[Politics] Brexit

[ManOfSussex]

Ladbrokes have cut the odds on a general election next year to 2/1.

I saw the leave supporting MP Frank Field on Sky News earlier saying he'd thought they'd be one as well.

 

[JCL666]

We do want parliamentary democracy. It was a democratic act of parliament that voted through the referendum act. The referendum was clear in its question and clear in its answer. We only have this obsession now about 'parliamentary democracy' from remainers as it is the only way that they see the process being impeded. Parliamentary democracy is the excuse being bandied around as an excuse to get the 'right' result. A truly EU trait.

It's the legal system that is actually enforcing the process. Surely it's better that we follow the right process, whatever the result? That way it can't be continually dragged up and questioned.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Gina Davis has just said on BBC that the judgment today is NOT about stopping Brexit, but rather about HOW we leave democracy.

So once again, however much the remainers would love this to be the spanner in the works, this judgement is supposed to give parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the terms of exit.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

It's the legal system that is actually enforcing the process. Surely it's better that we follow the right process, whatever the result? That way it can't be continually dragged up and questioned.

Parliament makes the laws in this country. Parliament voted 6 to 1 in favor of the referendum bill. Do you disagree with that vote? But if parliament voted to overturn Brexit, would you go along with it?

As I just wrote in my preceding post, the challenge was to allow parliamentary scrutiny of the terms of Brexit not to challenge Brexit.

 

[BigGully]

The problem is that the margin of victory was too close, if there had been a larger gap between the 2 sides then people could do nothing but accept the decision.

Well, apart from blame the stupid people of course

Well in a way you are right but in another maybe not, the more that voted Remain meant that there would be more willing to take up the challenge of reversing its decision, I am not sure if thats the same thing as thinking the challenge becomes anymore valid.

On the one hand you seem to be rejecting the majoritive vote to somehow represent disproportionally the minority vote, thats the problem.

 

[heathgate]

It's a bit rich a tally, that we as ordinary folk get one voting chance on Leave/Remain,.. where it seems that the MP'S get two, at least according to the High Court.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Gina Davis has just said on BBC that the judgment today is NOT about stopping Brexit, but rather about HOW we leave democracy.

So once again, however much the remainers would love this to be the spanner in the works, this judgement is supposed to give parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the terms of exit.

When we want Thelma or Louise's opinion on all this, we'll let you know, thanks.

 

[Insel affe]

Investment manager Gina Miller has been the lead claimant in the case to get Parliament to vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU - but who is she?
Ms Miller, 51, is an investment manager and philanthropist who was born in Guyana but grew up in Britain, co-founding the investment firm SCM Private in 2009.
She launched True and Fair with her hedge fund manager husband, Alan, which campaigns against mis-selling and hidden fund charges in the City of London's fund management industry.
According to an interview with the Financial Times in April, this has led some in the industry to label her the "black-widow spider".

As soon as I came to the hedge fund manager my blood started to boil, and I sunk in my seat....

Only wealthy out for themselves people have the power to overturn something they don't like. The public voted on something yes it was close, those who voted remain bleated on social media but got no where, now hedge fund managers get involved guess what...

I hate all parties, they all lie and are out for themselves...

Something fundamentally wrong with society, Bob wins woman of the year sums it all for me...

No wonder people are so disillusioned that even Trump has a chance to become president of one of the most powerful countries in the world....

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

When we want Thelma or Louise's opinion on all this, we'll let you know, thanks.

Haha haha! Madness! Dunno how I got that name so badly wrong. Perhaps I was one of the 5% of Brexiters who accidentally voted remain!

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Investment manager Gina Miller has been the lead claimant in the case to get Parliament to vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU - but who is she?
Ms Miller, 51, is an investment manager and philanthropist who was born in Guyana but grew up in Britain, co-founding the investment firm SCM Private in 2009.
She launched True and Fair with her hedge fund manager husband, Alan, which campaigns against mis-selling and hidden fund charges in the City of London's fund management industry.
According to an interview with the Financial Times in April, this has led some in the industry to label her the "black-widow spider".

As soon as I came to the hedge fund manager my blood started to boil, and I sunk in my seat....

Only wealthy out for themselves people have the power to overturn something they don't like. The public voted on something yes it was close, those who voted remain bleated on social media but got no where, now hedge fund managers get involved guess what...

I hate all parties, they all lie and are out for themselves...

Something fundamentally wrong with society, Bob wins woman of the year sums it all for me...

No wonder people are so disillusioned that even Trump has a chance to become president of one of the most powerful countries in the world....

Personally, I watched Gina Davis err Miller, and didn't find much to object to. She is emphatic that Brexit will not be overturned by this ruling. I think the government will win the appeal anyway.

 

[beorhthelm]

Parliament makes the laws in this country. Parliament voted 6 to 1 in favor of the referendum bill. Do you disagree with that vote? But if parliament voted to overturn Brexit, would you go along with it?

As I just wrote in my preceding post, the challenge was to allow parliamentary scrutiny of the terms of Brexit not to challenge Brexit.

the Referendum Act did not provide powers to act upon the result. secondly, Miss Davis may say that now, it was not the argument used in court where they made the case that government does not have the power to invoke Article 50. they didnt say "parliament must discuss the terms".

