Farage & Gina Miller Live on BBC1HD 9AM 6/11/16 Marr

[arista]

And Trouble Maker Gina Miller
is on the Paper Review

Also James Rubin


Perfect Show For One Active Arm Marr
What a tropper

[arista]

Blimey he is Now sitting Next to Gina




Well done Farage
making Gina Blink more as the Camera
zoomed into her face


Gina Accepts Farage View
but says she is talking about right now
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/06/10/3A1C3F7300000578-3910012-image-a-16_1478428327997.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3910012/You-biggest-fan-Gina-Miller-clashes-Nigel-Farage-live-TV-Brexit-legal-challenge-Ukip-leader-warns-defying-people-trigger-RIOTS.html

[joeysteele]

The only thing I agreed with Nigel Farage on was a possible need to have an election.
A lot more as to what plans the govt has for leaving would then have to be forthcoming and would be under greater scrutiny too from the media and TV interviewing.
It would also of course give the insight to how well prepared other parties are too on the issue.

If she really believes the polling and really thinks she is over 10% ahead in the polling too, she should go for it as well.

As it is, it would seem with her huffing and puffing that she doesn't even believe her own party would support her plans in a parliamentary vote.
She has an overall majority and on paper her majority is at least 14,however Sinn Feinn are not there,she also would have the support of the poodle party of the Conservatives, the DUP, in addition to the UKIP solitary vote as well.
Effectively giving her at least a 32 overall majority in the Commons.

So she must believe many of her own party will vote against her ideas and plans to be so against getting this over and done with.

I felt Gina made her point really well, I actually also felt Nigel Farage was near seeing her point on a fair bit too.
Farage does believe in democracy, I have no doubt on that being fair to him.
So why he would be against the UK parliament voting on this beyond me.
Also if MPs of other parties did use this to try to stop leaving, he could have a great time exposing all that.

I support the court action still and for me Gina was right as to what she said on this programme Marr this morning.
Hopefully it will come to a general election on this issue, that would not only be a test of the plans for leaving from the parties that wish to, it would also be a test as to where the mood of the voters really is at this time too.
What is to fear if all is really as it was in June.

[Withano]

She destroyed him lol

[Kizzy]

Of course he agreed, a huge part of his argument for leaving the EU was that we abide by OUR laws...Well, this was one so abide away.

The problem with sovereignty is we don't have a politically active sovereign, and we certainly don't want Theresa assuming the role of sovereign in parliament, the air has a pungent Cromwellian aroma to it atm.

[Brillopad]

The only thing I agreed with Nigel Farage on was a possible need to have an election.
A lot more as to what plans the govt has for leaving would then have to be forthcoming and would be under greater scrutiny too from the media and TV interviewing.
It would also of course give the insight to how well prepared other parties are too on the issue.

If she really believes the polling and really thinks she is over 10% ahead in the polling too, she should go for it as well.

As it is, it would seem with her huffing and puffing that she doesn't even believe her own party would support her plans in a parliamentary vote.
She has an overall majority and on paper her majority is at least 14,however Sinn Feinn are not there,she also would have the support of the poodle party of the Conservatives, the DUP, in addition to the UKIP solitary vote as well.
Effectively giving her at least a 32 overall majority in the Commons.

So she must believe many of her own party will vote against her ideas and plans to be so against getting this over and done with.

I felt Gina made her point really well, I actually also felt Nigel Farage was near seeing her point on a fair bit too.
Farage does believe in democracy, I have no doubt on that being fair to him.
So why he would be against the UK parliament voting on this beyond me.
Also if MPs of other parties did use this to try to stop leaving, he could have a great time exposing all that.

I support the court action still and for me Gina was right as to what she said on this programme Marr this morning.
Hopefully it will come to a general election on this issue, that would not only be a test of the plans for leaving from the parties that wish to, it would also be a test as to where the mood of the voters really is at this time too.
What is to fear if all is really as it was in June.

Totally disagree! Who does she think she is, too full of her own importance.

The democratic voting process in this country will cease to exist if people like her get their way. A democratic public vote cannot be overturned because certain people don't like the outcome and attempt to overrule it because they think they know best. Sheer arrogance!

If another vote went the other way and then someone from the leave camp challenged it through the courts where would it stop? Agree or disagree a democratic vote has to be respected. The woman is simply a sore loser with enough money to throw a tantrum.

[arista]

"Totally disagree! Who does she think she is, too full of her own importance.

The democratic voting process in this country will cease to exist if people like her get their way. A democratic public vote cannot be overturned because certain people don't like the outcome and attempt to overrule it because they think they know best. Sheer arrogance!"


Bang on Right Brillo

[jaxie]

I agreed with the guy who said Parliament voted for a referendum, the people voted to leave, there should be a certain amount of ability for the government to use executive powers to get on with the job. After they had already said they would come back to parliament to discuss any potential deal afterwards.

It seems to me completely bizarre that suddenly every facet of Brexit must be analysed and scrutinised. We've been to war with less complaining about soveriegnity of Parliament from the very people who want to give our democracy away. I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone. Hopefully the Supreme Court will have some sense.

Now Corbin says he will block Brexit if he doesn't get a list of things and Sturgeon is getting in on the Supreme Court appeal. The political point scoring abounds. What Corbin is forgetting is that a lot of those Brexit voters were traditional Labour supporters. He is shamefully selling them out with his attitude.

For once I agree with Joey, we should probably have a general election at this point so that Corbin can finally go and give his party a chance in 5 years time and people can bring back the Tories with the biggest majority of all time. If this keeps up and there is an election. I might vote Tory myself for the first time in my life, I might even campaign for them.

[kirklancaster]

I agreed with the guy who said Parliament voted for a referendum, the people voted to leave, there should be a certain amount of ability for the government to use executive powers to get on with the job. After they had already said they would come back to parliament to discuss any potential deal afterwards.

