Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[buctootim]

What a monumental mess this is becoming. Governments should never ever organise public consultations over anything important.

 

I used to work for the NHS trying to find out how people wanted their money spent and what treatments they would give priority to. After several years the only logical conclusion was that the population is a collection of malleable clueless halfwits.

[buctootim]

Should be a good video of Farage crying about this later on today that I'll look forward to.

 

Has he given up his MEP's salary from the hated undemocratic EU yet? - given we've voted out and all.

[Wes Tender]

Oh well, wait for the result of the appeal and if not reversing this decision, time to call a General Election with the opportunity for the electorate to ascertain whether their MPs are prepared to either represent their wishes or face deselection. In the meantime, I can see the potential for some mass demonstrations which will help concentrate their minds. The demonstrations of those who wished to remain will look like a picnic compared to the ones from those who wished to leave and see the possibility of their wishes being thwarted.

[Window Cleaner]

I used to work for the NHS trying to find out how people wanted their money spent and what treatments they would give priority to. After several years the only logical conclusion was that the population is a collection of malleable clueless halfwits.

 

Sounds about right.

[aintforever]

What a farce. I expect it will end up with us having a general election.

 

So it could be a straight choice between having May as PM out of the EU or stay in EU with Corbyn as PM. LOL

[shurlock]

Oh well, wait for the result of the appeal and if not reversing this decision, time to call a General Election with the opportunity for the electorate to ascertain whether their MPs are prepared to either represent their wishes or face deselection. In the meantime, I can see the potential for some mass demonstrations which will help concentrate their minds. The demonstrations of those who wished to remain will look like a picnic compared to the ones from those who wished to leave and see the possibility of their wishes being thwarted.

 

Parliamentary sovereignty Les - what's not to like?

[John B]

Oh well, wait for the result of the appeal and if not reversing this decision, time to call a General Election with the opportunity for the electorate to ascertain whether their MPs are prepared to either represent their wishes or face deselection. In the meantime, I can see the potential for some mass demonstrations which will help concentrate their minds. The demonstrations of those who wished to remain will look like a picnic compared to the ones from those who wished to leave and see the possibility of their wishes being thwarted.

 

Surely you should be cheering today’s high court judgment as one of the loudest defenders of parliamentary sovereignty. So the judges have heeded your earnest plea to make parliament supreme. Your insistence that Westminster be the ultimate arbiter of our national affairs has been given the judicial seal of approval.

 

Except, of course, you are not ,you wanted to leave in the name of wrestling power from Brussels to Westminster went strangely quiet when it came to the question decided by the court today: who has the power to trigger article 50?

 

Suddenly you have found that parliament was not quite so sacred or central, that some things were best left to ministers to decide. Well, the judges have called out that hypocrisy. They have decided that the Brexiteers should have to comply with their own logic – and bow to parliament.

[ericb]

Oh well, wait for the result of the appeal and if not reversing this decision, time to call a General Election with the opportunity for the electorate to ascertain whether their MPs are prepared to either represent their wishes or face deselection. In the meantime, I can see the potential for some mass demonstrations which will help concentrate their minds. The demonstrations of those who wished to remain will look like a picnic compared to the ones from those who wished to leave and see the possibility of their wishes being thwarted.

 

To be fair that's probably the best answer i've heard from anyone. A general election would invariably be about a mandate to ratify the vote and trigger article 50, the parties could all make a pre election commitment that if the outcome was in either favour then the first item of business in a new party would be doing that and you'd then end up with the parliamentary mandate that was needed to take this forward.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Has he given up his MEP's salary from the hated undemocratic EU yet? - given we've voted out and all.

 

Do you think the snp MPs should take their wages ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

What a farce. I expect it will end up with us having a general election.

 

So it could be a straight choice between having May as PM out of the EU or stay in EU with Corbyn as PM. LOL

 

Labour will be committing electol suicide if the vote against A50 . Forget the fact they've no chance under Corbyn , they'll be smashed in the north . If there's a general election , ukip will only stand against anti A50 MPs and they'll win . They'll step aside from pro A50 ones to ensure the votes not split & the lib dumbs come through the middle .

