Brexit may not mean Brexit at all: UK.gov loses Article 50 lawsuit The British government has lost a legal challenge against invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which would be the first step towards Great Britain leaving the European Union. The judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU was handed down at the High Court on Thursday morning, sending shockwaves …
"The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. And the Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum."
Well, grand. But in the UK, the Executive doesn't get to enact domestic legislation on a whim, backed by referendum or not. The legislation passed for a referendum could have, but explicitly did not, state that the referendum was binding, merely advisory. Thus standard procedures apply, and legislation such as A50 need to be voted on by by Legislature. What they do is up to them but, you know, they were elected as our representatives to decide on UK law and they will.
It's the only legal option. We wouldn't want the Government to override Parliament and use Royal Prerogative to push domestic legislation, that way lies dictatorship.
No-one doubts the sovereignty of Parliament, in particular their power to remove an executive of whose actions they disapprove. But democratically elected representatives need to think very carefully before overriding the democratically expressed will of the people who elect them.
As for the unholy combination of merchant bankers and unelected judges who achieved this result ...
It was an advisory referendum which is used to steer government policy, not a legally binding referendum. So the government can draw up a Brexit bill according to the referendum result and parliament can reject it. It's not difficult to understand or particularly non-democratic. It'd probably end up bringing the government down if parliament rejected it though.
The UK is however stuck in this position of the EU saying "no negotiation until Article 50 and then you're gone in two years" and parliament having something to vote on. By the time there's a bill, it'll too late to turn back should the rest of the EU so decide.
"By the time there's a bill, it'll too late to turn back should the rest of the EU so decide."
See : The Scottish cross-bench peer who wrote Article 50 - the procedure by which the UK would leave the EU - believed it was "not irrevocable".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
"The Scottish cross-bench peer who wrote Article 50 - the procedure by which the UK would leave the EU - believed it was "not irrevocable"."
If he's correct, then any negotiations with Europe are a waste of time. They'll refuse to make the slightest concession, in the hope of persuading the UK not to go through with it.
"But it is a morally binding promise"
The correct next step, given the margin of 'victory', was to call a general election where all parties would set out their position and the people would exercise their democratic choice. If the new majority government was elected on a "Brexit means Brexit" platform, then that would be the will of the people.
The only thing you could claim is that we should leave the EU. But there is *nothing* about on what terms.
Even if you accept the result as a clear mandate to leave the EU (I dont), it is sickening to see a government claiming the right to make up for themselves what the terms should be. What right have they got to subvert parliament about that decision?
None,as has now been judged.
Hopefully this is the first sign of sanity after a summer of shame.
What right have they got to subvert parliament about that decision?
As a remain-voter, I do feel obliged to play devil's advocate. The government have not claimed the right to make up the terms. They can't. If we leave the EU, we will need to repeal the European Communities Act, and an Act of Parliament can only be repealed *drum roll* by another act of parliament!
This entire case has absolutely no bearing on the manner of our leaving. It is solely about whether the government can invoke Article 50 without parliamentary approval, which is an entirely different thing to setting the terms (which would require some sort of ratifying statute legislation - including the repeal of the EC Act - which Parliament would then get to see).
If we leave the EU, we will need to repeal the European Communities Act, and an Act of Parliament can only be repealed *drum roll* by another act of parliament!
Also playing the "what if" game: The vast majority of sources before this court case was filed (in fact, before it started) said that triggering A50 was irrevocable. If so, then triggering A50 would mean that the ECA would effectively be nullified by the government's decision*.
If A50 can be backed out of, as some have just started saying, then the use of the Royal Prerogative would seem appropriate. This question has not been definitively answered, though.
* Actually, the European Law on this issue states that it must be triggered in accordance with the countries law/constitution. Therefore, without an Act of Parliament, the EU may be able to argue that it hasn't been correctly and lawfully triggered and bring Brexit to a halt. Surely it's worth taking it to Parliament to avoid that highly embarrassing situation, isn't it?
"If A50 can be backed out of, as some have just started saying,"
Even the author of Article 50 is suggesting it can be canceled !
And as I've noted before -
“there is nothing in Article 50 itself one way or another; it does not say
that you can retract or, once invoked, that you cannot retract. So it is left
to the lawyers to have those enjoyable disputes to sort it out.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldconst/44/44.pdf
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/13804.htm#_idTextAnchor008
Even the author of Article 50 is suggesting it can be canceled !
Yes, he is... Now.
Before this case started, the majority of those expressing an opinion on it were saying it couldn't.
If there's even a chance that it is a one way process, the Royal Prerogative cannot be used, as it potentially overrides an Act of Parliament.
The sensible thing to do would be to get the courts (probably including the ECJ) to rule on whether it is possible to back out of it. Otherwise, assume it's not possible, and get Parliament to approve it.
@Chemist: From the first ref. you gave. This supports my position: We don't know for certain, we'd better assume we can't back out.
13. It is unclear whether a notification under Article 50, once made, could be unilaterally withdrawn by the UK without the consent of other EU member states. In the light of the uncertainty that exists on this point, and given that the uncertainty would only ever be resolved after Article 50 had already been triggered, we consider that it would be prudent for Parliament to work on the assumption that the triggering of Article 50 is an action that the UK cannot unilaterally reverse.
"From the first ref. you gave."
From the second they suggest that it's probably down to the lawyers/courts. However the fact that the author himself suggests that it's reversible weights quite a lot with me.
Other people have suggested since the ref. that Art.50 should be reversible but they've been hard to find in the mass of noise on the subject.
On the other hand if it isn't reversible that would suggest that we should be extremely cautious with invoking this article as we are undertaking a huge gamble on the basis of the 'advice' from some very dubious characters and against the advice of almost everyone else.
the fact that the author himself suggests that it's reversible weights quite a lot with me
I give it some fair weight myself. However,
1) He had not said so before this case was brought. I don't think he even had by the time this case had finished, and the judge was considering his verdict.
2) Just because they guy who wrote it thinks it's reversible doesn't mean it is. It would be down to a court to decide. As we probably won't find out unless we have to challenge it, it must be assumed that it's not.
Therefore triggering A50 overrides an Act of Parliament, so can only happen by an Act by our constitution.
"Therefore triggering A50 overrides an Act of Parliament, so can only happen by an Act by our constitution."
I'm happy to have Parliament oversee any invocation of Art 50 but I don't see how Parliament can agree/disagree to the final terms of exit if it can't be reversed.
I'm happy to have Parliament oversee any invocation of Art 50 but I don't see how Parliament can agree/disagree to the final terms of exit if it can't be reversed.
I would agree that the text of Article 50 only seems to takes account of a member state's "constitutional requirements" in the way a member state reaches its decision to withdraw. And thus once Parliament gives the Crown/Executive/government the authority to invoke Article 50, Parliament seemingly has no further role to play. However, it could be argued - and I suspect some will in the coming months/years - that Parliament's agreement is necessary part of the "negotiate and conclude an agreement" - even though Parliament will be asked to accept the agreement or walk away with no agreement...
"I don't see how Parliament can agree/disagree to the final terms of exit if it can't be reversed."
The assumption there is the UK has any control of the final terms. If the current crew are left in full control the EU have no reason to waste time on trade negotiations, 'hard brexit or no brexit' isn't a threat, it's a cold statement of how incompatible Mays team goals are with any deal acceptable to the EU27. Someone needs to bang heads together and inject a wider base of opinion into the brexit planning and looks like parliament is best placed.
They'll still be busy negotiating the mechanics of divorce long after the 2yr deadline passes anyway.
"However the fact that the author himself suggests that it's reversible weights quite a lot with me"
Well I can see how the author can suggest that an invocation of Article 50 could be reversed. However, from my reading of Article 50, the only sure way explicitly allowed for in the text is for the "Withdrawal arrangements" to be no withdrawal for an indefinite period, with the unanimous agreement of the European Council and the Member State (the UK in this instance).
As for a unilateral withdrawal of notification...
Thinking further, I wonder if the EU might actually like to have the UK dangling in a protracted Article 50 limbo, that gets extended every few years..., since whilst the UK is subject to Article 50, it can't participate in the European Council (Article 50 clause 4) and can be kept in line by not agreeing to renew the extension...
All A50 has to say about the issue is that to rejoin the EU, states must apply like any other new candidate for admission. That's about as far as you can get from a right to cancel. Right to leave then beg to get back in is more honest.
In reality if the EU27 unanimously agree nothing is forbidden. Cancelling remains a possibility, cancelling unilaterally not so much. Either way no court should assume that the UK has a right to cancel.
I think there's a bigger issue here that the referendum is an instruction to parliament, not the executive. Parliament should have set policy then instructed the executive to start work. We have a very evil tail wagging the dog right now, without a clear mandate and deliberately avoiding seeking one, taking advice or asking the public what brexit actually means.
@Dr Stephen Jones
No it wasn't. As there wasn't legislation making the referendum binding, it left sovereignty entirely in the hands of Parliament. This could all have been avoided if the referendum had been binding, but it wasn't, as the bill would never have passed through Parliament, as MPs would not have given up their power so easily.
@localzak
It could also have been avoided if the referendum bill had recognised that major constitutional changes require a clear and definite mandate for change, not a majority of 1. It should either require a two-thirds majority (common throughtout the world to change constitutions) and/or a clear majority (55%) of the electorate (not just voters) supporting a change to the status quo.
We've had similar conditions on past referenda in the UK.
"... sovereignty was handed to the people for this decision (and this decision only)."
Was it? I don't remember seeing that on the ballot paper.
We live under a parliamentary democracy, and for good reason. What if the death penalty were put to referendum? I suspect there's a fair chance that there could be a yes vote. Put simply, "the people" (and I include myself in that rabble) are too fickle, inconsistent, irrational, ill-informed, venal, easily swayed, susceptible to mob-mentality and potentially downright vicious for profound decisions affecting the wellfare of the nation to be put to one-off public ballot. We elect representatives to parliament to make such decisions on our behalf (and as we know, parliamentarians are wise, even-handed, well-informed, uncorruptible, and have the good of the people in their deepest hearts). Oh, and we have a judiciary to make sure parliament acts within its constitutional powers.
Brexit should never have been put to referendum in the first place - that was an act of madness by a weak prime minister presiding over a divided government.
The UK is however stuck in this position of the EU saying "no negotiation until Article 50 and then you're gone in two years" and parliament having something to vote on. By the time there's a bill, it'll too late to turn back should the rest of the EU so decide.
Err no! What this judgement means - and it likely the Supreme Court will concur, given the evidence, is that the EU has to reject any A50 application by the UK government until such time as the UK government can show it has satisfied clause 1 of A50:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
" [...] and unelected judges who achieved this result ..."
A representative democracy needs checks and balances. The judiciary are one of those counterbalances. The Royal Prerogative may be necessary for critical situations like declaring war - but in more measured situations then it is the sovereignty of Parliament itself that takes the decisions.
Do you want a position like Poland? Their ruling party is set on eliminating any judicial counterbalance that stops them implementing the social dogma of the conservative Roman Catholic bishops.
It is acceptable for the judiciary to take an stand against the will of a democratically elected government or a democratic referendum. It's also understandable why judges need to be appointed by the governments despite the fact that it's frequently not impartial.
However, the judges do not judge the laws based on their political merits or their viewpoint, but may only rule whether a proposed or effective law is in conformance with other enacted laws, particularly with the Constitution.
it is not acceptable for the judicial branch to be obstructionist because they personally oppose the government (or the will of the people). It's a breach of the separation of powers. And that's also fundamental to understanding the situation in Poland.
Do you want a position like Poland? Their ruling party is set on eliminating any judicial counterbalance that stops them implementing the social dogma of the conservative Roman Catholic bishops.
[One word of comment: It's our ruling party, not their ruling party, you made a couple of grammar errors specific to Polish native speakers.]
Say what? This is probably the stupidest summary of the so-called crisis in Poland I read, given that the head of the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland is much more conservative than the ruling party line.
I would like to remind you that the situation started eleven months before the general public sponsored bill to limit abortion even started. The only position from the government was that it would honor bill proposals from the public and not automatically reject them in or before the first reading (whereas the previous government rejected four public bill proposals despite over a million signatures for one of them).
The Polish Constitutional Tribunal has issued statements which are against the Constitution itself, such as assuming non-constitutionality of passed government bills and vowing to scrutinize them (so what, did they not scrutinize them before?). There is a rule that all passed bills are assumed to be constitutionally valid and effective unless they are proven to be against a specific constitution article. And providing that article 2 is extremely broad, it's possible to question literally every act passed by the Polish parliament.
Let me offer a counterpoint: The head of the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland is now questioning the will of the elected government that has legally gained over 50% seats in the parliament despite having the media massively against them.
[One word of comment: It's our ruling party, not their ruling party, you made a couple of grammar errors specific to Polish native speakers.]
One word of comment: if the poster was not Polish, then it is indeed "THEIR ruling party", not "OUR ruling party."
I'm also trying hard, but failing to find the grammar errors.
It is acceptable for the judiciary to take an stand against the will of a democratically elected government or a democratic referendum.
Of course it is, because laws passed by Parliament always override the whims of the government of the day. There needs to be a word for the mingled amusement and horror of this morning's front pages, where three papers have screaming front page leads calling for, in effect, an elected dicatorship -- for the PM to have the right to unilaterally enact law without Parliament, and to overrule the judiciary whenever existing law turns out to be inconvenient. I think we all know where that ends up.
I expect there's a word for it in German, and possibly Russian.
