Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Whirlwind wrote:

I don't remember that. I could be wrong, but I don't think it played out like that.

Here's a news link, took...all of 10 seconds to google.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7472449.stm

I do remember Gordon Brown signing the treaty in secret...

I see so he signed it in secret but someone took the issue to Court for a referendum. That doesn't sound that secret to me!

I was wrong. I don't mind admitting that.

To clarify the Gordon Brown point, yes we knew he signed it, but when I say in secret, he was anxious to avoid his face in the right wing papers with him signing the treaty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
But that's the thing, The EU have said no negotiations until we trigger the leaving process, which we can't do until people know what is going on. It's catch 22.

I just hope that this goes through quickly and that parliament follow the will of the referendum. Because that was what decided. You can't piss and moan about how small the majority was because that is how we decide how things get done here. Whether it is by 1 vote or 10,000,000. Whoever is ahead at the end wins.

What I wanted to say. Have an exalt!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It makes zero sense to go into negotiation and tell the other side what you're going to negotiate for before you even enter the room.

Actually you have to do that so that they know you're looking to negotiate. Otherwise you show up to an empty room.

And the fact that England would have to negotiate is pretty much a foregone conclusion, if only to extricate itself from the EU. There are, after all, all those rights that have to be stripped away from UK citizens and (LOL) returned to them by parliament.

And of course they're going to negotiate harshly. That said that even before you had your non legally binding referendum on it. But some of you loudly, and drunkenly, told them to go to hell, you were the British Empire and the world would bow before you once more, Boris says so.

Hows that going, by the way? Pound is down to what now?

What rights are being stripped away now? All of the EU rights are already part of UK law with various statutes. Most of the time our law is better than what the EU requires. They even said that all EU law will automatically become Uk law upon leaving and we can look at it later if we wish, because of Parliamentary Sovereignty and all that.

Just because we leave the EU, it doesn't mean we are going to turn into airstrip one.

But the EU can't be too much of an arse about it, because several other countries are already on the verge of having their own referendums to leave. The EU doing harsh things will only add fuel to the fire.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Well, me and my brother have just had a blazing row over our opinions on this court decision and I'm officially done with him. If I have to avoid Christmas dinner to avoid him so be it.

Surely that's a good news Brexit story. "Marriage and family councillors report record profits as family tear themselves apart over Brexit"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

To clarify the Gordon Brown point, yes we knew he signed it, but when I say in secret, he was anxious to avoid his face in the right wing papers with him signing the treaty.

You mean like the Daily Mail which promotes bigotry through targeting foreign drivers using mobile phones (ignoring any British ones) or promoting unethical methods of age determination on asylum seekers. I can't possibly imagine why any sensible person would want to be associated with such rhetoric!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Also, most of us Brexiters don't care about being worse off. I've been poor for years, leaving can't make me any poorer!

You should be more worried than most though. If you're on 30k a year means a few less nice things if. Inflation on essentials rockets upwards. For those on minimum wage (or less) as more cuts are implemented on services and bare essentials go up then that will make life even tougher, because there is less luxury expenditure that can be reduced.

 SirDonlad wrote:
I'm wont to agree, but i'm hoping that bothering my MP about respecting the will of the people (the referendum was basicly a trial run of an alternative voting system) will make the process a 'rubber-stamp' scenario, but i just know that it will be yet another round of vote-trading and 'remain' based agitation for political capital.
The MP's know that going against the referendum result will give them huge problems come next election day - my question is will their commitment to democracy get overridden by lust for influence and funding?

It depends on what constituency the MP is in. Remember that while 51.8% of people voted Leave, the distribution was quite various. My own constituency voted over 55% Remain, for example. In the case of a general election, it is reasonably likely that a Remain MP will be elected. Obviously there are similar Leave constituencies, where a Leaver probably will be elected.

The swing constituencies are where the tough decisions will be taken. Simply put, if you want to stand in a constituency that was roughly 50/50 split on the referendum, you will want to find out how people's mood has changed since June 23.

The worry for Leavers is that in general the mood has changed slightly against Brexit, making it less lethal to stand on the Remain plank, so it is not unlikely that a Remain parliament could be elected. In this case, given that Parliament is sovereign, and represents the will of the people (we can all argue with that, of course, e.g. 13% vote for UKIP resulted in them gaining one isngle seat...) it would be entirely reasonable for the new Parliament to ignore the 2016 referendum result and refuse to activate Article 50.

