Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
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
-
You mean Cleggy and his merry band of no-hopers trying to pretend that the fate of the country is in their hands?
For all the brave words now being spun by govt. spin doctors that this is actually a victory for them what exactly did the Government achieve in refusing to accept the decision in the first place or, quite possibly, the legal advice they were given several months earlier when they received the letter before action? Can't help thinking the millions they will have had to fork out could have been better spent - perhaps plugging the hole in the NHS funding left by the loss of £350 million a month promised as the result of the Brexit.
We might as well get on with it because it's going to happen. People like Clegg make me sick. All talk and stitch up the students. All talk and is Cameron's puppet. All talk, all talk.
I don't like or believe the views of Comrade Corbyn but at least he sticks to his views. Although saying that he was a turncoat during Brexit.
Pity then after the Justices and many others have the balls to interpret and push through these legalities under all the pressure and sicko threats they got, if MP's are not allowed or don't have the balls to vote for what they think, and vote it down.
"Iain Duncan Smith has claimed the Supreme Court “stepped into new territory” with its Article 50 ruling.
The Leave campaigner and former party leader suggested the judges had told Parliament “actually what they should do” after the Government lost its appeal on how Brexit was to be triggered.
But his statement was picked apart by online experts and contradicted by Brexit Secretary David Davis, who told MPs shortly afterwards that the Government “values and believes in” an independent judiciary.
Mr Duncan Smith told BBC2’s Victoria Derbyshire: “There’s the European issue but there’s also the issue about who is supreme – Parliament or a self-appointed court. This is the issue here right now, so I was intrigued that it was a split judgment, I’m disappointed they've tried to tell Parliament how to run its business.
“They've stepped into new territory where they've actually told Parliament not just that they should do something but actually what they should do. I think that leads further down the road to real constitutional issues about who is supreme in this role.”
The anonymous Secret Barrister, who writes a column for the Solicitors Journal, called the intervention “Trump-like in its audacity“ and “provably false”. The writer said on Twitter: “There's no issue about who is supreme between Parliament and Supreme Court. It’s Parliament. The Court expressly did not tell Parliament how to run its business. It clarified what the [Governmentt] could not do unilaterally.
“The Supreme Court is not self-appointed. It was established by Parliament by section 23 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The only ‘real constitutional issues’ are those arising in IDS’s own imagination, born of his own unstymied ignorance and base stupidity.”
And Brexit Secretary David Davis told the House of Commons: “We believe in and value the independence of our judiciary, the foundation upon which the rule of law is built.”
The Supreme Court's website sets out how judges are appointed according to the 2005 Act. The Lord Chancellor, a politician, convenes a selection commission which decides who should join the court. The Lord Chancellor can, in “closely defined circumstances”, reject its candidate or invite the commission to reconsider. The Queen makes the formal appointment once a recommendation has been sent to the Prime Minister."
This article was published in The Independent yesterday.
IDS is symptomatic of so much of this debate. The man is clearly a cretin as well as an outright liar. Thank God that Theresa May sidelined him as well as Gove.
The Leave campaigner and former party leader suggested the judges had told Parliament “actually what they should do” after the Government lost its appeal on how Brexit was to be triggered.
But his statement was picked apart by online experts and contradicted by Brexit Secretary David Davis, who told MPs shortly afterwards that the Government “values and believes in” an independent judiciary.
Mr Duncan Smith told BBC2’s Victoria Derbyshire: “There’s the European issue but there’s also the issue about who is supreme – Parliament or a self-appointed court. This is the issue here right now, so I was intrigued that it was a split judgment, I’m disappointed they've tried to tell Parliament how to run its business.
“They've stepped into new territory where they've actually told Parliament not just that they should do something but actually what they should do. I think that leads further down the road to real constitutional issues about who is supreme in this role.”
The anonymous Secret Barrister, who writes a column for the Solicitors Journal, called the intervention “Trump-like in its audacity“ and “provably false”. The writer said on Twitter: “There's no issue about who is supreme between Parliament and Supreme Court. It’s Parliament. The Court expressly did not tell Parliament how to run its business. It clarified what the [Governmentt] could not do unilaterally.
“The Supreme Court is not self-appointed. It was established by Parliament by section 23 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The only ‘real constitutional issues’ are those arising in IDS’s own imagination, born of his own unstymied ignorance and base stupidity.”
And Brexit Secretary David Davis told the House of Commons: “We believe in and value the independence of our judiciary, the foundation upon which the rule of law is built.”
The Supreme Court's website sets out how judges are appointed according to the 2005 Act. The Lord Chancellor, a politician, convenes a selection commission which decides who should join the court. The Lord Chancellor can, in “closely defined circumstances”, reject its candidate or invite the commission to reconsider. The Queen makes the formal appointment once a recommendation has been sent to the Prime Minister."
This article was published in The Independent yesterday.
IDS is symptomatic of so much of this debate. The man is clearly a cretin as well as an outright liar. Thank God that Theresa May sidelined him as well as Gove.
How do you think the 52% Leave would react if a majority of MP's did vote it down?
If that were to happen there would be a General Election wirh Brexit the central issue, or a new Referendum. Either way voters should have a much better idea of what they are voting for by then than they did last June. A very good thing for the UK to have imo before triggering Article 50. A vote on a final deal or no Deal after negotiation could be a disaster for the UK if the deal is not good enough - neither no deal or bad deal are good alternatives.
