Brexit?

[jake]

You could imagine my old pal spacey boy literally becoming a seething dribbling mess if this ever happened to his Indy dream. The Yes voters didn't know what they voting for or some other garbage.

For some reason the irony is lost on him.

Ain't that right pal[emoji1]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The irony seems to get lost on a few posters.

[Boris]

You could imagine my old pal spacey boy literally becoming a seething dribbling mess if this ever happened to his Indy dream. The Yes voters didn't know what they voting for or some other garbage.

For some reason the irony is lost on him.

Ain't that right pal[emoji1]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

As flawed as it was, there was the White Paper that gave some sort of idea.  Nothing as far as Leave came out with.

[Space Mackerel]

You could imagine my old pal spacey boy literally becoming a seething dribbling mess if this ever happened to his Indy dream. The Yes voters didn't know what they voting for or some other garbage.

For some reason the irony is lost on him.

Ain't that right pal[emoji1]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's some whatabootery there pal [emoji23]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Justin Z]

I'm really confused by the reactions on both sides. This is democracy working properly.

 

Stay with me here and I'll try to explain.  The Court found that this is a constitutional question because triggering Article 50 would result in a fundamental changing of individuals' rights.  In the broader context of U.K. constitutional law, the only body with the power to do anything, ever that would change individuals' rights is Parliament.  End of.  That's a democratic protection, a separation of powers.  If the Prime Minister could do that at a whim, the Prime Minister would basically be a monarch.

 

You can see why the Prime Minister being a monarch would be a serious no-no.  So actually triggering Article 50 and the actual consequences of doing so--those have to be debated, planned and worked out in Parliament.

 

The opinion goes out of its way to state that this is purely a question of law.  The opinion is not an opinion on whether Brexit is a good idea.  But as John Adams famously coined from across the pond, you live in "a government of laws, and not of men".  You have to follow the correct procedure, end of.  If MPs tried to reverse and back out of Brexit, there would be political consequences, exactly as it should be.

 

So don't believe the red top shite out there--I could not believe the spin the Daily Mail put on this for example.  In practice, this isn't going to change anything, because the people made it very clear what they want, for better or for worse, and MPs who don't do what the people want may be voted out by those very people on the next asking.

[jack D and coke]

That's some whatabootery there pal [emoji23]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Coming from mr whataboutery that's a bold claim pal[emoji23]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reaths17]

so if brexit is cancelled at the behest of big business does that mean that our votes are officially worthless ?

 

will gina miller go down in history as the corporate hoor who took our vote to an unelected court and denied us democracy, bit like marc bosman in fitba or even what the fish is desperate for here.

 

how can so many of you say that out meant summit else and again with all the patronising comments about "people being to stupid to know what out/leave/no more etc, means)they/us/me may as all of us at the time, not had all the facts but the majority of those that voted leave knew it meant breaking all ties with the EU and starting afresh.

 

I'm pretty sure there was as many thickos on the stay side, although spaced oot and his pals seem to be making a mockery of that with the seperatists during the indy ref.

[jack D and coke]

As flawed as it was, there was the White Paper that gave some sort of idea. Nothing as far as Leave came out with.

Flawed....you see my point?

Imagine 52% had voted Yes and this is the pish that was getting bandied about?

The Indy drones that can't see the irony here is absolutely staggering. And laughable tbh.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Justin Z]

so if brexit is cancelled at the behest of big business does that mean that our votes are officially worthless ?

 

Not if you use them to vote out all of the MPs who didn't do what you wanted them to do.

[Boris]

so if brexit is cancelled at the behest of big business does that mean that our votes are officially worthless ?

 

will gina miller go down in history as the corporate hoor who took our vote to an unelected court and denied us democracy, bit like marc bosman in fitba or even what the fish is desperate for here.

 

how can so many of you say that out meant summit else and again with all the patronising comments about "people being to stupid to know what out/leave/no more etc, means)they/us/me may as all of us at the time not had all the facts but the majority of those that voted leave knew it meant breaking all ties with the EU and starting afresh.

 

I'm pretty sure there was as many thickos on the stay side, although spaced oot and his pals seem to be making a mockery of that with the seperatists during the indy ref.

 

Who has said Brexit will be cancelled?

 

The point, as made earlier by myself and others, recently Justin Z, is that to LEGALLY trigger Article 50, it has to be Parliament that decides, not the Government..

 

Your point about what out means, well, what did it mean?  Out if the EU?  For sure.  After we are out, what sort of relationship with the EU?  Not so clear cut.