BTW, someone above asked what would happen if Theresa May selects pro-Remain candidates for all the constituencies. This isn't possible because each constituency local party selects its own candidate.

What she can do, though, is to make it official Conservative Party policy to Leave, and then deny Central Office support to any local party office that doesn't follow suit. Her decision on this, though, will also be complicated by the fact that the general public mood has changed since June. I imagine she is sweating bullets ATM, because while UKIP have got themselves disorganised, the anti-EU wing of the Tories is still alive and well. The whole referendum plan was Cameron's attempt to make the Eurosceptics shut up, so it is ironic to see May caught in the same trap despite having profited from the debacle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
Is it even still legal to call a general election?

Not since the act that fixed terms to five years.

 welshhoppo wrote:
What rights are being stripped away now? All of the EU rights are already part of UK law with various statutes. Most of the time our law is better than what the EU requires. They even said that all EU law will automatically become Uk law upon leaving and we can look at it later if we wish, because of Parliamentary Sovereignty and all that.

Other than of course maybe the most important - those related to the ECJ.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
What rights are being stripped away now? All of the EU rights are already part of UK law with various statutes. Most of the time our law is better than what the EU requires. They even said that all EU law will automatically become Uk law upon leaving and we can look at it later if we wish, because of Parliamentary Sovereignty and all that.

Other than of course maybe the most important - those related to the ECJ.

Which only applies to EU law anyway, so there is no loss there.

 welshhoppo wrote:
What rights are being stripped away now? All of the EU rights are already part of UK law with various statutes. Most of the time our law is better than what the EU requires.

That companies may not discriminate against their employees based on religion, race, or gender comes from EU statutes, not UK law.

Victims rights (as only Scotland mirrored this EU regulation in it's own laws).

 welshhoppo wrote:

They even said that all EU law will automatically become Uk law upon leaving and we can look at it later if we wish, because of Parliamentary Sovereignty and all that.

No, they wont. Parliament gets to pick and choose what stays and what goes. And the Tory back bench is trying to make it so that ALL EU laws must go within 5 years regardless.

Yeah, that is never going to happen. I'm fairly certain May has already said that and made it clear.

Also, you are referring to the Equality Act 2010, which merely combined a tonne of previous legislation from the 1970s onwards. Not much actually changed in it. But British law was better than EU law for some time.

If you want to know the ins and outs of the citizen's rights that would be deprived by May unilaterally declaring Article 50 you should read the detailed judgement and obiter dicta of the case, because that is what it was about.

Here is a top line explanation from the BBC.

The BBC wrote:What the ruling says
It is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that Kings' or Queens' powers cannot be used by the government via the Royal Prerogative to change or do away with rights under British law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so. The court looked at examples ranging from the 1600s to the 1970s Laker Airways legal battle.
Parliament had a vote on the UK joining the European Union back in the 1970s, so there is no convention of the Royal Prerogative being used in legislation relating to the European Union.
Allowing MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal at the end of the negotiations would not amount to parliamentary approval because once Article 50 is triggered there is no way that the UK will not leave the EU, and in doing so existing laws will be changed.
David Davis points out that MPs voted by six to one for the referendum to be held, but the judgement says that the referendum bill, and background briefings, made clear that the referendum was advisory rather than mandatory. So even though MPs voted for the referendum, the way it was worded did not hand over the authority to trigger Article 50, in its view.

I've already read the case, rather briskly so I may have missed a few things.

But the judgement does say right at the start that they are only discussing a question of law (Royal prerogative and repealing an act of Parliament) and that they are not concerned about the potential use of the Royal Perogative. Just whether or not it can be used.

Exactly so. The judgement says Royal Prerogative may not be used to deprive citizens of their Rights without a debate in Parliament.

Since activating Article 50 will result in citizens being deprived of various rights, Parliament must be consulted and the PM cannot carry on her plan of declaring it unilaterally.

The easy way to resolve this is for the government to bring in a simple bill to activate Article 50. If that failed, I think a general election would be necessary.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Also, most of us Brexiters don't care about being worse off. I've been poor for years, leaving can't make me any poorer!

I'm sure that slogan would have made for a pretty interesting (if short) leave campaign.

