May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[rockingrobin]

11 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

 

Which is rather stupid to be quite honest.  The referendum law was passed by the house and it basically deferred the decision to stay or go to a popular vote and the people said no.... apparently the English don't really understand what referendums are....  I personally think that once the deal has been negotiated that a better method would be to hold a second referendum on the two options....  but then that was not what was passed at the time.  

During the passage of the referendum act through parliament, there was an amendment to make the result legally binding. This amendment was defeated by the government

Edited December 24, 2016 by rockingrobin

[rockingrobin]

17 hours ago, CharlieK said:

Surely that is a contradiction. If the Government are forced to introduce a bill into Parliament to trigger article 50 and Parliament and the Lords reject the triggering of said article then brexit is over. It has everything to do with stopping brexit. That was the whole point of bringing the case to court.

The courts cant overturn something that has no legal status

[CharlieK]

13 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

'Forced'  to introduce a bill into Parliament. Says it all really.

 

Had she enacted article 50 six months ago, this would never of happened. However until it is, there is no guarantee it will ever happen. IMO there is good reason to expect it not to happen. That politicians are just paying lip service to respecting the vote! 

[CharlieK]

6 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

The courts cant overturn something that has no legal status

then why are the courts even hearing the case? If parliament was sovereign then the courts could not even hear the case. your comment is     

[rockingrobin]

7 hours ago, CharlieK said:

then why are the courts even hearing the case? If parliament was sovereign then the courts could not even hear the case. your comment is     

To determine if the government can use the royal prerogative or an act of parliament is required. 

[7by7]

19 hours ago, CharlieK said:

Surely that is a contradiction. If the Government are forced to introduce a bill into Parliament to trigger article 50 and Parliament and the Lords reject the triggering of said article then brexit is over. It has everything to do with stopping brexit. That was the whole point of bringing the case to court.

 

May and her government have committed themselves to Brexit. So if they do have to obtain Parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50 they have the option of using a three line whip to ensure it is passed by the Commons if they think it's necessary.

 

Not that I think it would be. The major parties have all accepted the referendum result, so in a free vote most MPs of all parties would follow the will of the people as expressed in the referendum, as they did following the 1975 and 2011 referenda. The only party whose members are all likely to vote against it is the SNP.

 

The Lords can only amend or delay a Bill which has been passed by the Commons, they cannot totally reject it. If they do amend it that amendment has to then be approved by the Commons.

 

Of course, Royal Assent is required for a Bill to become an Act; but the Queen has to give this to all Bills passed by Parliament.

 

So if the court does decide that an Act of Parliament is required to trigger Article 50, it will only delay things, it wont stop Brexit from happening.

 

So this court case is, IMHO, a complete farce and waste of time and public money.

 

Like it or not, and I don't, Brexit is going to happen and the best thing we can do is let the government get on with negotiating the best post Brexit deal with the EU possible.

[7by7]

15 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

 

<snip>

apparently the English don't really understand what referendums are....  

 

The citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland includes the Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh; not just the English!

 

I know your neighbours to the south often forget this, but thought you Canucks knew better!

 

[bkkcanuck8]

17 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland includes the Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh; not just the English!

 

I know your neighbours to the south often forget this, but thought you Canucks knew better!

 

I am well aware of the divisions in the UK and the fact that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted against it -- thus I excluded them because as far as I am concerned they are outsiders now to the process (and should have the right to decide their own fate since the referendum outcomes  contradict each other with regards to Scotland).  The Welsh for better or worse have really been almost totally assimilated to the point that there is virtually no independent drive left within Wales (really indivisible from England).

[Khun Han]

32 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

I am well aware of the divisions in the UK and the fact that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted against it -- thus I excluded them because as far as I am concerned they are outsiders now to the process (and should have the right to decide their own fate since the referendum outcomes  contradict each other with regards to Scotland).  The Welsh for better or worse have really been almost totally assimilated to the point that there is virtually no independent drive left within Wales (really indivisible from England).

 

Have you ever been to Wales? The Welsh are, by a long way, the most fiercely independent of the four countries that make up the Union. They have resolutely kept their own language and national identity through the history of the Union. You need to find another reason for why they voted leave.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Khun Han

[7by7]

Agree with the above, Khun Han; except, of course, Wales voted to leave!

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Agree with the above, Khun Han; except, of course, Wales voted to leave!

 

It was your 'liking' my post that made me read it again and realise my mistake .

[sandyf]

19 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

 

Which is rather stupid to be quite honest.  The referendum law was passed by the house and it basically deferred the decision to stay or go to a popular vote and the people said no.... apparently the English don't really understand what referendums are....  I personally think that once the deal has been negotiated that a better method would be to hold a second referendum on the two options....  but then that was not what was passed at the time.  

" apparently the English don't really understand what referendums are.... "

 

I suspect that applies to yourself in this case. Most  people do not understand referendums outside their own border as the political significance is unique to the country involved.

