Brexit?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

It is bad. It's undermining the judicial system. MPs won't vote against Brexit. Theyshould however provide the mandate to do so.

It's a nonsense though. If May stands up and says that she won't state the negotiating position because it gives the adversary the upper hand in negotiations, which is correct, you and others will argue that MPs shouldn't vote for invoking Article 50 on the grounds that they don't know the position!

[Cade]

The UK is going about this arse over tit in the first place.

 

The EU has said they won't negotiate until Article 50 is invoked. The UK should have said "ok, we veto any EU legislation until negotiations commence". That way, negotiations take place before Article 50 is invoked and parliament has something to vote on.

May did threaten that, so the EU said that all negotiations would be in French (the official language of the EU).

 

May backed down.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

May did threaten that, so the EU said that all negotiations would be in French (the official language of the EU).

 

May backed down.

Which was a mistake by her.

[Notts1874]

May did threaten that, so the EU said that all negotiations would be in French (the official language of the EU).

 

May backed down.

Could the UK government not afford an interpreter?

[Trapper John McIntyre]

May did threaten that, so the EU said that all negotiations would be in French (the official language of the EU).

 

May backed down.

 

That alone, is good enough reason to leave the EU.

[The Real Maroonblood]

It doesn't matter what passport she holds, if she has lived here for more than 5 years she cannot be deported.Project Fear and the remoaners have shamefully stoked this fear of deportation of existing residents which as far as I am aware no-one, not even Nigel Farage, has proposed.

Nigel's wife wouldn't be to happy if he proposed this.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Nigel's wife wouldn't be to happy if he proposed this.

Would give her a good excuse to get rid, tbf.

[Space Mackerel]

No. I'm saying that both separately have unleashed a very reactionary and black and white style of positics in Scotland and the UK as a whole.

 

The atmosphere of politics we live in right now is divisive and lacks any cebtre ground. The idea that questioning judges is acceptable by government ministers is mad and yet Kenny MacAskill in the indy campaign and now the likes of Sajid Javid on QT last night have.

 

Both Brexit and Indy have unleashed a very nationalistic politics which seeks to present exceptionalism as the norm: like we see with the NHS Audit report in Scotland getting an "oh, aye, well still better than England..." and "Europe? Pfft who needs them?! Mother of democracy... etc"

 

It's divisive and facile.

The Scottish independence referendum debate, vote and subsequent debate has been nothing like the outpouring of lies ,blatant racism,hate and bile we have seen down South.

 

Nice try though.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Seymour M Hersh]

It is bad. It's undermining the judicial system. MPs won't vote against Brexit. Theyshould however provide the mandate to do so.

 

Which in turn is undermining Parliament.  

[Seymour M Hersh]

May did threaten that, so the EU said that all negotiations would be in French (the official language of the EU).

 

May backed down.

 

The EU didn't say that one official (a Frenchman) said it and May had nothing to back down from.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

It is bad. It's undermining the judicial system. MPs won't vote against Brexit. Theyshould however provide the mandate to do so.

 

 

Which in turn is undermining Parliament.  

 

Which in turn is undermining the will of the British people.

[Francis Albert]

The Scottish independence referendum debate, vote and subsequent debate has been nothing like the outpouring of lies ,blatant racism,hate and bile we have seen down South.

Nice try though.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

as someone who lives down south i don't recognise your description at all. There is this astonishing self satisfied myth that the scots are more tolerant than the english. The english have at least got over the trauma of mass irish immigration over a century ago.

[John Findlay]

as someone who lives down south i don't recognise your description at all. There is this astonishing self satisfied myth that the scots are more tolerant than the english. The english have at least got over the trauma of mass irish immigration over a century ago.

They've just got to learn to except everyone else now:-0)

[Seymour M Hersh]

Which in turn is undermining the will of the British people.

 

How?

