[Politics] Brexit

[studio150]

I am going to assume that you voted Leave.

This is exactly what you voted for.

The primacy of the British parliamentary system and British rule of law.

The governments approach to leaving the EU was proved to be wrong on a point of law. It is not a political decision, although the ramifications are political. This is the governments fault NOT the justice system.

The government will still pursue Brexit as per the (advisory) referendum result.

All this rubbish that the EU hating newspapers are spouting about the judges is laughable, especially by the American owned Sun.

Please read up on English parliamentary history before repeating the ill-informed views of 4-5 newspaper owners.

Cheers.

PS. We will still leave the EU, however we will do it lawfully.

A rare sane voice well said.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Let's be truthful, "Soft Brexit" is a post-Referendum invention that nobody voted for. It is a piece of sophistry dreamt up to avoid implementing the result of the referendum

So what is the arrangement Norway has had for decades?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I am going to assume that you voted Leave.

This is exactly what you voted for.

The primacy of the British parliamentary system and British rule of law.

The governments approach to leaving the EU was proved to be wrong on a point of law. It is not a political decision, although the ramifications are political. This is the governments fault NOT the justice system.

The government will still pursue Brexit as per the (advisory) referendum result.

All this rubbish that the EU hating newspapers are spouting about the judges is laughable, especially by the American owned Sun.

Please read up on English parliamentary history before repeating the ill-informed views of 4-5 newspaper owners.

Cheers.

PS. We will still leave the EU, however we will do it lawfully.

I was wanting to try to post something on here trying to be sensible. You have saved me the bother. Thank you.

Irrespective of what the Daily Mail and others say, the Judges were doing their job, no more and no less. They are not political, and it is noticeable the number of heavyweight Tories who have commented on and upheld the notion of the independence of the Judiciary.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I was quite interested in your view until you had to put in your money shot at the end quote" There is no consensus for the "Enemy of the People" hysterics of the tabloids or the far right agendas of Trump-loving UKIP leaders and their disciples".. Just to remind you that 17m people voted out, Ukip polled just over 4m votes.

Thank you, but you reinforce my point with your 17m/4m figures.

 

[Steve in Japan]

This is nonsense and just highlights the stupidity of the Referendum, I doubt the majority of people wanted a hard Brexit and expect it would be half and half between in and out of the single market. Some of the more prominent leave campaigners and funders want a soft Brexit and to stay in the single market, for example Simon Wolfson.

This is exactly the reason why May is wrong to press ahead with A50 (well that and the Courts have told her she is wrong) and making the Government's decision on this issue unilaterally because it is against the wished of 48% of the electorate plus any leave voters who want us to remain in the single market.

This is nonsense? Hmmm. It may not align with your own views, aspirations or memories of the campaign, but it's not nonsense. There are plenty of people saying exactly this.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...d-to-grasp-about-democracy/18890#.WB3nHneca8U

Quoting from this article "The post-referendum debate might appear to have solidified into a battle between the parliamentary advocates of ‘Hard’ and ‘Soft’ Brexit. But this is largely another phoney war over Europe. In reality, neither side represents the democratic Brexit for which 17.4million people voted four months ago.
Soft Brexit sounds increasingly like a code for no real Brexit at all. It is the Remainers’ attempt effectively to re-run the referendum, and get a different result, preferably without actually having to ask the electorate."

The Leave Campaign was clear about what Leave meant. People have posted links/clips on this thread in the last few hours which support this. You'd look a long time for a Leave campaigner that said we'd be able to stay in the EEA and achieve all the goals of leaving, including limiting freedom of movement etc etc

And if If you can find an article relating to "soft Brexit" that predates 23rd June, I'd be interested in seeing it

 

[ManOfSussex]

You'd look a long time for a Leave campaigner that said we'd be able to stay in the EEA and achieve all the goals of leaving, including limiting freedom of movement etc etc

Didn't take me that long - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/

 

[Billy the Fish]

Does anyone really think soft brexit is an option?

Personally I think the soft brexit option basically consist of what we've got now but without voting rights and a bigger membership fee. It just won't be viable.

Also, it's questionable whether the EU is even capable of reaching an agreement within the 2 year time limit, I have a feeling there's plenty involved who have a vested interest in scuppering an agreement.

 

[Steve in Japan]

So what is the arrangement Norway has had for decades?

I'm not that concerned with Norway. The "Br" in Brexit is a clue, I think that it relates to Britain and the British debate.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Didn't take me that long - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/

Did you look at the date of that article when you posted it? So 26 June. The beginning of the post Referendum discussion of Politicians digesting the unexpected result and saying "fck, what do we do now".

 

[ManOfSussex]

Did you look at the date of that article when you posted it? So 26 June. The beginning of the post Referendum discussion of Politicians digesting the unexpected result and saying "fck, what do we do now".

I don't think Boris Johnson was that clued up before the referendum in terms of what we should do though - http://news.sky.com/story/boris-defends-2013-single-market-support-10318418

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I was quite interested in your view until you had to put in your money shot at the end quote" There is no consensus for the "Enemy of the People" hysterics of the tabloids or the far right agendas of Trump-loving UKIP leaders and their disciples".. Just to remind you that 17m people voted out, Ukip polled just over 4m votes.

Nice edit to remove reference to Guyanan which Seaford caught.

Being Guyana-born she is from the Commonwealth, like 10% of the British army. She grew up here and lives here permanently. She is a successful British woman.