It seems to me completely bizarre that suddenly every facet of Brexit must be analysed and scrutinised. We've been to war with less complaining about soveignity of Parliament from the very people who want to give our democracy away. I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone. Hopefully the Supreme Court will have some sense.

No Corbin says he will block Brexit if he doesn't get a list of things and Sturgeon is getting in on he Supreme Court appeal.

For once I agree with Joey, we should probably have a general election at this point so that Corbin can finally go and give his party a chan e in 5 years time and people can bring back the Tories with the biggest majority of all time. If this keeps up and there is an election. I might vote Tory !myself for the time in my life, I might even campaign for them.



:laugh::laugh::laugh: THAT is what FRUSTRATION does Jaxie. :hee:

[jaxie]

[/B]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: THAT is what FRUSTRATION does Jaxie. :hee:

It all just beggers belief. We drop bombs on people and sanctimonious twits barely mutter a peep but leaving the EU must have every word examined. Some people should have thought all this scrutiny was meaningful before now if they really believed it was about our parliamentary democracy.

[jaxie]

Totally disagree! Who does she think she is, too full of her own importance.

The democratic voting process in this country will cease to exist if people like her get their way. A democratic public vote cannot be overturned because certain people don't like the outcome and attempt to overrule it because they think they know best. Sheer arrogance!

If another vote went the other way and then someone from the leave camp challenged it through the courts where would it stop? Agree or disagree a democratic vote has to be respected. The woman is simply a sore loser with enough money to throw a tantrum.

I like you. :wavey:

[Brillopad]

I like you. :wavey:

Great minds etc :cheer2:

[jaxie]

What I want to know is where were all these naysayers and belief that referendums aren't valid BEFOREHAND. Why weren't any of these concerns brought up before or when Scotland had theirs?

[Withano]

Totally disagree! Who does she think she is, too full of her own importance.

The democratic voting process in this country will cease to exist if people like her get their way. A democratic public vote cannot be overturned because certain people don't like the outcome and attempt to overrule it because they think they know best. Sheer arrogance!

If another vote went the other way and then someone from the leave camp challenged it through the courts where would it stop? Agree or disagree a democratic vote has to be respected. The woman is simply a sore loser with enough money to throw a tantrum.

I agreed with the guy who said Parliament voted for a referendum, the people voted to leave, there should be a certain amount of ability for the government to use executive powers to get on with the job. After they had already said they would come back to parliament to discuss any potential deal afterwards.

It seems to me completely bizarre that suddenly every facet of Brexit must be analysed and scrutinised. We've been to war with less complaining about soveriegnity of Parliament from the very people who want to give our democracy away. I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone. Hopefully the Supreme Court will have some sense.

Now Corbin says he will block Brexit if he doesn't get a list of things and Sturgeon is getting in on the Supreme Court appeal. The political point scoring abounds. What Corbin is forgetting is that a lot of those Brexit voters were traditional Labour supporters. He is shamefully selling them out with his attitude.

For once I agree with Joey, we should probably have a general election at this point so that Corbin can finally go and give his party a chance in 5 years time and people can bring back the Tories with the biggest majority of all time. If this keeps up and there is an election. I might vote Tory myself for the first time in my life, I might even campaign for them.

Its because we live in a democratic country that isnt run by a dictator that this is happening. Sure 52% wants May to trigger it but she cant just go ahead and do it with a snap of the fingers cos we're not living in a dictatorship. I dont understand why youre mad about this, well I do, but you shouldnt be.

[Withano]

What I want to know is where were all these naysayers and belief that referendums aren't valid BEFOREHAND. Why weren't any of these concerns brought up before or when Scotland had theirs?

Because Farage spent his adult life fighting for something he never researched.

[jaxie]

Its because we live in a democratic country that isnt run by a dictator that this is happening. Sure 52% wants May to trigger it but she cant just go ahead and do it with a snap of the fingers cos we're not living in a dictatorship. I dont understand why youre mad about this, well I do, but you shouldnt be.

I probably shouldn't bother to reply dingbat dardang wibbet but governments have always had the executive powers to do the job. I'm not at all mad I don't know why you'd think I am. Diddly plot doodly wobbly be careful what you wish for, I don't think you'll like it.

[Northern Monkey]

Totally disagree! Who does she think she is, too full of her own importance.

The democratic voting process in this country will cease to exist if people like her get their way. A democratic public vote cannot be overturned because certain people don't like the outcome and attempt to overrule it because they think they know best. Sheer arrogance!

If another vote went the other way and then someone from the leave camp challenged it through the courts where would it stop? Agree or disagree a democratic vote has to be respected. The woman is simply a sore loser with enough money to throw a tantrum.And that is what it all boils down to...A tantrum.
This woman doesn't give a crap about parliamentary democracy aslong as she's making money.
All they are trying to do is delay and make the whole thing harder than it needs to be.
While in the process causing more and more uncertainty and instability and will more than likely end up getting themselves a hard Brexit(which remainers apparently don't want).
'Democracy, literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratiā, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century bc to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.'
It's amusing how childish it all looks tbh:laugh:
They were never going to let it run smoothly and knuckle down and get on with it.

[jaxie]

And that is what it all boils down to...A tantrum.
This woman doesn't give a crap about parliamentary democracy aslong as she's making money.
All they are trying to do is delay and make the whole thing harder than it needs to be.
While in the process causing more and more uncertainty and instability and will more than likely end up getting themselves a hard Brexit(which remainers apparently don't want).
'Democracy, literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratiā, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century bc to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.'
It's amusing how childish it all looks tbh:laugh:
They were never going to let it run smoothly and knuckle down and get on with it.

Quite right and democracy, rule by the people, not over rule the people. Or ask the people then give the people what we think is best for them.

[Northern Monkey]

Quite right and democracy, rule by the people, not over rule the people. Or ask the people then give the people what we think is best for them.

Exactly:thumbs:

[jaxie]

Exactly:thumbs:

I need to get myself some new boots and a warmer coat for the March. "What do we want, Hard Brexit, when do we want it now!"

