept we voted unwisely?

We're not wrong.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I dont know.. If 52% of people voted to exterminate all bees and then the planet started dying, wouldnt we admit we were wrong and let the proffesionals repopulate them instead of hoping for an upcoming miracle.. I know weve had enough of professionals with their logic and science and degrees relevant to the situation.. but wheres the line? sure the people voted but if its clearly the worse of two scenarios should we not just be grown ups and accept we voted unwisely?

why would that vote take place initially?

[Kizzy]

We're not wrong.

You sure about that?...

The High Court’s decision to rule against the Government’s Brexit plans and require Parliament’s approval before Article 50 is triggered is “a resounding defence of parliamentary democracy”, a leading lawyer in the case has told The Independent.

In a surprise verdict that represents a major blow for the Government’s Brexit plans, the Lord Chief Justice backed a legal challenge brought by a coalition of anti-Brexit challengers.

Speaking in court to The Independent following the verdict, John Halford from Bindmans LLP, who represents the People’s Challenge that took the case against the Government, said: “This is a resounding defence of our parliamentary democracy from our unanimous court.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-latest-high-court-ruling-resounding-defence-democracy-parliamentary-article-a7395191.html

[Crimson Dynamo]

If voting actually made any difference

They would not let us do it


Mark Twain

[Kizzy]

why would that vote take place initially?

Um.... Have you read The Bill of Rights?

[Withano]

why would that vote take place initially?

Ukip voters demanded it

[Kizzy]

How can the govt appeal? This Lord Thomas is as high as it goes... Who are they going to appeal to! God? :joker:

[jaxie]

You sure about that?...

The High Court’s decision to rule against the Government’s Brexit plans and require Parliament’s approval before Article 50 is triggered is “a resounding defence of parliamentary democracy”, a leading lawyer in the case has told The Independent.

In a surprise verdict that represents a major blow for the Government’s Brexit plans, the Lord Chief Justice backed a legal challenge brought by a coalition of anti-Brexit challengers.

Speaking in court to The Independent following the verdict, John Halford from Bindmans LLP, who represents the People’s Challenge that took the case against the Government, said: “This is a resounding defence of our parliamentary democracy from our unanimous court.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-latest-high-court-ruling-resounding-defence-democracy-parliamentary-article-a7395191.html

Positive.

[Kizzy]

I have a suspicion that many do not really fully understand what it means to be democratic, ...even the PM it would seem that although May says the word 'democratic' she does not understand how the democratic process works.
If she did we wouldn't have people taking her to court to ensure our democratic constitution is upheld.

[smudgie]

How can the govt appeal? This Lord Thomas is as high as it goes... Who are they going to appeal to! God? :joker:

Ermmmmmm, the Supreme Court of course.
The highest in the land:shrug:

[Kizzy]

Ermmmmmm, the Supreme Court of course.
The highest in the land:shrug:

The man who had the final say is Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

As head of the judiciary and President of the Courts, he is the most senior judge in the UK. That honour was previously held by the Lord Chancellor, who is usually an MP or peer, but the legal powers of that role were mostly removed by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

But this is the top guy... the big cheese.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-article-50-theresa-may-high-court-lord-chief-justice-john-thomas-a7395026.html

[Maru]

http://i.imgur.com/tgcrVzK.jpg

The American interpretation of this news via Twitter

[Jessica.]

It would be beautiful to see Brexit fail and Farage's 'legacy' go up in flames after all the lies he told during the campaign.

:clap1: Bring it on.

[Maru]

This must be our future when our new president gets elected and that vote becomes highly contested. Then ensues the epic battle to get them impeached, FBI investigations, scandal after scandal and so on... may end up with a stalled system

[Kizzy]

David Davies MP ✔ @DavidTCDavies
Unelected judges calling the shots. This is precisely why we voted out. Power to the people!


Anarchy in the UK? called for by 'mr brexit'.

Unelected judges :laugh:

[jaxie]

I have a suspicion that many do not really fully understand what it means to be democratic, ...even the PM it would seem that although May says the word 'democratic' she does not understand how the democratic process works.
If she did we wouldn't have people taking her to court to ensure our democratic constitution is upheld.

I suspect some people don't understand that the EU is morally wrong.

[Kizzy]

I suspect some people don't understand that the EU is morally wrong.

Excuse me? I don't understand this.

[jaxie]

The man who had the final say is Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

As head of the judiciary and President of the Courts, he is the most senior judge in the UK. That honour was previously held by the Lord Chancellor, who is usually an MP or peer, but the legal powers of that role were mostly removed by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

But this is the top guy... the big cheese.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-article-50-theresa-may-high-court-lord-chief-justice-john-thomas-a7395026.html

Except the appeal is happening. The legal action was taken in the High Court, the appeal will happen in the Supreme Court.

[jaxie]

Excuse me? I don't understand this.

Oh dear.

[Kizzy]

Except the appeal is happening. The legal action was taken in the High Court, the appeal will happen in the Supreme Court.

Yes I get that but if the most senior judge has ruled, then how can someone less senior over rule him?

[jaxie]

Yes I get that but if the most senior judge has ruled, then how can someone less senior over rule him?

The most senior judge at the High Court. Not at the Supreme Court.

[Kizzy]

Theresa May has said she accepts the government will have to pass an act of parliament before it can trigger article 50, the formal process for leaving the European Union.

The government has said it will appeal Thursday’s unexpected high court ruling, which stated that MPs needed to vote on triggering article 50. Downing Street has insisted it will stick to the timetable of invoking article 50 before the end of March 2017.

Asked whether the prime minister agreed with the Brexit secretary, David Davis, that if the judgment is upheld by the supreme court next month the government will have to put a bill before parliament, she said: “What David Davis was setting out is what would be a logical conclusion to draw from the judgment from today.”

Davis had said: “The judges have laid out what we can’t do and not exactly what we can do, but we are presuming it requires an act of parliament, therefore both Commons and Lords.”

A formal bill would grant MPs and peers the opportunity to stage a full debate before article 50 is triggered; to table amendments and, some hope, debate the broad principles on which the government will conduct negotiations with the other 27 EU member states.

Don't you just love democracy in action? :D

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/theresa-may-concedes-triggering-article-50-will-need-act-of-parliament

[jaxie]

Theresa May has said she accepts the government will have to pass an act of parliament before it can trigger article 50, the formal process for leaving the European Union.

The government has said it will appeal Thursday’s unexpected high court ruling, which stated that MPs needed to vote on triggering article 50. Downing Street has insisted it will stick to the timetable of invoking article 50 before the end of March 2017.

Asked whether the prime minister agreed with the Brexit secretary, David Davis, that if the judgment is upheld by the supreme court next month the government will have to put a bill before parliament, she said: “What David Davis was setting out is what would be a logical conclusion to draw from the judgment from today.”

Davis had said: “The judges have laid out what we can’t do and not exactly what we can do, but we are presuming it requires an act of parliament, therefore both Commons and Lords.”

A formal bill would grant MPs and peers the opportunity to stage a full debate before article 50 is triggered; to table amendments and, some hope, debate the broad principles on which the government will conduct negotiations with the other 27 EU member states.

Don't you just love democracy in action? :D

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/theresa-may-concedes-triggering-article-50-will-need-act-of-parliament

I do love democracy, that''s why we MUST leave the EU.

[Kizzy]

Oh dear.

Explain this moral dilemma, I don't see the inference.

[Crimson Dynamo]

this has been a bad day for the remain camp and it could get worse

[Kizzy]

I do love democracy, that''s why we MUST leave the EU.

As far as I can see that is not in question is it?...It's being decided by democratic process is all, and seeing as you love democracy you must be ecstatic with the result.

[Kizzy]

The most senior judge at the High Court. Not at the Supreme Court.

I'm aware of this thanks, who would be above him there? apart from Lords and that would be a conflict of interest wouldn't it?

[Withano]

As far as I can see that is not in question is it?...It's being decided by democratic process is all, and seeing as you love democracy you must be ecstatic with the result.

Lol no it doesnt work both ways. Its like when brexiters kept telling remainers they had lost and to get over it, that doesnt work both ways either. Brexit means bre:shrug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

SO you ask the electorate

Did you know that this would happen post result?

how many would say yes?

How many remain candidates mentioned this?

When did DC tell the British public about this pre-vote?

[kirklancaster]

I ain't a worrying. Ain't nuffin gonna change. Let all the remainers have their moments of ecstatic dreaming. It's only Democratic that they should.

[reece(:]

Can leave stop acting as if we're of no right to an opinion on the matter now that we're leaving. The 15m people still feel passionately about something and shouldn't need to keep schtum on any accord, it makes debate redundant without opposition.

[joeysteele]

Can leave stop acting as if we're of no right to an opinion on the matter now that we're leaving. The 15m people still feel passionately about something and shouldn't need to keep schtum on any accord, it makes debate redundant without opposition.

16 million reece and for sure leave voters would have been screaming on and on had this been lees than 4% the other way.

However this court action is not about stopping leaving, it is about the right to decide when and how and by who.

It should be elected MPs of all parties in parliament that should decide the timing and the process in my opinion and not just the govt of the day.
This will affect all govts of all colours in the future and so all MPS in Westminster should give consent.
All that was given consent to by MPs in the EU vote for the referendum was to hold one, not the detail of whatever transpired following the vote.

Anyway what an irony there would be were after whatever decision the Supreme makes on this, if this was then taken on appeal to the European court to decide the issue.
There could be a fair way to go yet.

If anyone has been holding up the leaving process, it is the govt and Theresa May, she likely could have had passed already the timing of triggering article 50, had she allowed a parliamentary vote.
Then also worked to gather together all the consensus for a smooth leaving process, had she properly consulted all other parties,(including UKIP, without who there would for sure have been no referendum in the first place), and their MPs elected to parliament.
She is actually herself creating most of the problems.

[Johnnyuk123]

16 million reece and for sure leave voters would have been screaming on and on had this been lees than 4% the other way.

However this court action is not about stopping leaving, it is about the right to decide when and how and by who.

It should be elected MPs of all parties in parliament that should decide the timing and the process in my opinion and not just the govt of the day.
This will affect all govts of all colours in the future and so all MPS in Westminster should give consent.
All that was given consent to by MPs in the EU vote for the referendum was to hold one, not the detail of whatever transpired following the vote.

Anyway what an irony there would be were after whatever decision the Supreme makes on this, if this was then taken on appeal to the European court to decide the issue.
There could be a fair way to go yet.

If anyone has been holding up the leaving process, it is the govt and Theresa May, she likely could have had passed already the timing of triggering article 50, had she allowed a parliamentary vote.
Then also worked to gather together all the consensus for a smooth leaving process, had she properly consulted all other parties,(including UKIP, without who there would for sure have been no referendum in the first place), and their MPs elected to parliament.
She is actually herself creating most of the problems.

Please list those problems...

[joeysteele]

They are clearly detailed in my post I am not repeating them.

