Jeremy Corbyn isn't going to be leading the charge for Britain to remain in the single market.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
They will be campaigning on a pro EU platform that will have broad appeal. What exactly is going to be Labours broad appeal in an election fought on Brexit?
eh?
This is the correct decision from a purely legal point of view.
The idea that any PM can slash and burn through Acts of Parliament on some flimsy mandate of a non-binding referendum was always ridiculous.
Article 50 will require an Act of Parliament to trigger, because the eventual result would be the repeal of a whole bunch of other sections of other Acts.
I cringe everytime I hear, or read, 'the will of the people'.
Lib Dems would do marvellously on a platform of never triggering A50, wasn't it something like 3m more people voted in the referendum... so that's 1.5m Remain voters who would be looking for a pro-remain party.
Maybe the actual Referendum was just that. A fecking Refferndumn, a gathering of opinion/consensus rather than a legally binding contract as allot of people thought?
So ironically the UK national/sovereign law dictates that a decision like this must be voted by Parliament and not by a public vote... which is what we kind of knew in the first place right? Why is this a surprise or did people think that the governing party could do it as a matter of course?
So ironically the UK national/sovereign law dictates that a decision like this must be voted by Parliament and not by a public vote... which is what we kind of knew in the first place right? Why is this a surprise or did people think that the governing party could do it as a matter of course?
That's not how democracy works, forcing people to shut up about things they aren't happy with.
The argument the government are trying to put forward is that it was an 'Act of Parliament' to permit the referendum in the first place (they voted on it) and as a part of that they would accept the result of the vote and implement it.
I don't buy it and I think the High Courts summary of their justification released today is much better application of the law.
Can be found here for those interested: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con...tary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
I wonder whether, if the shoe were on the other foot, the leave politicians would be celebrating and supporting this result today. I seem to remember Mr Farage stating that he would be campaigning for a second referendum if Remain scraped it (ironically the example was a 52 v 48 split).
A lot of people think this should never even have gone to a referendum. Bit rich to tell them to just "accept it and move on". Of course they won't just "accept it and move on". Not on days like today, which give hope that the decision is not as final as it first seemed. Ridiculous to expect them to think/behave any differently.
Last edited:
True they might do better in some areas that voted unanimously remain but the cross-over of those areas in contention for the Lib Dems and those who voted remain isn't substantial, a nuisance for Labour yeah but nothing more. No party will do considerably well off the back of ignoring the referendum especially one with Farron in charge. If the Tories are seen to be reckless with the Brexit process and pursuing it at economic cost then Labour as a party upholding the vote but with boundaries could benefit.
The issue is that the only party up from this time last year is the Conservatives so it shows that perhaps there's isn't this huge movement to pro-remain.
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by this verdict. You cannot alter the constitutional status of the UK without an act of Parliament. This is an awful mess and the idiocy of conducting a referendum without the appropriate legal framework to act on the outcome of it, never mind the craziness of making a decision on an inherently complex matter in a binary public vote, will lead to political and societal turmoil for years to come. The decision to hold such a referendum was a reprehensibly irresponsible decision in the first place.
Because the few in this thread rolling their eyes about it either don't actually care about democracy, they just care about what they want to happen, happening or they weren't aware that this was the case to begin with despite it having been talked about for months and now despite knowing that it's the case, for some reason don't want to accept it.
Spot on.
Wholly inappropriate to promise something generating from right wing populist politics, and then to go through with it?
The desperation of a political party to govern with a majority has led to an unelected Prime Minister trying to enact the 'will of the people' through the crowns prerogative illegally.
Trump v Clinton, Brexit, Syria, Russia and the Migrant Crisis - it's like real life Game of Thrones.
Am I missing something, why is everyone losing their minds over this?
The country voted leave. The Torres wanted to negotiate it themselves, which we all know means line their own and their friends pockets in the process.
Doesn't this ruling just mean that parliament as a whole gets to rule how it happens?
Doesn't this make everything more transparent? Which would be a very good thing.
Am I wrong thinking that?