[Withano]

I probably shouldn't bother to reply dingbat dardang wibbet but governments have always had the executive powers to do the job. I'm not at all mad I don't know why you'd think I am. Diddly plot doodly wobbly be careful what you wish for, I don't think you'll like it.

Theyve never had the power to specifically remove the country from the EU, never, at any point in history. Never ever.

[jaxie]

Theyve never had the power to specifically remove the country from the EU, never, at any point in history. Never ever.

Then they also didn't have the power to take us into the EU, or indeed to pass the Maastrict or the Lisbon treaties through into our law. Other countries had a referendum on Maastrict we didn't. It was actually squeezed into law via unprecedented pressure by John Major. I bet a legal challenge would be interesting. We might not even legally be in the EU at all.

I could live with that.

[joeysteele]

Totally disagree! Who does she think she is, too full of her own importance.

The democratic voting process in this country will cease to exist if people like her get their way. A democratic public vote cannot be overturned because certain people don't like the outcome and attempt to overrule it because they think they know best. Sheer arrogance!

If another vote went the other way and then someone from the leave camp challenged it through the courts where would it stop? Agree or disagree a democratic vote has to be respected. The woman is simply a sore loser with enough money to throw a tantrum.

Yes it can,if it is the law that it can be and that however is not the issue, the court case is about the right of MPs who all canvassed in a Nationwide referendum on the issue to be consulted and vote on the process of when to and also the leaving of the EU.

It is not at all about overturning the decision of the voters to leave it is only about when and how and who really oversees that.

It mystifies me why people who wanted full democracy and the authority of the UK parliament to be returned from the EU back to the UK parliament now fear so amazingly and aggressively any votes on it, whether that be public voting or even the elected MPs in Parliament as to it.

Parliament only sanctioned holding a referendum. not how the process should go or when following that referendum.


I will address jaxie now being very careful what I say, a general election is a good idea in my view,pleased you agree, for many reasons but that would test all the parties as to their plans for leaving and when to start it too.
A lot of in depth scrutiny from the likes of Andrew Neill, Marr and others would be very welcome in an election campaign.

However the voters could then decide what parties they trust more too with this, from hearing all the plans presented but more to the point vote for the leaving process the voters really want.
So it would also be a good test of where public opinion is on all the ways of leaving too and whoever got elected, would then have the clear mandate to carry out what was then voted for.

I think you may well find you could be disappointed at what may result however, the Conservatives would not get the biggest majority ever, even on the current polling with them about 14% ahead of Labour in the best polls for them, that would only get them an 80 to 90 overall majority.
Much better than the 12 they have now and for sure and certainly a strong mandate to go ahead solely with their plans.

No way however the biggest majority ever, not even to Tony Blair's overall majority in excess of 170 in 1997 and almost duplicated in 2001, and nowhere near the 200+ overall majority for the Conservatives in 1924.

The thing about general elections is they do usually bind minimum support for parties, while some voters regularly switch and float, there is a level certainly the 2 main parties will not likely go below.
I would put that at just over 25% for Labour in the worst of elections for them and more like 30% for the Conservatives in the worst likely election for them too.
That leaves little, in fact no room in this awful electoral system of first past the post, for any other party to really make any breakthrough.
With PR that would be a different matter altogether.
Also in general elections often odd things happen that turn the tide too, you may just get a shock at any result that comes about after a strongly scrutinised campaign.


Back to brillopad, who wasn't going to let it run smoothly, Theresa May was elected by some of her MPs to lead the party before the Autumn recess of parliament.
Once back in September, she could have held a vote right off to trigger article 50, she has an overall majority, she has the support of the DUP from Northern Ireland and also the one lone voice for UKIP in the Commons, Douglas Carswell.
That should have been an effective and easy majority to trigger article 50.

What did she do, she delayed the whole process right up to, for the present, the end of March next year, no one else, she did.
She has instigated the delay and allowed suspicion and frustration to build, no one else.
Why.

I will never grasp why anyone and it seems to be only some of those who voted leave now fear the democratic votes of voters or elected MPs when they screamed for same until they got this referendum.

However too, for the present very learned Judges after listening for weeks to submissions from both arguments have concluded in UK law, the elected parliament, not just govt, must have a vote on the process.
In UK law.
It seems now there are thoughts that this govt, should be able to act above the law and if people support that, that sets a very dangerous precedent indeed for the UK.

Now lets see if this appeal is overturned or upheld, if it is upheld,I wonder if all against this court action will then support Theresa May and the govt taking the issue on appeal then to the European court after that, which she and the govt would be in their rights to do so to try to get them to overturn the high court and Supreme court rulings..
What an irony that would be then however.

Yet all she had to do, and in fact still only needs to do, is simply hold a vote in Parliament for all elected MPs from all parties elected to have their say and sanction the process,just as they did to 'only' hold the referendum in the first place.
Avoiding all this bitterness,division and possible further delay.

Had I been PM, I know the route I would have preferred to take as to getting this process going, fairly quick votes with as much support and consensus I could have got from across the duly elected UK Parliament.

At the moment,were the govt to press on with leaving and triggering article 50, they would now be acting against UK law.
That could cause a massive constitutional crisis as well as actually being illegal.
Are you saying govts should be able to be above the law and no one should dare challenge them if they think they are.
Not a road I want to go down for my Country, no way.

[jaxie]

Yes it can,if it is the law that it can be and that however is not the issue, the court case is about the right of MPs who all canvassed in a Nationwide referendum on the issue to be consulted and vote on the process of when to and also the leaving of the EU.

It is not at all about overturning the decision of the voters to leave it is only about when and how and who really oversees that.

It mystifies me why people who wanted full democracy and the authority of the UK parliament to be returned from the EU back to the UK parliament now fear so amazingly and aggressively any votes on it, whether that be public voting or even the elected MPs in Parliament as to it.

Parliament only sanctioned holding a referendum. not how the process should go or when following that referendum.


