Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Oh, back to the old 'advisory' chestnut. Well the way I see it, when we vote, we 'advise' the MP's to form a government. There's little crib when the biggest party does. There was little crib about the coailition.

Was the referendum on the alternative vote 'advisory' too? Where's all the hoo-hah about that from those that voted for it? Oh that's right - the majority was much bigger - but a majority all the same.

No. If anyone gets to vote on it, it should be the electorate. The opposition (combined with remain from within government) have no mandate to dictate terms to the democratically elected government. As I keep saying, you have to win an election to get a mandate. If labour had won the GE this thread wouldn't even exist. They didn't. Nor did remain win the referendum.

Firstly, no, nothing to do with the advisory element of the referendum. I clearly said Brexit should and will be delivered.

What I was talking about was their lack of a mandate on what Brexit should actually look like.

The Tories have never campaigned for Brexit as a Govt and were elected with a manifesto that made no mention of their plans should a Brexit vote win. So they have no clear mandate on what the people want Brexit to actually end up being. It therefore needs to be debated and agreed by the House. It aint complicated, and I've no idea why you have an issue with it being discussed outside of the cabinet room.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

They haven't debated or voted yet - in fact, the bill probably hasn't been drafted - so I don't know how they can have shot it down (which they won't do anyway).

In the UK we have elections to this legislature, usually every five years, at which point the members can be removed and replaced, thus they are accountable.

I'm well aware of the terms of parliament and the ability to elect who we choose.

By virtue of demanding their word carries more weight than those who have elected them in, they're showing the utmost contempt for the electorate. Unfortunately, there are/will be other as pressing issues that affect people that will need to be decided as well. By the time the next election comes around there'll be those issues to deal with.

I just hope those who think democracy is being undermined by these cretins remember who and what they are, and punt them come the next GE.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

I'm well aware of the terms of parliament and the ability to elect who we choose.

By virtue of demanding their word carries more weight than those who have elected them in, they're showing the utmost contempt for the electorate. Unfortunately, there are/will be other as pressing issues that affect people that will need to be decided as well. By the time the next election comes around there'll be those issues to deal with.

I just hope those who think democracy is being undermined by these cretins remember who and what they are, and punt them come the next GE.

So what exactly have the House of Commons done that has angered you and/or shown contempt?

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I'm well aware of the terms of parliament and the ability to elect who we choose.

By virtue of demanding their word carries more weight than those who have elected them in, they're showing the utmost contempt for the electorate. Unfortunately, there are/will be other as pressing issues that affect people that will need to be decided as well. By the time the next election comes around there'll be those issues to deal with.

I just hope those who think democracy is being undermined by these cretins remember who and what they are, and punt them come the next GE.

How have they done that exactly?

 

[Joey66]

It won't happen, but would you suggest that's a good thing Joey?

Yes it would stop the nonsense do what the courts want a vote on article 50 not your interpretation of lines in the sand on how we Brexit should be done that was not in the judgment, as I have stated before Parliment can come up with any agreed brexit to suit all parties except the SNP to find the EU will just say no thanks you cannot have that ?
pointless waste of time of negotiation puts our country on the back foot -Keir Starmer to reiterated Article 50 will be passed with just a basic outline of what Brexit we are going for!
Its the likes of Nick Clegg with 8 mps that annoys me as as he once worked in the EU he can see his future pension going down the plughole!
Tony Blair will lose a fortune too and the Kinnocks, Peter Mandelson etc all on the EU gravy train of future pension pots! as a coincidence the very strong voices of Remain after the vote!

 

[Joey66]

Parliament is accountable.

Parliment set up the rules of the referendrum nothing on the ballot paper cameron PM the british people have spoke I resign - look if some rich people put a stooge in as a brexitier, and win fine by me article 50 will be signed May has options the one Labour will be most scared of is a GE as they will suffer more than any party!
I respect a technicality of the presidence of parliment just on Parliment voting article 50 through nothing else!
Nowhere in that judgement does it give any right to draw up how the government of today outlined in full their negotiations on Brexit to the EU!