[JamboX2]

It's a nonsense though. If May stands up and says that she won't state the negotiating position because it gives the adversary the upper hand in negotiations, which is correct, you and others will argue that MPs shouldn't vote for invoking Article 50 on the grounds that they don't know the position!

They already hold the upper hand and do in every negotiation with non-member European nations. They have the single market we want "maximum possible" access too. They have the "tariff free zone" we want access too. The EU administers Europol and the EAW which we should be seeking to stay in

... It's a mirror of Salmond's position in 2014. Big talk with none or very few of the cards.

 

I don't want an in depth analysis of their plans, however it would be good and healthy for May to set out her main aims and goals from Brexit: ie economic prosperity or controlled immigration.

 

However, I have a suspicion we will find out what Brexit means when she holds a snap election in the new year.

[JamboX2]

Which in turn is undermining Parliament.

It's not. The result of a court decision in the UK is not binding on parliament as parliament is sovereign. Therefore May could simply ignore this. She has decided to appeal to get a ruling she desires and not be under political pressure from ignoring such a decision.

 

Leavers voted for a Sovereign British Parliament. Why should Parliament not authorise the government to invoke Article 50? It voted to take us into the EEC in 1973.

[Seymour M Hersh]

It's not. The result of a court decision in the UK is not binding on parliament as parliament is sovereign. Therefore May could simply ignore this. She has decided to appeal to get a ruling she desires and not be under political pressure from ignoring such a decision.

 

Leavers voted for a Sovereign British Parliament. Why should Parliament not authorise the government to invoke Article 50? It voted to take us into the EEC in 1973.

 

It will vote on the Great Repeal Act. Invoking article 50 is not a change in law therefore does not require a parliamentary vote.

[JamboX2]

The Scottish independence referendum debate, vote and subsequent debate has been nothing like the outpouring of lies ,blatant racism,hate and bile we have seen down South.

 

Nice try though.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Again you're missing the point.

 

Politics at a UK level is now defined through this prism. So you can be left/right or you can be SNP/Labour/Tory etc and that no longer unites or divides you on how tax is raised or schools run but by how you voted in June. For example, more now unites Anna Soubry and Ed Miliband on this one issue than it does with their own leaderships. Equally, Alex Neil now aligns himself more with Jacob Rees-Mogg on his idea of our place in the world than Sturgeon.

 

The debate is now centred on this issue. There is bitterness between "little Englander" leavers and "Remoaners". There are shouts of betrayal and conspiracy abounds about media outlets, state institutions and whether we live in a democracy.

 

A lot of that also boiled out of the Independence referendum. And whilst not anti-migrant there was an undertone of anti-English. Alan Cumming fot example or Wings.

 

Again, as with the UK, Scottish politics is defined by a single issue. Every question of government policy not doing as much as promised or going far enough is met by a huge wall of white noise on "aye, but if it was Yes then...". You are either also a traitor to Scotland if you voted No or a "x"-Tory. It's the same issue.

 

There is more centre ground to be had between Labour, Green, Liberal and SNP in Scotland than might otherwise exist and yet we see a very divisive politics of identity. This is now also the case at a UK level.

[JamboX2]

It will vote on the Great Repeal Act. Invoking article 50 is not a change in law therefore does not require a parliamentary vote.

But it is, it removes us from the EU. The Great Repeal Act is a nonsense. You invoke Article 50. Negotiate your future deal and then that's it.

 

It is a fundamental change if circumstance for the UK. It's only right Parliament and therefore the people approve this by a debate and vote. Government can just say "We will negotiate the best deal we can" at it but it's only right it hear the views of the people's representatives before embarking on this project.

 

It is however, an interesting window into how muddled Scottish independence would have been handled.

[Jambo dans les Pyrenees]

But it is, it removes us from the EU. The Great Repeal Act is a nonsense. You invoke Article 50. Negotiate your future deal and then that's it.

 

It is a fundamental change if circumstance for the UK. It's only right Parliament and therefore the people approve this by a debate and vote. Government can just say "We will negotiate the best deal we can" at it but it's only right it hear the views of the people's representatives before embarking on this project.

