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

MrsGrey

I posted this earlier, from the written judgement

Note: the second paragraph.

There was also an additional para not copied then because it wasn't related o the point under discussion - I will see if I can find it - which compares the legislation that set up this referendum with an earlier one, in which there was specific language to say that it was binding, ensuring that it was legally binding as distinct from non-binding on Parliament. (Remember, Parliament passed these laws, and would have been clear on whether they has passed a binding or non-binding law. And as they are not 'the government' they can do what they like, free from constraint by the govts promises. I would like to think they will weigh up the views of all the public as expressed through the voting, as well as what in their judgement is in the national interest.

MrsGrey said:

From the High Court judgement today, referring to the Referendum Act

NEoldiron

Thorn, I've just re-read the leaflet and cannot understand for the life of me why anyone would actually vote Leave given all the positives of being in the EU.
Why would anyone want to throw away all the benefits in return for what, apart from the real risk and uncertainty of a worsening of the economy and all that entails.

Would you be prepared to tell me the reasons that caused you to vote leave?

Tomw85

What are these positives NE and how can you be sure that we won't be able to have similar if we leave?

NEoldiron

Tom, read the leaflet.

MrsGrey

c&b

Just a minor thing .. you refer to parliament and the House of Lords as if they are distinct. But they aren't. Parliament = House of Commons + House of Lords, and for a law to be passed it has to go through both upper and lower houses.

(I'm sure you knew that, and it was just your terminology.) ;hug

claretandbluesky

TM again this morning going for an all or nothing strategy, insisting it is about the referendum alone and not democratic process, using language that polarises again.

She will not see out 2017 yet alone get to 2020, not up to the job in my view as the she should be prioritising the rule of law and democracy over the referendum, although not everyone in the street will understand the difference she most certainly does and so to use the language she has indicates to me she has decided to fight for one side of the nation against the other rather than truly lead by seeking to unite.

If she states that she is wholly in favour of brexit on account of the referendum result and intends support that position vigorously, but also recognises that a part of Britains position in the world now and the past is because we do things properly, according to law and democratic process, expresses that this process and rule of law has a value and if discarded now will not retain any authority in the future and risks us becoming like nations we would not aspire to be.

She can take the politics out of the situation which I think is what is needed more than anything else at this time, by stating that although she may personally be in favour of brexit she is more in favour of retaining rule of law and recognises fully what the situation is with regard this vote regardless of all the things claimed about the referendum.

claretandbluesky

I did Mrs Grey, I have always understood the lords as the safety check against over zealous and gung ho MP's, to prevent an anything goes policy which could in theory happen with any Govt with a massive majority in the commons.

Although the lords are somewhat pompous in places they are an important part of the nations governing process. On this issue and I will stress 'at this point', if the commons were to vote to trigger I don't think the lords should prevent it.

NEoldiron

claretand blue
http://www.whu606.com/discussion/comment/833987/#Comment_833987 ;clap

Nigel Farage on the Andrew Marr show saying that if the Lords oppose/obstruct the procedure then it would be the end of the upper house - muppet. ;angry

Tomw85

NEoldiron said:

Tom, read the leaflet.

NE I was more interested to know what you saw as the positives for staying

SuzanneClaret

MrsGrey

suz ;lol

NEoldiron

Suze ;lol

Tom, here's the link if you couldn't be bovvered to find it yourself. The positives stated in the leaflet are the ones I refer to.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf


Pray, tell me the positives in leaving. ;hmm

claretandbluesky

That Suz is a work of genius!

MrsGrey

You have to question the govt.

They state that they believe that the best interests of the country are served by staying in the EU.

But they will bow to popular pressure, and do what they believe will harm the country.

You've got to ask - are they fit to be entrusted with the responsibility of running the country if they will act to knowingly damage it?

#onlyfollowingorders

IronHerb

Do they on point 1?

PrestonHammer

That isn't what Tomw85 asked though was it. What's with all the Bolshieness? Are you trying to insinuate that Tom is a bit thick by spelling the word bothered the way you spelled it?

