[Politics] Brexit

[BadFish]

By that logic anyone leaving the country from now on in should be campaigning to get us to rejoin the EU immediately, since they are now leaving the UK rather than the EU.

There was logic?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Totally illogical nonsense. You're saying that anyone leaving the UK should automatically want to join the EU. Complete and utter garbage.

I agree with you - which is why I started the reply with "by that logic" - the post I was replying to was nonsense too. People leave the UK for a variety of reasons, almost none of them to do with the EU, and they should have a say on its direction all the time that they have friends and family here and/or some intention of returning in the future. Read the post I quoted too eh?

 

[BadFish]

I would find it incredibly ironic if the referendum result is not a legal reason to invoke article 50, because of the rule of UK law, which supposedly many Bexiters want!

I agree it's likely not the case but the thought did make me laugh, I do hope its true.

It isn't legally binding is it. Although it would be kamakazi policy not to invoke it. Although I am not entirely convinced that somehow the political masterminds who have to make the decision will find a way to weasel out of it.

 

[pb21]

It isn't legally binding is it. Although it would be kamakazi policy not to invoke it. Although I am not entirely convinced that somehow the political masterminds who have to make the decision will find a way to weasel out of it.

The article seems to suggest that even if someone wanted to invoke it they wouldn't be, legally, able to?

I am no legal expert though, but what do they know anyway, the law should be left to the ordinary man, like me and I've decide that's what it means.

 

[Guinness Boy]

This is hilarious!

Due to ye good olde UK law it may not be legal to invoke article 50.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Poor old Guardian has to give it's traumatised readership a straw to clutch at

Eff me. That's unreadable and I say that as a some-time Guardian reader. It makes absolutely no sense.

There may well be a case for being very careful around Article 50 but that case is far more to do with clause 1 of that article and the need to conform with a constitution we don't really have, that constitution being for the whole UK which includes devolved areas that did not vote Leave. That stuff read more like wishful thinking based on some vague notion of human rights - while that would be hilarious surely someone on the Leave side would then just appeal on exactly the same grounds?

 

[Seagull58]

I agree with you - which is why I started the reply with "by that logic" - the post I was replying to was nonsense too. People leave the UK for a variety of reasons, almost none of them to do with the EU, and they should have a say on its direction all the time that they have friends and family here and/or some intention of returning in the future. Read the post I quoted too eh?

Apologies

 

[Guinness Boy]

Apologies

Accepted

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Well they are clearly lying and spouting bullshit as usual. Just look at all the Brexit clowns at the top of this thread who think the referendum was an instruction to end free movement of people. They didn’t even research or understand what the question meant FFS!

Why will the next PM/Government end free movement of people (and it will) as it exists now if they don't view it as an instruction ?

 

[pb21]

Why will the next PM/Government end free movement of people (and it will) as it exists now if they don't view it as an instruction ?

The referendum was to see if the electorate would like to leave or remain in the EU, nothing more.

 

[BadFish]

The article seems to suggest that even if someone wanted to invoke it they wouldn't be, legally, able to?

I am no legal expert though, but what do they know anyway, the law should be left to the ordinary man, like me and I've decide that's what it means.

Gotcha sorry misread your post.

 

[BadFish]

The article seems to suggest that even if someone wanted to invoke it they wouldn't be, legally, able to?

I am no legal expert though, but what do they know anyway, the law should be left to the ordinary man, like me and I've decide that's what it

 

[Guinness Boy]

Why will the next PM/Government end free movement of people (and it will) as it exists now if they don't view it as an instruction ?

That's rather the problem with the referendum though, isn't it. People were asked one, simple, non-binding question; should the UK Leave the EU or Remain in the EU?

No mention of free movement or free trade. No mention, even of WHEN we should leave. No mention at all of the EEA or Council of Europe.

Of course many found just answering the simple question difficult enough. 25% of the country or more chose not to answer it at all. The campaigns on both sides quickly deteriorated in to rhetoric, lies and scare stories, precisely because the question, whilst seeming definite, was actually very vague.

