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.

This made me laugh -

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/794474117156237312

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

Yeah, if May doesn't cave on immigration, then she's going to have to take a deal that's worse than Norway, and seemingly Norway hate their deal as it is.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.)

That would be three by-elections/resignations in the first three months. Is that a record for a new PM? I suppose the only thing that is unfortunate is that he sounds more like one of the more moderate central Tories. Leaving and forcing a by-election may only end up with another MP whose ideas are to put those that speak out against Brexit into the Tower of London.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Darkjim wrote:
This made me laugh -

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/794474117156237312

Lol, well done BBC; glad to see they are sticking it to the ultra right Tories.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

You know there is only a known 37% of the population that want to go back to mythical glory days and ban anything from the 'evil' EU. There are some of us here still supportive of the EU!

This British constitution thing is very interesting

Apparently, Parliament may not have much of a say on BREXIT after all.

Yes, Parliament is sovereign, and a vote is needed to activate Article 50. No arguments there.

But under our constitution, Government ministers have a lot of latitude to carry out the duties of their office. They are still accountable to Parliament of course, but this normally happens after the event.

So, for example, the BREXIT minister does X Y Z during the negotiations....

He or She reports back to the HoC, and HoC says we wanted A B C.

If it wasn't in the Article 50 bill....

That doesn't excuse criminal behavior from the BREXIT minister, and yes, they have to report to Parliament on what they've done...

but the Commons should be very careful, because government could throw the rule book back at them, and certain events may already be a done deal...

Parliament can scrutinize, no question, but it may not be able to tell the government what they can do....

This was the point of the ruling, to ensure that the deal the Govt proposes reflects the deal best for the British people.

It was never a "ruse" to block Brexit, just one that makes sure it's the Brexit we actually want.
However, I was pretty disgusted by the rabid fury and death threats being posted all over the Internet of those who hadn't taken a moment to actually read what was going on, digest it and respond appropriately.

I'm not saying that reflects the general attitude of all Leavers, but it was a pretty poor showing, and those spouting off really need to get a grip of themselves.

I sincerely hope that those who sent Gina Miller those horrific statements are arrested and properly punished.
In the shadow of Jo Cox it's not inconceivable that some unhinged nut job tries to carry out one of those threats.

Why some Leavers think that threats and violence are the appropriate way to respond to this situation is beyond me tbh.

 r_squared wrote:
This was the point of the ruling, to ensure that the deal the Govt proposes reflects the deal best for the British people.

It was never a "ruse" to block Brexit, just one that makes sure it's the Brexit we actually want.
However, I was pretty disgusted by the rabid fury and death threats being posted all over the Internet of those who hadn't taken a moment to actually read what was going on, digest it and respond appropriately.

I'm not saying that reflects the general attitude of all Leavers, but it was a pretty poor showing, and those spouting off really need to get a grip of themselves.

I sincerely hope that those who sent Gina Miller those horrific statements are arrested and properly punished.
In the shadow of Jo Cox it's not inconceivable that some unhinged nut job tries to carry out one of those threats.

Why some Leavers think that threats and violence are the appropriate way to respond to this situation is beyond me tbh.

Totally agree. There is no room for threats against the people who brought the court case, and the Daily Mail headlines were a disgrace.

I have to hold up my hand and admit I was a bit tetchy yesterday, but on reflection, now that the heat has died down, this is actually good news for the BREXIT camp.

If Parliamentary sovereignty is what Parliament wants, give it to them. If they try to block A50, then they will be crushed at a general election.

Once the Article 50 bill is passed, let them watch on as the government ministers use their constitutional powers to plough their own path....

If they want the rulebook, give them the rulebook!

Best of all, and this is the bit I love Parliament can't really complain once ministers get to work after Parliament gives them the green light on A50, because there is a ton of historical precedence for this

The courts were quoting 1688 for Parliamentary sovereignty. Well, the government can quote 1815 and 1922 back at them if Parliament starts moaning.

1815 is the Congress of Vienna, and 1922 is after the Irish War of Independence. Parliament gave the green light for the government to act to sort these things out, but they didn't say what the government couldn't do.