If it were democracy, Brexit would mean what was asked on the Ballot paper. (Leave the EU, not leave every associated organisation that doesn't require EU membership too)
If it were democracy the Nations that voted against it would not be being dragged out against their will.
And that is all before you even think about the lies that got the result.
As for the unholy combination of merchant bankers and unelected judges who achieved this result ...
Did you read the judgement? Linked for your convenience.
In particular #92 to #94. The judges looked at what was the intention of the European Communities Act of 72 and their interpretation is that it was explicitly crafted to prevent the executive riding roughshod over Parliament.
So the things that can be taken from this....
The law makers of old were bloody good at their job, ensuring that what they desired to happen was safeguarded appropriately.
The government of today needs better lawyers - their case was dead before the claimants even started
The UK parliament is sovereign - it can and will hold the executive to account.
And finally - from the noises on various corners of T'Interwebs..... Democracy is only convenient to some people when it delivers the result that they want.
I'm off to buy popcorn - this one has months on it yet.......
No-one doubts the sovereignty of Parliament, in particular their power to remove an executive of whose actions they disapprove. But democratically elected representatives need to think very carefully before overriding the democratically expressed will of the people who elect them.As for the unholy combination of merchant bankers and unelected judges who achieved this result ...
As has been stated by others, the judiciary are not "overriding the democratically expressed will of the people". They have rules that, by our own constitutional law, enacted by Parliament through the will of the people, Parliament must approve triggering A50 for us to leave the EU.
It is likely that Parliament would approve it, as doing anything else would be seen to be "overriding the democratically expressed will of the people". It would cause outrage. However, no "overriding the democratically expressed will of the people" has taken place, yet. In fact, the judiciary are upholding "the democratically expressed will of the people" by ensuring the Government can't just overturn legislation brought in by Parliament. It is maintaining the sovereignty of Parliament.
"That in all probability will trigger a general election"
More immediately parliament now has influence to insist on a more considered, saner negotiation plan, instead of leaving it in the hands of extremists in secret meetings. If May and the 3 brexiteers don't play ball parliament could probably get away with rejecting their plan and requiring amendments at least once before going nuclear with an election.
They aren't going to veto brexit but now have the chance to push for a genuine 'good deal' instead of the 'worstest deal possible' we're currently being dragged towards by extremists.
I can't see how that could happen without the government actively deciding to Make It So (which would be a massive U turn.) All the judgement says is that there has to be an Act before the A50 letter can be sent. MPs will no doubt ask ("demand", in headline-speak) for details of the planned negotiating strategy. The gov will stick to the formula of "the best possible deal consistent with leaving", meaning "consistent with ending freedom of movement". MPs who don't like that won't be able to do anything about it, as they can't reject the Bill without genuinely "ignoring the will of the people", which I suspect would cause very nasty riots and chaos on an unprecedented scale (and the end of their political careers.)
A bill was passed in 2011 about "anticipated general election".
It can only be triggered if:
A government bill is defeated, for instance if May was to put forward a bill to trigger Article 50 and that bill was rejected.
or
If 3/5 of parliament approved an anticipated general election. Basically the opposition would need to vote with the government. When you look at the polls, there is absolutely no way Labour would accept it.
In a nutshell, if parliement vote against triggering Article 50, then we'll have a general election.
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. It'd be a cold day in hell when Parliament overrules the referendum result. This is blindingly obvious to anyone with any sort of interested layperson interest in domestic UK politics. That partly explains why so many of the people screaming and hollering in outrage about the judgement seem so stonkingly ignorant about what it actually said, what it actually means, and the likely consequences thereof. As there's usually no way to get through to that type qand explain to them that they're mistaken, my attitude to all this is: sit back and let 'em have their fun; the brexitters love to get themselves all riled up about metropolitan elites trampling over The Will Of The People*, sane people find their ranting deeply depressing, round and round it all goes, the banner ads get shown, the newspapers sell, and it won't amount to a hill of beans in March next year -- it'll just be a couple of paragraphs when they come to write the history of Brexit.
"But democratically elected representatives need to think very carefully before overriding the democratically expressed will of the people who elect them."
I'm sure they will. Even pro-EU MPs are going to find it hard to vote against invoking Article 50 if they know the majority of their constituents are against it. About 2/3 of the referendum areas had a majority for leave. Those areas don't correspond exactly to parliamentary constituencies, but it probably gives some idea of how many MPs will be under pressure from their constituents to support Article 50.
I guess it would be more interesting if it were possible to filter down to those areas with marginal parliamentary seats. MPs in safe seats might be more inclined to vote against the expressed wishes of their constituents. Results by area are here if anyone fancies a crack at it: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum
I'm sure they will. Even pro-EU MPs are going to find it hard to vote against invoking Article 50 if they know the majority of their constituents are against it.
No problem at all! Remember only 1-in-3 voters actually voted Leave, so an MP can respect the result and vote with the 2-in-3 voters who didn't vote Leave! :)
Total number of Electorate: 46,500,001
Total number of votes to leave:17,410,742
Total number of votes to remain: 16,141,241
Total number of abstainers :12,948,018
Leave as a % of TOTAL electorate: 37.44%
That is not a majority of the population.
It is a majority of the people that *bothered* to cast a vote.
"It is a majority of the people that *bothered* to cast a vote."
Don't forget the UK nationals who protested about being denied a vote because they currently live outside the country. Those living i other EU countries have a large personal stake in the outcome. Someone earlier quoted that as 2m people.
Whatever their constituents think about it, in the grubby old real world it's the inclinations of the local party organisations and the activist types -- the nutters who go to meetings and trudge the streets stuffing leaflets through letter boxes and getting abused for the privilege -- who will make the most difference. A few MPs may be principled enough to commit career suicide like the bloke who just resigned over it, but the vast majority of Tory MPs will vote in favour. I dare say a handful of Lab MPs will vote against, but the majority (I expect) will abstain, especially if it looks at all close. No MP wants to overturn the referendum result, even the ones who wish the result had been different. (Depressingly, these days they also have to factor in the firehose of abuse, anonymous letters, Daily Mail hatefests etc that they'd get for daring to vote against.)
If the answer given by a slim majority to the actual question asked on the ballot paper were the limit of what Brexit meant then I'm sure most of us would just mutter a bit and put up with it and that would be that.
However it isn't.
So any claims of what is on the cards as being a majority decision or the will of the people is complete bullshit. As is any call for us to accept that it is.
Only 20 thumbs down for the truth? Wow.. does this mean I can assume anyone NOT giving me a thumbs down actually agrees with the Remainers, so REALLY it wasn't a majority decision after all?
Damn.. I keep meaning not to feed the trolls, and every time... bugger.
*sick of the whole bloody, whinging gig... both sides*
Utterly sick of it all, yes, but somehow I can't... stop... reading the BTL commentards on the Grauniad... (if you've not looked at them -- no, they're certainly not monopolised by stereotypical lentil-munching social worker Grauniastas.) What's wrong with me? It's like that Bill Hicks bit about not being able to stop touching a sore tooth with your tongue. I just can't keep away, no matter how depressing or anger-inducing they may be.
Perhaps it's just my innate desire to show off my superior opinions. And I come here to get a healthy slapping and a reminder that I'm not necessarily all that superior after all ...
Yes, that's right. Because we have accepted it -- almost all, anyway. We lost, albeit by almost the smallest margin possible, but a vote's a vote and so Brexit here we come. Personally I think a few decades of misery, rising mortality/ falling life expectancy, poverty, mass unemployment, stagflation, and very expensive consumer electronics is a small price to pay to finally be shot of the D**** M*** and the rest of the lying racist scumbags of Fleet St.
We wouldn't want the Government to override Parliament and use Royal Prerogative to push domestic legislation, that way lies dictatorship.
And what exactly do you expect from a Prime Minister and Home Secretary which used quotes from the Mein Kampf (appropriated later by Stalin and Putin) and the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Public Service (Nazi Germany, 1934) in their Tory conference speeches.
I have no expectation of anything else but that. It is not a question of will, it is a question of when and I believe the opposite only after the Prime Minister publicly apologizes (preferably under the gate of Auschwitz) for getting carried away in that direction.
It's a pity that the press (at least the Guardian online and Radio 4 lunchtime news) didn't explain the legal argument.
The Executive (in the UK quaintly called the Crown) has Prerogative to decide on foreign affairs. The Brexit Secretary's case was that membership of the EU is a foreign affair. However, only Parliament gets to pass domestic legislation. The Government's case failed because the 1972 Act and membership of the EU creates domestic rights, so it is not within "Royal" Prerogative to remove those rights without the approval of Parliament.
I am not a lawyer, but this does look like a pretty robust Judgement, so I have every hope that the Supreme Court will support it. In the highly unlikely case that the Government appeal to the CJEU, I cannot imagine that that would allow an executive to deny the supremacy of a parliament.
In fact this Judgement is another chapter in the 17th century struggle of Parliament against the Crown. A historic occasion!
In the Judgement, there are three Categories of such rights, of which (ii) includes for example my freedom of movement as a British Citizen in other EU countries.
In fact this Judgement is another chapter in the 17th century struggle of Parliament against the Crown. A historic occasion!
Ironically the Queen was on the side of the Claimants, with the defendants being the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
So it's Parliament *and* the Queen, vs the Executive (with the delegated Powers of the Queen).
It should not matter if the referendum was explicitly "binding" or not, the government and parliament have been /told/ by the majority of people to end the UK's illegal Common Market aka EU membership, so all spurious delays are frankly treason! These two malcontent's who sought to throw a spanner in the Brexit process should have been ignored or thrown in prison for treason, not win their court case, so probably ruin the governments negotiating position. A competent negotiator keeps their negotiation strategy secret to get the best deal, not foolishly publish it all in public, like in parliament!!!
Parliament has proved that they can't be trusted because past members committed treason by passing The Common Market Act, an unlawfully transfer of sovereignty, as were all subsequent treaties with that proven criminal organisation, especially since the public were never given /fully informed/ consent as to the true scope (known by the government and civil service) before the "Common Market" referendum, and the unlawfully binding of later governments and parliaments to do further treasonous transfer of sovereignty by passing EU legal rules into 'law'.
@AC
It should not matter if the referendum was explicitly "binding" or not, the government and parliament have been /told/ by the majority of people to end the UK's illegal Common Market aka EU membership, so all spurious delays are frankly treason!
I'll address only one point in your... post.
Do you consider it to be treason to follow the Rule of Law?
The rest of your post... frankly I don't think it even deserves an informed reply, as your rambling shows you won't take any notice, and I'm sick of trying to involve people such as yourself in any kind of rational debate.
"so all spurious delays are frankly treason!"
Oh FFS.
Okay, okay. I'll tell you what. As a person who would have voted Remain had I had the option to do so (and you can go fuck your perverted concept of "democracy" for that alone), I will happily concede and even support the advertising bumph that states that the government will enact the wishes of the people...
...and in return I would like you brexiteers to keep to your promise and provide exactly £350M per week to the NHS. This is in addition to all of the other things you will quickly discover need to be funded. All that rural development, farming, roads, etc etc. I don't know where you think you're going to get the money from, and frankly Farage admitting "that figure was a mistake" on the very day the result was known simply won't wash. The leave campaign PROMISED it, Boris drove around in a bus advertising it in massive clearly visible digits. Now deliver on your promises.
What seems fascinating about all this is the desperate self-righteousness of the Brexit campaigners. It almost seems as if they know they won by the skin of their teeth, due to a sequence of undeliverable promises and logical fallacies and slurs. (Equating having education to being "elite" - whatever that means, then making out it's a bad thing or saying that if you are an expert you must be wrong etc). And they are terrified that if they don't keep hammering slogans "The people" will realise they've been mugged.
They'll simply sell less at the higher price.
Yes, I'm starting to see prices on some musical instruments imported with $ starting to see some large price increases. I've already backed out of a couple of purchases, and I know from talking to the dealer that I am far from unusual in that.
The trouble is for most goods, "Buying British" is far from simple - and sadly it's that sort of bullish over simplification that's landed us in this mess.
We lack the natural resources of many of our competitors and as a country we've exported our manufacturing loading more and more or our metaphorical eggs in to the services - specifically financial services basket.
Tactically every one of those decisions was arguably defensible as a good decision at the micro level but strategically almost none ever were.
Bit of a parallel with Brexit really - The UK faces a tough choice, but as per the national idiom chooses the easy, lazy *short term* option...
"We lack the natural resources of many of our competitors and as a country we've exported our manufacturing loading more and more or our metaphorical eggs in to the services - specifically financial services basket."
The same financial services basket that is being threatened by Brexit - with jobs and offices relocating to somewhere that will stay in the EU, that one?
BTW, I always prefered "Brexiteers" - it sounds more jaunty, and more appropriate to a musical farce like this.
Buy British. Simple.
Oh yes really simple.
Let's buy a British car
You mean like a Nissan?
OK not perfect but at least it is made here
But a large % of the parts, as in all cars, are made overseas and imported in, which the low £ will reflect eventually
OK bad choice..Buy British fruit then
What like Oranges?
OK, maybe not Oranges, However there is always Terry's Chocolate Orange
You mean the ones that are made in Poland?
Unfortunately there is no British. In a global economy, products are global, not national. Everything made in Britain will be derived in large proportion from imported components, materials and energy. This is not the Victorian era when British goods were made from British steel, using British machines powered by British coal.
The British businesses adding value to these global products may become more competitive as a result of a devalued pound, but don't kid yourself that you can escape the effects of currency-driven inflation by "buying British."
"This is not the Victorian era when British goods were made from British steel, using British machines powered by British coal."
