Effect of Brexit

[Page_Moss_Kopite]

The author of Article 50 didn't even consider that the UK would ever use it, so it was ****ed from the start.

Anyway why are Leavers so upset. Surely worst case there's an additional election or something to do it all legally. Surely they don't believe they fluked it and another vote would [HASHTAG]#fail[/HASHTAG] otherwise their claim of respecting the will of the people would be a [HASHTAG]#joke[/HASHTAG]

I agree there was no consideration given that the UK would ever leave, if there was it was a complete balls up and should have been addressed before any referendum was allowed on brexit.

Can't see there being another(2nd)referendum on us staying or leaving but can see the brexit article 50 being shelved for years due to legal wrangling and laws being needed to be revised and or changed, add to that the estimated two years brexit would take once activated.

 

[astro]

It's completely the fault of government so no point blaming the judges for doing their job.

Too late

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Page_Moss_Kopite]

They're not activating, advocating or arguing against article 50. They're simply pointing out that the government HAS to honour the legal framework of an advisory referendum. IF parliament had wanted a "compulsory referendum" they should have stipulated that BEFORE going to a vote but they categorically did not. It's completely the fault of government so no point blaming the judges for doing their job.

I'm not blaming the judges, I'm blaming the ineptitude of countless parliamentarians since we joined the EEC/EU, they were only interested in getting in and staying in and never gave getting out a second thought.

 

[Treble]

All technically true. just as the judges decision was today about Mays executive decision to not put it before parliament.

But... Parliament voted the referendum in its format through: parliamentary sovereignty.

All MP's had a duty to go back to their constituency during the referendum campaigning and both listen to their constituents and put forward their own personal arguments in favour of a position. remember how all those horrified Labour MP's kept coming on tv saying the Labour party wasn't doing enough because their constituents were hammering them on the door steps about immigration???

So while the ref didn't mirror GE boundaries that did not stop and shouldn't have stopped MP's talking to the people they actually represent.

So yes, saying you're ignoring the technical process for the greater good is wrong. just as accepting and participating in a process and then striving to find any and all technicality to thwart the decision because it went against you is wrong.

They all come up smelling of **** here based on their motivations...

The greater good according to who? Answer me this, why have an "advisory referendum" IF as you propose any referendum is for the greater good? There IS a reason there are two formats of a referendum. This isn't just a technicality, it's due process which serves a purpose. Simply saying parliament voted for the referendum in its format through is not enough when quite clearly we find out now, every MP in the house didn't actually know what the format was lol. If they did, we wouldn't have 3 high court judges ruling against their understanding of it.

 

[astro]

They're not activating, advocating or arguing against article 50. They're simply pointing out that the government HAS to honour the legal framework of an advisory referendum. IF parliament had wanted a "compulsory referendum" they should have stipulated that BEFORE going to a vote but they categorically did not. It's completely the fault of government so no point blaming the judges for doing their job.

Would a compulsory referendum have required additional administrative duties (and costs) so they tried to fudge it on the cheap?

Or would it have needed a quorum which wouldn't have been satisfied anyway?

 

[astro]

The greater good according to who? Answer me this, why have an "advisory referendum" IF as you propose any referendum is for the greater good? There IS a reason there are two formats of a referendum. This isn't just a technicality, it's due process which serves a purpose. Simply saying parliament voted for the referendum in its format through is not enough when quite clearly we find out now, every MP in the house didn't actually know what the format was lol. If they did, we wouldn't have 3 high court judges ruling against their understanding of it.

What's funny is the Leavers who see these people can't organise a single referendum properly want them to be put in charge of rewriting decades worth of new laws in about 2 years

[HASHTAG]#thatwentwell[/HASHTAG]

 

[Treble]

I'm not blaming the judges, I'm blaming the ineptitude of countless parliamentarians since we joined the EEC/EU, they were only interested in getting in and staying in and never gave getting out a second thought.

You said, So who should activate article 50?, 3 high court judges?

Seems to imply you hold them responsible for it not going through, like somehow the decision is up to them when it's not. The rights and wrongs of being in the EU or how our politicians may have been uncrupilious in doing so, is a completely seperate issue.

 

[DirtyFrank]

They're not activating, advocating or arguing against article 50. They're simply pointing out that the government HAS to honour the legal framework of an advisory referendum. IF parliament had wanted a "compulsory referendum" they should have stipulated that BEFORE going to a vote but they categorically did not. It's completely the fault of government so no point blaming the judges for doing their job.

