All these tory MP's plotting against Gove, I have a question for them. What if he reaches the final two and the members vote for him as leader? What then? Tories will out do Labour in terms of disunity.
He wont
Entertain me for a minute let's just say he does, then?
He wont
Just like Leave couldn't win, right?
Leave was led by Boris who Gove has just knifed
Imagine Boris comes out for Gove, unlikely I know but if he does it 1) make Boris look good, 2) put Gove back in the game.
Except we live in a Parliamentary democracy. The referendum was advisory. End of.
If that's the excuse of backtracking on brexit,we are living in dangerous times.
It is legally true, but politically there will not be such a backtracking, it is simply not viable. Were there to be some major dramatic change, no bleating from the out is out and that's that crowd could change that it is possible for the people to be asked again - as has been said many times today, when the facts change, I change my mind, and if there was a new situation which justified it, Brexit could be stopped. Nevertheless, what such a massive change that could lead to such an outcome is is unclear, and very very unlikely to occur, so Leavers dont' need to get so upset about the true fact that our referendums are not binding.
So there will not be backtracking on Brexit. What there may well be is a lot of claims there has been, because some people will not get the form of Brexit they want - and that is a different matter entirely.
If Leave occurs, in whatever form, at some point, then democracy has been adhered to. If, and I do not think either of these is likely, a second referendum were held which stated we no longer wished to leave (to face calls for best of three, not unreasonably) or a party won a majority on a manifesto of not triggering article 50, that would not be an affront to democracy. Delaying article 50 to ensure we are prepared would not be an affront to democracy. Dismissing the referendum without democratic endorsement would be legal, but would be an affront.
"Their initiative relies upon the ambiguous wording of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which sets out how states could leave the EU. The first clause declares: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
One of the grounds of a likely challenge to the referendum is that it is merely advisory and the royal prerogative cannot be used to undermine parliamentary statute."
1) The article 50 wording isn't ambiguous 2) It is true that this referendum was advisory, but that doesn't stop a PM invoking article50 3) The royal prerogative isn't undermining parliamentary statute.
The PM can invoke article 50 any time he damn well pleases, without requiring a vote in Parliament or legislation to be passed.
"Their initiative relies upon the ambiguous wording of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which sets out how states could leave the EU. The first clause declares: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
One of the grounds of a likely challenge to the referendum is that it is merely advisory and the royal prerogative cannot be used to undermine parliamentary statute."
1) The article 50 wording isn't ambiguous 2) It is true that this referendum was advisory, but that doesn't stop a PM invoking article50 3) The royal prerogative isn't undermining parliamentary statute.
The PM can invoke article 50 any time he damn well pleases, without requiring a vote in Parliament or legislation to be passed.
This feels a bit like the arguments around having thresholds on referendum approvals, as does happen in some other places. That, and also requiring parliament to formally trigger article 50, might well be good ideas, or at least are worth debating...but apparently neither was a rule that was in place, so it's academic even if it is a good idea.
You are missing the point. No-one wants to do it. Cameron didn't. Boris didn't. Teresa won't. And even if they do it, there is means and an appetite to challenge it legally. And then appeal (repeatedly):
I agree with you broadly. My country right or wrong, etc. We voted out, let's get on with it. But it isn't going to happen in a smooth manner, no matter what you say.
It doesn't matter if politicians don't want to do it.
The UK voted and the UK voted out. The decision has been made and ever day that passes as a slap in the face of the democratic process. No-one asked the Tories to wait before becoming the government when over 50% of the UK electorate gave them a majority in 2015. The decision was made, the Tories became the government and started legislating.
This decision has been made, the UK voted out and out we must go.
Good for you. I admire and respect your certainty and confidence.
Except we live in a Parliamentary democracy. The referendum was advisory. End of.
If that's the excuse of backtracking on brexit,we are living in dangerous times.
It is legally true, but politically there will not be such a backtracking, it is simply not viable. Were there to be some major dramatic change, no bleating from the out is out and that's that crowd could change that it is possible for the people to be asked again - as has been said many times today, when the facts change, I change my mind, and if there was a new situation which justified it, Brexit could be stopped. Nevertheless, what such a massive change that could lead to such an outcome is is unclear, and very very unlikely to occur, so Leavers dont' need to get so upset about the true fact that our referendums are not binding.
So there will not be backtracking on Brexit. What there may well be is a lot of claims there has been, because some people will not get the form of Brexit they want - and that is a different matter entirely.