Even then it was involving exploiting Indian and Egyptian cotton growers, whose production was increased due to collapse of the Slave produced US Cotton at time of USA Civil War. There are many other examples.
Buy British. Simple.
What? Give me an EXAMPLE of one article in the so called "consumer basket" which is End-to-End British.
Even the f*** Fruit and Veg in the supermarket has a FAKE British label. The real label should be "Grown on British land with European fertilizer, worked on using European farm equipment and proudly collected by Eastern European Slave Labour under the control of Eastern European Gangmasters".
That does not sound British to me. Neither does anything I buy on a regular basis. If you have an example to the contrary I would LOVE to hear it. Alternatively - point to what in the above description you can replace by British. Just do not try to sell me the unscientific fiction of a Xenophobic C*nt from Clackton on the Sea picking potatoes in Lancashire. I call bullshit on that.
Price rise = demand fall , only in the most simplistic of economic models. Petrol prices have risen in the UK in the last few weeks, I doubt consumption has fallen except at the extreme margins. There are several factors other than price that impact demand, such as the availability of a substitute, exclusivity or desirability of the product, level of competition in the marketplace.
"Sell fewer at higher prices? Good for business then, as their costs will drop too - increasing profit further..."
But isn't wealth a measure of consumption in a capitalistic society? Isn't it where all that wealth trade deals magic out of nowhere comes from? Selling fewer, at whatever price, is a loss of wealth.
I do not think that changes much. There's been no huge reversal in the GBP rate, so the markets seem convinced that article 50 will happen, eventually. Also, Tories have commons majority and I am quite sure that, if MP vote is after all required (there is still a challenge by the government to take place), Brexit vote be pushed through no matter what.
You can view it on Bloomberg
Yeah and in many other places, personally I prefer Reuters. It jumped by 1 large figure which is respectable but nowhere close to regain loses from 1.48 it was right before the vote. If the markets thought it realistic that Brexit won't happen after all, GBPUSD would be moving fast to 1.30 , at least. It is not.
The Tories have a slim majority in the Commons but they are bitterly divided over Europe. The pro-EU wing could join the opposition to block A50.
However the Labour Party are also bitterly divided. If Jeremy Corbyn announced he would block A50 on the grounds that he didn't trust the Tories to negotiate a deal that protected the working class, his enemies would be faced with backing brexit in order to humiliate him - the very thing they accused him of not doing enough to prevent.
More interesting than the question of how the vote would go is what would happen if the vote went against accepting the referendum, and that triggered a confidence motion. The Tories have only a slim majority, would enough pro-Leave Tory MPs vote against a confidence motion, or abstain, to force an election? I think that's a likely outcome, so much so that May might feel it better to call an election right away.
And then what? I don't for a moment believe that a single-issue party like UKIP would get enough votes to make a difference in a normal election, but the results of the European elections show how well they can do in a single-issue contest. If the government falls on a Brexit confidence vote, the next election would effectively be a single-issue one - can people trust Parliament to respect their expressed wishes. It could leave UKIP with at least a plurality of English seats, and holding the balance of power. That's not a stable situation.
I have a feeling that many of the apparently pro-EU MPs (and probably May herself) have a sneaking gut-level liking for Brexit anyway, they just didn't want to publicly call for it and have to face the consequences. Now that it's here anyway I wouldn't be that surprised to see many of those MPs choose to vote in favour of invoking Article 50, even if they have to hide behind "supporting the will of their constituents" to explain their change of heart.
"Also, Tories have commons majority and I am quite sure that, if MP vote is after all required ... Brexit vote be pushed through no matter what."
I'm not. It's a matter on which the big parties are split and have been for a long time. The whole referendum thing was an attempt to glue the Tory party together. It hasn't worked. I think it's an issue where whips will be defied by MPs who believe that the national interest is at stake.
"I'm not. It's a matter on which the big parties are split and have been for a long time. The whole referendum thing was an attempt to glue the Tory party together. It hasn't worked. I think it's an issue where whips will be defied by MPs who believe that the national interest is at stake."
I recall at the time of the vote that Parliament was pro-EU by a majority, so that in itself isn't an issue. The issue is, as you state, whether the parties whip them to vote along party lines, or whether the parties are given a free vote. I think Corbyn would give a free vote on it as he did with Syria. May, however, will be doing her best to whip everyone to her tune.
I said at the time that David Cameron would come out of this unscathed. If they voted to stay in the EU, he'd have been seen as someone who brought the country together. If they voted to leave the EU, he'd have been seen as the guy who gave the UK a choice in the matter. Either way he was going to leave. The problem however was the Vote Leave campaign was never meant to win, it was meant to scare the EU in to giving us better deals in negotiations. You could tell when the votes came in and Johnson gave his speach that it was done in a "Ah, er, well, erm, yeah this wasn't meant to happen". And he promptly took himself out of the running because he knew the resulting months/years would be horrific to govern over. Theresa May, being an opportunist I feel, saw an opening to make herself Thatcher II. This hasn't happened, and what we will all end up with at the beginning of next year is a General Election.
"May, however, will be doing her best to whip everyone to her tune."
If there's any MP who can't resist the party whip and vote according to their conscience on this, the most significant issue they will ever have vote on, then they don't deserve to call themselves a human being let alone an MP.
I was visiting the UK last week - and the basic comment I got from the few I asked was quite clear, and saddening - "we have never been so divided as a country" and there is more "hate towards others".
In short, it sounds as if "BREXIT" is doing a lot to the country - and most of what has happened / is happening is not the expected outcome.
I do hope other countries, such as NL where I live, learn from the issues the UK face today.
p.s. as to parliament respecting the vote of the public: I would expect them to act according to what they believe is best for the people who choose them to be their MP. They people who voted for BREXIT are not necessarily the same ones who vote for them.
we have never been so divided as a country" and there is more "hate towards others".
It's happening in many countries, and the common feature is the divisiveness of the EU. It puts so much effort into telling people "stop thinking of yourselves as British, French, Italian, etc. Think of yourselves as European". Unfortunately "European" is a blurry, nebulous thing that no-one really 'feels', so instead the attitude is "well, if I'm not allowed to be British/French/Spanish what am I? I must be Scots/Basque/Catalan etc.". hence the divisions appearing all over the European "Union".
In short, it sounds as if "BREXIT" is doing a lot to the country - and most of what has happened / is happening is not the expected outcome.
It's exactly what I expected, lots of initial uncertainty and whining, but with a refreshing sense of opportunity if only we can grab it. It is clear that many people would prefer not to have to make the effort, but that's unsurprising as well.
. It puts so much effort into telling people "stop thinking of yourselves as British, French, Italian, etc. Think of yourselves as European".
Nonsense. It does no such thing. It advocates for a sense of European identity, yes certainly, but it doesn't attempt to diminish national identity. It's pure projection that so many Brexiteers seem to think that it does do so. It's as if they think the world's a zero sum game, and that we're in a fight to the death with all the other nations; that any suggestion that there might be something positive in having a sense of European identity automatically and intrinsically means an equivalent loss of status for British national identity. To me, such attitudes say more about the hobbled, constrained imaginations of the Brexit generations than it says about the EU.
I think it's an issue where whips will be defied by MPs who believe that the national interest is at stake.
If we consider just the Tories, then I wonder how many Tory MPs there are in seats where the locals voted to remain. Probably not many, since, IIRC, it was mostly London where "remain" majorities were returned. OTOH, with a wafer-thin majority, it only needs a few to defy the Government whips.
Labour's position is ambiguous, though. Will we see them whipping MPs to oppose Article 50?
The Unionist parties in NI, I don't know much about. I believe one supported "remain" and the other supported "exit"?
The Lib Dems and the SNP should be solidly against Article 50.
My conclusion? Haven't a clue which way a vote would go. Depends on whether Cons and Labour declare definite positions AND whip their MPs. But also depends on local parties and ordinary people threatening to deselect or vote out MPs who don't vote in accordance with their constituents' referendum wishes.
Interesting times.
"My conclusion? Haven't a clue which way a vote would go......"
From the BBC
"Most members of the House of Commons are believed to have voted Remain in the EU referendum.
According to a survey of all 650 MPs carried out by the Press Association ahead of the referendum on June 23:
480 MPs said they would be voting Remain, including 184 Conservatives
159 MPs said they would be voting Leave, including 139 Conservatives
11 MPs were undeclared, including four Conservative.
This gives Remain a notional Commons majority of at least 310."
How many would dare vote against the express will of their constituents though? Some will have their constituents onside of course, that's fairly easy, but there will be plenty where that isn't the case. Much as I wish this was the solution I fear they may feel compelled to follow popular opinion, however ill advised.
"How many would dare vote against the express will of their constituents though?"
Well when MP's are elected they're elected because we think they'll do a good job, do what is right. If it isn't right for the UK to leave the EU but their constituents want to leave, even though their jobs/lifestyle etc could all be affected, then it's the MP's job to do what is right and vote against it. Otherwise what's the point in electing someone from your area to represent your area in parliament and for them to benefit their constituency.
HOWEVER, all MP's once elected get a lovely pension. So probably a lot of them will vote the way of their constituents, lose the next election, then retire on a lovely pension and do consultancy work for some big company in London - or wherever the company is based after Brexit.
You may be surprised to hear it, but the majority of MPs who lose their seats after, say, 15 years as the MP, following one or two previous elections where they didn't take the seat, find themselves pretty unemployable. There's not much call for the skills required in asking a clever question in the house, and you need vocational qualifiications (degrees, probably, these days) to make use of the ability to help people navigate the benefits system or know who to write to at the council to get the potholes patched in their road, or whatever. Ministers, especially in high-capex departments, can often pick up those consulting or non-exec director type roles, or get themselves punted upstairs to the Lords, or whatever, but a lot of humdrum normal backbenchers actually have a pretty shit time of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32689770
https://www.politicshome.com/opinion/association-former-members-parliament/72255/life-after-parliament-ex-mps
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jun/01/election2005.uk
and so on and so forth.
"But the BIG difference is that MPs now know how their constituents voted in the referendum. And most areas of the UK - outside of London, Scotland and NI - voted to leave."
But it was a close vote - many MPs will feel that they were elected to make the difficult decisions. They are also going to be influenced by the disastrous effects on the UK's future now becoming clearer - see today's BoE statement. Further they will probably consider just how the small leave majority was influenced by the truly dreadful lies/half-truths uttered by the leave campaign.
And most areas of the UK - outside of London, Scotland and NI - voted to leave
Even in NI and Scotland it was close, 50-something percent to stay. In NI most of the Unionist areas voted to leave (despite their MPs being remainers) and most of the border-area nationalist constituencies voted to stay (despite Sinn Fein being anti-EU).
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2016/02/22/news/eu-referendum-where-northern-ireland-parties-stand-425039/
DUP - Leave
UUP - Stay
SDLP - Stay
Sinn Feine - Stay
Might it be this article that gave you that idea?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/20/northern-ireland-unionists-republicans-brexit-backers
Sinn Fein weren't advocating leave, just dissidents.
Might it be this article that gave you that idea?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/20/northern-ireland-unionists-republicans-brexit-backers
Nope, I hadn't read that. I was just going by the actual results from tne constituencies, where the pro-union ones voted leave (except for N. Down, which is very "home counties" in outlook) and most of the border ones, with the SDLP/Sinn Fein MPs voted stay.
Sinn Fein weren't advocating leave, just dissidents.
SF has always been vociferously anti-EU, but no, they didn't advocate voting leave. From their point of view, a "stay" vote in NI with Brexit for GB would be an ideal pro-united Ireland position.
Even in NI and Scotland it was close, 50-something percent to stay.
Not in Scotland - 62-38 in favour of staying in the EU. Quite a bit more than the 55-45 independence referendum vote to remain in the UK.
Since the people in Scotland are constantly being told that the indyref vote had a clear and convincing result, it's obvious why they are pissed off at being dragged out of the EU despite their 62-38 vote to remain.
"But the BIG difference is that MPs now know how their constituents voted in the referendum. And most areas of the UK - outside of London, Scotland and NI - voted to leave."
I live in Birmingham, where it was 50.5/49.5. So which side do you want to vote with in order not to be thrown out at the next election? It has 25-odd constituencies, so will make a difference to the vote if it's close. I don't envy MPs' task in places where the vote was tight.
Remain voters voted because they specifically want to remain within the EU - and have no reason to change that view.
Leave voters voted to leave for all sorts of reasons; Liking Boris, giving all that imaginary money to the NHS, kicking Dave, kicking the "establishment", the thrill of change, the feeling of empowerment for people who've felt disenfranchised by first-past-the-post or being in a safe seat (either party), suspicion or fear of foreigners (but without relating this to that nice Mr. Such-and-Such next door until they realise he has been hurt), a genuine belief that wages would go up when there are no foreign workers to do the low-pay jobs etc etc etc. And maybe the cold light of the Brexit dawn has cooled some of that enthusiasm.
And then there are the non-voters, some who didn't understand what it all meant and might have sincerely believed it wouldn't matter if they voted or not, the young adults who've never really experienced the effects of cumulative democracy and didn't realise their votes made a difference, the youngsters who didn't have the chance then but are over 18 now.
There's been no huge reversal in the GBP rate, so the markets seem convinced that article 50 will happen
As has been noted elsewhere: Sterling's exchange rate does not yet seem to fully price in leaving the EU, the costs of which are still unknown. The dollar has been rising against many currencies since the Federal Reserve stopped printing money and lowering interest rates. The pound's move against other currencies is far less pronounced.
