Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
The government is indeed free to do so - but the government is also perfectly free to decide it does not need the views of the peoples elected representatives on the grounds that they sought the views of the people directly (with the agreement of said elected representatives in a bill of parliament to do so)
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
I feel like you've somewhat undercut your point with the last half of that last sentence.
If the David Lammys, Owen Smiths, and Tim Farrons of the world, who want to ignore the democratically expressed will of their countrymen to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body, aren't traitors, who on Earth is?
48% of the country wanted to remain in the EU, they are not all traitors for wanting to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body. And given the government could if it wanted quite legally ignore the democratic will of the country on this, I feel uncomfortable suggesting those who might try that are traitors. Referendums are not binding, they just aren't, so it cannot very well be unacceptable for some people to suggest it be ignored. I don't agree with it, and I don't think it would be acceptable, but it isn't treason, not even close.
On another point, I thought Farron's position was that he wanted us to attempt to rejoin the EU at some point. Since that presumes we will have left, is that undemocratic? Presumably he'd need to win an election on that platform, which would be democratic endorsement.
The Treason act states that to attempt to deprive the King or his successors of his title, or to say that somebody else should be king, was treason.
Working for the country to become part of a European Superstate with a head of state that is not the Queen is an attempt to make somebody else king which is treason.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
I know it seems like ancient history, but Blairite/Brownite Labour were elected in 2005 promising a referendum on the EU Constitution then voted the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament regardless. Utterly shameless. Many of them may not see much of a future in Parliament anyway, and might try to save their pet project while they can.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
The government is indeed free to do so - but the government is also perfectly free to decide it does not need the views of the peoples elected representatives on the grounds that they sought the views of the people directly (with the agreement of said elected representatives in a bill of parliament to do so)
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
I feel like you've somewhat undercut your point with the last half of that last sentence.
If the David Lammys, Owen Smiths, and Tim Farrons of the world, who want to ignore the democratically expressed will of their countrymen to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body, aren't traitors, who on Earth is?
48% of the country wanted to remain in the EU, they are not all traitors for wanting to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body. And given the government could if it wanted quite legally ignore the democratic will of the country on this, I feel uncomfortable suggesting those who might try that are traitors. Referendums are not binding, they just aren't, so it cannot very well be unacceptable for some people to suggest it be ignored. I don't agree with it, and I don't think it would be acceptable, but it isn't treason, not even close.
On another point, I thought Farron's position was that he wanted us to attempt to rejoin the EU at some point. Since that presumes we will have left, is that undemocratic? Presumably he'd need to win an election on that platform, which would be democratic endorsement.
On your last point. Not undemocratic, just very brave, especially as we'll have lost all our opt-outs etc.
Oh indeed - even most remainers would not find that an attractive prospect!
Maybe if the French managed their borders better on the Med it would be less of an issue!
It's the French border with Brazil that worries me.
We could have had one of those if we had made Belize part of the UK instead of booting them out of the "Empire" in 1981 when they were quite happy with self governing colony status.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
In the unlikely event the Law Lords
Point of Order - Justices of the Supreme Court. Though I'd like to still call them Law Lords.
Sounds so dreadfully American.
Her Majesties Ultimate Court would be better.
I like that.
Also sounds too American!
I refer the honourable gentleman to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873
Clearly Parliament will authorise Article 50 if asked to do so. Clearly also, the only reason not to submit it to vote in Parliament is to close down any debate about the mechanics of Brexit, when no-one really knows how to go about it. If Labour where a slightly competent party they would be pushing hard on this.
Yes the next Opposition day really should be used to press for answers. Holding this together is going to be very difficult. I am yet to be convinced that May is up to it.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
I'm not sure you could have a 'legally binding' referendum in our constitutional set up (no parliament may bind its successors), could you? Saying before the vote you will implement the result is the closest you can get, I think.
Clearly Parliament will authorise Article 50 if asked to do so. Clearly also, the only reason not to submit it to vote in Parliament is to close down any debate about the mechanics of Brexit, when no-one really knows how to go about it. If Labour where a slightly competent party they would be pushing hard on this.
Yes the next Opposition day really should be used to press for answers. Holding this together is going to be very difficult. I am yet to be convinced that May is up to it.
Why can't we just have a referendum on whether parliament has to have a vote on triggering article 50.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
True and as I have said these are proper and necessary subjects for debate in the Commons. Debates I anticipate May will find very difficult. But Article 50 is the start of the process not the end. And the people have willed the start.
What legal mechanism do you envisage invalidating hypothetical Prime Minister Baron's triggering of Article 50?
I don't think the courts should get involved. A vote of no confidence in the Commons and the collapse of this hypothetical government would be the correct solution.
The irrevocable decision would by then have been taken.
Clearly Parliament will authorise Article 50 if asked to do so. Clearly also, the only reason not to submit it to vote in Parliament is to close down any debate about the mechanics of Brexit, when no-one really knows how to go about it. If Labour where a slightly competent party they would be pushing hard on this.
Yes the next Opposition day really should be used to press for answers. Holding this together is going to be very difficult. I am yet to be convinced that May is up to it.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
The government is indeed free to do so - but the government is also perfectly free to decide it does not need the views of the peoples elected representatives on the grounds that they sought the views of the people directly (with the agreement of said elected representatives in a bill of parliament to do so)
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
I feel like you've somewhat undercut your point with the last half of that last sentence.
If the David Lammys, Owen Smiths, and Tim Farrons of the world, who want to ignore the democratically expressed will of their countrymen to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body, aren't traitors, who on Earth is?
48% of the country wanted to remain in the EU, they are not all traitors for wanting to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body. And given the government could if it wanted quite legally ignore the democratic will of the country on this, I feel uncomfortable suggesting those who might try that are traitors. Referendums are not binding, they just aren't, so it cannot very well be unacceptable for some people to suggest it be ignored. I don't agree with it, and I don't think it would be acceptable, but it isn't treason, not even close.
On another point, I thought Farron's position was that he wanted us to attempt to rejoin the EU at some point. Since that presumes we will have left, is that undemocratic? Presumably he'd need to win an election on that platform, which would be democratic endorsement.
48% of the country aren't traitors. All the people I know who voted Remain accept that they lost and the decision should be implemented. Elected officials who would use their power to block a decision of the people, on the other hand, are traitors. I imagine Farron would be among those voting against A50 given the chance.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
True and as I have said these are proper and necessary subjects for debate in the Commons. Debates I anticipate May will find very difficult. But Article 50 is the start of the process not the end. And the people have willed the start.
What legal mechanism do you envisage invalidating hypothetical Prime Minister Baron's triggering of Article 50?
I don't think the courts should get involved. A vote of no confidence in the Commons and the collapse of this hypothetical government would be the correct solution.
The irrevocable decision would by then have been taken.
Even I don't think the EU would be that rigid, especially if it had happened after a successful Remain vote, and with the government falling not long afterwards to a vote of no confidence.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
True and as I have said these are proper and necessary subjects for debate in the Commons. Debates I anticipate May will find very difficult. But Article 50 is the start of the process not the end. And the people have willed the start.
What legal mechanism do you envisage invalidating hypothetical Prime Minister Baron's triggering of Article 50?
