BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Jez mon

Given the pound went up when the high Court ruling was announced, is that an indication that the markets see uncertainty as preferable to certainty of a hard brexit?

bendertherobot

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Back on topic as it risks derailing a really good thread. So the last 2 weeks:

- A50 will be debated in parliament.

I'm meh about there being a vote on it, but all does is add more months of uncertainty when were nearing a timetable of March 2017 serve A50, March 2019 leave the EU. Now those dates don't look so certain and that risks damaging the UK further. This is not a victory for remain but a huge negative for UK plc . It's the uncertainty that causes damage.
I don't know how far A50 will be debated in detail, all I know is the more the UK reveals its negotiating hand the weaker our negotiation is and the more likely we will have the unwanted 'hard' brexit.

I cannot see A50 being voted down in the HoC as too many remain supporting MP's have come out to say they will respect the vote. The HoL is another matter. They have already angered the govt recently, if they reject A50 going against the elected HoC, I can see it being the end of the HoL in its current incarnation. Who knows though, all I'm seeing is the creation of more uncertainty.

Too simplistic. This isn't a vote on A50. It's a vote on a Bill which will give power to a Minister to trigger A50. It's what that Act contains which is important and why May has sought to avoid it. Parliament doesn't just say yes or no, it debates, adds, edits, blocks. It would be interesting, for example, if the Lords sought to add a clause which required the relevant Minister to lay before Parliament a plan for what type of exit the Government will require. Bear in mind there is simply no will of the people in relation to anything other than leave. That's the uncertainty, historic cock up.

Jez mon

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Back on topic as it risks derailing a really good thread. So the last 2 weeks:

- A50 will be debated in parliament.

I'm meh about there being a vote on it, but all does is add more months of uncertainty when were nearing a timetable of March 2017 serve A50, March 2019 leave the EU. Now those dates don't look so certain and that risks damaging the UK further. This is not a victory for remain but a huge negative for UK plc . It's the uncertainty that causes damage.
I don't know how far A50 will be debated in detail, all I know is the more the UK reveals its negotiating hand the weaker our negotiation is and the more likely we will have the unwanted 'hard' brexit.

I cannot see A50 being voted down in the HoC as too many remain supporting MP's have come out to say they will respect the vote. The HoL is another matter. They have already angered the govt recently, if they reject A50 going against the elected HoC, I can see it being the end of the HoL in its current incarnation. Who knows though, all I'm seeing is the creation of more uncertainty.

Too simplistic. This isn't a vote on A50. It's a vote on a Bill which will give power to a Minister to trigger A50. It's what that Act contains which is important and why May has sought to avoid it. Parliament doesn't just say yes or no, it debates, adds, edits, blocks. It would be interesting, for example, if the Lords sought to add a clause which required the relevant Minister to lay before Parliament a plan for what type of exit the Government will require. Bear in mind there is simply no will of the people in relation to anything other than leave. That's the uncertainty, historic fool up.

Should the legislation that was drafted around the referendum been more carefully scrutinised to avoid/preempt this?

bendertherobot

Jez mon wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Back on topic as it risks derailing a really good thread. So the last 2 weeks:

- A50 will be debated in parliament.

I'm meh about there being a vote on it, but all does is add more months of uncertainty when were nearing a timetable of March 2017 serve A50, March 2019 leave the EU. Now those dates don't look so certain and that risks damaging the UK further. This is not a victory for remain but a huge negative for UK plc . It's the uncertainty that causes damage.
I don't know how far A50 will be debated in detail, all I know is the more the UK reveals its negotiating hand the weaker our negotiation is and the more likely we will have the unwanted 'hard' brexit.

I cannot see A50 being voted down in the HoC as too many remain supporting MP's have come out to say they will respect the vote. The HoL is another matter. They have already angered the govt recently, if they reject A50 going against the elected HoC, I can see it being the end of the HoL in its current incarnation. Who knows though, all I'm seeing is the creation of more uncertainty.

Too simplistic. This isn't a vote on A50. It's a vote on a Bill which will give power to a Minister to trigger A50. It's what that Act contains which is important and why May has sought to avoid it. Parliament doesn't just say yes or no, it debates, adds, edits, blocks. It would be interesting, for example, if the Lords sought to add a clause which required the relevant Minister to lay before Parliament a plan for what type of exit the Government will require. Bear in mind there is simply no will of the people in relation to anything other than leave. That's the uncertainty, historic fool up.

Should the legislation that was drafted around the referendum been more carefully scrutinised to avoid/preempt this?

Very possibly, yes. But, of course, it may have been deliberately left simplistic.

In other news, the Bar Council have weighed in on the absent Liz Truss, you don't see these sorts of resolutions very often
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37883576

bendertherobot

bendertherobot wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Back on topic as it risks derailing a really good thread. So the last 2 weeks:

- A50 will be debated in parliament.

