[Politics] Brexit

[Albion Dan]

It's worrying that a small group of people tasked with extricating the U.K. from the EU don't even know the laws of their own

The government will win the appeal no doubt

HIghly unlikely they will. The law is the law.

 

[drew]

Maybe one where people abide by the vote and do not keep bleating and casting voters as thick, racist and so on because they dared to vote the other way. By delaying the A50 trigger just increases the uncertainty for everyone.

And there wouldn't be any uncertainty over two years if A50 was triggered with the country knowing the direction the negotiations will take, ie hard or soft for example.

Look at the recent Orgreave decision. The Government lead everyone to believe there was going to be an inquiry and then at the last minute announce there isn't on some dodgy reasoning. What if the Government go down the line of a hard Brexit and then in March 2019 announce we have a soft brexit! May should not have gone down the Royal Prerogative route (which, admittedly, had it been deemed legal would have been quicker). She's like Poyet, no plan B!!!!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

That Daily Mail front page, really is an absolute disgrace. An disgusting personal attack on three eminently qualified men, who have carefully considered and applied the rule of law - and made very clear that they do NOT seek to pass any judgment or comment on the pros and cons of Brexit itself - only on the correct process to be followed.

The website piece, profiling the three judges - describing one as 'openly gay' just sums up the depths to which they are prepared to go.

How does anyone lower themselves to buy this shit?

 

[Hastings gull]

The judges are interpreting the laws of this land. They haven't made any decisions about Brexit or not, just the process to achieve it. The problem is that the likes of Davies and Fox see this as their little toy to play with. Had May gone down a more open route then the case yesterday wouldn't have arisen but she chose not to and opened the door for the case. We don't know whether we are going to get a hard or soft Brexit, we don't even know if May wants a hard or soft Brexit and I suspect neither does she. I would imagine there are those within the Government on both sides of that line and that is what is causing the problem with going forward.

You are right in that they have not delayed Brexit as such, or made any decision about it, but it is naïve to think that this whole charade is purely about process.

 

[beorhthelm]

And there wouldn't be any uncertainty over two years if A50 was triggered with the country knowing the direction the negotiations will take, ie hard or soft for example.

Look at the recent Orgreave decision. The Government lead everyone to believe there was going to be an inquiry and then at the last minute announce there isn't on some dodgy reasoning. What if the Government go down the line of a hard Brexit and then in March 2019 announce we have a soft brexit! May should not have gone down the Royal Prerogative route (which, admittedly, had it been deemed legal would have been quicker). She's like Poyet, no plan B!!!!

you think that once negotiations are formally in place with EU that there will be secrecy for the next two years? lol. all that is happening here is that some reluctant remainers and Labour in particular want to be part of the process, to pretend they have relevance to the process. no doubt they really want is a lovely Brexit committee where they can ruminate on 30 points of detail every day. though i believe the government should be giving an outline strategy, they are right to not want to have running commentry in what they plan to propose to EU, their negotiating strategy or what their red lines are. this will emerge in the fullness of time, pretty much within a month of article 50. no point saying now "we are going to deliver [Mohs] Brexit" and have months of complaining thats the wrong sort before we've even begun talking with the EU.

 

[vegster]

referring to her as Thatcher makes you look like a bit of a dick with an enormous chip on your shoulder, thought i would mention it before you go public and make yourself look silly

Thanks for the advice,you are far more knowledgeable than I when it comes to looking a dick.

 

[The Clamp]

It's clear to see why you voted leave, one reason and one reason only and there lies the reason a small majority voted to leave and why I will never accept the result, which was a guide only and of course should be debated and voted by Parliament. And if we have to follow the lead of the sensible Irish until we get the right result then so be it.
The likes of you had immigration stuffed down your throat and by who, Nigel Farage for gods sake, and who else did you listen to Boris Johnson and Micheal Gove and all 3 did a runner after lying their arses off.
And you expect people to accept the result and trust our dreadful MP's to waltz into Europe and around the world cutting trade deals in our favour.
The youth who were not even allowed to vote were also stitched up by their own grandparents who still think Victoria is on the throne and don't like a different colour skin.
You must be living in cloud cuckoo land but not so smug as you were yesterday, I can only hope that the whole thing implodes and we get to have another go, but I still would not trust the thick and ignorant to make the right decision this time either.
In case you can't quite work out which way I voted, it was remain.