I will address jaxie now being very careful what I say, a general election is a good idea in my view,pleased you agree, for many reasons but that would test all the parties as to their plans for leaving and when to start it too.
A lot of in depth scrutiny from the likes of Andrew Neill, Marr and others would be very welcome in an election campaign.

However the voters could then decide what parties they trust more too with this, from hearing all the plans presented but more to the point vote for the leaving process the voters really want.
So it would also be a good test of where public opinion is on all the ways of leaving too and whoever got elected, would then have the clear mandate to carry out what was then voted for.

I think you may well find you could be disappointed at what may result however, the Conservatives would not get the biggest majority ever, even on the current polling with them about 14% ahead of Labour in the best polls for them, that would only get them an 80 to 90 overall majority.
Much better than the 12 they have now and for sure and certainly a strong mandate to go ahead solely with their plans.

No way however the biggest majority ever, not even to Tony Blair's overall majority in excess of 170 in 1997 and almost duplicated in 2001, and nowhere near the 200+ overall majority for the Conservatives in 1924.

The thing about general elections is they do usually bind minimum support for parties, while some voters regularly switch and float, there is a level certainly the 2 main parties will not likely go below.
I would put that at just over 25% for Labour in the worst of elections for them and more like 30% for the Conservatives in the worst likely election for them too.
That leaves little, in fact no room in this awful electoral system of first past the post, for any other party to really make any breakthrough.
With PR that would be a different matter altogether.
Also in general elections often odd things happen that turn the tide too, you may just get a shock at any result that comes about after a strongly scrutinised campaign.


Back to brillopad, who wasn't going to let it run smoothly, Theresa May was elected by some of her MPs to lead the party before the Autumn recess of parliament.
Once back in September, she could have held a vote right off to trigger article 50, she has an overall majority, she has the support of the DUP from Northern Ireland and also the one lone voice for UKIP in the Commons, Douglas Carswell.
That should have been an effective and easy majority to trigger article 50.

What did she do, she delayed the whole process right up to, for the present, the end of March next year, no one else, she did.
She has instigated the delay and allowed suspicion and frustration to build, no one else.
Why.

I will never grasp why anyone and it seems to be only some of those who voted leave now fear the democratic votes of voters or elected MPs when they screamed for same until they got this referendum.

However too, for the present very learned Judges after listening for weeks to submissions from both arguments have concluded in UK law, the elected parliament, not just govt, must have a vote on the process.
In UK law.
It seems now there are thoughts that this govt, should be able to act above the law and if people support that, that sets a very dangerous precedent indeed for the UK.

Now lets see if this appeal is overturned or upheld, if it is upheld,I wonder if all against this court action will then support Theresa May and the govt taking the issue on appeal then to the European court after that, which she and the govt would be in their rights to do so to try to get them to overturn the high court and Supreme court rulings..
What an irony that would be then however.

Yet all she had to do, and in fact still only needs to do, is simply hold a vote in Parliament for all elected MPs from all parties elected t have their say and sanction the process just as they did to only hold the referendum in the first place.
Avoiding all this bitterness,division and possible further delay.

Had I been PM, I know the route I would have preferred to take as to getting this process going, fairly quick votes with as much support and consensus I could have got from across the duly elected UK Parliament.

At the moment,were the govt to press on with leaving and triggering article 50, they would now be acting against UK law.
That could cause a massive constitutional crisis as well as actually being illegal.
Are you saying govts should be able to be above the law and no one should dare challenge them if they think they are.
Not a road I want to go down for my Country, no way.

Please clarify what you mean by that statement?

[kirklancaster]

Then they also didn't have the power to take us into the EU, or indeed to pass the Maastrict or the Lisbon treaties through into our law. Other countries had a referendum on Maastrict we didn't. It was actually squeezed into law via unprecedented pressure by John Major. I bet a legal challenge would be interesting. We might not even legally be in the EU at all.

I could live with that.

I stated this many times before Jaxie - We are NOT legally in the EU.

[joeysteele]

Please clarify what you mean by that statement?

Well since you ask jaxie, you came at me with I said you were making no sense when all I actually said was one of your comments made no sense to me.
So I will take care what I say to you, and how, for fear of being accused of something I have not done.

I have often agreed with you on many issues before and still see many of your points too.
I just do not see any way of agreeing with your stance on this issue,which if I feel that way is my right to say so, just as you repeatedly do so with my points.
You may also note however in fairness, I rarely now respond to you directly initially anyway,for the feeling I would get just as you have done now above.

No offence meant, no offence intended at all but it was you yourself who stated clearly you likely never agreed with me, as in your very own post you say ''for once I agree with Joey''.
Not much point in us debating much then really to just go round and round in circles, in my view anyway.
Out of a whole long post you have instantly come back at me for that tiny comment.

However you did indicate in that post that a general election would give the Conservatives the biggest overall majority ever, I felt the need to address that as I would say that is impossible now and would put loads of money that too.

[jaxie]

Well since you ask jaxie, you came at me with I said you were making no sense when all I actually said was one of your comments made no sense to me.
So I will take care what I say to you, and how, for fear of being accused of something I have not done.

I have often agreed with you on many issues before and still see many of your points too.
I just do not see any way of agreeing with your stance on this issue,which if I feel that way is my right to say so, just as you repeatedly do so with my points.
You may also note however in fairness, I rarely now respond to you directly initially anyway,for the feeling I would get just as you have done now above.

No offence meant, no offence intended at all but it was you yourself who stated clearly you likely never agreed with me, as in your very own post you say ''for once I agree with Joey''.
Not much point in us debating much then really to just go round and round in circles, in my view anyway.
Out of a whole long post you have instantly come back at me for that tiny comment.

However you did indicate in that post that a general election would give the Conservatives the biggest overall majority ever, I felt the need to address that as I would say that is impossible now and would put loads of money that too.

That's what I believe. I don't think there is another credible party at the moment and what we need most of all is stability.

As to your other comments, you told me that I made no sense to you twice in one post so I said that's hardly my fault if you don't get what I'm saying. I would hardly call that 'coming at you'.