For the record, Mr Dos Santos is British. Mishcon de Reya was founded by British Second World War soldier Victor Mishcon, in Brixton.

Although the right wing press like to use these names because they sound like oribble foreigners.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The simple fact of the matter is that the referendum had two options. One option has been clearly defined in lots of detail over the last 40 years and the other option had no definition whatsoever.

Everyone who voted leave all had a very clear view of what they THOUGHT they were voting for, but since there was no definition it was not possible to know WHAT they were voting for.

Give it 2 years and they may have a better idea of what they voted for, which could be any one of a large number of options.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Being Guyana-born she is from the Commonwealth, like 10% of the British army. She grew up here and lives here permanently. She is a successful British woman.

She was also born a British subject as Guyana was a crown colony then.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Does anyone really think soft brexit is an option?

Personally I think the soft brexit option basically consist of what we've got now but without voting rights and a bigger membership fee. It just won't be viable.

Also, it's questionable whether the EU is even capable of reaching an agreement within the 2 year time limit, I have a feeling there's plenty involved who have a vested interest in scuppering an agreement.

Many people agree with you, that it's not a sensible or desirable option. That's really my point in saying neither side voted for "soft Brexit". They voted to Leave or to Stay.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...e-and-parliamentary-vote-or-not/#6fde64061946

From Forbes - link above -

"The problem with this “soft” Brexit idea is that it isn’t Brexit at all. What is being argued about is membership (or privileged access to) the Single Market. And to gain that means not, in effect, really leaving the European Union at all. The EU is being quite clear about this. That Single Market membership or privileged access demands that we accept freedom of movement. And not just that, we accept every jot and tittle of EU regulation of the economy and the market. Including, obviously, the supremacy of the European Court of Justice (the European Court of Human Rights is an entirely different matter, we’re not even discussing withdrawing from that). And yet all of that is what we want to get out of by indulging in Brexit in the first place.

Which is of course why Nick Clegg is arguing as he is. He knows very well that the soft version just means that we lose a say in how the system develops, not frees us from that system. And it’s also quite obviously why we need to go for that clean or hard Brexit, for that’s the only way we will actually leave."

 

[beardy gull]

That may all be true but you could see why most people with little knowledge on the intricacies of referendum procedure/process could be forgiven for thinking it was 100% legally binding when the Government spends millions telling every household in the UK that the government will definitely implement the majority decision. Interestingly if they had decided to ignore the vote (never an option) I expect a few (17) million voters might have a good shout mounting a legal challenge because of that Government information leaflet!

From the bill. Think the legal challenge may be a non starter?

This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s
continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of
2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a
vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of
referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the
electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in
its policy decisions.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Then why do many of the more...braindead? brexiters keep claiming the laughable line of 'we've got our country back' - when as you put it, it's not a 5 minute stroll.

Genuine question.

when we're out we're out ,it's not a trial period was my point , and to be honest we have got the country back in the form of our sovereignty and the choice to make our own decisions
regards
DR

 

[WATFORD zero]

Does anyone really think soft brexit is an option?

Personally I think the soft brexit option basically consist of what we've got now but without voting rights and a bigger membership fee. It just won't be viable.

Also, it's questionable whether the EU is even capable of reaching an agreement within the 2 year time limit, I have a feeling there's plenty involved who have a vested interest in scuppering an agreement.

The thing is nobody knows what options we will end up with. The vote was 'we don't want this'. There was no definition of what the alternative was and no-one, least of all the posters on this thread, will know for a further 2 years what we are going to have as an alternative.

As has already been said, there won't be another vote when we find out what the alternative is, so we'll just have to live with it.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

I am going to assume that you voted Leave.

This is exactly what you voted for.

The primacy of the British parliamentary system and British rule of law.

The governments approach to leaving the EU was proved to be wrong on a point of law. It is not a political decision, although the ramifications are political. This is the governments fault NOT the justice system.

The government will still pursue Brexit as per the (advisory) referendum result.

All this rubbish that the EU hating newspapers are spouting about the judges is laughable, especially by the American owned Sun.

Please read up on English parliamentary history before repeating the ill-informed views of 4-5 newspaper owners.

Cheers.

PS. We will still leave the EU, however we will do it lawfully.

nice and hard as well
regards
DR

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The simple fact of the matter is that the referendum had two options. One option has been clearly defined in lots of detail over the last 40 years and the other option had no definition whatsoever.

Everyone who voted leave all had a very clear view of what they THOUGHT they were voting for, but since there was no definition it was not possible to know WHAT they were voting for.

Give it 2 years and they may have a better idea of what they voted for, which could be any one of a large number of options.

I understood your logic but remember the same could be said for the 1975 Referendum when the long
term implications were similarly not made clear. This did not stop pro EU politicians forging ahead with closer integration by treaty. Using your argument (and it is oft repeated on the Remain side) these treaties did not have a mandate as political integration etc was not what was offered in the referendum. I am not saying that everything is clear but I am
saying that the precedent of forging ahead after a simple in/out vote was set in 1975 and
since by the pro EU side. I hope that the issue will be resolved amicably but if not then advocates of the EU project will only have themselves to blame after taking the 1975 vote as freedom to integrate as they pleased.

 

[Triggaaar]

And where will does it end? Shall we have a referendum on royalty? That is patently an unfair set up. Where's my referendum? What about the death penalty? Most people want that back too.

If one of those things are important to you, vote for a party that says they'll have a referendum on it if they get in.