 

It is however, an interesting window into how muddled Scottish independence would have been handled.

 

It would not have been plain sailing nor without controversy but the Yes campaign in 2014 had more of a plan and definition about what they would do if they had won than the Brexit campaign appear to have.  I'm not saying I thought it was all sensible / would have worked (e.g. the ? as currency) but at least there was some form of plan or principles indicating the direction of travel they favoured.

 

The Brexit campaign appears to be akin to a mad desire to leave port with no thought (or countenance that there should be thought) as to what the destination is, what the weather may be like, is there enough fuel and are all the passengers on board.

[AlphonseCapone]

The Daily Mail is a disgraceful paper for morons; 'Enemies of the People' these judges are apparently.

 

It's such a non-issue. Someone challenges in court (legal right to do so), the judges (British in a British court, isn't that what leavers desired) made a ruling on the legal basis (unbiased btw), the referendum bill states it is not binding (legally, it's clear as day. You can't argue that, if you do then you don't understand the difference between legally and politically), the Government could have avoided all this by putting in the bill that it was binding (then legally this case would have been thrown out), barely any MPs will vote against it so it's a moot decision realistically.

 

Everything these days gets blown out of proportion with morons who believe papers like the Daily Mail or a meme they seen on FB and the least thing becomes an issue.

[The Real Maroonblood]

The Daily Mail is a disgraceful paper for morons; 'Enemies of the People' these judges are apparently.

It's such a non-issue. Someone challenges in court (legal right to do so), the judges (British in a British court, isn't that what leavers desired) made a ruling on the legal basis (unbiased btw), the referendum bill states it is not binding (legally, it's clear as day. You can't argue that, if you do then you don't understand the difference between legally and politically), the Government could have avoided all this by putting in the bill that it was binding (then legally this case would have been thrown out), barely any MPs will vote against it so it's a moot decision realistically.

Everything these days gets blown out of proportion with morons who believe papers like the Daily Mail or a meme they seen on FB and the least thing becomes an issue.

An absolute despicable rag.

[Space Mackerel]

Again you're missing the point.

 

Politics at a UK level is now defined through this prism. So you can be left/right or you can be SNP/Labour/Tory etc and that no longer unites or divides you on how tax is raised or schools run but by how you voted in June. For example, more now unites Anna Soubry and Ed Miliband on this one issue than it does with their own leaderships. Equally, Alex Neil now aligns himself more with Jacob Rees-Mogg on his idea of our place in the world than Sturgeon.

 

The debate is now centred on this issue. There is bitterness between "little Englander" leavers and "Remoaners". There are shouts of betrayal and conspiracy abounds about media outlets, state institutions and whether we live in a democracy.

 

A lot of that also boiled out of the Independence referendum. And whilst not anti-migrant there was an undertone of anti-English. Alan Cumming fot example or Wings.

 

Again, as with the UK, Scottish politics is defined by a single issue. Every question of government policy not doing as much as promised or going far enough is met by a huge wall of white noise on "aye, but if it was Yes then...". You are either also a traitor to Scotland if you voted No or a "x"-Tory. It's the same issue.

 

There is more centre ground to be had between Labour, Green, Liberal and SNP in Scotland than might otherwise exist and yet we see a very divisive politics of identity. This is now also the case at a UK level.

Looks like the debate shifted when New Labour aligned themselves so close to the Torys under Blair and Brown thus giving the electorate less choice between the 2 main parties. That'll be the SNP's fault too I suppose.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jack D and coke]

True. An odd omission. If 2014 was different and more binding then I'd have thought it would have said so.

I seem to remember headlines intimating such a scenario tho. You can bet it would've been very similar to what we're seeing now though.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

They already hold the upper hand and do in every negotiation with non-member European nations. They have the single market we want "maximum possible" access too. They have the "tariff free zone" we want access too. The EU administers Europol and the EAW which we should be seeking to stay in

... It's a mirror of Salmond's position in 2014. Big talk with none or very few of the cards.