All the joy in my heart from the referendum result has gone. It's been replaced by a terrible depression. Knowing now that my vote meant nothing and that we were never going to be allowed to leave the EU is killing me. Because even if we somehow get around this dirty rotten attempt at Remainer sour grapes they're only going to find something else to stop it over. I just wished for once the remain side could have the decency to fight fair.

In your world apparently it is unfair to obey the law.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Also, most of us Brexiters don't care about being worse off. I've been poor for years, leaving can't make me any poorer!

Oh it can certainly make all of us a lot poorer; cost of living rises (food*, rent, electricity*, gas*, tax), reduced social services, higher public transport rates, and so on.
It just means you might go from having £0 in your bank account a few days before pay day, to running our a week before pay day, and having to drop from own-brand beans to fighting people for the whoopsies isle.


*These involve some sort of import component so will have to rise anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
All the joy in my heart from the referendum result has gone. It's been replaced by a terrible depression. Knowing now that my vote meant nothing and that we were never going to be allowed to leave the EU is killing me. Because even if we somehow get around this dirty rotten attempt at Remainer sour grapes they're only going to find something else to stop it over. I just wished for once the remain side could have the decency to fight fair.

Then do the democratic thing, and petition your MP to vote the way you want them to. If you can win them over, you've done your bit. If more people petition them to vote the other way, then you can't say that your MP was ignoring the will of the people.

This really sounds like what a lot of Leavers were complaining about from the Remainers after the referendum.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In your world apparently it is unfair to obey the law.

I'm also tired of having to watch you and other remainers try to justify all this.

I should have realised earlier that the 'advisory nature' of the referendum basically meant 'heads we win tails you lose' in favour of remain. Because it meant that either remain win the vote in which case that's the end of the matter, or leave win the vote, in which case the pro remain parliament get to go 'actually no wait, we looked it over and we've decided that we won't be doing brexit anyway'. Again, we were completely stitched up.

It is ironic to want to pull out of the EU because of wanting Parliament to have more sovereignty, then want Parliament to have less sovereignty in order to pull out of the EU.

It is important to understand that the case has legal and constitutional implications that are separate to and extend beyond the issue of activating Article 50, and the results matter from this angle.

As for Article 50, May could simply accept the court's decision and bring in a bill to do it.

She has chosen instead to fight it up, mistakenly IMO since the legal arguments seem clear and the Plaintiff is supported by some very heavy weight law firms.

If May loses in the Supreme Court she will have to accept the decision. If she wins, the Plaintiff will simply bring the action up to the European Court of Justice.

It would be simpler just to bring in a bill, but that risks the bill failing, in which case May will have to hold a general election to give her a Parliament that will pass it.

These are the kind of fallout that is happening because the Leave campaign never bothered to plan for winning, and the Remain campaign never bothered to plan for losing.

The advisory nature of the referendum meant the question was really:

"Should Parliament debate leaving the EU?", The answer was yes, so parliament will debate it.



I also don't buy this justification for May not discussing the plan with anyone for a few reasons; I suspect she doesn't actually have a plan, and being pragmatic she's going to have to tell it to the EU negotiators sooner rather than later. If she's only got 2 years to agree a decision, wasting 2 months coming up with a plan is stupid, as is starting with the obviously ridiculous bargaining position. The only chance she's got of getting anything in 2 years is to start with a fair end-game proposal which the EU can agree to instead of wasting the first 18 months haggling over something they'll never get.

Parliamentary approval needs to at least know what they are going to be approving. You wouldn't sign off on, say, a new house with a document that said "New house. No details because I don't want to hurt my bargaining position with the joiners".

What May has said so far is part of the problem; she's wanting 2 clearly contradictory things: No freedom of movement and full common market access. She's never going to be given both of them, without some major concession somewhere (like quadrupling the EU payments) as doing so would undermine the entire EU and give the UK, which is no longer even a member, a better deal than everyone else.

Since what little plans she has mentioned are logically paradoxical, I can see why parliament wants to try and scrutinize it. Just because 51.8% of the voters said leave doesn't mean that parliament should ignore all of the evidence and pull the trigger on a shotgun pointed at their foot.

The reason she's fighting for the right to pull the trigger herself is because she knows her plan is going to get laughed out of parliament, because it's a joke.
So do you really want an un-elected Prime Minister to make decisions that she knows parliament would reject? Because if you do that, what else will you let her do without any approval? Repeal the Human Rights Act? Re-introduce the death penalty? Give herself a 5000% pay rise?

https://twitter.com/edlnews/status/794210699727749120/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw




Fair play to the lady, she's dealt with this quite well so far.