I love the British constitution

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Somebody in the news made a brilliant point that only confirms what I've suspected: the Westminster elite is trying its best to subvert the will of the British people.

And this was the point:

When the Lisbon treaty went through, the Royal Perogative was used. Nobody gave two hoots about Parliament. Courts didn't over rule the goverment.

Hell, Parliament itself didn't lift a finger or even cared....

And yet, May tries to use the Royal Perogative to invoke A50, and all now it's all about Parliament, and high courts, and yadda yadda...

The double standards is sickening.

I remember that, but I couldn't get the time to find the sources.

You're absolutely right though. It's sickening.

I voted remain, But this dismays me. The vote was cast, they should get on with it.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Somebody in the news made a brilliant point that only confirms what I've suspected: the Westminster elite is trying its best to subvert the will of the British people.

And this was the point:

When the Lisbon treaty went through, the Royal Perogative was used. Nobody gave two hoots about Parliament. Courts didn't over rule the goverment.

Hell, Parliament itself didn't lift a finger or even cared....

And yet, May tries to use the Royal Perogative to invoke A50, and all now it's all about Parliament, and high courts, and yadda yadda...

The double standards is sickening.

I remember that, but I couldn't get the time to find the sources.

You're absolutely right though. It's sickening.

I voted remain, But this dismays me. The vote was cast, they should get on with it.

Did you stop reading after that post? Whirlwind debunked it here....

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 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.

What is it about this court ruling that seems to causing people difficulty in reading or understanding what's going on?

It's simple enough, Parliament is sacrosanct. BREXIT is not being blocked, but Govt must get parliaments assent on the deal they propose. FFS people, read before reacting.

 r_squared wrote:

Why some Leavers think that threats and violence are the appropriate way to respond to this situation is beyond me tbh.

It's not really surprising. Those who do that have much more in common with Extreme Right Wing than anything else.

And we all know how it ended for Germany before World War II with these kind of people.

Now that memory gets slowly clouded, it's rising again everywhere. Britain isn't an exception.

That people are less and less offended by that threat is the real trouble. History ends up repeating itself when men don't try to remember their former mistakes.

After having an inital fume about the court ruling, and calmed down its not all bad. The commons vote and as they want to keep there jobs there 99% likley to pass the autherization for artical 50.

Now my major concern is this bill will be law that means the lords will have to pass it as well and there are a lot of them who could scupper it and as they have nothing to lose it is definatly a concern.

I've thought quite hard about the current chain of events. The ruling by the courts has thrown a fairly large spanner into things, and there's a number of scenarios which could now play out.

Scenario 1: The Supreme Court backs the Government's prerogative, and we continue on our current path.

Scenario 2. The Supreme Court blocks the Government on this, but they proceed anyway. This is possible because whether or not the courts actually have the legal power to dictate this is highly debatable; the mandate of the government derives from the Royal Prerogative in the same way as the jurisdiction of the courts. The result is that the courts actually cannot compel the Government to do or withhold from any action, it's the right hand trying to dictate to the left hand. The nature of the British Constitution and the derivation of all power from the Royal Prerogative makes it all a highly debatable affair with no real right or wrong answer.

So May could very well trigger it, and the EU accept it, in which case what the court rules is irrelevant. They'll be arguing it ten years from now long past all relevancy.

Scenario 3. The Court may rule against May, and May accept it. In which case, it will go to Parliament, and Parliament will accept it (scenario 3.1), or far more likely deny it (3.2) If they deny it, this leads in turn to:

Scenario 4.1: May backs off and leaves it there. Brexit does not occur. Highly unlikely, or

Scenario 4.2: May will use the failure of the bill in Parliament to trigger the next general election. May will campaign on the basis of 'Out', because that's the pretext for the election and her own legitimacy (she could hardly do anything else). Corbyn will most likely try and fudge and keep a foot in both houses. Farage will likely come back for UKIP. The Lib Dems will campaign on the promise of staying in.

The likely result will be Labour hemorrhaging voters three ways and shedding a good fifty odd seats, May increasing her majority by a good twenty or thirty, the Lib Dems the same, and UKIP gaining a handful of seats.