 

[ManOfSussex]

Personally, I watched Gina Davis err Miller, and didn't find much to object to..

I wouldn't object to Gina Miller either.

 

[mikeyjh]

We do want parliamentary democracy. It was a democratic act of parliament that voted through the referendum act. The referendum was clear in its question and clear in its answer. We only have this obsession now about 'parliamentary democracy' from remainers as it is the only way that they see the process being impeded. Parliamentary democracy is the excuse being bandied around as an excuse to get the 'right' result. A truly EU trait.

I think that's the point of contention isn't it - Even Brexiteers cannot agree on what to infer from the answer. Some want a deal to remain in a common market, some do not. Fundamentally, that's why it's a dog's dinner. Actually, I'd have to side with Farage on this (not something I say very often) but if you're going to take the question literally Article 50 should have been invoked on 24th June and that's your lot, get on with negotiating some trade deals. If everything is so crystal clear, why are we still 6 months away from even telling the EU that we're going to leave.

Farce.

 

[Notters]

Don't be ridiculous. Brighton and Hove as an area voted remain and, while I would expect Simon Kirby to be whipped in to voting with Teresa May, I would also expect Caroline Lucas of the Green Party and centre-ist Labour MP Peter Kyle to vote remain, and for it to increase their majorities next time. In fact, though it would not be representative entirely across constituencies, a parliamentary vote of 338 - 312 in favour of Brexit would broadly mirror the popular vote.

What's more there's a chance to vote on more than one broadbrush question.

It's not a rubber stamp. I thought you lot wanted parliamentary democracy above everything else? Or was it actually about kicking out Johnny Foreigner after all?

Oh, this is an interesting point, how would the vote go if it was done purely on a constituency basis. Surely as we have a first past the post system this is how MPs should vote? I assume it would lead to an increased majority for Brexit but I don't actually know?

As stressed by the Brexiters in this thread, MPs are there to represent their constituents, so surely they should vote how they voted, not how the country voted?

 

[mikeyjh]

Gina Davis has just said on BBC that the judgment today is NOT about stopping Brexit, but rather about HOW we leave democracy.

So once again, however much the remainers would love this to be the spanner in the works, this judgement is supposed to give parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the terms of exit.

I agree, and that is wholly correct and proper don't you think?

 

[JCL666]

Parliament makes the laws in this country. Parliament voted 6 to 1 in favor of the referendum bill. Do you disagree with that vote? But if parliament voted to overturn Brexit, would you go along with it?

As I just wrote in my preceding post, the challenge was to allow parliamentary scrutiny of the terms of Brexit not to challenge Brexit.

My understanding of the Lord Chief Justice quote I added previously is that parliament have to vote on allowing the government to trigger Article 50. That may mean something beyond just scrutiny.

As for the referendum bill. No I didn't agree with it, but it happened so I voted.

They wouldn't be overturning Brexit, they would be considering the outcome of the referendum, as well as other factors prior to voting. Whatever the outcome, as I said before, I would rather that it went through due process, otherwise there would be more challenges to it.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

the Referendum Act did not provide powers to act upon the result. secondly, Miss Davis may say that now, it was not the argument used in court where they made the case that government does not have the power to invoke Article 50. they didnt say "parliament must discuss the terms".

I agree, the referendum act was badly flawed. But still, everyone knew what the referendum meant.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The role of an MP is to represent the wishes of his constituency, I'm not sure about how that would result in banning the French etc but it has set MPs against the party line (e.g. Goldsmith). It's usually only in unique circumstances that an MP can gauge an attitude to a specific issue, for example closing a hospital. The referendum has given each MP a good idea of what their constituents decided, so you could argue that they will follow this.

But surely the role of an MP is more than simply representing the wishes of his constituency. It's more complicated than that. Many have tried to define representative democracy but Edmund Burke's views are always given huge weight.

He said this: To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

In short, the greatest of Britain's great constitutionalists is clearly suggesting that the notion of a government being bound by the headline results of a public opinion survey goes against the very heart of our country's unwritten constitution. It would be difficult to respect the views of anyone who wanted to kick our parliamentary traditions into the long grass in this way.

Not that I respected the gang embedded in May's inner circle anyway.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I think that's the point of contention isn't it - Even Brexiteers cannot agree on what to infer from the answer. Some want a deal to remain in a common market, some do not. Fundamentally, that's why it's a dog's dinner. Actually, I'd have to side with Farage on this (not something I say very often) but if you're going to take the question literally Article 50 should have been invoked on 24th June and that's your lot, get on with negotiating some trade deals. If everything is so crystal clear, why are we still 6 months away from even telling the EU that we're going to leave.

Farce.

Yes, I understand with your point. But it's not a valid argument. Our politicians may do a great job and get a great deal. We can't possibly know yet as it's a long process. But equally, no one knows what the EU will look like in a year or two.

The ballot simply asked whether we wanted to leave or remain in the EU. It did not state anything about terms of Brexit. Equally, it did not state anything about what remaining would mean.

This point of view is simply one which remainers use in order to justify their feelings that the UK has made a huge mistake and we didn't really mean it.

 

[Two Professors]

Some people need to go away and read about democracy and how it works in real life.

Reading about how a constitutional monarchy works might be more appropriate.