The judgement is likely to increase political uncertainty as May may now feel obliged to hold a general election to get a majority in parliament in order to pass a bill on Article 50. At the moment, even if she tabled a motion of confidence, there is a high chance of losing the vote, hence reversing the referendum and then bringing down the government: Gideon Oliver Osborne's hour could yet come, albeit as head of a Tory-Liberal-SNP coalition.
Of course, there is also the possibility of further constitutional shenanigans to try and get round this but I suspect more MPs would vote against the referendum than against the courts.
I think more likely that everyone involved will realised that they were asked to vote on some nebulous ideals that nobody could really pin down and basically comes down to a bit of a punt.
Probably the worst execution of democracy that I've witnessed in all my years and that includes what is going on over in that place south of Canada.
@chrismiller "I think it's equally likely that many who voted Remain will have realised they were conned by Project Fear."
The pound to dollar rate is fucked, pound to Euro rate fucked, Europe now hates us (more than before), uncertainty for many businesses, France circling to try and nab the finance sector. NHS not looking to be any better off. Foreign visitors/europeans treated like shit by "not racist honest" brexiteers (not saying all brexiteers are racist before you lot start, but the racists were mostly on your side, apparently getting our county back....not sure who from) and inflation likely to become very high very quickly if people keep on upping their prices by 22%. I bet none of us see even a 5% pay rise in the next few years.
To be honest the remain camp probably undersold.
But, if remain had won, would any of the above be happening now? Probably not. So face it, you brexiteers are responsible for the current state of things. The short term manufacturing export bonus will be exactly that, short term. At some point we need to import materials to make shit to export, which are at some point going to be 22% more expensive.
"At some point we need to import materials to make shit to export, which are at some point going to be 22% more expensive."
...and exports to the EU will possibly have tariffs that will increase their price. Imports from the EU will also potentially have tit-for-tat tariffs imposed by the UK.
Oh, so now there were actual facts ?
That's news to me, I was under the impression that it was all demagogic waffle and pandering to the racist knee-jerk part of the arguments.
Could you point us to one of those "facts", so I can learn ?
"Could you point us to one of those "facts", so I can learn ?"
People said the pound would tank if UK votes to leave. UK votes to leave, pound tanks. There's a fact.
Leavers said they wanted to 'take control' (whatever that means) so that the UK Parliament and UK judges are supreme. So when a UK judge rules that the UK Parliament should be supreme in this process, idiot Brexiters moan about it. (I can use the word 'idiot' quite correctly now, because at least these people have now been shown to be completely full of shit by this decision.)
Maybe the Leave voters who are moaning should shut up and accept the ruling? Parliament will vote, you lost, get over it?
I'm sure the Brexiters will now complain that this is just a typical example of why we need to take back our sovereignty from the EU (personally I don't see we ever lost it) and use it to justify the leave vote, even though this was UK law enacted prior to joining the EU.
Brexit nonsense? Nope. I voted out so we got back the right to govern our own country. Seems like there's some 'domestic' issues to deal with as well. Heaven help the HoC if they decide not to vote as the people wish ....
When did we ever not have the right to govern our own country? - Laws still have to be passed through parliament.
Which laws would you like to get rid of that are so bad for us?
What is this right to govern our own country that you and some other Brexiters think we didn't have and will get back?
Human rights laws, that are international and essential?
Health and Safety laws that keep our beaches clean and our factories safe? Do these bother you that much?
Or is it really just about keeping out foreigners? The ones that do the jobs we don't want, for pay that we wouldn't accept. I've spoken to some Brexiters who think that low paid jobs will become better paid. They won't. They'll just go away. Because we want to buy stuff very cheaply or not at all.
yeah, BUUUUURN THEM!!!!!
actually I'd better keep my gob shut, given I got me British passport not that long ago after all. With our beloved ex-Home Secretary in the position of much elevated privilages (defaults on) I might be stripped and deported for inciting hatred, moments before we become independint and stuff...
but hey, on a positive note, dislike of strangers is COMMON. Go to any country and they pretty much all would prefer strangers / foreigners to be those little pixies working for pittance and paying taxes and spending money, but GOD FORBID they dare participate in the spoils of their hard work, nosir, this shall NOT be allowed! Proud to be human, eh?
It is quite well established that BREXIT is the "middle class" versus the "working class", if you go by the Guardian the working classes are currently unhappy with a labour party which they consider to have been hijacked by the upper middle class which no longer represents their interests.
Love him or hate him, Jeremy Corbyn held the most sensible nuanced approach towards the EU that a Labour leader with an ounce self preservation and electoral awareness could take. If he'd have come out more in favour of the EU he'd have pissed off more of the Labour traditional vote base, who are increasingly not voting Labour. Mrs May has been doing a spot of electoral repositioning with the conservative party, who stand to take the traditional labour vote. (see the last conservative party speeches)
If Labour blocked the BREXIT vote, then it is likely that the conservatives are going to take once in a century opportunity to brand Labour with the "nasty party" label, and people are going to believe it. The working class who voted to leave the EU in the referendum are quite likely to cease voting for Labour en masse, leading to permanent electoral oblivion for Labour.
Bridges have already been burnt with the EU, the remains have been dynamited and the remaining fragments have been taken away to be reused for charcoal. If we did stay in the EU at this point then we have no friends and no influence. Frankly, I think that both the UK and EU would be better off leaving and staying on acceptably good terms.
And on that note, good terms will not be obtained by telling the EU that we will have a vote on their offered terms, and if they are sufficiently bad then we will consider remaining within the EU. Anybody suggesting doing this is an idiot. It will simply lead to a set of awful terms being offered and one of the following will happen:-
1) A Phyrric victory. We vote to remain in the EU on the basis of a toxic brew of fear and hate. relations with the EU are forever fucked beyond any potential possibility of repair as UK popular opinion becomes steadily more xenophobic. In addition, Labour's traditional voting base who voted to leave the EU at the referendum defect to the conservatives when Labour people openly celebrate. There is shock at the next (and following) general elections when the traditional labour vote fucks off elseware, and Labour becomes a smaller party than the Lib Dems. Possibly (hopefully not) the Marxist hippies at the Guardian get the class war they have been calling for since forever, but are confused when they realise that the class war is aimed squarely at them.
or; 2) We vote to leave, despite horribly harsh terms offered causing serious damage to Great Britain PLC. Labour is still electorally exterminated by the working class leaving a perpetual conservative majority, with the self inflicted damage to jobs and their prospects near certainly blamed on the "remoaners", and relations between the EU and UK basically stay at a level that would reasonably be described as "undeclared war".
Surely just accepting that people want to leave the EU and getting the best possible result is the most sane and least damaging course of action, from the basis of economics, domestic politics and international politics?
> I voted out so we got back the right to govern our own country.
That is fine, but someone should have told you that it is about 2,000 years too late for that. Something to do with geopolitics, commerce, and more recently, something called globalisation.
Small markets of only a couple hundred million people are no longer competitive, which is why decisions end up being made in common with other actors, whether you like it or not. And that's not just Britain, but even the US and China at some point have to sit down and negotiate, although obviously they can get away with a lot more by virtue of their sheer size.
The EU is, historically and primarily, an attempt at ensuring peace and stability in Western Europe and it has been a huge success on that front, and secondarily, an attempt at gaining a more competitive position viz à viz the other major economies. There is still a long road to go on that, partly because of national politicians lying to their constituencies, sometimes out of ignorance, but too often in an attempt to clutch their little empires for personal profit.
"Nope. I voted out so we got back the right to govern our own country."
Then you are an idiot. We need to trade, and it was clear before the vote, that to get a deal, we would have to:
a) allow free movement of people within the EU
b) pay into the EU
So essentially, what you failed to grasp, what that the only two end options are:
a) a country that is self sufficient that trades with nobody (clearly not an option)
b) a country that had the same obligations to the EU, but none of the say.
Congratulations, idiot.
The vast majority of brexit voters are slowly realizing the error of their vote, and the lies it was based upon.
So you can read the minds of many millions then, why aren't you sunning yourself on some private island paradise with all the money you'd be able to make doing that ?
Oh, you're not ? Perhaps that's because you're just a sore loser desperate for any excuse to force the majority to do what you want ?
I voted to leave (not for any of the reasons given in the public political mudbath) - and given what's been going on since I am more convinced now than I was at the time that leaving is the right thing for us to do. I knew before I voted that us leaving would be painful - but I also believe that staying would be even more painful when the EU hits that massive iceberg that those at the top refuse to see.
I would disagree with the 'vast majority' statement, but result was so close it only needs a tiny proportion to realise the error so you have an extremely valid point. (If 1 in 25 leave voters have changed their mind, then the result is the other way.)
Of course people might argue that the vote has been made and should be acted upon, regardless of the lies etc. In which case then the only thing that should happen is act on the question asked; leave the EU. Not the EEA, not the customs union, not the ECHR.
I would be happy with either of those options, given the fact that we have totally blown all credibility I would think leaving the EU better at this point, providing that is ALL we leave.
No surprise at all as the Referendum was never legally binding, i.e backed by Act of Parliament, I've said this all along to both remainers and brexiters. The Judge is legally correct.
UK politics hasn't been this exciting and involving since the early eighties. Expect a General Election in the next 6 months.
Hopefully not. That way leads to a massive UKIP gain in the next election as middle England goes ballistic.. That's an even scarier thought than President Trump.
Hmm. I'll agree it's scary, but surely not as scary as Trump?? I mean, even Nigel Farage found himself having to distance himself from Trump at one point.
Seriously though, the previous poster has a point. The referendum was called because a sizeable chunk of the population wanted it. The EU has been a major bone of contention in British politics for as long as I can remember; it's come to a head now, but it's been simmering under the surface for decades. Heck, I even remember an episode of Yes Minister from the '80s where the plot revolved around the problems of European integration.
The issue of Europe isn't going to go away, whether Brexit goes ahead or not. If the politicians do somehow manage to stop Brexit from happening, there will need to be some serious attempts to appease the Euroskeptics, otherwise the whole thing will just keep festering, and as you say we'll end up with more than a handful of UKIP MPs and a re-run of this whole thing.
I mean, even Nigel Farage found himself having to distance himself from Trump at one point.
Not as long as he's being paid by Breitbart to do so. What a committed servant of the public he is: paid by the taxpayer to represent his constituents in the European Parliament and by an American media company to appear at Trump rallies. An inspiration to us all!
Or, a despicable bastard.
Hopefully not. That way leads to a massive UKIP gain in the next election as middle England goes ballistic.. That's an even scarier thought than President Trump.
Given that they are currently on their 3rd leadership vote in six months, UKIP are pretty much self-destructing. There could be an increase in votes for the EDL, BNP and other toxic scum though.
The referendum was based on outright lies from the leave camp so the result is close enough to treat with the distain it deserves. The majority of the electorate didn't vote to leave so let's just get on with our lives and start sending proper politicians to the EU parliaments rather than cockhammers like Garage.
There should have been more oversight and intervention in all the BS that was flying around, but the leave campaign was the one that had to be pulled up for lying and told to change their tune. Whilst leave told outright lies, remain used negative speculation on the consequences of leave. I think it's clear which is the more guilty.
"Whilst leave told outright lies, remain used negative speculation on the consequences of leave. I think it's clear which is the more guilty."
That really isnt how it happened at all. The official campaigns (leave and remain) told such blinders that until the remain campaign showed itself equally fictitious I assumed the leave campaign was a stooge to make the case to remain look good. Going with the obvious one in the article-
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide," a pamphlet issued by the government at the time said.
That sounds a fairly solid statement. As did the claims of Cameron staying to negotiate, Obsornes punishment budget (it served no other purpose), claims that nobody would trade with us and various other propaganda bull that has so little to do with fact that it is in fact the polar opposite.
Basically the vote was a usual EU stitch up. They decided on the answer, then asked us the question. The result is irrelevant as there is no attempt at democracy with this EU thing as proven by the sheer refusal to accept the answer. So yes the guilty are plain to see. The guilty offered false choice and then abandon the result.
I think that really is how it happened. It was leave and their bus slogan that was the proven lie, a falsehood that was known by the people pushing it to be false.
Whereas what remain were doing was trying to tell us that the consequences of leave were bad when nobody actually knows whether that is true or not.
This is why UK Statistics Authority had to intervene against the leave bus slogan, and why Iain Duncan Smith had to back down. But by then it was too late because the UK residuum voters had already been sucked in.
@ werdsmith
"I think that really is how it happened."
Then you have ignored the glaring problem I highlighted in bold that BOTH official campaigns abandoned fact and BOTH lied ridiculously. The claims made by remain were also known to be false that is why BOTH sides were embarrassments.
"Whereas what remain were doing was trying to tell us that the consequences of leave were bad when nobody actually knows whether that is true or not."
Yet they made claims against inflation, house prices, etc which are actually outcomes we have been trying to achieve since the recession yet were framed as bad by the BoE, IMF, Osborne, etc. Amusingly the former head of the BoE points this out, the IMF have been shown up for abandoning economics to save/prop up the EU and Osborne was shown to be lying in his assessments and then threatened us with an emergency budget which had no economic purpose than to cripple the country without any factual justification.
"This is why UK Statistics Authority had to intervene against the leave bus slogan, and why Iain Duncan Smith had to back down. But by then it was too late because the UK residuum voters had already been sucked in."
The problem with such calling out is that the remain lies were promoted and criticism shut down. For example Carney was embarrassed publicly for breaking the rules and venturing into politics with his bull and bias reports which conveniently forgot economics to present only a dire doom report. Rees Mogg called him out but was silenced, yet he was right. The lies were not just the official leave campaign, BOTH sides were presenting proven lies.