If Leave occurs, in whatever form, at some point, then democracy has been adhered to. If, and I do not think either of these is likely, a second referendum were held which stated we no longer wished to leave (to face calls for best of three, not unreasonably) or a party won a majority on a manifesto of not triggering article 50, that would not be an affront to democracy. Delaying article 50 to ensure we are prepared would not be an affront to democracy. Dismissing the referendum without democratic endorsement would be legal, but would be an affront.
While there may be a reason to reverse Brexit in the future, that was not what the UK voted for on June 23rd. The UK voted to Leave. Not eventually, not when it was convenient, but immediately, which means triggering Article 50 now.
There is absolutely no reason to delay the democratic will of the UK's populace. They have voted out and now the process must start.
Well it's a poll, so take it with a pinch of salt, but that rather knocks on the head the idea that it is leavers that are regretting their decision.
It does.
Blimey. And slightly more people who voted 'Remain' now think Leave was right. We truly are a broken and divided nation. For all the fact that she's a grown-up, I can't see Teresa May being the 'bringing comfort where there is sorrow [sic]' type.
I appreciate it's an hour of your life you won't get back, but take a look at the comments after the Nick Clegg 'We need a GE before Article 50' piece in the Guardian. Everyone has an opinion on the legality of how and when we trigger article 50, due to the ambiguity of the wording in the treaty ('Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.'). The constitutional legal case is muddy to say the least in terms of who triggers Article 50 and why. If UKIP-trojan Leadsom takes over in Number 10 and triggers it, expect legal challenges aplenty and this dragging on for a good while yet.
There is no ambiguity or confusion. The UK voted out and out we must go, sooner not later. I voted Remain but I accept the result and nowt Article 50 needs triggered immediately.
There was no option on the ballot paper for "out once the Tories have a new leader" or "out once Labour is a coherent party" or "out once we have retained freedom of movement via EEA". There was one choice. In or out and the UK voted out. Now out we must go.
You are missing the point. No-one wants to do it. Cameron didn't. Boris didn't. Teresa won't. And even if they do it, there is means and an appetite to challenge it legally. And then appeal (repeatedly):
I agree with you broadly. My country right or wrong, etc. We voted out, let's get on with it. But it isn't going to happen in a smooth manner, no matter what you say.
Not least because the sensible leavers recognise that our leverage is greater whilst we still have the article to trigger, we (i.e. our government) needs to decide what sort of Brexit it wants before they start, and we need to do our best to get some of the big issues discussed at least in principle with the key players before we get dragged into formal talks.
I find it unbelievable that *some* sort of informal talks are not already underway. That's not how the world works.
Ooh, so MI6's house journal the Torygraph says Michael Gove can't be trusted with state secrets. I wonder who he gets drunk with? A similar whiff was spread about Boris Johnson the "Putin apologist". Newspapers reported that he'd been called a Putin apologist but without attributing the epithet either to a named person or to an anonymous "expert" or "insider". As I said before, that's a hallmark. Something tells me Gove won't be moving in next door to Theresa May.
Looks like it'll be another interesting week. What will be bigger on the front pages on Thursday? Theresa outside her new home in No.10? Or a big story following on from Wednesday's release of the Chilcot report, describing how some are calling for the impeachment of Blair, the arrest of Dearlove, the clearing out of MI6's Augean stables, and for some kind of solution to the issue of the really problematic issue in Britain's foreign policy - its subservience to the warmongering US?
Slightly off-topic, but germane to talks about legality of this government triggering Article 50. I can really recommend listening to 'In Our Time' this week all about a history of 'sovereignty'. It's a heavy one (Bodin, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc) but it does show that the concept of sovereignty is complex, and our current understanding about it has taken centuries to evolve:
I suspect that the various parties on both sides are discussing things internally before meeting each other.
The Leavers that I talk to outside the PB bubble voted that way for 2 reasons: stop immigration and to spend our EU contributions domestically. They care very little if the City loses out on passporting, indeed would be happy to see London go bust.
People can be contrary, awkward and even self destructive, but that is the glorious nature of referendums. If you don't like 'em then don't hold 'em.
If Article 50 is not invoked by autumn, while Sterling slides and the economy slips into recession, the people getting angry. They would have the worst of Remain combined with the worst of Leave.
Given the nature and strength of this Daily Telegraph article, it's very surprising that Gove's odds against winning the Tory Leadership contest remain in the low-mid teens range. Quite frankly he now no longer stands a snowflake's surely and who's to say there won't be more of the same from the Boris team?
Slightly off-topic, but germane to talks about legality of this government triggering Article 50. I can really recommend listening to 'In Our Time' this week all about a history of 'sovereignty'. It's a heavy one (Bodin, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc) but it does show that the concept of sovereignty is complex, and our current understanding about it has taken centuries to evolve:
"Their initiative relies upon the ambiguous wording of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which sets out how states could leave the EU. The first clause declares: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
One of the grounds of a likely challenge to the referendum is that it is merely advisory and the royal prerogative cannot be used to undermine parliamentary statute."
