Don't agree that the government has no mandate. In the referendum, the majority of voters voted to leave the EU. That's a mandate for a hard Brexit, since the referendum ballot paper was unqualified. If there are compromises, as there no doubt will be after negotiations with the EU, then Parliament should be consulted. The irony you point out can be turned on its head. Europhiles that were relaxed about handing increasing powers to Brussels now find they value Parliamentary sovereignty.
The government voted in at the last election campaigned against Brexit, as did the current Prime Minister, we need a new government to have a mandate to define what Brexit looks like, not simply an internal party change of leadership. I didn't realise that Parliament was a consultative, advisory body, I thought it was there to comment on, change and enact (or the opposite) government policy. This is the nature of our version of democracy, it's pretty crap having 600 ****wits like Priti Useless Patel 'representing' us, but slightly less **** than relying on the 'will of the people'. Powers were handed to the EU after parliamentary votes, they were sovereign decisions which consciously reduced our sovereignty, which is why parliament will have to repeal a whole raft of legislation if we proceed.
I did watch QT. According to the majority of views expressed, they were expecting it to have happened already. The interesting thing was that different outraged voters didn't seem to agree necessarily between themselves what it was they voted for but they all thought that the politicians were traitors to democracy closely followed by the teachers and then the remoaners. The only ones who disagreed with that were a couple of youngsters, one of whom had been too young to vote, and a Polish woman married to a Brit who was roundly shouted down by the fat cow from UKIP for saying that she felt that this year for the first time since she came here 23 years ago she was the victim of discrimination. No concern or wish to hear what the lady had to say - just get her to shut up Well I've got news for them. Most legal opinion thinks it is quite hopeless to expect that it will be done and dusted even by March 2019 and Conrad Black believes it won't happen at all. Europe needs the UK more than vice versa and he believes a deal will be done which will be accepted by the government of the day without another referendum. An interesting take on democracy but then as Stan says, he is a fraudster - so what should we have expected.
The 3 minutes I did watch made me feel rather anti democratic, so I thought it best to switch to a rerun of Family Guy. Interesting on the legal stuff.
I can't see how it's relevant that the government campaigned to Remain - it also made clear that it would honour the majority decision of the people of the UK in the referendum. Voters gave the government its mandate for unqualified exit from the EU. Put it at its simplest, iIf the country had been voting to remove an individual from the country, and after a "yes" vote, the government says, right we'll get on an expel him, it doesn't make sense for those that wanted him to stay, to say "Ah, but voters didn't say whether he should be expelled by plane, ferry or hovercraft, so there's no mandate" The time that government needs to go to Parliament is after EU negotiations imo, if it is proposing LESS than Brexit. Parliament must ensure that the will of the majority of the people is not frustrated.
The referendum only had "stay" or "leave" as its two firmly unqualified choices. There might have been an opportunity to add some qualification to the ballot paper, but I don't think the government expected to get "leave" as the result, so they didn't do it and we are completely in the dark about the specific issues that were the reasons people voted the way they did. Anything you, I or anyone else might say is nothing other than guesswork - apart from individuals telling us now what their reason was (and even then we don't know if they're being truthful). In my view, the government did not gain a mandate for unqualified exit from the EU. It gained an unqualified mandate for exit from the EU. They are not the same thing at all. The details of our exit now need to be qualified - as we don't know what types of exit were voted for, and in what numbers. Quite what the best process for that should be isn't clear to me, but it needs to be done.
Let me ask you a question. The majority voted to Leave the European Union. It was clear. You say this was not an unqualified mandate to leave. You must therefore believe it was qualified in some way. It has to be one or the other. How? Where was the qualification? Or is this argument just a device that Remainers cling to, to try to water down the effect of the vote?
That's a really daft oversimplification. If you want to use an analogy, a divorce would be better, and as we know these take many different forms, from sad but friendly and civilised to acrimonious and bitter. What was the will of the majority? People voted Brexit with many different pictures of what it meant in their heads, and quite probably many with no picture at all. It could have been - leave but stay in like Norway - leave but only if we can have a Swiss type arrangement - leave in a calm and orderly fashion, retain trade but no free movement - get out immediately, who cares about trade, stop EU immigration - get out immediately, kick out foreigners and don't let any more in - who cares as long as those rich southern bastards don't like it - and so on ad nauseum I have no idea what the majority of the majority voted for, though the Hartlepool voters seemed to be in the camp of the last few. Whereas the Remain voters knew that at worst they would get more of the same, or hopefully we could help make it better.
It means we need to invoke Article 50 and leave the EU. We should however still sign up to the single market, the customs union, FOM if need be, and pay contributions - we just wouldn't be in the EU. Which also, if you think about it, is what none of us wanted, but its exactly the sort of British fudge we'd end up with.
