[Politics] Brexit

[GoldWithFalmer]

I just wish these high Court judges would have come out and ordered the electoral commission to inform, on the ballot paper,that this referendum was only advisory and that the final decision would be made by elected representatives.

Excellent post and sorry i have erased most of it,but to highlight this point...........

 

[Hastings gull]

I just wish these high Court judges would have come out and ordered the electoral commission to inform, on the ballot paper,that this referendum was only advisory and that the final decision would be made by elected representatives.

I voted to leave the EU and knew that would mean saying goodbye to all the rules that came with membership.

I did not think we would win but we did and now feel let down that the politicians who voted overwhelmingly to allow this referendum did not have the courage to challenge this themselves other than on the BBC sofa.

They allowed a group of hedgefund managers and financial and legal boffins along with a couple of hairdressers who regretted their original vote, to derail and try to make some extra currency trading profit for their city chums.

The house has damaged itself far worse than when they claimed a few to many jolly perks on the taxpayer.

This whole episode has harmed us all and will lead to a real nasty piece of work appearing very soon to climb the political ladder, and I don't mean a pantomime dame like Farage. It will be much worse.
The end!

The vast majority voting in the referendum assumed that whoever won, would carry the day. Constitutional experts will tell us that this can't be done, and I am not knowledgeable enough on this to comment. If they say so, then so be it.
But the fact is that the vast majority is not interested in such matters, and if they feel they are now being cheated out of what they voted for, the future is not bright. Politicians in general are not popular, and the Westminster Bubble is, I think, widely seen as self-interested and largely out of touch. It would not take much for what you predict to come about.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It still amazes me that we, as a country, voted to leave with one of the primary reasons being we wanted to be more democratic, yet in this instance where Parliament is demanding a say, those same people aren't happy. I fear that many people don't understand what democracy is.

And I do wish it had been made clear from the get go that referenda aren't legally binding. It astounds me that people seemed to believe otherwise.

No idea where they would have got that idea from ....

.... astounding.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

As far as I can tell most advocates for 'soft' Brexit really mean continuing membership of the single market which would entail keeping one of if not all of the following ... Free movement, Supremacy of ECJ law, substantial membership fee.

They also say Brexiteers didn't know what we were voting for despite the Prime Minister and Chancellor and leading figures on the Brexit side all making it clear on numerous occasions that voting Leave = ending membership of the single market.



Primacy of UK law/parliament, End to free movement, Ending the net Billions yearly fee or to put it another way Real Brexit please.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I just wish these high Court judges would have come out and ordered the electoral commission to inform, on the ballot paper,that this referendum was only advisory and that the final decision would be made by elected representatives.

I voted to leave the EU and knew that would mean saying goodbye to all the rules that came with membership.

I did not think we would win but we did and now feel let down that the politicians who voted overwhelmingly to allow this referendum did not have the courage to challenge this themselves other than on the BBC sofa.

They allowed a group of hedgefund managers and financial and legal boffins along with a couple of hairdressers who regretted their original vote, to derail and try to make some extra currency trading profit for their city chums.

The house has damaged itself far worse than when they claimed a few to many jolly perks on the taxpayer.

This whole episode has harmed us all and will lead to a real nasty piece of work appearing very soon to climb the political ladder, and I don't mean a pantomime dame like Farage. It will be much worse.

The end!



Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

The judges ruled the way they did because that's the law of the land. Theresa May isn't above it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Theatre of Trees]

No idea where they would have got that idea from ....

.... astounding.

The legally binding bit has to be part of the original bill announcing the Referendum.

What you are highlighting above is typical David Cameron gobbledegook because if you turn the result the other way and remain won what has he got to implement? Nothing, which was what Cameron was banking on, not the kick in the gonads the electorate actually delivered.

 

[Steve in Japan]

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.

Oh, and there is absolutely no guarantee the EU will make it available to us.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The legally binding bit has to be part of the original bill announcing the Referendum.

What you are highlighting above is typical David Cameron gobbledegook because if you turn the result the other way and remain won what has he got to implement? Nothing, which was what Cameron was banking on, not the kick in the gonads the electorate actually delivered.

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!

 

[Lincoln Imp]

a handful of EU extremists willing to risk our democracy for their personal view.

But here you are saying that the job of MPs is to blindly follow what the common man tells them to. It has never been that. The role of MPs through history,has been to take careful note of the views of the people and then exercise their judgement as elected representatives. Their judgement, before the referendum, was that the needs of the state are best served by remaining in the EU. It may be that, having studied the results of the referendum, many of them feel it would be politically wise to move away from their previous view. They have a right to do that, just as they have a right not to. That right remains until the people indicate through the ballot box that they no longer want them there. It is wrong to deny them that right by calling them extremists.

