[Politics] Brexit

[Murray 17]

As a point of interest, what percentage of parliament is Douglas Carswell's UKIP seat?

Ha, ha! Well he's certainly not campaigning against the will of the people.

 

[Albumen]

I'm glad you agree, I'm getting pissed off by these lightweight unpatriotic moaning crybabies, I'm sure your are too! I expect they don't like the Queen either. To be honest I suspect some of them are just EU stooges, sent in by Junker et al; the EU is actively trying to subvert British democracy.

People who don't support the will of the people when they voted for something that wasn't precisely and explicitly defined (and still isn't) are just snowflake liberal elite traitorous scumbags (or worse, dirty EU stooges).

We have to fully support May and her clique, and fully enable her to enact in whichever way she sees fit. It would be undemocratic and unpatriotic not to do so.

aaaaaaand stopped reading.

 

[GT49er]

This 'will of the people' irks me.

Its being on the losing side in the referendum that's irking you.

 

[Albumen]

These &^^**^ don't respect the result of the referendum.

It was only a suggestive referendum.

 

[Albumen]

Can't be anymore than what Cameron wasted on his Pro EU Bullshit booklet.

That cost him his job, the utter pillock.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Stupid argument. Who caused the appeal to be needed? Yes, that's right, someone who wanted to thwart the wishes of the majority, making it more difficult (and costly) for the government to do its job.

Who caused the appeal to be needed? Theresa May and the government did by thinking they had Royal Prerogative to invoke article 50, when as an advisory referendum, final parliamentary approval was needed. The High Court ruled this, The Supreme Court ruled this because Parliament included this in the referendum act.

If anyone was making it more difficult and kicking the can down the road and trying to delay things, it was the Government by appealing the High Court ruling 82 days ago. They should have accepted the High Court ruling, saved tax payers money and got on with Brexit. It's not as if they don't have a clue what they're doing with Brexit and wanted to buy more time, is it.

 

[portslade seagull]

This 'will of the people' irks me. I get how the majority of voters won a slim majority, but how can it be the 'will of the people' when about 70% of the electorate didn't vote for it?
And blindly following May without questioning the dishonesty, the self-contradiction and the wishful thinking, not to mention the petulant threats to turn to the UK in to a coperate tax haven if she doesn't get her way, is absolutely idiotic.

I just don't get what you don't understand. Slim majority 1.6M don't think so. The British public voted and voted OUT. Regardless of how many people voted or what percentage ( turn out was 76% by the way which is much more than any GE of local by elections) . If you want to blame a group of people for the remain failure go after the people who couldn't be arsed to get out of their armchairs in the 1st place. Just for the record the support for Brexit has actually increased due to the incessant carping

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Its being on the losing side in the referendum that's irking you.

No, it's the fact that most Brexiters keep sticking to the tired old 'counter argument' of 'respect the will of the British people' yet fail in anyway to address any of the issues people raise about the apparent lack of strategy, the dishonesty and the wishful thinking.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I just don't get what you don't understand. Slim majority 1.6M don't think so. The British public voted and voted OUT. Regardless of how many people voted or what percentage ( turn out was 76% by the way which is much more than any GE of local by elections) . If you want to blame a group of people for the remain failure go after the people who couldn't be arsed to get out of their armchairs in the 1st place. Just for the record the support for Brexit has actually increased due to the incessant carping

I don't understand how when 60% of people DIDNT't vote (remain and those who didn't vote) for Brexit it can be called the will of the people. Having 37% of the electorate vote out isn't exactly the will of the people is it.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

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

They are trying to support the will of their own people, because Scotlaand voted Remain.

 

[BBassic]

These &^^**^ don't respect the result of the referendum.

Possibly but I think really they're just wanting to ensure the best deal happens. I personally think that the way to ensure that is to have people that we've elected to Parliament work it out. A second referendum, whether its out of not respecting the first or otherwise, is utterly unnecessary.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

So do you really think that comment is nasty.? Really?

Not as nasty as some, but it's not exactly a conciliatory tone.

I just got fed up reading through the thread at the nastiness ON BOTH SIDES. Just picked your post at Random on my way through..... Nothing personal.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Possibly but I think really they're just wanting to ensure the best deal happens. I personally think that the way to ensure that is to have people that we've elected to Parliament work it out. A second referendum, whether its out of not respecting the first or otherwise, is utterly unnecessary.

I don't know what deal they think they are going to get, may be they know we wont get any deals at all and are just using this as an excuse to hold things up. I don't trust them one bit.

 

[mikeyjh]

Stupid argument. Who caused the appeal to be needed? Yes, that's right, someone who wanted to thwart the wishes of the majority, making it more difficult (and costly) for the government to do its job.

Erm, it was May and her government who thought, incorrectly, that they could trigger article 50 without an act of parliament. Miller et al, correctly, challenged this - The high court agreed, at which point May could have admitted her mistake and accepted the decision of the court but oh no, she decided to delay the process and spend £mmm on challenging the high court.

The thing is, they still haven't learned have they, this afternoon David Davis said that legislation would be published 'within days' and that it would be 'the most straightforward possible'. He also said that the government would 'respect' the decision of the court, all this without actually taking time to read the judgement and come to an informed decision.

 

[nicko31]

Stupid argument. Who caused the appeal to be needed? Yes, that's right, someone who wanted to thwart the wishes of the majority, making it more difficult (and costly) for the government to do its job.

What part of UK law don't you understand?

 

[Two Professors]

They are trying to support the will of their own people, because Scotlaand voted Remain.

So the will of the people who actually bothered voting in Scotland means more than the will of the people who actually bothered voting in Great Britain?

 

[Two Professors]

I want to know how much the tax payer has paid for the government failing in the supreme court against something that was obviously going to fail.

Ask Gina Miller

 

[larus]

I don't think so, if Brexit was the icing on the cake as far as their will for a second (independence) referendum, the part of this judgement that dealt with devolved administration is the cherry on the icing on that cake. Suspect there will be a second go within 18 months and they will win handsomely.

Cameron's legacy continues.

That's what all polls published since their last vote and also since Brexit have all pointed towards the majority wanting to STILL stay in the Union. Add to that the fact that oil is vastly down on the price at the last referendum, then I think you are way off.

 

[larus]

She has forced the government to abide by the constitution of this country. When the Referendum Act was passed in 2015, it was passed as advisory.
When we went into the Common Market, an Act of Parliament was passed in 1973. It requires an Act of Parliament to leave.
It does make me laugh that those who voted for British sovereignty, then moan and complain when British judges in British courts rule that our own constitution is followed.
It won't prevent us leaving the EU, but it will make sure that the law is followed with elected MPs having their say in how we do it.

I have no issue with Parliament having a vote on the outcome of the negotiations. It does seem bizarre to instil pre-conditions on what the outcome of the negotiations are. If, for example, parliament said "We must retain access to the single market" (as per Corbyn), then the EU know they have us over a barrel.

To me it would appear to be sensible to say "Look, the country voted Brexit, and the main thrust was immigration/borders, ECJ and parliamentary accountability. Therefore, the government will trigger Brexit, enter into negotiations and parliament votes on the final agreement". In a negotiation,it is insane to let the other side know your stance on issues.

In reality, all that has happened is that the government will pass a simple bill though to allow them to trigger Article 50.

 

[larus]

As a point of interest, what percentage of parliament is Douglas Carswell's UKIP seat?

As a point of interest, what percentage of the national vote did these parties get:
i. UKIP
ii. SNP.
iii. Lib Dems?