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

MrsGrey

Supreme Court upholds judgement of High Court.

According to the constitution, an Act of Parliament is needed to authorise the govt to trigger Article 50.


So far so as it was before.

But the new bit is that the govt doesn't have to consult the devolved administrations.

ASLEFshrugged

I foresee another Scottish independence referendum looming on the horizon and this time the SNP might get the result they want.

Interesting times we live in....

MrsGrey

I wonder how much it cost the govt to appeal that?

IronHerb

Nothing. Cost us a few bob though. ;hmm

MrsGrey

Who's 'us'?

IronHerb

The people.

MrsGrey

I'm not of that mindset, tbh. 'Taxpayers money' etc.

It's only our money until we've paid our taxes.

Then it's the govt's money.

Tomw85

I was never our money, gone before it even hits your account. Unless you are self employed and have to do your own tax returns...

AdMeus_CaputFilius

I am wondering when one of the news jurno's is actually going to ask the one question that Labour, Lib Dems, SNP et al who want conditions attached to triggering article 50 can't answer.

The EU have already made their position clear - nothing will be on the table at the start and there are some things they will not agree to, so if you attach a conditions for negotiations as part of the article 50 bill which the EU refuse to discuss or entertain, where does that leave things?

Aslef - SNP are treading a very thin line with an independence vote, I was in Falkirk last week and this obviously came up during a lunch time discussion. Interestingly about six out of ten of those in the room who voted to remain said they would vote to stay with the UK as they felt the benefits they got from the UK Devo Max deal they currently had was better than they would get from the EU - also they were wary of joining the EU as it was clear (despite what Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP said) that this could not happen until after the UK Exit and Scottish independence, and they would have to do it as a new member - not walking into the UK seat and agreements, so they would be getting the Euro and everything being an EU member entailed (including paying towards the Euro zone debt and bailouts), with the ruling bodies (EU Parliament and Commission) being further away than Westminster and Scotland having a lot less influence. Also what would happen with the borders and people who crossed it daily for work. One even posed the question that if several areas clearly had a high level of votes to stay in the UK (not wanting independence) would the SNP allow them to stay and breakaway, using the argument the SNP has for leaving the UK (majority vote to remain in the EU).

PrestonHammer

It would be 8 years before Scotland could join the EU and even then I think Spain would block it just in case the Catalans and Basques decided to follow suit.

claretandbluesky

The SNP will simply leave the threat hanging for the moment and wait and see what deal is reached (if any) and how the UK begins to look, if the UK becomes a regressive nation with economy shrinking, unemployment rising and trade diminishing it will most certainly call another referendum, should however a deal be found in which the UK at least retains it's current level of economy and outlook then it will recognise it would be hard pushed to win a vote. If they call the vote too soon and lose as people want to wait and see they will have moved too soon and lost the opportunity to act once the new UK outlook is established.

If brexit goes ahead the UK as it stood on June 22nd may have had it's course changed completely for generations to come, and as Phillip Hammond remarked a whole new model may need to be found. Despite all the spin which will be put on it in these times when the politics is taking centre stage the outlook will be clear to see, then they will make a call on whether to have a vote. I don't think we can refuse them as the union will have been demonstrated to have been significantly changed from the one they were previously part of and we obviously cannot claim once you enter a union of countries you remain forever as we just voted out of one, and as many leave voters quite reasonably suggested they did so because the union they joined changed course.

I was against Scotland leaving the United kingdom but would have a lot of sympathy with them should they hold another and would wish them well on their own.

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

What a game eh?

simonc

But out was the popular vote ;biggrin

grey_til_I_dye

Not in our house... ;angry

MrsGrey

simonc said:

But out was the popular vote ;biggrin

And, erm .. what?

NEoldiron

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38747979

She really does make me want to vomit. ;angry

Dodger58

She really does make me want to vomit. ;angry

Why? As this is surely what shoe should be doing ...

The line that would make you agree with you is

"a man who today she will flatter"

, but that is Laura Kuennsberg's interpretation and quite at odds with

"she has said she "won't be afraid" to speak candidly to Mr Trump on matters where they disagree"

But then that appears to be the BBC's role ...

NEoldiron

Dodger, yeah, right ;hmm

ASLEFshrugged

Kuenssberg is getting a bit of a rep for for ''creative'' journalism.....

MrsGrey

That's an odd article.

Is it meant to be a news report but with a separate bit under her byline that is an opinion piece?

It's rather unclear.

I have no problem with journalist giving their own interpretations and views but the article must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than news.

I think that is one of the disadvantages (or perhaps weaknesses) of web newspapers. In the olden days of print newspaper, the news was on a page labelled news. The opinions and debate-type stuff was further back in the paper, on pages clearly labelled as such.

That distinction has blurred with digital news sites, when the 'front page' can have all kinds of stuff on it.

OutcastLondoner

It's a sidebar with her analysis, not unlike what they do during broadcasts.

BBC used to have a more distinct style for the sidebars which they seem to have changed, making it more confusing.

Opinion on websites is still in the opinion section and is usually labelled as such but yes they promote it more on the front page than before. But I don't think many people actually ever go to the front page - they read what links people share with them, which is often opinion.

MrsGrey

outcast ;ok re the sidebar thing. That's what it seemed like, only the layout wasn't clear.

Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear - the Opinion pieces are always identified as such, just not always noticeable unless you actually look/check.

But I don't think many people actually ever go to the front page - they read what links people share with them, which is often opinion.

;nonono

I'm a minority, then.

;hmm Can I get a grant?

IronHerb

Don't go to the US.

Dodger58

Or you could meet:



Apologies for second posting, but I couldn't resist it.

thornburyiron

(reply to C+B on American Election thread)
If you're referring to the Supreme Court appeal there's a world of difference. When you have 11 judges, 8 of whom are strongly pro Europe, there's obviously going to be suspicion. if as they claimed they were only ruling on a point of law how come only those 8 saw the law that way.
It's little wonder that people are suspicious of the judiciary.

MrsGrey

thornbury, if there weren't different opinions on how the law was interpreted and applied in individual cases, we wouldn't need courts or lawyers.

NEoldiron

Thorn, perhaps you'd prefer something like this:

https://www.nknews.org/2014/07/how-law-and-order-works-in-north-korea/

MrsGrey

Thorn, genuine question, as you have implied previously that you think the High Court judges in the first case, and now the Supreme Court judges, ruled against the govt because of their own personal views on the European Union.

Do you believe it is impossible for people (any - not just judges) to put aside their personal belief (be it political, religious, whatever) and do their jobs impartially and professionally?

thornburyiron

Genuine answer, I have absolutely no idea. For example this week the BMA have instructed hospitals and doctors not to refer to pregnant women as expectant mothers in case it may offend a transgender person. Words such as mum, dad, son, daughter, boy, girl etc etc are also not to be used.
I don't know how many doctors or nurses will follow this instruction. I was having tests in hospital on Friday and just in general chit chat jokingly referred to this when talking to the cardiologist as he mentioned he was an expectant father. We were talking about my activities with my grandchildren so that is why it came up.
He laughed and said it would depend upon who is listening.
So in answer to your question I don't know if people can ignore their own personal beliefs within their normal jobs.
Might be time to refer to Suzie on this.

MrsGrey

I think you have been reading too much Daily Mail, thorn.

That's really not an accurate representation at all.

I shall look up the facts for you, so you can be better informed when discussing it with your cardiologist in future. ;wink