Brexit?

[Justin Z]

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.

 

The point is this is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men, and the procedures that are in place to protect the people from unchecked power must be followed.

[Francis Albert]

The point is this is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men, and the procedures that are in place to protect the people from unchecked power must be followed.

Nice words. Good old John Adams. I think slavery survived for a century or so after those fine words.

 

Now back to the real world of "democracy". If we don't trigger Article 50 how do we learn anything about what a post-Brexit UK will look like? By all means let the MPs vote on triggering Article 50 but let's not kid ourselves that voting against triggering Brexit is anything other than a vote to remain, and that the referendum was a sham.

 

The idea of negotiating and approving the terms of Brexit in Parliament before engaging with the EU on what terms might be available is absurd.

[Francis Albert]

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.

It is the UK which triggers Article 50. The court judgement (if it sticks) means that it needs Parliamentary approval first. If Parliament doesn't give its approval we will Remain, and will never know what terms for leaving might have been available, and the referendum will effectively be annulled because it didn't deliver the right result. That's democracy I suppose?

[jack D and coke]

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.

I'm sorry I don't wear that at all. They could've still been writing the white paper and it wouldn't have meant shit let's be honest. Page 1. CURRENCY

I voted Yes and I voted Leave and I knew exactly what I was voting for on both occasions. You have to be a bit of a dingle to start claiming aw but I didn't realise this or that would happen.

It's a stitch up pure and simple and all the people trying to dress it up as anything else are at it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Space Mackerel]

Nice words. Good old John Adams. I think slavery survived for a century or so after those fine words.

 

Now back to the real world of "democracy". If we don't trigger Article 50 how do we learn anything about what a post-Brexit UK will look like? By all means let the MPs vote on triggering Article 50 but let's not kid ourselves that voting against triggering Brexit is anything other than a vote to remain, and that the referendum was a sham.

 

The idea of negotiating and approving the terms of Brexit in Parliament before engaging with the EU on what terms might be available is absurd.

Call me Dave said that Article 50 would be enacted on the day following the result. When was that again? June? It's now November.

 

I said that Brexit would never happen to Jack D a couple of days after the result, the reason being that it's the banks and big business that control democracy in this country and pretty much all around the world now.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Justin Z]

It is the UK which triggers Article 50. The court judgement (if it sticks) means that it needs Parliamentary approval first. If Parliament doesn't give its approval we will Remain, and will never know what terms for leaving might have been available, and the referendum will effectively be annulled because it didn't deliver the right result. That's democracy I suppose?

 

We could come to a democratically voted result that all Hibs fans should be publicly executed within 48 hours of the vote.  That doesn't mean any body, from the Government to Parliament to the U.N., would have the competence to effectuate the result of that referendum.  One of the key aspects of democracy is that the power of the people is limited, too.

 

 

Nice words. Good old John Adams. I think slavery survived for a century or so after those fine words.

 

Strange shot to take as had it been unilaterally up to Adams, slavery wouldn't have survived a minute longer.

 

More relevantly though, "back in the real world of democracy" as you put it, it was Kenny MacAskill who did something brutally unpopular because the law called upon him to do it.  Laws, not men.

[Justin Z]

I'm sorry I don't wear that at all. They could've still been writing the white paper and it wouldn't have meant shit let's be honest. Page 1. CURRENCY

I voted Yes and I voted Leave and I knew exactly what I was voting for on both occasions. You have to be a bit of a dingle to start claiming aw but I didn't realise this or that would happen.

It's a stitch up pure and simple and all the people trying to dress it up as anything else are at it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I apologise--I can't make sense of the first paragraph.  I don't agree with the second.  Again, to me we're talking about a complete and gross oversimplification of something exceptionally complicated.  Fine for a sound byte in a news bulletin, but not good enough when talking about treaties, nations and tangled legal webs.

[elvoys]

As long as the hedge fund billionaire ex model, Cumberbatch and other assorted luvvies have saved the plebs from themselves then all is grand I suppose. I mean the poor things didn't know they was all lied to of course.

[eddiepolio]

A daft thing that just popped into my head, probably keek, but if this rumbles on for many years, could scrapping Brexit altogether be a policy that Labour could build a General Election campaign around to try and get back into Westminster?

[doctor jambo]

A daft thing that just popped into my head, probably keek, but if this rumbles on for many years, could scrapping Brexit altogether be a policy that Labour could build a General Election campaign around to try and get back into Westminster?

I said similar on a different thread.

Promise NOT to trigger and build it from there

[Francis Albert]

We could come to a democratically voted result that all Hibs fans should be publicly executed within 48 hours of the vote.  That doesn't mean any body, from the Government to Parliament to the U.N., would have the competence to effectuate the result of that referendum.  One of the key aspects of democracy is that the power of the people is limited, too.

