Brexit hits speed bump as court rules lawmakers must get say

[Laughing Gravy]

The PM at the time signed them yes and the information what is in them was not always disclosed and  was also withheld. Heath, Major, Blair and Brown have a lot to answer for. At least with the referendum people had a choice. With all the treaties put in place the people had no choice. You may say we could vote them out but was after they were put in place. The EU did this with all of the EU countries and that is why I suggest you read all about the various treaties that has made what the EU is today. We obviously have different affections for the EU but the treaties and what they have done/created for the EU are unquestionable.

[Laughing Gravy]

24 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

But just so we are clear, do you agree that you have no idea whether the Big Red Bus of Brexit Lies was crucial in the Leave vote winning the referendum?

I am saying it did not influence me or my friends at all. We had decided before the referendum. As to whether it influenced others I would question it. I am not agreeing that I have no idea that the big red bus was crucial in the leave vote. How can you be? Please don't use the BBC article as evidence.

 

I think you are underestimating the fact that people can think for themselves and are not influenced by slogans, fear mongering or whatever is on the news. This is from both sides of the spectrum.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[rockingrobin]

3 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The PM at the time signed them yes and the information what is in them was not always disclosed and  was also withheld. Heath, Major, Blair and Brown have a lot to answer for. At least with the referendum people had a choice. With all the treaties put in place the people had no choice. You may say we could vote them out but was after they were put in place. The EU did this with all of the EU countries and that is why I suggest you read all about the various treaties that has made what the EU is today. We obviously have different affections for the EU but the treaties and what they have done/created for the EU are unquestionable.

This is total nonsense

' The PM at the time signed them yes and the information what is in them was not always disclosed and  was also withheld ' 

If it was the case the UK would be under no obligation to fulfill the treaty.

 

'With all the treaties put in place the people had no choice'

Under the Crown prerogative the PM agrees treaties on the international plane and parliament creates Acts to bring them into domestic sphere. The people elect representatives to make the decision and choices on their behalf.

 

[Laughing Gravy]

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The people elect representatives to make the decision and choices on their behalf.

This is true but again the whole treaties that these so called people, who made decisions on our behalf would/should have informed the people what they were. they did not. On your statement alone then the referendum should be accepted, as a clear choice was given in the, in or out and the government will respect the wishes of the majority.

 If you disagree then move on. I have explained that these treaties where not given to the people in detail or the consequences for the country.

[RuamRudy]

21 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I am saying it did not influence me or my friends at all. We had decided before the referendum. As to whether it influenced others I would question it. I am not agreeing that I have no idea that the big red bus was crucial in the leave vote. How can you be? Please don't use the BBC article as evidence.

 

Of course it is unverifiable, but to suggest that particular lie, which was cynically fundamental to the leave campaign, was not effective in influencing people would suggest either an unwillingness to concede to a probability, or a huge naivety on your part. As for the BBC, that is one more verifiable example supporting my assertion than you have been able to provide to back up your doubts.

 

But if that is not enough, just google Brexit NHS Lies and you will find numerous news outlets castigating the Brexit liars for their cynical abuse of the electorate when it became clear that the public had been conned. 

Edited November 9, 2016 by RuamRudy
In response to your subsequent edit: we are not debating fear mongering, but a deliberate lie that promised a huge boost to one of the most cherished institutions in the UK. The people who peddled this lie are beneath contempt.

[rockingrobin]

15 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

This is total nonsense

' The PM at the time signed them yes and the information what is in them was not always disclosed and  was also withheld ' 

If it was the case the UK would be under no obligation to fulfill the treaty.

 

'With all the treaties put in place the people had no choice'

Under the Crown prerogative the PM agrees treaties on the international plane and parliament creates Acts to bring them into domestic sphere. The people elect representatives to make the decision and choices on their behalf.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

This is true but again the whole treaties that these so called people, who made decisions on our behalf would/should have informed the people what they were. they did not. On your statement alone then the referendum should be accepted, as a clear choice was given in the, in or out and the government will respect the wishes of the majority.

 If you disagree then move on. I have explained that these treaties where not given to the people in detail or the consequences for the country.