We'll then proceed as if the parliamentary vote and election hadn't happened to our vague undefined Brexit.

 Ketara wrote:


Scenario 4.2: May will use the failure of the bill in Parliament to trigger the next general election. May will campaign on the basis of 'Out', because that's the pretext for the election and her own legitimacy (she could hardly do anything else). Corbyn will most likely try and fudge and keep a foot in both houses. Farage will likely come back for UKIP. The Lib Dems will campaign on the promise of staying in.

The only issue with this option is that a parliamentary vote would be needed firstso that they can bring forward the GE. It is now fixed to every five years unless there is a vote of no confidence in the Government (and a new one doesn't occur in 14 days afterwards) or that 2/3rds of parliament vote for it. Given that the GE would be fought again almost solely on the EU issue I wonder just how many would vote to have an early GE (given that is likely to split the Tory party just as much as Labour). As for the results for Labour I think that is a bit more up in the air. The recent Oxford by-election didn't seem to show much of a decrease in their base support (about 2%) which is much less than the polls were indicating. Given this was a Tory/LD favoured area that relatively little decrease is intriguing.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the upcoming by-elections as that might direct whether there would be an appetite for an early GE. The South East and London (with the Heathrow issue) and being generally pro-EU could see Tories lose substantial ground here.

The missing option is that they may go for second referendum with better details at some point to try and pacify both the Remain and Leave camp because at the moment the country is becoming ever more divided (and aggressively so) on the issue.

 r_squared wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

I voted remain, But this dismays me. The vote was cast, they should get on with it.

Did you stop reading after that post? Whirlwind debunked it here....

I voted remain - statement of fact.
But this dismays me. - My opinion.
The vote was cast, - statement of fact.
they should get on with it. - My opinion.

 r_squared wrote:
. FFS people, read before reacting.

Reading is good. Using your brain to comprehend what has been said is even better.
I find the fact they took this to court, a waste of time, and money. Thus it annoys me.

Lol, the first sentence makes me guffaw at the latter...lol

Reading is good. Using your brain to comprehend what has been said is even better.
I find the fact they took this to court, a waist of time, and money. Thus it annoys me.

It's part of the rights for any member of public in the UK however to challenge the government. It's up to the courts then to make judgement as to whether it is a waste of time or not. The real issue is that May should have taken some better legal advice before she started hammering on trying to be the next Empress. Either that or she is deliberately trying to slow things down and place the blame elsewhere maybe as an excuse to bring in a much more restricted rights bill in replacement for the ECHR with less challenge

 Whirlwind wrote:
Lol, the first sentence makes me guffaw at the latter...lol

Reading is good. Using your brain to comprehend what has been said is even better.
I find the fact they took this to court, a waist of time, and money. Thus it annoys me.

It's part of the rights for any member of public in the UK however to challenge the government. It's up to the courts then to make judgement as to whether it is a waste of time or not. The real issue is that May should have taken some better legal advice before she started hammering on trying to be the next Empress. Either that or she is deliberately trying to slow things down and place the blame elsewhere maybe as an excuse to bring in a much more restricted rights bill in replacement for the ECHR with less challenge

Tired is my only excuse

 Ketara wrote:
I've thought quite hard about the current chain of events. The ruling by the courts has thrown a fairly large spanner into things, and there's a number of scenarios which could now play out.

Scenario 1: The Supreme Court backs the Government's prerogative, and we continue on our current path.

Scenario 2. The Supreme Court blocks the Government on this, but they proceed anyway. This is possible because whether or not the courts actually have the legal power to dictate this is highly debatable; the mandate of the government derives from the Royal Prerogative in the same way as the jurisdiction of the courts. The result is that the courts actually cannot compel the Government to do or withhold from any action, it's the right hand trying to dictate to the left hand. The nature of the British Constitution and the derivation of all power from the Royal Prerogative makes it all a highly debatable affair with no real right or wrong answer.

So May could very well trigger it, and the EU accept it, in which case what the court rules is irrelevant. They'll be arguing it ten years from now long past all relevancy.