[Johnnyuk123]

They are clearly detailed in my post I am not repeating them.

So Theresa May created LOADS of problems but those LOADS of problems are already in your first post? So why would you end your post with... she created loads of problems suggesting there were more problems??? Why end your post like that if you had already pointed them out in the first place? :shrug:

[arista]

"However this court action is not about stopping leaving, it is about the right to decide when and how and by who."

Yes Joey
but lets see after Our Appel.

[user104658]

So Theresa May created LOADS of problems but those LOADS of problems are already in your first post? So why would you end your post with... she created loads of problems suggesting there were more problems??? Why end your post like that if you had already pointed them out in the first place? :shrug:

Except that he said "most of the problems" and didn't, in fact, use the word "loads" ... ... anywhere.

[joeysteele]

"However this court action is not about stopping leaving, it is about the right to decide when and how and by who."

Yes Joey
but lets see after Our Appel.

I am not that certain myself that the Supreme court will actually fully overturn the decision today arista from the High court.

It is now a case of wait and see but all possible court action could have probably been avoided, had she just accepted a full parliamentary vote.
She has, to me, opened up more divisions rather than set about closing them down.

I, (just my opinion), feel that is a big mistake from her and her govt; on such a gigantic issue,which this is, and which affects everyone all over the UK.

[Johnnyuk123]

I am not that certain myself that the Supreme court will actually fully overturn the decision today arista from the High court.

It is now a case of wait and see but all possible court action could have probably been avoided, had she just accepted a full parliamentary vote.
She has, to me, opened up more divisions rather than set about closing them down.

I, (just my opinion), feel that is a big mistake from her and her govt; on such a gigantic issue,which this is, and which affects everyone all over the UK.

How so? What has she said to open up more division?

[joeysteele]

I really do not mean to come across at all disrespectful johnnyuk123 but I honestly have no wish whatsoever to ever debate with you on anything, so it may be better to go play your games with others, I am not in the slightest bit interested.
With the fullest respect.

[arista]

I am not that certain myself that the Supreme court will actually fully overturn the decision today arista from the High court.

It is now a case of wait and see but all possible court action could have probably been avoided, had she just accepted a full parliamentary vote.
She has, to me, opened up more divisions rather than set about closing them down.

I, (just my opinion), feel that is a big mistake from her and her govt; on such a gigantic issue,which this is, and which affects everyone all over the UK.


Yes it's up in the air
But it can still go ahead or some say a General Election

[Johnnyuk123]

I really do not mean to come across at all disrespectful johnnyuk123 but I honestly have no wish whatsoever to ever debate with you on anything, so it may be better to go play your games with others, I am not in the slightest bit interested.
With the fullest respect.

You are being very disrespectful with your post above. I wasn't personal toward you at any point or rude to you yet you when asked simple questions rather than answer them honestly and openly post personal insults towards me and expect me to fall in line with your personal insults? Sorry it does not compute here. Please stick to the thread topic.

[Withano]

So Theresa May created LOADS of problems but those LOADS of problems are already in your first post? So why would you end your post with... she created loads of problems suggesting there were more problems??? Why end your post like that if you had already pointed them out in the first place? :shrug:

Not a fan of summaries? They're very common.

[joeysteele]

Yes it's up in the air
But it can still go ahead or some say a General Election

It is arista,
Personally whatever the result I think a general election is a way to resolve all problems.
What do you think arista if I may ask, do you think that will now likely be a stronger possibility.
As I detailed in my first post, we would have the choice of what plans the different parties all had.

The issue then settled,if Theresa May won then she can go for whatever type of leaving deal she wants, just as Labour or a combination of the others can if they win the day.

No worries then either of presenting a deal to parliament once completed in a few years time that may possibly even get voted down.

[Alf]

Remember the government referendum leaflet?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Ay9JtRot-OnnC9Ggb4K6oTy58CXupd_nIvZuMMIIt2_M7UDEM_wPWvumMRJ 0jV3Cx109qT38xI2YIGvCstn2j8ZaYQ=w426-h240-n

[Kizzy]

Yep, lies... You were lied to, doesn't it make you angry?

[arista]

Remember the government referendum leaflet?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Ay9JtRot-OnnC9Ggb4K6oTy58CXupd_nIvZuMMIIt2_M7UDEM_wPWvumMRJ 0jV3Cx109qT38xI2YIGvCstn2j8ZaYQ=w426-h240-n


Yes Alf
Bang On Right

[Withano]

Remember the government referendum leaflet?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Ay9JtRot-OnnC9Ggb4K6oTy58CXupd_nIvZuMMIIt2_M7UDEM_wPWvumMRJ 0jV3Cx109qT38xI2YIGvCstn2j8ZaYQ=w426-h240-n

This is what happens when you read things not printed on the side of a bus

[arista]

Yep, lies... You were lied to, doesn't it make you angry?



We are where we are
Brexit will start next year
I can handle the re-moaner MP's
Going at at it all night

[Scarlett.]

I see the Daily Mail are being as disgusting as usual
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwXwe6AXUAQsiCp.jpg

[arista]

On QT BBC1HD Lisa Nandy
A Labour Remain. MP
Said it will go ahead next year.

Brexit will happen Kizzy

[Scarlett.]

Brexit will happen Kizzy

That is for parliament to decide.

[arista]

Yes. Chewy
Fecking Judges
Utter Trouble Makers

[Kizzy]

On QT BBC1HD Lisa Nandy
A Labour Remain. MP
Said it will go ahead next year.

Brexit will happen Kizzy

Have I said it won't following this decision?.... :/

[arista]

That is for parliament to decide.



Yes but they all say it will go ahead
After the re-moaners have had loads of debates

Democracy In Action

[Kizzy]

They are doing their civic duty... they are the judges, if there is a point of constitutional law to be heard it is their job to do it!!
Attacking them for doing what is their role in this democracy is pathetic!!

[arista]

Have I said it won't following this decision?.... :/



No but I am just getting it all on the table


Loving tonight's QT. BBC1HD

[arista]

They are doing their civic duty... they are the judges, if there is a point of constitutional law to be heard it is their job to do it!!
Attacking them for doing what is their role in this democracy is pathetic!!


No attack them
They can take it

[Kizzy]

No but I am just getting it all on the table


Loving tonight's QT. BBC1HD

Well get it off the table! Please don't put words in my mouth,

Yes it's very good.

[Withano]

Yes. Chewy
Fecking Judges
Utter Trouble Makers

Obeying the law makes you a trouble maker lol?

[arista]

Well get it off the table! Please don't put words in my mouth,

Yes it's very good.



I do not want to put anything
In your mouth

[Kizzy]

No attack them
They can take it

They shouldn't have to, it's their job and they ruled within the laws as written.

Just because it's the govt on the receiving end of the decision they do not deserve this media backlash!

[arista]

Obeying the law makes you a trouble maker lol?



A Fecking 1600 Law

[arista]

They shouldn't have to, it's their job and they ruled within the laws as written.

Just because it's the govt on the receiving end of the decision they do not deserve this media backlash!



Yes real old laws

[Northern Monkey]

It's quite strange really.Like what is it that these remainers want?Because so far every remainer who has been publicly asked(i've seen three today) has said that they're going to vote to trigger article fifty.
It seems the only thing they seem to want so far is to undermine the country's negotiating position.If they manage that then it's a worse deal for all of them and us:shrug:
They discuss it publicly in parliament and give the countrys position away and its still going to happen anyway.It's a counter productive excercise.

[Kizzy]

A Fecking 1600 Law

The Bill of rights is what gave us parliament as we know it.... Don't you want that now?
Do you want sovereignty again? what did we chop Charles 1st head off for?
For democracy that's why.

You can't pick and choose when you want it.

[arista]

Yes NM
Fecking Remoaners
We need a comedy show on Ch4HD. About this mess

[Kizzy]

It's quite strange really.Like what is it that these remainers want?Because so far every remainer who has been publicly asked(i've seen three today) has said that they're going to vote to trigger article fifty.
It seems the only thing they seem to want so far is to undermine the country's negotiating position.If they manage that then it's a worse deal for all of them and us:shrug:
They discuss it publicly in parliament and give the countrys position away and its still going to happen anyway.It's a counter productive excercise.

Finally, the penny drops ...thank feck.

Transparency, that's what we want.

[arista]

The Bill of rights is what gave us parliament as we know it.... Don't you want that now?
Do you want sovereignty again? what did we chop James 1st head off for?
For democracy that's why.

You can't pick and choose when you want it.



OK

[Northern Monkey]

Finally, the penny drops ...thank feck.

Transparency, that's what we want.

But it's going to make zero difference other than possibly a worse deal.
It doesn't matter what's said in parliament because when it comes down to the nitty gritty,when we negotiate with 27 other countries we'll end up with whatever we end up with.Parliament can chat about it until they're blue in the face and it won't help anyone.It will only weaken the country's position.

[the truth]

absurd they are having a vote on it. the eu is a disaster its bankrupt its corrupt its anti democratic its a corporate tool , period. everytime someone votes out, they get to re vote ....in the words of maggie thatcher milk snatcher NO NO NO

[Kizzy]

But it's going to make zero difference other than possibly a worse deal.
It doesn't matter what's said in parliament because when it comes down to the nitty gritty,when we negotiate with 27 other countries we'll end up with whatever we end up with.Parliament can chat about it until they're blue in the face and it won't help anyone.It will only weaken the country's position.

Why would it... All it would mean would be that all 27 countries governing bodies would know more than our own parliament... How is that what anyone wanted?

[jaxie]

Finally, the penny drops ...thank feck.

Transparency, that's what we want.

That's not true. it's a point scoring exercise and a desperate attempt to slow or halt Brexit. All the politicians baying for their say are playing politics and trying to undermine the government's position and any bargaining will be messed up. It's pretty dumb and it's going to alienate people from parliament further.

On the bright side it makes any further Scottish referendum pointless and unviable.

I just hope if it ruins any negotiation that it will force hard brexit.

[jennyjuniper]

so basically the voters dont have a voice

Got it in one Adam. We have all the trappings of living in a democracy, without actually living in a democracy.

[Shaun]

Oh like anyone knew what they were actually voting for :joker:

[Maru]

Got it in one Adam. We have all the trappings of living in a democracy, without actually living in a democracy.

That's strange too to see as an American... It feels like our countries are so similar. Though I'd say as of late, the strengths of democracy have certainly been under test... there's people here that don't realize that some of the solutions they are proposing (out of convenience) are anti-democratic. The internet has helped to change that narrative too.

I would be really frustrated if I were a voter. I can live with the result of our election, as long as it's the people's voice that's been heard. No system is perfect and though I may not agree with the outcome of our primaries either, the system worked as intended... now it's up to the people to live with the consequences. Sometimes that's the only way to grow as a nation...

[Ammi]

Got it in one Adam. We have all the trappings of living in a democracy, without actually living in a democracy.

