The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

1565759616279

Comments

  • Swiss. If Parliament voted to trigger article 50 would that be OK? as you seem to suggest that politicians are far more intelligent and moral than the swivel eyed frothy mouthed masses. From this premise I assume that if Trump becomes president of the US, as leader of the most powerful country in the World, he will stand head and shoulders above the rest of us in all respects.
  • Lots of comments to reply to so will try to sum up in one post. If you feel I haven't responded to anything then feel free to ask me again.

    Mrs Grey I will start with you. In my opinion there are two different things happening for workers and I may not have been clear in my earlier posts. If I split into two different groups I think we may be on more common ground.


    Working conditions - I would much rather be working today than 50 plus years ago as I do feel we have better working conditions and rights.
    Working culture - On the other hand I also accept that the work life balance has got worse. Most families need two incomes now to survive and there is ever increasing pressure to work late or stay connected through technology which detracts from our day to day lives.

    A quick link to gov figures showing a big decline in worker deaths compared to 50 years ago - http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/fatalinjuries.pdf

    I was commenting more on the conditions not culture. Maybe I was being too simplistic, but I would hope all agree there has been improvement there.


    Yeold I do actually believe that services like transport should be government run so that there can be national and local infrastructure put in place that links in and works well. The only problem is if the Government can do this better that the private sector. I think that there is a lot of waste in public services, but at the same time key infrastructure and services should be outside of markets/profitability making and in the interests of the nation. However would we all be prepared to pay the tax needed for these to be run how we would want?


    Madcap I wouldn't trust me either :wink:


    Finally, Swiss what minority??? I am pretty sure it was the majority that voted to leave. Far too often those 17.5m people are dismissed and uneducated idiots that got it wrong just because those that wanted to remain don't like the outcome. If I was an MP it would be remiss of me not to consider how my constituents voted when it comes to me casting my own vote.
  • edited November 2016
    Madcap

    Two options:
    • click the quote and then edit out the irrelevant bits
    • copy the bit you want to quote, paste it into your post, highlight it and click the icon that looks like a speech box. You'd need to add the user's name.
    It's only really an issue when someone has written a long post and that all gets quoted.
  • edited November 2016
    Tom, the minority of the population that voted to leave, is what I imagine swiss was referring to.

    On the MP question, I commented at the time, that if referendum votes were mapped into constituencies, I'm not sure the result would have been the same.

    I expect someone soon will revisit the referendum results and attempt to make a 'constituency map' - I would be interested to see which side had a majority in that scenario.
  • Yes, it will be interesting to see what the results do show especially as they are looking to change the constituencies at the moment.
  • I almost hope parliament votes against triggering article 50. The next election would be fun. UKIP would make huge gains. I can see Nigel Farage as our next prime minister welcoming the first lady, Melania, with a sly little kiss and a wink as her and Donald bound gracefully off the steps of Airforce 1. Fantastic.
    ;wahoo
  • IronHerb said:

    Swissiron said:

    Fantastic news, now MPs must vote with their intelligence and their conscience and not pretend that the febrile response of a minority of the people constitute anything like the strength and authority of a Sovereign Parliament

    Sorry Swiss but you have put MP's and intelligence in the same sentence.
    Not sure I understand. ;hmm
    I understand your point completely. MPs are often far too representative of the general public, although with more delusions of grandeur and pomposity, enhanced proclivity for vice, and a more questionable moral compass.

    But I refer primarily to the golden thread of political principle that runs through Britain's history, which is the sovereignty of Parliamentary decisions, won in public opposition to Royal and aristocratic privilege, even if this has to be expressed sometimes by venal and dislikable people.

    But it's the same as that other great British tradition, that of trial by a jury of ordinary people "good and true". Its the same idea with exactly the same drawbacks but the principle remains strong when people are called upon to respect and implement it.

    That's why I will have no difficulty at all with the Brexit decision once Parlament has had its rightful say and if it confirms the referendum opinion. If Parliament votes accordingly I for one will immediately shut up about Brexit and pull hard for its success.
  • edited November 2016
    Fair play Swiss.

    Either way we are going to face tough negotiations with the EU so even if we are negotiating to stay or leave we will be better served by doing so as a united country.