Post of the thread. Absolutely spot on. Brexiteers cannot stand the idea that their ill
considered decision may be held up to scrutiny. We probably will leave but they loathe the idea of it being examined as it will be shown up for. The mess it is.
Brilliant post sir, take a bloody bow.

 

[smeg]

That Daily Mail front page, really is an absolute disgrace. An disgusting personal attack on three eminently qualified men, who have carefully considered and applied the rule of law - and made very clear that they do NOT seek to pass any judgment or comment on the pros and cons of Brexit itself - only on the correct process to be followed.

The website piece, profiling the three judges - describing one as 'openly gay' just sums up the depths to which they are prepared to go.

How does anyone lower themselves to buy this shit?

My Mum does but she thinks we have been "over run", thinks those refugee kids in Calais are lying about their motives and that it's going to be a cold winter.......... We try not to discuss her views very often.

 

[nicko31]

That Daily Mail front page, really is an absolute disgrace. An disgusting personal attack on three eminently qualified men, who have carefully considered and applied the rule of law - and made very clear that they do NOT seek to pass any judgment or comment on the pros and cons of Brexit itself - only on the correct process to be followed.

The website piece, profiling the three judges - describing one as 'openly gay' just sums up the depths to which they are prepared to go.

How does anyone lower themselves to buy this shit?

You only have to look at the comments to realise the type of people that read this bile. Think this has grounds for complaint...

Dailymail.co.uk, Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday are members of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). Dailymail.co.uk, Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday adheres to the Editors’ Code of Practice as enforced by IPSO who are contactable for advice at:

IPSO, Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London, EC4M 7LG
Website: http://www.ipso.co.uk/

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

you think that once negotiations are formally in place with EU that there will be secrecy for the next two years? lol. all that is happening here is that some reluctant remainers and Labour in particular want to be part of the process, to pretend they have relevance to the process. no doubt they really want is a lovely Brexit committee where they can ruminate on 30 points of detail every day. though i believe the government should be giving an outline strategy, they are right to not want to have running commentry in what they plan to propose to EU, their negotiating strategy or what their red lines are. this will emerge in the fullness of time, pretty much within a month of article 50. no point saying now "we are going to deliver [Mohs] Brexit" and have months of complaining thats the wrong sort before we've even begun talking with the EU.

Excellent post sir!

 

[5ways]

'Enemies of the People' talk really is the way fascists talk, absolutely horrific.

 

[Baldseagull]

I thought that was more that you were told the outcome of the vote without actually having the hassle of holding a vote in the first place and where your made to go along with the decision with no say in the matter.

Seems like some people prefer this system because it clearly means that they don't have to take any responsibility for themselves and also that they prefer faceless unelected individuals with no public accountability in this country to run their lives and tell them what to do and how to live because it saves them from having to think about it and it's potential impact on lives. They must know whats best for someone living here because they have a job deciding these sorts of things BUT no experience of life here (or equally any other part of the EU that's affected by their one size fits all decisions, no matter how harmful that may be to some parts of the EU)

Basically it's their utopian Nanny state running their lives with little or no input by those affected in this Country and it means that the EU supporters can all pretend that its all democratic but are just kidding themselves. (ie we're not to be trusted to actually think for ourselves because we might make a wrong decision here or there along the way, even if the ultimate outcome is far better than if we did nothing)

This is the system that is so beloved of Leave campaigners, would you rather the EU invoke article 50 for us?

It has always been my feeling that sovereignty is not mine or yours, in or out of the EU, and I felt happier with some wider input into the way our lives are governed, you know, rather than having a single political party deciding everything. Theresa May has her position by virtue of being elected leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament, Parliament is the body that creates legislation, well the stuff that is not handed down from the EU, so she has to put it to them.

 

[BigGully]

That Daily Mail front page, really is an absolute disgrace. An disgusting personal attack on three eminently qualified men, who have carefully considered and applied the rule of law - and made very clear that they do NOT seek to pass any judgment or comment on the pros and cons of Brexit itself - only on the correct process to be followed.

