Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Top trolling this by the High Court.

[EastAnglianFox]

Remainers all starting to get excited  this is nothing more than an annoying but predictable delay which is likely to continue right up until the very day we have officially exited.

 

Surely it will be a vote to decide when to trigger, nothing more, nothing less.

[sm1]

You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave

[Bobby Hundreds]

Personally I'm delighted that the sovereignty of Parliament has been upheld. 

[Strokes]

@GaelicFox come off it pal, either you are on a serious wind up or you might need some help pal. 

This wont stop brexit, nor will it be watered down because of it (it may end up watered down or stopped but not because of this ruling). This is a parliamentary process and begrudgingly it seems we have to go through it. It will take brave politicians to defy the electorate in this way, they are already fighting distrust with. No chance will this not pass straight through.

 

[GaelicFox]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

@GaelicFox come off it pal, either you are on a serious wind up or you might need some help pal. 

This wont stop brexit, nor will it be watered down because of it (it may end up watered down or stopped but not because of this ruling). This is a parliamentary process and begrudgingly it seems we have to go through it. It will take brave politicians to defy the electorate in this way, they are already fighting distrust with. No chance will this not pass straight through.

 

Nearly half the electorate voted against it  

 

there is a serious debate to be had and the debate is on the terms of the Brexit , May tried to rush through her objectives and her parties objectives using back door private negotiations.

 

the courts have rules that she would have been acting illegally and against the current legislation of the country if she did that. 

 

In all honesty parliament will have to see the will of the people fulfilled , but the terms and the severity of the Brexit is now likely to have to go through a full airing in parliament.   

 

This is going to be fascinating to watch ....the Saga has just begun 

[Alf Bentley]

Analysis from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21709589-government-appealing-decision-high-court-rules-parliament-must-vote

 

"Yet since the referendum produced a clear majority to Leave on a very high turnout, it seems unlikely that Parliament will actually block Brexit. The prime minister has promised to keep Parliament informed over her plans for Brexit, but not to give a “running commentary” for fear that this will undermine her negotiating position. Yet she has also promised a Great Repeal Bill that will give domestic effect to most EU law after Britain leaves the club. And it is also clear that Parliament will need to approve the terms of Britain’s departure and of its future relations with the EU.The Supreme Court may well endorse the High Court’s judgment. But even if it does not, the political argument for giving Parliament greater say both in the triggering of Article 50 and in the lengthy negotiating process that will follow now seems unanswerable".

 

It would be unacceptable to the electorate for Parliament to overturn the Brexit vote. But, if there's a vote on Article 50, will it be any more acceptable for Parliament to write the Govt a blank cheque by approving Article 50 without having any idea on what terms we'd be leaving?

 

If there is a vote, this will get interesting for Tories and Labour alike. Some MPs of BOTH parties will have strong majority support for Brexit among their electorates, others will have strong majority support for Remain - or Soft Brexit, at least.

There might well still be support for Brexit on any terms in many Labour seats in the North/Midlands, but how will it go down in London or Scotland if Corbyn's Labour helps Parliament give Theresa a blank cheque for Hard Brexit?

It might go down well in parts of Essex and Kent, but how will it go down in the City of London or wealthy Tory/Remain-voting parts of the commuter belt...particularly if Hard Brexit has an adverse impact on the City & big business?

 

If this isn't overturned on appeal, politics is about to get very interesting - and the political stakes could be as high for the "big 2" parties as the economic stakes are for the rest of us.

[Alf Bentley]

On a brief sidetrack.....

 

Is the moose an animal native to Ireland? Just wondering.... 

[GaelicFox]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

On a brief sidetrack.....

 

Is the moose an animal native to Ireland? Just wondering.... 

No 

 

slightly insulting Alf 

 

 

[Webbo]

Would remain MPs such as Milliband really vote against this when 77% of his constituents voted for brexit?

 

Anyone who votes against this better have a strong remain majority because blocking A50 will cause an election.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, GaelicFox said:

No 

 

slightly insulting Alf 

 

 

 

 

No insult intended. In case of misunderstanding, of course I was referring to Moose and not to moose....but maybe that's even more insulting? 

[GaelicFox]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

No insult intended. In case of misunderstanding, of course I was referring to Moose and not to moose....but maybe that's even more insulting? 

Maybe 

[GaelicFox]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Would remain MPs such as Milliband really vote against this when 77% of his constituents voted for brexit?

 

Anyone who votes against this better have a strong remain majority because blocking A50 will cause an election.

Ultimately I think that's where we are headed a snap election 

[Webbo]

I don't believe Gaelic is moose, there were certain clues that gave him away that I don't see in Gaelic. Plus moose never flip flopped like he does. 

[GaelicFox]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

I don't believe Gaelic is moose, there were certain clues that gave him away that I don't see in Gaelic. Plus moose never flip flopped like he does. 