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Yes it would stop the nonsense do what the courts want a vote on article 50 not your interpretation of lines in the sand on how we Brexit should be done that was not in the judgment, as I have stated before Parliment can come up with any agreed brexit to suit all parties except the SNP to find the EU will just say no thanks you cannot have that ?
pointless waste of time of negotiation puts our country on the back foot -Keir Starmer to reiterated Article 50 will be passed with just a basic outline of what Brexit we are going for!
Its the likes of Nick Clegg with 8 mps that annoys me as as he once worked in the EU he can see his future pension going down the plughole!
Tony Blair will lose a fortune too and the Kinnocks, Peter Mandelson etc all on the EU gravy train of future pension pots! as a coincidence the very strong voices of Remain after the vote!

That 'nonsense' being the correct democratic process being adhered to.

The courts aren't demanding anything in relation to article 50, barring that the Govt get the approval of parliament. In order to gain that approval they're going to have to give some details on what Brexit means Brexit actually consists of.

It's neither a waste of time, nor is it putting us on the back foot. This idea of a cloak and dagger negotiation strategy to somehow out fox the EU is beyond laughable.

I'll pass on making comment about the supposed integrity of the politicians you've mentioned at the end there. Albeit I will say that maybe they just don't agree with you Joey. It seems that anyone who challenges the idea that Brexit is boss gets their character assassinated. See Gina Millar and the 3 judges for details.

 

[Old Blue 2]

You are comparing apples and pears. Thatcher used the Royal Prerogative on the basis the executive had the power to regulate the civil service. This was taken to court through judicial review. The High Court found in favour of the unions. The Court of Appeal then determined that 'national security' trumped propriety.

The case subsequently went to the House of Lords which found that whilst the royal prerogative is subject to judicial review, there were exemptions, national security being one.

I would not use the GCHQ case as an example supporting proper government, democracy and the appropriate use of executive power. It was, and still is, one of the greatest abuses of power ever performed by a British Government.

You cannot simply say: That example doesn't count. The ban was finally overturned in 1997 when Labour became the new Government.

Your last sentence points your pistol at your foot and pulls the trigger.

I rest my case. QED 100%

 

[Joey66]

That 'nonsense' being the correct democratic process being adhered to.

The courts aren't demanding anything in relation to article 50, barring that the Govt get the approval of parliament. In order to gain that approval they're going to have to give some details on what Brexit means Brexit actually consists of.

It's neither a waste of time, nor is it putting us on the back foot. This idea of a cloak and dagger negotiation strategy to somehow out fox the EU is beyond laughable.

I'll pass on making comment about the supposed integrity of the politicians you've mentioned at the end there. Albeit I will say that maybe they just don't agree with you Joey. It seems that anyone who challenges the idea that Brexit is boss gets their character assassinated. See Gina Millar and the 3 judges for details.

If article 50 gets passed by parliment court's instructions have been fulfilled look the MPS can sit and argue for the next three months arguing the toss over brexit they then have a Bill and the EU say go away no chance what's the sense in that its not cloak and dagger. I stated an outline of aims in sentences no massive legislation"!
the court findings was the triggering of article 50 will have to be discussed, and voted on a bill could be passed in 24 hours if more details are given any aims passed in article 50 depend on negotiations after the signing not before because the organisation of the EU will not discuss anything before hand so MPs can demand the world its all in retrospect of what the EU will concede to us on brexit soft , medium or hard boiled Brexit!
The Judges did not get involved in policy just article 50 ok! that's the ruling lets get on with it no mention of a 2nd referendum no detail of agreement just a vote on article 50!
I agree it should be done cross party , but that's already been set up?
If the appeal wins in the supreme court then what will you do?
Personally i would rather Parliment comes to an agreement on Brexit and signs article 50 before Christmas imo!
as a remainer you don't want uncertainty do you, bad for our economy etc etc?

