2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Do you not care what kind of Brexit? Surely you don't want a hard Brexit? If so, no point having a dialogue. 

 

Anyway, parliamentary sovereignty is restored and anything is possible ?

 

Many people were sorely dissappointed when Cameron didn't invoke Art 50 the day after the referendum result.  If he had, we'd be out by now and the chaos of the hard exit would be over already.

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Nigel Farage disagrees.

The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

What Nigel Farage has raised, is not a fact and I don't believe that anyone (except the remoaners) would want another referendum. Time consuming, costly and as originally stated, it was a  one time event. Now if you can show me some hard evidence to the contrary, I might listen. The UK will not go down the Eire route.

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And how others want to sink a floating one.

 

The UK would sink in the EU. over 51% of voters know that. They voted out. It is the remoaners who have no backbone, They would sell the country out to stay in a EU not fit for purpose. They can't balance their books, they can't sort out the mess that is the Euro, they can't even make a trade deal with another country! 

 

And you numpties want to stay in the EU? I know who wants to sink the UK and it isn't brexiteers.

Edited November 4, 20169 yr by CharlieK

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Do you not care what kind of Brexit? Surely you don't want a hard Brexit? If so, no point having a dialogue. 

 

Anyway, parliamentary sovereignty is restored and anything is possible ?

It depends what you define as hard brexit. If it means taking back our sovereignty and rules/laws, allowing to make our own decisions then yes, please yes. The whole circus show of yesterdays court ruling says it all.

5 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It depends what you define as hard brexit. If it means taking back our sovereignty and rules/laws, allowing to make our own decisions then yes, please yes. The whole circus show of yesterdays court ruling says it all.

But you dont appear to find favour with your sovereignty

The court case was UK law about UK sovereignty

 

20 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The people who didn't like the referendum result and went to litigation are the pedants in this little pantomime.

 

Then god bless pedants!

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

No, MP's are supposed to vote for what's good for the country, which can be different from what the constituents want.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 

I guess I missed something.  Did not the Parliament approve the referendum?  And now that some MPs aren't happy with the result, they unapprove it?  Very slick the way that works... 

8 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

 

I guess I missed something.  Did not the Parliament approve the referendum?  And now that some MPs aren't happy with the result, they unapprove it?  Very slick the way that works... 

MPs have not unapproved anything, the court ruled parliament is required to pass an act. The referendum is statuary advisory   

44 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Do you not care what kind of Brexit? Surely you don't want a hard Brexit? If so, no point having a dialogue.

 

That is entirely up to the EU and how they treat the UK when negotiations start. you're point "no point having a dialogue" is exactly how it might work out if the EU decide to make it hard for the UK to leave. 

 

In fact as negotiations continue and the public become aware of the substance of those negotiations, not just in the UK but throughout the EU. The people will see how dogmatic and unwilling the EU are to make the changes needed not just for the UK to remain but to make the EU work better! This could backfire on the EU with elections in France and Germany and negotiations are not even halfway over.

 

Arguably it's over before the shouting begins. Either way the EU will not be the same, it either reforms or goes under.   

3 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

The irony of Brexit possibly being decided by the European Courts is delightful!

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 

What does the EU know about british parliamentary law? Absolutely nothing. If they got involved it would make matters worse. 

1 hour ago, CharlieK said:

 

That is entirely up to the EU and how they treat the UK when negotiations start. you're point "no point having a dialogue" is exactly how it might work out if the EU decide to make it hard for the UK to leave. 

 

In fact as negotiations continue and the public become aware of the substance of those negotiations, not just in the UK but throughout the EU. The people will see how dogmatic and unwilling the EU are to make the changes needed not just for the UK to remain but to make the EU work better! This could backfire on the EU with elections in France and Germany and negotiations are not even halfway over.

 

Arguably it's over before the shouting begins. Either way the EU will not be the same, it either reforms or goes under.   

 

I don't think it's that kind of negotiation. We're not selling them a used car!

 

No, it's not zero sum either. We should put our cards on the table. The best solution is win and I think that is possible. ?

 
What does the EU know about british parliamentary law? Absolutely nothing. If they got involved it would make matters worse. 

If the UK Supreme Court confirms the ruling it will be all that is left if the government don't want to accept the British Court's ruling.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

But you dont appear to find favour with your sovereignty

The court case was UK law about UK sovereignty

 

Double standards as there was no UK law rulings for the many treaties and laws we have had forced upon us. Now selectively, after a referendum which none of the others did since the joining of the common market, we have one. My point being it is a sham, farce, circus and will no stop Brexit. Just create an even bigger divide.

When you have such a clear agenda with the referendum as it was put to the people, it looks like the promise has been withdrawn. Whichever way your political beliefs are on it, the whole democracy issue is put into serious question.

