Forum menu
I think Corbyn would have wanted Brexit under Labour, but Brexit under the Tories is a very different beast.
I'm not sure whether their arguments are structured well enough to affect anything. It's just too easily brushed off by May in the same way she does with the 'Unlimited Welfare' argument.
It is only going to delay Brexit, but at least there should be a clear path for what it means.
Now let's see how demon-cracy works.
This should be interesting coz if the referendum is not respected nothing is.
Woohoo! Anarchy!
All due to some sore losers.
I've said it before, if the Labour and Tory whips decide that they should abstain, then Remain will still win with the SNP, Libs and those Labour/Tory MP's who ignore the whip.
Although Corbyn will obviously vote Leave 🙂
According to a survey of all 650 MPs carried out by the Press Association ahead of the referendum on June 23:480 MPs said they would be voting Remain, including 184 Conservatives
159 MPs said they would be voting Leave, including 139 Conservatives
11 MPs were undeclared, including four Conservative.This gives Remain a notional Commons majority of at least 310.
OK, but... That's not how it works. Yes there'll be a load of MPs who'll vote for the result they personally want, or for the result they feel the country needs- but there'll be a lot that feel it's their duty to support the referendum. Which is probably how it should work tbh...
It's just quite sad to have this very grey thing polarised into black and white, you just end up with everyone entrenched and certain and nobody actually [i]right[/i]. Or really all that bothered about whether they're right or not.
To be honest I dismay at the state of parliament.
A really good honest debate about the brexit deal would be great, unfortunately we'll just get a twitter-spat version of that. All posture and no listening. Edit: What NW said
I can assure that I was. If it was widely known to only be an advisory vote, why has it taken a high court judgement months after the event to get to this point?It wasn't "hidden"- you just weren't paying attention.
It would be interesting to know if the Scottish Independence Referendum had the same clause hidden in it, making its result completely meaningless as well....
was the Indy Ref legally binding rather than just advisory?
was the Indy Ref legally binding rather than just advisory?
It was binding, unlike the EU in/out Referendum held on the 23rd June 2016*
EDIT: At least that's what I have been led to believe
*EDIT #2 for clarity
My tory mp wants to vote out.
Against the wishes of his constituents and his party leader (well the pre brexit version anyway)
Calm down princess, it was a British court not a European court decision. That's what you want no? We got our control back...
Chapeau, that's fantastic! 😀
It was binding, unlike the EU one
Which EU one? The one we've just had was advisory.
EDIT - Ignore me, you said "unlike".
I'll go and open some more biscuits.
[quote=lucky7500 ]I can assure that I was. If it was widely known to only be an advisory vote, why has it taken a high court judgement months after the event to get to this point?
You do realise that the High Court hasn't ruled on whether the referendum was advisory, let alone on whether it was widely known to be so?
I'm not sure you've been paying quite as much attention as you claim.
I think this sums it up for me.
The Labour Party really is a total, complete and utter waste of ****ing space, isn't it?
Yes
CorbinIt’s being appealed by the government so we don’t know the outcome of that appeal but what it does mean is that Parliament is going to have to take a decision when the government finally comes up with what its bottom line is on Article 50 clauses. Parliament has to have a say and this is a crucial decision for the future of this country. We’re going to be looking at the issue of market access to Europe, looking at the future of the manufacturing industry, looking at the access of finance services to Europe and of course crucially workplace regulations, environmental regulations and consumer rights. It could delay things of course. Speculation about a general election is always with us.”
Clear as mud, but it seems to me he sees it as an opportunity to debate our initial terms of A50 rather than to avoid it.
But as others have said, whilst he's purged the shadow cabinet, he's still got Milliband era MPs in office.
Surely how members will vote depends on the bill(type of brexit) the government wants being offered. I doubt labour would vote for the hard exit option, and some Tories are not going to stand for the Norway option which is probably why the government wants to keep on with the legal challenge.
One other thing, for those who will now be saying that judges should be 'deposed' (?) and that this is the judiciary suppressing the 'will of the people'?
If this is the case, then why are the government using the exact same process to appeal the decision?
If its good enough for the government to use to try and get their way, then its good enough for the people to use to oppose the tyranny of royal prerogative.
Good point
Brexit has to be either given a chance or there needs to be a General Election. There'll be rioting in the streets if not.
Would you anticipate rioting from the Remainers if it does go through?
Yes, coz that is the norm. Most of my leftist co-workers would go on to mass protest or take up some sort physical actions when they feel they don't get their ways.slowoldman - Member
Would you anticipate rioting from the Remainers if it does go through?
[i]Would you anticipate rioting from the Remainers if it does go through? [/I]
No, because sensible people don't riot 😉
slowoldman - Member
Would you anticipate rioting from the Remainers if it does go through?