[reaths17]

Not if you use them to vote out all of the MPs who didn't do what you wanted them to do.

which party/politician isn't a hoare to big business in present day politics ?

[Boris]

Flawed....you see my point?

Imagine 52% had voted Yes and this is the pish that was getting bandied about?

The Indy drones that can't see the irony here is absolutely staggering. And laughable tbh.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

But it least it was a written document, manifesto, starter for 10, that would have no doubt morphed through further consultation and negotiation.

 

What did the Leave campaign say?  Extra money for the NHS (sure...), um...

[Boris]

which party/politician isn't a hoare to big business in present day politics ?

 

*cough*

 

Jeremy Corbyn?

[Justin Z]

Flawed....you see my point?

Imagine 52% had voted Yes and this is the pish that was getting bandied about?

The Indy drones that can't see the irony here is absolutely staggering. And laughable tbh.

 

 

This is a bizarre comment but Boris' train of thought is also straying off topic because you're not focussing. 

 

I haven't looked closely but it's entirely possible there is a completely different legal issue that would need to be decided by the courts for a positive independence referendum result. 

 

But it appears everyone is too busy freaking out at what the headlines are telling them is happening to actually take a step back, look at this dispassionately and see that any MP that doesn't respect the result is putting his/her political life in serious danger.

 

which party/politician isn't a hoare to big business in present day politics ?

 

This question has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, both in my longer post and in my short reply to you.  The power is ultimately in your hands to vote anybody out who does not respect the referendum result, if that's what you feel you should do--and to vote in someone who you don't think is a "hoare" to big business.

[reaths17]

Who has said Brexit will be cancelled?

 

The point, as made earlier by myself and others, recently Justin Z, is that to LEGALLY trigger Article 50, it has to be Parliament that decides, not the Government..

 

Your point about what out means, well, what did it mean?  Out if the EU?  For sure.  After we are out, what sort of relationship with the EU?  Not so clear cut.

I hear all the soft/hard/semi gash of people trying to make it all grey, muddy the waters create confusion.

 

leave meant to me "leave", start over make our own way, spaced oot and his pals will surely clue us up, I didn't have it down as any kind of devolution

 

maybe sturgeon would be able to tell us, as she's batting in both Camps.

[Rudi-Robertson]

I hear all the soft/hard/semi gash of people trying to make it all grey, muddy the waters create confusion.

 

leave meant to me "leave", start over make our own way, spaced oot and his pals will surely clue us up, I didn't have it down as any kind of devolution

 

maybe sturgeon would be able to tell us, as she's batting in both Camps.

Sturgeon doesn't know if she's going for a shite or a haircut. If this Brexit patter falls through will she shut her trap about another referendum?

[reaths17]

This is a bizarre comment but Boris' train of thought is also straying off topic because you're not focussing. 

 

I haven't looked closely but it's entirely possible there is a completely different legal issue that would need to be decided by the courts for a positive independence referendum result. 

 

But it appears everyone is too busy freaking out at what the headlines are telling them is happening to actually take a step back, look at this dispassionately and see that any MP that doesn't respect the result is putting his/her political life in serious danger.

 

 

This question has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, both in my longer post and in my short reply to you.  The power is ultimately in your hands to vote anybody out who does not respect the referendum result, if that's what you feel you should do--and to vote in someone who you don't think is a "hoare" to big business.

I don't think any of them are without corporate backing, including Boris's pal corbyn. I wouldn't trust any politician, surely with all these votes recently they have shown almost all of them up as a bunch of absolute shyesters.

 

you can only vote for who the parties put forward and none of them are good honest folk.

[Space Mackerel]

I hear all the soft/hard/semi gash of people trying to make it all grey, muddy the waters create confusion.

 

leave meant to me "leave", start over make our own way, spaced oot and his pals will surely clue us up, I didn't have it down as any kind of devolution

 

maybe sturgeon would be able to tell us, as she's batting in both Camps.

Spaced Oot makes me laugh pal [emoji23][emoji106]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Justin Z]

I don't think any of them are without corporate backing, including Boris's pal corbyn. I wouldn't trust any politician, surely with all these votes recently they have shown almost all of them up as a bunch of absolute shyesters.

 

you can only vote for who the parties put forward and none of them are good honest folk.

 

I share your cynicism, but that's all the more reason that procedures and legal limitations like this are in place and need to be respected and properly followed.