 

I don't want an in depth analysis of their plans, however it would be good and healthy for May to set out her main aims and goals from Brexit: ie economic prosperity or controlled immigration.

 

However, I have a suspicion we will find out what Brexit means when she holds a snap election in the new year.

You've just contradicted yourself there in the Article 50 claim. The direction of travel is maximum possible access to the single market. The challenge is squaring that with the free movement of people.

 

I'm willing to bet the former will trump the latter in the end up and the world will move on.

[Seymour M Hersh]

But it is, it removes us from the EU. The Great Repeal Act is a nonsense. You invoke Article 50. Negotiate your future deal and then that's it.

 

It is a fundamental change if circumstance for the UK. It's only right Parliament and therefore the people approve this by a debate and vote. Government can just say "We will negotiate the best deal we can" at it but it's only right it hear the views of the people's representatives before embarking on this project.

 

It is however, an interesting window into how muddled Scottish independence would have been handled.

 

No it's not it's repealing the act that took us into Europe. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

How?

 

Well it gives the likes of Clegg & Farron and others the chance to delay, obstruct and if they can kill any triggering of article 50.

Farron has stated he wants a second referendum and he's not alone in saying that, so these MP's will do all they can to oppose Brexit when it's debated in the Commons, and just wait until it goes to the Lords.

[Seymour M Hersh]

The Daily Mail is a disgraceful paper for morons; 'Enemies of the People' these judges are apparently.

 

It's such a non-issue. Someone challenges in court (legal right to do so), the judges (British in a British court, isn't that what leavers desired) made a ruling on the legal basis (unbiased btw), the referendum bill states it is not binding (legally, it's clear as day. You can't argue that, if you do then you don't understand the difference between legally and politically), the Government could have avoided all this by putting in the bill that it was binding (then legally this case would have been thrown out), barely any MPs will vote against it so it's a moot decision realistically.

 

Everything these days gets blown out of proportion with morons who believe papers like the Daily Mail or a meme they seen on FB and the least thing becomes an issue.

 

What do you read? The Chicago Sun Times?

[AlphonseCapone]

What do you read? The Chicago Sun Times?

If that's humour then it's shite.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Well it gives the likes of Clegg & Farron and others the chance to delay, obstruct and if they can kill any triggering of article 50.

Farron has stated he wants a second referendum and he's not alone in saying that, so these MP's will do all they can to oppose Brexit when it's debated in the Commons, and just wait until it goes to the Lords.

 

Ah I see where you're coming from. Yes it certainly does give cretins like Clegg (who only yesterday referred to the voters as "the little people") a chance to amend or even scupper Brexit. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

If that's humour then it's shite.

 

It was mild sarcasm. So what paper do you read? Oh and before you deflect i don't read the Mail.

[AlphonseCapone]

It was mild sarcasm. So what paper do you read? Oh and before you deflect i don't read the Mail.

I read several online papers. My preference is to start on the BBC app and use their handy links to the original sources. Sometimes I find myself reading the Mail, important in order to be able to ridicule it.

 

Now we've established my reading list, do you agree this is a non-issue and could not have unfolded any other way legally due to the incompetence of the Government to pass robust legislation?

[jack D and coke]

It would not have been plain sailing nor without controversy but the Yes campaign in 2014 had more of a plan and definition about what they would do if they had won than the Brexit campaign appear to have. I'm not saying I thought it was all sensible / would have worked (e.g. the ? as currency) but at least there was some form of plan or principles indicating the direction of travel they favoured.

 

The Brexit campaign appears to be akin to a mad desire to leave port with no thought (or countenance that there should be thought) as to what the destination is, what the weather may be like, is there enough fuel and are all the passengers on board.

Have you read the white paper as a matter of interest? I'm not sure how anybody could say it was a plan with a straight face.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jambo-Jimbo]

On a slightly different note but still to do with Brexit.