    If the vote is to stay then I would accept that and back it as it is the division which could hurt us more in the long term.
  • From the High Court judgement today, referring to the Referendum Act

    hc 50 judgement
  • Swiss, Tom ;clap ;ok

    However, thank god for the supremacy of the law and not the likes of Arron Banks.
  • Yep, where would we be without the supremacy of law. ;ok
  • Madcap, who would produce the electricity to run the mass transport?
  • Fantastic news but of course not a decisive blow to brexit. The papers and UKIP will attempt brow beat the MP's into voting with their constituencies rather than with their own conscience, but I fear the stakes are too high for them to acquiesce.

    The happiest person may just be Theresa May as despite what she may say publicly she cannot really lose as if they vote and she wins then she can say without doubt she now has the clear mandate and support of the people and parliament, if she loses and it gets setback she can act as appalled and is not the one driving the country over the cliff anymore.

    This referendum was political in its inception and remains so now, the politics just became up for grabs again however. Some would say that the problem should never have been created and we just needed create a political scenario to correct Camerons massive miscalculation, maybe this is the first step to doing so, maybe not, but the good thing either way is we begin to understand again that democracy did not end on the 23rd of June and the parliamentary sovereignty which was claimed to be fought for survives.

  • edited November 2016
    also, and entertainingly, if the government loses its High Court appeal, at present the only legal recourse to overturn the judgment would be to appeal to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, made up of the top judges from all the Member States of the EU. It's a beautiful irony that Europe could therefore be called on either to confirm UK parliamentary sovereignty by agreeing to overturn Brexit, or destroy UK Parliamentary Sovereignty by granting the government's wish to proceed with it.

    I wish I had made that one up. Sunds like a job for Boris before he goes to the stocks...
  • People. If you, I, Mrs Grey and Yeold, coincidentally in the days of old, were out in the virgin forest and came to a river we were determined to cross as food and other good stuffs were on the other side would we:

    A: Turn back and perish.

    B: Wait until a government was invented to pass a law that made the building of bridges legal.

    C: Co-operate as rational thinking human beings and look to build a bridge out of wood from said forest.

    Man, from the dawn of time, has co-operated in mutual beneficial ways to overcome problems. Its what we do. Or are you telling me that the government invented electricity. All great inventions and innovations are made in the minds of men. Without laws and governments are you telling me that people will stop thinking? Or are you telling me that without laws and governments we would all prefer to stumble around in the dark. If anything laws, red tape and governments stifle creativity, condemn and vilify "madmen" and visionaries as charlatans.
  • Claretandbluesky not sure I can agree with your final point "but the good thing either way is we begin to understand again that democracy did not end on the 23rd of June and the parliamentary sovereignty which was claimed to be fought for survives."

    There was a democratic vote, ok the result may not have been one that you, or 48% of the people that voted wanted, but it was still a vote put to the people. So why do you think that democracy ended on the 23rd?
  • edited November 2016

    All great inventions and innovations are made in the minds of men.

    I'll just leave that there.
  • edited November 2016
    Tomw85 said:



    There was a democratic vote, ok the result may not have been one that you, or 48% of the people that voted wanted, but it was still a vote put to the people. So why do you think that democracy ended on the 23rd?

    Because we have a parliamentary democracy, not a direct democracy.

    Yet the current government wanted to act in a way that did not accord with the rules of our parliamentary democracy.

  • C&B, surely in terms of what you describe as democratic, a straight yes or no referendum is as democratic as it gets. How is that undemocratic. And also on the point of parliamentary sovereignty, the government were elected on the promise of a referendum, and also promised to act immediately on the result. The government were voted in on this basis, surely a decision by three judges to countermand this "transaction" between the people and its government is wholly undemocratic.
  • No, its not undemocratic, madcap.

    It is upholding democracy, by ensuring that the PM doesn't abuse his/her power.

    The govt is elected on many promises, but if they make promises they can't keep without breaking the law, we shouldn't give them the not to just go ahead and do it anyway.

  • Swiss - sorry to disappoint but the UK Supreme Court is the highest court in the UK and the EU Courts of Justice has no place in the determination of constitutional issues in any sovereign state within the Union.
  • MrsGrey said:

    All great inventions and innovations are made in the minds of men hupeoplekind.