""This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide," a pamphlet issued by the government at the time said.
That sounds a fairly solid statement."
Yep. But it's NOT UP TO THEM. Jesus Christ, the High Court has just ruled on this, and you are commenting on an article which says that the Government doesn't get to decide, only Parliament.
For the love of God, it's like people have no idea that the Government and Parliament (Executive and Legislature) are two different things. In issues of domestic law, the monarch doesn't get to decide, and hasn't done so since 1689. Parliament is the only body that gets to implement and repeal domestic laws. It was the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of Rights 1689.
I know that facts aren't so important nowadays but Jesus, get an education.
@ DavCrav
"Yep. But it's NOT UP TO THEM. Jesus Christ, the High Court has just ruled on this, and you are commenting on an article which says that the Government doesn't get to decide, only Parliament."
Well done. You serve to prove my point. Thank you. If you care to read further back as to why I made this comment it was because werdsmith was under the impression only the leave campaign lied. So thank you for pointing out the remain campaign was also a bunch of liers.
Get ta fuck.
First, I did abstain. I said at the time that this whole referendum was nonsense, asking us to vote on a subject that only those who had a full-time involvement in politics or economics could fully understand. So I took the conscious, definite decision to abstain.
You do not get to appropriate my vote. Had I been in favour, I would have voted in favour. I was not, so I did not. That's how democracy works.
GJC
If you thought the decision to leave should only be left to those who fully understand it, why did you abstain, giving those who, in your words, "don't understand it" the opportunity to make the decision? Surely in that situation, voting for the status quo would be the logical course of action?
I didn't have a strong opinion either way. It is quite possible that the status quo is the worst option. The point being that I didn't have anywhere near enough decision to make an informed decision, so I took the option to not make a decision. I am mildly disappointed, although not surprised, that more people didn't take the same action.
This should all be seen in the light of my *extremely* cynical and low opinion of pretty much all modern politicians and their motives, which was significantly strengthened by the opportunistic calling of a populist referendum just to grasp onto power for one more term by David Bloody Cameron.
GJC
"You do not get to appropriate my vote. Had I been in favour, I would have voted in favour. I was not, so I did not. That's how democracy works."
Nope.... if you decide not to exercise your franchise then you a) are hostage to the result and b) not entitled to an opinion on the result.
Sorry but *that's* the way it works.
and b) not entitled to an opinion on the result.
*Everyone* is entitled to an opinion on the result, whether they voted or not. That includes under-18s, non-UK EU citizens, and that nice Mr Wu in Shenzhen, who has never visited Britain and probably never will, but who does read the papers because he's curious about the world. You don't lose your right to think about and discuss an activity simply because you choose not to take part in it.
subject that only those who had a full-time involvement in politics or economics could fully understand. So I took the conscious, definite decision to abstain.
In other words, you decided that you didn't understand the issues well enough to make a choice, so you delegated the decison to those who felt that they did.
Fair enough, that's a valid choice. Now STFU about the decision being "wrong". You opted out of taking it, so lost the right to comment.
Once again, for the hard of thinking - I have not expressed any opinion on the outcome of the referendum, and very specifically have not said that the outcome was wrong or right. The whole process was stupid, but that's politics in the 21st century.
I view the whole thing with a sort of detached amusement, much the same as the current US election.
GJC
So you're an idle arsehole, and we should now pay attention to your childish whining, because?
Every single democratic decision ever taken has been on the basis that those who don't vote are happy to adopt whichever view is taken by the majority. No exceptions. If you don't like that fact, you should have got out of your armchair and done something about it instead of crying after the event.
It's that simple. Perhaps you need to invest in the Ladybird Book of Democracy.
> If you abstain in a democratic vote, you're stating
If you abstain you are not stating anything in particular.
People do abstain from voting for a huge variety of reasons. In my case, for instance, I have never voted because I am not satisfied that modern liberal democracy is either effective or representative as a process. On the other hand, I meet and correspond with lawmakers more often than the vast majority of people who are not actively involved in politics, giving me an influence far beyond what a regular voter could have, and this is how I discharge my responsibilities towards the society(-ies) that I live in.
Voting is a bit like shouting from the stands, anyone can do it. Getting in the pitch, on the other hand...
" If you abstain in a democratic vote, you're stating that you're happy to go along with whatever the majority decide. So that's 2:1 in favour of Leave."
Fuck off. That's a complete pile of rubbish. How can you agree to be in favour of leave if you don't know Leave would win? You cannot be in favour of both positions.
You are talking drivel, and it's embarrassing.
I voted to remain, but the vox populi have spoken and it's time to get on with it, whether we personally wanted it or not.
Obviously not as the court has just ruled. The whole thing was, legally speaking, a very expensive opinion poll as Parliament, and only Parliament, makes the laws.
"I didn't want this pay cut and double hours, but as someone voted it in, I better suck it up"
Well, either you also voted,and were out-voted, or you didn't vote at all. Either way, yes, you either suck it up, or leave.
Sure that is one way you could react to being shafted by a bunch of ignorant people. I prefer making a noise about it.
"Ignorant" being used here in the sense of "doesn't think like me" ?
Making a noise about it after the event is pointless, you should have made the noise beforehand.
There is nothing to overrule. The OPCKATR was not legally binding and had less than half the electorate choosing Brexit.. Parliament regularly ignores advice - much of it good advice. It is no stretch to ignore this too.
OPCKATR - Opinion Poll Commonly Known As The Referendum
Obviously this will be appealed - it would have been whatever the decision - but my reading prior to the judgement seemed to suggest that the balance of probabilities was with the government so it's at least a surprise.
If the appeal fails as well (still a big 'if' at this point) then parliament is, by all accounts, heavily pro-Europe and it seems unlikely that any amount of whipping will be enough to force enough people to vote against their strongly held beliefs on this subject (and the government's shambolic performance in preparing for Article 50 is unlikely to help in this).
But then all political hell could break loose. I voted Remain but I really fear how damaging rejecting the result of the referendum could be - even though it was non-binding, etc. etc. most people voting Leave didn't see it that way.
Potentially stormy waters ahead.
"but my reading prior to the judgement seemed to suggest that the balance of probabilities was with the government so it's at least a surprise."
The legal issue was the supremacy of Parliament vs Crown (the govt may be the creature of a Parliamentary majority but nevertheless it's Her Majesty's Goverment, not Parliament's). Any other decision would have been contrary to the trend of the last third of a millennium or so of constitutional history so I'm not in the least surprised.
"Potentially stormy waters ahead."
I think this was always going to be the case.
For me the problem is that both sides have huge vested interest and that they are always going to rock the boat.
either for or against, the correct thing to do would be for everyone working together to get the best result for the country as a whole.
This constant squabbling serves no one, least of all the country as a whole.
@John Mangan
If the appeal fails as well
It is likely that it will - at least according to many legal commentators. The judgement suggests that the government were on a hiding to nothing before they even started as the European Communities Act fairly bluntly made sure that the executive could not ride over the will of parliament.
As such, the only way to go form here is an Act of Parliament that changes the law to allow the executive to move forward - or give parliament the opportunity to exert its sovereign will.
@Cynical Observer
"As such, the only way to go from here is an Act of Parliament that changes the law to allow the executive to move forward - or give parliament the opportunity to exert its sovereign will."
So you would need parliament to agree that they shouldn't have a say on this? Hee hee, that would make me laugh despite the seriousness of the whole thing.
Every day, in every way, it becomes more and more clear that David Cameron and the Brexit-eers had no clue what they were/are doing and, if nothing else comes out of this, it is a stark example that our elected representatives aren't necessarily (I'm being kind) as 'on the ball', 'wise' or capable as we would perhaps like to believe.
I don't think many people regard our elected representatives as
'on the ball', 'wise' or 'capable'
I'm sure most of us regard the majority of them (there are arguably some exceptions) as incompetent psychopathic narcissists who just want to climb the greasy pole of political power.
As the whole referendum f**ktard central fiasco has clearly demonstrated.
I voted Remain but I really fear how damaging rejecting the result of the referendum could be
This all depends on the courage and conviction of the politicians to take the difficult decisions needed to run the country and explain them to the population. Difficult to see that with the current crowd but not totally impossible.
Europe has never really been an issue for the public (remember Hague's "Save the Pound" campaign that flopped so miserably?) People want jobs and their "fair" share: giving more money to areas with large migrant inflows is easy and reasonably cheap. The rest of the EU is now desperate to reform immigration and asylum rules. Should be easy to find countries to work with on something to replace the ridiculous Dublin II accord.
> I have no sympathy for those who are too stupid or lazy not to vote. Use your vote or lose it.
In the context of the referendum, that's the stupidest statement I've seen in a while.
You're asked for an opinion - should we stay, or should we go. You're not sure either way (because neither side is actually giving anything of substance).
Some people said "fuck it", picked one (because they wanted to be "part" of the referendum).
Others said, still not sure, so I'll not vote either way.
I've got far more respect for that latter group than for the former. I know people who voted Leave purely because they wanted to be "involved" and are now pissed that GBP has tanked etc. Frankly, they brought it on themselves, it's just pity they also helped bring it on the rest of us too.
The best reason not to vote is because you don't feel strongly enough in either direction. The worst reason to vote is simply to feel involved in that process, it's not a fucking lottery ticket.
72.2% voted in the opinion poll
51.9% of them voted to leave
0.722 * 0.519 = 0.374718 so we can round that up to 37.5% or three out of 8 of the electorate.
That meant the other 5 did not.
And that is before you consider that a sizeable proportion of the Brexiters were elderly white people and that demographic is a shrinking percentage.
If we leave now, this country is going to want back in and the terms will not be so favourable...
None of Maggies discounts
Join the Euro
and so on
So leaving now will cost our children dearly and will not only be undone but we will be more deeply part of it once the historical blunder of Brexit is recognised as such,,,
0.722 * 0.519 = 0.374718 so we can round that up to 37.5% or three out of 8 of the electorate.
That meant the other 5 did not.
Or to look at it the other way:
0.722 * 0.481 = 0.347282, so we can round that up to 34.7% or three out of 8 of the electorate voted to stay, the other 5 did not.
And that is before you consider that a sizeable proportion of the Brexiters were elderly white people and that demographic is a shrinking percentage.
Far from shrinking, I think you'll find it's actually an increasing percentage all over Europe, which is why pension systems are in such trouble.
well, if the remaining 48% of the voting population couldn't be bothered to express their opinion (and really, in majority of cases it's not about not being able to make a firm decision on either side, just sheer laziness), they actually DO express an opinion: we don't care EITHER WAY the voting goes. It so happens that the majority of voting population chose one route, the non-voters should shut up and go with one of those "either ways". Likewise those who lost (including me).
In fact, it'd be terrible if the referendum result was ignored. Given the level of distrust amongst us, the plebs, against our (ruling) masters as it is already, reversing referendum would cause much more damage than the actual damage from leaving the EU. Unless we'd like to see how a revolution in 21st century would develop, perhaps? And don't tell me people will meekly pocket their phones when the internet and mobile networks and their facebook profiles are down for authority-imposed "maintainence"...
52% of the people who voted chose to leave, which is around 34% of the electorate.
Only 35% of the people who voted in the last election voted Tory, yet they formed a government.
Around 70% of the regions voted to Leave (300,out of 399, IIRC), which is a considerably larger vote in favour than any government has had in the past 50 years.
Agree completely. My point is that its not a rounding endorsement for either position. Theres a mergin in favour of leave but hardly a big one. And noone has voted on what leave looks like. I would like to be able to vote on that not have loud shouty breexiteers that have nothing to lose from it decide on the worst option for me.
And considering this advice has led to the £ tanking, without A50 actually being triggered, would it not be a good idea to ignore it?
If I advised you that jumping off a tall building would make you more attractive, would you follow that advice? Even after you jumped off a curb and knocked a tooth out?
Didn't vote 12,922,659 27.79%
A disappointing statistic, always use your vote as it's your voice or you'll be voting for dictatorship by default:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
"They came for the palmists, but I wasn’t a palmist so I did nothing
They came for the bungee jumpers, but I wasn’t a bungee jumper so I did nothing
They came for the players’ agents, but I wasn’t a players’ agent so I did nothing
They came for the Charles Manson fans, but I wasn’t a Charles Manson fan so I did nothing
They came for the reflexologists, but I wasn’t a reflexologist so I did nothing
They came for the camp TV chefs, but I wasn’t a camp TV chef so I did nothing
They came for the RoMos, I laughed
They came for the martial arts enthusiasts, but I wasn’t a martial arts enthusiast so I did nothing
They came for Eamonn Holmes and I think I’m right in saying I applauded
They came for the fire-eaters, but I wasn’t a fire-eater so I did nothing
They came for Dani Behr, I said she’s over there, behind the wardrobe
Turn a blind eye, sometimes it’s best to
Turn a blind eye, sometimes it’s best to"
"Turn a Blind Eye", Half Man Half Biscuit
"First they came for the Socialists"
No, it's the immigrants they're going for first. Or arguably the trade unionists - the tories have been trying to undermine for decades (Orgreave anyone?). But don't worry, if the current political atmosphere prevails May and co. will get around to the Jews etc. soon enough.
note that both sides are happy to apply this. "Naturally" the losing side is always way keener to do that. What does it tell you about human nature? Pretty thin sheen of "sophistication", and the bottom line is, as with animal kingdom: I HATE to lose!!!! :(
There's a lot more people with dual citizenship in the UK now because of a potential Brexit. And I think over the next year the rest will get there - Irish mainly, but other countries. Wasn't there a rumour Farage had applied for dual German* citizenship recently?
