I'm not letting you get away with that! Wasn't one of the people bringing the court case to force the government to put Article 50 through Parliament a Leave voter?
Because our country lacks a written constitution, we run a risk that reversing the High Court decision on Article 50 might set a precedent for the government to bypass Parliament on more contentious issues. "Executive powers" weren't intended to be used to bypass Parliament, just to make it faster to process the mundane stuff. Article 50 is not mundane. Nor is it the same thing as setting up or cancelling a trading treaty or defence treaty with some obscure Polynesian island (or similar). And, once more for the record - I'm not interested in stopping Brexit, but I am interested in the government being held to account when it is required. I still expect a Parliamentary vote to approve the invoking of Article 50.
Just musing on the timeline and changing perception we’ve been through this year… The Referendum Act was voted for by Parliament. It set the question and the two permitted answers, but did not say the government would abide by the result. Previous referenda have said that a result would be acted upon. Sloppy stuff, Dave. During the Referendum campaign, some government ministers (can’t remember who) said that the government would abide by the referendum result. Which is nice of them, but not - I would suggest - theirs to promise, as the passing of the act was by Parliament, not the government. I think Parliament can legitimately claim they did not vote for a Referendum that was binding - unlike previous referenda where it was explicitly stated that it would be acted upon. Would I vote against carrying it out now if I was an MP? That’s the question isn’t it? However, for me, this is why I believe Article 50 should be voted on by Parliament. The Leave campaign got a majority in the Referendum. Dave, instead of sorting out a mess of his own making, ran for the hills. The government decided to appoint a new PM and cabinet rather than call an election. This is despite the fact that the official position of the government when elected in 2015 was to stay in the EU. I would suggest their mandate is lost, and we deserve an election, but it looks like they will try to cling to power for as long as possible.
Glad to see you have the bit between your teeth! I'm not aware that Gina Miller had any leave support. But in any case I was addressing a different point. It's one thing to canvass the court to have Parliamentary debate before triggering Article 50. It's another to say, as Oslo was, that people should vote in referendums on leaving the EU until they come up with a STAY vote. Multiple referendums may have worked for Ireland, but as I think you know, it wouldn't work in England, not on this issue certainly
One badly-worded, badly-scoped referendum with a nasty untruthful campaign on all sides is enough for me, ta. I may not like "first past the post", but I do like the idea of a Representative Parliamentary Democracy. Let them represent!
I don't want another referendum, unless it's on the terms of leaving after the negotiation is done, but that would probably be deemed too complicated for the average voter (perhaps rightly given what happened last time). But I fail to see why it 'won't work in England' to have more referenda. Are you doing a Nige and raising the spectre of civil unrest Goldie? All I want is a government which is able to share its broad objectives (not the minutiae of its negotiating position) with the people it is supposed to represent. Which needs a general election, because this government plainly lacks the authority, mandate and self confidence to do this.
I'd preface everything by saying that I'm assuming there will still be an EU by 2018, because if Marine is elected in France, not beyond the realms of possibility, she will pull out and like it or not that will be curtains for the post-war project. Anyway, we're heading for Leave, on terms that will be a compromise, probably involving interim arrangements where the UK makes a financial contribution to have privileged (as opposed to ordinary) access to the single market. This must be the government's broad objective, so there, you have it. Talk about a second referendum is for the fairies and the Lib Dems who hope ultimately to get a few more MP's in Remain territories on the strength of it. But for the record, if it ever came about, there would be a huge groundswell of Far Right support particularly in the North imo. And, yes, I do take the Farage view that there would be problems on the streets. We'd be back to the 1930's, only worse, because the Far Right would have been handed a justifiable sense of grievance.
Goldie - I believe the Leave voter supporting the Article 50 case with Gina Miller is Charlie Mullins, the owner of Pimlico Plumbers.
The whole thing stinks and I doubt if UK politics will recover Complete mess and many of French friends just don't get it. To the man and woman they all think why can't we work together and think it was just a protest vote and far too narrow a win. They cannot understand how any government could act on such a slender margin and it is not by definition democracy When there is a close split and the campaigns were both lies on both sides it should be re done Hard to argue with that IMO
Mullins appears to be a Remainer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...e-cutting-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face.html
To be fair disMay has just clarified the objectives - a 'red, white and blue Brexit' which is the best possible. It makes me want to weep. Your analysis may be right, why can't someone at the top of government make it explicit? Barnier has offered more clarity than any of our lot - no cherry picking, no rights without obligations, no advantages to non members and by the way, because parliament needs 6 months to ratify any deal, we only have 18 months to negotiate one. As for civil unrest let's hope it doesn't come to that. I think public figures should be very careful when they raise this. From Farage's mouth it sounds more like a threat than a fear.
I reckon there is more chance of QPR winning the champions league. This court case is only causing problems for future voting. We knew what we voted for and that was to leave the EU. Now we need to explain how? Then the government will. Then someone will want another court case to explain that. It's some 'Remoaners' causing as much trouble as they can. All this will do is let UKIP in if there is another General election.
I would have accepted a 60/40 and it is factual IMO that there was complete surprise on both sides I will never change my view as I want to be a part of Europe and do everything I can to become an European I think more than 48% will see this and act in some way I am not accepting it and long with what i believe will be the majority will demand free movement If the outcome is denied and I can no longer sit where I am now in the my favourite country in the world: France I will do anything it takes to stop becoming confined to the UK including joining the French system I have zero faith or belief that the UK can or will sort out the diverse inequalities that are present today
She is just worried about losing her job. I believe a student was murdered by an Afghan immigrant and people not happy. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-arrested-Germany-murder-medical-student.html
In fact I was never in favour of a referendum at all on this issue. But having gone that way then it should have been constructed with some attempt at making voters know what the actual alternatives are, and should be if there are to be more.
Must have been someone else, then. I'm not going to bust a gut finding him (it was a him) but I'm sure I didn't imagine it.