..yeah I don't think there is such a thing as a true and complete democracy, Jenny...we have our vote as in remain/brexit for instance but once that vote is given and once the votes have determined then it's not down to us or anyone other than the government to implement and decide etc...we're always dependants once our votes are given...it's a shame that Ikea didn't do a big round table, big enough for us all to sit around and all decide the 'hows' together and be part of all decisions...we could team build and bond just putting the table together, that would take around 7 years anyway...

[Northern Monkey]

That's not true. it's a point scoring exercise and a desperate attempt to slow or halt Brexit. All the politicians baying for their say are playing politics and trying to undermine the government's position and any bargaining will be messed up. It's pretty dumb and it's going to alienate people from parliament further.

On the bright side it makes any further Scottish referendum pointless and unviable.

I just hope if it ruins any negotiation that it will force hard brexit.

It certainly seems that way as putting it through parliament will have no actual benefit to us as a country.Specially not those who want to remain in the single market i.e 'soft Bexit'.It does seem like a bunch of sour grapes.A way to vent some frustration at the result of June 23rd.
It's kind of poetic justice if you think about it.Remainers are the main proponents of 'soft Brexit' and a group of remainers have just gone to court and possibly just ruined their chances of getting a soft Brexit.

[Cherie]

I do not want to put anything
In your mouth

:joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/03/18/3A06078500000578-3898716-Mrs_Miller_was_clearly_jubilant_at_the_High_Court_ after_the_ruli-a-49_1478198326596.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/03/22/3A08BB4C00000578-3903236-image-m-20_1478212991958.jpg


The legal action which resulted in the High Court ruling was brought by a wealthy City investment manager, Gina Miller, and a hairdresser, Deir Dos Santos, about whom little is known and who is described as a British citizen of Brazilian origin.

Mrs Miller, married to a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager, is fronting for an outfit calling itself People’s Challenge — set up by an expat, Grahame Pigney, who lives in Carcassonne, France, and a Gilbraltarian government employee.

The action is also supported by something called Fair Deal for Expats, whose leading lights include a British company director who lives in Limoges, France; a businessman who runs a holiday rentals business in Italy; and an English language teacher in Hamburg, Germany.

They claim not to be trying to overturn the result, simply to ensure that Parliament controls the process.

We have entered a Looking Glass world in which — to paraphrase Humpty Dumpty — referendum results mean exactly what lawyers and judges decide they mean.

Outside the court, David Greene, lawyer for Deir Dos Santos, delivered the following statement, which defies satire: ‘We are the democrats here, not the Government.’

Who voted for him?


:suspect:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3903236/We-t-let-Brexit-derailed-City-slicker-Brazilian-crimper-writes-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN.html

[Braden]

Oh like anyone knew what they were actually voting for :joker:

I'm so glad someone said this :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Oh like anyone knew what they were actually voting for :joker:

you could say that for every general election ever held in the UK

[jaxie]

..yeah I don't think there is such a thing as a true and complete democracy, Jenny...we have our vote as in remain/brexit for instance but once that vote is given and once the votes have determined then it's not down to us or anyone other than the government to implement and decide etc...we're always dependants once our votes are given...it's a shame that Ikea didn't do a big round table, big enough for us all to sit around and all decide the 'hows' together and be part of all decisions...we could team build and bond just putting the table together, that would take around 7 years anyway...

The problem with a big round table discussion, is like one of the problems of the EU itself. You end up with too many people involved in a negotiation and very little actually being achieved. It's a bit like that old adage too many cook spoil the brew!
I wonder how long in the putting the table together process it would be before started throwing bits at each other!

In the instance of the referendum I would have thought it perfectly reasonable to let the government in power go ahead, initiate, find out what's on the table and then tell the rest of us what's on offer. It seems bizarre to me that we had a vote by Parliament to give us a referendum, took the vote, made a decision and now we have to have more debate. It seems pointless.

[joeysteele]

..yeah I don't think there is such a thing as a true and complete democracy, Jenny...we have our vote as in remain/brexit for instance but once that vote is given and once the votes have determined then it's not down to us or anyone other than the government to implement and decide etc...we're always dependants once our votes are given...it's a shame that Ikea didn't do a big round table, big enough for us all to sit around and all decide the 'hows' together and be part of all decisions...we could team build and bond just putting the table together, that would take around 7 years anyway...



That is a good picture to think of Ammi,yes get back to basics.

Which is what no matter for who voted remain or leave, is what I hoped for, a govt. that would actually seek to heal divisions by bringing together all who campaigned and then work together to find the as near right consensus to go forward with the leaving of the EU.
A back to basics attitude and treat this issue as the truly wholly national issue it is.

Instead what the PM and the leading figures in govt have done is fuel the divisions among the people who voted on either side, also however caused major divisions with all political parties and MPs, even many of their own in the Conservative party too.

The UK and parliament now seem to be heading to be even more divided than they were on the surface before the referendum,that has to be down to the way the govt has itself chosen to exclude too many that should have been involved all through the process.
A big mess and all really sad too at such a great opportunity missed to heal divisions rather than open them up more.

[jaxie]

[/B]


That is a good picture to think of Ammi,yes get back to basics.

Which is what no matter for who voted remain or leave, is what I hoped for, a govt. that would actually seek to heal divisions by bringing together all who campaigned and then work together to find the as near right consensus to go forward with the leaving of the EU.
A back to basics attitude and treat this issue as the truly wholly national issue it is.

Instead what the PM and the leading figures in govt have done is fuel the divisions among the people who voted on either side, also however caused major divisions with all political parties and MPs, even many of their own in the Conservative party too.

The UK and parliament now seem to be heading to even more divided than they were on the surface before the referendum and that has to be down to the way the govt has itself chosen to exclude too many that should have been involved all through the process.
A big mess and all really sad too at such a great opportunity missed to heal divisions rather than open them up more.

I don't think it's fair to say the government have fueled division. They haven't really done anything yet apart from try to build a plan of some kind so they can take us forward. I don't view the process so far as anything other than preparation for negotiation. I don't think Parliament needs to micro manage everything the government in power does and if this vote stands after the appeal I think it sets a rather silly precedent.

[Crimson Dynamo]

[/B]


That is a good picture to think of Ammi,yes get back to basics.

Which is what no matter for who voted remain or leave, is what I hoped for, a govt. that would actually seek to heal divisions by bringing together all who campaigned and then work together to find the as near right consensus to go forward with the leaving of the EU.
A back to basics attitude and treat this issue as the truly wholly national issue it is.

Instead what the PM and the leading figures in govt have done is fuel the divisions among the people who voted on either side, also however caused major divisions with all political parties and MPs, even many of their own in the Conservative party too.

The UK and parliament now seem to be heading to even more divided than they were on the surface before the referendum and that has to be down to the way the govt has itself chosen to exclude too many that should have been involved all through the process.
A big mess and all really sad too at such a great opportunity missed to heal divisions rather than open them up more.

"Instead what the PM and the leading figures in govt have done is fuel the divisions among the people who voted on either side"

evidence please

[joeysteele]

I don't think it's fair to say the government have fueled division. They haven't really done anything yet apart from try to build a plan of some kind so they can take us forward. I don't view the process so far as anything other than preparation for negotiation. I don't think Parliament needs to micro manage everything the government in power does and if this vote stands after the appeal I think it sets a rather silly precedent.

On the contrary, it is what Parliament is for to have a government and oppositions who are expected to, and have a duty to, then fully scrutinise all a government does and hold it to account for it all too.
If you think otherwise then what is the point of an elected parliament at all.

[joeysteele]

"Instead what the PM and the leading figures in govt have done is fuel the divisions among the people who voted on either side"

evidence please

Show me the evidence where they have not.

All parliament came together in the main to vote for this referendum to be held, that was gaining unity and consensus on that act.

Since the vote with a pretty near 50/50 split across the UK,also as to how to proceed with the leaving process, even when to start the leaving process.

The govt has chosen to exclude even those MPs who all voted for the referendum in the first place from any further scrutiny.
That is hardly likely to heal any divisions.

It is allowing divisions across the nation to increase,the police issued the fact that a rise of 41% in hate related crime and incidents has occurred sine the referendum.
The govt should be acting swiftly to wipe that out, no matter who or where it comes from.

The govt rather than bringing the UK Nations on board and together on this are alienating Nicola Sturgeon and Scotland even more, just about to the point where she may call for and get her independence referendum and the UK then split well and truly.
Tensions in Ireland too, on both borders, because of lack of detail and proper assurances.

Then to set out to deny voting by MPs in parliament on any ongoing process as to this issue.
When all she had to say was she will be bringing a proposal forward for MPs to support the triggering of article 50 on such and such a date.
By not doing so, she has fuelled even greater division than there was among MPs on all sides than was there before.

How can the govt give seemingly selective assurances to Nissan but not to all other business, not to MPs either who should be informed of important issues, and worse still not to the wider public too.

All that fuels further suspicion and division,I would have thought that was likely obvious to anyone.

The unity from parliament that came into play to hold the referendum has been eroded by the PMs stubborn refusal to properly consult and more to the point listen to all sections of society, business and also MPs of all parties.
In my view, that is what I see,so for me the delays and the problems arising as to the process of leaving the EU being done with consensus and properly, now are of this PMs own making.

[Crimson Dynamo]

recorded hate crime is just that people reporting it on that new website

anyone can record it with any agenda but that does not make it a fact, people lie

and unless the claimant knows for a fact that the alleged crime was directly related to the referendum its mere conjecture

[joeysteele]

recorded hate crime is just that people reporting it on that new website

anyone can record it with any agenda but that does not make it a fact, people lie

and unless the claimant knows for a fact that the alleged crime was directly related to the referendum its mere conjecture

No one is talking about websites, it is actually the police themselves who have stated there has been a 41% increase in hate related incidents/crimes 'since the referendum'.
If you watch the daily politics you would have heard Andrew Neill say that many times now when questioning MPs.

Anyway, I answered your question.

[Crimson Dynamo]

No one is talking about websites, it is actually the police themselves who have stated there has been a 41% increase in hate related incidents/crimes 'since the referendum'.
If you watch the daily politics you would have heard Andrew Neill say that many times now when questioning MPs.

Anyway, I answered your question.

indeed recorded but not investigated on a new website where you can "record" them not in person and with zero evidence and as I said there is no evidence to link most of them directly to the referendum

[arista]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/03/18/3A06078500000578-3898716-Mrs_Miller_was_clearly_jubilant_at_the_High_Court_ after_the_ruli-a-49_1478198326596.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/03/22/3A08BB4C00000578-3903236-image-m-20_1478212991958.jpg


The legal action which resulted in the High Court ruling was brought by a wealthy City investment manager, Gina Miller, and a hairdresser, Deir Dos Santos, about whom little is known and who is described as a British citizen of Brazilian origin.

Mrs Miller, married to a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager, is fronting for an outfit calling itself People’s Challenge — set up by an expat, Grahame Pigney, who lives in Carcassonne, France, and a Gilbraltarian government employee.

