Brexit is off ?

Chris, thanks, yes I had seen that before... I couldn't help thinking what a load of rubbish    ... I had to lookup to see what the Health Lottery was...

Eloise posted:

jfritzen posted:

Why fight the rearguard action? Wouldn't it better for all sides if the Brexit, inevitable as it is, continued as swift as possible? The sooner the UK are out the sooner they will realise the giant blunder they made and the more probable is a reunion in our lifetimes.

What would be best would be if the government accepted the sovereignty of parliament and opened the Brexit plans to scrutiny and debate.  That's what the ruling in the courts required.

I think so, certainly lay out and debate the approach and opening negotiation positions.. I guess the real nervousness in doing so is with a few hot head  remainers  in the commons  who may simply want to procrastinate and delaying proceedings, and then of course there are the Lords.. they could delay things by upto a year apparently and as a country we want to get on with forging our new relationships around the world including the EU.. and they are not answerable to the electorate ... it's certainly not an easy path for TM

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

True - but that was the dictatorship 'government' defining that back then - these days its the editorial comment from our free press - somewhat different me thinks. if you don't agree with it - don't buy their paper..

The notion that we have a "free press" is problematic. Certainly it is not government controlled (rather the reverse!) but the barriers to publishing a newspaper are so high that it is essentially a billionaires club. I don't agree with any of the national papers on most things but I don't have the option of starting my own paper to promote my views.  What do you get for the man (usually) who has everything? Power - and the easiest way to obtain that is to buy up media outlets. 

Most people get their information from the national established media and if that is full of lies and distortion then their choices are made on false premises. This is one reason why referenda are a flawed way to make major decisions - we won't have a real democracy until the mass media are reformed. Of course the problem then becomes who do you trust to reform it? I don't have an answer to that, but it's got to be something better than government being overruled by a clique of billionaires.

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/...s-favoured-remainers

Ok, so I got the brand of tea wrong but  you get the idea.

C.

Pev, I don't disagree, but by extension you can say our European based  system of democracy is flawed, whether it be for general elections, local elections or referenda .. as the people's are not properly informed... I guess the system works of sorts when there are various media controllers of varying views/political persuasions so there is a distribution of comment and opinion .. but that 'flaw' in our democracy is certainly used as a justification by dictators... they know best.

The polarisation of opinion on this thread reflects the self same thing that happened during the Referendum campaign. When Dodgy Dave gave an unequivocal guarantee to the British people that should the people vote to Leave then Article 50 would be invoked forthwith, clearly given in the naive assumption that the rest of us were Europhiles like him, he did hang himself out to be dried. As it happens, he cut and ran as soon as the result came in. Dodgy Dave's promise was one made with the backing of Parliament by a majority of 6/1 when they were asked if there should be a Referendum. No ifs, no buts, we're OUT!

Now, the Remoaners argument lies as to what form of Brexit we should have, who should have authority over the terms and conditions, all before Article 50 is invoked. Personally, being one who is now called a Hard Brexiteer, my opinion is that our exit is based on a Tabula Rasa and with that clean slate a new relationship with Europe will organically emerge. If our Referendum result is allowed to be 'overturned' or completely distorted by Guyanan models, Brazilian Crimpers, Pimlico Plumbers, Liberal Lords and very much activist judges there will be a bigger anti-establishment backlash than was given by the Referendum itself. 

Jeremy Hunt, a person I am never usually in agreement with, was clear today on Andrew Marr in the Government's intention to invoke Article 50 by the end of March. Of course this will probably be scuppered  by the Supreme Court next month. May will then go to Parliament for the 'necessary' approval and invite suicidal northern Labour MPs and Liberal nonentities in the House of Lords to thwart her plans. A General Election will be called, Labour will be decimated, Nicola Sturgeon will continue to  howl for Independence and her non-existent place in Europe and Article 50 will be invoked, followed by a clearing of the Augean stables known as The House of Lords.

Why will all this happen? Because my local MP, a complete sycophant who had to extricate himself from Dodgy Dave's nether regions when he scarpered from Parliament, and also a staunch Rremainer until May took power, to my utter surprise is now four square behind a hard Brexit. That man has prescience and is now strategically seated in the Justice Department. May does not want to call a General Election before the boundaries are reorganised, but if she has to due to the anti-democratic shenanigans of the Establishment Remoaners, then she will have a very healthy working majority and those not shown retribution by the electorate will feel it when they seek any form of Office. 

Simples!