* his wife is German, not trying to start any conspiracy theories
There's a lot more people with dual citizenship in the UK now because of a potential Brexit.
A lot?
Taking the Irish example as the most commonly-sited one:
In August there were 6,710 requests, compared to ~3000 the previous August
In September there were 7,518 applications from the UK compared to 3,431 in 2015.
That's an extra 8K or so. Out of 60m population. Even out of the estimated 2m who are actually eligible it's still hardy "a lot".
Okay, it's not "a lot" but it is double.
I looked myself (Irish, German) but missed qualifying on some conditions. I suspect a lot of people have had a little look? Particularly those of families that had to flee Germany in the 1930's and now get special dispensation to reclaim their citizenship.
As I recall, to hold Irish citizenship on the basis of parentage, you don't always need to apply for it. You already have it. Applying for it just gives you a helpful piece of paper. For example, if either of your parents was an Irish citizen who was born in Ireland, then you are automatically an Irish citizen.
Here's the link to recover your British nationality for the downvoter. That's if you renounced it with the Home Office renunciation form which is the only recognised way of renouncing it, e.g. a country taking your British passport off you is not good enough.
German law does not permit dual citizenship with nations that are not EU members
It does, because it often has no other chance. When I applied for German citizenship I was told that pretty much the only countries who don't get dual nationality are the former countries of the Yugoslavia (that are not yet in the EU), the Soviet Union and Turkey.
Farage is an EU citizen (otherwise he couldn't be an MEP) and so eligible for German citizenship, assuming he chose to live here. There's quite a crowd of idiots who'd welcome him with open arms.
Both sides stretched the truth. Some absolutely blatant untruths from the Exit side as well. We need a second referendum to clarify exaactly what it is the people want. I predict, assuming the higher court upholds this that we will have either a general election or a second rreferendum or both within the year.
Personally I am pleased. I'm out of work for the first time since 2008 and whilst I would prefer this to be resolved soon to remove business uncertainty I am really worried if we do leave it wiill take a long time before the job market sorts itself out. We do not need another recession.
Yes the Remain campaign lied. Though I think you would be stretched to match their lies against Leave's NHS claim, Turks invading the UK etc.
Thinking voters would on voting for their and their children's future would, you would have thought, taken rather more account of analysis coming from independent and disinterested people. Their forecasts had a degree of homogeneity. But then they were not seeking power.
Democracy - as this country has it - has one great purpose. To allow the peaceful transfer of power from one group who has alienated most of the country to another group who has yet to alienate most of the country. As bad as politicians are - it is clear to me they are more likely to take into account (and be held to account) for all the consequences of their decisions. This is why what they say in advance to get votes doesn't always match what they do in order to get the next lot of votes.
That's why referendums are generally a bad idea in complex situations. And nothing is as complex as the consequences of leaving the EU. One which both Remainers & Leavers are still trying to get their heads around. A final real sensible decision would be unwise until that has been bottomed out and understood.
The referendum sent a message. Taking it as an absolute instruction to plough on whatever the consequences on such a narrow margin is just foolhardy. I don't think parliament should reverse it. But I do think parliament should, if it is not satisfied with what the three musketeers come up with, put the final decision back to the people.
And opinions can change:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/16/number-of-people-who-regret-voting-leave-is-greater-than-brexit-victory-margin-6195403/
Now that the claims from both sides can be compared against reality, we should run the referendum again but with 5 options and a transferable vote
- Hard Brexit (closed borders and no single market access)
- Soft Brexit (single market access and free movement of people)
- Soft Remain (carry on as before)
- Hard remain (adopt the Euro and join Schengen)
- Let Parliament decide
Clear majority (60%) required and abstentions count as option 5
@ Red Bren
"Hard Brexit (closed borders and no single market access)"
Skipping over the call for a rerun because of the 'wrong' answer hard brexit has nothing to do with what you have written. Hard brexit means we have control of our borders and import tariffs according to the WTO rules. Instead of a closed border it can actually be more open but more selective. Instead of everyone in europe and their dog it can be anyone in the world who has the skills that we need (as performed in developed countries already).
Now back to calling for another referendum with leave (in untruthful forms) and remain with a 60% criteria otherwise parliament decides (aka remain as if the voter doesnt exist). No. That is just being a sore loser because the rules were clear but produced a result you dont like. Tough.
I really wouldn't get too worked up over rumours of Hard or Soft Brexits.
Brexit negotiations are not a case of all sides working for the best all-round solution, the EU has a vested interested in ensuring that no county can leave the EU on good terms which would let it be successful afterwards. In many ways these negotiations are like a game of poker where the UK player has to keep his cards face up all the time. Much as we'd like to get the warm fuzzy feeling that the government is sharing all its ideas with us, they can't do that since it would mean exposing their negotiating position to their adversaries.
Since Juncker has forbidden his vassals from having independent discussions, the best thing the UK can do is float all kinds of ideas to see what the reaction is. Leak a rumour that we're going for "hard" brexit, and see how the other countries respond. Few politicians will be able to resist commenting. Then leak the idea that maybe "soft" is better, see how that goes down.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some carefully stage-managed arguing, perhaps arrange that a hard- and a soft- partisan have a nice public bitching session, not too serious, to make it look like the whole negotiating team is split.
At the end of the day you probably just want to keep in mind: "What would Sir Humphrey do?"
Since Juncker has forbidden his vassals from having independent discussions
What are you talking about? Article 50 quite clearly sets out who does the negotiating and when and nothing can be negotiated before a country applies to leave. But it is the member states that have the lead in any negotiations.
What are you talking about?
Discussions, as I clearly said, not negotiations.
Article 50 lays down the rules for the actual negotiations, but to ensure that no friendly pre-negotiation discussons take place the commission president has made it clear that he won't tolerate other EU representatives having Brexit talks.His official statement was “I have forbidden Commissioners from holding discussions with representatives from the British government – by presidential order".
that is being used to try and shut people up, rather than reasoned debate needs to bear this in mind:
"A democracy that cannot change it's mind has ceased to be a democracy"
This is a very important point, and one BOTH sides would do well to understand.
Exactly. Parliament can change its mind, why can't 'the peepul' have the same opportunity? Parliament often votes one way and then later votes another way. Once Parliament voted to do terrible things to gentlemen who liked to meet other gentlemen in public toilets. Later they voted to allow the same gentlemen to get married. Opinions change.
This is an important thing about our democracy and a huge flaw in having an EU plebiscite.
When we vote on the government, the party to lead the country, we can change it in a max of 5 years if we are not happy with it. This BREXIT vote will be effective for the foreseeable with no chance of reversal and even if we wanted to reverse it, these things move at glacial pace.
This BREXIT vote will be effective for the foreseeable with no chance of reversal and even if we wanted to reverse it, these things move at glacial pace.
The same is true, of course, of the vote to join the EU in the first place.
Oh wait, Major & Blair never even gave us one.
"A democracy that cannot change it's mind has ceased to be a democracy"
A democracy that cannot undo the anti-democratic mistake taken in their name but without their consent (in fact with their opposition for over a decade) is no longer a democracy. We have had over a decade of this utopia EU and yet we voted to leave. An outcome pretty well set in stone for most of at time which is why a democratic vote was regularly offered and never materialised.
I have had 43 years of the EU (I was 6 in 1972)
Sorry, no, you've had 23 years in the EEC, and then 20 in the EU. The EU wasn't created until the Maastricht treaty of 1996.
If we'd still been in the EEC I am pretty sure the vote would have gone the other way, indeed there would probably never have been a referendum. The EEC wasn't perfect, but it was an economic entity that solved a real problem and gave economic stability to W. Europe. Even Maggie Thatcher recognised that staying in and fighting to change it was the best course of action.
The EU, on the other hand, is a political entity that answered no need, and was created by empire-building politicians purely to satisfy their own vanity. It has severely damaged the economies of most of its members, and is directly responsible for ever-increasing tensions between countries and the nationalist tendencies that are appearing in them.
A democracy that cannot undo the anti-democratic mistake taken in their name but without their consent
Which particular one are you referring to? Governments are always making mistakes. If you're referring to the EU then you'll have to concede that there have been numerous general elections since the initial application to join and all subsequent treaties. In the UK Parliament, and only Parliament, makes the laws.
@ Charlie Clark
"If you're referring to the EU then you'll have to concede that there have been numerous general elections since the initial application to join and all subsequent treaties"
And you will have to also concede that each election was promising a referendum on leaving the EU which was then denied after the election. The reason a vote was never allowed is the lack of support for the EU.
"A democracy that cannot change it's mind has ceased to be a democracy"
yep... I have to say the meedja has always pissed me off in this regard...
Politician enacts "x" policy, comse to realise that perhaps they made a mistake and so reverses policy "x"
The correct response should be "Well done, tries something, something didn't work and is now trying something else" what we actually get "Stupid politician make humiliating U turn ! what an utter twat!"
Net result : Politicians are no longer allowed to change their minds
I suspect most MPs will vote to save their skins, no matter what their personal opinion on Brexit. They will stand up make vague noises about 'will of the people' and the majesty of democracy and vote whichever way their constituency voted to avoid defeat at the next GE.
The unrepresentative and unelected bureaucrats in Brussels have been very generous to places like the West Country and the North of England in terms of regional development funding, agricultural subsidies etc. I suspect the London-centric Tories will be less enthused about handing their cash over to the rural peasantry while there's Crossrail, Crossrail2, the Heathrow third runway etc. to pay for.
2 options.
MP's respect the result and vote to let the Minister invoke almost unanimously
MP's don't respect the (advisory) referendum and vote their PoV, which suggests the UK is going nowhere.
Looks like CMD's little plan to ensure unity in the Tory party for a generation hasn't worked out too well, does it not?
Just another day in Faragistan to me.
are sensible (fat chance) , they they will put the article 50 vote up and say "yes we're leaving"
If they dont, then a lot of voters will start looking for other people to represent them in parliment since/con/lab/libs wont do want the people want.
That way lies the extremist parties such as the fekking (b)ritish (n)azi (p)arty or the equally dire socialist workers party... or whoever they've split into this week
are sensible (fat chance) then they will vote to allow Article 50 to be triggered, so that negotiations can start, BUT they will also require parliamentary approval for the negotiating position AND a second referendum on whether to accept the negotiated package or to cancel the Article 50 process.
To be honest, I don't see why St theresa doesn't just go down that route anyway. It means she responds to the advice of the peepul, but doesn't treat it as a once-and-for-all, no going back suicide note.
@Pen-y-gors
>cancel the Article 50 process.
Which part of "Article 50, once invoked, gives the leaving party 2 years to negotiate leave terms with the EU, if none are found, you leave with nothing." No cancelling because you don't like the terms ...
Article 50 means: out, and any existing terms are considered void.
The EU has the ball, and it can squeeze the living daylights out of the UK, if it so please ... and that for two years ... EU has zero incentive to make the Brexit anything but a nightmare for the UK. The UK knows that they MUST find common ground with the EU in the two years or else they'll be in deep shit (Out with no agreements) ... there is a reason Farage left the political scene, man ;-) -
He is very upset he lost his job in Brussels, which was to stand up for the patriots and racists and get paid for it, every now and insulting his political opponents ... for being bureaucrats like himself ...
Be sure to find him begging to wipe your windscreen at some traffic lights, in years to come.
An extension to the two years is possible - provided the rest of the EU is in agreement to provide the extension.
I can legitimate occasions for that happening - if for instance negotiations have progressed well but it needs another month or two (because reasons). If on the other hand it's been 23 months and UK still hasn't decided whether it wants some sort of associate membership to the European Medicines Agency and European Aviation Safety Agency (like EFTA members do) etc then it might be different
voters will start looking for other people to represent them
Isn't that how the electoral system is supposed to work? You know, voters voting for people whose honestly-held views they support rather than voting constantly for the same people but expecting them to change their opinions daily in response to tabloid headlines?
This is just nonsense and I assume you as a brexiteer trying to get your way if 52% voted leave and 48% voted remain then the MP is either going to annoy 52 or 48 percent of his/her electorate. Considering the 2020 GE isn't a single issue then not all people will vote purely on which way the MP voted 3 years ago on the brexit deal.
Is there really that much of a burning desire to leave the EU even in Durham/Sunderland i don't see it. Alot of hatred of the south, disgruntlement with the government and a pinch of nationalism but does anyone care enough to take pitchforks onto the streets. I think not.
then the MP is either going to annoy 52 or 48 percent of his/her electorate.
Most English constituencies outside London had much higher figures in favour of Leave
does anyone care enough to take pitchforks onto the streets. I think not.
!0 years ago you'd have been right, but looking at the growing anger all across Europe I wouldn't depend on that now.
I'd have expected the French to be the first people in the streets on this, as usual, but if Parliament refuses to recognise the Brexit vote then I wouldn't be surprised to see street protests in England within the next few years. I really hope our elected representatives aren't so stupid as to push it that far.
Except that is exactly what they are arguing.
Just because the people who voted for Brexit did not realize leaving the EEA could be part of it (they say) is basically tough s**t. After all they did want to "Take back control" didn't they, right?
Can't have border controls and free trade as well.
"We hold that the Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the TEU for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union."
No mention on whether the Prime Minister does or does not have the power.
Funny how the PM did have the power to lie their way into a war but doesn't have the power to abide by a referendum with a higher turnout than the election.
I suppose the soln would be for the current PM to invade europe. Now where can I find a posting on the internet suggesting that Brussels has WMDs ?
