EU referendum/Brexit discussion - Part 2

[john999boy]

The previous topic (here) has now been locked due to the number of pages and not wanting to cause any potential forum issues.

 

Please continue the discussion here.

[lol-lol]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37872899

 

Tory MP Stephen Phillips quits over 'irreconcilable differences'

 

Conservative MP Stephen Phillips has quit over "irreconcilable policy differences" with the government.

The MP, who has held the Lincolnshire seat of Sleaford and North Hykeham since 2010, backed leaving the EU but has accused ministers of ignoring Parliament since the Brexit vote.   He said he was "unable properly to represent the people who elected me".  It comes as Theresa May said she was confident she would win a legal battle over her approach to Brexit talks.......

The politician, who is a barrister and part-time Crown Court judge, is the second Conservative MP to stand down in as many weeks - Zac Goldsmith last week forced a by-election over his opposition to expanding Heathrow airport.  Sources say Mr Phillips informed party whips earlier this week that he would resign as an MP because he felt his values were not the values of the government.  He has been critical of the government's approach to Brexit since June's Leave vote, accusing Theresa May of trying to "ignore the views" of Parliament and avoiding scrutiny of the government's negotiating position.

 

'Plain wrong'

 

In a recent newspaper article, he suggested the government was "lurching to the right" and that its attempt to start negotiations with the EU without the explicit approval of Parliament was "divisive and plain wrong".

Edited 4 November, 2016 by lol-lol

[@Lee]

James O'Brien educates a caller on the Judgement

 

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-leave-voter-british-law-caller/

[Eddie-NL]

here we go again

 

another 100 pages of trying to convince the other side they were wrong

[mac11irl]

here we go again

another 100 pages of trying to convince the other side they were wrong

Of course... its a polarising political issue.

Main reason i gave up tracking the other version of this as a semi interested bystander as we have a lot of suppliers and contracts with uk companies which could get messy

[gadgetman]

Parliamentary sovereignty was a major draw of votes for leave.

 

I therefore find it incredible many want to bypass parliament completely with Article 50.  That essentially people say it is OK for any PM/Government to completely bypass parliament on any major issue without any parliamentary backing or scrutiny.

 

That's what this case was all about.  To reign in the government, or any future government, from ignoring our constitutional laws.

 

So ignore article 50 for a minute.  Say May, under pressure from business leaders wants to cut workers rights.  Had this case failed, she could technically introduce any laws/changes to laws she wanted without any discussion.

 

Surely that possibility being stopped should be applauded?

[lol-lol]

What a week in the markets.   In additional to the fallout of plummet in the value of British pound in the last 4 months, the worsened UK balance of trade the issue in the US with the possibility of a Trump victory.  Western world seems bent on self harm........ 

 

U.S. Stocks Post Longest Slide Since 1980, Bonds Rise Amid Angst

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-03/japan-futures-tip-stock-losses-on-yen-bounce-pound-holds-gains

 

U.S. stocks posted their longest slide since 1980, while Treasuries rallied after data showing progress in the American labor market did little to soothe anxiety over the presidential election. Oil slumped.   The S&P 500 Index dropped for a ninth straight day, a gauge of equity volatility had the longest stretch of gains on record and Treasuries climbed the most since September ahead of next week’s vote. All the jitters sent the dollar down after a brief advance that followed data showing U.S. jobs rose at a steady pace in October, supporting a Federal Reserve hike next month. Oil sank as hopes faded that OPEC will be able to implement a deal to cut output.

Edited 5 November, 2016 by lol-lol

[Scribbler]

Parliamentary sovereignty was a major draw of votes for leave.

 

I therefore find it incredible many want to bypass parliament completely with Article 50.  That essentially people say it is OK for any PM/Government to completely bypass parliament on any major issue without any parliamentary backing or scrutiny.

 

That's what this case was all about.  To reign in the government, or any future government, from ignoring our constitutional laws.

 

So ignore article 50 for a minute.  Say May, under pressure from business leaders wants to cut workers rights.  Had this case failed, she could technically introduce any laws/changes to laws she wanted without any discussion.

 

Surely that possibility being stopped should be applauded?

 

Parliament already had a say on the referendum this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how democratic it is that 3 judges responding to a Europhile should deny the will of the majority of the british citizens. Those three judges are not unbiased and will no doubt because of the very nature of their profession have an opinion on brexit. In my opinion its crystal clear that Parliament when they voted knew that should the british people vote to leave that the legal framework for this was to trigger article 50. Negotiations shouldn't even start until this is triggered so why are we asking Judges to delay this? 

