[Politics] Brexit

[hans kraay fan club]

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

They didn't though. And they still don't, six months later.

I genuinely believe that a great many were focused on freedom of movement / control of immigration - this is what sections of the media led them to believe they were voting for, by ticking the 'Leave' box. Now we have a situation where we don't know if that is what Article 50 means at all, as more likely is that we will end up with a compromise where we are still IN the common market, where we STILL pay our dues into it, and do NOT get to limit movement of people.

That is absolutely NOT what (many) people voted for.

 

[JCL666]

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

That's the point I was making.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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

£350M for the NHS, wasn't it?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

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

I think it is an unnecessary distraction caused by a poor bill, the referendum act. I don't think it will halt Brexit. So although by the letter I agree, in spirit I don't as MPs already voted 6 to 1 in favour of the referendum bill (simply not understanding that remain might lose). That prior vote, should be enough, in my opinion, to enact article 50.

Interestingly, the author of article 50 earlier on said that a state could leave without invoking it anyway.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

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.

That is not how the BBC is seeing it.

 

[Pavilionaire]

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.

Utter rubbish. We fought a civil war in order for Parliament to win the right to make the laws of this land. It is not for the likes of Theresa May to bypass Parliament over something as crucial as the trigger for Brexit.

I will abide by the decision reached by Parliament over the invoking of Article 50 and if that means they vote to invoke it then as a citizen of a Parliamentary democracy then so be it.

As for sovereignty, how the Leave campaign had the temerity to link Leave with a preservation of sovereignty, then to seek to bypass Parliament in a matter as important as this is duplicitous in the extreme.

 

[Notters]

They didn't though. And they still don't, six months later.

I genuinely believe that a great many were focused on freedom of movement / control of immigration - this is what sections of the media led them to believe they were voting for, by ticking the 'Leave' box. Now we have a situation where we don't know if that is what Article 50 means at all, as more likely is that we will end up with a compromise where we are still IN the common market, where we STILL pay our dues into it, and do NOT get to limit movement of people.

That is absolutely NOT what (many) people voted for.

...and likely considerably more than previously...

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

They didn't though. And they still don't, six months later.

I genuinely believe that a great many were focused on freedom of movement / control of immigration - this is what sections of the media led them to believe they were voting for, by ticking the 'Leave' box. Now we have a situation where we don't know if that is what Article 50 means at all, as more likely is that we will end up with a compromise where we are still IN the common market, where we STILL pay our dues into it, and do NOT get to limit movement of people.

That is absolutely NOT what (many) people voted for.

You are misunderstanding me. I have repeatedly stated on NSC that absolutely no one knew what leaving would mean. But by the same token, no one knew what staying would mean either.

Everyone knew that if they voted leave, that they supported leaving the EU. Voters voting remain, wanted to stay in the EU. It was quite simple.

 

[Two Professors]

At first glance it seems to me that, unless the government wins on appeal, it may allow for more democratic accountability. At the moment we have a referendum vote that asked leave or remain and leave won. Subsequent to that the talk has been as to whether the leave vote gave a mandate for a hard exit: i.e. leave the single market in order to prevent free movement of labour. Despite the fact that the leave campaign continually said that the country wouldn't have to make this choice, but could get both things, the government says the referendum vote gives a mandate for the hard version, but this has not been tested in parliament or through a referendum.

In all honesty I can't see that the numbers for hard exit add up. With 48% voting for remain presumably preferring to retain the single market, it only requires 5.77% of the 52% who voted leave to prefer the 'soft' option and the mandate would be for soft exit. i.e. paying for continued membership of the single market, which would have to come with acceptance of free movement, which would mean that the country has gone through all of this to achieve next to nothing but giving up its voting rights at the EU parliament.

Apparently the bookies have halved the odds for a second referendum and there is talk of an early election. This would require a two thirds majority vote, so would need Labour support. You would think they won't support it, but some of them might see an early election smashing as preferable to another four years of Corbyn leadership followed by an election smashing.

Wonder if any statisticians have looked at the percentage of people who didn't vote,or voted remain,because Project Fear actually worked on some.Perhaps an honest campaign might have had a much clearer margin for Leave!

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

£350M for the NHS, wasn't it?

The leave campaign was dreadful. And so was remain. That does not change my opinion of the EU one little bit and it shouldn't have changed anyone's view if they were remain either.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Utter rubbish. We fought a civil war in order for Parliament to win the right to make the laws of this land. It is not for the likes of Theresa May to bypass Parliament over something as crucial as the trigger for Brexit.

So you don't think the act of parliament, that brought the referendum act into being is worth regarding? You think that the vote which brought something which you don't like isn't worth respecting? The referendum act was crucial but you want to ignore it.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

...and likely considerably more than previously...

Indeed.

The likes of bushy will refuse to believe it, but I'd entirely accept a Leave vote, had it been 60%+ and had the question actually set out even the broadest idea of terms of exit.

What would the %s have been if the question had read:

Should the UK...
A. Stay in the EU under the current terms
B. Forego our voting rights in the EU parliament, but continue to pay the same dues, and be bound by the same freedom of movement rules as currently exist

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Indeed.

The likes of bushy will refuse to believe it, but I'd entirely accept a Leave vote, had it been 60%+ and had the question actually set out even the broadest idea of terms of exit.

What would the %s have been if the question had read:

Should the UK...
A. Stay in the EU under the current terms
B. Forego our voting rights in the EU parliament, but continue to pay the same dues, and be bound by the same freedom of movement rules as currently exist

On point 2. How many people would vote simply because they like freedom of movement?

 

[beorhthelm]

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

that will be argued till the Ragnarok, the legislation didn't explicitly deal with the outcome and make it legally binding.

 

[mothy]

Could the final decision end up with European court of justice?

 

[Pavilionaire]

So you don't think the act of parliament, that brought the referendum act into being is worth regarding? You think that the vote which brought something which you don't like isn't worth respecting?

Parliament voted for a referendum for the British electorate but the constitution says that the result is not legally binding but merely advisory.

I hear David Davis this afternoon saying that it is the British public who are sovereign and he is WRONG - It is PARLIAMENT that is sovereign, not the people. We have a bi-cameral legislature to which we endow powers to scrutinise and debate and decide the laws of this land. That is the way it has been for centuries, that is what has served us well and that is the way it must be.

Certainly Parliament must take account of the outcome of the referendum but it must also take account of the campaign itself, whether it was misleading or misrepresentative, they must take account of the issues that have arisen following the referendum and then, in full possession of the facts, decide on what they think it the best way forward for Britain with regard to membership of the EU.

 

[highflyer]

Could the final decision end up with European court of justice?

Strangely enough the Government decision to appeal the judgement may have made this more likely
For anyone genuinely interested in an informed (but not unbiaised) view on what this judgement means this piece is worth a read:

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/11/...-forget-about-activating-article-50-in-march/

 

[Lincoln Imp]

On point 2. How many people would vote simply because they like freedom of movement?

Interesting question and one often overlooked. Stopping Freedom of Movement (and its cousin European Citizenship) is presented as a prize by Leave campaigners but for many it's a price. Different members of my wider family are already seeing opportunities (work, business and studying) clouding over as a result of its possible ending.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Interesting question and one often overlooked. Stopping Freedom of Movement (and its cousin European Citizenship) is presented as a prize by Leave campaigners but for many it's a price. Different members of my wider family are already seeing opportunities (work, business and studying) clouding over as a result of its possible ending.

Exactly. It is clear that one person may see a huge advantage in fom whilst another may only see the opposite. I hate how the referendum has drawn ever more divisive lines between our people.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's looking likely that a General Election could be called next year.