Strangely, no.
Think about how unattractive this looks. A court upholds the power of Parliament to determine UK legal landscape. The government appeals.
yey, democracy in action...
The Labour Party really is a total, complete and utter waste of ****ing space, isn't it?
Sadly, yes. Labour seems unable to put forth it's view on what it wants from Brexit. The party line is cautious and the leader seems to lack conviction either way.
Brexit has to be either given a chance or there needs to be a General Election. There'll be rioting in the streets if not.
Not during Eastenders though
http://newsthump.com/2016/11/03/brexit-means-bit of a mess-confirms-prime-minister/
That pretty much sums it up for me.
One gigantic steaming pile of shit - voting for a woolly yes/no outcome on something as complex as Europe/the EU that was twisted to be a personal thing by DC (which is why he lost, because he made it personal), hijacked by the media, by the opportunist politicians to further their own careers, appealing to the truly gutter instincts of people and, rather critically, with absolutely no plan whatsoever of what to do afterwards, no matter what the result.
I strongly suspect that a good proportion of Leave voters put more thought into who they voted for in X-Factor than the likely consequences of the Referendum.
That asides, bookmakers have slashed odds on a second referendum and a general election in 2017 (which will require 2/3rds or more MPs to make happen).
Still no Jammers?
Any reports of suicide bombings near the High Court, and I think we'll know where to look 😀
Brexit has to be either given a chance or there needs to be a General Election. There'll be rioting in the streets if not.
Rioting from whom, exactly? As far as I've seen, the majority of Brexit voters voted that way as a protest vote about "something". Many don't even know what they voted for, so how can they riot in support of it?
Yes, there are people who had well thought out reasons for voting that way but the ones I've met are hardly the rioting type and will take the view that we'll deal with whatever happens, either way.
The only ones who seem to be completely passionate about Brexit are those who come from a borderline racist viewpoint, and I'm not sure many of those would want to stick their heads above the parapet, other than the EDL, or other like-minded people.
Sadly, yes. Labour seems unable to put forth it's view on what it wants from Brexit. The party line is cautious and the leader seems to lack conviction either way.
Which unfortunately is probably how it should be, it's a ridiculous thing to have ONE VIEW on, in as much as it is a ridiculous thing to have a YES/NO referendum on, given the infinite amount of variables in play.
I think caution and lack of conviction is far more honest/preferrable than [b]Brexit means Brexit[/b], or at least it would be if we hadn't already hit the Brexit button...
I still believe there should be a deeper meaning to 'Democracy' than asking a largely uninformed/misinformed public to answer a hugely complicated question and then acting on their response.
I strongly suspect that a good proportion of Leave voters put more thought into who they voted for in X-Factor than the likely consequences of the Referendum.
I think vast majority of people who to leave would still do so. I think what would change is that the number of people who didn't vote would drop, and that Remain would this time win, possibly by as slender a margin as Leave did the first time.
Brexit has to be either given a chance or there needs to be a General Election. There'll be [s]rioting in the streets[/s] mild tutting into a cup of tea, a barely perceptible bit of head shaking, and the odd disapproving look towards the television if not.
FTFY
The hardcore Leave camp. It only takes a few to get it started and crowd behaviour and a lack of willingness to police our own will do the rest.mikey74 - MemberRioting from whom. exactly?
The hardcore Leave camp.
That's my point: Who are the "hardcore leave camp"? Yes, staunch UKIP supporters (if there are any, any more) and the likes of EDL, but who else?
Rioting from whom. exactly?The hardcore Leave camp. It only takes a few to get it started and crowd behaviour and a lack of willingness to police our own will do the rest.
[b]Vive La Revolution!!!!!![/b]
i bet the SPG are bricking it! 😆
[img] 
?format=1000w[/img]
For a second referendum you'd need another referendum act.
Would that referendum be binding?
Would it be 50% +1?
Would it require say 60% of the population to want change?
And is change now defined as staying in and working with other Europeans or walking out quitting on the EU?
I doubt you could actually frame a second referendum.
At least the high court thinks our democracy is sacred. Sovereignty lies in parliament.
There is no prospect of parliament voting against Article 50. There is no prospect of the LibDems winning Richmond Park and, if Theresa May is on the slide, there is a long way to go as she has one of the biggest governmental leads ever in the opinion polls.
Which unfortunately is probably how it should be, it's a ridiculous thing to have ONE VIEW on, in as much as it is a ridiculous thing to have a YES/NO referendum on, given the infinite amount of variables in play.
But at this point the government need to put in place a bill to declare article 50 if they want to. That Bill should describe what their plan is and that should be debated and voted on by the house. That is how democracy works in the UK, the government does not have a mandate to do what it wants, it has to govern with the will of both houses.