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

If the UK Supreme Court confirms the ruling it will be all that is left if the government don't want to accept the British Court's ruling.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 

Rubbish

Well it was bound to happen and guess what... There has been a poll taken by BMG Research and we can expect more to follow.  Of course the results show that there are now more people wanting to remain than leave.  No surprise there.  However in fairness to the Brexit die hards the poll did show that most of the people swaying the vote to remain were people who didn't bother to vote last time.  And in fairness to all of us let's not forget that this is a poll and therefore means virtually nothing in itself.

 

So the government is appealing to the Supreme Court and that will be the next step in the procedure

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

What Nigel Farage has raised, is not a fact and I don't believe that anyone (except the remoaners) would want another referendum. Time consuming, costly and as originally stated, it was a  one time event. Now if you can show me some hard evidence to the contrary, I might listen. The UK will not go down the Eire route.

I was just pointing out that Nigel Farage voiced an opinion exactly contrary to yours. And that is a fact.

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It depends what you define as hard brexit. If it means taking back our sovereignty and rules/laws, allowing to make our own decisions then yes, please yes. The whole circus show of yesterdays court ruling says it all.

 

"It depends what you define as hard brexit"

 

This is the biggest constitutional issue in a generation!

 

We've debating this for weeks!

 

And you want to know what hard brexit means!

 

Simply put Hard Brexit means leaving the customers union / free trade area when we leave the EU. Soft Brexit means leaving but retaining membership of the free trade area and customs union.

 

OK?

 

 

4 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Well it was bound to happen and guess what... There has been a poll taken by BMG Research and we can expect more to follow.  Of course the results show that there are now more people wanting to remain than leave.  No surprise there.  However in fairness to the Brexit die hards the poll did show that most of the people swaying the vote to remain were people who didn't bother to vote last time.  And in fairness to all of us let's not forget that this is a poll and therefore means virtually nothing in itself.

 

So the government is appealing to the Supreme Court and that will be the next step in the procedure

 

Is it just me, or is the sight of the Executive appealing a High Court judgement in the Supreme Court just a little unseemly? Tawdry even?

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Double standards as there was no UK law rulings for the many treaties and laws we have had forced upon us. Now selectively, after a referendum which none of the others did since the joining of the common market, we have one. My point being it is a sham, farce, circus and will no stop Brexit. Just create an even bigger divide.

When you have such a clear agenda with the referendum as it was put to the people, it looks like the promise has been withdrawn. Whichever way your political beliefs are on it, the whole democracy issue is put into serious question.

Incorrect , UK parliament enacted the treaties into UK legislature , the extent and scope of EU law was well established in case law before parliament enacted 1972 ECA.

 

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Double standards as there was no UK law rulings for the many treaties and laws we have had forced upon us. Now selectively, after a referendum which none of the others did since the joining of the common market, we have one. My point being it is a sham, farce, circus and will no stop Brexit. Just create an even bigger divide.

When you have such a clear agenda with the referendum as it was put to the people, it looks like the promise has been withdrawn. Whichever way your political beliefs are on it, the whole democracy issue is put into serious question.

If there were no rulings that's because no one brought a legal challenge.  A court ruling only occurs when a plaintiff brings a case. Presumably, in those cases treaties were assented to or annulled by a vote of Parliament.

8 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Well it was bound to happen and guess what... There has been a poll taken by BMG Research and we can expect more to follow.  Of course the results show that there are now more people wanting to remain than leave.  No surprise there.  However in fairness to the Brexit die hards the poll did show that most of the people swaying the vote to remain were people who didn't bother to vote last time.  And in fairness to all of us let's not forget that this is a poll and therefore means virtually nothing in itself.

 

So the government is appealing to the Supreme Court and that will be the next step in the procedure

Legally speaking, the Brexit referendum was just an opinion poll.  It was designed to have no legal force. Its political force is another matter entirely.

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

"It depends what you define as hard brexit"

 

This is the biggest constitutional issue in a generation!

 

We've debating this for weeks!

 

And you want to know what hard brexit means!

 

Simply put Hard Brexit means leaving the customers union / free trade area when we leave the EU. Soft Brexit means leaving but retaining membership of the free trade area and customs union.

 

OK?

 

 

Given the declared willingness of just about every substantial country to do a good deal with an independent UK, and given also the serious inability of the EU to do decent deals quickly with those same countries, it's a bit of a no-brainer to see that a hard exit is actually pretty soft. 

3 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Given the declared willingness of just about every substantial country to do a good deal with an independent UK, and given also the serious inability of the EU to do decent deals quickly with those same countries, it's a bit of a no-brainer to see that a hard exit is actually pretty soft. 

Except of course that their biggest trading partner by far is the EU.  And that there's no guarantee that the UK is going to get better terms on its own than the EU got. It will certainly have a lot less leverage.

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

I don't think it's that kind of negotiation. We're not selling them a used car!

 

No, it's not zero sum either. We should put our cards on the table. The best solution is win and I think that is possible. ?