 

 

 

Strange shot to take as had it been unilaterally up to Adams, slavery wouldn't have survived a minute longer.

 

More relevantly though, "back in the real world of democracy" as you put it, it was Kenny MacAskill who did something brutally unpopular because the law called upon him to do it.  Laws, not men.

This "laws not men" mantra and silly analogies doesn't get us far does it? You have avoided answering the question of how "shaping Brexit" can be progressed without triggering Article 50, and countering the argument that voting against triggering Article 50 is in effect a vote to Remain. OK that will all be "laws not men" but do you think it would be a justifiable response to the referendum outcome. I suppose because its "laws not men" you think it fine and dandy.

[jack D and coke]

I apologise--I can't make sense of the first paragraph. I don't agree with the second. Again, to me we're talking about a complete and gross oversimplification of something exceptionally complicated. Fine for a sound byte in a news bulletin, but not good enough when talking about treaties, nations and tangled legal webs.

If you can't make sense of the first paragraph allow me to simplify for you. The white paper was basically andrex.

You're telling me that all the Yes voters, and I've met, spoke to and debated with loads of them on social media etc all knew exactly what they were voting for? No doubt in their minds cos they'd all read that pile of horseshit the white paper? Untangling a 307 year old union was child's play but the people who voted Brexit simply had no idea what this thing was to entail? It was simply beyond any of their understanding? Aye?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Francis Albert]

A daft thing that just popped into my head, probably keek, but if this rumbles on for many years, could scrapping Brexit altogether be a policy that Labour could build a General Election campaign around to try and get back into Westminster?

A lot of Labour voters voted Leave, including very many in core Labour constituencies in the Midlands and North of England. I am not sure further splitting the Labour vote is a winner.

[Rudi-Robertson]

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.

So what was the plan B in regards to the currency?

[Justin Z]

This "laws not men" mantra and silly analogies doesn't get us far does it? You have avoided answering the question of how "shaping Brexit" can be progressed without triggering Article 50, and countering the argument that voting against triggering Article 50 is in effect a vote to Remain. OK that will all be "laws not men" but do you think it would be a justifiable response to the referendum outcome. I suppose because its "laws not men" you think it fine and dandy.

The court already answered the first question, so it's pretty irrelevant.  I haven't countered the argument that voting against triggering Article 50 is in effect a vote to remain at all, though--I have plainly pointed out it would be political suicide to someone whose constituency voted to leave.

 

Your subsequent question further outlines why this entire referendum process was a cluster from the beginning.  They didn't actually stop to consider how to do this, not even once, and now we're seeing the result of that lack of planning.  Yes, I do think it's fine and dandy, again, for the exact same reason that I'd be okay with a referendum to execute all Hibees being scuppered.  If it's not legally sufficient on its face, it cannot possibly be legally binding until the required boxes are ticked, which in the case of the executions would be not until various treaties on human rights were unratified.

 

In the case of Brexit, it's not until Parliament invokes Article 50.  You don't have to like it, but them's the rules according to the court.

[Space Mackerel]

[jack D and coke]

Ain't that the truth.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Justin Z]

If you can't make sense of the first paragraph allow me to simplify for you. The white paper was basically andrex.

You're telling me that all the Yes voters, and I've met, spoke to and debated with loads of them on social media etc all knew exactly what they were voting for? No doubt in their minds cos they'd all read that pile of horseshit the white paper? Untangling a 307 year old union was child's play but the people who voted Brexit simply had no idea what this thing was to entail? It was simply beyond any of their understanding? Aye?

 

No, I didn't mean to say that all the Yes voters knew what they were voting for, every dotted I and crossed T.  Andrex or not, the white paper was at least something.  We can only hypothesise about whether it was legally sufficient to take care of everything needed to actually effectuate a "Yes" referendum result.  But what we don't need to hypothesise about is that it existed, and correct me if I'm wrong--no such analogue existed for Brexit, did it?

 

In the end, all of this is really just a mark against using referenda for things like this--as I think I already said in this thread, to me referendum was not fit for purpose for the Independence question either.  In the States, in those states that even do allow referenda, these broad questions wouldn't survive constitutional scrutiny if challenged in court.  The questions that get put up for popular vote instead refer to the exact text of a law that would be enacted if the vote were Yes.  We do actually know exactly what we're getting, verbatim, as long as we read the voting materials we're sent instead of taking the two campaigns' word for it in lieu of such.  And even still, with all of that, I've always been skeptical of referenda generally.

[Francis Albert]

The court already answered the first question, so it's pretty irrelevant.  I haven't countered the argument that voting against triggering Article 50 is in effect a vote to remain at all, though--I have plainly pointed out it would be political suicide to someone whose constituency voted to leave.

