The EU debate - Part III

The correct answer is Brexit means Brexit

 

Yup, and EU controlled borders and basically just the eventual ceding of all the member state's governmental powers to Brussels basically.
That was the end game.

 

In a nutshell

 

If they had just kept it as a Trade Union with free movement I would have been all for it.
As well as some compliance standards when it came to trade stuff like shipping and whatnot.
But no, they had to **** with Human rights laws, Employment laws, deportation laws.
Again, not all of the **** they introduced was bad, but I pay Taxes for my government to run this ****, and I want a government that CAN run this ****, the right way, without interference. Every country is different in terms of economy, culture etc, and a one size fits all approach is basically just stupid.

 

Yes.

As I understand it any member of the government can trigger A50 at anytime. They could do it today if they wanted and the EU would accept it.

They could later be found to have broken UK law in either the supreme court or ECJ and be arrested. A decision from the ECJ is always passed back to UK courts to decide how to implement the decision.

This case isn't about delaying, although some are looking at it that way. The underlying issue is whether legislation passed in parliament can be nullified without parliament reversing it. It's a dangerous precedent that should be prevented imo.

 

Surely given the referendum result, any MP voting against invoking article 50 would essentially be committing career suicide.
They would basically be saying "I don't give a **** what the countries population wants", especially in areas where Brexit won out on the vote, the constituents would never vote them back in.

The SNP folk would be okay. And probably the London MPs, but anywhere else it would be extremeley risky for them to pull such a manoeuvre.

 

You might think that. Others have the view that MPs must act in the national interest rather than on public demand.
Personally I think you are right and sufficent MPs would tow the line to make it a formality providing there is no obvious public shift of opinion.

 

One and the same in this instance mate.

 

That will be for each MP to decide, regardless of what you or I think.

 

obviously.
Thats just like, my opinion man
Generally though, MP's have a history of voting whichever way benefits them or saves their own arses, rather than in the interests of democracy or the national interest.

 

Which is why I agreed with you that sufficent numbers will fall in line regardless of whether they think it right or wrong.

 

It means we get to kick the crap out of you

Brexit means leave, but in what form is another thing

 

I think MPs should go with what they think is best for the country on any issue otherwise there's not much point to them. If they're going to vote based on the referendum vote then it should be based on their constituents' votes rather than the whole country's.

 

Thanks. Stunning insight.

 

My local MP campaigned remain, the area voted remain and he has already stated he would follow party line and vote leave in parliament

 

I'd prefer British people making British laws rather than those abroad doing it.

This way they understand us, our economy in depth and have our best interests (in theory) and know our country and how we work.

They are also more accountable - its a lot more difficult to cross a sea into a country who doesn't speak the same language as us to air complaints.

And when you get there you join a whole host of different country's each with their own interests to make a decision which effects us.

This cannot be efficient decision making.

The idea of controlling a whole continent worries me.

End game is all amount control and maximising the amount of money can be made out of people.

 

When the PM herself was a staunch remainer and is now shouting "Brexit means Brexit" it should be a formality so Pete should have nothing to worry about.

 

Lots of Labour areas voted out, but the MPs will follow party line.

It swings both ways

 

That's where we disagree...

 

Which is why there never was any serious talk of an EU army except in the editorials of the Express and Mail.