Referendums have no real function in UK politics. there has only ever been 3 national referendums, the result of the first 2 was in line with government policy but the 3rd was grossly mishandled.

[Laughing Gravy]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

Referendums have no real function in UK politics. there has only ever been 3 national referendums, the result of the first 2 was in line with government policy but the 3rd was grossly mishandled

They do have a function its called democracy. Maybe the 3rd one happened because the people had had enough of the lies that the UK has had since the early 1970's and for 40 plus years it hadn't worked.  I agree it was mishandled but probably in a different way you think.

Anyway Merry Christmas.

[sandyf]

13 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

They do have a function its called democracy. Maybe the 3rd one happened because the people had had enough of the lies that the UK has had since the early 1970's and for 40 plus years it hadn't worked.  I agree it was mishandled but probably in a different way you think.

Anyway Merry Christmas.

And the seasons greetings to your good self. So your interpretation is that the democracy that existed before 1975 has been superseded by referendum democracy or is it a question of which form of democracy suits at the time.

[Khun Han]

41 minutes ago, sandyf said:

And the seasons greetings to your good self. So your interpretation is that the democracy that existed before 1975 has been superseded by referendum democracy or is it a question of which form of democracy suits at the time.

 

The answer's glaringly obvious: Both are excellent expressions of democracy, and work in tandem when needed . Merry Christmas.

[SheungWan]

On 12/24/2016 at 8:26 PM, bkkcanuck8 said:

I am well aware of the divisions in the UK and the fact that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted against it -- thus I excluded them because as far as I am concerned they are outsiders now to the process (and should have the right to decide their own fate since the referendum outcomes  contradict each other with regards to Scotland).  The Welsh for better or worse have really been almost totally assimilated to the point that there is virtually no independent drive left within Wales (really indivisible from England).

 

What you consider to be 'outsiders' or your comment re assimilation has no legal relevance to the decision-making process concerning the UK other than your opinion.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

The answer's glaringly obvious: Both are excellent expressions of democracy, and work in tandem when needed . Merry Christmas.

Doesn't work, and that is why we end up with a court case because at the end of the day someone must make the final decision.

[SheungWan]

16 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

The answer's glaringly obvious: Both are excellent expressions of democracy, and work in tandem when needed . Merry Christmas.

 

Hard Brexit tandem:

[sandyf]

One has to assume that those in favour of the brexit result would be more than happy to volunteer for redundancy without seeing the severance package. They would obviously rely on the employer to provide the best possible deal.

Seasons greetings.

 

[Khun Han]

5 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Doesn't work, and that is why we end up with a court case because at the end of the day someone must make the final decision.

 

It might not work. But that's only because of certain amount of a dishonesty by lawmakers after the referendum was set up. The democratic intent shown by the people in the referendum was fine.

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

One has to assume that those in favour of the brexit result would be more than happy to volunteer for redundancy without seeing the severance package. They would obviously rely on the employer to provide the best possible deal.

Seasons greetings.

 

 

It never ceases to amaze me how creative some people are at finding fault with democracy when it works against their views.

[SheungWan]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

It might not work. But that's only because of certain amount of a dishonesty by lawmakers after the referendum was set up. The democratic intent shown by the people in the referendum was fine.

 

The lawmakers are Parliament. The referendum says nothing about the process or the terms. That is Parliament's job. And now here is the latest Hard Brexit Superior Tandem model:

 

[HauptmannUK]

On 14/11/2016 at 4:58 AM, HauptmannUK said:

To return to the original 'tough talks' theme of this thread, the idea that countries, large and small, would do trade deals with Britain which will be advantageous to the UK was, is and always will be, a self-delusional fantasy. The more important the trading partner (EU, US, China, India, Brazil), the more likely it is that they will use their financial and political power to exploit any weaknesses (real or perceived) in the UK's negotiating position. This was evident to Farage, who conceded (in a rare moment of honesty) that the UK economy would suffer as a result of Brexit. He described it as a "price worth paying" (he is a millionaire, of course). Mrs Thatcher put it more succinctly "You cannot buck the market". Most of the UK press portrays EU politicians as bumbling idiots or drunkards. They are not. For the most part they completely outclass May and the 'Dad's Army' of Brexit ministers she has appointed. Unfortunately the UK populace are in for a very brutal lesson over the coming years.

 

Edited December 26, 2016 by HauptmannUK

[Khun Han]

53 minutes ago, HauptmannUK said:

On 11/13/2016 at 9:58 PM, HauptmannUK said:

To return to the original 'tough talks' theme of this thread, the idea that countries, large and small, would do trade deals with Britain which will be advantageous to the UK was, is and always will be, a self-delusional fantasy. The more important the trading partner (EU, US, China, India, Brazil), the more likely it is that they will use their financial and political power to exploit any weaknesses (real or perceived) in the UK's negotiating position. This was evident to Farage, who conceded (in a rare moment of honesty) that the UK economy would suffer as a result of Brexit. He described it as a "price worth paying" (he is a millionaire, of course). Mrs Thatcher put it more succinctly "You cannot buck the market"..  Most of the UK press portrays EU politicians as bumbling idiots or drunkards. They are not. For the most part they completely outclass May and the 'Dad's Army' of Brexit ministers she has appointedUnfortunately the UK populace are in for a very brutal lesson over the coming years.