The action is also supported by something called Fair Deal for Expats, whose leading lights include a British company director who lives in Limoges, France; a businessman who runs a holiday rentals business in Italy; and an English language teacher in Hamburg, Germany.

They claim not to be trying to overturn the result, simply to ensure that Parliament controls the process.

We have entered a Looking Glass world in which — to paraphrase Humpty Dumpty — referendum results mean exactly what lawyers and judges decide they mean.

Outside the court, David Greene, lawyer for Deir Dos Santos, delivered the following statement, which defies satire: ‘We are the democrats here, not the Government.’

Who voted for him?


:suspect:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3903236/We-t-let-Brexit-derailed-City-slicker-Brazilian-crimper-writes-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN.html
Yes LT.
Fecking. Bitch

[Kizzy]

That's not true. it's a point scoring exercise and a desperate attempt to slow or halt Brexit. All the politicians baying for their say are playing politics and trying to undermine the government's position and any bargaining will be messed up. It's pretty dumb and it's going to alienate people from parliament further.

On the bright side it makes any further Scottish referendum pointless and unviable.

I just hope if it ruins any negotiation that it will force hard brexit.

You are making no sense, politicians don't 'play' at it they are elected by us as our representatives, again that's democracy.
What will be messed up, how would knowing what is being negotiated mess it up?
Hard brexit will ruin the country, we can't afford to sit in the WTO.

[Kizzy]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/03/18/3A06078500000578-3898716-Mrs_Miller_was_clearly_jubilant_at_the_High_Court_ after_the_ruli-a-49_1478198326596.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/03/22/3A08BB4C00000578-3903236-image-m-20_1478212991958.jpg


The legal action which resulted in the High Court ruling was brought by a wealthy City investment manager, Gina Miller, and a hairdresser, Deir Dos Santos, about whom little is known and who is described as a British citizen of Brazilian origin.

Mrs Miller, married to a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager, is fronting for an outfit calling itself People’s Challenge — set up by an expat, Grahame Pigney, who lives in Carcassonne, France, and a Gilbraltarian government employee.

The action is also supported by something called Fair Deal for Expats, whose leading lights include a British company director who lives in Limoges, France; a businessman who runs a holiday rentals business in Italy; and an English language teacher in Hamburg, Germany.

They claim not to be trying to overturn the result, simply to ensure that Parliament controls the process.

We have entered a Looking Glass world in which — to paraphrase Humpty Dumpty — referendum results mean exactly what lawyers and judges decide they mean.

Outside the court, David Greene, lawyer for Deir Dos Santos, delivered the following statement, which defies satire: ‘We are the democrats here, not the Government.’

Who voted for him?


:suspect:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3903236/We-t-let-Brexit-derailed-City-slicker-Brazilian-crimper-writes-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN.html

Which is what the ruling yesterday was all about...And David Greene is right, we the people have the right to hold the govt to account and take action if their actions are unconstitutional...that's exactly what happened.

[Tom4784]

That Daily Mail article is so hypocritical. If the situation was reversed then they'd probably be screeching about how constitutional law must be obeyed.

[arista]

That Daily Mail article is so hypocritical. If the situation was reversed then they'd probably be screeching about how constitutional law must be obeyed.

Sure Dezzy
But I love. All the Photos
Thanks to. LT
As I am in many meetings today

[jaxie]

On the contrary, it is what Parliament is for to have a government and oppositions who are expected to, and have a duty to, then fully scrutinise all a government does and hold it to account for it all too.
If you think otherwise then what is the point of an elected parliament at all.

Well the government are elected by the people for a period of time to do the job. They have been chosen. The opposition for that period of time are not chosen and therefore not there to micro manage every action the government takes. :shrug:

[Kizzy]

Well the government are elected by the people for a period of time to do the job. They have been chosen. The opposition for that period of time are not chosen and therefore not there to micro manage every action the government takes. :shrug:

It's not just the opposition that want a say, conservative MPs would like a say too.

[jaxie]

You are making no sense, politicians don't 'play' at it they are elected by us as our representatives, again that's democracy.
What will be messed up, how would knowing what is being negotiated mess it up?
Hard brexit will ruin the country, we can't afford to sit in the WTO.

When you head into a negotiation you don't tell everyone what your negotiating stand point is. That's just ridiculous.

I can't help it if you don't understand the points I am making. :shrug:

Of course political parties play at point scoring over each other, it's one of the things that frequently disgusts the populace.

[jaxie]

It's not just the opposition that want a say, conservative MPs would like a say too.

When the time is right, not for every small detail. Let them have something on the table first.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Which is what the ruling yesterday was all about...And David Greene is right, we the people have the right to hold the govt to account and take action if their actions are unconstitutional...that's exactly what happened.

and do you not think that perhaps this should have been flagged up by DC before the ref?

[joeysteele]

Well the government are elected by the people for a period of time to do the job. They have been chosen. The opposition for that period of time are not chosen and therefore not there to micro manage every action the government takes. :shrug:

Well that makes no sense I am sorry, a government is elected with either a small majority, a fairly good one or a really strong one.
The MPs elected from other parties are not chosen to be yes people to whatever party wins a majority, they are elected and expected to oppose and scrutinise.

All MPs are chosen by the voters, all have to represent the views as best they can within their own consciences, of the voters who put them there.
If voters put Labour into a seat, they certainly are not supporters of the Conservatives.

The duty and purpose of her Majesty's opposition is to hold the govt. to account as I said before, to scrutinise and point out the wrongs they see in govt policy brought forward,even to try to amend policies with votes in the Commons.

Of course the opposition has to do its utmost best to scrutinise and challenge the govt, it would be badly failing the voters who elected them if they did not.
Really your comment makes no sense to me and I am sorry to say that.

[Kizzy]

When you head into a negotiation you don't tell everyone what your negotiating stand point is. That's just ridiculous.

I can't help it if you don't understand the points I am making. :shrug:

Of course political parties play at point scoring over each other, it's one of the things that frequently disgusts the populace.

I understand perfectly, you would rather the parliaments of all 27 nations be aware of the proposals before ours... That is what would be happening.
Our representatives would be in the dark.

[Kizzy]

When the time is right, not for every small detail. Let them have something on the table first.

Our representatives would like a say on what is taken to the table initially, what is important to the whole country not just May and Davis.
What was the point of this referendum in all seriousness, do you ever get the feeling you've been conned?
In a nutshell the public have given May a green light to hack away to her hearts content at our rights and privileges that took hundreds of years and thousands of lives to acquire.

[Northern Monkey]

I don't know.The government could win this appeal.They may have a good case.
Ian Duncan Smith was just talking about it.
The decision to call the referendum was a parliamentary decision in the first place.The referendum was held as decided by parliament.
The British people voted and have instructed the government to trigger article fifty(in a referendum that parliament called for).
Now the ruling of the court was that the government can't trigger article fifty without a parliamentary vote.
The court actually had no business saying this as the British people in the referendum and essentially parliament to begin with has already made the decision to trigger article fifty by calling the referendum.
It will be interesting to see how the appeal goes.
As he also said.The terms of Brexit will be debated over and over anyway.Parliament can call for a debate whenever but for the court to specifically rule that 'You cannot trigger article fifty without a vote in parliament' when it has already been voted on by calling the referendum gives the government a decent case in the appeal.
That's just what he said anyway.He may be wrong but we'll have to wait and see.

[Scarlett.]

I don't know.The government could win this appeal.They may have a good case.
Ian Duncan Smith was just talking about it.
The decision to call the referendum was a parliamentary decision in the first place.The referendum was held as decided by parliament.
The British people voted and have instructed the government to trigger article fifty(in a referendum that parliament called for).
Now the ruling of the court was that the government can't trigger article fifty without a parliamentary vote.
The court actually had no business saying this as the British people in the referendum and essentially parliament to begin with has already made the decision to trigger article fifty by calling the referendum.
It will be interesting to see how the appeal goes.
As he also said.The terms of Brexit will be debated over and over anyway.Parliament can call for a debate whenever but for the court to specifically rule that 'You cannot trigger article fifty without a vote in parliament' when it has already been voted on by calling the referendum gives the government a decent case in the appeal.
That's just what he said anyway.He may be wrong but we'll have to wait and see.

The referendum was advisory, not legally binding.

[Northern Monkey]

The referendum was advisory, not legally binding.

That is the defence the remoaners will keep trying.However the country was told on numerous occasions by the PM himself before the referendum that whatever Britain decides is what is happening.

[Tom4784]

'Remoaners'

awk.

It's the Tories fault for promising something that seems to be ultimately unconstitutional.

[jaxie]

I understand perfectly, you would rather the parliaments of all 27 nations be aware of the proposals before ours... That is what would be happening.
Our representatives would be in the dark.

Well I rather thought our negotiating team would talk to their team first. I doubt they are going to be negotiating with 27 countries Parliament's, nothing would ever get done if they were!

First you say you say I make no sense, then you say you understand perfectly. I wish you would make up your mind.

[jaxie]

Well that makes no sense I am sorry, a government is elected with either a small majority, a fairly good one or a really strong one.
The MPs elected from other parties are not chosen to be yes people to whatever party wins a majority, they are elected and expected to oppose and scrutinise.

All MPs are chosen by the voters, all have to represent the views as best they can within their own consciences, of the voters who put them there.
If voters put Labour into a seat, they certainly are not supporters of the Conservatives.

The duty and purpose of her Majesty's opposition is to hold the govt. to account as I said before, to scrutinise and point out the wrongs they see in govt policy brought forward,even to try to amend policies with votes in the Commons.

Of course the opposition has to do its utmost best to scrutinise and challenge the govt, it would be badly failing the voters who elected them if they did not.
Really your comment makes no sense to me and I am sorry to say that.

That's great, happy I make no sense to you.

[jaxie]

Our representatives would like a say on what is taken to the table initially, what is important to the whole country not just May and Davis.
What was the point of this referendum in all seriousness, do you ever get the feeling you've been conned?
In a nutshell the public have given May a green light to hack away to her hearts content at our rights and privileges that took hundreds of years and thousands of lives to acquire.

Um we've only been on the EU 40 years what privileges of 100s of years, what lives? :shrug: Can you explain this?

I haven't been conned, I knew what I was voting for and to be honest the constant implications from some on the forum that everyone who voted leave is an idiot who didn't know what they have been voting for are arrogant and ignorant.

The point was to leave or remain in the EU, we voted leave. Surely you remember?

[Crimson Dynamo]

'Remoaners'

awk.

It's the Tories fault for promising something that seems to be ultimately unconstitutional.

I actually hold Cameron responsible for this whole debacle, and note not a peep out of him the spineless wretch

[Scarlett.]

I actually hold Cameron responsible for this whole debacle, and note not a peep out of him the spineless wretch

Something we can all agree on :laugh:

[jaxie]

I actually hold Cameron responsible for this whole debacle, and note not a peep out of him the spineless wretch

I think that's entirely right LT. I'm glad he called a referendum but it was incredibly stupid to call it and only plan for one scenario.