Scenario 3. The Court may rule against May, and May accept it. In which case, it will go to Parliament, and Parliament will accept it (scenario 3.1), or far more likely deny it (3.2) If they deny it, this leads in turn to:

Scenario 4.1: May backs off and leaves it there. Brexit does not occur. Highly unlikely, or

Scenario 4.2: May will use the failure of the bill in Parliament to trigger the next general election. May will campaign on the basis of 'Out', because that's the pretext for the election and her own legitimacy (she could hardly do anything else). Corbyn will most likely try and fudge and keep a foot in both houses. Farage will likely come back for UKIP. The Lib Dems will campaign on the promise of staying in.

The likely result will be Labour hemorrhaging voters three ways and shedding a good fifty odd seats, May increasing her majority by a good twenty or thirty, the Lib Dems the same, and UKIP gaining a handful of seats.

We'll then proceed as if the parliamentary vote and election hadn't happened to our vague undefined Brexit.

This all assumes that Leave does not shoot itself in the foot any more than it already has in the meantime and turn public opinion against it. The falling pound is making a strong case for Remain in wallets and grocery stores.

Lets face it, by Wednesday morning, there might not even be a country or even world to worry about, nevermind Brexit...

 Whirlwind wrote:

The only issue with this option is that a parliamentary vote would be needed firstso that they can bring forward the GE. It is now fixed to every five years unless there is a vote of no confidence in the Government (and a new one doesn't occur in 14 days afterwards) or that 2/3rds of parliament vote for it. Given that the GE would be fought again almost solely on the EU issue I wonder just how many would vote to have an early GE (given that is likely to split the Tory party just as much as Labour).

I'm aware of this fact. I do not see it as a barrier. May herself would probably initiate a vote of no confidence on the basis of it being an issue of confidence due to circumstance, and institute a three line whip to make the Tories vote for it. Even if some rebel, there are sufficient Labourites who would relish a chance to shove Corbyn now that they'd succeed with little trouble, I should think.

The main issue the election would be fought upon would be Brexit, which is highly problematic for Corbyn. He can't declare firmly in favour of Remain, because he himself has spent thirty odd years rebelling against it and slagging it off, he'll look like a hypocrite (not to mention I doubt he could bring himself to do so). But there's no way on earth the Labour party will campaign for Leave. He'll have to pull off some fudge whereby he talks about how he's in favour of 'parliamentary oversight of Brexit in line with the wishes of the British people' without being specific, which no-one will buy. Combine that with all his other policies and his general blacklisting by the media and half his own party who see losing as giving them the chance to boot him? And a populace which voted to leave and see him as not willing to enact that? He'll lose ground, and badly.

 loki old fart wrote:

they should get on with it. - My opinion.

But they are doing that, no need to complain about stalling. People don't like it because they, for some reason, through the referendum was binding and the end of it. Maybe, if it's legal in the UK, the referendum should have been organised to be more than just a glorified large scale opinion poll in the first place.

 Whirlwind wrote:
Lol, the first sentence makes me guffaw at the latter...lol

Reading is good. Using your brain to comprehend what has been said is even better.
I find the fact they took this to court, a waist of time, and money. Thus it annoys me.

It's part of the rights for any member of public in the UK however to challenge the government. It's up to the courts then to make judgement as to whether it is a waste of time or not. The real issue is that May should have taken some better legal advice before she started hammering on trying to be the next Empress. Either that or she is deliberately trying to slow things down and place the blame elsewhere maybe as an excuse to bring in a much more restricted rights bill in replacement for the ECHR with less challenge

I think we have to assume that May decided to go down the dictatorship route because she is aware there is a good chance that Parliament may not authorise invocation of Article 50. At least to the degree that it is a risk she does not want to take. Otherwise it would have been easy to avoid the legal challenge by laying the issue before Parliament.

You have to remember that May has a pretty small majority to get her through the next 3.5 years, and faces enemies within the Tory Party, which is split between pro and anti EU factions. As I pointed out earlier, May cannot dictate who local parties select for their candidates, which means that Tory MPs in secure seats which voted pro or anti EU are likely to keep them. (This basically applies to the other parties too.)