I don't think the courts should get involved. A vote of no confidence in the Commons and the collapse of this hypothetical government would be the correct solution.
The irrevocable decision would by then have been taken.
Yes it would - and likely with weasel worded amendments that bind the hand of the government in future negotiations with the EU.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
True and as I have said these are proper and necessary subjects for debate in the Commons. Debates I anticipate May will find very difficult. But Article 50 is the start of the process not the end. And the people have willed the start.
What legal mechanism do you envisage invalidating hypothetical Prime Minister Baron's triggering of Article 50?
I don't think the courts should get involved. A vote of no confidence in the Commons and the collapse of this hypothetical government would be the correct solution.
The irrevocable decision would by then have been taken.
The Treason act states that to attempt to deprive the King or his successors of his title, or to say that somebody else should be king, was treason.
Working for the country to become part of a European Superstate with a head of state that is not the Queen is an attempt to make somebody else king which is treason.
What if you proposed The Queen as head of the superstate?
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
I feel like you've somewhat undercut your point with the last half of that last sentence.
If the David Lammys, Owen Smiths, and Tim Farrons of the world, who want to ignore the democratically expressed will of their countrymen to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body, aren't traitors, who on Earth is?
48% of the country wanted to remain in the EU, they are not all traitors for wanting to keep significant legislative power with an overseas body. And given the government could if it wanted quite legally ignore the democratic will of the country on this, I feel uncomfortable suggesting those who might try that are traitors. Referendums are not binding, they just aren't, so it cannot very well be unacceptable for some people to suggest it be ignored. I don't agree with it, and I don't think it would be acceptable, but it isn't treason, not even close.
On another point, I thought Farron's position was that he wanted us to attempt to rejoin the EU at some point. Since that presumes we will have left, is that undemocratic? Presumably he'd need to win an election on that platform, which would be democratic endorsement.
48% of the country aren't traitors. All the people I know who voted Remain accept that they lost and the decision should be implemented. Elected officials who would use their power to block a decision of the people, on the other hand, are traitors. I imagine Farron would be among those voting against A50 given the chance.
To wish the country to be part of a foreign superstate with someone other than the Queen as its head is not treason (since Henry VIII definition of it was repealed)
However to conspire to or work to achieve those ends IS treason because you are attempting to stop the Queen being the Head of State.
Clearly Parliament will authorise Article 50 if asked to do so. Clearly also, the only reason not to submit it to vote in Parliament is to close down any debate about the mechanics of Brexit, when no-one really knows how to go about it. If Labour where a slightly competent party they would be pushing hard on this.
Yes the next Opposition day really should be used to press for answers. Holding this together is going to be very difficult. I am yet to be convinced that May is up to it.
Is the Opposition up for it?
Probably not. But this government is much weaker than it appears. And going out of her way to insult Osborne really didn't help.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
Last time I checked there was only one way to leave the EU, and that was to invoke Article 50
We can leave by simply revoking the European Communities Act.
The Treason act states that to attempt to deprive the King or his successors of his title, or to say that somebody else should be king, was treason.
Working for the country to become part of a European Superstate with a head of state that is not the Queen is an attempt to make somebody else king which is treason.
What if you proposed The Queen as head of the superstate?
Not Treason.
Might also be difficult to get the likes of France and Italy to accept HM Queen as Supreme Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith.
We could get rid of that ring of stars and have the union flag as the EU flag too with places like Germany having the blue ensign with a German Black eagle it for their flag and France having the Red Ensign with the prince of Wales feathers.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
Last time I checked there was only one way to leave the EU, and that was to invoke Article 50
We can leave by simply revoking the European Communities Act.
Heh, feasible ways of leaving then!
I wonder if we could also leave by reorganizing our country and designating Rockall as the successor state to the UK.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
Last time I checked there was only one way to leave the EU, and that was to invoke Article 50
We can leave by simply revoking the European Communities Act.
Defacto yes. Constitutionally it would leave the sort of mess that the Rhodesian UDI did eventually needing a treaty. to sort it. Best avoided if possible.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
The government is indeed free to do so - but the government is also perfectly free to decide it does not need the views of the peoples elected representatives on the grounds that they sought the views of the people directly (with the agreement of said elected representatives in a bill of parliament to do so)
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
I feel like you've somewhat undercut your point with the last half of that last sentence.
If the Dawho on Earth is?
48% of th
Elected officials who would use their power to block a decision of the people, on the other hand, are traitors.
Nope. The 'decision of the people' is not binding, it cannot be treasonous to point that out, even if it is pointless to try to stop it. If our elected officials do have the power to block this - and they do, in that the government could theoretically choose never to declare for example - then how can it be treasonous? You just accepted they have the power to block it, therefore it is legal, therefore it is not treasonous.
This is a hypothetical discussion, obviously, and as a leaver myself I certainly am not advocating MPs use their power to prevent Brexit, I don't think more than a handful would try to, and article 50 will be triggered without difficulty be it by May or by parliament. But when a legally non-binding referendum is opposed, that's at best sour grapes and politically inadvisable in most areas.
And now I have a taxi horn beeping at me, I really must leave it there.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
Last time I checked there was only one way to leave the EU, and that was to invoke Article 50
We can leave by simply revoking the European Communities Act.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
But, as Meeks put it, why risk a climb down over something so (relatively) trivial?
She may have miscalculated how solid the government position is and so felt the risk was trivial. Obviously we haven't seen the advice, it seems like it should be solid enough, and she might feel the risk is worth the build up of goodwill. If the courts say she has to go to parliament it is not as though she could not use that - the Leaver fury would be massive and could be harnessed.
Why would Leavers be furious that our elected representatives get to scrutinise and approve this decision?
Leavers are jumpy because they know as well as I do that whilst the general all-things-to-all-men concept of Brexit scraped a majority of less than 4% no specific form of Brexit would command a majority in the country if remaining was still an option. Completely out would not win a referendum and nor would an EFTA-style out.
Cameron was an arrogant fool in the careless way he set up the referendum. There should have been a vote on the concept and a second vote on the specific deal.
I am not questioning the result of the referendum but I am questioning whether it is right that nobody has no further say on the Brexit we get.
If the Leavers are so confident that what they are doing why dont they urge the government to put the final deal to a referendum? As it is we will end up with making a monumental change which a majority of the population may well be opposed to from the off.
The referendum means that that A50 will be triggered. It has to be, or there will an irretrievable breakdown of the political process in this country.
The only question is exactly when, what we have in place instead, and what deals are set up etc.
Anyone asking for parliament or the people to have another vote first are just trying to stop the process in some way or form.
Which is perfectly legal, and easily defeatable given politically there would be chaos (and a government collapse) if it was stopped, so why such anger at legal but delaying tactics?
Clearly Parliament will authorise Article 50 if asked to do so. Clearly also, the only reason not to submit it to vote in Parliament is to close down any debate about the mechanics of Brexit, when no-one really knows how to go about it. If Labour where a slightly competent party they would be pushing hard on this.
Yes the next Opposition day really should be used to press for answers. Holding this together is going to be very difficult. I am yet to be convinced that May is up to it.
Is the Opposition up for it?
Probably not. But this government is much weaker than it appears. And going out of her way to insult Osborne really didn't help.