One other thing is surely clear. If MPs decide that, rather than vote according to their genuinely-held beliefs, they will simply do what they feel the public wants then it is important that they are very clear in their own mind what it is the public actually wants. The information they have before them in this case is that a very large number of people want to Remain in the EU and a slightly larger number want to Leave, and that whilst Leave is an absolute term there are several different forms of non-membership. If the referendum result tells us anything it is that the consensus is for the closest possible relationship with the EU short of membership. 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.

 

[Soulman]

But here you are saying that the job of MPs is to blindly follow what the common man tells them to. It has never been that. The role of MPs through history,has been to take careful note of the views of the people and then exercise their judgement as elected representatives. Their judgement, before the referendum, was that the needs of the state are best served by remaining in the EU. It may be that, having studied the results of the referendum, many of them feel it would be politically wise to move away from their previous view. They have a right to do that, just as they have a right not to. That right remains until the people indicate through the ballot box that they no longer want them there. It is wrong to deny them that right by calling them extremists.

One other thing is surely clear. If MPs decide that, rather than vote according to their genuinely-held beliefs, they will simply do what they feel the public wants then it is important that they are very clear in their own mind what it is the public actually wants. The information they have before them in this case is that a very large number of people want to Remain in the EU and a slightly larger number want to Leave, and that whilst Leave is an absolute term there are several different forms of non-membership. If the referendum result tells us anything it is that the consensus is for the closest possible relationship with the EU short of membership. 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.

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.

 

[seaford]

17 million people are wrong but a Guyanan hedge fund lady interested in profits and 3 corrupt eu paid judges are correct ?

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.

 

[GT49er]

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.

Well said! "............hysterics of the tabloids or the far right agendas of Trump-loving UKIP leaders and their disciples " No hyperbole, hysterics or derogatory language from the remain camp there, eh?.

 

[Soulman]

Well said! "............hysterics of the tabloids or the far right agendas of Trump-loving UKIP leaders and their disciples " No hyperbole, hysterics or derogatory language from the remain camp there, eh?.

Exactly, this "far right" which is always put up as "agendas", what agendas, and is anybody that does not agree with Remain, far right......nonsense eh, mind you we could have extreme far right i suppose.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Just in case anyone was hoping this legal hurdle would trigger a General election giving a chance to reverse the referendum result ...

Anti-Brexit parties would win 150 fewer seats than pro-Leave parties at a general election, analysis suggests

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/anti-brexit-parties-would-win-150-fewer-seats-than-pro-leave-par/

... yes I'm looking at you Fallon* (who)








*current Lib Dem leader

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

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.

Oh, and there is absolutely no guarantee the EU will make it available to us.

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.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

I thought Brexiteers wanted to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty?

 

[Soulman]

I thought Brexiteers wanted to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty?

Should be achieved once we are out of the EU.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

But here you are saying that the job of MPs is to blindly follow what the common man tells them to. It has never been that. The role of MPs through history,has been to take careful note of the views of the people and then exercise their judgement as elected representatives. Their judgement, before the referendum, was that the needs of the state are best served by remaining in the EU. It may be that, having studied the results of the referendum, many of them feel it would be politically wise to move away from their previous view. They have a right to do that, just as they have a right not to. That right remains until the people indicate through the ballot box that they no longer want them there. It is wrong to deny them that right by calling them extremists.

One other thing is surely clear. If MPs decide that, rather than vote according to their genuinely-held beliefs, they will simply do what they feel the public wants then it is important that they are very clear in their own mind what it is the public actually wants. The information they have before them in this case is that a very large number of people want to Remain in the EU and a slightly larger number want to Leave, and that whilst Leave is an absolute term there are several different forms of non-membership. If the referendum result tells us anything it is that the consensus is for the closest possible relationship with the EU short of membership. 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.

Yes, you make fair points. The behavior of the tabloids this week has been (as per usual) pretty poor. MPs certainly need to be looking for that consensus you mention. I reserve my use of 'extremist' for those intractable on both sides and therefore not
looking for compromise. I'm not sure it is the job of MPs to simply exercise their own views.If they do as you suggest then there is a risk of a rise in extreme right wing
politics which would be the real thing as opposed to the characterization of current politicians.
I would describe the role of MPs as to implement the will of the people using their skills to reach attainable goals. In this case you are right to mention the 16 million who voted Remain. I also think that compromise on this issue is more achievable outside than inside the EU. If the vote had gone the other way then we would have had a binary outcome of a slow march to more political and economic integration with very few (or zero) concessions to the millions who would have wanted out.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

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!

Agree. It is a statement that means everything and nothing, the type of thing Cameron would come out with, suggesting dynamic action when the opposite was intended.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Agree. It is a statement that means everything and nothing, the type of thing Cameron would come out with, suggesting dynamic action when the opposite was intended.

It doesn't really matter though. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Regardless of the legality, if we do not leave the EU then significant numbers of people will lose faith in our political system. That is not the kind of exaggeration that is routine from people of all parties who don't get their own way. It is much more important and usage of 'non binding' is a technicality that will be seen as an override of the will of the people. Debates about how best to deliver the result are entirely different.