1) The article 50 wording isn't ambiguous 2) It is true that this referendum was advisory, but that doesn't stop a PM invoking article50 3) The royal prerogative isn't undermining parliamentary statute.
The PM can invoke article 50 any time he damn well pleases, without requiring a vote in Parliament or legislation to be passed.
a) Don't you want a check on the possibility that a prime minister goes off his rocker?
b) Since it was parliament that called the referendum, and it was not binding but advisory, the referendum is advisory to parliament. It was parliament's will to be advised.
c) Invoking A50 negates the European Communities Act 1972 within two years, unless the British government wants an extension and circumstances arise which are completely outside Britain's control, namely that the other 27 member states agree. The prime minister is not allowed to exercise the royal prerogative to negate the effect of an Act of Parliament or to put the negation of the said Act of Parliament in the hands of foreign powers.
Then there are the Ponsonby rule and the Sewel convention which admittedly don't tie the PM's hands, but why would a PM want to stick two fingers up at them? Let parliament decide. What's the problem exactly?
Ooh, so MI6's house journal the Torygraph says Michael Gove can't be trusted with state secrets. I wonder who he gets drunk with? A similar whiff was spread about Boris Johnson the "Putin apologist". Newspapers reported that he'd been called a Putin apologist but without attributing the epithet either to a named person or to an anonymous "expert" or "insider". As I said before, that's a hallmark. Something tells me Gove won't be moving in next door to Theresa May.
Looks like it'll be another interesting week. What will be bigger on the front pages on Thursday? Theresa outside her new home in No.10? Or a big story following on from Wednesday's release of the Chilcot report, describing how some are calling for the impeachment of Blair, the arrest of Dearlove, the clearing out of MI6's Augean stables, and for some kind of solution to the issue of the really problematic issue in Britain's foreign policy - its subservience to the warmongering US?
The warmongering US led by anti Iraq War Barack Obama while the UK is led by and will be led by a pro war Tory PM in a nation that has just voted to leave the European Union and been praised by Trump for doing so!
All these tory MP's plotting against Gove, I have a question for them. What if he reaches the final two and the members vote for him as leader? What then? Tories will out do Labour in terms of disunity.
He wont
Entertain me for a minute let's just say he does, then?
He wont
Just like Leave couldn't win, right?
Leave was led by Boris who Gove has just knifed
Imagine Boris comes out for Gove, unlikely I know but if he does it 1) make Boris look good, 2) put Gove back in the game.
I think Boris would be more likely to defect to Labour and endorse Corbyn than come out for Gove!
It's looking increasingly likely that Bill Shorten will be Australian PM in a few days' time. Malcolm Turnbull will have been in office for less than 12 months.
It's looking increasingly likely that Bill Shorten will be Australian PM in a few days' time. Malcolm Turnbull will have been in office for less than 12 months.
It's looking increasingly likely that Bill Shorten will be Australian PM in a few days' time. Malcolm Turnbull will have been in office for less than 12 months.
Given the nature and strength of this Daily Telegraph article, it's very surprising that Gove's odds against winning the Tory Leadership contest remain in the low-mid teens range. Quite frankly he now no longer stands a snowflake's surely and who's to say there won't be more of the same from the Boris team?
He only has to beat Leadsom/Crabb/Fox. Then the electorate changes to one that is massively biased to favour LEAVE. And VoteLeave and Leave.eu have uptodate databases of tory Leavers. And the campaign stretches out for weeks. And he's up against a REMAINER.
If Crabb get thru as No2, its almost certainly May=PM. Otherwise, it's in the lap of the gods (IMHO).
Given the nature and strength of this Daily Telegraph article, it's very surprising that Gove's odds against winning the Tory Leadership contest remain in the low-mid teens range. Quite frankly he now no longer stands a snowflake's surely and who's to say there won't be more of the same from the Boris team?
He only has to beat Leadsom/Crabb/Fox. Then the electorate changes to one that is massively biased to favour LEAVE. And VoteLeave and Leave.eu have uptodate databases of tory Leavers. And the campaign stretches out for weeks. And he's up against a REMAINER.
If Crabb get thru as No2, its almost certainly May=PM. Otherwise, it's in the lap of the gods (IMHO).
Today's ICM had May comfortably ahead against Gove amongst Tory members but as you say some way to go
It's looking increasingly likely that Bill Shorten will be Australian PM in a few days' time. Malcolm Turnbull will have been in office for less than 12 months.