I did not say the elected representative should slavishly follow what the people want ,they are elected to make the choice on there behalf.

 

If you truly believe this

'these so called people, who made decisions on our behalf would/should have informed the people what they were. they did not.' 

Then you have to agree with the High Court ruling, the only way the people have an opportunity to  shape the Brexit future  is via their MPs and through parliamentary debate

 

[jpinx]

24 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

'With all the treaties put in place the people had no choice'

Under the Crown prerogative the PM agrees treaties on the international plane and parliament creates Acts to bring them into domestic sphere. The people elect representatives to make the decision and choices on their behalf.

 

There's a recent court ruling that begs to differ !  ; )

[Laughing Gravy]

17 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Of course it is unverifiable, but to suggest that particular lie, which was cynically fundamental to the leave campaign, was not effective in influencing people would suggest either an unwillingness to concede to a probability, or a huge naivety on your part. As for the BBC, that is one more verifiable example supporting my assertion than you have been able to provide to back up your doubts.

 

But if that is not enough, just google Brexit NHS Lies and you will find numerous news outlets castigating the Brexit liars for their cynical abuse of the electorate when it became clear that the public had been conned. 

We disagree.

[rockingrobin]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

There's a recent court ruling that begs to differ !  ; )

In what way

[jpinx]

8 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

In what way

You said .

....

  25 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

'With all the treaties put in place the people had no choice'

Under the Crown prerogative the PM agrees treaties on the international plane and parliament creates Acts to bring them into domestic sphere. The people elect representatives to make the decision and choices on their behalf.

....

.....but when the PM recently tried to use the Crown Prerogative to enact art50 - clearly a matter of foreign affairs - the courts upheld an appeal against that action.

Edited November 9, 2016 by jpinx
trying to re-format.

[Laughing Gravy]

3 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

If you truly believe this

'these so called people, who made decisions on our behalf would/should have informed the people what they were. they did not.' 

No because it was a simple in or out. The people were given a choice. Nobody knows what the terms for negotiating out are. Do you not realize that.

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

No because it was a simple in or out. The people were given a choice. Nobody knows what the terms for negotiating out are. Do you not realize that.

Everybody talks about UK having to accept the same as Norway, Switzerland, etc -- keep paying to stay in the "common market" bit of EU, but have to accept EU immigration policy and other laws and regulations.  Seems like a rough deal!  The thing that is overlooked is that Brexit is going to hurt EU members more than Mr Tusk likes to admit, so UK has considerable leverage to get a better deal than Norway, et al.  The PM is totally correct in not disclosing what her ideas are, because Mr Tusk wants to play hard ball and UK needs to be ready to counter his facist style.

[rockingrobin]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

You said ...

'With all the treaties put in place the people had no choice'

Under the Crown prerogative the PM agrees treaties on the international plane and parliament creates Acts to bring them into domestic sphere. The people elect representatives to make the decision and choices on their behalf.

.........but when the PM recently tried to use the Crown Prerogative to enact art50 - clearly a matter of foreign affairs - the courts upheld an appeal against that action.

The issue is not Art 50 itself, but lies with 1972 ECA and parliaments intentions at the time.It was agreed at the court that Art 50 was irrevocable , thus it would inevitable lead to 1972 Act being hollowed out and the loss of rights that followed.The gov claimed foreign affairs lie with the Crown and Parliament on enacting 1972 ECA had not fettered its powers, the court  disagreed

[rockingrobin]

9 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

No because it was a simple in or out. The people were given a choice. Nobody knows what the terms for negotiating out are. Do you not realize that.

However you are chastising previous PM for negotiating treaties 

[jpinx]

4 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The issue is not Art 50 itself, but lies with 1972 ECA and parliaments intentions at the time.It was agreed at the court that Art 50 was irrevocable , thus it would inevitable lead to 1972 Act being hollowed out and the loss of rights that followed.The gov claimed foreign affairs lie with the Crown and Parliament on enacting 1972 ECA had not fettered its powers, the court  disagreed

Agreed that is was a point of law , not the enactment of Article50 in itself.  Article 50 exists so that an exit can be effected, it was written specifically with that in mind, so to say it is irrevocable is counter to the treaty -- or not?  