Ask a child if they would like fish fingers and the ones that like them will say yes and the ones that don't no, and you have a simple decision on who to give fish fingers to. Ask them if they would like chicken nuggets or a burger instead, with or without chips, peas and ketchup, and you suddenly get a divided room where no one can agree on one course of action. Same here.

 

[BadFish]

Duplicate

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The referendum was to see if the electorate would like to leave or remain in the EU, nothing more.

Which doesn't answer the question. Why will the next PM/Government end free movement of people (and it will) as it exists now if they don't view it as an instruction ?

 

[pb21]

Which doesn't answer the question. Why will the next PM/Government end free movement of people (and it will) as it exists now if they don't view it as an instruction ?

They may choose to view it as an instruction, but it wasn't one. They may choose to not view it as an instruction and they would be right. The referendum was to see if the electorate would like to leave or remain in the EU, nothing more.

According to the Ashcroft poll it wasn't even the main reason people voted for Brexit.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

That's rather the problem with the referendum though, isn't it. People were asked one, simple, non-binding question; should the UK Leave the EU or Remain in the EU?

No mention of free movement or free trade. No mention, even of WHEN we should leave. No mention at all of the EEA or Council of Europe.

Of course many found just answering the simple question difficult enough. 25% of the country or more chose not to answer it at all. The campaigns on both sides quickly deteriorated in to rhetoric, lies and scare stories, precisely because the question, whilst seeming definite, was actually very vague.

Ask a child if they would like fish fingers and the ones that like them will say yes and the ones that don't no, and you have a simple decision on who to give fish fingers to. Ask them if they would like chicken nuggets or a burger instead, with or without chips, peas and ketchup, and you suddenly get a divided room where no one can agree on one course of action. Same here.

True but specific commitments were made and signed up to during the campaign about ending free movement by Gove/Boris influencing some peoples vote therefore they know it has to be addressed which is why the current definition of free movement will end no matter which serious Tory leadership candidate becomes PM.

 

[pb21]

True but specific commitments were made and signed up to during the campaign about ending free movement by Gove/Boris

I dont think any actual specific commitments were made were they, just random thoughts and abstract ideas about what we could/may/couldn't/may not do?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

They may choose to view it as an instruction, but it wasn't one. They may choose to not view it as an instruction and they would be right. The referendum was to see if the electorate would like to leave or remain in the EU, nothing more.

According to the Ashcroft poll it wasn't even the main reason people voted for Brexit.

It is already being viewed as an instruction to end free movement of people by all the serious contenders so all the Brexit clowns at the top of this thread who think the referendum was an instruction to end free movement of people were right despite the specific question not being on the ballot paper.

I dont think any actual specific commitments were made were they, just random thoughts and abstract ideas about what we could/may/couldn't/may not do?

They seemed pretty specific to me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...and-gove-pledge-tough-new-immigration-system/

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org...s_based_non_discriminatory_immigration_system

 

[Guinness Boy]

True but specific commitments were made and signed up to during the campaign about ending free movement by Gove/Boris influencing some peoples vote therefore they know it has to be addressed which is why the current definition of free movement will end no matter which serious Tory leadership candidate becomes PM.

I dont think any actual specific commitments were made were they, just random thoughts and abstract ideas about what we could/may/couldn't/may not do?

Agreed. A pedant writes that you will not see anything in writing from either of those two gents agreeing to end free movement. You WILL see tweets from Leave agreeing to give £50 million a day to the NHS instead. Douglas Carswell's for instance.

 

[Baldseagull]

Which doesn't answer the question. Why will the next PM/Government end free movement of people (and it will) as it exists now if they don't view it as an instruction ?

Not as convinced as you that they will, or if they can. If they do, it will be because they think it is the single largest issue that people voted on. I believe Cameron is saying that to make negotiations as tough as possible for Boris. Boris will want more than anything else for British Financial services to be able to operate in the E.U., if he gets that without free movement attached, he will have performed a miracle in my opinion.