    I'll just leave that there.
    Fixed it.
  • MrsGrey said:

    All great inventions and innovations are made in the minds of men.

    I'll just leave that there.
    I don`t understand the significance. Are you saying that governments and states and laws are always right as they were conceived in the minds of men?? Like slavery, and capital punishment, and the thumb screw, and napalm and flatpack furniture.

    We don`t always get it right. The path of human endeavour and consciousness is forever advancing and developing. I hope and think that one day the World will be truly peaceful, truly free, and truly equal. There is only one "doctrine" I have come across so far where these are its only declared objectives. No fudges, no qualifications. Peace, freedom and equality for all men. Simple.
  • The vote as I understand it was of an entirely advisory nature and this was included in the referendum act, it could have been made explicit that it was not advisory but was chosen not to. As an advisory referendum it presented the countries wishes, which was of a very slender majority. That advice was designed to be for the parliament which alone has the ability to enact new laws.

    The ruling today points this out categorically, which is also why TM will be making a pointless appeal. Parliament has not stated it intends to go against the advice of the referendum but that it has so little information at present with regard what Brexit would like, as the prime minister has been more interested in brexit means brexit and playing to the home crowd than seeking to bring everyone together.

    During the forthcoming debate parliament will have to endorse the advice of the referendum or make a very good and coherent case as to why it is not with the 1.9% majority and is taking a different course. But this was always the nature of the vote, the vote could have been made binding but was not done so, it was advisory and the advice was for our sovereign parliament, they must now consider it and vote upon it, something up to now has been not allowed.

    This brings me to the question Tom has written about my suggestion that democracy should not have ended on 23rd of June. The reason I suggested that some feel it should is that they wish that one very close vote to trump everything else and to be the end of it. I Democracy is never ending however and that vote is the first step, it then gets debated at the next level, and then the next which is the lords and then it gets passed. A good thing to remember is that the Lords (love em or hate em) was designed to be a safeguard against an irrational parliament, and in the case of referendum parliament should be the same safe guard, but many wish that referendum trump everything and need not be scrutinised after such a vote. When in fact this vote probably more than any other has room and need for scrutiny. If we agree with democracy we must surely agree with all aspects and it's ongoing nature. If brexit gets through parliament, and the lords then not even the staunchest remainer can complain, but where it stands at present the debate has not properly been had away from headlines and buses in truth.
  • MrsGrey said:

    No, its not undemocratic, madcap.

    It is upholding democracy, by ensuring that the PM doesn't abuse his/her power.

    The govt is elected on many promises, but if they make promises they can't keep without breaking the law, we shouldn't give them the not to just go ahead and do it anyway.

    "breaking the law" in this instance is surely how the law is interpreted. If these politicians are SO clever surely they thought they were acting in good faith and within the law. Surely they wouldn`t have the temerity to flout there own laws.
  • edited November 2016
    Let them have a vote ? what are they going to do, ignore the majority and watch their vote plummet in the next general election its the equivalent of Political suicide to vote against it. The only ones who would do it and get away with it would be the SNP as they would just throw the line out they are representing Scottish interests.

  • All great inventions and innovations are made in the minds of men.

    Peace, freedom and equality for all men. Simple.

    I was subtly alluding to your repeated use of the word 'men', without wishing to make a big thing of it. Fail. ;doh

  • Ok first article I've seen, indicating this could trigger a general election..

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37861456
  • It will be fascinating yeold and I wouldn't want to be an MP who has to decide which way to go. I do not feel the Govt could win a free vote today. They possibly could if providing assurances and detailing what brexit they are seeking. TM could have done this but instead disregarded the 49% by saying brexit means brexit and anything else is trying to subvert democracy, we will do as we like. Well the law have stated today that she can't. MP's will not block it for fun and if she grows up and acts like a stateswoman rather than a cheerleader for the crowd ( see her tory conference speech) she may be able to win them over.

    It is a red herring in my book the line about not making her negotiating strategy public as we all know what it is and so do the EU. We want as much access as possible but need concessions on immigration, for which we will pay in another way. We have so little leverage that the idea that we say we wont buy cheese and BMW'S unless we get everything we want is ludicrous.
  • The thing is the majority of Parliament will vote against it and Brexit will never happen.

    ITK ;cool
This discussion has been closed.