It makes a change for us to agree on something political so I remarked on it since I didn't quote you directly but agreed that a general election might be a good move at this point. :shrug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

i think if you cant make your point in 3 inches of text

you may have missed it

[Brillopad]

Yes it can,if it is the law that it can be and that however is not the issue, the court case is about the right of MPs who all canvassed in a Nationwide referendum on the issue to be consulted and vote on the process of when to and also the leaving of the EU.

It is not at all about overturning the decision of the voters to leave it is only about when and how and who really oversees that.

It mystifies me why people who wanted full democracy and the authority of the UK parliament to be returned from the EU back to the UK parliament now fear so amazingly and aggressively any votes on it, whether that be public voting or even the elected MPs in Parliament as to it.

Parliament only sanctioned holding a referendum. not how the process should go or when following that referendum.


I will address jaxie now being very careful what I say, a general election is a good idea in my view,pleased you agree, for many reasons but that would test all the parties as to their plans for leaving and when to start it too.
A lot of in depth scrutiny from the likes of Andrew Neill, Marr and others would be very welcome in an election campaign.

However the voters could then decide what parties they trust more too with this, from hearing all the plans presented but more to the point vote for the leaving process the voters really want.
So it would also be a good test of where public opinion is on all the ways of leaving too and whoever got elected, would then have the clear mandate to carry out what was then voted for.

I think you may well find you could be disappointed at what may result however, the Conservatives would not get the biggest majority ever, even on the current polling with them about 14% ahead of Labour in the best polls for them, that would only get them an 80 to 90 overall majority.
Much better than the 12 they have now and for sure and certainly a strong mandate to go ahead solely with their plans.

No way however the biggest majority ever, not even to Tony Blair's overall majority in excess of 170 in 1997 and almost duplicated in 2001, and nowhere near the 200+ overall majority for the Conservatives in 1924.

The thing about general elections is they do usually bind minimum support for parties, while some voters regularly switch and float, there is a level certainly the 2 main parties will not likely go below.
I would put that at just over 25% for Labour in the worst of elections for them and more like 30% for the Conservatives in the worst likely election for them too.
That leaves little, in fact no room in this awful electoral system of first past the post, for any other party to really make any breakthrough.
With PR that would be a different matter altogether.
Also in general elections often odd things happen that turn the tide too, you may just get a shock at any result that comes about after a strongly scrutinised campaign.


Back to brillopad, who wasn't going to let it run smoothly, Theresa May was elected by some of her MPs to lead the party before the Autumn recess of parliament.
Once back in September, she could have held a vote right off to trigger article 50, she has an overall majority, she has the support of the DUP from Northern Ireland and also the one lone voice for UKIP in the Commons, Douglas Carswell.
That should have been an effective and easy majority to trigger article 50.

What did she do, she delayed the whole process right up to, for the present, the end of March next year, no one else, she did.
She has instigated the delay and allowed suspicion and frustration to build, no one else.
Why.

I will never grasp why anyone and it seems to be only some of those who voted leave now fear the democratic votes of voters or elected MPs when they screamed for same until they got this referendum.

However too, for the present very learned Judges after listening for weeks to submissions from both arguments have concluded in UK law, the elected parliament, not just govt, must have a vote on the process.
In UK law.
It seems now there are thoughts that this govt, should be able to act above the law and if people support that, that sets a very dangerous precedent indeed for the UK.

Now lets see if this appeal is overturned or upheld, if it is upheld,I wonder if all against this court action will then support Theresa May and the govt taking the issue on appeal then to the European court after that, which she and the govt would be in their rights to do so to try to get them to overturn the high court and Supreme court rulings..
What an irony that would be then however.

Yet all she had to do, and in fact still only needs to do, is simply hold a vote in Parliament for all elected MPs from all parties elected to have their say and sanction the process,just as they did to 'only' hold the referendum in the first place.
Avoiding all this bitterness,division and possible further delay.

Had I been PM, I know the route I would have preferred to take as to getting this process going, fairly quick votes with as much support and consensus I could have got from across the duly elected UK Parliament.

At the moment,were the govt to press on with leaving and triggering article 50, they would now be acting against UK law.
That could cause a massive constitutional crisis as well as actually being illegal.
Are you saying govts should be able to be above the law and no one should dare challenge them if they think they are.
Not a road I want to go down for my Country, no way.

If you want to believe all her rhetoric about it being about the how and when that is up to you, I certainly don't. If she could she would overturn it, failing that she hopes to water brexit down to the point it is unrecognisable as being what 52% of the voters voted for in a supposedly democratic election. She is only interested in her business interests.

It seems your learned judges aren't as learned as you think. Gerard Batten has produced some evidence that their ruling was invalid and , as such, likely to be overturned in December. Looks like we may never have legally been in the EU in the first place - real can of worms.

I suggest you watch his recent video on one of these threads before being so sure about what is and isn't legal. Battern is a Knowledgeable man who can wipe the floor with the likes of Miss Miller.

[joeysteele]

If you want to believe all her rhetoric about it being about the how and when that is up to you, I certainly don't. If she could she would overturn it, failing that she hopes to water brexit down to the point it is unrecognisable as being what 52% of the voters voted for in a supposedly democratic election. She is only interested in her business interests.

It seems your learned judges aren't as learned as you think. Gerard Batten has produced some evidence that their ruling was invalid and , as such, likely to be overturned in December. Looks like we may never have legally been in the EU in the first place - real can of worms.

I suggest you watch his recent video on one of these threads before being so sure about what is and isn't legal. Battern is a Knowledgeable man who can wipe the floor with the likes of Miss Miller.

I think I will follow my own judgement and what I read also on the issue.

Maybe you are correct in that there is a can of worms opened here, and maybe even much more will need to addressed.
That however is only going to probably delay things much further and the implications of what you say,if they were in any way correct, will cause even bigger issues to be addressed as to governments past and present.