[Withano]

That is the defence the remoaners will keep trying.However the country was told on numerous occasions by the PM himself before the referendum that whatever Britain decides is what is happening.

Defence? Its factual, this isnt a defence.. I think at this point most leavers recognise this.

[Kizzy]

Um we've only been on the EU 40 years what privileges of 100s of years, what lives? :shrug: Can you explain this?

I haven't been conned, I knew what I was voting for and to be honest the constant implications from some on the forum that everyone who voted leave is an idiot who didn't know what they have been voting for are arrogant and ignorant.

The point was to leave or remain in the EU, we voted leave. Surely you remember?

Workers rights... I didn't call you an idiot why are you calling yourself an idiot?

For the umpteenth time whether we go or stay is not in question :facepalm:

[Kizzy]

:joker:

WwsQ_5Wm4oo

[user104658]

Parliament, not the Government, has to vote to trigger ANYTHING like this. It's written there, plain as day, in black and white. There isn't even a debate to be had. Whether or not this is "good" or "bad" or "should be the case", whether it will change or delay anything or have any effect at all, is entirely irrelevant. It is the law. It's not unclearly stated or twisty or turny or if/and/maybe/but... it straight up says it, right there, for anyone to read.

In documents that far pre-date the European Union, btw, before anyone starts on some "red tape" rant.

[joeysteele]

Parliament, not the Government, has to vote to trigger ANYTHING like this. It's written there, plain as day, in black and white. There isn't even a debate to be had. Whether or not this is "good" or "bad" or "should be the case", whether it will change or delay anything or have any effect at all, is entirely irrelevant. It is the law. It's not unclearly stated or twisty or turny or if/and/maybe/but... it straight up says it, right there, for anyone to read.

In documents that far pre-date the European Union, btw, before anyone starts on some "red tape" rant.

That is more or less the conclusion of the Judges who heard the arguments came to.
I agree with them and you too.

What astounds me is that any govt; not just this one, would actually want to proceed with leaving and triggering article 50, without a vote and hopeful support from MPs of all parties across the house of commons.

I really cannot see how that can be argued against legally and hopefully the Supreme court will not overturn the judgement made earlier this week.

Better to have the legalities out the way now.
Working together with all parties and MPs would have been a far better and likely smoother route to go down by the Govt.
In my view anyway.

[user104658]

That is more or less the conclusion of the Judges who heard the arguments came to.
I agree with them and you too.

What astounds me is that any govt; not just this one, would actually want to proceed with leaving and triggering article 50, without a vote and hopeful support from MPs of all parties across the house of commons.

I really cannot see how that can be argued against legally and hopefully the Supreme court will not overturn the judgement made earlier this week.

Better to have the legalities out the way now.
Working together with all parties and MPs would have been a far better and likely smoother route to go down by the Govt.
In my view anyway.


No one - including Brexit supporters - should be clamouring for this or any other government to start picking and choosing when they would like to follow the letter of the law. It's an utterly ludicrous road to want to go down, in the name of "getting something you want" a little bit faster. Utterly insane.

[jaxie]

No one - including Brexit supporters - should be clamouring for this or any other government to start picking and choosing when they would like to follow the letter of the law. It's an utterly ludicrous road to want to go down, in the name of "getting something you want" a little bit faster. Utterly insane.

Parliament already voted to give us the referendum, and in the case of a leave vote that means activating article 50. So you could say they already set the process in motion by voting in faboir of a referendum. There were campaigns, debates, everyone had their say. I don't see why the leaving needs to be micro managed. We need to just get on with it. Until they have some talks there isn't really anything to tell parliament so it all just seems pointless. I suppose we have to wait now and see what the supreme Court says.

When they approved in recent years military action, no one wanted them to micro manage every bomb dropped. Perhaps that's when such questions should have been asked. Where was the moral and political outcry then?

[jaxie]

Workers rights... I didn't call you an idiot why are you calling yourself an idiot?

For the umpteenth time whether we go or stay is not in question :facepalm:

What workers rights are those? What evidence can you show for how they have taken hundreds of years relating to the EU and how they are changing now?

I won't dignify the rest with a reply.

[iloveaisleyne]

Surely even people who voted remain can see that it is pretty unethical for us to stay in the EU after the majority ruled in favour of brexit?

[user104658]

Parliament already voted to give us the referendum, and in the case of a leave vote that means activating article 50. So you could say they already set the process in motion by voting in faboir of a referendum. There were campaigns, debates, everyone had their say. I don't see why the leaving needs to be micro managed. We need to just get on with it. Until they have some talks there isn't really anything to tell parliament so it all just seems pointless. I suppose we have to wait now and see what the supreme Court says.

It doesn't matter. There has to be a parliamentary vote on enacting something like Article 50 before it happens. Period. Not in the run up to it, not in arranging a referrendum on it, but literally a vote to trigger it. Like I said it's irrelevant whether it's "right or wrong", whether it seems like needless micromanagement, even whether it's something that should be changed in future... ... ... the fact it, it is currently there, on paper, that this needs to be the case.

Realistically, it's not going to stop the EU exit from happening. Look on it as a formality, even. But it's one that needs to happen because it is currently the law and - like I said - NO ONE should EVER be advocating for any government to selectively pick and choose when and where they feel like following the written letter of constitutional law. Whether you agree with what they're putting through or not. Setting a precedent that it's OK to sometimes just say "Nah that law is stupid, we'll do it anyway" is dangerous and undemocratic. I don't say this as a remain supporter... I only say it as someone who knows that giving the government a blank chequebook to ignore signed documents is sheer madness.


When they approved in recent years military action, no one wanted them to micro manage every bomb dropped. Perhaps that's when such questions should have been asked. Where was the moral and political outcry then?

This is a completely different scenario. It doesn't relate in the slightest.

[arista]

Yes TS it will go ahead


Feck the LibDems

[Northern Monkey]

Does anyone actually believe for one second that this multi millionaire Gina Miller who went to the courts did this because she believes in parliamentary democracy?:joker:
The same parliamentary democracy that the EU has spent the last forty years destroying.
The same woman who was quoted as saying she felt 'physically sick' at the result.
Yep that's why she's done it:laugh:
She is trying her best to block Brexit or get parliament to water it down so much that it's not even really Brexit anymore.Imo.
These financial and political elites don't care what we think.They will stop at nothing to get their own way and forget what the people want.

[jaxie]

It doesn't matter. There has to be a parliamentary vote on enacting something like Article 50 before it happens. Period. Not in the run up to it, not in arranging a referrendum on it, but literally a vote to trigger it. Like I said it's irrelevant whether it's "right or wrong", whether it seems like needless micromanagement, even whether it's something that should be changed in future... ... ... the fact it, it is currently there, on paper, that this needs to be the case.

Realistically, it's not going to stop the EU exit from happening. Look on it as a formality, even. But it's one that needs to happen because it is currently the law and - like I said - NO ONE should EVER be advocating for any government to selectively pick and choose when and where they feel like following the written letter of constitutional law. Whether you agree with what they're putting through or not. Setting a precedent that it's OK to sometimes just say "Nah that law is stupid, we'll do it anyway" is dangerous and undemocratic. I don't say this as a remain supporter... I only say it as someone who knows that giving the government a blank chequebook to ignore signed documents is sheer madness.



This is a completely different scenario. It doesn't relate in the slightest.

The legal case is a new development and since there is going to be an appeal it is not the letter of the law at this stage, it is a judgement by one court that might or might not be overturned. I don't think anyone is saying that the government shouldn't follow the law are they?

If we are going to micro manage every government action then my last para is very relevant. More relevant than this issue.

If this is upheld by the supreme Court, this will completely change any possibility of future referendum.

[Mystic Mock]

It's a fair result.

[Mystic Mock]

Surely even people who voted remain can see that it is pretty unethical for us to stay in the EU after the majority ruled in favour of brexit?

You mean that slim 52%? There was still 48% that was opposed to the move which by the way is ALOT of people to say "no you're having the country massively overhauled in how it runs itself, but thanks for voting."

[Kizzy]

What workers rights are those? What evidence can you show for how they have taken hundreds of years relating to the EU and how they are changing now?

I won't dignify the rest with a reply.

There you go, educate yourself.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/UK%20employment%20rights%20and%20the%20EU.pdf

[Kizzy]

It doesn't matter. There has to be a parliamentary vote on enacting something like Article 50 before it happens. Period. Not in the run up to it, not in arranging a referrendum on it, but literally a vote to trigger it. Like I said it's irrelevant whether it's "right or wrong", whether it seems like needless micromanagement, even whether it's something that should be changed in future... ... ... the fact it, it is currently there, on paper, that this needs to be the case.

Realistically, it's not going to stop the EU exit from happening. Look on it as a formality, even. But it's one that needs to happen because it is currently the law and - like I said - NO ONE should EVER be advocating for any government to selectively pick and choose when and where they feel like following the written letter of constitutional law. Whether you agree with what they're putting through or not. Setting a precedent that it's OK to sometimes just say "Nah that law is stupid, we'll do it anyway" is dangerous and undemocratic. I don't say this as a remain supporter... I only say it as someone who knows that giving the government a blank chequebook to ignore signed documents is sheer madness.



This is a completely different scenario. It doesn't relate in the slightest.

All of this!

[jaxie]

There you go, educate yourself.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/UK%20employment%20rights%20and%20the%20EU.pdf

Oh goodie TUC propaganda. Did you know that Labour and the union's were opposed to the EU until Delores convinced them they could push their own agenda through the back door usong the EU without having to put it to the people? Oh the irony of that same party calling for transparency over Brexit.

Btw the link doesn't clarify the statement you made about hundreds of years of EU welfare rights being ripped apart by Brexit and the government. Perhaps you ought to educate yourself first.

How did the hundred of years come into an entity that only existed for 40? Who changed the welfare rights now? What rights have been changed now? What workers rights have been lost as a direct result of Brexit?

[Kizzy]

Oh goodie TUC propaganda. Did you know that Labour and the union's were opposed to the EU until Delores convinced them they could push their own agenda through the back door usong the EU without having to put it to the people? Oh the irony of that same party calling for transparency over Brexit.

Btw the link doesn't clarify the statement you made about hundreds of years of EU welfare being ripped apart by Credit and the government. Perhaps you ought to educate yourself first.

You asked what rights were specifially linked to the EU I provided you with said information, now you're being pedantic because you dislike the organisation from which I sourced said info? :laugh:
They didn't make it up if that's what you're worried about, it's EU law.

ALL parties want transparency over brexit.

[jaxie]

You asked what rights were specifially linked to the EU I provided you with said information, now you're being pedantic because you dislike the organisation from which I sourced said info? :laugh:
They didn't make it up if that's what you're worried about, it's EU law.

ALL parties want transparency over brexit.