I'm meh about there being a vote on it, but all does is add more months of uncertainty when were nearing a timetable of March 2017 serve A50, March 2019 leave the EU. Now those dates don't look so certain and that risks damaging the UK further. This is not a victory for remain but a huge negative for UK plc . It's the uncertainty that causes damage.
I don't know how far A50 will be debated in detail, all I know is the more the UK reveals its negotiating hand the weaker our negotiation is and the more likely we will have the unwanted 'hard' brexit.

I cannot see A50 being voted down in the HoC as too many remain supporting MP's have come out to say they will respect the vote. The HoL is another matter. They have already angered the govt recently, if they reject A50 going against the elected HoC, I can see it being the end of the HoL in its current incarnation. Who knows though, all I'm seeing is the creation of more uncertainty.

Too simplistic. This isn't a vote on A50. It's a vote on a Bill which will give power to a Minister to trigger A50. It's what that Act contains which is important and why May has sought to avoid it. Parliament doesn't just say yes or no, it debates, adds, edits, blocks. It would be interesting, for example, if the Lords sought to add a clause which required the relevant Minister to lay before Parliament a plan for what type of exit the Government will require. Bear in mind there is simply no will of the people in relation to anything other than leave. That's the uncertainty, historic fool up.

Should the legislation that was drafted around the referendum been more carefully scrutinised to avoid/preempt this?

Very possibly, yes. But, of course, it may have been deliberately left simplistic. Remember you can only scrutinise what IS there, the Referendum Act is a small one. You can certainly suggest additions, the debate wasn't even that long

In other news, the Bar Council have weighed in on the absent Liz Truss, you don't see these sorts of resolutions very often
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37883576

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

[Pedant mode on] Is Civil war 'revolution'? [Pedant mode off]

If Mr Goo says that all fundamentalist religion doesn't have a place in a progressive society, than i'll agree with him.

I'd say overthrowing a monarchy counts, yes. Actually, that bit of history is pretty relevant to the Article 50 judgement.
Mr Goo does seem to be a bit selective given that even the CofE is somewhat equivocal on gender equality and LGBT issues. Fundamentalism isn't limited to religions either.

The most stable societies exist under a benign monarchy.

You'll have to un-stitch the "...the CofE is somewhat equivocal on gender equality and LGBT issues. Fundamentalism isn't limited to religions either." Which to me seems like a contradiction in terms - if the two sentences are liked.
I'm waiting for Mr Goo to denounce all forms of religious fundamentalism. I am pretty sure he would confirm that. (Although I think I might be waiting a while).

I was trying to make the point that it's not just fundamentalists (of a religion or political persuasion): there are plenty of otherwise upstanding reasonable people that hold some pretty non-progressive views, albeit they express them in far less violent ways. I'm not sure where I was going with that and we seem to be back on topic now.

coopster_the_1st

KingstonGraham wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Back on topic as it risks derailing a really good thread. So the last 2 weeks:

- A50 will be debated in parliament.

I'm meh about there being a vote on it, but all does is add more months of uncertainty when were nearing a timetable of March 2017 serve A50, March 2019 leave the EU. Now those dates don't look so certain and that risks damaging the UK further. This is not a victory for remain but a huge negative for UK plc . It's the uncertainty that causes damage.
I don't know how far A50 will be debated in detail, all I know is the more the UK reveals its negotiating hand the weaker our negotiation is and the more likely we will have the unwanted 'hard' brexit.

I cannot see A50 being voted down in the HoC as too many remain supporting MP's have come out to say they will respect the vote. The HoL is another matter. They have already angered the govt recently, if they reject A50 going against the elected HoC, I can see it being the end of the HoL in its current incarnation. Who knows though, all I'm seeing is the creation of more uncertainty.

At some point we'd have to give an idea of what the UK views as important to it as part of the negotiation. I'd rather that be based on what has been debated rather than what David Davis has just decided.

We have no great hand anyway, if we don't want a hard Brexit. All the other side needs to do is wait us out. The only "red lines" we can have are things that we consider to be worse than leaving without any agreement.

Unless there are "red lines" that make staying in more attractive than leaving on those terms, but I can't imagine our negotiators have any of those.

Yes, but you negotiate to that point in private (there will be lots of leaks from both sides) rather than start from that point in a public debate. We know there is not going to be a consensus opinion in parliament so that would just be exploited by the other side. The EU will not be having a public debate amongst MEP's to state what positions they will concede but it is seen to be perfectly rational for the UK to do so. To me doing this just increases the chances of a hard brexit.

Our negotiation position will be debated within the cabinet where there are both remainers and brexiters. It's just presented by David Davis but would still have to be agreed by TM and that decision would be put before the cabinet.

You say we don't have a great hand anyway but many remainers are happy to have our cards face up before we even start negotiations. Madness!