Honestly Treble. Do you genuinely believe that case was taken to court purely on the basis that the plaintiff wanted to see a correct constitutional rubber stamp? (They've already admitted their real motivations )

Do you believe those people that are celebrating it as a victory for parliamentary sovereignty are genuinely now just happy it's been made clear and expect nothing more than article 50 to be just passed as a formality through parliament?

You're a intelligent and attentive bloke and yet have said you had to go research about the referendums being advisory in June. if that's the case it shows how often it was made clear by either campaign during the run up. it only started popping up in discussion when the polls started suggesting the unthinkable to some. I'm sure it would have played out the same way if the result had been the reverse.

It's like the 52 48 isn't a clear enough majority argument. only brought up and argued by the losing side, after the fact.

As Page said..we are living with the arrogance of Cameron who thought it was a walk in the park but not too much that he didn't discuss or advocate these things as part of the referendum bill.

 

[Page_Moss_Kopite]

You said, So who should activate article 50?, 3 high court judges?

Seems to imply you hold them responsible for it not going through, like somehow the decision is up to them when it's not. The rights and wrongs of being in the EU or how our politicians may have been uncrupilious in doing so, is a completely seperate issue.

Seem to?

I've told you my opinion.

So, in your opinion who should make the decision to activate article 50?, the judiciary?, parliament?, elected UK MEP's or the boys down the pub on a Sunday afternoon?

 

[Treble]

Would a compulsory referendum have required additional administrative duties (and costs) so they tried to fudge it on the cheap?

Or would it have needed a quorum which wouldn't have been satisfied anyway?

I think there was aclear flaw in the whole process and it stemmed from the fact that the government had NO coherent opinion on the decision one way or the other. So there was no coordinated government approach to due process because EVERYONE was taking differing polarised positions. Don't forget Boris and Gove were publicly stating they would be voting leave. And they were the vocal ones. There were countless others under the surface also working in different directions. How can you run a coordinated government approach to something like a referendum when you have so many divisions and people having their own motives. IT'S EXACTLY LIKE the fact the "leave" campaign had people like Farage making promises about how it was going to increase funding to the NHS even though he has **** all to do with making government policy

 

[astro]

I think there was aclear flaw in the whole process and it stemmed from the fact that the government had NO coherent opinion on the decision one way or the other. So there was no coordinated government approach to due process because EVERYONE was taking differing polarised positions. Don't forget Boris and Gove were publicly stating they would be voting leave. And they were the vocal ones. There were countless others under the surface also working in different directions. How can you run a coordinated government approach to something like a referendum when you have so many divisions and people having their own motives. IT'S EXACTLY LIKE the fact the "leave" campaign had people like Farage making promises about how it was going to increase funding to the NHS even though he has **** all to do with making government policy

Will the Leavers be demanding the government breaks the law to deliver the NHS money and reduced immigration the same way they want to break the law to trigger Brexit now now now *stamps feet*

 

[Treble]

Honestly Treble. Do you genuinely believe that case was taken to court purely on the basis that the plaintiff wanted to see a correct constitutional rubber stamp? (They've already admitted their real motivations )

Do you believe those people that are celebrating it as a victory for parliamentary sovereignty are genuinely now just happy it's been made clear and expect nothing more than article 50 to be just passed as a formality through parliament?

You're a intelligent and attentive bloke and yet have said you had to go research about the referendums being advisory in June. if that's the case it shows how often it was made clear by either campaign during the run up. it only started popping up in discussion when the polls started suggesting the unthinkable to some. I'm sure it would have played out the same way if the result had been the reverse.

It's like the 52 48 isn't a clear enough majority argument. only brought up and argued by the losing side, after the fact.

As Page said..we are living with the arrogance of Cameron who thought it was a walk in the park but not too much that he didn't discuss or advocate these things as part of the referendum bill.

I have no doubt the motives of those to take this to the High Court is to try and scupper Brexit. But a part of me also feels that the judge's decision itself, is not a bad thing. Maybe just maybe IF/WHEN it goes to parliament we make get the honest arguments and debate about Brexit we never got leading up to the vote itself.

Another argument of mine back in June was that many "Leave" voters were admitting it was a protest vote and they never expecting to win. There were loads of people coming forward to say this. As it is, if Article 50 is enacted it is final - not like a General Election you can change 4 years from now. That's it, done! I feel that if it goes to a parliamentary vote then MPs will have a real opportunity to gauge their contituents mood now and it may provide a robust check and balance before the final thing goes through (and it WILL go through eventually) which can't be a bad thing, can it.