Given the nature and strength of this Daily Telegraph article, it's very surprising that Gove's odds against winning the Tory Leadership contest remain in the low-mid teens range. Quite frankly he now no longer stands a snowflake's surely and who's to say there won't be more of the same from the Boris team?
He only has to beat Leadsom/Crabb/Fox. Then the electorate changes to one that is massively biased to favour LEAVE. And VoteLeave and Leave.eu have uptodate databases of tory Leavers. And the campaign stretches out for weeks. And he's up against a REMAINER.
If Crabb get thru as No2, its almost certainly May=PM. Otherwise, it's in the lap of the gods (IMHO).
Today's ICM had May comfortably ahead against Gove amongst Tory members but as you say some way to go
Single polls appear these days to be less objective reality and more propaganda. Anybody else done any on the current Conservative membership?
It's looking increasingly likely that Bill Shorten will be Australian PM in a few days' time. Malcolm Turnbull will have been in office for less than 12 months.
It's looking increasingly likely that Bill Shorten will be Australian PM in a few days' time. Malcolm Turnbull will have been in office for less than 12 months.
Can anyone seeing the Conservatives kissing and making up after the dust settles? There are going to be multiple interlocking factions of seething unhappiness.
Until the party gets a true leader (not just an elected leader) with a vision behind which he or she can unite the bulk of the party. Then bickering will diminish.
Well it's a poll, so take it with a pinch of salt, but that rather knocks on the head the idea that it is leavers that are regretting their decision.
It does.
Blimey. And slightly more people who voted 'Remain' now think Leave was right. We truly are a broken and divided nation. For all the fact that she's a grown-up, I can't see Teresa May being the 'bringing comfort where there is sorrow [sic]' type.
I appreciate it's an hour of your life you won't get back, but take a look at the comments after the Nick Clegg 'We need a GE before Article 50' piece in the Guardian. Everyone has an opinion on the legality of how and when we trigger article 50, due to the ambiguity of the wording in the treaty ('Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.'). The constitutional legal case is muddy to say the least in terms of who triggers Article 50 and why. If UKIP-trojan Leadsom takes over in Number 10 and triggers it, expect legal challenges aplenty and this dragging on for a good while yet.
Good time to be a constitutional lawyer I guess...
There is no ambiguity or confusion. The UK voted out and out we must go, sooner not later. I voted Remain but I accept the result and nowt Article 50 needs triggered immediately. It serves no-one's benefit delaying things.
There was no option on the ballot paper for "out once the Tories have a new leader" or "out once Labour is a coherent party" or "out once we have retained freedom of movement via EEA". There was one choice. In or out and the UK voted out. Now out we must go.
You do realise that we aren't out until an agreement is reached, or two years after article 50, whichever is first?
Yes and the EU made it clear they aren't going to talk to us till we trigger Article 50. The time is now. The UK needs to trigger Article 50 as the people voted then enter negociations with the EU.
It will not happen before the new cabinet on the 9th September and probably not this year, once legal challenges commence, which they will unfortunately.
Not sure how relevant the legal challenges will be. Unless they are lodged in the ECJ, I should think all that matters for starting the clock is for the EU to accept the notification as valid.
Can anyone seeing the Conservatives kissing and making up after the dust settles? There are going to be multiple interlocking factions of seething unhappiness.
Probably the reason why a May win would be the best for the party. Although there is the Remain-backing issue, she is more of a unifier than the others, particularly if she puts a strong leaver in the driving seat of the Brexit negotiations.
Doesn't mean that this will completely eliminate the problem, but I can't see any of the others taking the wider party with them. Gove would be undermined at every turn, I don't think Crabb or Fox enjoy any real 'broad church support'. The stories about a Leadsom-Farage tie-up, whatever the truth, cast doubt on party unity were she to get it.
It really does look like the May option is the safest.
Agree - and we're seeing Gove undermined from his own side - just what we need - an emotionally needy (If you won't guarantee me a job I'm standing Leadsom) drama queen as PM.....
Can anyone seeing the Conservatives kissing and making up after the dust settles? There are going to be multiple interlocking factions of seething unhappiness.
Until the party gets a true leader (not just an elected leader) with a vision behind which he or she can unite the bulk of the party. Then bickering will diminish.
As the treaty requires that the decision to withdraw meet the constitutional requirements of the member state it would have to be up to the UK parliament and courts to decide. At an absolute minimum we need a vote in parliament, and if some means to question the legality can be found, the EU could be in limbo for a long time while we determine whether we have truly decided to withdraw or not.