 

Can anybody tell me what music this is on this video, it's doing my head in trying to figure out what it is.

 

http://news.sky.com/video/part-three-of-skys-brexit-tapestry-10644219

[leginten]

The Daily Mail is a disgraceful paper for morons; 'Enemies of the People' these judges are apparently.

It's such a non-issue. Someone challenges in court (legal right to do so), the judges (British in a British court, isn't that what leavers desired) made a ruling on the legal basis (unbiased btw), the referendum bill states it is not binding (legally, it's clear as day. You can't argue that, if you do then you don't understand the difference between legally and politically), the Government could have avoided all this by putting in the bill that it was binding (then legally this case would have been thrown out), barely any MPs will vote against it so it's a moot decision realistically.

Everything these days gets blown out of proportion with morons who believe papers like the Daily Mail or a meme they seen on FB and the least thing becomes an issue.

I'm not sure that the government would have been able to insert a clause into the referendum bill to the effect that it was binding if that clause was in open contradiction of the already existing law, which has just been confirmed, that Clause 50 can't be triggered without a vote in Westminster. It's an interesting point, though.

 

While I was an ardent remainer and find much of the Brexiteer rhetoric and its press and political proponents abhorrent, and while I agree absolutely with last week's judicial verdict, I do think there is a corpus of politicians of all shades at Westminster who are angling for a second referendum and are beginning to look as if they regard the sovereignity of the Westminster parliament as taking precedence over the will of the people.

[AlphonseCapone]

I'm not sure that the government would have been able to insert a clause into the referendum bill to the effect that it was binding if that clause was in open contradiction of the already existing law, which has just been confirmed, that Clause 50 can't be triggered without a vote in Westminster. It's an interesting point, though.

 

While I was an ardent remainer and find much of the Brexiteer rhetoric and its press and political proponents abhorrent, and while I agree absolutely with last week's judicial verdict, I do think there is a corpus of politicians of all shades at Westminster who are angling for a second referendum and are beginning to look as if they regard the sovereignity of the Westminster parliament as taking precedence over the will of the people.

I agree, there will be a proportion of them who want a second referendum and that's wrong, decision was made.

 

I think Ken Clarke said something along the lines of, the people don't necessarily know what's best for them, hinting heavily they believes they should be ignored at times but no democrat could agree with that conclusion, even if his point might have truth.

 

There might be around 70 who'll vote against or abstain I reckon, the majority of whom will be the SNP.

[Space Mackerel]

Have you read the white paper as a matter of interest? I'm not sure how anybody could say it was a plan with a straight face.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you read the plan for Brexit?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JamboX2]

It would not have been plain sailing nor without controversy but the Yes campaign in 2014 had more of a plan and definition about what they would do if they had won than the Brexit campaign appear to have. I'm not saying I thought it was all sensible / would have worked (e.g. the ? as currency) but at least there was some form of plan or principles indicating the direction of travel they favoured.

 

The Brexit campaign appears to be akin to a mad desire to leave port with no thought (or countenance that there should be thought) as to what the destination is, what the weather may be like, is there enough fuel and are all the passengers on board.

Totally agree on both. As i said earlier, i was no white paper fan, but it was a semblance of a plan which was there for a Scottish negotiation team to work with.

 

I more meant the UK government would've reacted the same and Scotland would've been yelping for action whilst a new PM and Cabinet were assembled.

 

However, I do think with both situations, the magnitude of the events necessitates a temporary national government of all parties. Back benchers coukd be exempt but there needs to be a national framework or this.

[Seymour M Hersh]

I read several online papers. My preference is to start on the BBC app and use their handy links to the original sources. Sometimes I find myself reading the Mail, important in order to be able to ridicule it.

 

Now we've established my reading list, do you agree this is a non-issue and could not have unfolded any other way legally due to the incompetence of the Government to pass robust legislation?

 

No.