While a snap general election clearly would be fought on the issue of Brexit, it also wouldn't give much time for the organisation of solid independent pro and anti candidates, so we would be likely to end up with a pretty similar parliament to the one we have now, only there is a chance that the Tories would fail to gain a majority if Lib and Lab could make a few gains.

The simplest solution might be to pass a bill to run a second referendum and make the result totally binding. That of course would be unacceptable to Brexiteers, since they would have little to gain and lots to lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

they should get on with it. - My opinion.

But they are doing that, no need to complain about stalling. People don't like it because they, for some reason, through the referendum was binding and the end of it. Maybe, if it's legal in the UK, the referendum should have been organised to be more than just a glorified large scale opinion poll in the first place.

Parliament could pass an Act to make a referendum binding, but in fact they didn't.

A number of Leave voters seem to have been living in some land of unicorns and rainbows where their problems would be solved overnight by voting Leave. The BBC has been interviewing people who say they are angry because they can't understand why the UK hasn't already left, it being four months and so on. (Ignorant of the fact it takes a minimum of two years.)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A number of Leave voters seem to have been living in some land of unicorns and rainbows where their problems would be solved overnight by voting Leave. The BBC has been interviewing people who say they are angry because they can't understand why the UK hasn't already left, it being four months and so on. (Ignorant of the fact it takes a minimum of two years.)

That, and the ridiculously hysterical reaction to the judges' ruling (with the tabloids at the helm), provides quite an insight regarding what the average "brexiter" looks like.

 Korinov wrote:

That, and the ridiculously hysterical reaction to the judges' ruling (with the tabloids at the helm), provides quite an insight regarding what the average "brexiter" looks like.

Based on the race crimes report that came out, they're into brown shirts or pointy white hats, fashionwise.

And were back to generalizing all who voted leave as uneducated xenophbic racists. Which of course was the remain camps main stick to beat those who wanted to leave with.

 Korinov wrote:
That, and the ridiculously hysterical reaction to the judges' ruling (with the tabloids at the helm), provides quite an insight regarding what the average "brexiter" looks like.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Based on the race crimes report that came out, they're into brown shirts or pointy white hats, fashionwise.

I said before that remainers love the EU because it's a great stick to beat so called 'less enlightened' people over the head with. It doesn't matter how bad the EU is performing or what whatever your reasons for wanting to leave it are, to the remainers you're just a bigoted xenophobic racist. And I was shouted down by r_squared and AlmightyWalrus over it and yet, here's two prime examples.

And remainers are such a nice group of people too who always keep it classy. It's not like they're wishing terminal or life threatening diseases on the children of people who voted to leave out of spite to score a cheap political point...oh wait.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste anymore time on you two with your sweeping generalisations, so you can also go on my ignore list.

Skullhammer wrote:
After having an inital fume about the court ruling, and calmed down its not all bad. The commons vote and as they want to keep there jobs there 99% likley to pass the autherization for artical 50.

Now my major concern is this bill will be law that means the lords will have to pass it as well and there are a lot of them who could scupper it and as they have nothing to lose it is definatly a concern.

The Lords would be signing their own death warrant if they blocked Article 50.

As somebody who wants an end to the Lords, I dare them to block article 50, in fact, I double dare them

because nothing would be more sure to end the Lords than that.

Millions of British people would be asking why this unelected chamber is blocking Brexit. And I suspect a lot of Remain voters wouldn't be happy either.

Say what you want about parliament and parliamentary sovereignty - at least MPs answer to the British public.

If the Lords are smart, they'll abstain....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
Lol, the first sentence makes me guffaw at the latter...lol

Reading is good. Using your brain to comprehend what has been said is even better.
I find the fact they took this to court, a waist of time, and money. Thus it annoys me.