[Space Mackerel]

Flawed....you see my point?

Imagine 52% had voted Yes and this is the pish that was getting bandied about?

The Indy drones that can't see the irony here is absolutely staggering. And laughable tbh.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hear all the soft/hard/semi gash of people trying to make it all grey, muddy the waters create confusion.

 

leave meant to me "leave", start over make our own way, spaced oot and his pals will surely clue us up, I didn't have it down as any kind of devolution

 

maybe sturgeon would be able to tell us, as she's batting in both Camps.

Sturgeon doesn't know if she's going for a shite or a haircut. If this Brexit patter falls through will she shut her trap about another referendum?

Now Brexit is the SNP's fault now is it?

 

Gies peace.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Justin Z]

I share your cynicism, but that's all the more reason that procedures and legal limitations like this are in place and need to be respected and properly followed.

 

Adding onto this--the court ruling basically boils down to "Yes, the people gave you permission to leave the EU.  What they did not do is vote to permit you to leave the EU any way you want at the snap of your fingers.  The referendum did not grant you extraconstitutional powers.  You have to create legislation and debate it in order to get it passed as you would any other law you felt democratically mandated to create."

[Boris]

I hear all the soft/hard/semi gash of people trying to make it all grey, muddy the waters create confusion.

 

leave meant to me "leave", start over make our own way, spaced oot and his pals will surely clue us up, I didn't have it down as any kind of devolution

 

maybe sturgeon would be able to tell us, as she's batting in both Camps.

 

Norway is out of the EU, but they have a relationship that allows them acces sto single market etc.

[jack D and coke]

Now Brexit is the SNP's fault now is it?

 

Gies peace.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why did you tag me in that? Who mentioned the snp?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cade]

See if the UK Supreme Court upholds this decision......

 

Will the Government then take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg for a final decision?

Because that would be

 

[reaths17]

Norway is out of the EU, but they have a relationship that allows them acces sto single market etc.

well lets leave and negotiate an new relationship, that's what I voted for, I didn't say I hated Europeans of any nation, I just feel its better to be free of a huge restriction on us, placed by a huge amount of un-neccessary red tape and buearocracy.

[Space Mackerel]

Why did you tag me in that? Who mentioned the snp?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mentioned us "SNP drones" [emoji2]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jack D and coke]

You mentioned us "SNP drones" [emoji2]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Indy drones I think you'll find pal[emoji6]

And my point was the point blank refusal to see the blinding irony that is literally right in front of their faces.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Justin Z]

Indy drones I think you'll find pal[emoji6]

And my point was the point blank refusal to see the blinding irony that is literally right in front of their faces.

 

 

 

For like the third time, these two situations are completely different in the legal arena, which is the only place this issue belongs.

[Space Mackerel]

Indy drones I think you'll find pal[emoji6]

And my point was the point blank refusal to see the blinding irony that is literally right in front of their faces.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not our fault that the Tories and their drones have made this constitutional cluster**** up.

 

It was all spelt out at the start and was warned numerous times.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jack D and coke]

For like the third time, these two situations are completely different in the legal arena, which is the only place this issue belongs.

For third time to you pal it's not different. Scottish independence voters of which I was one are ****** a hoop that a legitimate vote is looking like it might be overturned or seriously watered down whilst completely ignoring a similar scenario could well have presented itself had a Yes happened. I'm not really interested in the legalities despite seeing headlines during indyref that a yes might not be legally binding either.

The amount of gloating I've seen already on social media is staggering in its hypocrisy.

That is my point.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Space Mackerel]

For third time to you pal it's not different. Scottish independence voters of which I was one are ****** a hoop that a legitimate vote is looking like it might be overturned or seriously watered down whilst completely ignoring a similar scenario could well have presented itself had a Yes happened. I'm not really interested in the legalities despite seeing headlines during indyref that a yes might not be legally binding either.

The amount of gloating I've seen already on social media is staggering in its hypocrisy.

That is my point.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't say I was ****** a hoop at it all, it's just the utter farce it has become.

 

From the arguments to Leave to the actual implementation hasn't really been thought through, has it?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Boris]

well lets leave and negotiate an new relationship, that's what I voted for, I didn't say I hated Europeans of any nation, I just feel its better to be free of a huge restriction on us, placed by a huge amount of un-neccessary red tape and buearocracy.

 

And that's cool.  I suspect the action was taken because the Govt was pursuing a hard brexit.  Did people vote for that?  Was it on the ballot?