If there had been a remain win, parliament would not be debating what changes to make within the EU before taking it to them. The reality of this is that it is aimed at undermining the brexit process but it is really just undermining the whole of the UK. And remoaners moan about the damage being done by brexit, but they are actually participating and encouraging creating more self-harm to UK plc. :roll:

coopster_the_1st

Jez mon wrote:

Given the pound went up when the high Court ruling was announced, is that an indication that the markets see uncertainty as preferable to certainty of a hard brexit?

It's the usual short term market response when viewed from the brexit - pound down, stay in EU - pound up. How much of the trading was done by computer trading? You can see how much computer trading moves markets with the 'flash crash' of last month.

The additional uncertainty has not been priced in yet as the markets are too short term and their current focus is the US election.

pinno

I don't think the mechanics of a Brexit and the implications of it were ever properly debated/discussed prior to the referendum. Maybe, as this is the rocky ground on which we sit, this is why the judge's ruling has been sought which can only be seen as a retrospective move in the absence of the real implications of leaving the EU ever been fully considered.

(A la Ian Hislop) The Brexiteers are moaning about the ruling in the same way the remainers are moaning about the referendum result. It's a funny irony.

Jez mon

Pinno wrote:

I don't think the mechanics of a Brexit and the implications of it were ever properly debated/discussed prior to the referendum. Maybe, as this is the rocky ground on which we sit, this is why the judge's ruling has been sought which can only be seen as a retrospective move in the absence of the real implications of leaving the EU ever been fully considered.

This is what the right wing press need to be angry about. Not that the judges have applied the law...

I also think maybe we should move away from the poker/trade negotiation metaphor. In poker you have your hand and no one else can see it, all they can do is guess depending on what cards are on the table and how you reacted. It's not like Theresa may will turn up to the negotiations with a handful of new information that will take the rest of the eu by surprise. On our side we have that we are a net contributor and that we buy a lot of German cars. these are two strong negotiating positions. But we need to be realistic. Having negotiations completely in secret with the only information coming out as leaks will undoubtedly lead to everyone getting their hopes up and then getting disappointed with a deal that is in all likelihood going to be a compromise that satisfies no one.

coopster_the_1st

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Back on topic as it risks derailing a really good thread. So the last 2 weeks:

- A50 will be debated in parliament.

I'm meh about there being a vote on it, but all does is add more months of uncertainty when were nearing a timetable of March 2017 serve A50, March 2019 leave the EU. Now those dates don't look so certain and that risks damaging the UK further. This is not a victory for remain but a huge negative for UK plc . It's the uncertainty that causes damage.
I don't know how far A50 will be debated in detail, all I know is the more the UK reveals its negotiating hand the weaker our negotiation is and the more likely we will have the unwanted 'hard' brexit.

I cannot see A50 being voted down in the HoC as too many remain supporting MP's have come out to say they will respect the vote. The HoL is another matter. They have already angered the govt recently, if they reject A50 going against the elected HoC, I can see it being the end of the HoL in its current incarnation. Who knows though, all I'm seeing is the creation of more uncertainty.

Too simplistic. This isn't a vote on A50. It's a vote on a Bill which will give power to a Minister to trigger A50. It's what that Act contains which is important and why May has sought to avoid it. Parliament doesn't just say yes or no, it debates, adds, edits, blocks. It would be interesting, for example, if the Lords sought to add a clause which required the relevant Minister to lay before Parliament a plan for what type of exit the Government will require. Bear in mind there is simply no will of the people in relation to anything other than leave. That's the uncertainty, historic fool up.

Adding 600 more voices into the A50 debate is just going to confuse and delay it further. It's obvious this is what is being intended.

Ever since the vote people have be calling for clarification on our position in the EU negotiations. Any information released undermines our negotiating position as per Nissan recently. The more information we release the less likely we are able to negotiate to our preferred position and increases the chances of a hard brexit.

It may delay the serving of A50 past a General Election which will just be an EURef#2 vote. Oh joy!

Everything on the remain side is currently a spoiling tactic of brexit but it is blinkering the remainers to the damage they are doing by chasing this approach. Then Brexit gets the blame and then hopefully a second vote means we vote differently. The UK only gets further damaged by this approach.

The EU's way of keep voting until you vote for the 'correct' result happens again :roll:

ugo.santalucia

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Back on topic as it risks derailing a really good thread. So the last 2 weeks:

- A50 will be debated in parliament.

I'm meh about there being a vote on it, but all does is add more months of uncertainty when were nearing a timetable of March 2017 serve A50, March 2019 leave the EU. Now those dates don't look so certain and that risks damaging the UK further. This is not a victory for remain but a huge negative for UK plc . It's the uncertainty that causes damage.
I don't know how far A50 will be debated in detail, all I know is the more the UK reveals its negotiating hand the weaker our negotiation is and the more likely we will have the unwanted 'hard' brexit.