I totally agree there should have been referenda to UK voters on the treaties that were all signed by both Conservative and Labour governments.
However where that will then go is anyones guess.

I will still hold to heeding the judgements of the learned Judges of the High Court meantime however.

I am actually a Lawyer myself and like everyone working in or associated with law can always still learn more,I have strong respect for the law and will therefore take the word of judgement of Judges.

Also how can anyone water the plans for leaving down when no one, MPs, voters or the media, not I or even you knows or has any idea whatsoever, what the plans of this govt even are in the broadest sense.
If you do could you please enlighten us all.

[joeysteele]

That's what I believe. I don't think there is another credible party at the moment and what we need most of all is stability.

As to your other comments, you told me that I made no sense to you twice in one post so I said that's hardly my fault if you don't get what I'm saying. I would hardly call that 'coming at you'.

It makes a change for us to agree on something political so I remarked on it since I didn't quote you directly but agreed that a general election might be a good move at this point. :shrug:

I get what you are saying jaxie and often I do agree with you, not on this but on other issues definitely.

It is good we agree on a general election,it more than likely would as you say, end up with some increase of her overall majority on paper for the Conservatives but I am a democrat and if that is what voters vote for, then that is what they and we get.

I am just not that sure she would get a really much bigger overall majority and lots can get sidetracked and even lost in election campaigns.
Surprises can and often do occur that trip up leaders and parties.

Thank you for agreeing a general election may be a good thing, I personally think, it could actually help sort a lot out and speed up the leaving process from the mandate it would then give to whatever party or parties came out as the government.
It could even end up being a Conservative led govt; with UKIP support if a breakthrough for UKIP came.
Fine, if that is what voters vote for.

[Brillopad]

I think I will follow my own judgement and what I read also on the issue.

Maybe you are correct in that there is a can of worms opened here, and maybe even much more will need to addressed.
That however is only going to probably delay things much further and the implications of what you say,if they were in any way correct, will cause even bigger issues to be addressed as to governments past and present.

I totally agree there should have been referenda to UK voters on the treaties that were all signed by both Conservative and Labour governments.
However where that will then go is anyones guess.

I will still hold to heeding the judgements of the learned Judges of the High Court meantime however.

I am actually a Lawyer myself and like everyone working in or associated with law can always still learn more,I have strong respect for the law and will therefore take the word of judgement of Judges.

Also how can anyone water the plans for leaving down when no one, MPs, voters or the media, not I or even you knows or has any idea whatsoever, what the plans of this govt even are in the broadest sense.
If you do could you please enlighten us all.

Oh come on , we may not know all the details but it is pretty certain they will try to keep us in the single market which would involve keeping our borders open - one of the key points voters voted against and why so many voted to leave the EU.

And the damage done by the total distain for the democratic voting process in this country from remoaners like Ms Miller will be irreversible.

[joeysteele]

Oh come on , we may not know all the details but it is pretty certain they will try to keep us in the single market which would involve keeping our borders open - one of the key points voters voted against and why so many voted to leave the EU.

And the damage done by the total distain for the democratic voting process in this country from remoaners like Ms Miller will be irreversible.

Personally, I would like to remain in the single market, however we get mixed comments from the govt and from the 3 main architects of what will be any future sort of plans for negotiation.

I am sorry but I see no damage to democratic voting process in the UK unless it is not used.
Which is why I support the elected MPs of all parties just 18 months ago in a general election, being given a vote on the start and process of leaving.

It is the same reason I would also support a general election on the issue to decide, if it did, which party or parties should be doing the negotiations.
That is what I see as a good democratic voting process.

Immigration control and the single market may well be the reasons likely a great majority of those who voted leave voted that way for,however again, not you, not I or anyone else can say they are the reasons that all who voted leave did so.
Neither immigration or the single market were on the ballot papers to be ticked for the voters voting leave.
You cannot say all who voted leave voted for those 2 things, people on here for instance, some voted leave in the main and just to take back control of our lawmaking.

Nothing really to do with immigration strongly, I have read irritation, and they are right to feel that, that some people think that is all the leave voters voted for.

[Brillopad]

Personally, I would like to remain in the single market, however we get mixed comments from the govt and from the 3 main architects of what will be any future sort of plans for negotiation.

I am sorry but I see no damage to democratic voting process in the UK unless it is not used.
Which is why I support the elected MPs of all parties just 18 months ago in a general election, being given a vote on the start and process of leaving.

It is the same reason I would also support a general election on the issue to decide, if it did, which party or parties should be doing the negotiations.
That is what I see as a good democratic voting process.

Immigration control and the single market may well be the reasons likely a great majority of those who voted leave voted that way for,however again, not you, not I or anyone else can say they are the reasons that all who voted leave did so.
Neither immigration or the single market were on the ballot papers to be ticked for the voters voting leave.
You cannot say all who voted leave voted for those 2 things, people on here for instance, some voted leave in the main and just to take back control of our lawmaking.

Nothing really to do with immigration strongly, I have read irritation, and they are right to feel that, that some people think that is all the leave voters voted for.

I am surprised you see no comeback from disrespecting the public vote in Britain, especially as a lawyer. How could anyone ever have faith in any future democratic vote when it has been demonstrated how easily it can be ignored when it doesn't' suit the powers that be?

Start of a slippery slope - Britain would no longer be a democracy. I can't imagine most britains would want to go down that path.

[joeysteele]

I am surprised you see no comeback from disrespecting the public vote in Britain, especially as a lawyer. How could anyone ever have faith in any future democratic vote when it has been demonstrated how easily it can be ignored when it doesn't' suit the powers that be?

Start of a slippery slope - Britain would no longer be a democracy. I can't imagine most britains would want to go down that path.

Because there is not disrespecting of the vote going on here,the referendum only asked should we remain or leave being a member of the EU.
The vote was narrowly to leave.

How we leave, when we leave and on what terms played were referenced in no way on the ballot paper.
I voted remain but now want the process done as quickly, easily and fairly for the whole UK as it can be.