[Don Dan]

Today's court case was brought by people who's only objective to to stop Article 50 and thereby Brexit. Nothing more nothing less. That clown who owns Pimlico Plumbers said as much just a month ago.

[Justin Z]

For third time to you pal it's not different. Scottish independence voters of which I was one are ****** a hoop that a legitimate vote is looking like it might be overturned or seriously watered down whilst completely ignoring a similar scenario could well have presented itself had a Yes happened. I'm not really interested in the legalities despite seeing headlines during indyref that a yes might not be legally binding either.

The amount of gloating I've seen already on social media is staggering in its hypocrisy.

That is my point.

 

I get your point, but it's still just factually wrong.  Terms like "overturned" and "seriously watered down" to describe what could happen to the result can come only from the fact that this was an ill-conceived thing to put to popular vote in the first place.  Ironically, I agree that referendum was not the best vehicle for pursuing the question of independence, but it was something that from a law standpoint has been pored over time and again, and because it's a question of sovereignty (something which, no matter what the UKIP spin machine says, was absolutely, positively not the case with Brexit), it was at least an appropriate idea to put it to the populace as a whole.

 

This legal decision simply exposes the Brexit politicians as hack opportunists without a clue how things actually work.  That some Yes voters might be missing that doesn't surprise me, either--there's always someone.

 

 

And that's cool.  I suspect the action was taken because the Govt was pursuing a hard brexit.  Did people vote for that?  Was it on the ballot?

 

^ Exactly.  The core of this is the Brexit politicians trying to play like the vote gave them powers out of more or less thin air.

[Justin Z]

Today's court case was brought by people who's only objective to to stop Article 50 and thereby Brexit. Nothing more nothing less. That clown who owns Pimlico Plumbers said as much just a month ago.

 

The law isn't supposed to care about why someone brings a case--only whether there is merit in the legal argument.

 

Don't let the agendas on either side blur your focus.

[Adam Murray]

And that's cool.  I suspect the action was taken because the Govt was pursuing a hard brexit.  Did people vote for that?  Was it on the ballot?

 

 

People voted to Leave the EU, there was no hard or soft option, there was no shadows, whispering voices, faces on posters, too may choices, If? When? Why? What?

 

Seriously though, it really is insulting people's intelligence to claim that people never understood that Leave really meant Leave

[Boris]

For third time to you pal it's not different. Scottish independence voters of which I was one are ****** a hoop that a legitimate vote is looking like it might be overturned or seriously watered down whilst completely ignoring a similar scenario could well have presented itself had a Yes happened. I'm not really interested in the legalities despite seeing headlines during indyref that a yes might not be legally binding either.

The amount of gloating I've seen already on social media is staggering in its hypocrisy.

That is my point.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How can it be seriously watered down if there was no mention of what Brexit would look like?

 

There are so many permutations.

 

The UK will leave the EU.  What its relations with the EU after will look like may now have altered. 

[doctor jambo]

The case merely proves that once Brexit has been shaped it has to go to Parliament.

At the moment we are unsure if there is free trade, or street lynching of immigrants.

 

Once the real face of Brexit is revealed then we should get a choice on it

 

This block is PROPER democracy- informed decision making

I welcome it.

 

Not even Salmond tried to get us to vote independence with absolutely NO idea what that would mean

[Francis Albert]

Adding onto this--the court ruling basically boils down to "Yes, the people gave you permission to leave the EU.  What they did not do is vote to permit you to leave the EU any way you want at the snap of your fingers.  The referendum did not grant you extraconstitutional powers.  You have to create legislation and debate it in order to get it passed as you would any other law you felt democratically mandated to create."

Again, this is not about how we leave the EU. If we do not trigger Article 50 there is no negotiation or discussion about how we leave. We don't even get to the starting gate of the leaving process. We stay, as we are and as we were. And the referendum was a complete sham.

[Justin Z]

Not even Salmond tried to get us to vote independence with absolutely NO idea what that would mean

 

No, and the white paper is the size of a phone book.  Everyone was pretty clear on what exactly would happen.  Yes, the ballot itself had a one-sentence question on it, but it was very clear exactly what it would entail.

Brexit, not so much.

[pcw1874]

All today's court ruling has done is reinforced the principle at the heart of our democracy that the executive (Government) is accountable to Parliament and the Law. That's why democracies have a separation of powers, precisely so we're not governed by executive order (i.e. dictatorship). Nobody is seriously arguing the referendum result should be overturned, just the mechanism of leaving should be scrutinised by Parliament.

