[Politics] Brexit

[beorhthelm]

Lib Dems have already said they'll vote no on any bill put forward unless specific demands are met. That is where the delay will come from.

 

[nicko31]

More hilarious is the fact that the Brexiteers feel their lives and conditions will actually improve by being out of Europe!

The Victor Medrews might be OK, but even after Brexit they will find something else to ruin their lives.

 

[Albumen]

It's hillairous how many people still think we live in a democracy and our voices matter, really it is.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

The referendum wasn't how we're going to leave, it was whether to leave or not (and not binding, obvs).
As the people voted to leave the EU for whatever reason (as there was a yes or no vote, no detail) the detail of how has to be democratically put through parliament. Most people knew that, but the government were trying to shove it through without consultation, undemocratically especially as May wasn't democratically elected.
In fact what they were doing was so undemocratic it was almost scandalous. Luckily justice has prevailed and we can all make some sense of this mess.

 

[BBassic]

Personally I think their particular demand is unreasonable but they do now have a say in the matter and I think they'll be making it as difficult as possible.

They have nothing to lose. They won't be getting anywhere near a majority in the next GE and they'll win big points with the side of the Remain camp who want to derail the Brexit process. By being a thorn in the side of the Government they'll possibly win back some of their voters who decamped after the Coalition as well.

 

[m20gull]

The referendum wasn't how we're going to leave, it was whether to leave or not (and not binding, obvs).
As the people voted to leave the EU for whatever reason (as there was a yes or no vote, no detail) the detail of how has to be democratically put through parliament. Most people knew that, but the government were trying to shove it through without consultation, undemocratically especially as May wasn't democratically elected.
In fact what they were doing was so undemocratic it was almost scandalous. Luckily justice has prevailed and we can all make some sense of this mess.

Most people knew that? Even the Supreme Court was divided, so far from clear. I am happy with the decision as an independent judiciary is a cornerstone of democracy.

As for May not being elected, no prime minister of the UK is ever elected. She is leader of the majority party.

 

[nicko31]

The referendum wasn't how we're going to leave, it was whether to leave or not (and not binding, obvs).
As the people voted to leave the EU for whatever reason (as there was a yes or no vote, no detail) the detail of how has to be democratically put through parliament. Most people knew that, but the government were trying to shove it through without consultation, undemocratically especially as May wasn't democratically elected.
In fact what they were doing was so undemocratic it was almost scandalous. Luckily justice has prevailed and we can all make some sense of this mess.

Think few really appreciate what Gina Miller has done, this government really need to hold their heads in shame.

Would the peoples just like any government to push through whatever they like, when they like with any parliament approved. Do it for Brexit and what will it be next, cut all benefits for anyone that doesn't vote Tory?

Brexit will happen but at least we will have check and balances and hopefully some proper debate about what is best for our country in the decades ahead.

 

[vegster]

Equally ,if not more hilarious is the fact remainers think that their attempts at delaying will actually stop Brexit happening.

It will happen but it won't make any positive difference to my life. There is no hilarity on my part as I have no Illusions that any benefits of leaving will ever reach me.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I was simply querying your complete certainty about this, and I’m not sure your final sentence was necessary.

We can’t be sure what will happen in future, but in my view your predictions are too firmly based on what has happened in the past.

What has happened in the past is that the bureaucrats of the EU Commission, like bureaucrats from County Hall to Canberra, have accumulated too much power. The governing structure of the EU has encouraged it. Whilst not the sole cause, one side effect of this centralising has been the institution’s leaden-footed inability to change direction. Leaden-footed is what state bureaucrats are.

In 2010 David Cameron cynically promised to reduce immigration from fellow EU states. It was cynical because he knew he couldn’t deliver it. He couldn’t then and he still couldn’t in 2016.

I don’t think David Davies’s negotiators will be able to deliver now. The LibDems are right - no British Brexiteer, fresh from trashing the European Union and knee-deep in the mistaken belief that they need us more than we need them, is going to be able to get off the Eurostar and negotiate a dilution of freedom of movement. It’s not on the table.

But will it always be off the table? Tectonic plates are moving. Elections this year in the Netherlands, France and Germany will be played out against the background music of uncertainty about immigration legislation. Leading politicians in the first two of those countries are opening discussing the possibility of changing rules. Alternative for Germany is playing its UKIP-style role on the subject, as is Grillo in Italy.

And now, even senior figures within the Commission itself - vice president anyone? - are talking about change.

All this is new. If Le Pen's right-wing populists achieve an heroically narrow defeat in France - perhaps the most likely outcome - then the effect will further shake the complacency, just as a similar result in Britain last year would have done. It is arrogant to assume that it is just what happens in England that affects things and Brexiteers mustn't assume that if their narrow victory had gone the other way then everything would have stayed the same.