As for Jamby check the eu Parliament for a guy in drag with a badly forged letter pretending to be TM delivering article 50
Don't underestimate the ability of the Far Right to whip up hysteria. People were told we'd be swamped with terrorists, "economic migrants", ISIS and funny people stealing jobs last time round. The far right is resurgent in Europe and seems to have allies in the British press.
Thing is, this was all avoidable. If Blair hadn't abandoned those dumped on by Fatcha and successive governments had been quick to address funding of local services instead of sitting back and letting migrants take the blame, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
That is exactly the platform any opposition party should be fighting, in event of a snap election.
Mefty - vote against A50? Maybe, maybe not. But sanction A50 only on the basis of certain conditions (stay in single market perhaps) - entirely plausible.
You all keep treating the Leave voters as a bunch of idiots/morons who had no idea what they were voting for, but at the same time, you assume that they'd now be grateful for a second chance to vote and would change their mind.
I think the number of Leave voters who fit this description are quite small.
My view (having spoken to my relatives, most of whom voted Leave) is that they voted, largely on single issues: immigration, £350m a week, faceless bureaucrats, EU laws screwing British trade and business, London being the centre of it all, politicians not representing them...whatever, but it was usually a single issue vote for each of them. I don't think their views will have changed, yes the economy is a little worse, but it's not greatly effected yet...and most don't understand that it'll be nearly 10 years before it really gets any better...
These people are not morons, but their views might be more parochial than most, many may not have even voted before (and fair play to UKIP/Vote Leave for energising a democratic base that had lain dormant for so long), but their reasons for voting the way they did remain (no pun intended) intact. I don't think the landslide to Remain that many believe will happen, will actually occur.
What chance of brexit doing for two prime ministers in the space of a year? Gordon Brown and David Cameron must be laughing their tits of at the prospect of May taking over as the most incompetent and out of depth PM in recent history.
These people are not morons
If they voted to leave on any of the single issues you listed above then I'm afraid they are morons.
ote against A50? Maybe, maybe not. But sanction A50 only on the basis of certain conditions (stay in single market perhaps) - entirely plausible.
Completely implausible because you cant negotiate until you have triggered Article 50 so can't be any conditions.
Does the Labour Party have a leader?
Mefty - vote against A50? Maybe, maybe not. But sanction A50 only on the basis of certain conditions (stay in single market perhaps) - entirely plausible.
Thats the way I read it too. It won't stop us leaving, but Its the single market (which we'll have to pay for access too), and thus freedom of movement, or nothing.
So... basically, as we were before but with no involvement in the decision making process.
Hurray for Taking Back Control!
You really couldn't make it up
Does the Labour Party have a leader?
From the media appearances, and the parliamentary coverage over the last few weeks, its Andy Burnham, isn't it?
He seems to have reached the point of exasperation and thought "Oh FFS! If you're not going to do it, I suppose someone best at least say something in public!"
I suspsect Jezza is busy deciding on who to deselect, and other more important stuff
Mefty - I mean Parliament imposes conditions on government at the time it authorises A50. Government not allowed to negotiate outside these conditions without returning to parliament.
£350m a week, faceless bureaucrats, EU laws screwing British trade and business
S****!
So they are idiots/morons, then?
is that they voted, largely on single issues: immigration [b]Overblown a D exaggerated [/b], £350m a week[b]lie[/b], faceless bureaucrats[b]mostly scare mongering by the UK not getting properly involvrd[/b], EU laws screwing British trade and business[b]any examples? [/b], London being the centre of it all[b]nothing to do with the eu[/b], politicians not representing them[b]nothing to do with the eu[/b]...whatever, but it was usually a single issue vote for each of them. I don't think their views will have changed, yes the economy is a little worse, but it's not greatly effected yet...and most don't understand that it'll be nearly 10 years before it really gets any better...
That seems like the problem, leaving eu was sold as fixing everything like those diet pills your doc wants to keep secret.
Present a Brexit policy that can be challenged and scrutinised, if they can't pass it go to a general election - you reckon labour would support a bad article 50 idea over an election? UKIP are in tatters at the moment.
Is it coincidence that the address of the high court is 48 The Strand?
This only gets worse. Ok I am a leaver but FFS we have had a vote and need to get on with making the best of a bad job. Negotiations via Parliament is a recipe for total chaos....
....wait a minute....::
... I detect a cunning plan 😉
It's only a matter of time...
[img] 
[/img]
Mefty - I mean Parliament imposes conditions on government at the time it authorises A50. Government not allowed to negotiate outside these conditions without returning to parliament.
So you hamper a negotiating team that already has a limited time to negotiate a deal, that's really smart! THe Court Case is a vanity project, won't have any significant effect.