The only time a referendum result has been ignored in the UK was as I mentioned earlier, the Conservative govt of Margaret Thatcher dismissing the vote for devolution on a narrow majority in Scotland in the late 1970s.

So I see no reason why, and no major party save the Lib Dems are advocating not executing fully the referendum result to leave the EU as a member.

No one in the UK would want a referendum or any vote of the voters ignored.
Quite frankly that is not even being done here.

It is clear Labour would not vote down triggering article 50, so there is no reason in order to get things moving whereby the govt could not just hold a vote to set things off.
Which could have been done months ago already.
What are you so scared of as to elected MPs voting on very serious constitutional change for the whole of the UK, which actually should be their duty.
Why fear voters again in a general election, which would open up a lot of issues the public would hear as to leaving, and then give a strong new mandate to a party or parties to go ahead with the full process.

What is it you and others fear of that democratic voting process that you would rather it was not permitted at all, for MPs or even the voters.
You call that democracy and restoring powers back to the UK parliament, because it doesn't sound very democratic or restoring anything back to the UK parliament to me, I am sorry to say.

[arista]

"The vote was narrowly to leave."

Over a million votes is not Narrow
in my view.

Narrow would be 100.


Fact

[Brillopad]

Because there is not disrespecting of the vote going on here,the referendum only asked should we remain or leave being a member of the EU.
The vote was narrowly to leave.

How we leave, when we leave and on what terms played were referenced in no way on the ballot paper.
I voted remain but now want the process done as quickly, easily and fairly for the whole UK as it can be.

The only time a referendum result has been ignored in the UK was as I mentioned earlier, the Conservative govt of Margaret Thatcher dismissing the vote for devolution on a narrow majority in Scotland in the late 1970s.

So I see no reason why, and no major party save the Lib Dems are advocating not executing fully the referendum result to leave the EU as a member.

No one in the UK would want a referendum or any vote of the voters ignored.
Quite frankly that is not even being done here.

It is clear Labour would not vote down triggering article 50, so there is no reason in order to get things moving whereby the govt could not just hold a vote to set things off.
Which could have been done months ago already.
What are you so scared of as to elected MPs voting on very serious constitutional change for the whole of the UK, which actually should be their duty.
Why fear voters again in a general election, which would open up a lot of issues the public would hear as to leaving, and then give a strong new mandate to a party or parties to go ahead with the full process.

What is it you and others fear of that democratic voting process that you would rather it was not permitted at all, for MPs or even the voters.
You call that democracy and restoring powers back to the UK parliament, because it doesn't sound very democratic or restoring anything back to the UK parliament to me, I am sorry to say.

I beg to differ. The vote to leave came as a shock to many and one of the main reasons so many voted to leave was to be able to control our borders. It is a major concern for a Hugh amount of people. It was a crucial factor in the vote. For this to be interfered with and denied as part of the leave package would be a massive betrayal to the vote to leave and would amount to a reversal of the vote, don't kid yourself otherwise.

I don't know why you keep saying people fear a public vote - we have already had a public vote and the will of the majority was very clear. Believe me if the result had gone the other way and the leave camp wanted to interfere and change what was voted for the remainerswould be very unhappy. You can dress it up but that is what the remoaners are trying to do. The vote is complete. Of course how we go about it needs to be discussed but the core wishes of the majority cannot be changed.

[Kizzy]

It all just beggers belief. We drop bombs on people and sanctimonious twits barely mutter a peep but leaving the EU must have every word examined. Some people should have thought all this scrutiny was meaningful before now if they really believed it was about our parliamentary democracy.

Oh, were the bombs a bad idea now?...I recall at the time they were crucial.
Maybe in time brexir will be shown to be as damaging?...

Gina Millar was fantastic in her succinct explanations to Farage, I thought he was going to implode :laugh:

[jaxie]

Oh, were the bombs a bad idea now?...I recall at the time they were crucial.
Maybe in time brexir will be shown to be as damaging?...

Gina Millar was fantastic in her succinct explanations to Farage, I thought he was going to implode :laugh:

It's funny you remember things I didn't say as I've only been posting in debates a short time. It must only seem like I've been here an eternity.

I don't believe I've ever given my opinions on military action, though I'm not talking about my views on it now. The point I was making is if we are going to politically micro manage everything the government does then yes, where was all this legal intervention then when decisions were made to send planes and troops to other countries? Didnt that deserve all this new scrutiny? No one seemed too bothered then.

To keep harping on about Brexit being damaging simply shows how uninformed you are about the EU. :shrug:

[kirklancaster]

It's funny you remember things I didn't say as I've only been posting in debates a short time. It must only seem like I've been here an eternity.

I don't believe I've ever given my opinions on military action, though I'm not talking about my views on it now. The point I was making is if we are going to politically micro manage everything the government does then yes, where was all this legal intervention then when decisions were made to send planes and troops to other countries? Didnt that deserve all this new scrutiny? No one seemed too bothered then.

To keep harping on about Brexit being damaging simply shows how uninformed you are about the EU. :shrug:

:clap1::clap1::clap1: And HOW.

[Liberty4eva]

If Brexit is delayed or stopped maybe you will need a president Trump to free you from the EU clutches? :)

[joeysteele]

Brexit cannot be stopped because the public voted in a referendum to cease our membership of the EU,
That is the only concrete decision made there is anywhere at present.

How that is done has in fact many paths to the exiting process however.

Forgive me if I have this wrong, jaxie it appears wants a hard brexit if possible, that is fine and is what they want and see the as the best way for the UK.
Jaxie could well be right that it is and will be proven to be.
I always admire conviction to any cause when it is handled as enthusiastically as for instance Jaxie has.

For someone like myself and may I add Kizzy, we would prefer a more moderated brexit,one that retains some of what we see, (not what anyone else may think is not there),of the things that have been of benefit to the UK.
This could also possiblybe right and the best thing for the UK overall.

