The Conservative government was elected in 2015 on a mandate which included offering the people of the UK a referendum on membership of the EU. The subject was fully debated and amended in parliament before the MP's voted overwhelmingly (6 to 1) to let the people of the whole of the UK decide by means of a referendum. The electorate chose Brexit so the government has a duty to carry out the wishes of the people. It is ridicules for the government to be expected to spell out its negotiation position before article 50 is evoked. There are daily debates in parliament on the subject of Brexit and parliament will have an opportunity to vote on the terms the government eventually decides on. It is clear the government has decided to act on the main concerns of the masses that voted for Brexit, i.e. control of borders and Sovereignty. The only option is the so called 'hard Brexit'. The remoaners will huff and puff and maybe slow the process a little but ultimately fail. Hopefully the desperate antics of the anti democratic 'remain' souls will create the need for a general election next spring which will wipe out much of The Labour Party.
Do you not consider it undemocratic for Theresa May to attempt to by pass Parliament on this - Parliament is sovereign in the UK, not the PM alone. If you cannot understand this then there really is no hope. Are the High Court judges all 'remoaners' ? Do you consider it democratic to leave the EU in about 2-3 years time based on a referendum which happened 3 years earlier with a different electorate ? A 'hard Brexit', which you favour, means no tariff free access to Europe for British goods or services. It means London losing it's position as financial capital. It means a whole host of other things because freedom of movement, goods, services etc. are all bound up together - or do you still think that you can pick the best bits and leave the rest ?
In my opinion, similar to many others, the executive had a cast iron mandate from the referendum to invoke article 50 without a parliamentary vote, hopefully this view will be endorsed by the supreme court. I consider it democratic to leave a.s.a.p. based on the clear result of the referendum. A 'hard Brexit' is not only preferred by many 'leave' supporters but also by Donald Tusk. He made it perfectly clear that we cannot achieve the objectives required by the British electorate of Sovereignty and border control and remain in the single market. These are red lines that the UK will not negotiate on. Any potential tariffs will have less effect that usual currency movements. There will undoubtedly be winners and losers but the UK will ultimately benefit from loosening the shackles of membership of a failed experiment. I'm sure the remaining members, especially the French, will play hard ball at first but economic necessary will eventually loosen their resolve to be overtly difficult. Whatever happens, the kind of soft Brexit preferred by the remoaners is clearly not an option and can be ruled out.
I agree the flak dished out to the judges who ruled on the procedure for invoking article was completely undeserved. Fortunately I believe the court action will ultimately benefit the government as it has already achieved the almost impossible task of uniting Daily Mail readers in the Home Counties with vast numbers of traditional Labour voters in the North. In the event of any more perceived intervention in due processes then this dissatisfaction will be expressed in a general election. UKIP, especially if Paul Nuttall becomes leader, will take several seats in the North from Labour. I would also like to thank the failed Labour leader candidate, Owen Smith, for insisting on another referendum. He is single handedly increasing support for Brexit. Interesting times.
SH. You talk about economic necessity but the percentage of our trade with the EU. is far higher than theirs is with us ie. we need them more than they need us. If you want a 'hard Brexit', then why go into negotiations with Article 50 ? Why not simply unilaterally repeal the 1972 European communities act - in this case Brexit would be without any transition period. Why negotiate at all ? Negotiation means compromise, give and take on both sides - it also means Britain being in limbo for many years to come, unable to sign trade deals with other countries until it is formally outside of the EU. So why Article 50 ? Unless you believe that eventually you will be able to pick the best things of the EU. but leave the rest ? If you believe that you can stop freedom of movement yet retain access to the European market then you are in for a big disappointment, because this ignores the actual economic balance in Europe ie. who needs who more ?
Many countries have ACCESS to markets in EU countries without freedom of movement. There will be negotiations in many areas but sovereignty and UK control of our borders will not be compromised. It is a good idea for a reasonable length of time to be allowed for negotiations but I agree with Michael Portillo that the serious stuff will be thrashed out in the final 5 days, as is usual with EU officials / French and German leaders.
There is the World of difference between countries like Iceland, Switzerland, Norway etc. which are countries outside of the EU. thinking about joining, and Britain which is travelling in the other direction. All of those countries are subject to some aspects of EU. law in exchange for their access to European markets - Switzerland has actually more immigration than any EU. country. Can you name one single country which has tariff free access to the EU. market without also being subject to aspects of EU. law ? You will find that the 3 countries mentioned are all subject to the principle of free movement.
I was referring to countries such as the USA, maybe not tariff free but successfully trading nevertheless. Worldwide tariffs have never been lower, many are so low they are insignificant compared to currency fluctuations.
The USA - successfull ? They had a trade deficit of 36.4 Billion Dollars in September alone. This is why they were so desparate over TTIP (and CETA, its child).
Individual companies from the USA and many other countries are successfully buying and selling goods and services to EU members. If you are talking about trading deficits, the Uk certainly has a large one trading with the rest of the EU.
Interesting article on Brexit by Henry Porter. https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/fl...-castrated-itself/f-24e8a31ebf/vanityfair.com
This makes Brexit sound even more attractive. The government with a vastly increased majority, Sovereignty, control of borders and the end of subsidising the Scots. Can it get any better?
The problems with so-called the 'will of the people'. Not wanting to be simplistic..... but the way some people go on you would think there was a landslide vote..... and I also wonder why Theresa May who voted remain is giving little recognition of the narrow vote and the split in the country please log in to view this image
Of course it would be right up your street - as the article says 'Absolute power over absolute chaos', just the type of tin pot xenophobe dictatorship you have always dreamed of.
The article suggests the UK electorate will increase its support for the Conservative Party and reject the alternatives at a general election. I cannot see much wrong with that, it is called democracy.
