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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'Remoaners'

awk.

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

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.

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

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?

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:

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.

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

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:

:joker:

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.