Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%
  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%

  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
I don't imagine Theresa May has anything in mind at all, but an election is a very good idea. Perhaps on the terms of exit rather than what she comes back with. She would probably win, and then at least we would know what we were negotiating for, because if she didn't include it in her manifesto she would be a laughing stock.

Your paranoia about the EU side is odd. By keeping our intentions super double secret does it make it anymore difficult for the other side to say 'No, non, nein' when they are finally revealed? How damaging would it be to say:
- we intend to stay in the Single Market if certain provisos are met; or
- we are leaving entirely and the discussions are about how we extract ourselves from commitments and institutions; or
- we will seek sector by sector agreements


So the operation of good old British Common Law and the sovereignty of Parliament to decide our 'destiny' aren't part of your desire to 'take back control'?

Eat the rich!

The EU negotiators would love it if May was forced to reveal some of her hand. If you want to achieve more, you don't go into negotiations having broadcast and defined the perameters of what you are hoping for.
 
What a depressing show, neither the panel or audience seem to realise the reason why a non legally binding, advisory referendum requires an act of parliament to enact.

Saqib Javid looks like a ******ed Ray Wilkins

I was just about to say basically the same mate. Where did they dig up that audience from?
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court is likely to overturn the decision.
The government spelled out on the referendum paper that the result would be implemented by the government.
The high court has made an overtly political decision.

This should be a wonderful opportunity for the bemoaners to drone on about the result yet again.
If it gets there. The simplest thing and quickest would be simply to draft the necessary bill and get it passed. Most remainer MPs have already said they will respect the will of the people.
 
What a depressing show, neither the panel or audience seem to realise the reason why a non legally binding, advisory referendum requires an act of parliament to enact.

Saqib Javid looks like a ******ed Ray Wilkins

I think Huey Lewis might have been right when he said that some things are too important for the general public to decide on - at least in the form we were offered. Why won't MPs who feel passionately that leaving the EU would be a terrible mistake stand up and say so? Every MP I hear (Ken Clarke being an honourable exception) toes the line of 'the British people have spoken' and therefore we have to just get on with it. For decades the Great British public were in favour of restoring capital punishment, but parliament rightly ignored them. The British people voted to leave the EU - we get it - but they didn't give carte blanche for this government to do whatever deal they see fit. Parliament will vote in favour of invoking Article 50, but there should be a further vote on the terms of our leaving the EU.


.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QPR Oslo
Here are the possible grounds on which the UK government will appeal, set out by UKIP London MEP Gerard Batten:

Treaties are merely agreements between governments. The courts cannot rule on them until they become part of domestic law by means of Acts of Parliament.

All previous treaties have been entered into and signed by British governments using the Royal Prerogative without a vote in Parliament first.

Only when parts are incorporated into law by Act of Parliament does Parliament become involved, and the courts have jurisdiction over their application.

This argument is clearly set out in a judgement of the House of Lords in the case of Rayner v Department of Trade and Industry (1990) 2 AC 418. This judgement clearly states that the Government may repudiate or terminate a Treaty.

Triggering Article 50 may indeed inevitably affect domestic law but until it does the courts have no jurisdiction.

".........Only when parts are incorporated into law by Act of Parliament does Parliament become involved, and the courts have jurisdiction over their application."

You've answered your own question. We signed up for the Treaty of Rome because Parliament voted to join by an Act of Parliament. We had to do so because of the giving up of sovereignty. We did not join the EU in the first place by an exercise of royal prerogative. It is necessary therefore for another Act of Parliament to undo it. The so-called giving up of sovereignty was never irrevocable. Parliament was supreme and always retained the right/power to reverse the position. Ask yourself this. Would it have been lawful or the act of a dictator to pass Article 50 in the aftermath of the European Communities Act 1972. Do you remember that? I ask because you omitted to mention it.

I don't know enough about the constitutional principles to say what the decision of the Supreme Court will be but from my limited grasp, having studied Constitutional law some 37 years ago, the decision was not political or an affront to democracy - it was the obvious legal answer to the constitutional legal arguments put before it.

For a country that prides itself on its parliamentary democracy, it is staggering how so many are willing to ignore those principles when the result does not go their way. Will the Brexiteers please stop moaning and just get on with doing it properly and lawfully.
 
::For a country that prides itself on its parliamentary democracy, it is staggering how so many are willing to ignore those principles when the result does not go their way. Will the Brexiteers please stop moaning and just get on with doing it properly and lawfully.""