It's part of the rights for any member of public in the UK however to challenge the government. It's up to the courts then to make judgement as to whether it is a waste of time or not. The real issue is that May should have taken some better legal advice before she started hammering on trying to be the next Empress. Either that or she is deliberately trying to slow things down and place the blame elsewhere maybe as an excuse to bring in a much more restricted rights bill in replacement for the ECHR with less challenge

I think we have to assume that May decided to go down the dictatorship route because she is aware there is a good chance that Parliament may not authorise invocation of Article 50. At least to the degree that it is a risk she does not want to take. Otherwise it would have been easy to avoid the legal challenge by laying the issue before Parliament.

You have to remember that May has a pretty small majority to get her through the next 3.5 years, and faces enemies within the Tory Party, which is split between pro and anti EU factions. As I pointed out earlier, May cannot dictate who local parties select for their candidates, which means that Tory MPs in secure seats which voted pro or anti EU are likely to keep them. (This basically applies to the other parties too.)

While a snap general election clearly would be fought on the issue of Brexit, it also wouldn't give much time for the organisation of solid independent pro and anti candidates, so we would be likely to end up with a pretty similar parliament to the one we have now, only there is a chance that the Tories would fail to gain a majority if Lib and Lab could make a few gains.

The simplest solution might be to pass a bill to run a second referendum and make the result totally binding. That of course would be unacceptable to Brexiteers, since they would have little to gain and lots to lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

they should get on with it. - My opinion.

But they are doing that, no need to complain about stalling. People don't like it because they, for some reason, through the referendum was binding and the end of it. Maybe, if it's legal in the UK, the referendum should have been organised to be more than just a glorified large scale opinion poll in the first place.

Parliament could pass an Act to make a referendum binding, but in fact they didn't.

A number of Leave voters seem to have been living in some land of unicorns and rainbows where their problems would be solved overnight by voting Leave. The BBC has been interviewing people who say they are angry because they can't understand why the UK hasn't already left, it being four months and so on. (Ignorant of the fact it takes a minimum of two years.)

Nah, Parliament is trapped. They have to invoke Article 50. They can't jump up and down about Article 50 needing Parliamentary sovereignty, only to then block it. And if they did, they would be crushed at a GE.

As I and you yourself have said, the Tories have a lust for power and regroup very quickly. Running a GE on a Article 50 ticket would smash the Labour party and give the Tories a thumping majority.

The Tories will not turn that prize down....

Skullhammer wrote:And were back to generalizing all who voted leave as uneducated xenophbic racists. Which of course was the remain camps main stick to beat those who wanted to leave with.

The Leave camp seems to be filled with ignorant xenophobic racists, and I'd say there's more than just anecdotical evidence to prove this.

Future War Cultist wrote:I said before that remainers love the EU because it's a great stick to beat so called 'less enlightened' people over the head with. It doesn't matter how bad the EU is performing or what whatever your reasons for wanting to leave it are, to the remainers you're just a bigoted xenophobic racist. And I was shouted down by r_squared and AlmightyWalrus over it and yet, here's two prime examples.

And remainers are such a nice group of people too who always keep it classy. It's not like they're wishing terminal or life threatening diseases on the children of people who voted to leave out of spite to score a cheap political point...oh wait.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste anymore time on you two with your sweeping generalisations, so you can also go on my ignore list.

Brexiter gets mad because he's told upfront what many fellow Brexiters are.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
.... And I was shouted down by r_squared and AlmightyWalrus over it and yet, here's two prime examples....

Anyway, I'm not going to waste anymore time on you two with your sweeping generalisations, so you can also go on my ignore list.

Shouted down? I've not met you I'm sure. I'm also sure I didn't use CAPS!

I'm sure you may have already added me to your ignore list, along with your brother, but this thread is going to be a very sparse, and weirdly disjointed echo chamber if you keep blocking people whos opinions and arguments you dont like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...The Lords would be signing their own death warrant if they blocked Article 50.

As somebody who wants an end to the Lords, I dare them to block article 50, in fact, I double dare them

because nothing would be more sure to end the Lords than that.

Millions of British people would be asking why this unelected chamber is blocking Brexit. And I suspect a lot of Remain voters wouldn't be happy either.

Say what you want about parliament and parliamentary sovereignty - at least MPs answer to the British public.

If the Lords are smart, they'll abstain......