I cannot see A50 being voted down in the HoC as too many remain supporting MP's have come out to say they will respect the vote. The HoL is another matter. They have already angered the govt recently, if they reject A50 going against the elected HoC, I can see it being the end of the HoL in its current incarnation. Who knows though, all I'm seeing is the creation of more uncertainty.

Too simplistic. This isn't a vote on A50. It's a vote on a Bill which will give power to a Minister to trigger A50. It's what that Act contains which is important and why May has sought to avoid it. Parliament doesn't just say yes or no, it debates, adds, edits, blocks. It would be interesting, for example, if the Lords sought to add a clause which required the relevant Minister to lay before Parliament a plan for what type of exit the Government will require. Bear in mind there is simply no will of the people in relation to anything other than leave. That's the uncertainty, historic fool up.

Adding 600 more voices into the A50 debate is just going to confuse and delay it further. It's obvious this is what is being intended.

Ever since the vote people have be calling for clarification on our position in the EU negotiations. Any information released undermines our negotiating position as per Nissan recently. The more information we release the less likely we are able to negotiate to our preferred position and increases the chances of a hard brexit.

It may delay the serving of A50 past a General Election which will just be an EURef#2 vote. Oh joy!

Everything on the remain side is currently a spoiling tactic of brexit but it is blinkering the remainers to the damage they are doing by chasing this approach. Then Brexit gets the blame and then hopefully a second vote means we vote differently. The UK only gets further damaged by this approach.

The EU's way of keep voting until you vote for the 'correct' result happens again :roll:

I think you don't understand parliamentary democracy. If you think the government has the mandate to act wthout a mandate from the parliament (referendum or not) you are profoundly wrong. It is a matter of institutional powers that goes beyond brexit.

If you look back at the governments that stepped over parliament, well you have to look at Mussolini and Hitler... and that without having to talk about concentration camps and gas chambers, which have nothing to do with politics.

coopster_the_1st

Pinno wrote:

I don't think the mechanics of a Brexit and the implications of it were ever properly debated/discussed prior to the referendum. Maybe, as this is the rocky ground on which we sit, this is why the judge's ruling has been sought which can only be seen as a retrospective move in the absence of the real implications of leaving the EU ever been fully considered.

It was never allowed to be considered. The full weight of government (remember that leaflet sent to all households before election rules kicked in :roll: ) was all about making sure that the vote was remain.

If there was an EURef2 what approach would the remain side take this time? It's been pretty obvious that basing it on the economy failing(project fear - "It all about the economy stupid" approach) has been disproved. They cannot win by basing it on the recent fall in the pound as proving they were right.

bendertherobot

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Back on topic as it risks derailing a really good thread. So the last 2 weeks:

- A50 will be debated in parliament.

I'm meh about there being a vote on it, but all does is add more months of uncertainty when were nearing a timetable of March 2017 serve A50, March 2019 leave the EU. Now those dates don't look so certain and that risks damaging the UK further. This is not a victory for remain but a huge negative for UK plc . It's the uncertainty that causes damage.
I don't know how far A50 will be debated in detail, all I know is the more the UK reveals its negotiating hand the weaker our negotiation is and the more likely we will have the unwanted 'hard' brexit.

I cannot see A50 being voted down in the HoC as too many remain supporting MP's have come out to say they will respect the vote. The HoL is another matter. They have already angered the govt recently, if they reject A50 going against the elected HoC, I can see it being the end of the HoL in its current incarnation. Who knows though, all I'm seeing is the creation of more uncertainty.

Too simplistic. This isn't a vote on A50. It's a vote on a Bill which will give power to a Minister to trigger A50. It's what that Act contains which is important and why May has sought to avoid it. Parliament doesn't just say yes or no, it debates, adds, edits, blocks. It would be interesting, for example, if the Lords sought to add a clause which required the relevant Minister to lay before Parliament a plan for what type of exit the Government will require. Bear in mind there is simply no will of the people in relation to anything other than leave. That's the uncertainty, historic fool up.

Adding 600 more voices into the A50 debate is just going to confuse and delay it further. It's obvious this is what is being intended.

Ever since the vote people have be calling for clarification on our position in the EU negotiations. Any information released undermines our negotiating position as per Nissan recently. The more information we release the less likely we are able to negotiate to our preferred position and increases the chances of a hard brexit.

It may delay the serving of A50 past a General Election which will just be an EURef#2 vote. Oh joy!

Everything on the remain side is currently a spoiling tactic of brexit but it is blinkering the remainers to the damage they are doing by chasing this approach. Then Brexit gets the blame and then hopefully a second vote means we vote differently. The UK only gets further damaged by this approach.