Yes I hate it when things don't go their way and keep moaning remainers
 
Well, one thing that the hysterical reaction to this ruling demonstrates is that the Brexiters were completely unprepared for it, like everything else it seems. May was being told this was the likely outcome weeks ago, there is no coordinated government response, it ranges from the relatively calm David Davies to the squawking ignorance of Uncle Fester.

Rather than waste their time on this, why not sort out the roads? Just taken me 5 hours to do just over 200 miles, even though we set out late to avoid the traffic. M5 completely closed in 2 different places for those mysterious roadworks where you never actually see anyone doing anything other than laying out cones, the diversion from the first led straight into a second set of roadworks, great communication. I know that the government doesn't give a toss about me because I'm a citizen of nowhere, but ordinary working patriots use roads and trains as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QPR Oslo
You must log in or register to see media
Absolutely brilliant. I wonder how a court in Northern Ireland came to the opposite decision, despite the majority of people there voting to stay? The whole thing begs belief. Mrs. May might well call a general election?
 
Well, one thing that the hysterical reaction to this ruling demonstrates is that the Brexiters were completely unprepared for it, like everything else it seems. May was being told this was the likely outcome weeks ago, there is no coordinated government response, it ranges from the relatively calm David Davies to the squawking ignorance of Uncle Fester.

Rather than waste their time on this, why not sort out the roads? Just taken me 5 hours to do just over 200 miles, even though we set out late to avoid the traffic. M5 completely closed in 2 different places for those mysterious roadworks where you never actually see anyone doing anything other than laying out cones, the diversion from the first led straight into a second set of roadworks, great communication. I know that the government doesn't give a toss about me because I'm a citizen of nowhere, but ordinary working patriots use roads and trains as well.

We get this sort of lunacy every day somewhere in London...
 
I think Huey Lewis might have been right when he said that some things are too important for the general public to decide on - at least in the form we were offered. Why won't MPs who feel passionately that leaving the EU would be a terrible mistake stand up and say so? Every MP I hear (Ken Clarke being an honourable exception) toes the line of 'the British people have spoken' and therefore we have to just get on with it. For decades the Great British public were in favour of restoring capital punishment, but parliament rightly ignored them. The British people voted to leave the EU - we get it - but they didn't give carte blanche for this government to do whatever deal they see fit. Parliament will vote in favour of invoking Article 50, but there should be a further vote on the terms of our leaving the EU.


.

Ah, that old capital punishment chestnut squeezed in there, eh? I would humbly suggest that Parliament ignoring the will of the Great British Public was 'right' in your opinion, and that of a great many others, but remains 'wrong' in my opinion and that of a great many others.
 
Ah, that old capital punishment chestnut squeezed in there, eh? I would humbly suggest that Parliament ignoring the will of the Great British Public was 'right' in your opinion, and that of a great many others, but remains 'wrong' in my opinion and that of a great many others.

Ah well, I've said it now......

The Great Briitish public are fools by and large and Parliament should save them from themselves. If the YouGov poll I quoted in an earlier post is to be believed, 3.9% of Leave voters would vote for a Stop Brexit party in a general election. That in itself would be enough to overturn the referendum result.

Hard Brexit would be economic madness and Parliament knows it.
 
Last edited:
So the operation of good old British Common Law and the sovereignty of Parliament to decide our 'destiny' aren't part of your desire to 'take back control'?

Eat the rich!

Fair enough. I don't claim to understand it all. However, the fact that many remain MPs are saying that it needs to be debated in parliament with ammendments means that the governments negotiations will be severely hampered. I know you think this is a good thing because it will result in a soft brexit but I don't.
One other thing - could you explain from your font of all knowing, why judges in N Ireland came to exactly the opposite decision?
 
Ah well, I've said it now......

The Great Briitish public are fools by and large and Parliament should save them from themselves. If the YouGov poll I quoted in an earlier post is to be believed, 3.9% of Leave voters would vote for a Stop Brexit party in a general election. That in itself would be enough to overturn the referendum result.

Hard Brexit would be economic madness and Parliament knows it.


Just like Ken Clarke (a deluded fool over the EU for years and years) you think that the public can't be trusted to deliver the right decision. Better to dictate to them like in the old Soviet Union etc eh?
Democracy eh? What a pisser!