I need to ask my friends who know the person who wrote Article 50, but it has already been said elsewhere that it was written with the mindset that it would never be used,,,,,

[Laughing Gravy]

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

However you are chastising previous PM for negotiating treaties 

Yes because the people were not given any option in those treaties or even informed what they were about. The referendum, the PM gave a clear option in or out and campaigned vigorously for in. The people knew exactly what it was. Leave the EU or stay in. Not leave the EU  but how and why way and when and with who etc etc. Simply clear in or out. Plus the result would be respected by the government. This has been said over and over again.

[Laughing Gravy]

4 minutes ago, jpinx said:

I need to ask my friends who know the person who wrote Article 50, but it has already been said elsewhere that it was written with the mindset that it would never be used,,,,,

Lord Kerr.

 

He admitted that he thought the 262-word clause, written when he was general secretary of the European Convention in 2002 and 2003, would only ever be used in the event of a "coup."

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/man-wrote-article-50-says-113740874.html

Edited November 9, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[jpinx]

9 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Lord Kerr.

 

He admitted that he thought the 262-word clause, written when he was general secretary of the European Convention in 2002 and 2003, would only ever be used in the event of a "coup."

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/man-wrote-article-50-says-113740874.html

Thanks for that link -- it is compulsory reading before commenting in here !  ; )

[Grouse]

Did you know the USA election results are coming in? Can't be bothered with Brexit today!!

[rockingrobin]

35 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

However you are chastising previous PM for negotiating treaties 

 

31 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes because the people were not given any option in those treaties or even informed what they were about. The referendum, the PM gave a clear option in or out and campaigned vigorously for in. The people knew exactly what it was. Leave the EU or stay in. Not leave the EU  but how and why way and when and with who etc etc. Simply clear in or out. Plus the result would be respected by the government. This has been said over and over again.

And what option will the people be given in the new treaty, and when will they be informed. If we are to believe the PM there will be no running commentary , parliament will get to vote on the final deal.The process is no different from the  previous PMs who negotiated the previous treaties, the very act you lambast

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Did you know the USA election results are coming in? Can't be bothered with Brexit today!!

If Trump wins, it might call for serious unity in the EU. 

 

[lostinisaan]

Brexit Secretary David Davis said Britain's June 23 vote to leave the EU "must be respected."

 

    I hope that British citizens will have to pay more money for any German goods, such as cars, food,high tech, etc..

 

          Somebody should make them understand that such a move will  and must have some negative consequences.

 

You can't have all goodies after you left Europe with its huge problems.

 

         It's like a rat's leaving a sinking boat to me, sorry. 

[alanrchase]

Can someone please explain in simple terms how Britain can enter any trade negotiations from a position of strength? We will end up as the country desperate to get a deal.

[jpinx]

34 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

Can someone please explain in simple terms how Britain can enter any trade negotiations from a position of strength? We will end up as the country desperate to get a deal.

One only has to look at the reactions from Australia, India, Canad, etc to get an idea

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Did you know the USA election results are coming in? Can't be bothered with Brexit today!!

You know what Grouse I am beginning to feel that way too.

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, Laughing Gravy said:

You know what Grouse I am beginning to feel that way too.

I'm doing both   : )

[Laughing Gravy]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

I'm doing both   : )

Well if Trump wins which will be a big surprise then the promise that the UK will go to the back of the queue for a trade deal that Obama said, might be out of the window. Maybe good news for Brexit and not bad along with the markets. Very interesting indeed.

[jpinx]

it's a fun day to watch the US$ against £ and € in xe.com

[alanrchase]

Well if Trump wins which will be a big surprise then the promise that the UK will go to the back of the queue for a trade deal that Obama said, might be out of the window. Maybe good news for Brexit and not bad along with the markets. Very interesting indeed.

Not bad news for the markets? Futures down 5% at the moment. Go Trump.

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

 

 

Not bad news for the markets? Futures down 5% at the moment. Go Trump.

Down is good --  if you know what you're doing  ; )