That is a fallacy. The opposition is divided like never before between two geographically divided parties and Sinn Fein abstention and DUP solid euroscepticism (I remember the four page front cover of the London free Paper Metro saying vote leave that the DUP paid for) means that May'd real majority is much the same as Thatchers in 1979.
Quite, the liberal democrats will be campaigning to take us back in in 2020, as will an Owen Smith led labour party, right?
I doubt it. He can argue now he wants to stop us leaving, playing to a Remainer membership, but once it has happened he can say that was a shame, but going back in without our opt outs would not be a good thing anymore.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
I know it seems like ancient history, but Blairite/Brownite Labour were elected in 2005 promising a referendum on the EU Constitution then voted the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament regardless. Utterly shameless. Many of them may not see much of a future in Parliament anyway, and might try to save their pet project while they can.
The prime motivation of the vast, vast majority of MPs is saving their own skin. Given the majority of Labour MPs are in constituencies which voted Leave, I think they will vote to continue to be employed.
Who'd have thought 18 months ago that a Labour party lead by Jeremy Corbyn would be so chaotic?
McDonnell is of course right to criticise Branson for his tax status. It's certainly disappointing. However Branson has done absolutely nothing to undermine our democracy in this episode, rather the reverse.
I'm not a big fan of honours (perhaps in part because I'll never get one), but I rather look forwards to seeing Lord Branson of the East coast take his seat in the Lords.
Not going to happen.
I've been told that it was proposed 3 times in the past but vetoed by one of the organizations that has input into such matters. Blair (?) finally forced it through but given the resistance from the organization in question was only able to secure a knighthood for him.
Shall we have a Peebie campaign - "Baronetcy for Charles now"?
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
Government lawyers are always confident. And it's too soon to really know how May operates as PM. She always seems cautious and assured, but possibly she's the sort who sees an easy boost by standing up to those Remoaner lawyers. We'll see.
But, as Meeks put it, why risk a climb down over something so (relatively) trivial?
She may have miscalculated how solid the government position is and so felt the risk was trivial. Obviously we haven't seen the advice, it seems like it should be solid enough, and she might feel the risk is worth the build up of goodwill. If the courts say she has to go to parliament it is not as though she could not use that - the Leaver fury would be massive and could be harnessed.
Why would Leavers be furious that our elected representatives get to scrutinise and approve this decision?
Leavers are jumpy because they know as well as I do that whilst the general all-things-to-all-men concept of Brexit scraped a majority of less than 4% no specific form of Brexit would command a majority in the country if remaining was still an option. Completely out would not win a referendum and nor would an EFTA-style out.
Cameron was an arrogant fool in the careless way he set up the referendum. There should have been a vote on the concept and a second vote on the specific deal.
I am not questioning the result of the referendum but I am questioning whether it is right that nobody has no further say on the Brexit we get.
If the Leavers are so confident that what they are doing why dont they urge the government to put the final deal to a referendum? As it is we will end up with making a monumental change which a majority of the population may well be opposed to from the off.
Which is all irrelevant. Once A50 is invoked, the clock starts ticking and there is no off switch. A eecond referendum could not be In/Out because In would no longer be on the table. The choice would be 'leave in a controlled manner' / 'leave in chaos'.
The referendum means that that A50 will be triggered. It has to be, or there will an irretrievable breakdown of the political process in this country.
The only question is exactly when, what we have in place instead, and what deals are set up etc.
Anyone asking for parliament or the people to have another vote first are just trying to stop the process in some way or form.
Which is perfectly legal, and easily defeatable given politically there would be chaos (and a government collapse) if it was stopped, so why such anger at legal but delaying tactics?
Because anyone delaying it only really has the purpose to try and hope that it gets stopped at some point. Otherwise the delay just causes uncertainty and harm, with no benefit.
Therefore, since delay for its own sake is damaging, and delay to try and stop the process is damaging, it is better for everyone just to accept the result and have a broad discussion about the best form of Brexit.
Thanks to all lefty PBers for not letting me live in an echo chamber.
Secondly, the furore over Article 50 is political fan dancing, like the calls for a general election when May was crowned. Parliamentarians have covered their arses if May ignores them and Brexit goes poorly (as, at times, it surely will). May is swirling her cape for the Tory headbangers like IDS. Personally, I don't care what happens. The paranoia that 'They' will somehow rollback the referendum result seems very overblown.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The referendum was legally of advisory status only. The government is free to do the opposite.
The government is indeed free to do so - but the government is also perfectly free to decide it does not need the views of the peoples elected representatives on the grounds that they sought the views of the people directly (with the agreement of said elected representatives in a bill of parliament to do so)
Its just mischief making by those who are to my mind borderline traitors who wish the country to be run by foreign princes potentates etc.
I feel like you've somewhat undercut your point with the last half of that last sentence.
If the Dawho on Earth is?
48% of th
Elected officials who would use their power to block a decision of the people, on the other hand, are traitors.
Nope. The 'decision of the people' is not binding, it cannot be treasonous to point that out, even if it is pointless to try to stop it. If our elected officials do have the power to block this - and they do, in that the government could theoretically choose never to declare for example - then how can it be treasonous? You just accepted they have the power to block it, therefore it is legal, therefore it is not treasonous.
This is a hypothetical discussion, obviously, and as a leaver myself I certainly am not advocating MPs use their power to prevent Brexit, I don't think more than a handful would try to, and article 50 will be triggered without difficulty be it by May or by parliament. But when a legally non-binding referendum is opposed, that's at best sour grapes and politically inadvisable in most areas.
And now I have a taxi horn beeping at me, I really must leave it there.
Talking in purely legal terms, you're right. Morally it would be treasonous, and there are plenty of MPs who would try to stop Brexit given the opportunity. Probably not enough to stop it altogether but between the HoC and HoL it could be amended to death. None of this would be necessary because TM has the Royal Prerogative and backing of the electorate.
''The prime motivation of the vast, vast majority of MPs is saving their own skin. Given the majority of Labour MPs are in constituencies which voted Leave, I think they will vote to continue to be employed.''
You would think so, wouldn't you? But given the comments of many MPs before, during and after Brexit, you have to wonder. The delusion and denial is very deep.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
I'm not sure you could have a 'legally binding' referendum in our constitutional set up (no parliament may bind its successors), could you? Saying before the vote you will implement the result is the closest you can get, I think.
It is perfectly possible to create a legally binding referendum, by legislating for the invocation of Article 50 (or whatever), and then making that invocation contingent on the referendum result.
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
Morning GIN, Branson is a smug t**t , the less we hear from him the better, just another establishment toady feeding off the public purse, we pay for the trains and he packs them like sardine tins and makes money on it. Your average Tory millionaire.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
I know it seems like ancient history, but Blairite/Brownite Labour were elected in 2005 promising a referendum on the EU Constitution then voted the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament regardless. Utterly shameless. Many of them may not see much of a future in Parliament anyway, and might try to save their pet project while they can.
The prime motivation of the vast, vast majority of MPs is saving their own skin. Given the majority of Labour MPs are in constituencies which voted Leave, I think they will vote to continue to be employed.
