[Politics] Brexit

[JCL666]

If only your post pre dated 23rd June 2016, but alas .................

sorry but I don't get what you mean?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

A purely ADVISORY referendum, that returned a far from conclusive response.

Ye gods , you must be puce with embarrassment posting crap like this.

Which part, exactly?

The part where I call a (very clearly) advisory referendum, an 'advisory referendum', or the part where I describe a public vote of 51-49% to be 'far from conclusive'?

Seriously, which of those two points can possible be argued?

To answer your later question (what if the result had been the other way?), I'd be fighting my corner and suggesting we respect the vote, I guess, but I certainly wouldn't be embarrassed for anyone claiming that it was too close to be conclusive. As well you know, Leave hero Farage even publically stated that he would NOT accept a close result against. My view is that the vote would have carried more worth if it HAD been binding, but that there should have been a high majority threshold set out in advance, for it to be considered so.

 

[scamander]

Yes they can take those view into account but the majority of the electorate, those that voted remain and those that did'nt vote still have interests that can't be ignored. So it is perfectly legitimate for that MP to carefully scrutinise what is proposed and if they feel its not in the interests of the majority of their constituents then they can take a differing view and make their judgement on that.

I agree - my point on this was in the context of an MP in a constituency which voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, this may not be the MP's own view and could cause some division.

 

[El Presidente]

so the "we elect mp's to make these decisions for us " argument is only valid if the vote goes your way, yes ?

You're being paranoid.

I've consistently said that the vote is a mandate for Brexit. What is now needed is the best terms for this country.

The terms of Brexit are however, IMO, far more important in terms of economic impact over the next decade or two. To hand over those terms to two or three politicians without parliamentary scrutiny is crazy. What if they make an almighty pigs breakfast of negoatiations and it is allowed to sail through?

You may have a lot of faith in Johnson, Fox and Davies, but I'm unconvinced by their competence or ethics given their historical behaviour.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I've lifted this from the BBC.

But the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, declared: "The government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."
The three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in legislation relating to the EU.
They added that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.


In simple terms I think it just says that the government can't enact Article 50 and that Parliament has to say it's ok.

I agree. I think the ruling may be used in order to rubber stamp any proposal for the terms of Brexit.

 

[BigGully]

sorry but I don't get what you mean?

Oh yes you do .............. I cannot remember one poster citing that the refrendum was undemocratic prior to 23rd June 2016, there I spelled it out for you, but you knew what I meant all along.

 

[lawros left foot]

The ultimate irony would be if the Government appealed this all the way up to the European courts.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Yes they can take those view into account but the majority of the electorate, those that voted remain and those that did'nt vote still have interests that can't be ignored. So it is perfectly legitimate for that MP to carefully scrutinise what is proposed and if they feel its not in the interests of the majority of their constituents then they can take a differing view and make their judgement on that.

That's what should happen but there's a bit of a snag in that we won't be able to know the terms of life after the EU until we give notice that we are leaving. So all MPs will be able to vote on with any certainty is "shall we give notice to leave". Pass the crisps.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No, the High Court has said that Brexit is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That means that in some form, parliament will vote on the direction the government wants to take Brexit. I think.

No the High Court has said that Article 50 cannot be triggered without a Parliamentary vote.

 

[oneillco]

Fair enough points but the amount of hypocrisy amongst remainders is astounding , you cannot seriously tell me you'd be acting this way had the vote gone your way,

I fully expect that if the referendum had resulted in a narrow remain majority then UKIP would have continued their campaign to leave in whatever way they could. Even if I was a "Leave" supporter I couldn't argue with Parliament being fully engaged to hopefully avoid the country being steered down the wrong path by just a few fanatics in the Cabinet. Actually the thought has occured to me that Theresa May knows full well that she has to engage Parliament but can now pass the blame onto the High Court.

 

[JCL666]

Oh yes you do .............. I cannot remember one poster citing that the refrendum was undemocratic prior to 23rd June 2016, there I spelled it out for you, but you knew what I meant all along.

No I didn't know what you meant.

The point of my post was a flippant remark on how democratic processes work. Which in our country (as other posters have pointed out) means Parliamentary processes etc within the framework of a constitutional monarchy. A lot of people seem to think it works differently.

 

[East Preston Gull]

Good luck with getting re-elected by your constituency electorate if you just happen to be a remoaning MP. This will sadly be the end of the public getting involved in election days of the future. Maybe that was the plan all along. Sad day indeed.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[BigGully]

No I didn't know what you meant.

The point of my post was a flippant remark on how democratic processes work. Which in our country (as other posters have pointed out) means Parliamentary processes etc within the framework of a constitutional monarchy. A lot of people seem to think it works differently.

Well it seems that Parliament felt that way too, no one was expecting this, Remainers or Brexiteers, I feel it will be overturned one way or other, but people seem to be getting extremely expert on something that they never identified prior to todays verdict.

 

[WhingForPresident]

 

[wellquickwoody]

Fair enough points but the amount of hypocrisy amongst remainders is astounding , you cannot seriously tell me you'd be acting this way had the vote gone your way,

The problem is that the margin of victory was too close, if there had been a larger gap between the 2 sides then people could do nothing but accept the decision.

Well, apart from blame the stupid people of course

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

No the High Court has said that Article 50 cannot be triggered without a Parliamentary vote.

But the question will not be 'shall we stay or leave the EU'. It will probably be some sort of scrutiny of whatever plan they have for leaving.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Good luck with getting re-elected by your constituency electorate if you just happen to be a remoaning MP. This will sadly be the end of the public getting involved in election days of the future. Maybe that was the plan all along. Sad day indeed.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

Don't be ridiculous. Brighton and Hove as an area voted remain and, while I would expect Simon Kirby to be whipped in to voting with Teresa May, I would also expect Caroline Lucas of the Green Party and centre-ist Labour MP Peter Kyle to vote remain, and for it to increase their majorities next time. In fact, though it would not be representative entirely across constituencies, a parliamentary vote of 338 - 312 in favour of Brexit would broadly mirror the popular vote.

What's more there's a chance to vote on more than one broadbrush question.

It's not a rubber stamp. I thought you lot wanted parliamentary democracy above everything else? Or was it actually about kicking out Johnny Foreigner after all?

 

[JCL666]

View attachment 79137

It seems that legally the government cannot do that.

The people who voted have been misled.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Don't be ridiculous. Brighton and Hove as an area voted remain and, while I would expect Simon Kirby to be whipped in to voting with Teresa May I would also expect Caroline Lucas of the Green Party and centre-ist Labour MP Peter Kyle to vote remain, and for it to increase their majorities next time. In fact, though it would not be representative entirely across constituencies a parliamentary vote of 338 - 312 in favour of Brexit would broadly mirror the popular vote.

What's more there's a chance to vote on more than one broadbrush question.

It's not a rubber stamp. I thought you lot wanted parliamentary democracy above everything else? Or was it actually about kicking out Johnny Foreigner after all?

We do want parliamentary democracy. It was a democratic act of parliament that voted through the referendum act. The referendum was clear in its question and clear in its answer. We only have this obsession now about 'parliamentary democracy' from remainers as it is the only way that they see the process being impeded. Parliamentary democracy is the excuse being bandied around as an excuse to get the 'right' result. A truly EU trait.

 

[wellquickwoody]

It seems that legally the government cannot do that.

The people who voted have been misled.

Now where have I heard that before.......