The EU's way of keep voting until you vote for the 'correct' result happens again :roll:

As others have said, that's how it works. You elect people to work through the detail. Thankfully we don't have a dictatorship just yet.

There's a tragedy of misunderstanding/lack of knowledge in how our systems work. Let's just wave A50 through because the people want it, let's just do that, no thought, no process, no legality. The simple fact is that the 600 voices are entitled because we put them there and we are entitled. No just the 52 but the 48. And that's the mess. The lack of a plan is not the issue, it's how we got to having no plan, no guidance. Because we didn't ask the question and the answer it to something that isn't remotely useful.

Brexit means Brexit is pretty much the most meaningless soundbite in the history of politics.

coopster_the_1st

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Back on topic as it risks derailing a really good thread. So the last 2 weeks:

- A50 will be debated in parliament.

I'm meh about there being a vote on it, but all does is add more months of uncertainty when were nearing a timetable of March 2017 serve A50, March 2019 leave the EU. Now those dates don't look so certain and that risks damaging the UK further. This is not a victory for remain but a huge negative for UK plc . It's the uncertainty that causes damage.
I don't know how far A50 will be debated in detail, all I know is the more the UK reveals its negotiating hand the weaker our negotiation is and the more likely we will have the unwanted 'hard' brexit.

I cannot see A50 being voted down in the HoC as too many remain supporting MP's have come out to say they will respect the vote. The HoL is another matter. They have already angered the govt recently, if they reject A50 going against the elected HoC, I can see it being the end of the HoL in its current incarnation. Who knows though, all I'm seeing is the creation of more uncertainty.

Too simplistic. This isn't a vote on A50. It's a vote on a Bill which will give power to a Minister to trigger A50. It's what that Act contains which is important and why May has sought to avoid it. Parliament doesn't just say yes or no, it debates, adds, edits, blocks. It would be interesting, for example, if the Lords sought to add a clause which required the relevant Minister to lay before Parliament a plan for what type of exit the Government will require. Bear in mind there is simply no will of the people in relation to anything other than leave. That's the uncertainty, historic fool up.

Adding 600 more voices into the A50 debate is just going to confuse and delay it further. It's obvious this is what is being intended.

Ever since the vote people have be calling for clarification on our position in the EU negotiations. Any information released undermines our negotiating position as per Nissan recently. The more information we release the less likely we are able to negotiate to our preferred position and increases the chances of a hard brexit.

It may delay the serving of A50 past a General Election which will just be an EURef#2 vote. Oh joy!

Everything on the remain side is currently a spoiling tactic of brexit but it is blinkering the remainers to the damage they are doing by chasing this approach. Then Brexit gets the blame and then hopefully a second vote means we vote differently. The UK only gets further damaged by this approach.

The EU's way of keep voting until you vote for the 'correct' result happens again :roll:

I think you don't understand parliamentary democracy. If you think the government has the mandate to act wthout a mandate from the parliament (referendum or not) you are profoundly wrong. It is a matter of institutional powers that goes beyond brexit.

If you look back at the governments that stepped over parliament, well you have to look at Mussolini and Hitler... and that without having to talk about concentration camps and gas chambers, which have nothing to do with politics.

The mandate was passed to the country to decide with every vote being equal. That instruction is then followed by our elected politicians no matter what their individual views are. You cannot have a better form of democracy than this. Parliament has been instructed what to do. It really is that simple, unless you are a remoaner trying to use spoiling tactics to delay the process.

It is why nearly every MP(no matter what colour rosette) will vote in favour of A50 except for a couple of loony labour MP's, the Libdems and the SNP

bendertherobot

Coopster the 1st wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Back on topic as it risks derailing a really good thread. So the last 2 weeks:

- A50 will be debated in parliament.

I'm meh about there being a vote on it, but all does is add more months of uncertainty when were nearing a timetable of March 2017 serve A50, March 2019 leave the EU. Now those dates don't look so certain and that risks damaging the UK further. This is not a victory for remain but a huge negative for UK plc . It's the uncertainty that causes damage.
I don't know how far A50 will be debated in detail, all I know is the more the UK reveals its negotiating hand the weaker our negotiation is and the more likely we will have the unwanted 'hard' brexit.

I cannot see A50 being voted down in the HoC as too many remain supporting MP's have come out to say they will respect the vote. The HoL is another matter. They have already angered the govt recently, if they reject A50 going against the elected HoC, I can see it being the end of the HoL in its current incarnation. Who knows though, all I'm seeing is the creation of more uncertainty.

Too simplistic. This isn't a vote on A50. It's a vote on a Bill which will give power to a Minister to trigger A50. It's what that Act contains which is important and why May has sought to avoid it. Parliament doesn't just say yes or no, it debates, adds, edits, blocks. It would be interesting, for example, if the Lords sought to add a clause which required the relevant Minister to lay before Parliament a plan for what type of exit the Government will require. Bear in mind there is simply no will of the people in relation to anything other than leave. That's the uncertainty, historic fool up.