No you said that rights were being taken. I asked what rights when, you can't answer. Because it isn't true. If you read the TUC document yourself you'd see they state that we had many of these laws and welfares in place before the EU. The also conclude the EU employment rights in recent years isn't as good as in the past and that EU activities have reduced settlement.

How can you know rights and welfare laws that have come about since would not have come about anyway? You can't.

You misquote what I've said so often it makes responding tedious.

[Kizzy]

No you said that rights were being taken. I asked what rights when, you can't answer. Because it isn't true. If you read the TUC document yourself you'd see they state that we had many of these laws and welfares in place before the EU.

How can you know others that have come about since would not have come about anyway? You can't.

Yes many not all, the working times directives are EU law specifically it is these that many MPs will be wanting to ensure are retained.

[user104658]

The legal case is a new development and since there is going to be an appeal it is not the letter of the law at this stage, it is a judgement by one court that might or might not be overturned. I don't think anyone is saying that the government shouldn't follow the law are they?

If we are going to micro manage every government action then my last para is very relevant. More relevant than this issue.

If this is upheld by the supreme Court, this will completely change any possibility of future referendum.

It is the letter of the law. The high court ruling was them simply agreeing that it is, indeed, the letter of the law. I sincerely hope that the supreme court will do the same because - like I said - it's not ambiguous, or odd wording - it is quite clear if you read the document that is being referenced.

And it shouldn't have any bearing at all on future referenda. Other than that the terms and limitations of any referendum should be clearer from the outset. Which would only be a good thing, because this one was an absolute ****ing shambles by all accounts, whether you agree with the outcome or not.

[jaxie]

Yes many not all, the working times directives are EU law specifically it is these that many MPs will be wanting to ensure are retained.

As I mentioned you have no way of knowing that we wouldn't have introduced those laws ourselves anyway. No one has said those laws will be changing unless they are scaremongering, though I can hope laws pertaining to the appearance of bananas and the taste of chocolate will be scrapped as they are ridiculous.

The EU directives force a shameful waste of food in a world where people are starving. It's so wrong to throw away foods that don't bend or straighten how the EU dictate they should.

[Kizzy]

As I mentioned you have no way of knowing that we wouldn't have introduced those laws ourselves anyway. No one has said those laws will be changing unless they are scaremongering, though I can hope laws pertaining to the appearance of bananas and the taste of chocolate will be scrapped as they are ridiculous.

The EU directives force a shameful waste of food in a world where people are starving. It's so wrong to throw away foods that don't bend or straighten how the EU dictate they should.

Well you can play hypotheticals on your own, it's facts that are important here.
We didn't make those laws and once we brexit we won't have them.
It's not scaremongering to voice how important they are to the UK workforce.

[jaxie]

Well you can play hypotheticals on your own, it's facts that are important here.
We didn't make those laws and once we brexit we won't have them.
It's not scaremongering to voice how important they are to the UK workforce.

You are being hypothetical since you can't produce one fact that any of these laws are suddenly being revoked. :shrug: You say facts are important and never produce any.

Ill ask you again and hope for a straight answer. Why won't we have the laws when we brexited? Who told you we wouldn't? Where did this 'fact' come from?

[Kizzy]

You are being hypothetical since you can't produce one fact that any of these laws are suddenly being revoked. :shrug: You say facts are important and never produce any.

Ill ask you again and hope for a straight answer. Why won't we have the laws when we brexited? Who told you we wouldn't? Where did this 'fact' come from?

If they are specifically EU law and we are no longer in the EU then by definition we don't have to abide by those laws do we? :shrug:

UNLESS we retain them as is into our legislature, or write our own.
Again assurances that this will be the case will be sought I'm sure by our representatives.

[jaxie]

If they are specifically EU law and we are no longer in the EU then by definition we don't have to abide by those laws do we? :shrug:

UNLESS we retain them as is into our legislature, or write our own.
Again assurances that this will be the case will be sought I'm sure by our representatives.

What you think because we leave the EU 40 years worth of laws will be scrapped at the drop of the hat when it's already been said nothing would change immediately, and anything that did change later would have to go through parliament and probably the house of Lords? How on earth would any UK government just scrap a bunch of rights laws and get away with it? We will probably retain a lot of the law we've attained in our time in the EU, most of it was passed into UK law and there is a process for changing those laws. We aren't moving to the planet zardoz as slaves to the big head when we leave the EU. (Reference to a very strange Sean Connery film I once saw on TV). I really don't know where you get this idea from.

[iloveaisleyne]

You mean that slim 52%? There was still 48% that was opposed to the move which by the way is ALOT of people to say "no you're having the country massively overhauled in how it runs itself, but thanks for voting."

4% is quite a decent amount of people when you consider the entire population of the country though

[Kizzy]

What you think because we leave the EU 40 years worth of laws will be scrapped at the drop of the hat when it's already been said nothing would change immediately, and anything that did change later would have to go through parliament and probably the house of Lords? How on earth would any UK government just scrap a bunch of rights laws and get away with it? We will probably retain a lot of the law we've attained in our time in the EU, most of it was passed into UK law and there is a process for changing those laws. We aren't moving to the planet zardoz as slaves to the big head when we leave the EU. (Reference to a very strange Sean Connery film I once saw on TV). I really don't know where you get this idea from.

What's been said? Nothing's been said other than 'brexit means brexit' and it will be 'titanic' ... Well, no argument from me there.
Other than that we know nada.

Would I put it past them to do that, scrap the lot? hell no!

You went off on a tangent again, the crux being I think you trust them to protect those rights, I do not.

[jaxie]

What's been said? Nothing's been said other than 'brexit means brexit' and it will be 'titanic' ... Well, no argument from me there.
Other than that we know nada.

Would I put it past them to do that, scrap the lot? hell no!

You went off on a tangent again, the crux being I think you trust them to protect those rights, I do not.

It was in the press and the news, I can't remember who said now but it was something along the lines that all laws would remain as they are for the foreseeable future. I'm sure you can Google it.

I don't trust any political party but I know realistically what you are suggesting isn't going to happen. I'm sure some changes might be attempted as all political parties have their own agenda but ultimately the government has had to U turn before if people are unhappy with the proposed change. Also you seem to forget that they are answerable to the people. Here is an article that should make you feel less worried.

https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2016/may/24/what-would-leaving-eu-mean--employment-rights

Did you know it was a labour government that introduced university fees? University used to be free.

[Tom4784]

4% is quite a decent amount of people when you consider the entire population of the country though

Not a big enough lead to truly declare it a majority though.

[jaxie]

Not a big enough lead to truly declare it a majority though.

Of course it is.

[Kizzy]

It was in the press and the news, I can't remember who said now but it was something along the lines that all laws would remain as they are for the foreseeable future. I'm sure you can Google it.

I don't trust any political party but I know realistically what you are suggesting isn't going to happen. I'm sure some changes might be attempted as all political parties have their own agenda but ultimately the government has had to U turn before if people are unhappy with the proposed change. Also you seem to forget that they are answerable to the people. Here is an article that should make you feel less worried.

https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2016/may/24/what-would-leaving-eu-mean--employment-rights

Did you know it was a labour government that introduced university fees? University used to be free.

You know as much as me on it...nothing.

Did you know maggie filled in all the mines?... People used to have jobs.
( If you want any more irrelevant statements please ask)

[Tom4784]

Of course it is.

Not really, it's a lead but not a majority in political terms.

[Maru]

Having read a little bit more on this topic, seems like to me lose/lose so far for remainers/leavers... the longer the UK is in this limbo, the more political stall and quagmire that it creates, the more chance it has for adverse effects to trickle throughout the economy and for other political complications (such as with the EU and other countries) to occur with Leaving... so actually, having this development in the mix only extends that poor side -effect... which is bad for all parties concerned really...

I worry if there is an economic crisis tomorrow... does this affect the UK's ability to adapt to an ever-changing economical environment? This being the most drastic example really, but recently we had cyber attacks in the US that affected a good number of major website. I could see something larger scale happening more in other places too if those attacks were to evolve over time, especially if the primary targets are communications monopolies here that have their hands in everything. What if such attacks were to effect the financial systems in some manner that would impact the health of the market in some manner?

We could have other economies have a downturn as well just in other countries... when we had the recession, In the US we had the stimulus packages (send every taxpayer a check) to help reverse the trend of consumer apathy and alleviate the public's discontent... which helped the market to rebound. Anyway, this situation makes me little bit nervous for the UK, because it feels like any such measures would take longer to be done if your political system is in a state of transition...

With regards to the High Court's Ruling, is this a case where these politicians that were for this vote are creating more roadblocks for the vote to please their anti-brexit base?... and actually, in a way, is this actually expediting things (i.e. beneficial) because by putting it through the courts, it's forcing some action on part of the major stakeholders in this to get up and on their feet and act on this thing (to actually Leave), i.e. get all the paperwork out of the way and put the ball in the other person's court... seems like a typical political move in that manner.

I figured with a parliament (and from what little I've read) that is mostly anti-Brexit, perhaps there is a hesitation to move this thing along, i.e. they would not want their name on this thing that could have a negative impact on their approval rating or their party... and really, they don't support it anyway so hard to want to take responsibility for the implementation of this thing. I mean it sounds great on paper, all these changes that Brexit can do for the UK if it were to be done properly... but it is a lot of changes it sounds like... which means a lot of politics... and in the US, we have that issue, where here's this great idea... but nobody wants to be at the front of that and to claim responsibility when it fails. Usually it's the second or third party after that points the finger at them and then comes in to fix it when the most politically correct action has become more apparent... which is what happened with the Affordable Health Care Act (universal healthcare/Obamacare). It was a great idea at the start until everyone got their bloat in there and started adding things like abortions, etc to influence the vote.... that meant that it never got the care and dedicatopm it deserved because they wanted it to get through and worry about the details later, and when it was finally implemented, it was a XXX page horrible monstrosity... I remember downloading it on my computer and the husband and I actually went through and read it a good bit. Holy Moly :laugh:

[jaxie]

You know as much as me on it...nothing.

Did you know maggie filled in all the mines?... People used to have jobs.
( If you want any more irrelevant statements please ask)

She stole the children's milk too.

[Kizzy]

She stole the children's milk too.

Thatcher thatcher milk snatcher.

I'll make a new one ...

butt scratcher, butt scratcher EU snatcher :laugh:

[jaxie]

Thatcher thatcher milk snatcher.

I'll make a new one ...

butt scratcher, butt scratcher EU snatcher :laugh:

One day you might thank us.

[jaxie]

Having read a little bit more on this topic, seems like to me lose/lose so far for remainers/leavers... the longer the UK is in this limbo, the more political stall and quagmire that it creates, the more chance it has for adverse effects to trickle throughout the economy and for other political complications (such as with the EU and other countries) to occur with Leaving... so actually, having this development in the mix only extends that poor side -effect... which is bad for all parties concerned really...