... modern life eh ?

I ranted a bit yesterday, but on reflection, I'm not that worried.

Article 50 will get invoked. May should have handled it better, but Parliament won't have the guts to block it, and even if they did, a GE would be called.

Never underestimate the Tories thirst for power, and the easiest way for them to smash Labour and gain a thumping majority is to run on a Article 50 ticket.

Labour are going nowhere with Corbyn, and UKIP will take support from them...

A glittering prize is being dangled before the Tories and true to form, they will take it.

Finally, I want Parliament to have its say, I demand it!

Because when A50 gets invoked, it will legitimize BREXIT and Remainers hopes of staying in will be dashed!

Quite possibly, the Remain side have done us Leavers a big favour....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In your world apparently it is unfair to obey the law.

I'm also tired of having to watch you and other remainers try to justify all this.

I should have realised earlier that the 'advisory nature' of the referendum basically meant 'heads we win tails you lose' in favour of remain. Because it meant that either remain win the vote in which case that's the end of the matter, or leave win the vote, in which case the pro remain parliament get to go 'actually no wait, we looked it over and we've decided that we won't be doing brexit anyway'. Again, we were completely stitched up.

I understand why you're mad, I was like that yesterday, but on reflection, BREXIT is still happening.

Labour are a shambles. UKIP's support will surge. And as I say above, the Tories will never walk away from the chance to gain a big majority from another GE. Their lust for power is to great, and running on a invoke A50 ticket gets them the prize....

Long term, this is good news for the Leave side.

Plus, you forget there are two sides in this negotiation. Parliament can demand X Y Z from May in the negotiations,

but if the EU says NON NEIN NYET, all the Parliamentry sovereingty in the world doesn't add up to a bucket of horsegak!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Long term, this is good news for the Leave side.

And bad for UK. But likely good for EU so let the UK burn.

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Long term, this is good news for the Leave side.

And bad for UK. But likely good for EU so let the UK burn.

It won't be that bad for the UK, but it definitely isnt good for the EU, the 2nd largest economy is walking out the door, so how is it going to fund the much poorer states?

 welshhoppo wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Long term, this is good news for the Leave side.

And bad for UK. But likely good for EU so let the UK burn.

It won't be that bad for the UK, but it definitely isnt good for the EU, the 2nd largest economy is walking out the door, so how is it going to fund the much poorer states?

Even without the UK the EU is still the second largest economy in the world. The economies of many of the poorer states are growing, especially in eastern europe.

Tory MP Stephen Phillips has resigned, citing irreconcilable policy differences with the government.

This obviously has to do with the Brexit situation and I think it probably is related to May's insistence on appealing the High Court decision. No self-respecting MP can accept that May should be allowed to ignore Parliament.

This cuts the Tory majority to 10 and forces a second by-election (Zac Goldsmith being the other one.)

tneva82 wrote:
And bad for UK. But likely good for EU so let the UK burn.

Seriously?

OK, you can go join the others on my ignore list.

I am more and more convinced that the referendum vote and the ensuing fallout is some kind of Machiavellian plot by the tories to...feth themselves?

Seriously though. I would love to see the minute of the meeting rubber stamping the referendum process.

I said right at the start back in February that Cameron only cobbled up the referendum to try and shut up the "bastards" and make UKIP go away.

It is now completely clear that no-one on either side made any plans for what to do in case of a Leave vote.

 welshhoppo wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Long term, this is good news for the Leave side.

And bad for UK. But likely good for EU so let the UK burn.

It won't be that bad for the UK, but it definitely isnt good for the EU, the 2nd largest economy is walking out the door, so how is it going to fund the much poorer states?

Because the 2nd largest economy was actually the 8th net per-capita contributor (meaning 3rd last of all 10 net contributors)

So yes, it will be a hit, just not on the scale "2nd largest" would suggest.

In any case, the UK will still have to keep paying into the EU to keep market access, etc. so it may well be that budget-wise it works the same. Keep in mind that, for example, Norway contributes per capita roughly the same as the UK.

https://infacts.org/norwegians-pay-same-brits-eu-access/

I don't know if it is to be hoped or feared that the UK may end up with a Norway style deal.

However since the PM has put controlling immigration at priority one, I think the deal will be in between Norway's and Canada's.