Adding 600 more voices into the A50 debate is just going to confuse and delay it further. It's obvious this is what is being intended.

Ever since the vote people have be calling for clarification on our position in the EU negotiations. Any information released undermines our negotiating position as per Nissan recently. The more information we release the less likely we are able to negotiate to our preferred position and increases the chances of a hard brexit.

It may delay the serving of A50 past a General Election which will just be an EURef#2 vote. Oh joy!

Everything on the remain side is currently a spoiling tactic of brexit but it is blinkering the remainers to the damage they are doing by chasing this approach. Then Brexit gets the blame and then hopefully a second vote means we vote differently. The UK only gets further damaged by this approach.

The EU's way of keep voting until you vote for the 'correct' result happens again :roll:

I think you don't understand parliamentary democracy. If you think the government has the mandate to act wthout a mandate from the parliament (referendum or not) you are profoundly wrong. It is a matter of institutional powers that goes beyond brexit.

If you look back at the governments that stepped over parliament, well you have to look at Mussolini and Hitler... and that without having to talk about concentration camps and gas chambers, which have nothing to do with politics.

The mandate was passed to the country to decide with every vote being equal. That instruction is then followed by our elected politicians no matter what their individual views are. You cannot have a better form of democracy than this. Parliament has been instructed what to do. It really is that simple, unless you are a remoaner trying to use spoiling tactics to delay the process.

It is why nearly every MP(no matter what colour rosette) will vote in favour of A50 except for a couple of loony labour MP's, the Libdems and the SNP

Again, too simplistic. Try to understand the process. The Bill will have one maybe two clauses. One will be introductory, one will give the relevant Minister power to trigger Art 50. Parliament will vote on the Bill but, in doing so, will want to know how the Government plans to achieve it. The Commons will stress that, the Lords will bloody well demand it. And it's right that it does that, it's right that it's complex, meaningful, detailed, expansive, choose whatever you want. It's how the bloody thing works. Brexit isn't about abandoning how the thing works.

bendertherobot

Coopster the 1st wrote:

It is why nearly every MP(no matter what colour rosette) will vote in favour of A50 except for a couple of loony labour MP's, the Libdems and the SNP

A Tory one resigned yesterday because he believed that when it came to a vote he couldn't stand by with an exit from the single market. And he was a brexiteer.

coopster_the_1st

bendertherobot wrote:

Again, too simplistic. Try to understand the process. The Bill will have one maybe two clauses. One will be introductory, one will give the relevant Minister power to trigger Art 50. Parliament will vote on the Bill but, in doing so, will want to know how the Government plans to achieve it. The Commons will stress that, the Lords will bloody well demand it. And it's right that it does that, it's right that it's complex, meaningful, detailed, expansive, choose whatever you want. It's how the bloody thing works. Brexit isn't about abandoning how the thing works.

Then this process is going to lead to a hard Brexit. The thing most rational people on all sides want to avoid.

We cannot lay out the UK's negotiating position in public as the EU will take advantage of this. Did you see how well DC did in the EU negotiations in February when he had laid out his position before hand?

The result of this court case is likely to deliver the complete opposite result to what the people who brought the case aimed for. Unintended consequences and all that.

We are leaving the EU! The current relationship is now broken as a democratic vote has said the UK does not want to be in the EU. There is only one way we can remain in the EU and that is by adopting the Euro and all that comes with it. Do you fancy remains chances in a referendum on that?

bendertherobot

If hard brexit is irrational then it's quite correct that the will of the rational us debated

Ben6899

Coopster, Parliament hasn't been instructed to do anything.

That isn't how it works. A good few posters here are very patiently and reasonably explaining the process to you, but you're not listening or don't want to hear it?

There's a saying about the fool and the wise man. Honestly mate, listen to people who are willing to teach; it's how one furthers oneself.

bendertherobot

You'd think this sort of thing should have come with the referendum instruction pack. A kind of 'what happens next.'

ugo.santalucia

When Theresa May said that we have to keep our cards close to the chest if we want a good deal, she was appealing to the Daily Mail readers, who think negotiations at that level are like a game of poker or buying herring by the box at Billingsgate market.
What she really meant is that she didn't want to go to parliament because actually nobody has a plan and it would be very embarrassing to reveal it to the nation.

Jez mon

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Again, too simplistic. Try to understand the process. The Bill will have one maybe two clauses. One will be introductory, one will give the relevant Minister power to trigger Art 50. Parliament will vote on the Bill but, in doing so, will want to know how the Government plans to achieve it. The Commons will stress that, the Lords will bloody well demand it. And it's right that it does that, it's right that it's complex, meaningful, detailed, expansive, choose whatever you want. It's how the bloody thing works. Brexit isn't about abandoning how the thing works.