 

[DirtyFrank]

The greater good according to who? Answer me this, why have an "advisory referendum" IF as you propose any referendum is for the greater good? There IS a reason there are two formats of a referendum. This isn't just a technicality, it's due process which serves a purpose. Simply saying parliament voted for the referendum in its format through is not enough when quite clearly we find out now, every MP in the house didn't actually know what the format was lol. If they did, we wouldn't have 3 high court judges ruling against their understanding of it.

That phrase was just a summation or your argument . ..on one side as you stated MP's sometimes should vote in a non populist way...for the greater good.

Well, same goes for a govt. right or wrong, real motivation or not the claim that they were simply trying to enact (on a future date)what they believed had been the will of the people under a format accepted by parliament in a technically incorrect way as the greater good. it doesn't make it the right way to do it. I've stated that. I've also stated I belueve it was misguided. ..they should have forced parliament to keel to their stated intentions.

Not accepting MP ignorance as a justification or get out clause...the format of the referendum.was debated before enacting. ..that was the time to iron out the issues. they didn't so didn't see this specific technicality as an issue (and again, result reversed you must admit those screaming about it now wouldn't see it as in issue either)

You didn't answer my question. ..if it wasn't an issue of importance then...Wasn't a clear message of either campaign that the ref was only advisory do you believe not the technicality has been confirmed that parliament during its now certain debate will all stand up and say "we all campaigned we would ratify the result so aye to the motion"

If not, then why not? simply saying that is parliamentary sovereignty served while the MP's still maintain their previous acceptance that the result would be ratified.

Is that the way you think it will go lol? or was this in fact straw clutching when you look at motivation?

 

[Treble]

That phrase was just a summation or your argument . ..on one side as you stated MP's sometimes should vote in a non populist way...for the greater good.

Well, same goes for a govt. right or wrong, real motivation or not the claim that they were simply trying to enact (on a future date)what they believed had been the will of the people under a format accepted by parliament in a technically incorrect way as the greater good. it doesn't make it the right way to do it. I've stated that. I've also stated I belueve it was misguided. ..they should have forced parliament to keel to their stated intentions.

Not accepting MP ignorance as a justification or get out clause...the format of the referendum.was debated before enacting. ..that was the time to iron out the issues. they didn't so didn't see this specific technicality as an issue (and again, result reversed you must admit those screaming about it now wouldn't see it as in issue either)

You didn't answer my question. ..if it wasn't an issue of importance then...Wasn't a clear message of either campaign that the ref was only advisory do you believe not the technicality has been confirmed that parliament during its now certain debate will all stand up and say "we all campaigned we would ratify the result so aye to the motion"

If not, then why not? simply saying that is parliamentary sovereignty served while the MP's still maintain their previous acceptance that the result would be ratified.

Is that the way you think it will go lol? or was this in fact straw clutching when you look at motivation?

Well these are politicians we're talking about so they are very capable of finding a slippery way of arguing why/how the situation has changed I can give you one clear example of that. I expect some MPs of some parties against Brexit to say, "well many of the claims made to the public were misleading", or "it seems the government has no clear direction on how to affect article 50 and as such we won't vote in favour until you give assurances on X, Y, Z" (one example of this could be funding in Wales for tech etc). Basically the vote will go through but they may hold May to a good porking over the preverbial barrel before they do.

 

[DirtyFrank]

I have no doubt the motives of those to take this to the High Court is to try and scupper Brexit. But a part of me also feels that the judge's decision itself, is not a bad thing. Maybe just maybe IF/WHEN it goes to parliament we make get the honest arguments and debate about Brexit we never got leading up to the vote itself.

Another argument of mine back in June was that many "Leave" voters were admitting it was a protest vote and they never expecting to win. There were loads of people coming forward to say this. As it is, if Article 50 is enacted it is final - not like a General Election you can change 4 years from now. That's it, done! I feel that if it goes to a parliamentary vote then MPs will have a real opportunity to gauge their contituents mood now and it may provide a robust check and balance before the final thing goes through (and it WILL go through eventually) which can't be a bad thing, can it.

So mp's didn't gunge their constituents mood during the campaign?

Sorry but it's it all sounds like a Remainers (I was one..keep saying it lol) excuse get put if jail free card.