I worry if there is an economic crisis tomorrow... does this affect the UK's ability to adapt to an ever-changing economical environment? This being the most drastic example really, but recently we had cyber attacks in the US that affected a good number of major website. I could see something larger scale happening more in other places too if those attacks were to evolve over time, especially if the primary targets are communications monopolies here that have their hands in everything. What if such attacks were to effect the financial systems in some manner that would impact the health of the market in some manner?

We could have other economies have a downturn as well just in other countries... when we had the recession, In the US we had the stimulus packages (send every taxpayer a check) to help reverse the trend of consumer apathy and alleviate the public's discontent... which helped the market to rebound. Anyway, this situation makes me little bit nervous for the UK, because it feels like any such measures would take longer to be done if your political system is in a state of transition...

With regards to the High Court's Ruling, is this a case where these politicians that were for this vote are creating more roadblocks for the vote to please their anti-brexit base?... and actually, in a way, is this actually expediting things (i.e. beneficial) because by putting it through the courts, it's forcing some action on part of the major stakeholders in this to get up and on their feet and act on this thing (to actually Leave), i.e. get all the paperwork out of the way and put the ball in the other person's court... seems like a typical political move in that manner.

I figured with a parliament (and from what little I've read) that is mostly anti-Brexit, perhaps there is a hesitation to move this thing along, i.e. they would not want their name on this thing that could have a negative impact on their approval rating or their party... and really, they don't support it anyway so hard to want to take responsibility for the implementation of this thing. I mean it sounds great on paper, all these changes that Brexit can do for the UK if it were to be done properly... but it is a lot of changes it sounds like... which means a lot of politics... and in the US, we have that issue, where here's this great idea... but nobody wants to be at the front of that and to claim responsibility when it fails. Usually it's the second or third party after that points the finger at them and then comes in to fix it when the most politically correct action has become more apparent... which is what happened with the Affordable Health Care Act (universal healthcare/Obamacare). It was a great idea at the start until everyone got their bloat in there and started adding things like abortions, etc to influence the vote.... that meant that it never got the care and dedicatopm it deserved because they wanted it to get through and worry about the details later, and when it was finally implemented, it was a XXX page horrible monstrosity... I remember downloading it on my computer and the husband and I actually went through and read it a good bit. Holy Moly :laugh:

Great post Maru, interesting and thought provoking.

[joeysteele]

Not really, it's a lead but not a majority in political terms.

I agree.
I also as someone who voted remain, felt that any margin under 10% even had it been for remain would not have closed this issue down.

I think any major change has to be really voted for,you have to look at how things are won and lost.
Margaret Thatcher who always said referenda was a failure of govt. and that she would never have one.
Rejected the Scottish devolution referendum result put in place by the then Labour govt of 1979 despite there being a narrow vote for devolution.

In 1975 the EEC referendum again held by Labour, produced a clear result, near 67% voting yes and all 4 UK Nations voting yes too.

A lot gets said about ignoring those who don't vote, well that's fine but they are never likely going to vote if they keep being totally ignored.
That being so, the vote held was not a majority of the total electorate.

However the govt, as MTVN said I think a few times in the EU debate, should have put locks on the vote, that there had to be at least 60% either way for it to be acted on or something like that.
All the time we hear the referendum was advisory not binding.
Of course the concerns need to be dealt with but 3.8% is really a small win.
We hear loads about 17 million people voting to leave totally discounting the near almost equal high of 16 million voting the other way.

I still cannot fathom out why after so much delay already from Theresa May on this, throwing it into next year from July this year at least.
Why anyone who voted has any fear of a democratic parliamentary vote by MPs on the whole process.
The call for 'our' parliament to make decisions, not the EU, was strong in the EU campaign, now however they want even our own elected MPs to be denied votes on the issue all through, why?

MPs only voted to support and hold a referendum nothing more,if they had to vote to hold the referendum, they should certainly be voting all through the process of leaving too.

Why so scared and aggressive as to any other voting on this issue, if the leave side really does believe it still has the support for leaving from voters.
The added side of this too is that 2 Nations voted to remain,now if the UK had 4 Nations with roughly the same electorate in each, from the way the UK voted in June there would have been a majority to remain.
Still in single figures, this 3.8% margin for leave was only won by the strength of larger numbers of electorate in England.

Take the average of the percentages of voting in the 4 Nations however, 56/44% to remain in Northern Ireland, 62/38% to remain in Scotland, then 52.5/47.5% to leave in Wales,(surprisingly, and I feel pretty sure that would be overturned now),finally 53/47% to leave in England.
So if England had not the vastly greater numbers of electorate and was more on a par as to voters,the vote would have been to remain.
That some lock was not put in place to heed the view of the whole UK as to its 4 Nations was badly planned.

Really after England voted, the other 3 may not as well have bothered as they had no chance at all of influencing or changing the result from how England voted.
Hardly a move that would unite anyone.

Which is why I agree 3.8% should not be enough to bring about this massive change to the whole of the UK,just as I would not have thought a 3.8% vote to remain would have settled and closed the issue either.

There as been some talk of Margaret Thatcher here n this thread and really a PM as strong as her would have been better now.
Not as to many of her policies.
She would have insisted on locks being in place for this referendum, and if she had this 3.8% result, she would said simple, not enough, I am pretty sure with her view of referenda.
UKIP or no UKIP, I doubt she would have ever entertained a referendum on anything however.

UKIP were the ones who really won getting this referendum, no one else,
David Cameron promised a referendum,stressing only if he got an overall majority, he never believed he would have to hold one as no polling suggested any party was going to come near an overall majority,even right up to election day 2015.
Labour never wanted one and only came on board under Harriett Harman's acting leadership.

However finally to UKIP, a 3.8% vote to remain would not have in any way, as Farage said on the results night,satisfied them and with Nigel Farage, the fight would have gone on and on.
In my view he would have been right in that too.

I also myself think the mood of voters is now more likely to be for remain,I don't know that for sure obviously,it may well have strengthened the other way for leave but I fear no other voting at all on this issue, whether it's the voters via a general election, a referendum to accept the final deal, or elected MPs in parliament.

Whether voters or MPs are thinking like me or not, I support votes all through this process and this govt. held to account all the way.
No intricate details obviously but the broad plan, which actually voters should have been told 'properly' during the EU campaign anyway.

[jaxie]

I agree.
I also as someone who voted remain, felt that any margin under 10% even had it been for remain would not have closed this issue down.

I think any major change has to be really voted for,you have to look at how things are won and lost.
Margaret Thatcher who always said referenda was a failure of govt. and that she would never have one.
Rejected the Scottish devolution referendum result put in place by the then Labour govt of 1979 despite there being a narrow vote for devolution.

In 1975 the EEC referendum again held by Labour, produced a clear result, near 67% voting yes and all 4 UK Nations voting yes too.

A lot gets said about ignoring those who don't vote, well that's fine but they are never likely going to vote if they keep being totally ignored.
That being so, the vote held was not a majority of the total electorate.

However the govt, as MTVN said I think a few times in the EU debate, should have put locks on the vote, that there had to be at least 60% either way for it to be acted on or something like that.
All the time we hear the referendum was advisory not binding.
Of course the concerns need to be dealt with but 3.8% is really a small win.
We hear loads about 17 million people voting to leave totally discounting the near almost equal high of 16 million voting the other way.

I still cannot fathom out why after so much delay already from Theresa May on this, throwing it into next year from July this year at least.
Why anyone who voted has any fear of a democratic parliamentary vote by MPs on the whole process.
The call for 'our' parliament to make decisions, not the EU, was strong in the EU campaign, now however they want even our own elected MPs to be denied votes on the issue all through, why?

MPs only voted to support and hold a referendum nothing more,if they had to vote to hold the referendum, they should certainly be voting all through the process of leaving too.

Why so scared and aggressive as to any other voting on this issue, if the leave side really does believe it still has the support for leaving from voters.
The added side of this too is that 2 Nations voted to remain,now if the UK had 4 Nations with roughly the same electorate in each, from the way the UK voted in June there would have been a majority to remain.
Still in single figures, this 3.8% margin for leave was only won by the strength of larger numbers of electorate in England.

Take the average of the percentages of voting in the 4 Nations however, 56/44% to remain in Northern Ireland, 62/38% to remain in Scotland, then 52.5/47.5% to leave in Wales,(surprisingly, and I feel pretty sure that would be overturned now),finally 53/47% to leave in England.
So if England had not the vastly greater numbers of electorate and was more on a par as to voters,the vote would have been to remain.
That some lock was not put in place to heed the view of the whole UK as to its 4 Nations was badly planned.

Really after England voted, the other 3 may not as well have bothered as they had no chance at all of influencing or changing the result from how England voted.
Hardly a move that would unite anyone.

Which is why I agree 3.8% should not be enough to bring about this massive change to the whole of the UK,just as I would not have thought a 3.8% vote to remain would have settled and closed the issue either.

There as been some talk of Margaret Thatcher here n this thread and really a PM as strong as her would have been better now.
Not as to many of her policies.
She would have insisted on locks being in place for this referendum, and if she had this 3.8% result, she would said simple, not enough, I am pretty sure with her view of referenda.
UKIP or no UKIP, I doubt she would have ever entertained a referendum on anything however.

UKIP were the ones who really won getting this referendum, no one else,
David Cameron promised a referendum,stressing only if he got an overall majority, he never believed he would have to hold one as no polling suggested any party was going to come near an overall majority,even right up to election day 2015.
Labour never wanted one and only came on board under Harriett Harman's acting leadership.

However finally to UKIP, a 3.8% vote to remain would not have in any way, as Farage said on the results night,satisfied them and with Nigel Farage, the fight would have gone on and on.
In my view he would have been right in that too.

I also myself think the mood of voters is now more likely to be for remain,I don't know that for sure obviously,it may well have strengthened the other way for leave but I fear no other voting at all on this issue, whether it's the voters via a general election, a referendum to accept the final deal, or elected MPs in parliament.

Whether voters or MPs are thinking like me or not, I support votes all through this process and this govt. held to account all the way.
No intricate details obviously but the broad plan, which actually voters should have been told 'properly' during the EU campaign anyway.

It's not hard to fathom at all. There is no 'fear' about parliament debating it, it just simply isn't necessary. Parliament had a vote for a referendum and it was a clear referendum with clear choices. A leave vote means we would leave, to leave we have to start the process of article 50, everyone knew that so what's to talk about? We have two choices really. We can leave without any deals and look for deals away from the EU with countries that want deals with us like Australia which is bigger than the EU and UK altogether as a land mass. Or we can negotiate to see if they want to do a trade deal with us and let us remain in the single market. They trade with us more than we do with them so that might be in their interest. It obvious that the government will try to get as much of a deal as the EU is willing to give, which also isn't really much to debate. What we don't know is what concessions the government will be willing to give I'm return. Those concessions once discussed are about the only thing the government might have to talk about with the rest of the UK and there isn't much point unless they are of interest to the EU after some talks. Then the government can come back to us and say if you want this, they want to allow this. Then we can talk.