[Eddie-NL]

What a week in the markets.   In additional to the fallout of plummet in the value of British pound in the last 4 months, the worsened UK balance of trade the issue in the US with the possibility of a Trump victory.  Western world seems bent on self harm........ 

 

U.S. Stocks Post Longest Slide Since 1980, Bonds Rise Amid Angst

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-03/japan-futures-tip-stock-losses-on-yen-bounce-pound-holds-gains

 

U.S. stocks posted their longest slide since 1980, while Treasuries rallied after data showing progress in the American labor market did little to soothe anxiety over the presidential election. Oil slumped.   The S&P 500 Index dropped for a ninth straight day, a gauge of equity volatility had the longest stretch of gains on record and Treasuries climbed the most since September ahead of next week’s vote. All the jitters sent the dollar down after a brief advance that followed data showing U.S. jobs rose at a steady pace in October, supporting a Federal Reserve hike next month. Oil sank as hopes faded that OPEC will be able to implement a deal to cut output.

will you stop posting this info, it serves no useful purpose to anyone

 

Markets round the world slumped last week, not due to brexit but due to fear of a Trump win

[trundlenut]

Parliament already had a say on the referendum this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how democratic it is that 3 judges responding to a Europhile should deny the will of the majority of the british citizens. Those three judges are not unbiased and will no doubt because of the very nature of their profession have an opinion on brexit. In my opinion its crystal clear that Parliament when they voted knew that should the british people vote to leave that the legal framework for this was to trigger article 50. Negotiations shouldn't even start until this is triggered so why are we asking Judges to delay this?

Taking back control!

[trundlenut]

will you stop posting this info, it serves no useful purpose to anyone

Markets round the world slumped last week, not due to brexit but due to fear of a Trump win

The government say Article 50 is not reversible. Therefore Parliament may not get to vote on any deal until they are faced by a take it or no deal at all. Or they may only get to discuss it.

So if May and the BoJo boys decided the Norway model was the best option then you would accept that then? I.E. Freedom of movement and payments to the EU in return for membership of the single market.

It would still be Brexit, and it would be what you voted for because May says is.

[gadgetman]

The government say Article 50 is not reversible. Therefore Parliament may not get to vote on any deal until they are faced by a take it or no deal at all. Or they may only get to discuss it.

So if May and the BoJo boys decided the Norway model was the best option then you would accept that then? I.E. Freedom of movement and payments to the EU in return for membership of the single market.

It would still be Brexit, and it would be what you voted for because May says is.

That's my point entirely.

People, like Scribbler, rightly point out parliament had a say in holding the referendum, and we had a say in that referendum in which the majority wanted to leave.

But what form that takes should and must be scrutinised before we accept any binding deal. By parliament.

To bypass it, given the comments about it no longer being sovereign makes a mockery of the line "taking back control".

[Rooted]

Those speaking for those in the EU that are staying in says there is no discussions or negotiations until Article 50 is enacted, so the MP's in Westminster & Peers of the realms can bump their gums all they want and have all the wishes and dreams but they and the people of the United Kingdom & dependencies will get what they manage to negotiate down the line.

[gadgetman]

Parliament already had a say on the referendum this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how democratic it is that 3 judges responding to a Europhile should deny the will of the majority of the british citizens. Those three judges are not unbiased and will no doubt because of the very nature of their profession have an opinion on brexit. In my opinion its crystal clear that Parliament when they voted knew that should the british people vote to leave that the legal framework for this was to trigger article 50. Negotiations shouldn't even start until this is triggered so why are we asking Judges to delay this?

As someone championing taking back control and sovereignty then you should understand why.

The case wasn't about delaying or reversing the vote as well you know.

The judges were asked to rule on whether a government/parliament has the powers to force through material changes without parliamentary scrutiny.

In reviewing both UK laws, parliamentary statutes and our constitution, there are clear statements which say that Parliament must be consulted and debate issues on par with the gravitas of article 50.

To avoid parliamentary debate on which type of deal we should accept would leave us in exactly a position similar to eu laws being thrust upon us. There's no difference in my eyes

[trundlenut]

Those speaking for those in the EU that are staying in says there is no discussions or negotiations until Article 50 is enacted, so the MP's in Westminster & Peers of the realms can bump their gums all they want and have all the wishes and dreams but they and the people of the United Kingdom & dependencies will get what they manage to negotiate down the line.

Well let's just wait until May and BoJo tells us what we're getting then. No need for any discussions.

[Scribbler]

As someone championing taking back control and sovereignty then you should understand why.

The case wasn't about delaying or reversing the vote as well you know.

The judges were asked to rule on whether a government/parliament has the powers to force through material changes without parliamentary scrutiny.