 

Personally I've always thought May will win a A50 parliamentary vote . Tories will be whipped & for every Clarke or Sourbry that'll defy it , they'll be a labour MP that won't go against their own voters . Add the NI leavers in as well as labour Leavers & I think they'll do it .

[Chris27687]

What a farce. I expect it will end up with us having a general election.

 

So it could be a straight choice between having May as PM out of the EU or stay in EU with Corbyn as PM. LOL

 

Would be more likely to be both Labour and Conservatives going with Leaving the EU and the Lib Dems being kingmaker and only giving support to the party which will cancel Brexit.

 

Back to multi-party politics i would guess is the most likely - Lib Dems beating Zac Goldmsith, which now seems more likely, would help kick start this. They also had huge gains in Cameron's By-Election.

[Verbal]

What a farce. I expect it will end up with us having a general election.

 

So it could be a straight choice between having May as PM out of the EU or stay in EU with Corbyn as PM. LOL

 

You appear not to understand the ruling. It's a ruling against May's strategy, not the referendum. There is nothing 'farcical' about a court making a ruling on matters of law. If you want to vent, vent at the extremely poor presentation of the government's case by the attorney general.

[buctootim]

Do you think the snp MPs should take their wages ?

 

Not after they win a referendum no.

[Wes Tender]

Surely you should be cheering today’s high court judgment as one of the loudest defenders of parliamentary sovereignty. So the judges have heeded your earnest plea to make parliament supreme. Your insistence that Westminster be the ultimate arbiter of our national affairs has been given the judicial seal of approval.

 

Except, of course, you are not ,you wanted to leave in the name of wrestling power from Brussels to Westminster went strangely quiet when it came to the question decided by the court today: who has the power to trigger article 50?

 

Suddenly you have found that parliament was not quite so sacred or central, that some things were best left to ministers to decide. Well, the judges have called out that hypocrisy. They have decided that the Brexiteers should have to comply with their own logic – and bow to parliament.

 

It seems that some of you Remoaners don't understand the finer points of this and are confusing the issues of Parliamentary sovereignty and democracy. Of course like all of the Brexiteers I wanted our Parliament to be sovereign over the EU, as they are elected by us to Govern on our behalf, whereas the EU is not. I have highlighted the important bit. The Government made a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum and then having won the General Election, it was debated in Parliament and a very clear majority voted to hold the Referendum and to accept the result as binding. The Prime Minister even stated that Article 50 would be triggered immediately in the event of a majority vote to leave the EU.

 

Following the largest electoral mandate in British electoral history, we now have a decision made by the judiciary that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without Parliamentary consent.

 

Where is the hypocrisy? Parliamentary sovereignty might have been upheld, but at the expense of democracy. There is nothing to celebrate here. With luck, the Supreme Court will overturn the decision.

[shurlock]

It seems that some of you Remoaners don't understand the finer points of this and are confusing the issues of Parliamentary sovereignty and democracy. Of course like all of the Brexiteers I wanted our Parliament to be sovereign over the EU, as they are elected by us to Govern on our behalf, whereas the EU is not. I have highlighted the important bit. The Government made a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum and then having won the General Election, it was debated in Parliament and a very clear majority voted to hold the Referendum and to accept the result as binding. The Prime Minister even stated that Article 50 would be triggered immediately in the event of a majority vote to leave the EU.

 

Following the largest electoral mandate in British electoral history, we now have a decision made by the judiciary that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without Parliamentary consent.

 

Where is the hypocrisy? Parliamentary sovereignty might have been upheld, but at the expense of democracy. There is nothing to celebrate here. With luck, the Supreme Court will overturn the decision.

 

You might want to read up on some eddie burke pal instead of making fatuous, opaque references to democracy.

 

Spelling is intentional.

Edited 3 November, 2016 by shurlock

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Well I for one am more than happy that we live in a country where the 'rule of law' actually means something. Perhaps those on here moaning about how very inconvenient they happen to find that might care to spend a moment and try to imagine what it would be like to live in a nation state where executive power was effectively unrestrained by the power of the law.