So. .if we somehow take all these mp's word on face value (despite all the campaign lies)....yet again....that they went back to the constituents and now will block Brexit. ..how do we verify the accuracy of that? because it suits what we wanted?

Na, the only way this will go is a GE. because if the Remainers block it after debate, the Brexiteers in the Tory party will with all the same justifications we are hearing now, put a vote of no confidence in their leader, and either way that will result in a election. ..then God help us it'll make the ref campaign look positively bland.

 

[DirtyFrank]

Well these are politicians we're talking about so they are very capable of finding a slippery way of arguing why/how the situation has changed I can give you one clear example of that. I expect some MPs of some parties against Brexit to say, "well many of the claims made to the public were misleading", or "it seems the government has no clear direction on how to affect article 50 and as such we won't vote in favour until you give assurances on X, Y, Z" (one example of this could be funding in Wales for tech etc). Basically the vote will go through but they may hold May to a good porking over the preverbial barrel before they do.

Are you that confident of the Tory whips that they'll keep some very bitter pro European party members in line? that bitterness isn't just for losing...there's some real inter party hatred there lol

 

[Treble]

So mp's didn't gunge their constituents mood during the campaign?

Sorry but it's it all sounds like a Remainers (I was one..keep saying it lol) excuse get put if jail free card.

So. .if we somehow take all these mp's word on face value (despite all the campaign lies)....yet again....that they went back to the constituents and now will block Brexit. ..how do we verify the accuracy of that? because it suits what we wanted?

Na, the only way this will go is a GE. because if the Remainers block it after debate, the Brexiteers in the Tory party will with all the same justifications we are hearing now, put a vote of no confidence in their leader, and either way that will result in a election. ..then God help us it'll make the ref campaign look positively bland.

Yes they did but honestly how many were protesting against the establishment, without really expecting to win? Bloody hell, it's widely acknowledged even Boris and Gove didn't expect to win! And these are people in the know. So what chance does Joe Public have. Many were on television after the vote saying "they didn't know it was going to be final" I mean these are the morons who decided our future. NOW imagine an MP is seeing that a 60/40 vote in his area has suddenly become 40/60 because people have had a change of heart - should he/she not consider this? Especially if his own view is to Remain? He/she has no obligation to fulfil the will of the general public, only his/her constituents. (I doubt this will happen btw, but there is a chance some may argue this. However I think as I said in another post, that the vote will go through but perhaps in a watered down Brexit-light way).

 

[DirtyFrank]

Yes they did but honestly how many were protesting against the establishment, without really expecting to win? Bloody hell, it's widely acknowledged even Boris and Gove didn't expect to win! And these are people in the know. So what chance does Joe Public have. Many were on television after the vote saying "they didn't know it was going to be final" I mean these are the morons who decided our future. NOW imagine an MP is seeing that a 60/40 vote in his area has suddenly become 40/60 because people have had a change of heart - should he/she not consider this? Especially if his own view is to Remain? He/she has no obligation to fulfil the will of the general public, only his/her constituents. (I doubt this will happen btw, but there is a chance some may argue this. However I think as I said in another post, that the vote will go through but perhaps in a watered down Brexit-light way).

I hope those figures are right.. I truly do but I also fear any kind of new campaign . .either 2nd ref or GE dominated by Brexit would unify the Brexit message which was dogshite last time around. yet again instead of it being about what is the post Brexit plan it'll be ...The elites ignored your decision show them what you think of them! we thought the first arguments wouldn't work and they did...but THAT argument is still getting a big chunk of the voters in yank land by the most incompetent and deplorable man ever to enter politics. ..I worry it will in the UK too.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

All this boils down to is this.

All the high court did was rule yhat may needed to go to parliament o trigger article 50.

Thats it. nothing else... everything else is opinion on what might happen next.

Certainly imo no judge has over turned a referendum or acted against democracy. this is purely supposition that parliament will prevent article 50 being triggered.

It is just as big a supposition that the eu wants the uk to stay in. i could say for exampke about 50% are secretly delighted and only focused on making it as hard on us as possible so they can take as much business as possible and then push ahead with federal europe

 

[DirtyFrank]

Seriously the plaintiffs have to be a set up though; A Guyan woman married to a hedge fund manager and a brazillian hairdresser propped up by an expat pressures group.

There MUST have been a meeting going down the Daily Mail hate ticklist to arrive at those rw5 lol