It's looking increasingly likely that Bill Shorten will be Australian PM in a few days' time. Malcolm Turnbull will have been in office for less than 12 months.
Can anyone seeing the Conservatives kissing and making up after the dust settles? There are going to be multiple interlocking factions of seething unhappiness.
Until the party gets a true leader (not just an elected leader) with a vision behind which he or she can unite the bulk of the party. Then bickering will diminish.
As the treaty requires that the decision to withdraw meet the constitutional requirements of the member state it would have to be up to the UK parliament and courts to decide. At an absolute minimum we need a vote in parliament, and if some means to question the legality can be found, the EU could be in limbo for a long time while we determine whether we have truly decided to withdraw or not.
What on earth does your post have to do with mine?
Can anyone seeing the Conservatives kissing and making up after the dust settles? There are going to be multiple interlocking factions of seething unhappiness.
Until the party gets a true leader (not just an elected leader) with a vision behind which he or she can unite the bulk of the party. Then bickering will diminish.
As the treaty requires that the decision to withdraw meet the constitutional requirements of the member state it would have to be up to the UK parliament and courts to decide. At an absolute minimum we need a vote in parliament, and if some means to question the legality can be found, the EU could be in limbo for a long time while we determine whether we have truly decided to withdraw or not.
Mishcon De Reya are on the case:
A law firm is taking action to ensure the formal process for the UK leaving the EU is not started without an act of Parliament.
Mishcon de Reya, lawyers acting for a group of business people and academics, said it would be unlawful for a prime minister to trigger Article 50 without a full debate and vote in Parliament.
Can anyone seeing the Conservatives kissing and making up after the dust settles? There are going to be multiple interlocking factions of seething unhappiness.
Until the party gets a true leader (not just an elected leader) with a vision behind which he or she can unite the bulk of the party. Then bickering will diminish.
As the treaty requires that the decision to withdraw meet the constitutional requirements of the member state it would have to be up to the UK parliament and courts to decide. At an absolute minimum we need a vote in parliament, and if some means to question the legality can be found, the EU could be in limbo for a long time while we determine whether we have truly decided to withdraw or not.
What on earth does your post have to do with mine?
PS Oh, I see. You have quoted the wrong post.
The British Constitution is clear on the sovereignty of Parliament, which usually means of HMG. Courts cannot override the will of Parliament. This case is unusual in that HMG did not command a majority in the House for the policy that won the referendum. However, I think it is unlikely that the new Cabinet will put something to the House that it is not confident that it will get through.
if the Government put forward a bill that simply proposed invoking Article 50 and negotiations on Brexit and Parliament votes it down, then I can imagine many MPs being deselected, at least within the Tory Party, and many Labour MPs fearful for their seats. I doubt there would, in that circumstance, be much of a problem for the Tory whip to get the votes. I may be wrong, but I think Parliament ignoring the will of the people clearly expressed in the referendum would spark a constitutional crisis, even if under the present constitution it would be within their absolute right to do so. Reality trumps theory in politics.
Can anyone seeing the Conservatives kissing and making up after the dust settles? There are going to be multiple interlocking factions of seething unhappiness.
Until the party gets a true leader (not just an elected leader) with a vision behind which he or she can unite the bulk of the party. Then bickering will diminish.
As the treaty requires that the decision to withdraw meet the constitutional requirements of the member state it would have to be up to the UK parliament and courts to decide. At an absolute minimum we need a vote in parliament, and if some means to question the legality can be found, the EU could be in limbo for a long time while we determine whether we have truly decided to withdraw or not.
What on earth does your post have to do with mine?
I was questioning the importance of the ECJ to proceedings.
Well it's a poll, so take it with a pinch of salt, but that rather knocks on the head the idea that it is leavers that are regretting their decision.
It does.
It won't stop the BBC's continuing efforts to find regretful leavers.
The poll is clear and any further delay on Brexit needs to be put aside. Article 50 needs triggered immediately and its time for the Tories to step aside and let May trigger the Brexit as the voters have decided. I voted Remain but I lost and it's time for the winners to have their choice carried out.
The current delay is an affront to democracy.
Don't be silly.
We have a government (well, technically at least) that we employ to make managerial decisions for us.
The question of when to trigger Article 50 is a purely tactical one: what will help us secure the best exit terms from the EU.
That's precisely the sort of question that should be delegated to the Prime Minister: he/she has been given clear instructions from the people (i.e. to Leave the EU) and should now execute them as best as he/she sees fit.
Well it's a poll, so take it with a pinch of salt, but that rather knocks on the head the idea that it is leavers that are regretting their decision.
It does.
It won't stop the BBC's continuing efforts to find regretful leavers.