 

Your subsequent question further outlines why this entire referendum process was a cluster from the beginning.  They didn't actually stop to consider how to do this, not even once, and now we're seeing the result of that lack of planning.  Yes, I do think it's fine and dandy, again, for the exact same reason that I'd be okay with a referendum to execute all Hibees being scuppered.  If it's not legally sufficient on its face, it cannot possibly be legally binding until the required boxes are ticked, which in the case of the executions would be not until various treaties on human rights were unratified.

 

In the case of Brexit, it's not until Parliament invokes Article 50.  You don't have to like it, but them's the rules according to the court.

I am confused about which questions you are responding to. I don't think the court answered my first question of whether your "laws not men" mantra and silly analogies got us anywhere. You continue to dodge the other questions, for example how any boxes can be ticked in the absence of triggering Article 50. Parliament agrees acceptable terms for Brexit and the UK presents these to the EU as our starting and closing position? Really?

[jake]

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 they say leave voters are ignorant.

[Justin Z]

I am confused about which questions you are responding to. I don't think the court answered my first question of whether your "laws not men" mantra and silly analogies got us anywhere. You continue to dodge the other questions, for example how any boxes can be ticked in the absence of triggering Article 50. Parliament agrees acceptable terms for Brexit and the UK presents these to the EU as our starting and closing position? Really?

 

I think I'll leave you to your confusion.  It was not difficult to work out which questions I was referring to, seeing as you did exactly that in the course of writing this post.

 

And yes.  Really.  Except for the "starting and closing position"--this purely legal decision does not box Parliament in like that.  But you know that, I imagine.

[kingantti1874]

Communism eh - that's something to aspire to.

[AlphonseCapone]

Out of interest, given the EU result was close, if each MP votes on the basis of how their constituency voted, is it theoretically possible for that to result in a vote against brexit in parliament, because unlike the referendum where each individual had a vote giving larger constituency more weight so to speak, that only accounts for one vote in parliament?

 

Not sure I explained that well.

[Justin Z]

Out of interest, given the EU result was close, if each MP votes on the basis of how their constituency voted, is it theoretically possible for that to result in a vote against brexit in parliament, because unlike the referendum where each individual had a vote given larger constituency more weight so to speak, that only accounts more one vote in parliament?

 

Not sure I explained that well.

 

I get what you mean.  Good question!

[aussieh]

Hurry up and leave, so we can gtf.

[Cade]

Out of interest, given the EU result was close, if each MP votes on the basis of how their constituency voted, is it theoretically possible for that to result in a vote against brexit in parliament, because unlike the referendum where each individual had a vote giving larger constituency more weight so to speak, that only accounts for one vote in parliament?

 

Not sure I explained that well.

Possibly, we'd have to get a statto to look over the MP consituency map versus the referendum area map to work out the vote percentages.

[Space Mackerel]

Hurry up and leave, so we can gtf.

[emoji23][emoji23]

 

My thoughts too!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Space Mackerel]

Out of interest, given the EU result was close, if each MP votes on the basis of how their constituency voted, is it theoretically possible for that to result in a vote against brexit in parliament, because unlike the referendum where each individual had a vote giving larger constituency more weight so to speak, that only accounts for one vote in parliament?

 

Not sure I explained that well.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Space Mackerel]

Communism eh - that's something to aspire to.

Maybe she was right?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The Mighty Thor]

It's a proper buggers muddle.

 

We can't even agree on how or if we are going start the process let alone what the negotiations will look like.

 

This is going to be a long drawn out cluster ****.

[Space Mackerel]

It's a proper buggers muddle.

 

We can't even agree on how or if we are going start the process let alone what the negotiations will look like.

 

This is going to be a long drawn out cluster ****.

And all along, net immigration was positive to our economy.

 

Talk about shooting yourself in the head.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[aussieh]

What's the hold up? Leave, then you negotiate new trade deals.

Vote to leave the EU, means exactly that, none of this pish patter of soft and hard brexit. Its leave and then negotiate new deals, that's all Parliament need to be told. See this showing their hand bollocks anaw.

 

 

 

Yes voters voted remain to bring about indy2, the enemy of my enemy, is my friend, as they say.

[kingantti1874]

Maybe she was right?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why don't you visit some well known communist countries and ask your average citizen if it's a good model.. Russia, NK.

[aussieh]

Why don't you visit some well known communist countries and ask your average citizen if it's a good model.. Russia, NK.

The UK for Scotland.

[jake]

I think what gets me is the faith some people have in the political class.

A political class which held a referendum.

We all however dumb knew that remain meant carry on and leave meant out.

Out as in article 50.

 

Yet now the same political class say the leave voters didnt understand.