Further afield, we have changing views in the Visegrad countries, who would surely have supported British efforts to lead on the issue, and Scandinavian nations such as Finland, whose leaders are again raising the matter. To the best of my knowledge, none of these countries is likely to walk away from the union. But their accumulating strength will certainly see the EU evolve, whoever leads their efforts. That would probably have been Britain but for our decision to walk away.

You were and I was just wondering what you based your opinion on. Excuse my poor attempt at humour.

True we can't really be sure but a consistent pattern of behaviour reacting to ongoing problems over many years is a reasonable starting point when assessing a likely future course of action.

Broadly agree with your points about the Commission/state bureaucracy although this is not a significant factor in why the EU is unwilling to change and reform in my view. The main issue is the underlying political drive to ever closer union combined with the difficulty in getting 28 different viewpoints to agree on significant change when every member has a veto. Any rowing back on the fundamental building blocks of the EU Superstate is seen as sacrilege by some. But that isn't being considered .. is it? Free movement will stay the talk is around the effects of the migrant crisis which is more about Schengen which if reformed would have had no effect on net EU immigration rates to the UK.

Whereas we know that people on your side of the argument were certain our economic performance would have and will be better if we had voted remain so in an even healthier position than our current fastest-growing economy in the G7. Combine this with the upcoming rise in the living wage would suggest, ongoing, yearly, net inward immigration, in the hundreds of thousands was a given.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Equally ,if not more hilarious is the fact remainers think that their attempts at delaying will actually stop Brexit happening.

Not just you...... but why do people on here have to be so nasty??

......... and so short-sighted.

 

[Two Professors]

Not just you...... but why do people on here have to be so nasty??

......... and so short-sighted.

Learned to be that way from all the abuse and nastiness that came from the Remain camp.Being called sub-normals,divs,racists,Little Englanders,thickies etc by some very unpleasant,and extremely myopic europhiles would try the patience of a saint.Not to mention the wishes for our death,natural or otherwise,the obstinate failure of your side to accept they could be wrong about anything,and the arrogance of the financial and statistical groupies.In fact,I think the remarkable restraint shown by the Victors,should be held up as an insight of what it means to be British!

 

[Two Professors]

And while on the subject of EU stupidity,I see that none of these EU nurses you all laud has been tested for competence as it is against EU rules.So make sure your nurse is from Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka etc.At least you will know they are competent!

 

[Trufflehound]

Yahoo Finance has an "unusual" take on today's ruling:

"What has the Supreme Court been deciding?

Whether the Prime Minister or Parliament has the final say in deciding when, and if, Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty should be invoked. Today’s ruling means Theresa May cannot simply trigger Article 50 without putting it to a vote of MPs.

MORE: Giant otters the size of WOLVES roamed the planet six million years ago"


https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-court-ruling-what-does-todays-judgement-mean-100816173.html

 

[Albumen]

This is getting fun.

Former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve said his understanding had always been that the EU referendum was only "an advisory referendum".

Conceding that the government "might have made the position clearer", he said:

All referendums are advisory unless Parliament puts particular provisions in so that the referendum result kicks in without any further work of Parliament."
He said that nobody was trying to stand in the way of the referendum result, but added that "it has to be done in a lawful fashion and we don't have government by referendum".

 

[Albumen]

What.a.****ing.dick

UKIP leader Paul Nuttall said he was disappointed by the Supreme Court judgement, although he was not surprised.

He told the BBC: "Let's get on with this, let's do it quickly and woe betide any MP or indeed the House of Lords, if they try to mess around with the will of the people."

He accused the SNP of attempting "to subvert the will of the British people" by saying it is going to put down 50 amendments to the Article 50 bill.

 

[Hotchilidog]

What.a.****ing.dick

UKIP leader Paul Nuttall said he was disappointed by the Supreme Court judgement, although he was not surprised.

He told the BBC: "Let's get on with this, let's do it quickly and woe betide any MP or indeed the House of Lords, if they try to mess around with the will of the people."

He accused the SNP of attempting "to subvert the will of the British people" by saying it is going to put down 50 amendments to the Article 50 bill.

He's not trying to subvert the will of the UK parliament is he?

 

[GT49er]

He accused the SNP of attempting "to subvert the will of the British people" by saying it is going to put down 50 amendments to the Article 50 bill.

That's what they are trying to do. You presumably support their aim.

 

[Albumen]

That's what they are trying to do. You presumably support their aim.

50 amendments is probably small-fry.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Not happy about the Preston result. Might ask the FA if we can play it again until we get the result we want.

 

[GT49er]

50 amendments is probably small-fry.

Frankly, the SNP are relatively small fry. Likely to fail miserably. Good.

 

[larus]

Lib Dems have already said they'll vote no on any bill put forward unless specific demands are met. That is where the delay will come from.

Wow, the Lib Dems. Bet May is quaking at the though of 9 (or is it 10) MP's voting against her.

I don't know if you're making a joke or if you're serious. If you're serious, then you should really check the number of MPs by party.