I'd like a vote, if nothing else, to see who's brave. Presumably the likes of David Lammy who's own constituents voted to Remain wouldn't have a problem voting against the motion. Of course, just because people voted to Remain in Tottenham doesn't mean they'd be particularly impressed with their MP voting against the will of the people.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
Which is all irrelevant. Once A50 is invoked, the clock starts ticking and there is no off switch. A eecond referendum could not be In/Out because In would no longer be on the table. The choice would be 'leave in a controlled manner' / 'leave in chaos'.
I'm not sure it would really be impossible to defuse the bomb. The Lisbon Treaty describes everything going ahead rather than stopping because the leaving state changes it's mind, but it doesn't specifically say no taksies-backsies. And even if there was a case to be made that Britain should have to leave, it's hard to imagine any of the member states going to court to make it.
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
Morning GIN, Branson is a smug t**t , the less we hear from him the better, just another establishment toady feeding off the public purse, we pay for the trains and he packs them like sardine tins and makes money on it. Your average Tory millionaire.
Branson backed Blair and Remain, he is really New Labour, not Tory, although obviously still anathema to Corbyn
Which is all irrelevant. Once A50 is invoked, the clock starts ticking and there is no off switch. A eecond referendum could not be In/Out because In would no longer be on the table. The choice would be 'leave in a controlled manner' / 'leave in chaos'.
I'm not sure it would really be impossible to defuse the bomb. The Lisbon Treaty describes everything going ahead rather than stopping because the leaving state changes it's mind, but it doesn't specifically say no taksies-backsies. And even if there was a case to be made that Britain should have to leave, it's hard to imagine any of the member states going to court to make it.
I think they would. Other EU states won't indefinitely tolerate a situation where we've said we want Out, but do nothing about it. Nor should they.
The referendum means that that A50 will be triggered. It has to be, or there will an irretrievable breakdown of the political process in this country.
The only question is exactly when, what we have in place instead, and what deals are set up etc.
Anyone asking for parliament or the people to have another vote first are just trying to stop the process in some way or form.
Yes, of course that is right. The various legalistic etc. arguments being deployed around this are pure bullsh*t.
The REMAIN plan now is to throw sand in the wheels at every stage in the hope something will turn up to alter the political landscape. Or failing that to divert the Brexit process towards 'Associate Membership' as O'Donnell helpfully reminded us recently.
We shouldn't underestimate how hard the pro-EU establishment will fight to try to derail the process. There is zero room for complacency on this.
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
I'm not sure you could have a 'legally binding' referendum in our constitutional set up (no parliament may bind its successors), could you? Saying before the vote you will implement the result is the closest you can get, I think.
It is perfectly possible to create a legally binding referendum, by legislating for the invocation of Article 50 (or whatever), and then making that invocation contingent on the referendum result.
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
My understand is the case for a vote in Parliament rests on the fact that, by exercising Article 50 you are setting in train a motion that irreversibly leads to repeal of the European Communities Act (or whatever it was called). The government case is that (a) they will have a vote on repeal when they want to repeal the said Act and (b) in approving the Lisbon Treaty Parliament approved the Article 50 process without reserving the power to themselves and hence it falls under royal perogative.
Seems to me that the government had a strong case. But IANAL.
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
Morning GIN, Branson is a smug t**t , the less we hear from him the better, just another establishment toady feeding off the public purse, we pay for the trains and he packs them like sardine tins and makes money on it. Your average Tory millionaire.
Branson backed Blair and Remain, he is really New Labour, not Tory, although obviously still anathema to Corbyn
New Labour and Tory are two cheeks of the same arse
'If the Leavers are so confident that what they are doing why dont they urge the government to put the final deal to a referendum? As it is we will end up with making a monumental change which a majority of the population may well be opposed to from the off. '
Because we were told by Cameron that a vote to leave would result in him immediately activating article 50, no ifs or buts,no re-negotiation or blocking by parliament.
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
Morning GIN, Branson is a smug t**t , the less we hear from him the better, just another establishment toady feeding off the public purse, we pay for the trains and he packs them like sardine tins and makes money on it. Your average Tory millionaire.
Branson backed Blair and Remain, he is really New Labour, not Tory, although obviously still anathema to Corbyn
New Labour and Tory are two cheeks of the same arse
New Labour and Cameroon Tory, May Tory and New Labour rather less so. IDS and Bill Cash Tory are as far away from New Labour as Corbyn Labour is on the other side
The question who triggers Article 50 is an interesting point of law. Either Theresa May is very confident that it is going to be decided her way or she is unnecessarily setting herself up for a possible humiliation at the hands of the courts.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.
The original Telegraph story implied the government lawyers were confident a vote would not be required. While they can be wrong, isn't this the sort of thing they should be good at? If there was any significant doubt I suspect she would have kept quiet.
My understand is the case for a vote in Parliament rests on the fact that, by exercising Article 50 you are setting in train a motion that irreversibly leads to repeal of the European Communities Act (or whatever it was called). The government case is that (a) they will have a vote on repeal when they want to repeal the said Act and (b) in approving the Lisbon Treaty Parliament approved the Article 50 process without reserving the power to themselves and hence it falls under royal perogative.
Seems to me that the government had a strong case. But IANAL.
Does the Act necessarily have to be repealed though? I thought it was an instrument through which EU directives were applied to the UK. Given that we would no longer be a member, the Act serves no purpose but wouldn't have to be repealed? (I'm most definitely not a lawyer!)
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
I'm not sure you could have a 'legally binding' referendum in our constitutional set up (no parliament may bind its successors), could you? Saying before the vote you will implement the result is the closest you can get, I think.
Of course it's possible to have alegally binding referendum. The AV one was (i.e. would have enacted AV automatically in the event of a YES vote). But in any case, the EU referendum *was* binding: the law doesn't say so, but the Constitution does. ("The Constitution is what happens" - Prof. J. A. G. Griffith)
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
I'm not sure you could have a 'legally binding' referendum in our constitutional set up (no parliament may bind its successors), could you? Saying before the vote you will implement the result is the closest you can get, I think.
It is perfectly possible to create a legally binding referendum, by legislating for the invocation of Article 50 (or whatever), and then making that invocation contingent on the referendum result.
Yes. The AV referendum was on exactly that basis.
How can that be so if triggering Article 50 is a prerogative power?
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
I'm not sure you could have a 'legally binding' referendum in our constitutional set up (no parliament may bind its successors), could you? Saying before the vote you will implement the result is the closest you can get, I think.
Of course it's possible to have alegally binding referendum. The AV one was (i.e. would have enacted AV automatically in the event of a YES vote). But in any case, the EU referendum *was* binding: the law doesn't say so, but the Constitution does. ("The Constitution is what happens" - Prof. J. A. G. Griffith)
Well at the risk of being drawn into the 'bullsh*t' I referred to earlier, I don't think there can be genuinely legally binding referendums in our system. Even if you embedded a referendum result in a piece of legislation like in the AV case parliament could just repeal that legislation later.
But as noted, this is all just an attempt to frustrate the referendum result.
The big difficulty with the government's position on Article 50 is this. It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the referendum went the other way, but David Cameron had then been toppled by furious Leavers who appointed John Baron as the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Baron would then, according to the government's logic, have been fully empowered to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, irrevocably committing Britain to leaving the EU in defiance of the popular vote and without a majority in Parliament for that action.