Agree the first part. Whether we sign up to the single market, pay contributions etc depends on what pound of flesh that EU demands for it. The government is completely right in my view to say that control of our borders is a red line. If we lose that and have to impose EU regulations here, and submit to the will of the European Parliament, then we have left the EU only in name, and the will of the majority of the people will not have been done.
The majority voted to leave - unqualified. There was no choice on the ballot paper but Leave. So we leave, and that's that. We don't want anything that the EU is reluctant to offer us, so we leave and reach a fresh trading arrangement with the EU that's beneficial to all - but that does not undermine the basic principle that we are completely out of the club
Thing is Goldie, even if we fully leave, we'll still need to cut deals with the EU on things like access for fishing grounds (the EU won't buy our fish otherwise). For some people that will still qualify as "not being free of the EU, and not carrying out the will of the people". There is no official, legal definition of what "Leaving" means. Even before the vote, you thought we'd still be able to stay in the single market. How many other leavers thought that?
Michael Gove made it clear on a number of occasions that leaving meant leaving the single market, Toots. The single market is integral to the EU so I believe most voters realised it would go too, but that we can have a free trade agreement like the US, China etc "Leaving" means ending all legal obligations owed by the UK as a result of the EU treaties. On fishing, we fall back on the traditional territorial waters pre - joining EU. The Spanish take, and buy, a lot of fish from our waters and they'd have difficulty sourcing it elsewhere. Canada has just announced the EU is impossible to deal with. They thought they had a trade agreement but it's been vetoed by the Walloon Parliament. Which goes to show that the UK agreeing anything post-Brexit will be a challenge. And also shows what an turgid, uncontrollable, inflexible block the EU really is.
I'm surprised you don't understand what I mean. Happy to expand further. The vote was to leave, so we will invoke Article 50 and leave. Mrs May has promised to do so and appointed Brexit-supporting MPs to manage the process of leaving. I expect her (and them) to do what they promised. How we leave was not something asked in the referendum question, so the manner of our leaving and the deals we cut as part of doing so are unqualified and undefined. It needs to be defined. Your view of what it actually should be is nothing more than your view. Your guess of what the voters actually wanted is just a guess - no matter how confidently you say it. You don't know for sure because the referendum did not ask for that level of detail in the answer. It's a mess, but that's what you get when you ask a simple question on a complex subject and then get the result you (Cameron in this case) were not looking for or expecting to have to deal with. Now here's something for you to think about. I voted "remain" but I'm not a Remainer trying to reverse the vote, rerun the referendum or slow down the process in the hope it never happens. I just want to see us leave the EU in the best manner for the entire country (all 100% of us, not just the 52%) and for us to resolve the differences between us as fast as we can so we can move forwards and achieve the best lives possible afterwards. I also want it to happen by following the existing processes and customs that are consistent with the tolerant UK that I know and love.
I understood exactly what you meant - it was not complicated - but it made no sense. Voters were asked whether they wanted to leave the EU. The majority voted yes. The government therefore has a mandate to leave the EU. Given the unqualified nature of the voters' instruction, there is only one way of leaving the EU. Sever all legal links. Do not try to second guess the intention of each voter. Do not do less than the voters have instructed. Once the links are severed, then we and the EU may want to enter into fresh negotiations on trade as equal contracting parties. But the UK government should not give away any of the sovereign rights regained by leaving the EU without Parliament's approval, and Parliament would do well to consider the will of the majority of the people before interfering with controls on immigration, allowing foreign laws to apply, submitting to the jurisdiction of a foreign court etc.
Well, at least you're now accepting the question was simple and what happens next was unqualified apart from invoking Article 50. From time to time I will continue to return you to the imprecise nature of the issue, inconvenient though it may be for some people. Invoking Article 50 is a given. What happens once we have done so is not. I think the analogy of this being a divorce is by far the best one I've heard. That's all we've voted for - a divorce. What sort of divorce settlement and how acrimonious a process is (so far) undiscussed and unresolved and was not asked in the referendum. It should have been, because it would have helped us all right now.
Change of Subject If the French are closing the Calais Immigration camp why are we still building a wall?
The question was simple. The answer was unqualified Leave. What happens next is specifically, Leave the EU completely. It's what the UK/EU replaces the relationship with that is taxing, and for me, comes down to the EU, because the UK government's obligations to the elecorate are clear - not to give away what has been gained by leaving. I'm not convinced by the divorce analogy. In the EU issue, what matters is the future relationship after the split. In a divorce that's usually the last thing a couple are thinking about.
He hasn't even gone yet? ... Col it will be over before it's started. You need to flip things mate ... I have a work break nowadays the norm is holiday