Remember the little englanders jibes.

 

The same little englanders that dont understand politics.

 

And we have the thread on Orgreave.

 

Anyway back to the political class.

The betrayal by those who say they are on the left is as bad as those who they say are responsible.

 

The EU is a backward step.

For the environment

For social equality

For democracy

For civil liberty

[Space Mackerel]

Why don't you visit some well known communist countries and ask your average citizen if it's a good model.. Russia, NK.

I dated a girl from Moscow for a few weeks whilst she was travelling about here, never ever took her up on her offer to visit. Thanks for the reminder [emoji106]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jake]

I dated a girl from Moscow for a few weeks whilst she was travelling about here, never ever took her up on her offer to visit. Thanks for the reminder [emoji106]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Id ask for proof but i nearly split my sides open the last time you posted proof.

[JamboX2]

Not sure how binding a referendum is, but this isn't about the result, it is about Parliamnet triggering article 50, rather than the givernment, and also parliamentary approval of the deal struck.

 

As I understand it at least.

Constitutionally a referendum isn't binding. It's deemed as parliament consulting the people. The same was true of the Scottish referendum. Sovereignty in the system we have lies with Parliament and the people's representatives. People are sovereign at elections only.

[Space Mackerel]

Id ask for proof but i nearly split my sides open the last time you posted proof.

Sorry jake, I should've asked for full frontal nudes 10 years ago for this situation.

She was a wee hottie though. [emoji106]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kingantti1874]

The UK for Scotland.

[jake]

Sorry jake, I should've asked for full frontal nudes 10 years ago for this situation.

She was a wee hottie though. [emoji106]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Didnt want an overallgate situation.

[DETTY29]

What's the hold up? Leave, then you negotiate new trade deals.

Vote to leave the EU, means exactly that, none of this pish patter of soft and hard brexit. Its leave and then negotiate new deals, that's all Parliament need to be told. See this showing their hand bollocks anaw.

 

 

 

Yes voters voted remain to bring about indy2, the enemy of my enemy, is my friend, as they say.

The hold up is the UK legal and constitutional systems.

 

Well it's not really.

 

It's those corrupt selfish ***** in Westminster.

 

Whichever way you voted.

[AlphonseCapone]

Why don't you visit some well known communist countries and ask your average citizen if it's a good model.. Russia, NK.

Neither of those are communist countries.

[Space Mackerel]

Sickner for the leavers...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-majority-uk-remain-eu-theresa-may-article-50-second-referendum-latest-a7395811.html?cmpid=facebook-post

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Adam Murray]

Sickner for the leavers...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-majority-uk-remain-eu-theresa-may-article-50-second-referendum-latest-a7395811.html?cmpid=facebook-post

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

Did any polls actually have 'Leave' ahead at any time during the run up to the actual referendum, serious question as I don't know?

[jack D and coke]

What's the hold up? Leave, then you negotiate new trade deals.

Vote to leave the EU, means exactly that, none of this pish patter of soft and hard brexit. Its leave and then negotiate new deals, that's all Parliament need to be told. See this showing their hand bollocks anaw.

 

 

 

Yes voters voted remain to bring about indy2, the enemy of my enemy, is my friend, as they say.

Exactly. Have a referendum, get the result and get on with it come hell or high water.

The way people whinge nowadays when things don't go their way is absolutely sickening. All this pandering to losers and listening to them whining trying to tell you of the impending doom winds me up.

Thank god our ancestors had some bollocks about them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sarah O]

What a mess, shoulda voted Yes.

[Boris]

Exactly. Have a referendum, get the result and get on with it come hell or high water.

The way people whinge nowadays when things don't go their way is absolutely sickening. All this pandering to losers and listening to them whining trying to tell you of the impending doom winds me up.

Thank god our ancestors had some bollocks about them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We will leave, so I don't know what your getting your Alan's in a twist about.

 

Today was about Parliament having a say on how that happens, that's all.

[Boris]

I think what gets me is the faith some people have in the political class.

A political class which held a referendum.

We all however dumb knew that remain meant carry on and leave meant out.

Out as in article 50.

Yet now the same political class say the leave voters didnt understand.

Remember the little englanders jibes.

The same little englanders that dont understand politics.

And we have the thread on Orgreave.

Anyway back to the political class.

The betrayal by those who say they are on the left is as bad as those who they say are responsible.

The EU is a backward step.

For the environment

For social equality

For democracy

For civil liberty

All well and good, however legally it is Parliaments prerogative to initiate. And they will.

[jack D and coke]

We will leave, so I don't know what your getting your Alan's in a twist about.

 

Today was about Parliament having a say on how that happens, that's all.

Alan's ain't twisted brother.

And aye we'll see.