It doesn't matter that didn't in fact happen: the problem is whether executive authority should in theory be that wide-ranging without any fetters.
Not so. The understanding is that the prerogative will be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the U.K. Populace as shown by the referendum. Your alternative scenario contemplates it being used to defeat the wishes of the populace. It is not necessary to argue that would be possible to argue that the government now has a duty to implement the outcome of the referendum.
The referendum said what, it didn't say how or when.
Last time I checked there was only one way to leave the EU, and that was to invoke Article 50
We can leave by simply revoking the European Communities Act.
Heh, feasible ways of leaving then!
I wonder if we could also leave by reorganizing our country and designating Rockall as the successor state to the UK.
Rockall has a lot of strategic value (claim on the mid Atlantic rift).
How about the Palace of Holyrood (but nothing outside the Palace boundaries)?
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
I'm not sure you could have a 'legally binding' referendum in our constitutional set up (no parliament may bind its successors), could you? Saying before the vote you will implement the result is the closest you can get, I think.
It is perfectly possible to create a legally binding referendum, by legislating for the invocation of Article 50 (or whatever), and then making that invocation contingent on the referendum result.
Yes. The AV referendum was on exactly that basis.
How can that be so if triggering Article 50 is a prerogative power?
The AV referendum Act probably stated that the provisions (for the use of AV in voting) would only come into force if there was a positive result in the referendum. That isn't binding Parliament since Parliament could have repealed the Act before the referendum. It could also have repealed the Act after the referendum, in which case we would have officially had AV for a time, just never had used it in an actual election.
Trump has double the number of Facebook followers than Hillary and millions more twitter followers.
He also many more small donations under $200 than HRC.
I know these are just anecdotes but in a two horse race maybe they are more meaningful than in a multi party system like ours?
I suppose you will claim that the same thing happened for Brexit. However the Clinton lead IS about the same that Remain held in the polls - the question is: have all the pollsters got it wrong again - Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is enemy action?
Which is all irrelevant. Once A50 is invoked, the clock starts ticking and there is no off switch. A eecond referendum could not be In/Out because In would no longer be on the table. The choice would be 'leave in a controlled manner' / 'leave in chaos'.
I'm not sure it would really be impossible to defuse the bomb. The Lisbon Treaty describes everything going ahead rather than stopping because the leaving state changes it's mind, but it doesn't specifically say no taksies-backsies. And even if there was a case to be made that Britain should have to leave, it's hard to imagine any of the member states going to court to make it.
I think they would. Other EU states won't indefinitely tolerate a situation where we've said we want Out, but do nothing about it. Nor should they.
Politicians understand that referendums are a bit random. If Britain had held another referendum and decided they wanted to stay in after all, in they'd be able to live with that. They won't jump through hoops to make it happen, but they won't inflict trouble and budget cuts on their own citizens in defence of the principle that nobody is allowed to change their minds.
That said, this is all a bit academic as there's no sign that the voters would change their minds, even in the unlikely event that the government were to ask them.
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
Morning GIN, Branson is a smug t**t , the less we hear from him the better, just another establishment toady feeding off the public purse, we pay for the trains and he packs them like sardine tins and makes money on it. Your average Tory millionaire.
Branson backed Blair and Remain, he is really New Labour, not Tory, although obviously still anathema to Corbyn
New Labour and Tory are two cheeks of the same arse
New Labour and Cameroon Tory, May Tory and New Labour rather less so. IDS and Bill Cash Tory are as far away from New Labour as Corbyn Labour is on the other side
May has done nothing to show she is anything other than your average right wing fanatic Tory despot.
Trump has double the number of Facebook followers than Hillary and millions more twitter followers.
He also many more small donations under $200 than HRC.
I know these are just anecdotes but in a two horse race maybe they are more meaningful than in a multi party system like ours?
I suppose you will claim that the same thing happened for Brexit. However the Clinton lead IS about the same that Remain held in the polls - the question is: have all the pollsters got it wrong again - Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is enemy action?
Not all pollsters got it wrong, ICM, Opinium and TNS all had Leave ahead in their final EU ref polls, Trump needs at least a few poll leads before an upset
Talking in purely legal terms, you're right. Morally it would be treasonous, and there are plenty of MPs who would try to stop Brexit given the opportunity. Probably not enough to stop it altogether but between the HoC and HoL it could be amended to death. None of this would be necessary because TM has the Royal Prerogative and backing of the electorate.
No one is going to be convicted of Treason, but the legislation is still there. That is why the private prosecution of Douglas Hurd for Treason for signing the Maastrict Treaty was taken over by the DPP and then stopped "in the public interest". That wouldnt have happened if the defence could have had the case thrown out at the first hearing or before as being no case to answer.
It explains though why the likes of Lammy are seen with such revulsion. Mr Meeks and his ilk just dont seem to get it that euro enthusiasts are viewed as morally repugnant by many sceptics.
The whole debate has revealed a huge fissure as to how people wish to be governed - this is a huge shock to progressives who had convinced themselves that small l liberal progressivism was supported by the vast majority in the country, rather than zones 1-3 of Greater London, and a lot of them are a bit scared as to the future direction of the country.
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
Morning GIN, Branson is a smug t**t , the less we hear from him the better, just another establishment toady feeding off the public purse, we pay for the trains and he packs them like sardine tins and makes money on it. Your average Tory millionaire.
Branson backed Blair and Remain, he is really New Labour, not Tory, although obviously still anathema to Corbyn
New Labour and Tory are two cheeks of the same arse
New Labour and Cameroon Tory, May Tory and New Labour rather less so. IDS and Bill Cash Tory are as far away from New Labour as Corbyn Labour is on the other side
May has done nothing to show she is anything other than your average right wing fanatic Tory despot.
She is certainly more centrist than Cash and IDS even if more rightwing than Blair and Cameron
Judging by this video clip, http://tinyurl.com/j2kfue7 , the new plastic fiver due to be introduced in just over two weeks time looks quite sexy. I have in mind to order, say £100 worth of these from the bank in the hope that the notes will bear very early serial numbers, say AA 00 000001 - AA 00 000020 or something along these lines, as a gift at a Christening taking place in a few months' time. This is in the hope that they might appreciate rather more than simply sticking said sum in a deposit account or worse still investing it in premium bonds and which also ultimately has more practical value than some silver artefact or other. Unless that is, PBers have better ideas for such a gift.
Trump has double the number of Facebook followers than Hillary and millions more twitter followers.
He also many more small donations under $200 than HRC.
I know these are just anecdotes but in a two horse race maybe they are more meaningful than in a multi party system like ours?
I suppose you will claim that the same thing happened for Brexit. However the Clinton lead IS about the same that Remain held in the polls - the question is: have all the pollsters got it wrong again - Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is enemy action?
Whether the hidden voters of Brexit has a parallel or not in the US elections, I bet the fear of it is playing on the mind of US liberals (in the american sense of the word).
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
Morning GIN, Branson is a smug t**t , the less we hear from him the better, just another establishment toady feeding off the public purse, we pay for the trains and he packs them like sardine tins and makes money on it. Your average Tory millionaire.
