Current Affairs EU In or Out

[joey_macmo]

1) Monmouth voted to Remain therefore I must/will support Remain

The Monmouthshire local authority area voted by a very narrow margin to Remain. The Monmouth parliamentary constituency has different boundaries and contains thousands of voters in Torfaen, which voted heavily for Brexit. Based on the Torfaen result, there is a strong possibility that there would have been a narrow margin for Brexit in the Monmouth constituency. However, it would have been close and nobody will ever know for sure.

Either way, please let me be clear: Wales voted for Brexit. I voted for Brexit. I will absolutely support Brexit.

But democracy......

 

[Tubey]

Richard Tice, Chair of Leave means Leave:

"This is disgraceful – 17.4m people will be furious today.

Our democracy is being damaged by an elite band of people in the legal system.

There is absolutely no need for a parliamentary vote.

The question was put to the British people and they voted to leave the EU. British business has reacted well to the Brexit vote and it is essential that the process of leaving the EU begins as soon as possible to ensure confidence in the British economy continues.

A vote in Parliament is wholly unnecessary, time consuming and betrays the democratic will of the people."

Do you think he understands the word "irony" at all?

 

[Joey66]

It's associated with the noun 'scotoma', which is a condition of lack of vision. When it is coupled with the noun 'myopia', it then becomes a condition of " seeing only what one chooses to see".

A typical example of this I had a row with my son that Bill Clinton was impeached, try googling that remarkable opposite results on Googlelol
Technically he was but served his time as president as it took that long to go through lol

 

[1966efc]

I thin we should all be happy for the government to follow (as it must) the law of the land.

Should the ruling be challenged successfully in the Supreme Court, no doubt we will all be equally happy for that ruling to be followed.

 

[Woolverhampton_Blue]

For those who voted to remain, is this what you are looking forward to? Have you not envisaged this coming to be whilst just voting for the current status quo?

Very interested to see some opinions on this. The 'guarantee' of an opt out to ever closer union is not set in stone, and as ever closer union unfolded it would be harder to escape (and even if so, certainly not its wider consequences) if still in the club.

 

[Joey66]

Not the brightest of MPs .....

Power to the super rich they have had their day in court using a 1610 act of parliment fair enough lets see what the supreme court says!

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I thin we should all be happy for the government to follow (as it must) the law of the land.

Should the ruling be challenged successfully in the Supreme Court, no doubt we will all be equally happy for that ruling to be followed.

I can't see that they're going to base the appeal on tbh, the ruling today was unequivocal

 

[1966efc]

I can't see that they're going to base the appeal on tbh, the ruling today was unequivocal

"Madam, we shall wait & see."

TBH, I don't have any idea.

 

[1966efc]

Beeb reporting that the government has announced an appeal.

 

[Joey66]

"Madam, we shall wait & see."

TBH, I don't have any idea.

One judge in NI throws the veto out on Monday over the EU article 50 3 days later the Uk accepts it lol
What a mess how many times have remainers stated what we don't need is uncertainty yet rich tories led by a hedge fund prison, and a not socialist win an argument in court fair dos as they are now going to drag it out even further!
Hillary Benn who leads the cross party committee thinks in the end article 50 will be signed on the DP today!
they can all vote for A to Z on what brexit should be - its the EU who have to agree on what format our brexit is so nothing has changed other than maybe a delay or a quicker brexit ?

 

[dandydan]

Lord Thomas is a founding member of the European law institute. No conflict of interest there,

 

[peteblue]

I thin we should all be happy for the government to follow (as it must) the law of the land.

Should the ruling be challenged successfully in the Supreme Court, no doubt we will all be equally happy for that ruling to be followed.

Indeed. Personally I wouldn't have challenged it, but maybe the government are using it as a distraction to keep the remainers off their backs while they work up our leaving negotiation requirements........

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

Power to the super rich they have had their day in court using a 1610 act of parliment fair enough lets see what the supreme court says!

Which forms part of the UK's uncodified constitution.

Basically, the court have upheld the constitution of the country and you're whining.

 

[Barnfred 55]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/72...t-Parliament-Article-50-triggered-IMMEDIATELY
Lord Chief Justice announced on Thursday the PM does not have the power to start the process of taking Britain out of the EU without a Parliamentary vote.

Lord Thomas declared: "The Government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the EU."

Mr Rees-Mogg said the decision came as a surprise it was made perfectly clear by former Prime Minister David Cameron that Article 50 would be triggered if the British people voted to leave the European Union on June 23.

The anti-EU politician told Sky News: “This has turned it on its head because of course the royal prerogative cannot change the law and therefore anything that is in law remains the law, but what it can do is change treaties and has always been able to do.


“And Parliament has already been involved - that is the key thing.

“Parliament passed the referendum bill under the clear understanding from David Cameron that Article 50 would be exercised immediately.

“The then-PM’s view, as stated to Parliament, as stated to the country, was that he would exercise Article 50 on Friday morning.”

Mr Rees-Mogg added: “So that has been slightly delayed but that doesn’t change the fact that Parliament gave the responsibility to decide whether we remained in the European Union to the British people and the British people decided to go.”

He said: “What surprises me is every court case brought against a European treaty the powers were flowing to the European Union the courts upheld, they upheld the royal prerogative.

“And now when it’s about taking powers away from the European Union suddenly they are ruling against the royal prerogative. So I think it is a very surprising judgment and we will need to look at the politics of it very carefully.”

Don't think this is totally right mate. I'm sure the referendum was what I think is called a "consultative" referendum which meant the Government is not legally obliged to act on the findings. Had it not been, then I'm sure the Govt would have used this as a defence in the recent case.

 

[The Cowboy]

For me the court ruling does not change anything. The majority of the population of this country voted to leave and that is exactly what should be followed never mind all these semantics by the stay in camp. Wonder what they would be saying if it had been the other way round and the leave campaign went to court for the law to agree with the majority and assert that that should be upheld.

I know what you're saying here, but that statement is untrue. The majority of the actual voters voted Leave. There's a huge proportion of the population who never had the chance.