The website piece, profiling the three judges - describing one as 'openly gay' just sums up the depths to which they are prepared to go.

How does anyone lower themselves to buy this shit?

You made me read it.

I felt there were many points that showed their impartiality and resolve, not a damning verdict that you interpreted it as.

Somehow the 'openly gay' quote that you wrote as some kind of smear wasnt at all, it seems he made history by being the first openly gay judge to be made a Lord Justice of Appeal, although I am not sure the relevance of his sexuality to his rise in the judiciary.

But unless I missed something I actually do not know what offended you so much about the piece, accepting it was a swipe at them and their decision but otherwise seemed not to discredit them at all, in fact having read their profiles I have some grudging respect on how they might have came to their decision yesterday.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

It's the EU way. Keep having referendums until you finally get the 'right' result.

I did notice you singling out the Danish referendum earlier on. Can you give a few specifics about why this was an unfair process?

 

[Baldseagull]

you think that once negotiations are formally in place with EU that there will be secrecy for the next two years? lol. all that is happening here is that some reluctant remainers and Labour in particular want to be part of the process, to pretend they have relevance to the process. no doubt they really want is a lovely Brexit committee where they can ruminate on 30 points of detail every day. though i believe the government should be giving an outline strategy, they are right to not want to have running commentry in what they plan to propose to EU, their negotiating strategy or what their red lines are. this will emerge in the fullness of time, pretty much within a month of article 50. no point saying now "we are going to deliver [Mohs] Brexit" and have months of complaining thats the wrong sort before we've even begun talking with the EU.

There will not be any idea of what the eventual deal will look like within a month of A50 going in, it will take most of the 2 years if not longer to sort out.
I am finding it quite amusing that the Leavers want May to have the power of a dictator, so we can escape the "undemocratic" EU on any terms she sees fit to.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I believe the Daily Express headquarters building just spontaneously combusted.

Like a rising phoenix ...

"a crisis as grave as anything since the dark days of Churchill vowed we will fight them on the beaches .... Truly, November 3,2016 was the day democracy died"

.... just the usual incisive measured response then

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You made me read it.

I felt there were many points that showed their impartiality and resolve, not a damning verdict that you interpreted it as.

Somehow the 'openly gay' quote that you wrote as some kind of smear wasnt at all, it seems he made history by being the first openly gay judge to be made a Lord Justice of Appeal, although I am not sure the relevance of his sexuality to his rise in the judiciary.

But unless I missed something I actually do not know what offended you so much about the piece, accepting it was a swipe at them and their decision but otherwise seemed not to discredit them at all, in fact having read their profiles I have some grudging respect on how they might have came to their decision yesterday.

Think you may have missed something.

The headline.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You made me read it.

I felt there were many points that showed their impartiality and resolve, not a damning verdict that you interpreted it as.

Somehow the 'openly gay' quote that you wrote as some kind of smear wasnt at all, it seems he made history by being the first openly gay judge to be made a Lord Justice of Appeal, although I am not sure the relevance of his sexuality to his rise in the judiciary.

But unless I missed something I actually do not know what offended you so much about the piece, accepting it was a swipe at them and their decision but otherwise seemed not to discredit them at all, in fact having read their profiles I have some grudging respect on how they might have came to their decision yesterday.

This is utter blinkered tripe. There are many left and right wing people who are condemning this article. You've lost any respect I had for you.

 

[tinycowboy]

That Daily Mail front page, really is an absolute disgrace. An disgusting personal attack on three eminently qualified men, who have carefully considered and applied the rule of law - and made very clear that they do NOT seek to pass any judgment or comment on the pros and cons of Brexit itself - only on the correct process to be followed.

The website piece, profiling the three judges - describing one as 'openly gay' just sums up the depths to which they are prepared to go.

How does anyone lower themselves to buy this shit?

Totally agree. In the context of the murder of an MP a few months before, it's horrendous. How are any of us helped by this continual striving by one newspaper to drive wedges between people in society? It's a constant drip drip drip of sometimes subtle, mostly not very subtle attempts to highlight perceived/actual faults in people who aren't like "us" (whoever "we" are) and how they are to blame for the state we're in. Is this really the 21st Century?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Think you may have missed something.

The headline.

Quite.