The poll is clear and any further delay on Brexit needs to be put aside. Article 50 needs triggered immediately and its time for the Tories to step aside and let May trigger the Brexit as the voters have decided. I voted Remain but I lost and it's time for the winners to have their choice carried out.
The current delay is an affront to democracy.
Don't be silly.
We have a government (well, technically at least) that we employ to make managerial decisions for us.
The question of when to trigger Article 50 is a purely tactical one: what will help us secure the best exit terms from the EU.
That's precisely the sort of question that should be delegated to the Prime Minister: he/she has been given clear instructions from the people (i.e. to Leave the EU) and should now execute them as best as he/she sees fit.
It's only tactical once you accept the inevitability of us leaving which requires parliamentary consent.
No responsible MP could vote to invoke Article 50 without a clear plan from the government for what follows.
Well it's a poll, so take it with a pinch of salt, but that rather knocks on the head the idea that it is leavers that are regretting their decision.
It does.
Blimey. And slightly more people who voted 'Remain' now think Leave was right. We truly are a broken and divided nation. For all the fact that she's a grown-up, I can't see Teresa May being the 'bringing comfort where there is sorrow [sic]' type.
I appreciate it's an hour of your life you won't get back, but take a look at the comments after the Nick Clegg 'We need a GE before Article 50' piece in the Guardian. Everyone has an opinion on the legality of how and when we trigger article 50, due to the ambiguity of the wording in the treaty ('Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.'). The constitutional legal case is muddy to say the least in terms of who triggers Article 50 and why. If UKIP-trojan Leadsom takes over in Number 10 and triggers it, expect legal challenges aplenty and this dragging on for a good while yet.
Good time to be a constitutional lawyer I guess...
I don't think the courts would touch this with the proverbial 10 foot pole.
Sumption will reserve it straight to the Supreme Court and then reject it. I've no idea what his logic will be but they aren't going to get in the firing line over a technicality.
It's clear: the people want to leave If the PM executes on their wishes that's entirely reasonable.
Well it's a poll, so take it with a pinch of salt, but that rather knocks on the head the idea that it is leavers that are regretting their decision.
It does.
It won't stop the BBC's continuing efforts to find regretful leavers.
The poll is clear and any further delay on Brexit needs to be put aside. Article 50 needs triggered immediately and its time for the Tories to step aside and let May trigger the Brexit as the voters have decided. I voted Remain but I lost and it's time for the winners to have their choice carried out.
The current delay is an affront to democracy.
The question of when to trigger Article 50 is a purely tactical one: what will help us secure the best exit terms from the EU.
So a reflexive 'first day as PM' Leadsom may not be the best plan.....
Well it's a poll, so take it with a pinch of salt, but that rather knocks on the head the idea that it is leavers that are regretting their decision.
It does.
It won't stop the BBC's continuing efforts to find regretful leavers.
The poll is clear and any further delay on Brexit needs to be put aside. Article 50 needs triggered immediately and its time for the Tories to step aside and let May trigger the Brexit as the voters have decided. I voted Remain but I lost and it's time for the winners to have their choice carried out.
The current delay is an affront to democracy.
The question of when to trigger Article 50 is a purely tactical one: what will help us secure the best exit terms from the EU.
So a reflexive 'first day as PM' Leadsom may not be the best plan.....
It's ill-thought through and demonstrated poor judgement.
From reading the overnight thread it is now absolutely clear that we
must/must not Trigger Article 50 immediately/never, before/after any and all legal action, with/without a vote in Parliament, a General Election or another referendum to approve/not approve the terms.
Lucky for us the rest of the World is so stable and peaceful, and we can concentrate exclusively on this for the next 10 years.
Would someone please post an update on the overnight content of Michael Gove's launch speech .
I've had an e-mail alert that he's getting to the Andorra BREXIT option and I don't want miss any summary that any astute site member might wish to share, probably over several parts I know. But heck we've got to cover this speech fully.
Well it's a poll, so take it with a pinch of salt, but that rather knocks on the head the idea that it is leavers that are regretting their decision.
It does.
It won't stop the BBC's continuing efforts to find regretful leavers.
The poll is clear and any further delay on Brexit needs to be put aside. Article 50 needs triggered immediately and its time for the Tories to step aside and let May trigger the Brexit as the voters have decided. I voted Remain but I lost and it's time for the winners to have their choice carried out.
The current delay is an affront to democracy.
Don't be silly.
We have a government (well, technically at least) that we employ to make managerial decisions for us.
The question of when to trigger Article 50 is a purely tactical one: what will help us secure the best exit terms from the EU.