Then this process is going to lead to a hard Brexit. The thing most rational people on all sides want to avoid.

We cannot lay out the UK's negotiating position in public as the EU will take advantage of this. Did you see how well DC did in the EU negotiations in February when he had laid out his position before hand?

The result of this court case is likely to deliver the complete opposite result to what the people who brought the case aimed for. Unintended consequences and all that.

We are leaving the EU! The current relationship is now broken as a democratic vote has said the UK does not want to be in the EU. There is only one way we can remain in the EU and that is by adopting the Euro and all that comes with it. Do you fancy remains chances in a referendum on that?

How are you coming to this conclusion.

We haven't triggered A50 yet. We are full members of the EU and will continue to be for at least 2 more years . Any remainers will want us to stay and not trigger A50. Or trigger a50 and then at the two year point go, this hasn't worked out, let's stay... neither of these things mean joining the euro

coopster_the_1st

Ben6899 wrote:

Coopster, Parliament hasn't been instructed to do anything.

That isn't how it works. A good few posters here are very patiently and reasonably explaining the process to you, but you're not listening or don't want to hear it?

There's a saying about the fool and the wise man. Honestly mate, listen to people who are willing to teach; it's how one furthers oneself.

Ben, I'm not a simpleton like yourself.

I'm well aware of the process but am well past that. I'm onto considering the implications that are likely to play out from this and I cannot see any positives by exposing our negotiating position

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Again, too simplistic. Try to understand the process. The Bill will have one maybe two clauses. One will be introductory, one will give the relevant Minister power to trigger Art 50. Parliament will vote on the Bill but, in doing so, will want to know how the Government plans to achieve it. The Commons will stress that, the Lords will bloody well demand it. And it's right that it does that, it's right that it's complex, meaningful, detailed, expansive, choose whatever you want. It's how the bloody thing works. Brexit isn't about abandoning how the thing works.

Then this process is going to lead to a hard Brexit. The thing most rational people on all sides want to avoid.

We cannot lay out the UK's negotiating position in public as the EU will take advantage of this. Did you see how well DC did in the EU negotiations in February when he had laid out his position before hand?

The result of this court case is likely to deliver the complete opposite result to what the people who brought the case aimed for. Unintended consequences and all that.

We are leaving the EU! The current relationship is now broken as a democratic vote has said the UK does not want to be in the EU. There is only one way we can remain in the EU and that is by adopting the Euro and all that comes with it. Do you fancy remains chances in a referendum on that?

genuine question... what would change your mind about leaving?

say for example, after triggering art 50, unemployment was heading for 3m, inflation was 10% and increasing, companies were leaving the UK for Euroland, Frankfurt/Paris was on par with the city as london moved to europe, JLF were planning to leave for Poland.... the £ would buy 0.5 of a euro and 0,7 of a dollar, our credit rating was junk bond, riots are breaking out in uk cities as the the clamour grows for a 2nd referendum.....

despite this the EU says it wants the UK to stay, on the news that we might, the £ rises to parity with the euro/dollar and JLF put on hold their plans, Moodies revise rating to AA...... BMW say the new Mini will be built in Solihull IF we stay....

would you still argue that we should leave?

nb i dont want you to say none of this would happen, i want to know if you will insist on leaving whatever happens.

ugo.santalucia

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Coopster, Parliament hasn't been instructed to do anything.

That isn't how it works. A good few posters here are very patiently and reasonably explaining the process to you, but you're not listening or don't want to hear it?

There's a saying about the fool and the wise man. Honestly mate, listen to people who are willing to teach; it's how one furthers oneself.

Ben, I'm not a simpleton like yourself.

I'm well aware of the process but am well past that. I'm onto considering the implications that are likely to play out from this and I cannot see any positives by exposing our negotiating position

You are basically invoking a "dictator" in the form of Theresa May to deliver a successful and rapid plan, without the hassle of having to discuss it in parliament. This type of frustration is EXACTLY the reason why very normal people voted for Hitler, to bring change quickly and effectively, without all the bureaucracy of politics and EXACTLY the same reasons why people are voting for Donald Trump, to bring change where politicians cannot deliver with their democratic parliamentary process.

Putting the result ahead of the process has ALWAYS led to loss of civil and human rights. The parliament represents the 52 and the 48% and they all need to have a voice in this, not just a bunch of senior tories figures of dubious morals

coopster_the_1st

Jez mon wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Again, too simplistic. Try to understand the process. The Bill will have one maybe two clauses. One will be introductory, one will give the relevant Minister power to trigger Art 50. Parliament will vote on the Bill but, in doing so, will want to know how the Government plans to achieve it. The Commons will stress that, the Lords will bloody well demand it. And it's right that it does that, it's right that it's complex, meaningful, detailed, expansive, choose whatever you want. It's how the bloody thing works. Brexit isn't about abandoning how the thing works.