[jack D and coke]

Have you read the plan for Brexit?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Was there a paper from the No side? My point is it wouldn't matter in the slightest much like the white paper had a Yes been secured. It all goes out the window as soon as discussions begin.

What I should've said was my Yes vote was in no way reflective of the white paper and I ignored both sides during the brexit vote. I read and tried to take in plenty on both and went with my gut on both occasions.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Space Mackerel]

Was there a paper from the No side? My point is it wouldn't matter in the slightest much like the white paper had a Yes been secured. It all goes out the window as soon as discussions begin.

What I should've said was my Yes vote was in no way reflective of the white paper and I ignored both sides during the brexit vote. I read and tried to take in plenty on both and went with my gut on both occasions.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Explain to me this gut feeling founded on sound bites, racist posters, lies put on the side of busses and no plan?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mikey1874]

This all came about due to divisions in the Conservative party.

 

May and the government not seeming to know it's starting point for negotiation which is all it needs to bring to Parliament may be more to do with these divisions.

[AlphonseCapone]

No.

What do you disagree with and why?

[Francis Albert]

They've just got to learn to except everyone else now:-0)

for the most part they do

Scotland hasn't been tested by mass immigration for a century so can bask in its supposed greater tolerance and mock little englanders.

[jack D and coke]

Explain to me this gut feeling founded on sound bites, racist posters, lies put on the side of busses and no plan?

I don't like the EU. I don't like big powerful organisations I don't believe they're good for the people on the whole. Smaller government is proved to be much more effective. I feel the same about the UK.

Nothing about NHS budgets or anything else from leave swayed me much like the same I don't believe you're an rabid anti English cybernat[emoji1360]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Francis Albert]

Dp

[Jambo dans les Pyrenees]

Totally agree on both. As i said earlier, i was no white paper fan, but it was a semblance of a plan which was there for a Scottish negotiation team to work with.

 

I more meant the UK government would've reacted the same and Scotland would've been yelping for action whilst a new PM and Cabinet were assembled.

 

However, I do think with both situations, the magnitude of the events necessitates a temporary national government of all parties. Back benchers coukd be exempt but there needs to be a national framework or this.

 

Yes I agree, the reaction would have been the same.  We get the politicians we deserve I am afraid!

 

I would love it Keegan style if a political leader stood up, said look the media are trying to control and influence us all in a way that at some point risks driving us all to hell in a handcart, here is a sensible balanced approached / plan.  But either they are not up to that, or find it impossible to do given said media.

[Space Mackerel]

for the most part they do

Scotland hasn't been tested by mass immigration for a century so can bask in its supposed greater tolerance and mock little englanders.

Just been down the shops for the rolls and paper (The National of course) served by the friendly Polish lad and said hello to the owner of the Chinese takeaway on way out. I wasn't a ball of seething mess at this.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The Comedian]

I agree, there will be a proportion of them who want a second referendum and that's wrong, decision was made.

 

I think Ken Clarke said something along the lines of, the people don't necessarily know what's best for them, hinting heavily they believes they should be ignored at times but no democrat could agree with that conclusion, even if his point might have truth.

 

There might be around 70 who'll vote against or abstain I reckon, the majority of whom will be the SNP.

 

The people would know what's best for them if they'd voted the way old Ken wanted them to. Never a truer word spoken that there wouldn't be such procrastination if remain had won.

 

Perhaps the SNP could vote in parliament in line with the split in votes here in Scotland and actually represent the whole of the country just for once? Therefore 38% (rounded however) could vote leave and represent the invisible people in Scotland who don't share their view.

[Justin Z]

Just been down the shops for the rolls and paper (The National of course) served by the friendly Polish lad and said hello to the owner of the Chinese takeaway on way out. I wasn't a ball of seething mess at this.

 

Haha, seriously.  The last flat I lived in housed zero people from this island.  Me, a Canadian, an Irish guy, a girl originally from Hong Kong, a French couple, and a guy from Chile with EU citizenship through his Latvian parents.