Yes, It's quite idiotic that the govt decided to make a case of it. Frankly, why bother? I would be very surprised if the MPs vote to remain now. Most of them are so consumed by "voted by the people" and would ignore that nearly 50% were against it. I expect this to be passed (in favour of brexit) by the parliament and May would be back in same spot she's in right now.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yes, It's quite idiotic that the govt decided to make a case of it. Frankly, why bother? I would be very surprised if the MPs vote to remain now. Most of them are so consumed by "voted by the people" and would ignore that nearly 50% were against it. I expect this to be passed (in favour of brexit) by the parliament and May would be back in same spot she's in right now.
Still very likely to be Brexit, just the process has become more elongated.
There was no threshold stipulated prior to the referendum, and this was accepted by both sides. Nor was there any point where the outcome would merely be interpreted as a suggestion. Would we have merely taken a Scottish Yes vote under advisement; told them to accept a few more devolved powers, and kindly sod off? Not a chance.
Last edited:
That's not what he was getting at. What he was getting at is that 52/48 is not a clear majority. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if no threshold was stipulated....52/48 is not a CLEAR majority.
apparently not - may says the timetable is the same - article 50 to be triggered early next year (presumably and appeal and subsequent vote can be pushed through by then?)
Well, I mean, that's clearly not true.
I knew before the vote it was only "advisory". Lots of people did. Boris Johnson *almost* came out saying we should vote leave to negotiate better terms for staying in the EU (he later backtracked)
Which seems hard to believe, as the Government will have to draft and detail the plans (which they've been desperately trying to avoid) and then debate. If parliament considers the proposal to be substantively different (i.e. whatever the hell is meant by hard Brexit) then the MPs can force amends or vote against. It is inconceivable to me that this won't extend the timelines, unless they expected this verdict in the first place.
This is just plain wrong.
She'd be doing well to be worse than Cameron but she's already giving it a good go!
There are lots of citations and articles pointing out that it is the referedum is not legally binding pre-dating the vote. A very quick Goggle search will produce many examples. It's well established.
The complete restoration of justice and taxation powers, the ability of the UK to negotiate its own trade deals, billions brought back to the Treasury, and an end to full FoM.
I can't see that there is much debate regarding the above, in so far as what the Leave vote encompassed. Their absence from any future Brexit deal would represent a dismissal of the electorate IMO.
So because at, the very least, three of those are directly contradictory how should the government deal with that?
or they are pretty confident of winning the appeal?
or perhaps they have sounded out their MP's and think with a 3 line whip none would stick their head above the parapet and they can still win?
or they may just ignore the ruling (though that would be a pretty dangerous precedent to set)
You'll have to point out to me where Cameron said that eh would ignore the result? Or Vote Leave for that matter?
It's only natural for the PM to say that. If, however, she can show that the Commons are attempting to delay and disrupt the triggering of A50, her electoral position can only be strengthened in the event of a GE.
It's only natural for the PM to say that. If, however, she can show that the Commons are attempting to delay and disrupt the triggering of A50, her electoral position can only be strengthened in the event of a GE.
What are the latest odds of the UK staying in the EU?
I don't think the Brexiteers could have more of a mess if they tried.
The sheep are bleating.
They could save the country yet.
I don't think the Brexiteers could have more of a mess if they tried.
The sheep are bleating.
They could save the country yet.
She has said that yes, but legal experts have said it will be difficult to get a bill drafted, debated, amended in the commons, then debated and amended by the lords before March.
Ladbrokes put odds pf a 2017 General Election at 2/1
She could strap one on and rape a puppy in the middle of pmq's and she still couldn't loose to corbnyn... she should have called one straight away
I wasn't say there was. I was just pointing out the distinction between a clear majority and a majority. Coxy was speaking about the former, whereas Stanley Road seemed to be referring to the latter.
though if they win the appeal to the supreme court they dont have to do that... if they can pursuade all of their mps to vote with the bill they can put the most half baked non committal bollocks together and pass it - or as I say and its the worst option of the lot they could just ignore the ruling (a dangerous precident) but there is plenty of scope for them to stick to the timetable
they could even call a general election before then with triggering article 50 on day one in their manifesto (which with a likely big majority they could easily vote through any old tosh)
A 52-48 win for Remain, would have been a more the sufficient majority with which to beat down any Eurosceptic challenge for a generation. We knew that we'd have to accept that.
In your opinion.
But more to the point, are you refuting the assertion that they represent the Leave vote?
In your opinion.
But more to the point, are you refuting the assertion that they represent the Leave vote?
I read part of the verdict, including the part you referenced. It reinforces the view that, the people in government are complete loons. What's worse, the government have chosen to appeal it.
When I posted the story a few weeks ago, the ft article I quoted already stated the government's postion was extremely week.
It also shatters what little confidence I have, that our government will get a sensible resolution with Brexit.
