• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

monkeybarry said:
"brexit" is going to morph into so many different things in the next 2.5 years it's irrelevant and the dissenting voices will be small and sound like they are being disruptive for the sake of it.
Most people will be bored of it by June 2017 and into 2018 no one will remember what was voted for in the first place

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
I though May was going to hang it out until the next election, kicking the decision down the line stating its not the right time just waiting for a reason not to invoke article 50, but we gave a time line, and now I am puzzled. Can't see what the long game is.
 
r-u-s-x01 said:
I though May was going to hang it out until the next election, kicking the decision down the line stating its not the right time just waiting for a reason not to invoke article 50, but we gave a time line, and now I am puzzled. Can't see what the long game is.
Click to expand...
Hold on to power for as long as your position is tenable - that's modern politics.
One day at a time, some legacy is better than no legacy

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
High court decides that the goverment cannot trigger article 50 without MP approval

Looks like it will be a very soft Brexit. Most MPs will not want us to leave the single market
 
The call to arms will be reluctantly answered by many in this country I imagine.

The elite will not learn will they, sad that it will only end one way.
 
r-u-s-x said:
I don't see why - its not concerning European Union Law is it, its British constitutional law ? Its beyond me but that is my understanding.
Click to expand...

The judgement hinges on whether Article 50 is reversible. Both sides agreed that it wasn't at the HC but government statements today suggest a change of tone towards them having no intention of reversing it. The article I linked to above suggests that the SC will defer to the ECJ on points of European law. Oh the irony.
 
milo said:
I thought that Brexit was about taking back control for parliamentary democracy. I'm confused now.
Click to expand...

Nope it was about the will of the people, not a liberal elite inflicting their will on a majority of voters. Obviously your happy with this outcome and I am happy for you because your a nice chap. But I do hope you understand the will be millions of people in this country furious that the people voted and gave an answer and the elite refused to do as they were asked. What is coming is the fault of all those people.

I will say no more on the matter.
 
milo said:
I thought that Brexit was about taking back control for parliamentary democracy. I'm confused now.
Click to expand...

You're point being that MPs voting on UK matters is exactly what Leave campaigned for!

@Danishfurniturelover The notion that a referendum mandates the government to invent "Brexit" in any shape or form, without any parliamentary vote or accountability was highly highly dubious. We didn't know the terms, broad or detailed, at the time of the vote, and the issues are far too important to life in the UK for a select few to dictate them without democratic input.

Extremely shocking that the government has not agreed to engaged our democratic process until now, and instead wanted to act as a dictatorship would.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Nope it was about the will of the people, not a liberal elite inflicting their will on a majority of voters. Obviously your happy with this outcome and I am happy for you because your a nice chap. But I do hope you understand the will be millions of people in this country furious that the people voted and gave an answer and the elite refused to do as they were asked. What is coming is the fault of all those people.

I will say no more on the matter.
Click to expand...

The will of the people was to leave the EU. This decision does not make that any less likely. What it does mean is that the process is more likely to get parliamentary scrutiny, that should be a good thing.
 
milo said:
The will of the people was to leave the EU. This decision does not make that any less likely. What it does mean is that the process is more likely to get parliamentary scrutiny, that should be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Your better then that and you know it Milo. The elites brought this court case, 3 europhile judges gave the verdict that most MP's want so they can knock it into the long grass as you put it. This gives the MP's the chance to stay on the EU gravy train and not follow the will of the majority.

We had project fear, can you guys tell me what the new project is called to keep the working man in his place.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Nope it was about the will of the people, not a liberal elite inflicting their will on a majority of voters. Obviously your happy with this outcome and I am happy for you because your a nice chap. But I do hope you understand the will be millions of people in this country furious that the people voted and gave an answer and the elite refused to do as they were asked. What is coming is the fault of all those people.

I will say no more on the matter.
Click to expand...
Isn't that just it though, the elite have not refused to do as they have been asked (advised actually) - if they vote it down in parliament then there is a very good case for mass public outrage, and rightly so.

What has happened is the MP has acted outside of her remit (and should resign or call a GE).

The issue becomes awkward with a parliamentary vote however. (Although right and proper)

Do MPs;

I. Represent their constituents - the referendum wasn't delivered on constituency boundaries, so that is a little difficult.
II. If MPs analyse the results in their constituencies, then they have to vote on first the will of all constituents (which is very close to being down the middle in many areas, certainly not the kind of majority that would be considered a mandate) and secondly what they as a professional consider is best for the constituency (which may be different to the vote.). IE Newport - voted heavily to leave but gets massive EU subsidy. A responsible Parliamentarian in that scenario would vote to remain as it's better for the constituency, but it will almost certainly signal the end to their career at the next election.
III. It is also MPs duty to act in the national interest. If as an MP you consider Remain is in the national interest, then you may want to vote that way. However, the counter argument is, is voting against the referendum result in the National interest? Probably not as it will undermine UK politics. Potentially a question of Economics vs Democratic process

All of this is why the vote was written as being an advisory referendum, not a legally binding mandate - mostly because Cameron didn't think the vote would be to Leave but wanted to shut up the increasing anti EU voices.

Having a vote puts MPs in a difficult position regarding their roles and responsibilities to "represent the people"
 
SpurMeUp said:
You're point being that MPs voting on UK matters is exactly what Leave campaigned for!

@Sexagenarianlover The notion that a referendum mandates the government to invent "Brexit" in any shape or form, without any parliamentary vote or accountability was highly highly dubious. We didn't know the terms, broad or detailed, at the time of the vote, and the issues are far too important to life in the UK for a select few to dictate them without democratic input.

Extremely shocking that the government has not agreed to engaged our democratic process until now, and instead wanted to act as a dictatorship would.
Click to expand...

The referendum vote was to repeal everything from the Treaty of Rome to the Lisbon Treaty. Very straightforward.

Our new relationships with the world can be subject to as much scrutiny as anyone wants. But we've got to got to break free from the power of the priesthood before they claw it back. Like they did with the Danes during Maastricht and the Irish during Lisbon

Today feels like the referendum was Fontainebleau and Napoleon has just escaped from Elba. Waterloo is now brewing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back