This is why I would in the light of the referendum narrow result,( Nigel Farage stated when it looked like a 52/48 result for remain, that remain had just 'scraped a win' and he'd have been right),I would now prefer to see a general election where the same people who decided the referendum, now also get to choose what exit process they really want and who to do it.

I said on another thread, you would have David Davis and Theresa May for the Conservatives likely advocating that harder exit line.
Fine again if that is their position and plan.

Labour would probably be advocating a lesser kind of brexit, such as remaining in the single market and maybe even a lesser action again as to the free movement of EU citizens.
again fine, if that is the position they take.

The Lib Dems would likely make it about seeking to remain in the EU, which in my opinion would fly in the face of the vote in the referendum.

UKIP we know would be in line with a harder brexit, they always have been consistent in that and at least we know where we truly are with them as tot his issue.

Just those very broad outlines however is a choice in itself.
Now it may well be that those who voted remain would get behind parties on the less harder brexit plans.
I would doubt many would actually go for the harder brexit of those who voted remain.

Then the same general election with those very basic guidelines and choices presented,would enable all those who voted leave to demonstrate clearly what exit strategy they really want and voted for too.
If they all wanted a harder brexit like say jaxie, fine they will vote for that and the result will come back loud and clear on that.
However maybe some wo voted leave do not want the harder exit strategy so may file off to a lesser exit strategy on offer.

The one thing that is certain from a general election, will be that the voters will not only have decided the UK must leave as a member of the EU but they will in that election too, choose the type of leaving they really want along with who and what party or parties they want to negotiate it.

I fear nothing at all from such a election,the voters will get their choice totally,they will also be voting with the hindsight of all that has gone on since the June referendum too.

The only people who need to fear voting are those who think they may likely lose.
In a democracy voting is the way forward on all things,I was one who lost the argument in the EU referendum as I was for remain, however now I want to see the exiting done.

I would prefer it done however with authority of how it is to be done, by at least all the elected MPs voting as to it in Westminster but preferably via a general election, where the real choice of how and when we leave of both the remain and leave voters across the whole of the UK, can then be made and known for certain.

Whatever the outcome of the then done negotiations and final deal cannot be moaned at by anyone, as full consultation, as much as there could be,would have been done for the process.
After that narrow majority of only 3.8% out of a total of over 33 million voters.

No micro management at all, just a broad set of guidelines to hopefully achieve.
It is surprising this is not the present govts; aim too to be honest.

[jaxie]

Brexit cannot be stopped because the public voted in a referendum to cease our membership of the EU,
That is the only concrete decision made there is anywhere at present.

How that is done has in fact many paths to the exiting process however.

Forgive me if I have this wrong, jaxie it appears wants a hard brexit if possible, that is fine and is what they want and see the as the best way for the UK.
Jaxie could well be right that it is and will be proven to be.
I always admire conviction to any cause when it is handled as enthusiastically as for instance Jaxie has.

For someone like myself and may I add Kizzy, we would prefer a more moderated brexit,one that retains some of what we see, (not what anyone else may think is not there),of the things that have been of benefit to the UK.
This could also possiblybe right and the best thing for the UK overall.

This is why I would in the light of the referendum narrow result,( Nigel Farage stated when it looked like a 52/48 result for remain, that remain had just 'scraped a win' and he'd have been right),I would now prefer to see a general election where the same people who decided the referendum, now also get to choose what exit process they really want and who to do it.

I said on another thread, you would have David Davis and Theresa May for the Conservatives likely advocating that harder exit line.
Fine again if that is their position and plan.

Labour would probably be advocating a lesser kind of brexit, such as remaining in the single market and maybe even a lesser action again as to the free movement of EU citizens.
again fine, if that is the position they take.

The Lib Dems would likely make it about seeking to remain in the EU, which in my opinion would fly in the face of the vote in the referendum.

UKIP we know would be in line with a harder brexit, they always have been consistent in that and at least we know where we truly are with them as tot his issue.

Just those very broad outlines however is a choice in itself.
Now it may well be that those who voted remain would get behind parties on the less harder brexit plans.
I would doubt many would actually go for the harder brexit of those who voted remain.

Then the same general election with those very basic guidelines and choices presented,would enable all those who voted leave to demonstrate clearly what exit strategy they really want and voted for too.
If they all wanted a harder brexit like say jaxie, fine they will vote for that and the result will come back loud and clear on that.
However maybe some wo voted leave do not want the harder exit strategy so may file off to a lesser exit strategy on offer.

The one thing that is certain from a general election, will be that the voters will not only have decided the UK must leave as a member of the EU but they will in that election too, choose the type of leaving they really want along with who and what party or parties they want to negotiate it.

I fear nothing at all from such a election,the voters will get their choice totally,they will also be voting with the hindsight of all that has gone on since the June referendum too.

The only people who need to fear voting are those who think they may likely lose.
In a democracy voting is the way forward on all things,I was one who lost the argument in the EU referendum as I was for remain, however now I want to see the exiting done.

I would prefer it done however with authority of how it is to be done, by at least all the elected MPs voting as to it in Westminster but preferably via a general election, where the real choice of how and when we leave of both the remain and leave voters across the whole of the UK, can then be made and known for certain.

Whatever the outcome of the then done negotiations and final deal cannot be moaned at by anyone, as full consultation, as much as there could be,would have been done for the process.
After that narrow majority of only 3.8% out of a total of over 33 million voters.

No micro management at all, just a broad set of guidelines to hopefully achieve.
It is surprising this is not the present govts; aim too to be honest.

Yes that's right Joey, I'd like to see a hard brexit which means leaving the EU with no concessions, even if that means no deals. The reason this appeals to me is that I want to leave with no restrictions and it seems clear there would be restrictions on a soft brexit. I think we would do far better to forge our own deals rather than to still be restricted by dregs or the EU. I think it would be in our best interests rather than having to make compromises we don't want to make.

But this is my personal view. I also accept other people want other things so there may have to be some compromise.

And thank you for actually reading what I've said rather than just dismissing it like others with a different view do. I admire you for that.