 

 

now you can see why us paddies have been fighting for 1000 years we love a flip flop it's called "guinesss reasoning" 

 

pint one "ya your right"

 

pint three "sher that can't be correct" 

 

pint six "your talking bollix but I love de bones of ya so I'll agree with you "

 

pint nine "your a genius I was just telling Pat you are the cleverest man in de pub , give me a hug"  

 

pint 12 "right ya fecker that's enough of that shite come on outside I'll beat the teeth out of yer hear for talking such shite" 

 

 

 

 

 

[Innovindil]

If we stay in the single market nothing changes apart from the powers we had will now be gone. 

 

Makes no sense for mp's to vote for activating article 50 with a soft brexit. 

 

The best part is remainers have been complaining that the country is divided and yet are celebrating a ruling that could lead to greater, more complicated, divisions. Baffling. 

[SMX11]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

If we stay in the single market nothing changes apart from the powers we had will now be gone. 

 

Makes no sense for mp's to vote for activating article 50 with a soft brexit. 

 

The best part is remainers have been complaining that the country is divided and yet are celebrating a ruling that could lead to greater, more complicated, divisions. Baffling. 

Their only aim is to stop this happening, the local party branches should take a long hard look at some of these people.

[GaelicFox]

12 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

Their only aim is to stop this happening, the local party branches should take a long hard look at some of these people.

Your assuming party branches want this now 

 

would be fascinating to run this referendum again given the amount of lies and bullcrap by all sides 

 

a general election might be needed to solve this 

[GazzinderFox]

There is a scenario here where this could actually play even further towards a hard brexit, I'm sure. This is starting to take shape as the democrats seeking to facilitate the will of the electorate, against the autocrats who will be seen as trying to subvert it, even some remainers are starting to see it that way.

 

What an irony it would be for Labour and Tim Farron if the house of Lords sticks it to the electorate by getting its claws into this! The unelected peers they are trying to do away with, helping them out by perverting the democratic will of the people they weren't elected by! 

 

Lets not get confused here though, if this gets stuck in the commons it certainly wouldn't be democracy, it would be conspiracy. Tim Farron and various Labour MPs are not trying to get a 2nd referendum because they wan't the best deal for the UK. They simply want to stop us leaving no matter what the people say. These people should take a look at what their job description states. 

 

Imagine, what would the reaction in Scotland be if they had an independence vote that was for leaving and the commons decided to try and sit on it for months and years because some of them didn't like it?

[GaelicFox]

5 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

There is a scenario here where this could actually play even further towards a hard brexit, I'm sure. This is starting to take shape as the democrats seeking to facilitate the will of the electorate, against the autocrats who will be seen as trying to subvert it, even some remainers are starting to see it that way.

 

What an irony it would be for Labour and Tim Farron if the house of Lords sticks it to the electorate by getting its claws into this! The unelected peers they are trying to do away with, helping them out by perverting the democratic will of the people they weren't elected by! 

 

Lets not get confused here though, if this gets stuck in the commons it certainly wouldn't be democracy, it would be conspiracy. Tim Farron and various Labour MPs are not trying to get a 2nd referendum because they wan't the best deal for the UK. They simply want to stop us leaving no matter what the people say. These people should take a look at what their job description states. 

 

Imagine, what would the reaction in Scotland be if they had an independence vote that was for leaving and the commons decided to try and sit on it for months and years because some of them didn't like it?

The mistake (or was it a mistake) was they didn't make the referendum for Brexit result binding in law ! 

 

The scottish vote was binding in law 

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

No one ever said it was gonna be easy...

 

 

Except, they did.

[Alf Bentley]

Isn't it funny to see all the Leave supporters suddenly losing their enthusiasm for the sovereignty of the UK parliament? 

 

Sorry, if you wanted sovereignty to be removed from parliament, the voice of the British people, and handed to an unelected executive, you should have made that clear during the campaign. 

 

Parliament surely won't - and shouldn't - seek to prevent Brexit. Even if the referendum was technically "advisory", it is widely perceived as the will of the people.

But that will is limited to leaving the EU. As the referendum question read:  Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

 

There is absolutely no democratic mandate for any particular type of Brexit. Leave campaigners never made that clear - and still haven't. The referendum question said nothing about it - just that we should leave the EU. The Brexit priorities are up for democratic debate - including by our main democratic institution, Parliament.

 

As the servant of the sovereign Parliament, the Government should now inform the people's representatives what its main principles and priorities are (e.g. Single Market or immigration control or a bit of both - or an attempt to have our cake and eat it).

Parliament can seek to bring amendments, and the Govt can accept or reject them - and then Parliament can decide whether that basis for Article 50 is in the national interest or should be defeated, possibly causing a general election.

 

There's no need for the Govt to reveal its negotiating strategy in detail, but main principles and priorities is a different matter. There's nothing to be lost from revealing them, as they would become crystal clear during negotiations, anyway.