 

I say that if some of the most senior and experienced judges in the land, sitting in the High Court, have reached a judgement indicating that the constitution requires that parliamentary approval is obtained by the executive in this situation then you can rest assured they have probably have good reason to conclude so. Furthermore, I would not be the least surprised to see the Supreme Court eventually come to share that opinion. Time - as always - will tell.

[OldNick]

this is a mess, I would have thought that the man on the street felt that if the result went Brexit then the then Government will impliment the peoples wishes. The unelected judges are going agianst the nations wishes and this makes people dislike the establishment further.

For the nation to go back cap in hand and say 'no we are not leaving after all' would be the biggest disaster since Dunkirk. The joke of Europe.

All of you can debate about the technical bits but the majority of people on the street will feel betrayed by the judges/Parliament. I voted in and should be delighted but no Iam disappointed that people are wriggling out of the decision

[buctootim]

Apparently the High Court's decision was flawed because of the three judges one was gay, one knew about European law and the other had previously been paid for working as a lawyer.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mailonline-online-attacks-brexit-judge-for-being-openly-gay_uk_581b344ee4b0ab6e4c1ba5ff

[Wes Tender]

You might want to read up on some eddie burke pal instead of making fatuous, opaque references to democracy.

 

Spelling is intentional.

 

No doubt you will be happy to quote the relevant passages in his works that define the democratic hierarchy between the decisions made by our elected representatives and those made by the people in a referendum. Oh, sorry, Referenda didn't exist then, so although your mention of him will help your narcissistic need to feel superior, its relevance to this particular set of circumstances is pretty well non-existent, me old mucker.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

this is a mess, I would have thought that the man on the street felt that if the result went Brexit then the then Government will impliment the peoples wishes. The unelected judges are going agianst the nations wishes and this makes people dislike the establishment further.

For the nation to go back cap in hand and say 'no we are not leaving after all' would be the biggest disaster since Dunkirk. The joke of Europe.

All of you can debate about the technical bits but the majority of people on the street will feel betrayed by the judges/Parliament. I voted in and should be delighted but no Iam disappointed that people are wriggling out of the decision

 

During the Judicial Review process those 'unelected ' judges you dislike so are tasked not with deciding government policy, but rather ensuring that government decisions are compatible with the law. It is surely a good thing is it not that the government should act within the law our parliament has laid down? Indeed, not only do I see absolutely nothing wrong with that process, I regard it as a essential safeguard protecting the weak from the abuse of the powerful.

[shurlock]

this is a mess, I would have thought that the man on the street felt that if the result went Brexit then the then Government will impliment the peoples wishes. The unelected judges are going agianst the nations wishes and this makes people dislike the establishment further.

For the nation to go back cap in hand and say 'no we are not leaving after all' would be the biggest disaster since Dunkirk. The joke of Europe.

All of you can debate about the technical bits but the majority of people on the street will feel betrayed by the judges/Parliament. I voted in and should be delighted but no Iam disappointed that people are wriggling out of the decision

 

A lot of Brexiters getting their knickers in the twist. There's little to suggest that MPs will ignore the referendum result and there will be a U-turn - only that the ruling may force greater consultation and clarity on what type of exit the government is contemplating. The referendum was completely silent on this critical aspect. Even Brexiters don't have a clue beyond rumblings about polish immigrants, bendy bananas, £350m a week for the NHS and, of course, the virtues of parliamentary sovereignty.

Edited 3 November, 2016 by shurlock

[shurlock]

No doubt you will be happy to quote the relevant passages in his works that define the democratic hierarchy between the decisions made by our elected representatives and those made by the people in a referendum. Oh, sorry, Referenda didn't exist then, so although your mention of him will help your narcissistic need to feel superior, its relevance to this particular set of circumstances is pretty well non-existent, me old mucker.

 

Democratic hierarchy - what's that in English Les?

[Wes Tender]

Professor A C Grayling, Master, New College of the Humanities, has also reacted to the ruling.

 

The judgment of the High Court in the Article 50 case gives hope to everyone who wishes to see the UK remain part of the EU.

 

In a Parliamentary debate on the matter, a free vote should be allowed so that those MPs who believe that continued EU membership is in the UK's interest can act according to that conviction.

 

It is undoubtedly the case that they will now have a substantial and genuine majority of the country with them.

