Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[sun_tzu]

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.

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)

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

You'll have to point out to me where Cameron said that eh would ignore the result? Or Vote Leave for that matter?

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?)

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.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

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.

 

[GloryHunter07]

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?)

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.

 

[GloryHunter07]

Ladbrokes put odds pf a 2017 General Election at 2/1

 

[sun_tzu]

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.

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

 

[sullydnl]

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.

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.

 

[sun_tzu]

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.

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)

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

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.

So because at, the very least, three of those are directly contradictory how should the government deal with that?

In your opinion.

But more to the point, are you refuting the assertion that they represent the Leave vote?

 

[Adisa]

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.

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.

 

[sun_tzu]

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.

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

 

[Luke Parker]

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 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.

 

[Adisa]

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

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.

 

[PedroMendez]

I read part of he 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.

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.

 

[sullydnl]

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.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

For example, what does ending full FoM actually entail?

 

[Bury Red]

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.

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.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

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

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.

 

[Xeno]

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.

Post-truth statement.

 

[Adisa]

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.

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.

 

[Xeno]

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.

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.

 

[Dobba]

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.

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?

 

[NinjaFletch]

In your opinion.

But more to the point, are you refuting the assertion that they represent the Leave vote?

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.

 

[Bury Red]

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.

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.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

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.

 

[Zarlak]

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.

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.

 

[GloryHunter07]

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.

Today has nothing to do with ignoring the Referendum. Its about doing things properly and within our constitution.

 

[jackofalltrades]

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 ?

 

[sullydnl]

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.

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.

 

[JPRouve]

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 appropriate 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 after all that has happened wll make us the laughing stock of Europe. Statesmen ? LOL. Has Cameron been made a Lord yet ?

There is no coming back from that, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[jackofalltrades]

There is no coming back from that, if I'm not mistaken.

I am not sure either. But maybe there would be a desire for conciliation, leading to both parties pulling back from the brink. When I was still one of the Newbies I asked about something which Wolfgang Schlaúbel (?) said , maybe 18 months or two years now ago - that the UK would be joining the Euro sooner than it expected. What was he up to ?

Alternatively the EU could leak the proposed details before the vote in the HoC. That would concentrate minds.

 

[Crossie]

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.

I've heard that it can take up to one year.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

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.

Remainers are more than likely going to try to use the ruling as a means of trying to force the government to seek a more palatable form of Brexit. What Farage might call 'half-Brexit', which seems fair given only half the electorate wanted any kind of Brexit at all.

In case Farage is reading, I'll put it in terms he can understand... just because you ask someone if they want a pint and they say 'no, I'll have something else', it doesn't mean they're asking for a bottle of vodka shoved up their arse instead.

 

[PedroMendez]

I am not sure either.

It is legally not entirely clear. The European court would have to decide that...
That said everyone in Westminster (government and parliament) agreed that there is no coming back once Art.50 is invoked. It actually features this verdict, because if that would not be the case, the court would have come to a different conclusion.

 

[soap]

Has the value of £ risen in light of this?

 

[LuisNaniencia]

Is it a valid worry that if they cancel Brexit, all the aggrieved Leavers would vote UKIP at the next election?

 

[jackofalltrades]

Has the value of £ risen in light of this?

Yes, to 1.25

 

[Crossie]

There is no coming back from that, if I'm not mistaken.

I am not sure either.

Lord Kerr who authored Article 50 thinks it is possible to revoke the notification.

But Lord Kerr, who devised the clause, said the country "might want to think again" when Brexit terms become clearer.

He explained: "It is not irrevocable.

"You can change your mind while the process is going on.

"During that period, if a country were to decide actually we don't want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time.

"They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628

 

[JPRouve]

I am not sure either.

I just read my courses and from what I understand when the article is invoked it's over, the EU recognize the intention of leaving and from there the EU and the leaving country have to find an "leave" agreement, that leave agreement needs to be accepted by the members of the EU and the EU parliament, the parliament will have to vote at the qualified majority(at the 3/5, I suppose). Now even if there isn't any agreement the leaving country still leaves because the EU considers that the membership is fully consented and can't be justified by an absence of agreement.

So if you are not sure, do not trigger the art.50 because the EU will consider that it is a clear intent to leave and by rule won't accept any backtracking. You will be forced to leave and apply to join the EU since they want a clear democratic decision on that matter.

 

[jackofalltrades]

I just read my courses and from what I understand when the article is invoked it's over, the EU recognize the intention of leaving and from there the EU and the leaving country have to find an "leave" agreement, that leave agreement needs to be accepted by the members of the EU and the EU parliament, the parliament will have to vote at the qualified majority(at the 3/5, I suppose). Now even if there isn't any agreement the leaving country still leaves because the EU considers that the membership is fully consented and can't be justified by an absence of agreement.

So if you are not sure, do not trigger the art.50 because the EU will consider that it is a clear intent to leave and by rule won't accept any backtracking. You will be forced to leave and apply to join the EU since they want a clear democratic decision on that matter.

I've added to my post and highlighted a doubt- would you care to comment on it ?

 

[soap]

Why does this increase the chances of a snap General Election?