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.****/wires/ap/article-3900592/UK-High-Court-rule-suit-challenging-Brexit.html ]daily fail haters[s]readers[/s] rejoice[/url]
really is there an irony in the fail bringing good news to so many who dont like the wrag?
ps i only read the headline so in the interest of sensationalizing ....never bothered to read any further
So you hamper a [s]negotiating team[/s] Bunch of moronic, right wing nutjobs that already has a limited time to [s]negotiate a deal[/s] run amock trashing the countries reputation, and economy , that's actually really smart!
FTFY
I had a gloomy thought:
Anyone want to suggest who's going to be the first to die?
Actually and factually and unequivocally attributed to Brexit?
A Muslim? A politician? A Brexiter rioting?
So you hamper a [s]negotiating team[/s]david davies crack squad of lunatics that already has a[s] limited time [/s] a snowballs chance in hell to negotiate decent a deal
Actually and factually and unequivocally attributed to Brexit?A Muslim? A politician? A Brexiter rioting?
Jo Cox?
Jo Cox?
(He is) more of a right wing nutter than it was due to Brexit.
Edit.
I think the number of Leave voters who fit this description are quite small.
and the margin of the vote was tiny, you only need a few people to change their mind and if you see the Economists polls enough people are regreting their vote to overturn the majority
I had a gloomy thought:Anyone want to suggest who's going to be the first to die?
Actually and factually and unequivocally attributed to Brexit?
A Muslim? A politician? A Brexiter rioting?
oddly i was watching something last night about britains great bridges
turns out ye olde bristolians caused a bit of a riot because they weren't happy about a bridge
we need a REVOLUTION!!!! in this country a proper people versus the governemt ruck
like when we blocked them petrol tankers in
Ironically, having a massive riot would be a very French way of dealing with things 😆
can't wait to see all these ageing Brexit baby boomers taking to the streets... before stopping in somewhere for a glass of wine.
If the Brexit referendum gets ignored - do migrants here think it will be a good or bad thing for them?
I am pretty convinced we will see things getting a lot more right wing and anti immigrant as a result if the result is not honoured.
But maybe that is the bigger plan ... tin foil hat at the ready!!
(He is) more of a right wing nutter than it was due to Brexit.
nah I reckon he was radicalised by all the anti immigrant rhetoric used by vote leave
to be fair though, riots in Brexit heartlands would cause millions of pounds of improvements.
How about we stop moaning and embrace Brexit?
The condition being that if Brexit it's a democratic wonderland of plenty & riches, the social groups that voted "out" get vastly more of the benefits than those that chose "Remain"?
Likewise, if it's a s---tstorm of broken bulls--t, those same groups are penalised to the cost of making it bearable for those that voted "remain"?
I'd go for that, if only for the S&G's. 🙂
mikey74 - Member
£350m a week, faceless bureaucrats, EU laws screwing British trade and business
S****!So they are idiots/morons, then?
Is it cold up there on your lofty perch?
If you constantly denigrate a section of society how can you possibly hope to understand it? UKIP understood it very well, they came with a simple, easily understood message and people flocked to it. £350m a week was accurate, faceless bureaucrats was accurate...adherence to EU law does cost money and time. In these things, they were told the truth, or at least a piece of it.
Remain didn't come up with a comparable, simplistic argument.
The fact that 'Doctor' Liam Fox isn't happy, is making me very, very happy in an inversely proportional sort of way
😀
£350m a week was accurate, faceless bureaucrats was accurate.
No they weren't: They were stated wrong at the time and have been proved false since, as well as being retracted by the Brexit campaigners.
UKIP understood it very well, they came with a simple, easily understood message
Banks credits the success of Leave.EU to their hiring of Goddard Gunster and their subsequent adoption of "an American-style media approach". Banks said, "What [Goddard Gunster] said early on was 'facts don’t work' and that's it.
Mr Banks. A true Gibraltararian English, tax paying, patriot.
£350m a week was accurate
No it bloody well wasn't. Nigel **** face Farage disowned in the very morning of the result.
I watched him do it on the TV. I saw his chin wobbling as he explained to Susanna Reid that it wasn't his claim so he didn't feel like he had to stand by it
The condition being that if Brexit it's a democratic wonderland of plenty & riches, the social groups that voted "out" get vastly more of the benefits than those that chose "Remain"?Likewise, if it's a s---tstorm of broken bulls--t, those same groups are penalised to the cost of making it bearable for those that voted "remain"?
Crack open the ballots, reconcile the voting slips against the register & if you voted "leave" you get a diferent tax code to pay for it all?
Crack open the ballots, reconcile the voting slips against the register & if you voted "leave" you get a diferent tax code to pay for it all?
By no means! Not individuals... social groupings, perhaps regional groupings, too. 😀
How about Nige just has to buy everyones beer, every time anyone goes to the pub? A pint for every big fat lie he told
[img] 
[/img]