I have even seen it suggested in an interview by someone involved in the writing of article 50 that you don't even have to do that. He said make no further payments, don't go to meetings and the EU would realise eventually you were gone! Going by what he said we may not even be bound to trigger article 50 to leave at all. He seemed to be suggesting it was more of a courtesy. Not sure how accurate that is but an interesting idea.

I think it's wishful thinking to suggest people wouldn't vote leave again. I think more people would vote leave if the will of the people was ignored from the first vote.

[joeysteele]

A good post Joey, and the one quality which DOES set you apart from SOME other Left Wing leaning members on here, is that YOU ARE fair and reasonable in your views.

You do not fall into the trap of painting everything 'Not Of The Left' as entirely BLACK.

Thank you Kirk, that is greatly appreciated.
We all make our own comments from feelings and the views we have formed,however I have always preferred to look at the bigger picture and not just the snapshot.
As in fact I think you do as well.

You and I have debated much over the years,because passions are strong on issues,it is easy to sacrifice respect sometimes for the others view.

Thank you Kirk, after some difficult debates, it is good to hear your appreciation even in some way.
I do accept a lot of your arguments carry the greater amount of weight of fairness in them too and in fact always have.

[joeysteele]

It's not hard to fathom at all. There is no 'fear' about parliament debating it, it just simply isn't necessary. Parliament had a vote for a referendum and it was a clear referendum with clear choices. A leave vote means we would leave, to leave we have to start the process of article 50, everyone knew that so what's to talk about? We have two choices really. We can leave without any deals and look for deals away from the EU with countries that want deals with us like Australia which is bigger than the EU and UK altogether as a land mass. Or we can negotiate to see if they want to do a trade deal with us and let us remain in the single market. They trade with us more than we do with them so that might be in their interest. It obvious that the government will try to get as much of a deal as the EU is willing to give, which also isn't really much to debate. What we don't know is what concessions the government will be willing to give I'm return. Those concessions once discussed are about the only thing the government might have to talk about with the rest of the UK and there isn't much point unless they are of interest to the EU after some talks. Then the government can come back to us and say if you want this, they want to allow this. Then we can talk.

I have even seen it suggested in an interview by someone involved in the writing of article 50 that you don't even have to do that. He said make no further payments, don't go to meetings and the EU would realise eventually you were gone! Going by what he said we may not even be bound to trigger article 50 to leave at all. He seemed to be suggesting it was more of a courtesy. Not sure how accurate that is but an interesting idea.

I think it's wishful thinking to suggest people wouldn't vote leave again. I think more people would vote leave if the will of the people was ignored from the first vote.

Well jaxie keep coming back all you like, I have said my feelings on the issue and I certainly know yours.
We simply do not and will not agree.
I think the govt needs strong and in depth scrutiny.

No govt. should be able to make all decisions and have no analysis of same on this issue just as really no party should either.
Not anyway without a mandate for same from the voters in a new general election as to their plans.

The Judges thought that too from the position of the law of the UK.
I disagree with you that MPs should be ignored by the govt on this, even worse is that as to MPs there is only 1 MP from UKIP, who are the ones who forced this referendum anyway.
Yet even he will not get and will be denied a vote in parliament on this, if Theresa May gets her way..
I do not agree with UKIP much but that is ridiculous.

A leave vote did not give actually support the triggering of article 50 in itself,it will be done after this result,and MPs will vote for that too, however all the last vote in parliament was for and sanctioned to be done,was to hold a referendum nothing else.
What happens after that vote should then still be a matter for all MPs in parliament from a multi party National campaign.

Instead of dawdling Theresa May could have had the vote over and done with as to triggering article 50 after the Autumn recess rather than bring about all this going on now possibly.

You may want to give this govt and Theresa May a blank cheque on this, I certainly don't and there you and I will always disagree I am afraid.

[smudgie]

I feel sorry for the disgraceful way the media has tried to dishonour the three judges.
They were simply doing their job, someone has to keep it all legal and above board.
Now, for me, the simple way forward is to have a vote in parliament as to triggering article 50. Have a cross party committee to go ahead with the talks, keeping it private enough not to show our hand to the EU and open enough to keep parliament and the people happy.

[jaxie]

Well jaxie keep coming back all you like, I have said my feelings on the issue and I certainly know yours.
We simply do not and will not agree.
I think the govt needs strong and in depth scrutiny.

No govt. should be able to make all decisions and have no analysis of same on this issue just as really no party should either.
Not anyway without a mandate for same from the voters in a new general election as to their plans.

The Judges thought that too from the position of the law of the UK.
I disagree with you that MPs should be ignored by the govt on this, even worse is that as to MPs there is only 1 MP from UKIP, who are the ones who forced this referendum anyway.
Yet even he will not get and will be denied a vote in parliament on this, if Theresa May gets her way..
I do not agree with UKIP much but that is ridiculous.

A leave vote did not give actually support the triggering of article 50 in itself,it will be done after this result,and MPs will vote for that too, however all the last vote in parliament was for and sanctioned to be done,was to hold a referendum nothing else.
What happens after that vote should then still be a matter for all MPs in parliament from a multi party National campaign.

Instead of dawdling Theresa May could have had the vote over and done with as to triggering article 50 after the Autumn recess rather than bring about all this going on now possibly.

You may want to give this govt and Theresa May a blank cheque on this, I certainly don't and there you and I will always disagree I am afraid.

You said I can keep coming back if I like, is there some reason I shouldn't respond when someone quotes what I've said? It seems a strange thing to say.

I have never said anyone should be given a blank cheque or that parliament should be ignored. I think that you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. What I have said is that there is a point to discuss things with the rest of the country and that is when there is something to discuss, which isn't now. You hold a referendum for a reason, it's not something you do just for fun without acting on the result. This should be clear to everyone. Unless of course some people don't want the result which was given. I think if the supreme Court upholds the high Court decision it's just going to drag the whole process out which isn't really good for anyone. I guess we will have to see what they say.

[jaxie]

I feel sorry for the disgraceful way the media has tried to dishonour the three judges.
They were simply doing their job, someone has to keep it all legal and above board.
Now, for me, the simple way forward is to have a vote in parliament as to triggering article 50. Have a cross party committee to go ahead with the talks, keeping it private enough not to show our hand to the EU and open enough to keep parliament and the people happy.

I agree that if they do have to have talks it has to be some sort of closed session because it's going to be really dumb to have all our bargaining chips all over the press.

As to the judges I agree there is no need to abuse them but the press do like to stir up people's anger. Many people find it incomprehensible that a referendum was held and the result is being held up as not straight forward or not valid in some way.

[joeysteele]

I feel sorry for the disgraceful way the media has tried to dishonour the three judges.
They were simply doing their job, someone has to keep it all legal and above board.
Now, for me, the simple way forward is to have a vote in parliament as to triggering article 50. Have a cross party committee to go ahead with the talks, keeping it private enough not to show our hand to the EU and open enough to keep parliament and the people happy.

That is exactly what I would like to see too smudgie,and that could have all been in place and ongoing now, had Theresa May sought to unite rather than unfortunately end up it appears dividing even more the UK and MPs, even her own too.

[joeysteele]

You said I can keep coming back if I like, is there some reason I shouldn't respond when someone quotes what I've said? It seems a strange thing to say.

I have never said anyone should be given a blank cheque or that parliament should be ignored. I think that you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. What I have said is that there is a point to discuss things with the rest of the country and that is when there is something to discuss, which isn't now. You hold a referendum for a reason, it's not something you do just for fun without acting on the result. This should be clear to everyone. Unless of course some people don't want the result which was given. I think if the supreme Court upholds the high Court decision it's just going to drag the whole process out which isn't really good for anyone. I guess we will have to see what they say.


I voted remain but I want it got on with now and I want the best deal for the UK as a whole, not just certain sectors of it.

I however have no fear at all of any voting of any kind on the issue from voters or MPs,I accept result of votes, I may disagree with the results at times but would always set out to work in the framework of the result.

One as close as this was however needs care and the very best of all minds in all Westminster parties we give power to, or may give power to in the future, to work out and seek together the very best deals possible.
As a whole elected Parliament should.

[user104658]

You said I can keep coming back if I like, is there some reason I shouldn't respond when someone quotes what I've said? It seems a strange thing to say.

I have never said anyone should be given a blank cheque or that parliament should be ignored. I think that you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. What I have said is that there is a point to discuss things with the rest of the country and that is when there is something to discuss, which isn't now. You hold a referendum for a reason, it's not something you do just for fun without acting on the result. This should be clear to everyone. Unless of course some people don't want the result which was given. I think if the supreme Court upholds the high Court decision it's just going to drag the whole process out which isn't really good for anyone. I guess we will have to see what they say.

AGain this is all irrelevant because the UK has parliamentary sovereignity. A referendum is an opinion poll of how the public believes parliament should proceed but it holds absolutely zero legal weight. Is it morally correct for parliament to go against such a vote after agreeing to hold one? No, it probably isn't, certainly not with a clear result. The low margin does muddy the waters a bit, but that's another discussion. The point is; even if 100% of the public voted for something in a referendum, and we already knew that 100% of parliament would vote it through, it would still have to proceed that way because we have parliamentary sovreignity.

I really don't get why people are struggling with this concept so much. I mean... if you want to start another thread discussing the merits and drawbacks of parliamentary sovreignity and suggest that we should abandon it and find another system, fine, that would be a perfectly valid debate. But it's irrelevant in this one because we DO currently have it, and parliament MUST vote for the triggering of article 50 to be legal. Maybe that stings / is crappy / doesn't seem fair / seems needless / whatever but... ... ... :shrug: you could say that about countless laws.

[arista]

Yes TS
you Tell Em'

[Tregard]

Not really, it's a lead but not a majority in political terms.

Especially when nearly 30% of the electorate didn't vote

[Kizzy]

Jeremy Corbyn asks the government to be clear about its plans for negotiating Brexit at the Centre for Labour and Social Studies think tank in London on Saturday. He asks for more transparency over how the government plans to exit the EU. His remarks follow Thursday’s high court ruling that members of parliament should be allowed to vote on triggering article 50

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/nov/05/jeremy-corbyn-government-must-reveal-brexit-plans-without-delay-video

[kirklancaster]

Thank you Kirk, that is greatly appreciated.
We all make our own comments from feelings and the views we have formed,however I have always preferred to look at the bigger picture and not just the snapshot.
As in fact I think you do as well.

You and I have debated much over the years,because passions are strong on issues,it is easy to sacrifice respect sometimes for the others view.

Thank you Kirk, after some difficult debates, it is good to hear your appreciation even in some way.
I do accept a lot of your arguments carry the greater amount of weight of fairness in them too and in fact always have.

You are welcome Joey.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Especially when nearly 30% of the electorate didn't vote

18-24s

natch

[Kizzy]

'It would still have to proceed that way because we have parliamentary sovereignty.'

It is important to remember also that parliament is homogenised on this issue too.