No mention on whether the Prime Minister does or does not have the power.
I'll type it out as the judgement does not facilitate copying.....
"In our judgment, the clear and necessary implication from these provisions taken separately and cumulatively is that Parliament intended EU rights to have effect in domestic law and that this effect should not be capable of being undone or overridden by action taken by the Crown in exercising its Prerogative powers."
That's pretty much slam dunk. It means the executive has no where to go except on a spurious trip to the Supreme Court - where they will most likely lose.
@ Yet Another Anonymous coward
IANAL....
But I don't think so. I think it's a case of they are additional to domestic law. e.g. the tariffs for criminal offences are set by the national legislatures but the working time directive is pan-European as are the standards certain aspects of safety e.g. combustibility of fabrics.
These are just a couple of example - as with all things it's rarely that simple.
Democracy seems to be the only really practical alternative to violence to attain one's aims, at least in the Western world at this point in time.
There are many people who believe when Ted Heath entered us into the Common Market back in the day that he committed an act of treason (http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html), but the public did not rise up in violence to change this, they simply stood up and argued against the Common Market/EU and hoped for change.
They/we eventually, after decades, forced the government to give us our say, and despite the massive status quo advantage, and of nearly all the establishment, the civil service, the media, IMF etc etc against us we stuck up our two fingers and said "OUT". The finest display of democracy I have seen in my lifetime, and the one and only time my side has ever won.
This vote was not advisory, whether they think it was or not, and if they screw us on this one it proves that you CANNOT change things through the democratic process.
That leaves only violence - and it would be fully legitimate violence. I'm sharpening my pitchfork as we speak.
F8ck you. the raw aggression of core die-hard leavers that I talked to in person before and after the vote was shameful. your rhetoric has led to real violence in documented cases. and you duped a load of middle of the road "mildly pissed off with the state of things" people into voting with you because they thought somehow it might make things miraculously better.
I'll defend the immigrants with my pitchfork. step outside if you like.
but seriously..
do any of you think about the set of circumstances that led to this?
the con:lib 2010 coalition - libs do a decent job on many policies, are vilified for one particular policy that PR dave managed to pin on them, then get thoroughly knifed in the back in 2015 by the ungrateful great british public.
dave puts referendum in his 2015 manifesto - expecting a coalition and never having to deliver on it, and then unexpectedly wins due to the aforementioned knifing.
barrow boy farage gets himself a bigger and bigger profile on a single issue , until he finally wins it - at which point they implode from the implications on their tiny brains of actually having to do something. thus proving that it was the talking about it rather than the doing of it that mattered to them. boris not a lot different except he is a wee bit smarter.
personally, I hope that the political parties split and reform, leaving us with 5 main groups:
right - leave
right - remain
centre (likely remain)
left - leave
left - remain
and the interest based such as green, ukip etc.`
I am utterly fed up with this "england voted leave, scotland voted remain" crap . Not in MY bit of england we didn't (I wish there was a way to make a uk street legally part of scotland!).
Give us a general election, with a wider distribution of parties/people to vote for who can properly reflect our views, elected under PR so that all our votes count. Let them debate the issue, and propose a question to put before the people. THEN I will respect the result.
elected under PR so that all our votes count. Let them debate the issue, and propose a question to put before the people. THEN I will respect the result.
theesult? There won't be a result, there'll be January's result, then a split, a new election, six months arguing about who'll form another coalition government, then a September result which reverses the first one, some street demonstrations, the prime minister will resign, another election and a different coalition, and it will all start over again. Meanwhile the economy will go down the crapper. See Italy for how that "works".
No, we should have either; extended the referendum age ( it's asking opinions, not electing parliament) to youngsters, maybe 16+, or else leave it to MPs to factor that in when they make up their minds on the vote.
I think I recall that the Scottish independence vote was 16+
Fascinating to see all the Remainer astroturf. After all, what normal person wants the elite to ignore the votes of ordinary people? And I note the lying claims of an "advisory" referendum - anyone remember that?! - being trotted out. Mr Editor, you might want to block some of this fake "comment".
It doesn't matter what the outcome of any vote was, so much as that the vote is respected. Have we realty reached the point at which we're abandoning democracy? Is Mugabe-style elections the future of Britain? If so, then violence is inevitable.
As others have said, what did we vote on?
- Leave the EU?
- Leave the Economic Area?
- Leave the ECHR?
All or some of the above? Whats TM going for?
Strange though, an awful lot of Leavers I know were going on (pre-referendum) about how Parliament was no longer sovereign, and we need to get that back etc. We get a court ruling saying the elites can't just dictate and must put it to a vote and you're all upset?
> Have we realty reached the point at which we're abandoning democracy?
We're a parliamentary democracy and the legal system has just said that Parliament must be involved. If anything we've just re-affirmed that democracy not abandoned it.
> If so, then violence is inevitable.
Lucky we're going to have that extra money for the NHS so we can handle the casualties then... oh, wait
@ Ben Tasker
Your thinking is backwards, the court isn't saying that elites can't just dictate and must put it to a vote, the court is saying that a fully democratic referendum can be disregarded if the MP's (who one might call elites) vote against it.
The same MP's that voted to have a referendum, and agreed to abide by the result.
> Your thinking is backwards, the court isn't saying that elites can't just dictate and must put it to a vote,
Yes, yes it is.
It's saying that the Government cannot simply make the decision and bypass Parliament.
If you'd prefer it termed this way, it's saying the elite of the political elites cannot dictate.
> the court is saying that a fully democratic referendum
You missed out the word "advisory" there. And, before you take umbrage, make sure you read the numerous legal analysis that show referendums in the UK are advisory unless explicitly stated otherwise in the enabling legislation. It could always be disregarded (not that I'm saying it's necessarily a good idea)
They asked our opinion, and now they must vote on it.
Personally, I think Brexit is a fucking stupid idea, but for me this isn't just about that. The idea that the Prime Minister can make such a permanent, nigh-on-irrevocable decision without a complete mandate (see below) is insane and (given who the PM is) dangerous.
On the mandate front, OK, as a nation we voted in majority of Brexit. We didn't vote on losing access to the single market, and certainly didn't vote on coming out of the ECHR. One of those we know May wants, the other varies depending on who's speaking, but neither or which were actually voted on specifically.
Can we stop calling MPs 'elites' please.
Our elites tend to be undemocratically appointed bureaucrats in Whitehall and/or undemocratically appointed retired MPs, bureaucrats, lawyers and businesssmen in the Lords. Not forgetting the undemocraticcally elected royalty and nobility. I will give you a few silver spoon type old Etonians in the tory party but for the most part MPs are a pretty average bunch.
Its a fiction that UK is more democratic than the EU. Simply not true.
Additionally can we stop trying to claim the current government was democratically elected and therefore has any authority to decide what the Brexit terms are. It wasn't and it hasn't. David Camerons government was democratically elected on the basis it would negotiate a deal with the EU and then recommend we stay in. We really should be having a General Election right now - and I kind of expect tthats where this whole debate will end up.
@Mark 110
If you want to talk about the basis on which the last election was fought by the Tories how about this from their manifesto.....
We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbo-charging free trade. Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union – but whose interests, crucially, are guaranteed whether inside the Euro or out. No to ‘ever closer union.’ No to a constant flow of power to Brussels. No to unnecessary interference. And no, of course, to the Euro, to participation in Eurozone bail-outs or notions like a European Army.
We will build on this. We want to preserve the integrity of the Single Market, by insisting on protections for those countries that have kept their own currencies. We want to expand the Single Market, breaking down the remaining barriers to trade and ensuring that new sectors are opened up to British firms.
Brexit is fundamentally incompatible with the above - part of the basis on which they were elected. Even more interesting, convention is that the House of Lords does not mess with stuff that was a manifesto commitment. Well, the commitment was to grow the Single market - seems fair for the House of Lords to try and take that line.......
This "elite" thing is a stupid nonsense.
In effect it means that anyone we vote in to parliament is automatically discounted. So democracy is impossible. Or that we can only elect the uneducated and uncaring? I would have thought that the "elite" were the people we do want to run the country, the best educated. Whether that's what they actually are is a different matter.
This post has been deleted by its author
If the winning result in the referendum had a big margin then things would be less fractious
A big issue is the fag paper thin margin of the referendum (even thinner if look at voting population as a whole).
Whatever happens, a lot of people will be unhappy,.
Personally I would prefer to keep freedom to easily move to, work and live in Europe (it's not all about "them" coming here as so many froth on about , ironically the Brits are very good at moving into Europe, just look at the figures).
I know plenty of people running small businesses mainly based in EU (with UK based earnings a minor component) but with their companies originally incorporated in the UK (in most cases started in UK but ended up more EU focused due to customers / sales) facing a lot of hassle. In most cases their decision (depending on exactly how shafted we get on Brexit, I expect very as EU want to discourage leaving) is likely to be setting up company somewhere in EU proper, so depriving UK of its current share of tax on their companies
The violence is already on the streets. Delighted xenophobes and racists who think they now have the right to go around beating people up in the streets for not being English. If this is what 'getting our country back' means, then frankly, stuff that country. Stuff the selfish bullshiit. Stuff the obsession with asylum seekers, many of whom are at our doors because of our own stupid destabilising wars in recent decades. They're PEOPLE. Stuff the rose-tinted ideas of some victorian past that never actually existed. Stuff the idea we can just sell to 'new markets' because brexit leaders tell us we can, what with our new effing Royal Yacht to help us. And for that matter, stuff the obsession with 'eu laws' you can't even explain why you hate. Stuff the turning away from our RESPONSIBILITY as a wealthy nation to help poorer neighbours. Stuff the wall building HATE. Stuff the tabloid-headline obsessed zombies who have never had it so good yet feel miserable for reasons they can't even explain.
If you want a war, I'll fight for the modern nation in a globalised world which ONLY is what it is because of its open borders, tolerance, friendship and civilised behaviour. We are NO USE to the world as an insular pocket of xenophobes who consider foreigners subhuman.
I'll fight for the modern nation in a globalised world which ONLY is what it is because of its open borders, tolerance, friendship and civilised behaviour.
I'll join you, that's the best description of an independent UK that I've seen.
Of course, we need to be oustide the dictatorship of an undemocratic, closed, protectionist federation to make that work.
" closed, protectionist federation to make that work".
Do you mean by that the United Kingdom, outside the EU, with border controls and tariffs?
And even the "undemocratic" bit probably applies, according to some arguments about first-past-the-post elections. Especially when one party can be taken over by a bunch who only registered/joined to import their own party politics into it.
because of its open borders
But the EU doesn't have open borders. If you're American, Indian, Chinese, etc. and you want to work in an EU country you have to jump through the same hoops that you would in a non-EU European country.
There are supposedly no *internal* borders, but that's only because the EU is supposed to be one big place, so the border is round the outside of it all. Not any more open, just more far-flung.
What a load of bollocks, they've always been able to sell. Our manufacturing sector isn't about selling cheap tat (no-one can beat China at that, tariffs or no), it's focused on high tech and engineering, where it's not just a race to the bottom in terms of cost. What we've currently got is a temporary boost to sales from buyers who are making deals whilst they can get bargains because the pound is low. This will partly be reversed when the costs of imported materials starts to be factored in again (most firms hedge their currency deals and material supplies for 3-6 months, so it will be a delayed effect), and prices have to rise to compensate. We might even find sales drying up at that point, as foreign buyers will have stocked up whilst the prices were low.
UK manufacturing being able to pay their UK workers less (not in pounds, but compared to their overseas costs) than before will help their profit margins of course, but that's a short term effect too. When those UK workers see that everything they buy which comes from abroad is costing more they will demand pay rises. So this only really becomes a permanent improvement to the manufacturers if the working class takes the hit of not getting the pay rises they need to compensate for the falling pound's impact on their cost of living.
Glad to see the judges supporting the sovereignty of Parliament. After all, before now we've chopped off a King's head to emphasise the point. I trust that we won't need to chop off any other heads before this whole Brexit farce is resolved (although God knows there are plenty of worthy candidates...)
A few minutes basic research reveals the following (please don't downvote without checking):
• The EU is heavily pro-privatisation (a string of directives going back to the "Rail Directives" of the 90s promote this; it's behind every pointless UK privatisation from Railways to Royal Mail. The NHS is next).
• Via the ECJ, the EU has brought a series of court cases systematically undermining unions (eg the Vaxholm, Viking and Ruffert cases with judgements including the chilling sentence "the right to strike is not absolute", putting industrial relations back into the 19C).
• MEPs have no power to originate legislation; this is done by the Commission, who in turn follow the dictates of something called the European Round Table of Industrialists, a group of the 50 leading multinationals in Europe (Shell, BP, Volkswagen, GlaxoSmithKline, all the usual suspects).
Did anyone say during the infantile pre-referendum so-called discussions "We'd like you to vote for a deeply right-wing neo-liberal economic agenda which is going to hand control of your life to a bunch of your favourite multinationals and privatise everything out of existence"? The biggest lie was the lie of omission by Remain, in ignoring this right-wing privatisation-and-control agenda; the loathsome Farage is insignificant by comparison. All we got was "Be afraid about foreigners" vs "Be afraid about money".
It seems the entire political establishment (together with the comfortable metropolitan middle class) is now unanimously right-wing, and couldn't give a toss what us proles think. It would be nice to feel someone was representing me in return for my vote, and not colluding in the profitisation of national infrastructure.
>(please don't downvote without checking):
Checked, still downvoted, though ...