 

If this does depend on a vote in parliament, it could end up like a high-stakes poker game, couldn't it? The Govt revealing as little as it can and daring Parliament to reject its bill - and Soft Brexit groups in Parliament seeking to legislate for particular priorities in Brexit negotiations, and daring the Govt to risk losing its legislation by refusing. There'd also be poker-style calculations as to who would benefit if there was a snap general election.

 

Would Miliband risk the wrath of Doncaster by preventing Brexit? Probably not....but he might want to insist on Brexit with protection of jobs and employment conditions.

Would Zak Goldsmith risk the wrath of Remain enthusiasts in Richmond by standing on a platform of "Leave the EU, whatever the terms"? Well, he's due to do just that at a by-election, isn't he? 

 

[GaelicFox]

Alfs post above is excellent ! 

[Webbo]

32 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Isn't it funny to see all the Leave supporters suddenly losing their enthusiasm for the sovereignty of the UK parliament? 

 

Sorry, if you wanted sovereignty to be removed from parliament, the voice of the British people, and handed to an unelected executive, you should have made that clear during the campaign. 

 

Parliament surely won't - and shouldn't - seek to prevent Brexit. Even if the referendum was technically "advisory", it is widely perceived as the will of the people.

But that will is limited to leaving the EU. As the referendum question read:  Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

 

There is absolutely no democratic mandate for any particular type of Brexit. Leave campaigners never made that clear - and still haven't. The referendum question said nothing about it - just that we should leave the EU. The Brexit priorities are up for democratic debate - including by our main democratic institution, Parliament.

 

As the servant of the sovereign Parliament, the Government should now inform the people's representatives what its main principles and priorities are (e.g. Single Market or immigration control or a bit of both - or an attempt to have our cake and eat it).

Parliament can seek to bring amendments, and the Govt can accept or reject them - and then Parliament can decide whether that basis for Article 50 is in the national interest or should be defeated, possibly causing a general election.

 

There's no need for the Govt to reveal its negotiating strategy in detail, but main principles and priorities is a different matter. There's nothing to be lost from revealing them, as they would become crystal clear during negotiations, anyway.

 

If this does depend on a vote in parliament, it could end up like a high-stakes poker game, couldn't it? The Govt revealing as little as it can and daring Parliament to reject its bill - and Soft Brexit groups in Parliament seeking to legislate for particular priorities in Brexit negotiations, and daring the Govt to risk losing its legislation by refusing. There'd also be poker-style calculations as to who would benefit if there was a snap general election.

 

Would Miliband risk the wrath of Doncaster by preventing Brexit? Probably not....but he might want to insist on Brexit with protection of jobs and employment conditions.

Would Zak Goldsmith risk the wrath of Remain enthusiasts in Richmond by standing on a platform of "Leave the EU, whatever the terms"? Well, he's due to do just that at a by-election, isn't he? 

 

Parliament decided we should have this referendum by a huge majority, if it wasn't binding why have it at all? 

 

If Parliament was to say to the PM you must do X or Y before negotiations started else we can't leave, all the EU have to do is say sorry we can't agree to that and then we can't leave. It's transparently a ploy to keep us in.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Parliament decide we should have this referendum by a huge majority, if it wasn't binding why have it at all? 

 

If Parliament was to say to the PM you must do X or Y before negotiations started else we can't leave all the EU have to do is say sorry we can't agree to that and then we can't leave. It's transparently a ploy to keep us in.

 

I've already done one lengthy post, so won't do another but, briefly....

 

- Although technically the referendum wasn't binding, I think parliament should abide by the result as referendum results are generally perceived to have higher authority than parliament (the people above parliament above government)

- Your talk of "transparent ploys to keep us in" seems paranoid. I reckon only a tiny minority now hope to stay in, as it would further undermine public faith in democracy and politics if the referendum result was ignored. Many Remainers and Soft Brexiters now hope to bring about a Soft Brexit and not a Hard Brexit. That is perfectly valid as the terms of Brexit weren't clear during the referendum. The courts are just trying to protect the (unwritten) constitution and parliamentary democracy from executive abuse.

- As I understand it, if this goes to a parliamentary vote (or the court ruling is overturned) and we trigger Article 50, the EU can do nothing about it - that's our right. On the other hand, if it chooses (it won't) the EU could refuse to agree a Brexit deal or to extend the 2-year negotiating period, regardless of our negotiating stance. They can't stop us leaving, though.

- Surely, if Parliament tells the PM "you must do X or Y" and she negotiates something different or fails to agree anything, that's a matter for EU law and UK politics....under EU law the UK would leave with or without any Brexit deal she negotiated, and the British people and British parliament could express their judgment on that by supporting her or by voting her out of office but wouldn't be able to overturn Brexit, whatever its terms.