[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by iloveaisleyne

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

Of course it is.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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/...loyment-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]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by jaxie

She stole the children's milk too.

Thatcher thatcher milk snatcher.

I'll make a new one ...

butt scratcher, butt scratcher EU snatcher

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Thatcher thatcher milk snatcher.

I'll make a new one ...

butt scratcher, butt scratcher EU snatcher

One day you might thank us.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by 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

Great post Maru, interesting and thought provoking.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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... ... ... you could say that about countless laws.

[arista]

Yes TS
you Tell Em'

[Tregard]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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...ut-delay-video

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by Tregard

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.