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

Parliment set up the rules of the referendrum nothing on the ballot paper cameron PM the british people have spoke I resign - look if some rich people put a stooge in as a brexitier, and win fine by me article 50 will be signed May has options the one Labour will be most scared of is a GE as they will suffer more than any party!
I respect a technicality of the presidence of parliment just on Parliment voting article 50 through nothing else!
Nowhere in that judgement does it give any right to draw up how the government of today outlined in full their negotiations on Brexit to the EU!

Firstly, it would be strange if they put something on the ballot paper to suggest that they were going to circumvent parliament.

Secondly, this isn't some 'technicality', it's how the Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy works.

 

[Joey66]

Firstly, it would be strange if they put something on the ballot paper to suggest that they were going to circumvent parliament.

Secondly, this isn't some 'technicality', it's how the Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy works.

so they vote on article 50 don't forget we cannot negotiate with the EU before that is signed their rules not our parliaments so outlining what we want before article 50 is ridiculous and that was not in the judgement!
let the vote commence if there has to be a GE then so be it!

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

so they vote on article 50 don't forget we cannot negotiate with the EU before that is signed their rules not our parliaments so outlining what we want before article 50 is ridiculous and that was not in the judgement!
let the vote commence if there has to be a GE then so be it!

I honestly don't know how many ways I put this: This is what you voted for. The UK parliament voting on matters that affect the UK.

One of the understandable arguments for Brexit was about democratic accountabililty. If you thought that voting for parliamentary sovereignty was going to make parliament less sovereign then that is non-sensical.

 

[Joey66]

I honestly don't know how many ways I put this: This is what you voted for. The UK parliament voting on matters that affect the UK.

One of the understandable arguments for Brexit was about democratic accountabililty. If you thought that voting for parliamentary sovereignty was going to make parliament less sovereign then that is non-sensical.

I am not arguing over the judgment, I am just relating what the judgment is to pass article 50 nothing more nothing less!
The EU dictates negotiations after that signing so whats is agreed on before is immaterial, our democratic parliment have to negotiate the best deal we can get end of

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

If article 50 gets passed by parliment court's instructions have been fulfilled look the MPS can sit and argue for the next three months arguing the toss over brexit they then have a Bill and the EU say go away no chance what's the sense in that its not cloak and dagger. I stated an outline of aims in sentences no massive legislation"!
the court findings was the triggering of article 50 will have to be discussed, and voted on a bill could be passed in 24 hours if more details are given any aims passed in article 50 depend on negotiations after the signing not before because the organisation of the EU will not discuss anything before hand so MPs can demand the world its all in retrospect of what the EU will concede to us on brexit soft , medium or hard boiled Brexit!
The Judges did not get involved in policy just article 50 ok! that's the ruling lets get on with it no mention of a 2nd referendum no detail of agreement just a vote on article 50!
I agree it should be done cross party , but that's already been set up?
If the appeal wins in the supreme court then what will you do?
Personally i would rather Parliment comes to an agreement on Brexit and signs article 50 before Christmas imo!
as a remainer you don't want uncertainty do you, bad for our economy etc etc?

The courts ruling (if upheld) will mean that there'll have to be a debate on the Govt's priorities by default, as the idea that May can just rock up and say sign here lads I'll let you know how I get on, is an absolute nonsense. Parliament & then the Lords will decide whether they agree with them, if not they'll have to amend whatever Bill they put forward in order to get it through, it's really not complicated.

As for the EU, the UK can have hard Brexit without the EU being able to counter anything, we just leave and to hell with the consequences.

Anything a tad more sensible will require negotiation, but the idea that we can't set out a clear definition of what we're going to aim to retain is nonsense.

I'd rather have an extended period of uncertainty than a Brexit that's wreckless, wrongly prioritised and cripples our economy for a decade plus.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I am not arguing over the judgment, I am just relating what the judgment is to pass article 50 nothing more nothing less!
The EU dictates negotiations after that signing so whats is agreed on before is immaterial, our democratic parliment have to negotiate the best deal we can get end of

So you agree Parliament should be consulted on the detail of what Brexit actually should mean then, we got there in the end