My understanding is that if they did try and block a Brexit Bill agreed by parliament, the Govt could use the parliament act to overrule their decision? I'm not 100% on that, but it is my understanding.

I think the best we can say is that there are fools on both sides -- and do feel free to to take comfort in the moral superiority of one's own side --


but we're best remembering that such people are not posting here and whilst those views are worth bearing in mind we'll get much more worth if we actually debate or deal with those who are here , rather than dragging in extreme examples from elsewhere.

Obviously if something dramatic happens -- the WI brigade of UKIP eat a camp of refugees or Remainers kill every swan just to offend the Queen and then change the national anthem to "solidarity forever" -- it'll be brought up accordingly.

It's worth everyone taking a breath.

We don't want another Jo Cox situation do we now ?

I think we have to assume that May decided to go down the dictatorship route because she is aware there is a good chance that Parliament may not authorise invocation of Article 50

Possibly.

Although I think it will/would have passed.

.. and, given the ref. should do too.


One suspects it was the quickest and , in theory, easiest to get the deed done wihtout too much turmoil.

Best laid plans etc etc .

I've seen some theories about how May is going to use this to achieve X/Y/Z which certainly sound most impressive -- almost Netflix drama worthy.

But I think one should bear in mind that the rapidity of changes which have led us to this -- don't think anyone in June would have said that May would be PM by Nov. makes any such long term planning unlikely.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
...And remainers are such a nice group of people too who always keep it classy. It's not like they're wishing terminal or life threatening diseases on the children of people who voted to leave out of spite to score a cheap political point...oh wait....

I watched that program, and this is why context and nuance is important. I was surprised, and revolted when she said that, but it was obvious at the time that she had used a poor turn of phrase and she tried to correct it to support the argument she was making about concern for collaboration and funding for medical research.
It was a terrible slip up, as she was making a good point at the time, and the phrase she was looking for was something along the lines of hoping that no leave supporters children should get ill and need the funding and support that the research that they provide.
Now, to argue that she actually wants children to get sick, as a medical professional working in a children's hospital is a stretch and is used to make one rather biased political point and to hold it up as an example that all remainers hope leave kids get sick and die is hyperbole.

It's also pretty weak example compared to the eye-watering land slide of explicit rape and death threats being launched at anyone remotely questioning the process.

I for one do not believe that voting leave makes you a racist, friends I know who voted leave are not racists, but there are a lot of racists on that side, and we need to find a way to deal with this disturbing populist upswing. Supporting the petitioning of withdrawal of advertising revenue to demagogue print rags like the DM and Express through ideas like #stopfundinghate would be a start.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Nah, Parliament is trapped. They have to invoke Article 50. They can't jump up and down about Article 50 needing Parliamentary sovereignty, only to then block it. And if they did, they would be crushed at a GE.

As I and you yourself have said, the Tories have a lust for power and regroup very quickly. Running a GE on a Article 50 ticket would smash the Labour party and give the Tories a thumping majority.

The Tories will not turn that prize down....

There is no garentee that a GE would be won by a party based on a leave platform at all. If you look at the breakdown of leave votes many of them were from staunchly labour areas. I could see many pro EU torys voting for Lib Dem's, and many anti EU labour supporters being unable to stomach the thought of voting Tory. They will probably go to UKIP, but the question would be if there was enough. UKIP would probably also gain from people who might support torys now, but would see them (rightly or wrongly) as stalling the process, especially as I can see UKIP pushing that and damaging the conservatives. There is a possibility that we could end up with a lib/lab/snp pro EU mix, or a Tory/UKIP govenement.

I can bet either way we are going to end up with a general election before anything happens with leaving the EU. The government will put forward legislation, then it will be bounced around with parliament tableing amendments, the lords bouncing it back again and again with amendments. Some people will paint this as various groups blocking it, but it is part of our democratic system and how we get laws right.

All this will probably result in a general election which will effectively be a second referendum, but people will be voting on something more concrete. The big question is, will the torys go for a line of "we must leave, will of the people, don't vote lib/lab" or "we are the ones to get you through this safely, don't vote UKIP they will just rush through". I'm sure hey will do both to some extent, but which will be the main argument?