 

Just how out of touch with reality can some of these academics be? And how naive to believe that MPs should vote according to their convictions and that by doing so, would carry the genuine majority of the country with them, having ignored the wishes of so many of their constituents. Some of them truly live in an Utopian dream world.

[OldNick]

People complain that people feel unattached from politics and then when they do vote it seems their wishes are going to be thwarted by sidestepping

[shurlock]

Some of them truly live in an Utopian dream world.

 

Now Les- what did the doctor tell you about projection?

[buctootim]

People complain that people feel unattached from politics and then when they do vote it seems their wishes are going to be thwarted by sidestepping

 

How is it thwarted? Only 52% of those voting voted to leave the EU - and only a smaller subset of that 52% would vote for hard Brexit - ie much less than half. MPs will likely allow article 50 to go ahead and will want a say in the negotiations. when those are concluded they will vote in some kind of compromise between the hardline 'out is out beat up a Pole' headbangers and the rest of us.

[Johnny Bognor]

How is it thwarted? Only 52% of those voting voted to leave the EU - and only a smaller subset of that 52% would vote for hard Brexit - ie much less than half. MPs will likely allow article 50 to go ahead and will want a say in the negotiations. when those are concluded they will vote in some kind of compromise between the hardline 'out is out beat up a Pole' headbangers and the rest of us.

You make a good point and I don't disagree. Out of interest, how many voted to join the EU??

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[badgerx16]

Out of interest, how many voted to join the EU??

 

"The result was 67.2% in favour, with a turnout of 64.0%."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

[badgerx16]

.....

[Johnny Bognor]

"The result was 67.2% in favour, with a turnout of 64.0%."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

Errr that wasn't to join the EU.

 

Errr that was after Heath passed the euro bill. We had already joined.

 

What percentage of the population did that represent?? Less than 50 %

 

So there's the hypocrisy...

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

How is it thwarted? Only 52% of those voting voted to leave the EU - and only a smaller subset of that 52% would vote for hard Brexit - ie much less than half. MPs will likely allow article 50 to go ahead and will want a say in the negotiations. when those are concluded they will vote in some kind of compromise between the hardline 'out is out beat up a Pole' headbangers and the rest of us.

 

Not sure how that would work. Once the A50 button has been pressed the leave process is set in motion and we may have no choice but hard Brexit depending on how negotiations go with the nobheads at the EU.

[badgerx16]

Errr that wasn't to join the EU.

 

Errr that was after Heath passed the euro bill. We had already joined.

 

What percentage of the population did that represent?? Less than 50 %

 

So there's the hypocrisy...

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I don't think there was a vote when Heath signed us up, Labour got elected with a promise to hold the referendum on his decision.

[Johnny Bognor]

I don't think there was a vote when Heath signed us up, Labour got elected with a promise to hold the referendum on his decision.

 

So 0% voted to join the EEC in the first place.

 

Only 31% of the population voted to stay in in the EEC referendum, in 1975.

 

0% voted to join the EU as we know it.

 

... and Remoaners complain about the EU referendum. Hmmmm.

[badgerx16]

 

Only 31% of the population voted to stay in in the EEC referendum, in 1975

 

Only 26% of the population voted for brexit

[Johnny Bognor]

Only 26% of the population voted for brexit

 

0% voted for the EU... which is kind of why we had a referendum.

 

Loving the project fear terminology of "hard" brexit. Surely it should be "Clean Brexit", as in a clean break?

[John B]

this is a mess, I would have thought that the man on the street felt that if the result went Brexit then the then Government will impliment the peoples wishes. The unelected judges are going agianst the nations wishes and this makes people dislike the establishment further.

For the nation to go back cap in hand and say 'no we are not leaving after all' would be the biggest disaster since Dunkirk. The joke of Europe.

All of you can debate about the technical bits but the majority of people on the street will feel betrayed by the judges/Parliament. I voted in and should be delighted but no Iam disappointed that people are wriggling out of the decision

 

No one is saying we shouldn't leave the EU. They are saying that the UK constitutional process for anything that changes a person rights in law is for a parliamentary act. Brexiters need to get a grip and get over it. I voted remain but would support my MP voting for Article 50 to leave the EU. because I understand democracy. Changing our constitution where parliament is no longer sovereign is the first step to dictatorships and fascisim.