Then this process is going to lead to a hard Brexit. The thing most rational people on all sides want to avoid.

We cannot lay out the UK's negotiating position in public as the EU will take advantage of this. Did you see how well DC did in the EU negotiations in February when he had laid out his position before hand?

The result of this court case is likely to deliver the complete opposite result to what the people who brought the case aimed for. Unintended consequences and all that.

We are leaving the EU! The current relationship is now broken as a democratic vote has said the UK does not want to be in the EU. There is only one way we can remain in the EU and that is by adopting the Euro and all that comes with it. Do you fancy remains chances in a referendum on that?

How are you coming to this conclusion.

We haven't triggered A50 yet. We are full members of the EU and will continue to be for at least 2 more years . Any remainers will want us to stay and not trigger A50. Or trigger a50 and then at the two year point go, this hasn't worked out, let's stay... neither of these things mean joining the euro

Do you really think we can stay in the EU after the referendum vote? It would have been tough with a narrow remain victory.

What do you think would happen in the UK if the voting intentions of the majority were ignored? How stable a political system do you think we would have going forward?

We cannot stay in this 'we are leaving limbo' so it is full join or leave. The politicians arguing for remain are supporters of joining the Euro so if they were to win in a GE that is the route we would go.

ugo.santalucia

A political analysis has shown that 4 months on the parliament is broadly in favour of Brexit, but rightly they want to be involved, given they are the HIGHEST political figure in the country (often incorretly awarded to the PM or to the queen in some tearooms)

coopster_the_1st

mamba80 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Again, too simplistic. Try to understand the process. The Bill will have one maybe two clauses. One will be introductory, one will give the relevant Minister power to trigger Art 50. Parliament will vote on the Bill but, in doing so, will want to know how the Government plans to achieve it. The Commons will stress that, the Lords will bloody well demand it. And it's right that it does that, it's right that it's complex, meaningful, detailed, expansive, choose whatever you want. It's how the bloody thing works. Brexit isn't about abandoning how the thing works.

Then this process is going to lead to a hard Brexit. The thing most rational people on all sides want to avoid.

We cannot lay out the UK's negotiating position in public as the EU will take advantage of this. Did you see how well DC did in the EU negotiations in February when he had laid out his position before hand?

The result of this court case is likely to deliver the complete opposite result to what the people who brought the case aimed for. Unintended consequences and all that.

We are leaving the EU! The current relationship is now broken as a democratic vote has said the UK does not want to be in the EU. There is only one way we can remain in the EU and that is by adopting the Euro and all that comes with it. Do you fancy remains chances in a referendum on that?

genuine question... what would change your mind about leaving?

say for example, after triggering art 50, unemployment was heading for 3m, inflation was 10% and increasing, companies were leaving the UK for Euroland, Frankfurt/Paris was on par with the city as london moved to europe, JLF were planning to leave for Poland.... the £ would buy 0.5 of a euro and 0,7 of a dollar, our credit rating was junk bond, riots are breaking out in uk cities as the the clamour grows for a 2nd referendum.....

despite this the EU says it wants the UK to stay, on the news that we might, the £ rises to parity with the euro/dollar and JLF put on hold their plans, Moodies revise rating to AA...... BMW say the new Mini will be built in Solihull IF we stay....

would you still argue that we should leave?

nb i dont want you to say none of this would happen, i want to know if you will insist on leaving whatever happens.

I don't subscribe to this economic doom. Leaving the EU will not bring about what you describe IMO. I cannot think of a scenario that would bring about what you describe and that even includes Labour in its current state coming back to power

What would change my mind about leaving the EU is if it returned to be a pure trading bloc. Unlimited freedom of movement of EU citizens needs to stop as the UK's infrastructure cannot support the ever growing population. Increasing numbers means the current resources are spread more thinly between those who are already here. We need to control the numbers entering the system to the benefit of those already here first.

So let's trade freely with all the other countries in the EU as we will be able to do in future with other countries around the world. That way we all gain and poorer countries may be able to retain their talented young and grow their way out of poverty rather being an exporter of people. There are many strong and growing countries around the world that don't rely on being chained to freedom of movement with the EU.

Ben6899

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Coopster, Parliament hasn't been instructed to do anything.

That isn't how it works. A good few posters here are very patiently and reasonably explaining the process to you, but you're not listening or don't want to hear it?

There's a saying about the fool and the wise man. Honestly mate, listen to people who are willing to teach; it's how one furthers oneself.

Ben, I'm not a simpleton like yourself.

I'm well aware of the process but am well past that. I'm onto considering the implications that are likely to play out from this and I cannot see any positives by exposing our negotiating position

You are hilarious.