In exactly the same way they do now when anyone dares challenge the new orthodoxy. The vast majority will get their revenge as Ossie says the next time they get to vote. A significant minority (significant in that their individual actions have the potential to cause devastating effect) will behave as they do now making death threats and generally trying to silence any further debate by attacking their opponents.
But what more do we know now, except that Remain scare stories about the financial horrors in the immediate referendum aftermath did not come true? The Remain side, Cameron in particular, made great play on the fact that leaving the EU was leaving the Single Market. Michael Gove for Leave also made it clear that we would leave the Single Market. A further referendum before triggering Article 50 is simply an excuse for Remainers to "have another go". Some Leave voters would lose heart, sensing that, as with Ireland, the authorities will keep coming back until they get the result they want.
If the MP's voted against triggering Article 50 (they won't), the biggest gains would go to UKIP and the Far Right. Divisions within the country would widen to a great chasm. Parliamentary authority would be damaged irrevocably because they represent, and in the case of a referendum take instructions from, us, not the other way around. Having won the referendum, Leave voters will never shrug their shoulders and walk away.
There's no doubt there are those who are motivated by strong patriotic fervour in the Leave camp. Give them fuel by denying them justice having won the referendum and there'll be blood on the streets. Retribution would not simply be limited to the ballot box. Fortunately, most MP's seem to realise that
The only MP's that will vote against Brexit are the ones that know their seats are in safe remain areas. How many will vote against that in predominantly leave areas? If they did they would lose their seat.
Funnily this was brought up recently down the pub and the vast majority of us discussing it said they would vote UKIP as a protest if the local MP voted against Brexit. Labour would be wiped from the map.
Funnily this was brought up recently down the pub and the vast majority of us discussing it said they would vote UKIP as a protest if the local MP voted against Brexit. Labour would be wiped from the map.
one MP says she will vote against the Government because the majority in her constituency voted Remain. Fair enough. But will mp's strongly in favour of Remain do the same if their constituency voted Leave?
CB I can agree with that. If the majority wanted to stay then they should vote against> (in that area)
It is far more clear now what the UK government will negotiate for than it was last June. Nobody even knew then what goverrnment there would be. It remained unclear until last week when May finally confirmed that we in all probability will be leaving the single market. With some debate in parliament in the next month or two, people will have the opportunity to know a lot more about what they are voting for than they did last June.
Don't think we need to wait for Article 50 to be voted down to get a Hard Right/UKIP government - we have that already. Don't think there's any difference between what Farage wanted and May is delivering, she has gone right rather than try and reach out to the left of her party and the country - I suspect many of the pro-European One Nation Tory voters will go with the Lib Dems. 48% of the electorate getting ignored and disillusioned don't really have any other choice than them.
UKIP look like they know the Tories have outflanked them, and are going down the working class populist route - especially in the North - where I think they'll take a lot of Labour votes of people who don't buy Corbyn's Hard Left agenda. Don't really see what Labour stand for hereon in.
That said we need to invoke the article 50 and jump off the cliff/fly to paradise sooner rather than later; any else is just delaying the inevitable
I see that May has just said that she will publish a White paper outlining the Government's aims and position in negotiations. Good. Heaven knows what all the so called secrecy was about? We want out, we want it on the best terms possible - ideally with the benefits of free trade in Europe and none of the burdens. She has already clarified that this is in fact her wish list so absolutely no surprise there. The real question for me is why it took her so long as she made a mountain out of a molehill. Watching the exchanges on the lunchtime news showed that now that she has finally bitten the bullet, she completely outflanked Corbyn who clearly had not thought of a Plan B line of attack.
Enough MPs have already stated they will not vote against the bill. That is quite different from saying that they will not try to amend it to make it more palatable for them. Nothing wrong with them attempting to do so. Personally I doubt they will succeed. If the Government now fails to meet its March deadline for triggering Article 50 they only have themselves to blame for that. I did read this morning that one barrister thought it might take more than 2 years to negotiate a deal. If that happens so be it. We will be out anyway -once article 50 has been triggered it cannot be revoked. The period can however be extended by agreement between the departee and the EU. And of course will have to get the agreement of all EU countries including the mighty Luxembourg. I suspect many in Europe will be as sick of the UK as we clearly are of them after 2 years of haggling. I don't know who will be better off if a deal is not struck within 2 years. Anybody want to guess?
Enough MPs have already stated they will not vote against the bill. That is quite different from saying that they will not try to amend it to make it more palatable for them. Nothing wrong with them attempting to do so. Personally I doubt they will succeed. If the Government now fails to meet its March deadline for triggering Article 50 they only have themselves to blame for that. I did read this morning that one barrister thought it might take more than 2 years to negotiate a deal. If that happens so be it. We will be out anyway -once article 50 has been triggered it cannot be revoked. The period can however be extended by agreement between the departee and the EU. And of course will have to get the agreement of all EU countries including the mighty Luxembourg. I suspect many in Europe will be as sick of the UK as we clearly are of them after 2 years of haggling. I don't know who will be better off if a deal is not struck within 2 years. Anybody want to guess?
Exactly. That is after all the point of parliamentary democracy - to have your say, be informed, hear the other side of the argument, debate it a bit further and then decide what you or your constituents wish to do on the motion as it stands after amendments have been tabled and voted upon. There are some who clearly do wish for this to be rerun and rerun until they get the outcome they want. However the vast majority of MPs will act responsibly. Breximoaners can gnash their teeth as much as they like and believe in a nationwide Remoan conspiracy. It aint gonna happen.