The country voted leave. The Torres wanted to negotiate it themselves, which we all know means line their own and their friends pockets in the process.
Doesn't this ruling just mean that parliament as a whole gets to rule how it happens?
Doesn't this make everything more transparent? Which would be a very good thing.
Am I wrong thinking that?
I just read about the verdict. Jesus wept. Even a layman could have told the government that they’ll lose the case. Apparently they don’t understand the basics of the constitutional law of their own country. The verdict destroys the government. It is shocking to say the least.
‘In our view, the secretary of state’s submission is flawed at this basic level’ [85].
The level of incompetence that the government showed is mind-boggling. I really need to reverse my opinion about May, due to all the stuff that happened in the last weeks. She seems to be horribly clueless.
‘In our view, the secretary of state’s submission is flawed at this basic level’ [85].
The level of incompetence that the government showed is mind-boggling. I really need to reverse my opinion about May, due to all the stuff that happened in the last weeks. She seems to be horribly clueless.
They don't understand the basics of economics or immigration, let alone the constitutional law of our country.
The brexiters are claiming that this is a political judgement, but it's the exact opposite. The political judgement would be if the court ruled against constitutional norms because it didn't want to upset people who voted to leave the EU and the government.
We should just half-leave, half-stay
It would be a pretty major border if the Leavy-bit leaves the customs union, but I can live with that.
I've been advocating a Cheltenham to London corridor down the A40 through Oxford for years and this just cements my thinking. Everyone else can do one.
The case was so clear, that no other judgment was possible. The government admits in their own argument, that their view makes no sense. That’s how bad it is.
Anybody else had their social media taken over by people posting/sharing that same photo of the pre-referendum leaflet like it carries any legal weight whatsoever?
Beginning to think I may have to explain that them singing "we're by far the greatest team, the world has ever seen" doesn't make it so.
Beginning to think I may have to explain that them singing "we're by far the greatest team, the world has ever seen" doesn't make it so.
So there may be no Brexit afterall?
Yet the spin has already begun with the Daily Mail telling us how partizan judges (a EUROPEAN committee member, a judge who charged the public for advice (shock!) and, worst of all, a gay ex Olympic fencer) have made a political decision. The public is being fed jaundiced anti-European and bigoted polemic on a daily basis and it's all a recipe for some serious trouble.
Usually when people describe something a clear majority, they mean one side won by a substantial amount. A 52%/48% would represent a narrow majority to most people. Of course when one becomes the other is subjective, I guess.
The court's ruling is only as damaging as Remainer MPs wish to make it. If they stand by all precedent and parliamentary custom, and honour the spirit of the referendum result, the this will be but a footnote of embarrassment for the Government. If, on the other hand, there is an attempt to sabotage the nation's democratic verdict, the negative consequences will be long lasting indeed. I am well aware that many in this thread would be delighted with the latter course, yet this only goes to highlight the subjective way in which people define their democratic standards.
Bit of a stupid point given that at no point has parliamentary sovereignty been given away over the last 40 years.
The case in point being the very fact that we can unilaterally decide to leave.
Which "spirit of the referendum result" do you want them to honour? Because the precedent and parliamentary custom route would be that the result is non-binding, which seems very much at odds to your views.
Depends what you mean by "sabotage the nation's democratic verdict", I guess.
Preventing Brexit would be sabotage. Preventing the most extreme/hard form of Brexit wouldn't.
That's without even getting into the argument over when it's appropriate to act against the wishes of a non-binding vote.
Well, it's more complex than that. Given the standard wards that the MPS represent are not the same as the regions created in the referendum, and MPS are (or should be) duty bound to represent their constituent's views it's going to produce a different result. No idea in what direction, but big cities will be under-represented and rural areas over-represented which, even factoring in Scotland, probably pushes it further towards leave.
Never mind the fact that there is, underneath all of this, a genuine and principled stance to be taken against national decision making on complex issues being made on referenda, which anyone attending a high school modern studies class will understand the inherent problems thereof.
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?