The Politics Thread

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that Cameron handed over a crucial decision about the future of the country to people who clearly had very little idea what they were voting for, or the consequences of what they were doing.

The irony is that it's those who 'wanted their country back' who are going to get hurt the most from all this.

 

It says a lot that Philip Hammond is trying to say Britait is Tony Blair's fault.

How did he come to that conclusion? At no point did Blair call a referendum on EU membership in a blatant effort to score some cheap political points - that was all Hammond's previous employer.

 

I blame ALL our Westminster governments with the possible exception of Heath's (who were comitted) The UK has never been fully committed to Europe during it's entire membership. Our media have been continually sniping and trying to ridicule the EU. If we had been a fully engaged enthusiastic part of it then things might be different now. The UK continues to consider itself way more important than it really is. Even now May is telling us how great we are and will be. Bullshit! and yet more Bullshit. Ironically Scotland IS fully committed to Europe and has tried to be through the fog created by Westminster. Scottish Independence cannot be far off now.

 

I'm at a loss to understand how anyone could make an informed decision. There was no plan as to how Britain would leave the EU, when it would happen or what the consequences would be. Cameron never expected a leave vote. There was plenty of propaganda - such as the nonsense about how much extra money would be available for the NHS - but no reliable information about what leaving would actually entail. And we still don't know.

 

And that is probably a very good reason for leaving. We have never been committed to Europe. In fact we've been about as committed as Adebayor on an off day. It would never have worked for us.

 

The British also showed a lack of commitment to improving London's sanitation system in the mid-19th century, even though 85,000 Londoners died of cholera in a five year period because the system was at least 300 years out of date and was literally dumping **** into the city's water supply.

Just pointing out how the British aren't exactly the most reliable when it comes to picking what to commit to...

 

But when the did commit Joe Bazeljet (spelling) designedthe finest sewerage system in the world.

 

Even then it wasn't commitment: when cholera was wiping out the East End nobody budged, but when the fecal matter was backed up as far as Westminster the government fled the city in fear that they'd be next and that's when they passed Bazalgette's plans.

 

'Every man thinks his burden is the heavyest. ' Robert Nesta Marley.

 

Can't think of anyone that describes...

 

June 2016: "We want parliament to have sovereignty!"
January 2017: "How dare the Supreme Court rule that our parliament has sovereignty!"

Anyone else see the obvious flaw in this?

 

Everyone except the politicians. They make laws, but don't understand them.

 

It's nice of the usual ****rags to put out a hitlist for their readers, though.
Wonderful to see billionaires trying to intimidate the judiciary.

 

Usual rabble rousing bullshit from The Excess.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-50-Parliament-MPs-House-of-Lords-Theresa-May

 

Most prominent Brexiteers seem pretty happy with the result today - devolved governments do not have power of challenge, full act of parliament not required, gives any EUrophiles less to posture about in the long run.

The only shame for me is that it is a victory for Gina Miller - who has repeatedly made clear she doesn't give a rat's arse about parliamentary sovereignty - she wants to obstruct as much as possible in the hope of overturning the referendum result.

The other great shame is it could be the final nail in the coffin of the Labour Party, if as expected a significant number of their MPs confuse their own views with those of their constituents...

 

Firstly, the idiot May could have saved the country a lot of time and money by just accepting that she had no Royal perogative and that it belonged to parliament. It took an act of parliament to take us into the EU, it seems fairly clear that it would need a similar vote to take us out.

Secondly, many Labour MP's represent pro EU constituencies. And, as much as I'm certainly no Corbyn fan, he's made it clear that his party won't try to block Brexit.

 

The referendum was one person, one vote. It was won by a simple majority (and a very narrow one). There was no division of votes into constituencies as per the parliamentary system. But the vote in Parliament will be by constituency MPs, who should consider the views and interests of their constituents.

I don't know how the referendum vote would have broken down by constituency, but it's conceivable that there could have been a different outcome had votes been counted by constituency. It's equally conceivable then that if MPs follow the wishes of their constituents, that any legislation to invoke Article 50 could be defeated in Parliament by MPs simply giving effect to "the will of the people." Anyone considered that?

 

I assume you would remove the right of appeal from the entire British judiciary system then? If you believe your case has validity you should have the right to further scrutiny.

You can't blame May alone for the initial referendum legislation being entirely inadequate - not a single MP on any side thought to ask the question "what happens next?" Personally I sympathise with the 'devolved sovereignty' argument, that parliament decided by a vote of six to one to hand the final decision to the people, which would advise the executive accordingly.

The SC have specified quite clearly that it will not require an Act of Parliament to take us out...

And despite the Mail's best efforts, the appeal has done more to uphold the reputation and esteem of the Supreme Court than any other case in its history, surely a good thing? I'd hardly say that's a waste of time or money.

Many, not most. And given the uproar last week following the threat of a three line whip I'd suggest there's stormy seas ahead.

 

Of course not, that's a ridiculous statement. But, the judgement of the high court was so overwhelming in it's view of the Gvt case that it was pretty clear that they would have had to have missed a major point for the Supreme Court to overturn it. As I say, an act of parliament took us in, its purely logical that it would require a similar act to take us out.

What it really goes back to is Cameron, trying to subdue the dissenters in his own party, giving a vote on a matter of vital importance to the future of the country to a largely uninformed and uneducated public, who had little idea of the consequences of their decision.

 

Today's decision confirms that only a statutory instrument will be required to trigger A50. I don't think anyone has ever denied that the 1972 act will have to be repealed at the end of the process, no new legislation would be required though.

I don't agree with your characterisation of your British electorate. It's odd that you don't hear accusations of stupidity anywhere when the British public returns a government that isn't to some people's taste - if you trust them to be informed on intricacies of party policy at general elections, why not at any other time?