Simon, I quite agree and I wasn't wanting to single you out. My point is that addressing the issue of  media ownership and regulation would make our system at least somewhat less flawed - unfortunately I don't have a better system to replace it with (certainly not dictatorship - not even by me!). 

By ownership I mean making Murdoch and his ilk divest themselves of all but one outlet and by regulation, there should be real penalties for publishing lies. That would be a start. Given the media bias it was amazing that the vote was as close as it was and the "legitimacy" of the result is at least questionable - e.g. £350 miliion  a week for the NHS etc. etc.

andarkian posted:

 

Simples

100%.             ... Loved the howling Sturgeon 

Christopher_M posted:

I 'liked' your post, Mike. But if the Daily Mail and other [newspapers] want to find a villain for this [they] need to look at themselves. Imo.

C.

 

I agree, Chris

Eloise posted:

 

What would be best would be if the government accepted the sovereignty of parliament and opened the Brexit plans to scrutiny and debate.  That's what the ruling in the courts required.

The main problem I see here is that doing this is likely to expose and weaken our negotiating position. One option (which seems sensible to me) is to have a debate on invoking A50 with our best position without negotiation which would be to adopt WTO rules and tariffs. Then (again IMHO) a negotiation can be taken forwards from that baseline (and the EU would want to do this). The subsequent agreement would, of course, need to be approved by parliament.

I should reveal my own leanings; I voted Leave and do not regret it. My whole working life has been based around working in and managing pan-European and global IT programmes and organisations (mostly but not always in the private sector) so I am not a 'little englander'. For my views on the recent High Court judgement see above but (again IMHO) it seems sound in law but (sorry to drone on about this) we are in uncharted constitutional waters here so all sorts of complexities, uncertainties, risks and problems are going to occur.

naim_nymph posted:

 

...and then we would see how horrible BREXIT is going to be and have a re-vote instead, which REMAIN would win ; )

Again, with the greatest of respect, that is your opinion.

Eloise posted:

jfritzen posted:

Why fight the rearguard action? Wouldn't it better for all sides if the Brexit, inevitable as it is, continued as swift as possible? The sooner the UK are out the sooner they will realise the giant blunder they made and the more probable is a reunion in our lifetimes.

What would be best would be if the government accepted the sovereignty of parliament and opened the Brexit plans to scrutiny and debate.  That's what the ruling in the courts required.

I don't think that's what the ruling said, Eloise.  It didn't talk about the Brexit plans. My understanding is that the ruling simply said that HMG's intention to use Royal Prerogative powers to invoke Article 50 (which in effect overturns all that flows from the European Communities Act) was insufficient and that it needs Parliament to act.  The effect may well be as you describe but that's a different matter.        

MDS posted:

 

I don't think that's what the ruling said, Eloise.  It didn't talk about the Brexit plans. My understanding is that the ruling simply said that HMG's intention to use Royal Prerogative powers to invoke Article 50 (which in effect overturns all that flows from the European Communities Act) was insufficient and that it needs Parliament to act.  The effect may well be as you describe but that's a different matter.        

As I understand it, if you ignore all the press hysteria, the ruling said that A50 could not be invoked by Royal Prerogative as it impacted the rights and privileges of UK citizens. In itself, that analysis doesn't appear unreasonable to me.

See you are all being sucked in by the Guyanan process model (double entendre intended) as well as the minutae of bureaucratic detail and obfuscation, all very much Establishment intended. It's deep breath time, children, and time to jump into the Brexit channel that leads us far from the EU. It is sick, unhealthy and quite contagious;  just look how many posters here are affected by its psychotropic drugs that promise a Nirvana of escalating EU payment costs, limitless immigration, housing shortages, and a complete decimation of our health, welfare and education capabilities. I kid you not! 

Oh, and before you consider me completely anti-European I hold Belgian and British pensions and worked in Europe most of my career. In fact, if the French would get their finger out I would have my Devialet gear by now, but well, what can you expect from the French?

MDS posted:

Eloise posted:

jfritzen posted:

Why fight the rearguard action? Wouldn't it better for all sides if the Brexit, inevitable as it is, continued as swift as possible? The sooner the UK are out the sooner they will realise the giant blunder they made and the more probable is a reunion in our lifetimes.

What would be best would be if the government accepted the sovereignty of parliament and opened the Brexit plans to scrutiny and debate.  That's what the ruling in the courts required.

I don't think that's what the ruling said, Eloise.  It didn't talk about the Brexit plans. My understanding is that the ruling simply said that HMG's intention to use Royal Prerogative powers to invoke Article 50 (which in effect overturns all that flows from the European Communities Act) was insufficient and that it needs Parliament to act.  The effect may well be as you describe but that's a different matter.        