>it's behind every pointless UK privatisation from Railways to Royal Mail. The NHS is next
No it is not ... all EU Directive 91/440 says is that you should separate track management from carriers, allowing private firms to use the tracks, ending state monopoly. It does not say sell infrastructure and trains to 27 (iirc) different companies. Thatcher privatized the shit out of your industry, effectively killing it, openly stating that the financial sector would pick up the GDP slack ... who cares about proles, anyway ?
French railways are still public, yet, private and foreign services use the tracks as well, now. The tracks are public and WILL REMAIN PUBLIC, the historical public train services (as in passenger services) are still operating. Guess what ? France also implemented that directive. Now, it would be greatly appreciated, if you could STFU.
I did not care to read your other points, the first one is so ridiculous ... no, I did ... they are all BS as well ... but I do not have the time now to go over them, this will be the exercise for the reader.
French railways are still public, yet, private and foreign services use the tracks as well, now. The tracks are public and WILL REMAIN PUBLIC, the historical public train services (as in passenger services) are still operating. Guess what ?
It only works because they are massively subsidised by the French taxpayer, though. And although the TGV is a great service, the standard commuter trains make the old network southeast look competently-run.
Much of the EU's neo-liberal agenda was a result of the British Conservative government and they pushed it relentlessly in the UK, leaving us with a national infrastructure owned and subsidising the state owned industries of Germany and France. Similarly, many of the EU's social protections were watered down at the behest of the Tories.
Politicians have been happy to use the EU as a trojan horse to implement their ideological/self-enriching policies so they can say to the electorate with a straight face, "It's not our fault, the nasty EU made us do it!" They have also been very reluctant to take advantage of the social benefits of EU membership as it would lead to Monty Python-esque answers to the question "What has the EU ever done for us?" David Cameron had to be bullied with petitions to apply for flood relief funds. That's the equivilant of taking out home insurance, then refusing to make a claim so you can bitch about the poor service they give you. Only now is it becoming clear how much unreported support the EU has been giving to poorer parts of the country, and suddenly, special interest groups are all jostling for government handouts to replace what will be lost. Somehow I think it will add up to more than the £350million per week we were going to get back for the NHS.
The important vote shouldn't be about whether to trigger article 50. Article 50 is meant to be the action that starts the ball rolling, it doesn't definitively mean we've passed the point of no return and have to accept whatever deal our negotiators come up with, sight unseen.
The definitive point is when we have a negotiated position on what the terms of our leaving the EU would be. At that point there a Parliamentary vote should be considered essential, or we really will have shown democracy the door. Unfortunately, with EU negotiations being what they usually are, the whole thing is likely to still be up in the air until 5 minutes before the deadline, which would leave no time for parliamentary debate.
So we're back to the only point where we can have parliamentary oversight of this process is on the triggering of article 50. Yet our current PM wants to stop that, presumably because she thinks "taking the power back" was just about her getting all the power with no-one to challenge her. Whether you're pro-brexit or pro-remain, surely that should be a cause for concern, shouldn't it?
Article 50 is in fact irreversible unless the EU agree to let us reverse it. 2 years later we are out. The EU hold all the cards on the terms of our exit. We assume they would like to continue to trade with us but I expect it will be on their terms not ours.
The definitive point is when we have a negotiated position on what the terms of our leaving the EU would be. At that point there a Parliamentary vote should be considered essential, or we really will have shown democracy the door.
One of the issues in the court case was whether or not Article 50 is or is not unilaterally revocable/reversible. That unilateral aspect is essential as it would be the only aspect leaving the UK in any sort of control over its own destiny/progress through the negotiations.
As I understand it, the High Court did not rule on this - and the feeling among the legal commentators seems to be that such a decision would need to go all the way to the EU Court of Justice. It is felt that that might be unpalatable for the executive.
If it really is irreversible then the maximum scrutiny/discussion before firing the starter pistol seems only sensible.
@Cynical Observer (I'm the anonymous coward who made the original post)
"One of the issues in the court case was whether or not Article 50 is or is not unilaterally revocable/reversible."
You make an excellent point. I had assumed that unilateral revocation was implied, on the basis that no sane person/entity anywhere, in any aspect of life, EVER starts the process of a negotiation with a declaration that they will accept whatever terms end up being negotiated. What would be the point of those negotiations? However it does appear that this may not be the case, and triggering Article 50 potentially means that the rest of the EU are then able to chuck the UK out regardless of the results of negotiations - even if by then we'd had an explicit referendum that rejected the terms.
The next step of business - before Article 50 is triggered - should be to gain a legally binding agreement with the EU that Article 50 can be unilaterally revoked. If it's the EU Court of Justice that needs to rule on this then so be it. If the EU do consider article 50 unrevokable then it's even more important that our Parliament gets a say in when it should be triggered.
There's an awful lot of "Brexit is Brexit" being preached, but nothing about the due diligence needed to implement it as safely as possible. When I take a punt I generally prefer it to be a few quid on the lottery or the horses, not the economic future of my country on a negotiating table in Brussels.
No, I'm not surprised but not for the spurious reasons you provide: there is no conspiracy. The referendum was a poor idea badly implemented in order to try and settle an argument in the Tory party once and for all. Again. How well that worked.
The Act of Parliament that enabled the referendum should have set out a quorum and a minimum winning margin, quite possibly within the four countries that comprise the United Kingdom. It should also have made clear that Parliament would take up the result of the referendum within a specific period.
You want a globalist agenda? look at some of the people who funded the Leave campaign.
This is nothing to do with how the public voted. It's about the Government following the correct procedure and staying within it's powers.
The judgement is the legislature telling Ms May to get a proper mandate for doing what she's proposed. The referendum is an important sign of the will of the people, but on it's own it doesn't provide that mandate - it also needs parliamentary approval. The fact is that Ms May would rather push her version of Brexit without any oversight whatsoever, and I salute the judges for telling her to sod off and do the job properly.
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide," a pamphlet issued by the government at the time said.
That's basically saying: the current controlling party promises to try to implement solution the majority of voters decide.
However, they should have to have a vote of Parliament to push through a change of the legal structure of the whole country. Seems absurd that they'd be able to by fiat just wipe out all the regulations by which the country runs without Parliament agreeing on the record.
As a US citizen it also seems strange to make such a huge change by simple majority. Parliament and all other political and legal decisions are made using representative voting. Every U.K. election I watch from afar amazes me in that the left parties generally get far more cumulative votes that conservatives but the Tories somehow skate away with a majority in Parliament. Everyone seems ok with that but then a 2% majority of the 72% who voted is enough to scrap 40+ years of legal progress by numerous elected Parliaments? Very strange.
As a US citizen it also seems strange to make such a huge change by simple majority.
Not just strange but stupid. A bit like turning over the election process to the media… look how well that's worked out for you lot.
The referendum was supposed to be one of political expediency where the Prime Minister could silence, once and for all, the critics in his own party. The same Prime Minister who, when he became party leader in 2005, said that "we have got to stop letting Europe divide us". He failed to follow his own suggestion and follow the lesson of every successful party leader: never let yourself be blackmailed by a minority the party.
Every U.K. election I watch from afar amazes me in that the left parties generally get far more cumulative votes that conservatives but the Tories somehow skate away with a majority in Parliament
You should watch a little more closely. Outside of the period from 1995-2005, the Conservatives have had the largest share of the popular vote in every general election for the past 50 years.
If there was a do-over vote, would the majority still vote Leave? While I agree that the MPs in areas where there was a clear majority for Leave would feel a lot of pressure to vote the same, the areas where it was close like the overall 52-48 margin might argue that some are having "Regrexit" and it is therefore no longer clear whether a majority of their constituents still want to exit the EU.
At least with all the craziness this will evoke, if we end up electing Trump over here the UK will be too busy dealing with their own strife to have time to laugh at us!
Difficult to say and you know how reliable those polls are!
The general view seems to be that there are more people who voted to leave who regret their vote than otherwise. Turnout would be key (could the protest vote be mobilised again so strongly? would the middle class get off its fat arse to vote in its self-interest?) but, so frankly, would be the arguments put forward on both sides.
The public give Parliament the right to rule and make laws in our name, when we are given a vote on how they should do this, no unelected muppet judge or EU luvvies can be allowed to change this. Any MP that has the bottle to block BREXIT better be looking for a new job, come the next election !
The public give Parliament the right to rule and make laws in our name
I think you'll find that no one is arguing about this. Or at least no one that voted remain is arguing about this. It's simply that it was not felt appropriate that St Teresa and the Three Brexiteers should be able to do this over croissants and coffee on a Saturday morning.
In essence - the Judges have confirmed what seems to be a strongly held view of yours - that The public give Parliament the right to rule and make laws in our name and that is exactly what they will do.
Bring back the Monarchy and we can all get on with our lives.
We voted out, end of, now deal with it and politicians can get us a good deal, as that's what they are being paid for after all.. Just like all of the middle managers in this country that serve us all so well.
Beer because it's pre-Friday today.
...and that's all that matters. If you didn't vote, then your fault. You don't count. You can't complain.
Please stop all this disingenuous adding together of the unknowns and the lazy with your chosen view. You all work in a field that supposedly demands logical and rational thinking, and then you get all hormonal and spiteful when things don't go your way.
The fact that the majority didn't vote the way you wanted (and indeed not the way I wanted) happened. You have to deal with it. You are not an embryo Guardian journalist, threatening to cry and blub everywhere.
Getting lawyered up is always the final pathetic position of the desperate.
People - we are leaving the EU. End of.
No more comments. The topic is closed.
"Getting lawyered up is always the final pathetic position of the desperate."
That's what the government is doing, in order to avoid an Act of Parliament. That's why they will appeal it. It's Ms May standard playbook, why follow the law when you can just rule by popular diktat.
Once A50 has been triggered, by a majority vote in parliament, then we're leaving the EU. Until then, it's *just* a politically divisive topic that gets a MP gunned down in the street, by the "we're not racialist" side.
"If you didn't vote, then your fault."
The amount of hoops I had to jump through to get my vote (been outside UK for 14 years, back for 2) was quite a lot. If I hadn't come back to the UK for a bit I'd have not gotten any vote on keeping my EU citizenship.
"The fact that the majority didn't vote the way you wanted"
That's not what majority means. No group (leave, remain, abstain) got a majority. Since the plebiscite was not required to be acted upon (despite much foaming at the mouth) it didn't have a proper majority requirement, which would have explicitly cast the abstain voters into one of the camps (typically the one for maintaining the status quo).
While I voted remain, and live in the EU, I can perfectly well accept that the UK will leave the union. Means I have to get a third nationality and (hopefully, depends on how UK citizenship works post EU) keep my current citizenship. It's a bit of a pain in the arse, but my life isn't going to be badly affected.
Still think it's a terrible idea for the UK. The government and Parliament are going to be spending years sorting this out (including big fights over who controls what) instead of addressing issues of actual import.
So there's a nice distracting, divisive "issue" that the public can be relied on to focus blindly on (see also abortion, gun rights etc) while the elites can get on running the country without any awkward public interaction. Just wait until something dodgy comes up, guarantee that it'll get buried in brexit news.
...and that's all that matters. If you didn't vote, then your fault. You don't count. You can't complain.
On another thread I called out the voting record of UKIP in the European Parliament. To that I add Blessed Nigel's absence from the Fisheries Commission where he was supposed to represent the interests of his nation and constituents.
Based on your logic, UKIP never had a right to bleat, moan, complain or stir things up - and yet they were accorded the privilege of an audience.
You now want to deny that courtesy to those that you disagree with.
Shame on you.
Don't be surprised. You get a better standard of commentard around here. We tend to use reason more than the average punter, which also explains why the 'case for brexit' has been exposed as a castle built on lies, stupidity, political opportunism and xenophobia.
We all know why brexiteers are so upset by Westminster having the final say. Brexit will happen, but not on the narrow xenophobic terms of Farage and Co. The referendum did Not give May or anyone else permission to turn us into a sad closed off island of hate.
Brexit isn't about returning power to Westminster. It's about xenophobia. Backward hatred which, if allowed to shape our future will destroy our prosperity.
I want my country back. The country we had before the referendum.
The referendum did Not give May or anyone else permission to turn us into a sad closed off island of hate.
They don't need permission; it's already happened. If you don't already do it as part of your morning routine, I strongly recommend taking a minute to skim the newspaper front pages when you pass your local newsagent...
Oh, and the judgment makes no difference whatsoever. The chances of Parliament rejecting the result of the referendum are roughly 15% of fuck-all.
Brexit isn't about returning power to Westminster. It's about xenophobia.
No, it is not, and no amount of whingeing about that by people like you who cannot understand the concerns many of us have about the disastrous economic and bankrupt political ideas of the EU is going to change that. You may want to think it's all about xenophobia, but that says more about your attitudes to the issues than about ours.
Some people undoubtedly voted for Brexit because they are xenophobes. Some people undoubtedly voetd remain because they are lazy lardarses who prefer an easy life in their comfort zone. Don't assume that everyone made their minds up for such trivial reasons, it's wrong, and it's offensive.
Of course not everyone who voted Leave had xenophobic motivations, but if you think the abstract arguments about sovereignty that decided the question for you are the same as decided it for everyone else, I'm sorry to break it to you but you're wildly over-generalising from your own personal experience. If you consult actual data, rather than your personal anecdote, you may be surprised by what you find.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3746/immigration-is-now-the-top-issue-for-voters-in-the-eu-referendum.aspx
"You all make me sick"
it seems I have a stronger constitution than you as I can keep my bile in check.
That said, I suggest you naff* off, keep naffing off until you get back where you started and then naff off some more.
*of course you should substitute another word here
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