In reviewing both UK laws, parliamentary statutes and our constitution, there are clear statements which say that Parliament must be consulted and debate issues on par with the gravitas of article 50.

To avoid parliamentary debate on which type of deal we should accept would leave us in exactly a position similar to eu laws being thrust upon us. There's no difference in my eyes

 

Its a mis interpretation you can't say 'on par with the gravitas of Article 50' because its unprecedented' Until its triggered nothing to discuss in parliament. Triggering it is the beginning of the discussions. We need to find out what Europe wants to offer first. Unrealistic i know but the EU could turn round and say everything stays the same we just stop paying contributions therefore there would be no material changes for parliament to scrutinize. We need to trigger Article 50 thrash out a deal and bring it before parliament then you can have them vote weather to accept the deal. The judges ruling we must have a vote on opening negotiations when the referendum was expressly worded to do this is duplication of consent.

There are dark forces at work here trying to lobby for certain concessions which will affect them after brexit. None of this will benefit the average person and will give away any tactical advantage to the EU during the negotiations by priming them with insider knowledge. Its like giving the enemy the locations of all your missile silos and the subs positions in the oceans.

and then declaring war.

[gadgetman]

Its a mis interpretation you can't say 'on par with the gravitas of Article 50' because its unprecedented' Until its triggered nothing to discuss in parliament. Triggering it is the beginning of the discussions. We need to find out what Europe wants to offer first. Unrealistic i know but the EU could turn round and say everything stays the same we just stop paying contributions therefore there would be no material changes for parliament to scrutinize. We need to trigger Article 50 thrash out a deal and bring it before parliament then you can have them vote weather to accept the deal. The judges ruling we must have a vote on opening negotiations when the referendum was expressly worded to do this is duplication of consent.

There are dark forces at work here trying to lobby for certain concessions which will affect them after brexit. None of this will benefit the average person and will give away any tactical advantage to the EU during the negotiations by priming them with insider knowledge. Its like giving the enemy the locations of all your missile silos and the subs positions in the oceans.

and then declaring war.

Any deal negotiated would not have been ratified by Parliament UNTIL this case was judged upon.

We would have ended up with whatever deal May came back with.

Or is that what you wanted?

[@Lee]

Wants to get back control and sovereignty;

Angry when sovereignty and control happens.

 

FML there's some twisted ****ers in this sceptered isle.

 

There's a reason TM cannot and should not be allowed to invoke Art 50 without Parliamentary approval.

 

I suggest some go and read up on how the UK Governmental system works.

Particularly the parts relating to 'checks and balances', The Prime Minister and The House of Lords and The Monarchy.

 

As for the so-called majority; here's a B&W pic that's been reduced to 52% white and 48% black tones.

Not really a majority.

 

[moley]

As for the so-called majority; here's a B&W pic that's been reduced to 52% white and 48% black tones.

Not really a majority.

 

Is 52 a larger number than 48?

[Rooted]

Gina Miller will only have had the best interest of the UK's population and not a thought of how her and husband Alan will be making many millions more than usual as 

the even more uncertainty on Article 50 being activated before the end of March 2016.

[gadgetman]

Gina Miller will only have had the best interest of the UK's population and not a thought of how her and husband Alan will be making many millions more than usual as

the even more uncertainty on Article 50 being activated before the end of March 2016.

March appears to have been chosen to give the leavers time to formulate a plan, as well as be conveniently timed to impact French and German elections.

Thats so far the only Trump card the government has.

[gadgetman]

This sums up the legalities as to why the judges arrived at their decision based on our own laws:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37873493

This has questions and answers as to if, as many claim, brexit will be reversed by Parliament

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37864983

[@Lee]

Is 52 a larger number than 48?

I'm well aware of how numbers work.

 

The graphic was intended to demonstrate that what leavers call a majority isn't a majority at all.

 

I guess that went over your head.

[@Lee]

March appears to have been chosen to give the leavers time to formulate a plan, as well as be conveniently timed to impact French and German elections.

Thats so far the only Trump card the government has.

They have no plan beyond 'Brexit means Brexit'. That's all they've got.

 

Interesting that Nigel Farage didn't condemn the hateful front pages on the Andrew Marr show this morning.

[moley]

I'm well aware of how numbers work.

 

The graphic was intended to demonstrate that what leavers call a majority isn't a majority at all.

 

I guess that went over your head.

Yeah, that went straight over my head...and I think it's still going. 

 

If the remain voters had won by 52% to 48% they would have not had a majority and the leave camp would have won. Is that what you mean?

 

 

 

ma·jor·i·ty  (mə-jôr′ĭ-tē, -jŏr′-)

n. pl. ma·jor·i·ties

1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.

2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes.

 

Hope that doesn't go over your head.