You're right, the ruling didn't say exactly what I suggested... but that doesn't alter the fact that parliament should be debating it not the (unelected except by MPs) PM and her government deciding the fate of the nation.

PeterJ posted:

Eloise posted:

 

What would be best would be if the government accepted the sovereignty of parliament and opened the Brexit plans to scrutiny and debate.  That's what the ruling in the courts required.

The main problem I see here is that doing this is likely to expose and weaken our negotiating position. 

Sorry but that's just rubbish.  It's not going to reveal the minutia of the negotiating position.  It's debating the outline position which will be revealed to the EU 5 minutes after any negotiation actually begins.  

Its debating the relative priorities between access to the single market, financial commitments and blocking free movement.

PeterJ posted:

naim_nymph posted:

 

...and then we would see how horrible BREXIT is going to be and have a re-vote instead, which REMAIN would win ; )

Again, with the greatest of respect, that is your opinion.

The reason we are where we are now is that those who want to be in the EU, and who think life out side of the EU would be awful, are incapable of understanding that others do not believe this and assumed that the public would vote to stay in.  It would appear that the same belief, despite evidence otherwise, is still prevalent.  Should it come to a vote again those who used this to vote against an establishment that refused to listen on key issues will be even more likely to vote out again by that same establishment attempting to ignore the first vote.  Some people never learn, just because you believe something passionately doesn't mean that others do too.  An early election fought over brexit will kill the Labour Party and leave us with either a very very strong Tory party or, even worse, a stronger UKIP.

PeterJ posted:

MDS posted:

 

I don't think that's what the ruling said, Eloise.  It didn't talk about the Brexit plans. My understanding is that the ruling simply said that HMG's intention to use Royal Prerogative powers to invoke Article 50 (which in effect overturns all that flows from the European Communities Act) was insufficient and that it needs Parliament to act.  The effect may well be as you describe but that's a different matter.        

As I understand it, if you ignore all the press hysteria, the ruling said that A50 could not be invoked by Royal Prerogative as it impacted the rights and privileges of UK citizens. In itself, that analysis doesn't appear unreasonable to me.

That's my understanding too, Peter.  Those rights and privileges flow from the European Communities Act, which was passed by Parliament. So it seems perfectly logical to me to say that only Parliament can change it, which invoking Article 50 would.

If Parliament wants to give HMG a completely free hand to negotiate what ever deal it thinks is best, without revealing detail of that deal, Parliament is free to do so. In that event, the requirement of the High Court ruling would be met.   The problem HMG has is persuading Parliament to do that.   That problem is nothing to do with the law or the judiciary.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Chris, thanks, yes I had seen that before... I couldn't help thinking what a load of rubbish    ... I had to lookup to see what the Health Lottery was...

Isn't that the fact that the quality of healthcare depends on the postcode in which you live?

Oh, no, that's the postcode lottery isn't it? ...

Err, I think I might be getting a little confused here!  

andarkian posted:

The polarisation of opinion on this thread reflects the self same thing that happened during the Referendum campaign. When Dodgy Dave gave an unequivocal guarantee to the British people that should the people vote to Leave then Article 50 would be invoked forthwith, clearly given in the naive assumption that the rest of us were Europhiles like him, he did hang himself out to be dried. As it happens, he cut and ran as soon as the result came in. Dodgy Dave's promise was one made with the backing of Parliament by a majority of 6/1 when they were asked if there should be a Referendum. No ifs, no buts, we're OUT!

Now, the Remoaners argument lies as to what form of Brexit we should have, who should have authority over the terms and conditions, all before Article 50 is invoked. Personally, being one who is now called a Hard Brexiteer, my opinion is that our exit is based on a Tabula Rasa and with that clean slate a new relationship with Europe will organically emerge. If our Referendum result is allowed to be 'overturned' or completely distorted by Guyanan models, Brazilian Crimpers, Pimlico Plumbers, Liberal Lords and very much activist judges there will be a bigger anti-establishment backlash than was given by the Referendum itself. 

Jeremy Hunt, a person I am never usually in agreement with, was clear today on Andrew Marr in the Government's intention to invoke Article 50 by the end of March. Of course this will probably be scuppered  by the Supreme Court next month. May will then go to Parliament for the 'necessary' approval and invite suicidal northern Labour MPs and Liberal nonentities in the House of Lords to thwart her plans. A General Election will be called, Labour will be decimated, Nicola Sturgeon will continue to  howl for Independence and her non-existent place in Europe and Article 50 will be invoked, followed by a clearing of the Augean stables known as The House of Lords.