That's precisely the sort of question that should be delegated to the Prime Minister: he/she has been given clear instructions from the people (i.e. to Leave the EU) and should now execute them as best as he/she sees fit.
It's only tactical once you accept the inevitability of us leaving which requires parliamentary consent.
No responsible MP could vote to invoke Article 50 without a clear plan from the government for what follows.
It sh/would be purely technical and tactical, were it not political.
"Their initiative relies upon the ambiguous wording of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which sets out how states could leave the EU. The first clause declares: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
One of the grounds of a likely challenge to the referendum is that it is merely advisory and the royal prerogative cannot be used to undermine parliamentary statute."
1) The article 50 wording isn't ambiguous 2) It is true that this referendum was advisory, but that doesn't stop a PM invoking article50 3) The royal prerogative isn't undermining parliamentary statute.
The PM can invoke article 50 any time he damn well pleases, without requiring a vote in Parliament or legislation to be passed.
a) Don't you want a check on the possibility that a prime minister goes off his rocker?
b) Since it was parliament that called the referendum, and it was not binding but advisory, the referendum is advisory to parliament. It was parliament's will to be advised.
c) Invoking A50 negates the European Communities Act 1972 within two years, unless the British government wants an extension and circumstances arise which are completely outside Britain's control, namely that the other 27 member states agree. The prime minister is not allowed to exercise the royal prerogative to negate the effect of an Act of Parliament or to put the negation of the said Act of Parliament in the hands of foreign powers.
Then there are the Ponsonby rule and the Sewel convention which admittedly don't tie the PM's hands, but why would a PM want to stick two fingers up at them? Let parliament decide. What's the problem exactly?
+1. As well as the politics: However pro-leave they are, they all know it could go pear-shaped. So spreading the blame even a little is sensible.
Except we live in a Parliamentary democracy. The referendum was advisory. End of.
If that's the excuse of backtracking on brexit,we are living in dangerous times.
It is legally true, but politically there will not be such a backtracking, it is simply not viable. Were there to be some major dramatic change, no bleating from the out is out and that's that crowd could change that it is possible for the people to be asked again - as has been said many times today, when the facts change, I change my mind, and if there was a new situation which justified it, Brexit could be stopped. Nevertheless, what such a massive change that could lead to such an outcome is is unclear, and very very unlikely to occur, so Leavers dont' need to get so upset about the true fact that our referendums are not binding.
So there will not be backtracking on Brexit. What there may well be is a lot of claims there has been, because some people will not get the form of Brexit they want - and that is a different matter entirely.
If Leave occurs, in whatever form, at some point, then democracy has been adhered to. If, and I do not think either of these is likely, a second referendum were held which stated we no longer wished to leave (to face calls for best of three, not unreasonably) or a party won a majority on a manifesto of not triggering article 50, that would not be an affront to democracy. Delaying article 50 to ensure we are prepared would not be an affront to democracy. Dismissing the referendum without democratic endorsement would be legal, but would be an affront.
While there may be a reason to reverse Brexit in the future, that was not what the UK voted for on June 23rd. The UK voted to Leave. Not eventually, not when it was convenient, but immediately, which means triggering Article 50 now.
There is absolutely no reason to delay the democratic will of the UK's populace. They have voted out and now the process must start.
I find this forum so interesting because most posters focus on what might actually happen, rather than sticking simply to arguing what they want to happen. There are plenty of other places for that.
Scheuble has confirmed Osbourne made an "express request " for Berlin to warn Britain would be left permanently outside the single market after a Brexit vote.
Comments
But Mrs 'Sharia' May isn't going to invoke A50. Three days ago 'brexit meant brexit'. Today she is resiling from immigration restraint. Tomorrow..
So there will not be backtracking on Brexit. What there may well be is a lot of claims there has been, because some people will not get the form of Brexit they want - and that is a different matter entirely.
If Leave occurs, in whatever form, at some point, then democracy has been adhered to. If, and I do not think either of these is likely, a second referendum were held which stated we no longer wished to leave (to face calls for best of three, not unreasonably) or a party won a majority on a manifesto of not triggering article 50, that would not be an affront to democracy. Delaying article 50 to ensure we are prepared would not be an affront to democracy. Dismissing the referendum without democratic endorsement would be legal, but would be an affront.
2) It is true that this referendum was advisory, but that doesn't stop a PM invoking article50
3) The royal prerogative isn't undermining parliamentary statute.
The PM can invoke article 50 any time he damn well pleases, without requiring a vote in Parliament or legislation to be passed.
There is absolutely no reason to delay the democratic will of the UK's populace. They have voted out and now the process must start.