Branson backed Blair and Remain, he is really New Labour, not Tory, although obviously still anathema to Corbyn
New Labour and Tory are two cheeks of the same arse
New Labour and Cameroon Tory, May Tory and New Labour rather less so. IDS and Bill Cash Tory are as far away from New Labour as Corbyn Labour is on the other side
May has done nothing to show she is anything other than your average right wing fanatic Tory despot.
She is certainly more centrist than Cash and IDS even if more rightwing than Blair and Cameron
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
Morning GIN, Branson is a smug t**t , the less we hear from him the better, just another establishment toady feeding off the public purse, we pay for the trains and he packs them like sardine tins and makes money on it. Your average Tory millionaire.
Branson backed Blair and Remain, he is really New Labour, not Tory, although obviously still anathema to Corbyn
New Labour and Tory are two cheeks of the same arse
New Labour and Cameroon Tory, May Tory and New Labour rather less so. IDS and Bill Cash Tory are as far away from New Labour as Corbyn Labour is on the other side
May has done nothing to show she is anything other than your average right wing fanatic Tory despot.
She is certainly more centrist than Cash and IDS even if more rightwing than Blair and Cameron
Undoutably the most right wing PM since Thatcher.
Certainly, though she is not as right wing as Thatcher was
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
Morning GIN, Branson is a smug t**t , the less we hear from him the better, just another establishment toady feeding off the public purse, we pay for the trains and he packs them like sardine tins and makes money on it. Your average Tory millionaire.
Branson backed Blair and Remain, he is really New Labour, not Tory, although obviously still anathema to Corbyn
New Labour and Tory are two cheeks of the same arse
New Labour and Cameroon Tory, May Tory and New Labour rather less so. IDS and Bill Cash Tory are as far away from New Labour as Corbyn Labour is on the other side
May has done nothing to show she is anything other than your average right wing fanatic Tory despot.
She is certainly more centrist than Cash and IDS even if more rightwing than Blair and Cameron
Judging by this video clip, http://tinyurl.com/j2kfue7 , the new plastic fiver due to be introduced in just over two weeks time looks quite sexy. I have in mind to order, say £100 worth of these from the bank in the hope that the notes will bear very early serial numbers, say AA 00 000001 - AA 00 000020 or something along these lines, as a gift at a Christening taking place in a few months' time. This is in the hope that they might appreciate rather more than simply sticking said sum in a deposit account or worse still investing it in premium bonds and which also ultimately has more practical value than some silver artefact or other. Unless that is, PBers have better ideas for such a gift.
I think I'll miss the texture of the paper ones. The plastic ones from other countries feel quite naff.
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
Morning GIN, Branson is a smug t**t , the less we hear from him the better, just another establishment toady feeding off the public purse, we pay for the trains and he packs them like sardine tins and makes money on it. Your average Tory millionaire.
Branson backed Blair and Remain, he is really New Labour, not Tory, although obviously still anathema to Corbyn
New Labour and Tory are two cheeks of the same arse
New Labour and Cameroon Tory, May Tory and New Labour rather less so. IDS and Bill Cash Tory are as far away from New Labour as Corbyn Labour is on the other side
May has done nothing to show she is anything other than your average right wing fanatic Tory despot.
She is certainly more centrist than Cash and IDS even if more rightwing than Blair and Cameron
Undoutably the most right wing PM since Thatcher.
If Cameron was the heir to Blair, is May a match for Thatch?
Attacking Branson will do zero harm. He's not Goodwin or green, but he's rich and he embarrassed Jeremy, he's part of the mainstream media attacks, that's enough.
He is your typical establishment , not happy that Corbyn pointed out how crap his business was, people paying hundreds regularly to have to sit on the floor of his trains , the ones we pay for. Big spoiled rich baby takes umbrage and puts out propaganda to try and embarrass Corbyn. His trains ar econstantly overcrowded by people who have paid big money, the man is a charlatan, too big for his own boots.
Morning Malc.
Agree entirely. Branson has always had far, far too much to say for himself. About time someone cut him down to size.
Go Jezza!
Morning GIN, Branson is a smug t**t , the less we hear from him the better, just another establishment toady feeding off the public purse, we pay for the trains and he packs them like sardine tins and makes money on it. Your average Tory millionaire.
Branson backed Blair and Remain, he is really New Labour, not Tory, although obviously still anathema to Corbyn
New Labour and Tory are two cheeks of the same arse
New Labour and Cameroon Tory, May Tory and New Labour rather less so. IDS and Bill Cash Tory are as far away from New Labour as Corbyn Labour is on the other side
May has done nothing to show she is anything other than your average right wing fanatic Tory despot.
She is certainly more centrist than Cash and IDS even if more rightwing than Blair and Cameron
Undoutably the most right wing PM since Thatcher.
If Cameron was the heir to Blair, is May a match for Thatch?
Judging by this video clip, http://tinyurl.com/j2kfue7 , the new plastic fiver due to be introduced in just over two weeks time looks quite sexy. I have in mind to order, say £100 worth of these from the bank in the hope that the notes will bear very early serial numbers, say AA 00 000001 - AA 00 000020 or something along these lines, as a gift at a Christening taking place in a few months' time. This is in the hope that they might appreciate rather more than simply sticking said sum in a deposit account or worse still investing it in premium bonds and which also ultimately has more practical value than some silver artefact or other. Unless that is, PBers have better ideas for such a gift.
I think I'll miss the texture of the paper ones. The plastic ones from other countries feel quite naff.
Rob - that being the case, maybe you should invest in a number of pristine, uncirculated paper fivers before they become extinct. This assumes that they are still to be had, which I very much doubt as I suspect the De La Rue presses have already been working overtime on the plastic variety for some months ...... now there's an idea - perhaps I should invest instead in a few De La Rue shares as a Christening gift!
Mr. Meeks, you rather miss out a referendum was won for Leave, and that the official advice was that the Government would implement the decision the voters made.
The referendum was in the winning party's manifesto. It was supported by Parliament. The people vote to Leave. That's three votes with clear victories each time.
Mr. kle4, the French are given succour by bleeding hearts from Islington. It's ridiculous.
The Referendum Act could have been written to be binding, in which case I would agree with you. But it was specifically written to be advisory.
A vote in the HoC would be won by a massive majority; which MP wants to be seen to ignore the will of the people? Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, it is a tactical error not to hold a vote.
I know it seems like ancient history, but Blairite/Brownite Labour were elected in 2005 promising a referendum on the EU Constitution then voted the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament regardless. Utterly shameless. Many of them may not see much of a future in Parliament anyway, and might try to save their pet project while they can.
The prime motivation of the vast, vast majority of MPs is saving their own skin. Given the majority of Labour MPs are in constituencies which voted Leave, I think they will vote to continue to be employed.
I'd like a vote, if nothing else, to see who's brave. Presumably the likes of David Lammy who's own constituents voted to Remain wouldn't have a problem voting against the motion. Of course, just because people voted to Remain in Tottenham doesn't mean they'd be particularly impressed with their MP voting against the will of the people.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
If the vote was to stop Article 50 then that would be a valid reason for a snap election, in which I think there would be a Tory majority of 150 or so.
If May is so uncertain that she could win a vote to invoke A50, it doesn't bode well for her confidence in getting anything controversial through.