Why will all this happen? Because my local MP, a complete sycophant who had to extricate himself from Dodgy Dave's nether regions when he scarpered from Parliament, and also a staunch Rremainer until May took power, to my utter surprise is now four square behind a hard Brexit. That man has prescience and is now strategically seated in the Justice Department. May does not want to call a General Election before the boundaries are reorganised, but if she has to due to the anti-democratic shenanigans of the Establishment Remoaners, then she will have a very healthy working majority and those not shown retribution by the electorate will feel it when they seek any form of Office. 

Simples!

 

If only life was so simple.

Don’t forget the Tories promised a referendum as a tactical measure to encourage the Ultra Quitter Tory voter not to vote for UKIP. If an election is called without article 50 passing through the commons, so many UQT’s will vote UKIP, the Tories would consider decimation a good result.

Plus, don’t forget, a lot of the quitters have apparently changed their mind. The majority of the country, IE. the voters in a general election are in favour of  remaining.

I like the way that the leave campaigners all campaigned for the sovereignty of the British Parliament, then vehemently complain when three senior judges rule in favour of the sovereignty of the British Parliament!

Huge - I know what you mean - but i think they were campaigning over British sovereignty and the right of HMG to lead and govern the country  - and if you dont like what they are doing you would vote them out - as opposed to needing to lobby all the EU member states assuming they agree with you -  to change EU legislation and then let that trickle down to national governments - 

that the rest of us were Europhiles like him, he did hang himself out to be dried. As it happens, he cut and ran as soon as the result came in. Dodgy Dave's promise was one made with the backing of Parliament by a majority of 6/1 when they were asked if there should be a Referendum. No ifs, no buts, we're OUT!

Now, the Remoaners argument lies as to what form of Brexit we should have, who should have authority over the terms and conditions, all before Article 50 is invoked. Personally, being one who is now called a Hard Brexiteer, my opinion is that our exit is based on a Tabula Rasa and with that clean slate a new relationship with Europe will organically emerge. If our Referendum result is allowed to be 'overturned' or completely distorted by Guyanan models, Brazilian Crimpers, Pimlico Plumbers, Liberal Lords and very much activist judges there will be a bigger anti-establishment backlash than was given by the Referendum itself. 

Jeremy Hunt, a person I am never usually in agreement with, was clear today on Andrew Marr in the Government's intention to invoke Article 50 by the end of March. Of course this will probably be scuppered  by the Supreme Court next month. May will then go to Parliament for the 'necessary' approval and invite suicidal northern Labour MPs and Liberal nonentities in the House of Lords to thwart her plans. A General Election will be called, Labour will be decimated, Nicola Sturgeon will continue to  howl for Independence and her non-existent place in Europe and Article 50 will be invoked, followed by a clearing of the Augean stables known as The House of Lords.

Why will all this happen? Because my local MP, a complete sycophant who had to extricate himself from Dodgy Dave's nether regions when he scarpered from Parliament, and also a staunch Rremainer until May took power, to my utter surprise is now four square behind a hard Brexit. That man has prescience and is now strategically seated in the Justice Department. May does not want to call a General Election before the boundaries are reorganised, but if she has to due to the anti-democratic shenanigans of the Establishment Remoaners, then she will have a very healthy working majority and those not shown retribution by the electorate will feel it when they seek any form of Office. 

Simples!

 N

If only life was so simple.

Don’t forget the Tories promised a referendum as a tactical measure to encourage the Ultra Quitter Tory voter not to vote for UKIP. If an election is called without article 50 passing through the commons, so many UQT’s will vote UKIP, the Tories would consider decimation a good result.

Plus, don’t forget, a lot of the quitters have apparently changed their mind. The majority of the country, IE. the voters in a general election are in favour of  remaining.

"The najority of the country are in favour of remaining."

Now that really is a very bold statement!

Huge posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Chris, thanks, yes I had seen that before... I couldn't help thinking what a load of rubbish    ... I had to lookup to see what the Health Lottery was...

Isn't that the fact that the quality of healthcare depends on the postcode in which you live?

Oh, no, that's the postcode lottery isn't it? ...

Err, I think I might be getting a little confused here!  

Ah, finally worked it out...

It's about Brexit isn't it: Since no-one who voted for it knew what it actually was, then that must be the National Lottery!

Apart from its the Health Lottery - not the National Lottery