 

That is just it, you don't tell the other side your hand until you have an idea of what is possible, Why else have EU ministers rhetoric been sounding negative, The UK have to accept the four freedoms, even though it is the four freedoms that are the problem.  

 

And you think if the UK stays the EU will not forget. What's to stop them demanding the UK adopt the Euro as a condition of staying? Especially the value of the GBP being what it is now!  

 

Q: Is this really what this is all about? 

Just now, CharlieK said:

 

That is just it, you don't tell the other side your hand until you have an idea of what is possible, Why else have EU ministers rhetoric been sounding negative, The UK have to accept the four freedoms, even though it is the four freedoms that are the problem.  

 

And you think if the UK stays the EU will not forget. What's to stop them demanding the UK adopt the Euro as a condition of staying? Especially the value of the GBP being what it is now!  

 

Q: Is this really what this is all about? 

What's to stop them is simple. The UK has the right to veto it.  And on the off chance you were going to raise the following objection,  no the EU can't just change the rules so that the UK can't veto it.  The UK would have the right to veto the rules change, too.

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Except of course that their biggest trading partner by far is the EU.  And that there's no guarantee that the UK is going to get better terms on its own than the EU got. It will certainly have a lot less leverage.

Is it not the case that EU have been unable to do a deal with India?  Has not the USA been unable to get a deal with Brussels?  Does the near-failure of the recent CETA deal not indicate just how difficult it will be for UK to get a deal?  Given prior negotiations have been ruled out by EU, the possibility of doing a deal seem remote anyway

10 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

That is just it, you don't tell the other side your hand until you have an idea of what is possible, Why else have EU ministers rhetoric been sounding negative, The UK have to accept the four freedoms, even though it is the four freedoms that are the problem.  

 

And you think if the UK stays the EU will not forget. What's to stop them demanding the UK adopt the Euro as a condition of staying? Especially the value of the GBP being what it is now!  

 

Q: Is this really what this is all about? 

 

No.

 

The arguments are getting more and more repetitive.  The truth is we don't know what is going to happen or how it will end.  We can all speculate but one sure thing is that nobody comes out of this smelling of roses.

Edited November 4, 20169 yr by dunroaming

18 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Is it not the case that EU have been unable to do a deal with India?  Has not the USA been unable to get a deal with Brussels?  Does the near-failure of the recent CETA deal not indicate just how difficult it will be for UK to get a deal?  Given prior negotiations have been ruled out by EU, the possibility of doing a deal seem remote anyway

I don't know about India but one reason the US can't get a deal with the EU is that so-called free trade agreements aren't very popular with the American public.  As for the USA-UK free trade, I don't know how much the UK has to offer the USA. It's chief export seems to be financial services. And those services are overwhelmingly offered by US companies with offices in the UK. I think their US offices can offer pretty much what their UK offers, especially, as seems likely, the UK financial sector will lose passporting rights.

40 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

That is just it, you don't tell the other side your hand until you have an idea of what is possible, Why else have EU ministers rhetoric been sounding negative, The UK have to accept the four freedoms, even though it is the four freedoms that are the problem.  

 

And you think if the UK stays the EU will not forget. What's to stop them demanding the UK adopt the Euro as a condition of staying? Especially the value of the GBP being what it is now!  

 

Q: Is this really what this is all about? 

 

There was a crucial typo in my messages.

 

I meant to say that I think a win win solution is possible.

 

We certainly want to remain in the free trade area / customs union. Anything else is just silliness

 

For certain, the Germans want us in because we add to their pragmatism. CHANGE was and is possible

 

The Euro will have to change somehow and that is a very complex issue. We would never agree to join

 

No, the negotiation will be about free movement of labour. Im sure a deal is possible to limit maximum numbers per annum, maximum numbers per country, job offers in advance, degrees, proof of numptiness etc

12 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

There was a crucial typo in my messages.

 

I meant to say that I think a win win solution is possible.

 

We certainly want to remain in the free trade area / customs union. Anything else is just silliness

 

For certain, the Germans want us in because we add to their pragmatism. CHANGE was and is possible

 

The Euro will have to change somehow and that is a very complex issue. We would never agree to join

 

No, the negotiation will be about free movement of labour. Im sure a deal is possible to limit maximum numbers per annum, maximum numbers per country, job offers in advance, degrees, proof of numptiness etc

This is sensible and pragmatic, and would certainly work if the personalities around the table can swallow their pride.   What happened to the old rules about an employer having to prove that there was no UK resident capable of doing the job he wanted to import labour for?  The free movement of labour within the EU was never going to work without some controls.  Now Germany might realise that the controls are possible, can be tailored to individual countries and can be enforced without undue discrimination. 

 

Unfortunately such sensible and pragmatic solutions have been voiced by many over the last 6 months, but there's precious little willingness by the bigwigs to grasp the nettle -- they all have too much ego in it.