 

 "Most of the UK press portrays EU politicians as bumbling idiots or drunkards. They are not. For the most part they completely outclass May and the 'Dad's Army' of Brexit ministers she has appointed""

 

Complete and utter tosh. They are a rabble of goons, creeps and yes men. And, if Germany pulled the plug, it would be back to the Dog And Duck (or, more appropriately, La Morte Subite) for most of them.

[sandyf]

"Democracy" - the buzz word of the brexiteers that seem to think it means glorified opinion poll.

The UK is a Parliamentary Democracy and it is time the brexit brigade accept that fact rather than try and circumvent it. Ignoring due process will only lead to one court case after another and it should be borne in mind that Article 50 must be presented in line with the UK constitution, irrespective of what TM thinks.

In times of uncertainty one thing you can be sure of is that when Article 50 is invoked the EU legal beagles will be all over it like a rash.

[jpinx]

18 minutes ago, sandyf said:

"Democracy" - the buzz word of the brexiteers that seem to think it means glorified opinion poll.

The UK is a Parliamentary Democracy and it is time the brexit brigade accept that fact rather than try and circumvent it. Ignoring due process will only lead to one court case after another and it should be borne in mind that Article 50 must be presented in line with the UK constitution, irrespective of what TM thinks.

In times of uncertainty one thing you can be sure of is that when Article 50 is invoked the EU legal beagles will be all over it like a rash.

The only circumvention here is the Remainers trying to get around the result of the referendum - on which result the then-PM assured the electorate action would be taken to respect the wishes of the people.   Thank goodness TM has continued in that vein or democracy would be lying dead in the gutter.

[Grouse]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-live-updates-finances-money-worse-off-article-50-a7468411.html%3Famp?client=safari

 

Democracy ?

[7by7]

3 hours ago, jpinx said:

The only circumvention here is the Remainers trying to get around the result of the referendum - on which result the then-PM assured the electorate action would be taken to respect the wishes of the people.   Thank goodness TM has continued in that vein or democracy would be lying dead in the gutter.

 

It is only a handful of Remainers who have brought this court case.

 

They did not bring it in an effort to 'get around the result of the referendum.' They brought it because they believed the government needs Parliament's approval to trigger Article 50.

 

If the government lose the case it does not mean the result of the referendum will be circumvented. All it will mean is that the triggering of Article 50 will be delayed while a Bill to authorise it passes through Parliament.

 

The government are committed to Brexit; it may be delayed as a result of this court case; but it will happen.

 

This has been explained a great many times in various topics here on TV. You're not stupid, so I simply cannot comprehend why you still fail to understand it!

 

 

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

It is only a handful of Remainers who have brought this court case.

 

They did not bring it in an effort to 'get around the result of the referendum.' They brought it because they believed the government needs Parliament's approval to trigger Article 50.

 

If the government lose the case it does not mean the result of the referendum will be circumvented. All it will mean is that the triggering of Article 50 will be delayed while a Bill to authorise it passes through Parliament.

 

The government are committed to Brexit; it may be delayed as a result of this court case; but it will happen.

 

This has been explained a great many times in various topics here on TV. You're not stupid, so I simply cannot comprehend why you still fail to understand it!

 

 

I appreciate your stance, but I am considerably more cynical than that.  Forcing this issue through the courts and getting a result that favours the "hard-remainers" will provide more opportunities for political machinations, possibly even pushing for a vote of no-confidence.  You are absolutely correct in saying that the court is merely clarifying the "process", but the political fallout is where the vultures want to feast.

[Laughing Gravy]

11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

It is only a handful of Remainers who have brought this court case.

 

They did not bring it in an effort to 'get around the result of the referendum.' They brought it because they believed the government needs Parliament's approval to trigger Article 50.

 

If the government lose the case it does not mean the result of the referendum will be circumvented. All it will mean is that the triggering of Article 50 will be delayed while a Bill to authorise it passes through Parliament.

 

The government are committed to Brexit; it may be delayed as a result of this court case; but it will happen.

 

This has been explained a great many times in various topics here on TV. You're not stupid, so I simply cannot comprehend why you still fail to understand it!

 

 

 

 

Well not really when we have had headlines like this  pasted below and many more since the referendum result. Some posters on here were calling for this and supporting it and now have 'softened their rhetoric', to a wanting to know how we are doing the leave from the EU. The government has committed to Brexit, sadly many of the remain camp have not.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/25/could-britain-actually-have-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-petition-latest-eu-referendum-rules-change-force-second-vote-poll-government-a7102486.html

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629324

Edited December 27, 2016 by Laughing Gravy