MrsGrey

IronHerb said:

Do they on point 1?

Isn't that what they said throughout the referendum campaign?

NEoldiron

Preston the inference is all yours.
If I post a link which states the things which I refer to I'm not going to waste time paraphrasing them.

grey_til_I_dye

Mostly, this thread has been conducted in a good spirit.

Please let's not see things get personal.

Thanks.

MrsGrey

So not quite the will of the British people - more accurately, it is the will of some British people.

I accept that it is a (small) majority of those who voted, but lets not pretend it is anything other than the choice a minority of the population.

claretandbluesky

The individuals making up the Govt were allowed to campaign for their chosen side within the referendum so I guess we cannot say as a whole they said we would be better off remaining in the EU before the vote. What we can say however is that Theresa May did and that means she could very well fall into the scenario you point to Mrs Grey, and why I think she is not up to the task.

I think she needed to put fourth a narrative which acknowledged the deep divide on the subject and take a middle ground in which both sides at least felt she would have the nations interests at heart. She also needed set a tone with the EU which she began to do but then soured with her tory party speech. That speech was her downfall as she loved the applause in the room but failed to realise many outside were aghast. She has time to establish a new narrative but keeps passing the invitation up, she could have done so this week with the judges ruling but once again chose to say I am pushing ahead regardless. Not as bright as I had hoped, or poorly advised.

MrsGrey

c+b

MPs in the Tory party were allowed to choose sides, this is true.

But but it is very clear that 'the government' is distinct from the elected Tory MPs.

After an election, it is the leader of the majority party who is invited to 'form a government.'

It was this 'government' that promised to implement the results.

Dodger58

One thing that hasn't yet been raised (I think) is people's views on the way the EU has behaved since the referendum. The UK has actually been excluded from some meetings even though the UK Government has not yet triggered Article 50 - is that correct? Or if we do not leave should we be asking for the outcome of such meetings to placed on hold?

I have seen nothing in their behaviour that highlights to me what a good club the EU is to be a member of ...

MrsGrey

Dodger58 said:

The UK has actually been excluded from some meetings even though the UK Government has not yet triggered Article 50 - is that correct? ...

I'm not sure - the only mtg I can remember the UK being excluded from was the 2nd day of a leaders mtg, on the Tuesday after the referendum. At that point, the UK had voted out, the govt had ruled out any 2nd referendum, they had committed to exiting, and David Cameron had resigned. No new party leader/PM was in place.


The agenda for that 2nd day's discussions was how the remaining members would deal with the UK's decision to leave.

That doesn't seem an unreasonable exclusion, to me.

IronHerb

Thing is Dodger is that at a number of organisations they put you on gardening leave while you work your notice so that you don't mess things up in your last days.

Feels like the the UK may be on gardening leave as far as the EU is concerned.

MrsGrey

PM in the Sunday Telegraph: “Parliament voted to put the decision about our membership of the EU in the hands of the British people."


Erm, well, no they didn't.

Parliament voted for a measure that would enable them to gauge the opinion of those who wanted to express an opinion on the subject.


;quaver I just don't think you understand.

MrsGrey

Although, she had a history of playing to the Daily Mail gallery, so I suspect she does really understand but is choosing to say things that she knows will go down well with a certain demographic.

Which is not statesmanlike, or uniting the country, or taking seriously her responsibility to serve the nation (imo) but is playing politics.

thornburyiron

As does Corbin when he's playing to the guardian or Pravda.

MrsGrey

So do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing?

Dodger58

Mrs Grey, I am not sure how many as I have been travelling a lot recently, and whilst I recognise one of the meetings was for the EU to discuss a post Brexit EU, I think there have been others. However it is ironic that the EU feels it can exclude the UK even though we have yet to trigger Article 50, but the UK is not allowed to discuss it's post Brexit future with others until 2 years post Article 50 - they may be the rules/regulations we signed up to, but it doesn't appear at all even handed.