I was a Remainer, but that is history. We will Leave and I believe it will be a hard Brexit due to the intransigence of the Bitter Enders and also the plodding nature of EU treaty processes, with lots of EU countries holding their own redlines that are incompatable with ours.
If I say it is "very important" whether immigrants don't have skills are in short supply how the fuck will you know if I think its important that we should allow more in or fewer in?
Judging by this video clip, http://tinyurl.com/j2kfue7 , the new plastic fiver due to be introduced in just over two weeks time looks quite sexy. I have in mind to order, say £100 worth of these from the bank in the hope that the notes will bear very early serial numbers, say AA 00 000001 - AA 00 000020 or something along these lines, as a gift at a Christening taking place in a few months' time. This is in the hope that they might appreciate rather more than simply sticking said sum in a deposit account or worse still investing it in premium bonds and which also ultimately has more practical value than some silver artefact or other. Unless that is, PBers have better ideas for such a gift.
I think I'll miss the texture of the paper ones. The plastic ones from other countries feel quite naff.
Rob - that being the case, maybe you should invest in a number of pristine, uncirculated paper fivers before they become extinct. This assumes that they are still to be had, which I very much doubt as I suspect the De La Rue presses have already been working overtime on the plastic variety for some months ...... now there's an idea - perhaps I should invest instead in a few De La Rue shares as a Christening gift!
Careful! The trend in demand for cash is down, being replaced by (a different kind of ) plastic.
Trump has double the number of Facebook followers than Hillary and millions more twitter followers.
He also many more small donations under $200 than HRC.
I know these are just anecdotes but in a two horse race maybe they are more meaningful than in a multi party system like ours?
I suppose you will claim that the same thing happened for Brexit. However the Clinton lead IS about the same that Remain held in the polls - the question is: have all the pollsters got it wrong again - Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is enemy action?
Whether the hidden voters of Brexit has a parallel or not in the US elections, I bet the fear of it is playing on the mind of US liberals (in the american sense of the word).
Witness Clinton's histrionics at the 'alt right'. I would say she was, to quote another lady politician - frit.
Judging by this video clip, http://tinyurl.com/j2kfue7 , the new plastic fiver due to be introduced in just over two weeks time looks quite sexy. I have in mind to order, say £100 worth of these from the bank in the hope that the notes will bear very early serial numbers, say AA 00 000001 - AA 00 000020 or something along these lines, as a gift at a Christening taking place in a few months' time. This is in the hope that they might appreciate rather more than simply sticking said sum in a deposit account or worse still investing it in premium bonds and which also ultimately has more practical value than some silver artefact or other. Unless that is, PBers have better ideas for such a gift.
I think I'll miss the texture of the paper ones. The plastic ones from other countries feel quite naff.
Rob - that being the case, maybe you should invest in a number of pristine, uncirculated paper fivers before they become extinct. This assumes that they are still to be had, which I very much doubt as I suspect the De La Rue presses have already been working overtime on the plastic variety for some months ...... now there's an idea - perhaps I should invest instead in a few De La Rue shares as a Christening gift!
Careful! The trend in demand for cash is down, being replaced by (a different kind of ) plastic.
Not so ..... recent data shows that in Europe at least the quantity of physical money in circulation has actually increased. That said, if you're right, then notes and coinage will over time attract a rarity value, especially if of the "first day issue" variety to which I was referring.
A couple at a German music festival have been attacked by a knifeman who witnesses claim was heard shouting "Allahu Akbar".
A 66-year-old woman, believed to be the other victim's wife, is said to be fighting for her life.
The other victim - a 57-year-old man - is seriously injured however he still managed to overpower the man who was then arrested by police officers in Oberhausen.
The attack took place just after 7pm on Saturday evening.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
Not many mooslims in Boston, if that is what you are trying to suggest or immigrants in general in Hull.
Connection seems to be they are all shitholes full of rather unintelligent lower class people whos ancestors went there due to the agricultural revolution meaning they were no longer needed in the countryside coinciding with unskilled indusrtrial jobs being plentiful due to the level of technology between the first industrial revolution with the invention of powered mechanical technology and the second with the invention of electronic means of controlling such technology. After the second industrial revolution you no longer needed to employ hordes of rather dim people to do mind numbing repetitive work which has left these areas with a lot of useless eaters who are often not very socially conditioned and tend to be aggressive if challenged.
As a result anyone with get up and go gets up and goes...
I'd like a vote, if nothing else, to see who's brave. Presumably the likes of David Lammy who's own constituents voted to Remain wouldn't have a problem voting against the motion. Of course, just because people voted to Remain in Tottenham doesn't mean they'd be particularly impressed with their MP voting against the will of the people.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
If the vote was to stop Article 50 then that would be a valid reason for a snap election, in which I think there would be a Tory majority of 150 or so.
If May is so uncertain that she could win a vote to invoke A50, it doesn't bode well for her confidence in getting anything controversial through.
I was a Remainer, but that is history. We will Leave and I believe it will be a hard Brexit due to the intransigence of the Bitter Enders and also the plodding nature of EU treaty processes, with lots of EU countries holding their own redlines that are incompatable with ours.
Is May refusing to allow a vote simply because she is not certain of getting it through? Surely it's more a point of principle. I'll admit as a leaver I only want a vote to see Labour squirm. There will be plenty of time for parliament to debate the way forward post Article 50.
Judging by this video clip, http://tinyurl.com/j2kfue7 , the new plastic fiver due to be introduced in just over two weeks time looks quite sexy. I have in mind to order, say £100 worth of these from the bank in the hope that the notes will bear very early serial numbers, say AA 00 000001 - AA 00 000020 or something along these lines, as a gift at a Christening taking place in a few months' time. This is in the hope that they might appreciate rather more than simply sticking said sum in a deposit account or worse still investing it in premium bonds and which also ultimately has more practical value than some silver artefact or other. Unless that is, PBers have better ideas for such a gift.
I think I'll miss the texture of the paper ones. The plastic ones from other countries feel quite naff.
Rob - that being the case, maybe you should invest in a number of pristine, uncirculated paper fivers before they become extinct. This assumes that they are still to be had, which I very much doubt as I suspect the De La Rue presses have already been working overtime on the plastic variety for some months ...... now there's an idea - perhaps I should invest instead in a few De La Rue shares as a Christening gift!
Careful! The trend in demand for cash is down, being replaced by (a different kind of ) plastic.
Not so ..... recent data shows that in Europe at least the quantity of physical money in circulation has actually increased. That said, if you're right, then notes and coinage will over time attract a rarity value, especially if of the "first day issue" variety to which I was referring.
If you read some of the by-catch from Jackson Hole, cash will eventually have to be outlawed, otherwise negative interest rates will be ineffectual.
Comments
Working for the country to become part of a European Superstate with a head of state that is not the Queen is an attempt to make somebody else king which is treason.
Maybe. Maybe not. Look at Sarkozy's comments, Douglas Murray's articles, Austria's presidential re-run and who is leading in the polls in Holland.
In other words, read the news outside Islington.
no thanks.
Quite, the liberal democrats will be campaigning to take us back in in 2020, as will an Owen Smith led labour party, right?
