Post-Brexit Thread

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by denphone

Apparently he slammed his fist on the table and shook his head several times not believing what had actually happened overnight but remember that is hearsay and might not be actually what happened on that infamous day.

That was true but it was because Ocado had substituted Shreddies for his usual Coco Pops that morning. His frustration was understandable.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Damien

The issue isn't the Government reneging on the promise to implement Brexit but if they have the legal authority to implement it without a Parliamentary vote.

Then they shouldn't have promised something that they couldn't legally actually deliver

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Then they shouldn't have promised something that they couldn't legally actually deliver

Well yes. But they can still deliver they'll just have to do via a different, political, route. The impact here (assuming the appeal fails) is that Parliament will have input on the decision which could mean they influence the deal. I guess the question of Parliament vs the crown is sorta interesting as well.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Then they shouldn't have promised something that they couldn't legally actually deliver

The government thought they could deliver ,remember this has never been done before and is a huge test of what powers the government actually have

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Then they shouldn't have promised something that they couldn't legally actually deliver

Ah hahahahahaha.


Oh wait - you're being serious....

Originally Posted by Damien

The referendum wasn't legally binding. The court has said that the Government simply doesn't have the power to issue Article 50. It's not them rowing back on it.

I know it was advisory but you have MPs suggesting it was binding, because you cannot give the people a decision and then take it away from them without causing a serious constitutional crisis.

Originally Posted by martyh

erm ,this isn't about stopping Brexit ,it's about who has the authority to start the process and the manner it will take and that should always lay with Parliament ....unless you want a dictatorship

I know it is not about stopping Brexit but it has to be asked does bringing this case to the high court really mean that? That this is not some kind of futile attempt by someone who is venomously against Brexit?

Parliament gave the decision to the people, the people chose that we leave, no back room deals, no stupid, well we will keep this or keep that arrangement. Leave meant leave, as far as I am concerned and that means leave everything to do with the EU, we can keep most of their useful laws, that is still to be decided. Once we leave, we can then arrange the trade deals with other nations.

It's ludicrous to suggest that it is a dictatorship, that the PM is going to invoke Article 50, bypassing Parliamentary process, when actually it already went through one when it voted overwhelmingly to give the British people the vote. So democracy took place and it was answered, leave meant leave. It did not ask on the ballot paper, do you want to leave but keep this or keep that? It simply asked if we wished to leave the EU or stay and it was decided by 17.4 Million people.

You are not telling me Gina Miller, the one who took this the Courts, a staunch remoaner, cares so deeply about Parliamentary scrutiny ? Not a chance. I firmly believe she wants this to pass through the veto route, because bless her, it was said, she felt so unwell when Brexit won.

[techguyone]

He should have had some Brexit

Originally Posted by Damien

Well yes. But they can still deliver they'll just have to do via a different, political, route. The impact here (assuming the appeal fails) is that Parliament will have input on the decision which could mean they influence the deal.

I don't understand the objections myself ,i voted to leave because i did not want the power of Parliament undermined anymore ,i thought that's what most Brexiters wanted

Originally Posted by Hugh

Ah hahahahahaha.


Oh wait - you're being serious....

That was not a promise - it was a suggestion, this is an old argument, done to death, let's move on from it shall we ?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by techguyone

He should have had some Brexit

l prefer the old Quakers oats myself.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

You are not telling me Gina Miller, the one who took this the Courts, a staunch remoaner...

Why are you calling her a remoaner when she has said many times "We are all leavers now."?

Originally Posted by Mick

I know it was advisory but you have MPs suggesting it was binding, because you cannot give the people a decision and then take it away from them without causing a serious constitutional crisis.




I know it is not about stopping Brexit but it has to be asked does bringing this case to the high court really mean that? That this is not some kind of futile attempt by someone who is venomously against Brexit?

Parliament gave the decision to the people, the people chose that we leave, no back room deals, no stupid, well we will keep this or keep that arrangement. Leave meant leave, as far as I am concerned and that means leave everything to do with the EU, we can keep most of their useful laws, that is still to be decided. Once we leave, we can then arrange the trade deals with other nations.

It's ludicrous to suggest that it is a dictatorship, that the PM is going to invoke Article 50, bypassing Parliamentary process, when actually it already went through one when it voted overwhelmingly to give the British people the vote. So democracy took place and it was answered, leave meant leave. It did not ask on the ballot paper, do you want to leave but keep this or keep that? It simply asked if we wished to leave the EU or stay and it was decided by 17.4 Million people.

You are not telling me Gina Miller, the one who took this the Courts, a staunch remoaner, cares so deeply about Parliamentary scrutiny ? Not a chance. I firmly believe she wants this to pass through the veto route, because bless her, it was said, she felt so unwell when Brexit won.

As the staunch supporter of democracy that you say you are why would you possibly object to Parliament being involved in the process.Parliament is the very definition of democracy ,retaining Parliament's ultimate power is what the referendum was all about

Originally Posted by Mick

I know it was advisory but you have MPs suggesting it was binding, because you cannot give the people a decision and then take it away from them without causing a serious constitutional crisis.

They should have made it binding.

However Parliament have a clear message they have to allow Article 50 to pass. In the remote chance they do not it is a constitutional crisis but one which is easily solved via a General Election in which the voters will make it all too clear what they think of it.

It's ludicrous to suggest that it is a dictatorship, that the PM is going to invoke Article 50, bypassing Parliamentary process, when actually it already went through one when it voted overwhelmingly to give the British people the vote. So democracy took place and it was answered, leave meant leave. It did not ask on the ballot paper, do you want to leave but keep this or keep that? It simply asked if we wished to leave the EU or stay and it was decided by 17.4 Million people.

The problem is by making the referendum advisory she didn't have the legally authority to bypass Parliamentary process. I agree morally and politically she did but the principle is important. If the referendum didn't give her the power to bypass Parliament then what does? The government tried to dodge the question by framing it as foreign policy decision and that's probably how they'll appeal it because, as far as I can see, the referendum as no bearing on the legal process here.

Remember even manifesto promises have to be waved though Parliament. The Governments' ability to act without Parliamentary approval is limited.

Originally Posted by martyh

As the staunch supporter of democracy that you say you are why would you possibly object to Parliament being involved in the process.Parliament is the very definition of democracy ,retaining Parliament's ultimate power is what the referendum was all about

Not trying to be rude here but am I speaking a foreign language? I have said twice now, now third time, that Parliament already took part in a democratic process and it was voted 6 to 1 to hand the decision back to the people via another democratic process. I am well aware it is not binding, but then you got MPs saying it is, whom am I to take more notice of, these are the law makers after all ?

The people answered that decision, now it is up to the government to enact the process, it should not have to go through Parliament a second time round.

Originally Posted by Mick

Not trying to be rude here but am I speaking a foreign language? I have said twice now, now third time, that Parliament already took part in a democratic process and it was voted 6 to 1 to hand the decision back to the people via another democratic process. I am well aware it is not binding, but then you got MPs saying it is, whom am I to take more notice of, these are the law makers after all ?

The people answered that decision, now it is up to the government to enact the process, it should not have to go through Parliament a second time round.

Parliaments job doesn't stop with giving the people the referendum it really doesn't work like that .As has already been said many times what is being tested is the authority of the government and rightly so.