Looks like it'll be another interesting week. What will be bigger on the front pages on Thursday? Theresa outside her new home in No.10? Or a big story following on from Wednesday's release of the Chilcot report, describing how some are calling for the impeachment of Blair, the arrest of Dearlove, the clearing out of MI6's Augean stables, and for some kind of solution to the issue of the really problematic issue in Britain's foreign policy - its subservience to the warmongering US?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07hhvxx
I suspect that the various parties on both sides are discussing things internally before meeting each other.
The Leavers that I talk to outside the PB bubble voted that way for 2 reasons: stop immigration and to spend our EU contributions domestically. They care very little if the City loses out on passporting, indeed would be happy to see London go bust.
People can be contrary, awkward and even self destructive, but that is the glorious nature of referendums. If you don't like 'em then don't hold 'em.
If Article 50 is not invoked by autumn, while Sterling slides and the economy slips into recession, the people getting angry. They would have the worst of Remain combined with the worst of Leave.
Andy Burnham – Verified account @andyburnhammp
I have shadowed both Gove & May. No question in my mind who's the better politician & person. Hope the Tories go for Gove.
Interesting from Burnham, he doesn't like Saint May.
b) Since it was parliament that called the referendum, and it was not binding but advisory, the referendum is advisory to parliament. It was parliament's will to be advised.
c) Invoking A50 negates the European Communities Act 1972 within two years, unless the British government wants an extension and circumstances arise which are completely outside Britain's control, namely that the other 27 member states agree. The prime minister is not allowed to exercise the royal prerogative to negate the effect of an Act of Parliament or to put the negation of the said Act of Parliament in the hands of foreign powers.
Then there are the Ponsonby rule and the Sewel convention which admittedly don't tie the PM's hands, but why would a PM want to stick two fingers up at them? Let parliament decide. What's the problem exactly?
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-20499.htm
Labor 66
Coalition 78
Xenophon Team 2
Greens 1
Others 3
is my guess.
If Crabb get thru as No2, its almost certainly May=PM. Otherwise, it's in the lap of the gods (IMHO).
A law firm is taking action to ensure the formal process for the UK leaving the EU is not started without an act of Parliament.
Mishcon de Reya, lawyers acting for a group of business people and academics, said it would be unlawful for a prime minister to trigger Article 50 without a full debate and vote in Parliament.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36700350
The British Constitution is clear on the sovereignty of Parliament, which usually means of HMG. Courts cannot override the will of Parliament. This case is unusual in that HMG did not command a majority in the House for the policy that won the referendum. However, I think it is unlikely that the new Cabinet will put something to the House that it is not confident that it will get through.
if the Government put forward a bill that simply proposed invoking Article 50 and negotiations on Brexit and Parliament votes it down, then I can imagine many MPs being deselected, at least within the Tory Party, and many Labour MPs fearful for their seats. I doubt there would, in that circumstance, be much of a problem for the Tory whip to get the votes. I may be wrong, but I think Parliament ignoring the will of the people clearly expressed in the referendum would spark a constitutional crisis, even if under the present constitution it would be within their absolute right to do so. Reality trumps theory in politics.
Interestingly ambiguous - is he thinking of the Labour Party, or the Country?
Oh, we know, 'party first'......
We have a government (well, technically at least) that we employ to make managerial decisions for us.
The question of when to trigger Article 50 is a purely tactical one: what will help us secure the best exit terms from the EU.
That's precisely the sort of question that should be delegated to the Prime Minister: he/she has been given clear instructions from the people (i.e. to Leave the EU) and should now execute them as best as he/she sees fit.
No responsible MP could vote to invoke Article 50 without a clear plan from the government for what follows.
Sumption will reserve it straight to the Supreme Court and then reject it. I've no idea what his logic will be but they aren't going to get in the firing line over a technicality.
It's clear: the people want to leave
If the PM executes on their wishes that's entirely reasonable.
From reading the overnight thread it is now absolutely clear that we
must/must not Trigger Article 50 immediately/never, before/after any and all legal action, with/without a vote in Parliament, a General Election or another referendum to approve/not approve the terms.
Lucky for us the rest of the World is so stable and peaceful, and we can concentrate exclusively on this for the next 10 years.
Would someone please post an update on the overnight content of Michael Gove's launch speech .
I've had an e-mail alert that he's getting to the Andorra BREXIT option and I don't want miss any summary that any astute site member might wish to share, probably over several parts I know. But heck we've got to cover this speech fully.
Scheuble has confirmed Osbourne made an "express request " for Berlin to warn Britain would be left permanently outside the single market after a Brexit vote.
Sound like they want a deal..