If progressives don;t like the settlement the UK achieves with the EU, they are free to campaign to change it.
Might also be difficult to get the likes of France and Italy to accept HM Queen as Supreme Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith.
We could get rid of that ring of stars and have the union flag as the EU flag too with places like Germany having the blue ensign with a German Black eagle it for their flag and France having the Red Ensign with the prince of Wales feathers.
Heads for door......
I wonder if we could also leave by reorganizing our country and designating Rockall as the successor state to the UK.
This is a hypothetical discussion, obviously, and as a leaver myself I certainly am not advocating MPs use their power to prevent Brexit, I don't think more than a handful would try to, and article 50 will be triggered without difficulty be it by May or by parliament. But when a legally non-binding referendum is opposed, that's at best sour grapes and politically inadvisable in most areas.
And now I have a taxi horn beeping at me, I really must leave it there.
The referendum means that that A50 will be triggered. It has to be, or there will an irretrievable breakdown of the political process in this country.
The only question is exactly when, what we have in place instead, and what deals are set up etc.
Anyone asking for parliament or the people to have another vote first are just trying to stop the process in some way or form.
"simply" Hmm.
Cameron was an arrogant fool in the careless way he set up the referendum. There should have been a vote on the concept and a second vote on the specific deal.
I am not questioning the result of the referendum but I am questioning whether it is right that nobody has no further say on the Brexit we get.
If the Leavers are so confident that what they are doing why dont they urge the government to put the final deal to a referendum? As it is we will end up with making a monumental change which a majority of the population may well be opposed to from the off.
Edit: Just realised you were talking about Charles Edward Saxe-Coburg-Gotha not Richard Branson! In which case I agree!
(But it demonstrates why the quote function is a helpful innovation)
Because anyone delaying it only really has the purpose to try and hope that it gets stopped at some point. Otherwise the delay just causes uncertainty and harm, with no benefit.
Therefore, since delay for its own sake is damaging, and delay to try and stop the process is damaging, it is better for everyone just to accept the result and have a broad discussion about the best form of Brexit.
First, a paean in praise of PB, one of my antidotes to the issues highlighted in Nick Cohen's latest for The Observer:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/27/donald-trump-fox-news-charlie-sykes-modern-debate?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet#img-1
Thanks to all lefty PBers for not letting me live in an echo chamber.
Secondly, the furore over Article 50 is political fan dancing, like the calls for a general election when May was crowned. Parliamentarians have covered their arses if May ignores them and Brexit goes poorly (as, at times, it surely will). May is swirling her cape for the Tory headbangers like IDS. Personally, I don't care what happens. The paranoia that 'They' will somehow rollback the referendum result seems very overblown.
You would think so, wouldn't you? But given the comments of many MPs before, during and after Brexit, you have to wonder. The delusion and denial is very deep.
Your average Tory millionaire.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
The REMAIN plan now is to throw sand in the wheels at every stage in the hope something will turn up to alter the political landscape. Or failing that to divert the Brexit process towards 'Associate Membership' as O'Donnell helpfully reminded us recently.
We shouldn't underestimate how hard the pro-EU establishment will fight to try to derail the process. There is zero room for complacency on this.
Seems to me that the government had a strong case. But IANAL.
'If the Leavers are so confident that what they are doing why dont they urge the government to put the final deal to a referendum? As it is we will end up with making a monumental change which a majority of the population may well be opposed to from the off. '
Because we were told by Cameron that a vote to leave would result in him immediately activating article 50, no ifs or buts,no re-negotiation or blocking by parliament.
Was that just another porkie by Remain ?
One of many reasons UKIP will survive and thrive. Another being the PM's equality audit. Hard truths? that's right. but for the tories.
Progessives think the referendum was their last defeat. I think it was their first.
Trump has double the number of Facebook followers than Hillary and millions more twitter followers.
He also many more small donations under $200 than HRC.
I know these are just anecdotes but in a two horse race maybe they are more meaningful than in a multi party system like ours?
LBC
Teen On The Run Asks Police On Facebook To Use Nicer Picture | LBC https://t.co/lJzjnlTx7q via @lbc
But as noted, this is all just an attempt to frustrate the referendum result.
How about the Palace of Holyrood (but nothing outside the Palace boundaries)?
*boards 9 hour flight*
That said, this is all a bit academic as there's no sign that the voters would change their minds, even in the unlikely event that the government were to ask them.
Hope Corbyn hammers his ass.
Consensus between Remain/Leave on importance of skills/education in new immigration system https://t.co/OOhp9JDLVg https://t.co/nYGHrKvAsy
It explains though why the likes of Lammy are seen with such revulsion. Mr Meeks and his ilk just dont seem to get it that euro enthusiasts are viewed as morally repugnant by many sceptics.
The whole debate has revealed a huge fissure as to how people wish to be governed - this is a huge shock to progressives who had convinced themselves that small l liberal progressivism was supported by the vast majority in the country, rather than zones 1-3 of Greater London, and a lot of them are a bit scared as to the future direction of the country.
Judging by this video clip, http://tinyurl.com/j2kfue7 , the new plastic fiver due to be introduced in just over two weeks time looks quite sexy.
I have in mind to order, say £100 worth of these from the bank in the hope that the notes will bear very early serial numbers, say AA 00 000001 - AA 00 000020 or something along these lines, as a gift at a Christening taking place in a few months' time. This is in the hope that they might appreciate rather more than simply sticking said sum in a deposit account or worse still investing it in premium bonds and which also ultimately has more practical value than some silver artefact or other. Unless that is, PBers have better ideas for such a gift.
Brendan O'Neill: Identity politics is unraveling society in a very pernicious way
https://t.co/ftdbx2Jczu https://t.co/DEvlzXpkS7
If May is so uncertain that she could win a vote to invoke A50, it doesn't bode well for her confidence in getting anything controversial through.
I was a Remainer, but that is history. We will Leave and I believe it will be a hard Brexit due to the intransigence of the Bitter Enders and also the plodding nature of EU treaty processes, with lots of EU countries holding their own redlines that are incompatable with ours.
If I say it is "very important" whether immigrants don't have skills are in short supply how the fuck will you know if I think its important that we should allow more in or fewer in?
A couple at a German music festival have been attacked by a knifeman who witnesses claim was heard shouting "Allahu Akbar".
A 66-year-old woman, believed to be the other victim's wife, is said to be fighting for her life.
The other victim - a 57-year-old man - is seriously injured however he still managed to overpower the man who was then arrested by police officers in Oberhausen.
The attack took place just after 7pm on Saturday evening.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/germany-stabbing-knifeman-shouts-allahu-8722043#ICID=sharebar_twitter
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
Connection seems to be they are all shitholes full of rather unintelligent lower class people whos ancestors went there due to the agricultural revolution meaning they were no longer needed in the countryside coinciding with unskilled indusrtrial jobs being plentiful due to the level of technology between the first industrial revolution with the invention of powered mechanical technology and the second with the invention of electronic means of controlling such technology. After the second industrial revolution you no longer needed to employ hordes of rather dim people to do mind numbing repetitive work which has left these areas with a lot of useless eaters who are often not very socially conditioned and tend to be aggressive if challenged.
As a result anyone with get up and go gets up and goes...