 

If anyone is suggesting the executive should just get on with things without legislative or judicial oversight, then that's how they operate things in Russia and North Korea.

[Justin Z]

Again, this is not about how we leave the EU. If we do not trigger Article 50 there is no negotiation or discussion about how we leave. We don't even get to the starting gate of the leaving process. We stay, as we are and as we were. And the referendum was a complete sham.

 

Who do not trigger Article 50?

 

Exactly.  Only Parliament may, even in the face of a referendum.  That the referendum may have been a complete sham, we all know who brought it, and therefore at whose feet we should place the blame if that's our conclusion.

[Don Dan]

The law isn't supposed to care about why someone brings a case--only whether there is merit in the legal argument.

 

Don't let the agendas on either side blur your focus.

My focus is not blurred and neither are my ears. I distinctly hear Mullins say that this court case was about ending Brexit. He stumbled as he was talking about this action when interviewed live on tv. He then realised he'd boobed live on air. It's in the interests of the complainers that this (Brexit) is defeated, stalled or kicked into the long grass. MP's like Miliband and Clegg will be over the moon now and will do anything to end the whole thing and let's not forget about that other unelected chamber who are all against leaving the EU. They will do everything in their power to sink Brexit as well.

[Francis Albert]

The case merely proves that once Brexit has been shaped it has to go to Parliament.

At the moment we are unsure if there is free trade, or street lynching of immigrants.

 

Once the real face of Brexit is revealed then we should get a choice on it

 

This block is PROPER democracy- informed decision making

I welcome it.

 

Not even Salmond tried to get us to vote independence with absolutely NO idea what that would mean

And again, if we don't trigger Article 50 there will be no "shaping" of Brexit. The EU has made it clear there will be no discussion or negotiation or "shaping" until we trigger Article 50. Not voting to trigger Article 50 is a vote to remain, not about having some mythical choice when the "real face of Brexit" is revealed.

 

The comment about street lynching of immigrants is contemptible.

[jack D and coke]

I wouldn't say I was ****** a hoop at it all, it's just the utter farce it has become.

 

From the arguments to Leave to the actual implementation hasn't really been thought through, has it?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You could argue all the exact same points over Indy mate that's all I'm trying to say here.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Don Dan]

The case merely proves that once Brexit has been shaped it has to go to Parliament.

At the moment we are unsure if there is free trade, or street lynching of immigrants.

 

Once the real face of Brexit is revealed then we should get a choice on it

 

This block is PROPER democracy- informed decision making

I welcome it.

 

Not even Salmond tried to get us to vote independence with absolutely NO idea what that would mean

.

 

The point is you won't get a choice on it unless of course you are a politian.

[Justin Z]

You could argue all the exact same points over Indy mate that's all I'm trying to say here.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You can't though.  Independence was laid out in minute detail in hundreds of pages.  Brexit was a word that meant whatever anyone who voted in favour of it wanted it to mean!  There was no official statement of what you'd actually be getting.  It was never so simple as "leave EU" because that's a nonsensical boiling down of what that actually requires.

[Justin Z]

The point is you won't get a choice on it unless of course you are a politian.

 

Which for those who are MPs can then be voted out by their constituency if they do something they don't like.

 

The House of Lords?  Weeeelllp . . .

[Francis Albert]

Who do not trigger Article 50?

 

Exactly.  Only Parliament may, even in the face of a referendum.  That the referendum may have been a complete sham, we all know who brought it, and therefore at whose feet we should place the blame if that's our conclusion.

By "we" I meant the UK. Strange that the referendum being a complete sham and of no consequence has emerged only after it delivered the "wrong" result.

[Justin Z]

By "we" I meant the UK. Strange that the referendum being a complete sham and of no consequence has emerged only after it delivered the "wrong" result.

 

The problem I was pointing out was that your language is inexact.  "The U.K." can't trigger Article 50.  Only Parliament can.

 

Whose fault is it if the people who masterminded this referendum made a complete mess of it?  Not the people who properly challenged the legality of the steps they were trying to take to effectuate the result.  A poorly considered, poorly constructed referendum has resulted in a shambles of inaction--if that's what comes to pass, there is only one place the fault for that lies.

[Don Dan]

The Government can layout their preferred exit plan and strategy. It can be passed by the UK Parliament. However all could change when we start negotiations with the EU. So what's the point of protracted debate in the Commons IMO it's to sink Brexit.