Not only do we not have the man-power, our government is run by incompetents.
FFS talk abour rewriting history ... bloody farrage was saying (when he though he would loose) that a close vote would probably lead to another referendum
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
So a swing of less than 650,000 votes in referendum where 33.5million people participated and you think to not have those policies exactly as you describe them as a "dismal failure".
Have a word with yourself. There are still 16.1 million of the electorate that still have to be considered.
Leave politicians were busy talking about a second referendum in the days before the vote, when polls were showing remain to win.
But in all honesty it's semantics, we all know we are leaving the EU. The question is if the government has the mandate to break all ties regardless of the cost.
IMO, it doesn't. Especially when the leave vote painted a false picture of what Brexit would look like.
That just makes you think how little understanding they might have about all the other things and it might explain their deluded comments about trade-deals, the negotiation process, the influence on the economy, the legal consequences, immigration et.al; they just don’t understand these things at all. They certainly stick to their campaign slogan “don’t trust experts”. They sure as hell don’t seem to consult any. Boris doesn’t look out of place anymore. At least he is entertaining.
It is going to be a titanic success.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
For example, what does ending full FoM actually entail?
Bloody hell Nick, no wonder you're pissed off. You got a different ballot slip to the rest of us.
All mine said was: Should the UK remain a member of the EU or Leave the EU? and then one box for Remain, one for Leave.
None of this restoration of justice & taxation, ability to negotiate trade deals, billions returned to the treasury and no freedom of movement options you got on yours.
Farage is not the epitome of Leave voters, nor Boris. But if you can show me where either campaign stated officially that they would ignore the EU Ref, please do.
Post-truth statement.
But we are not ignoring the referendum are we?
A lot of this debate is about what kind of Brexit we get. Virtually everybody that matters, has accepted we are leaving the EU.
It's almost as if, in the absence of a coherent message and plan (from both sides), we each voted for our own narrow interpretation of Brexit.
Why do I get the feeling you're using "nobody said they'd ignore the vote" to deflect from the fact you didn't read the terms of the referendum and only just found out that it was non-binding from the very beginning?
They might represent the Leave Vote, but - as you are keen to point out when it suits you but now are apparently denying - not everybody voted leave for the same reason. How do you ensure that people who voted Leave to end 'full FOM' (which we don't have anyway but I'll play your game) and people who voted to bring 'billions back into the economy' but don't care about FoM are left equally happy by the settlement?
And as soon as you make the recognition that Brexit meant different things to different people you realise how weak the governments mandate to do absolutely anything it pleases in the wake of the referendum with no public oversight and no deference to the electorate actually is.
I used to think you were one of the few people who had courage of convictions when it came to what they actually wanted from Brexit but the more we talk the more disappointingly changeable you come across.
Nah, that would have been a really stupid thing to do. It would have almost given the politicians carte blanche to do exactly as they pleased.
Better day for the pound - interest rates stay the same and Article 50 trigger has to go through parliament, despite BoE saying inflation could go up to 2.7% in 2017
See what happens when positive things happen. Billions could be restored to the treasury if only the pound could rally more and the threat of Brexit was extinguished.
See what happens when positive things happen. Billions could be restored to the treasury if only the pound could rally more and the threat of Brexit was extinguished.
Surely a wum. The courts ruling is not damaging, it's the way the law works in the UK. If anything it prevents the government from going ahead and doing something damaging that they have no authority to do. The fact that you think so highlights the subjective way in which you define your democratic standards. That you call our constitutional law damaging and think it's best that the government be allowed to circumvent it when it pleases.Today has nothing to do with ignoring the Referendum. Its about doing things properly and within our constitution.
Maybe what will happen is that Article 50 will be invoked, the conditions set by the EU will then be made public and after that there will be a debate in the Commons and around the country followed by a vote in the HoC. But the terms of he debate will be determined by the nature of those conditions. If the electorate sees that the consequences of leaving will be ( good/manageable/bad/very bad/ dire ), then maybe there'll be a second referendum. That referendum would be more appropriate and legitimate than the first one, as people would know the details of what they're voting for or against.
Whichever way, the whole thing has been a farce of monumental proportions and I think to vote to remain ( I'm a remainer myself ) after all that has happened wll make us the laughing stock of Europe. Statesmen ? LOL. Has Cameron been made a Lord yet ?
Whichever way, the whole thing has been a farce of monumental proportions and I think to vote to remain ( I'm a remainer myself ) after all that has happened wll make us the laughing stock of Europe. Statesmen ? LOL. Has Cameron been made a Lord yet ?
Except the referendum isn't being ignored. The UK voted for brexit, so the UK will get brexit. Nobody has thus far voted on what form that brexit will take though. There are a lot of options, a lot of positions and (given the EU has a mandated position in the negotiations too) a lot of compromises that could be made.