 

You do make an interesting point that the average person does not understand the issues relating to the EU and Brexit and have been led to believe untruths and lies.

 

Even yesterday Bill Cash was either intentionally or possibly because he did not know saying things about the EU on how it works which were factually untrue.

 

On the World at One Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, says he accepts that Britain should leave the EU. But parliament needs to be consulted on the terms of leaving

 

He says the government cannot get away with refusing to reveal its negotiating stance.

 

This needs to be repeated over and over until even the thickest Brexitbot gets it...the decision is not about overturning the referendum but about ensuring parliament correctly acts as a brake on the Executive and post EU the country is reasonable state with people in jobs.

 

It's clear that the government is blundering around blindly in search of a strategy and yet some people think that parliament should pass up the oversight function

 

How irresponsible would that be?

 

May and the Brexiters need to get their arses into gear and start formulating a strategy and then explaining it.

 

I agree with Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chair of the Commons Treasury committee (and a remain voter in June), on the court ruling who said .

 

Whatever the supreme court decides, the government should be much more transparent about its objectives in the negotiations, in some detail, and the sooner the better. It should also ensure that parliament can scrutinise the objectives, and vote on them.

 

There are many good reasons for this. Among several, it can enable the construction of broad-based public consent for the UK’s future relationship with the EU. The UK is leaving; a public debate is needed about where we want to arrive. Before taking off, it is always a good idea for the pilot to discuss with the passengers and crew where they might want to land.

 

Second, clarity about the government’s objectives would enable a serious discussion with other Member States to get underway, prior to the triggering of article 50.

 

And third, it can reduce the economic damage caused by uncertainty over the likely shape of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. It is the uncertainty about the terms of that relationship, far more than the additional time required to clarify the negotiating position, that carries the more significant cost.

 

But at least SFC are still in Europe and our European Manager and Players are doing well

[John B]

Just how out of touch with reality can some of these academics be? And how naive to believe that MPs should vote according to their convictions and that by doing so, would carry the genuine majority of the country with them, having ignored the wishes of so many of their constituents. Some of them truly live in an Utopian dream world.

 

There are times when MPs need to rise above their party interests, their own interests and the views of their constituents. That may risk being voted out, but they may earn more respect by standing up for the national interest as best they can determine: that’s what representative democracy is for. In times of war or national crisis, defending the country from grave error, at whatever personal cost, is their duty. Brexit is the greatest threat to national wellbeing since the war, and this will test the mettle not just of individual MPs, but of the nature and purpose of a representative democratic system.

 

The pound soared following today’s high court news because markets are idiotic, shaped by punters second-guessing one another’s idiocy. This doesn’t suggest, alas, that Brexit is much closer to being reconsidered. Reality will take the pound back down, predicted to sink further with each step towards to the exit gate. Next year’s prices will rise, NIESR reckons, by 4%, hitting those who are “just managing” even harder.

 

Every day another bad effect is revealed before anything has even happened. Today reveals an acute labour shortage in the food processing industries, as east Europeans are reluctant to come here. The shrinking pound decreases the value of their pay, and they hear awful stories of racist attacks and abuse. Without actually leaving, we are already keeping EU immigrants away. The damage is beginning already.

 

The latest regreters are the £4bn curry house operators, who voted out. They were lied to outright, as Priti Patel and others told them fewer EU migrants would open the door to the chefs they desperately need and promised a points-based system to let chefs in. This has now been reneged on. There will be massive closures, they say. How naive could they be? A public stirred by Mail and Sun anti-migrant horror stories were made even more fearful of Muslim refugees pouring than of Poles: of course the government now says the screw is tightening and there will be no more Asian visas. Others too will find how badly they were lied to.

 

Only 37% of the UK voted leave - since when is this a "majority" that many pro-Brexiteers are talking about

 

 

Theresa May's government is skating on very thin ice. The Royal Prerogative is incompatible with the sovereignty of Parliament, not to mention democracy - more so if it is to be used by an unelected Prime Minister to pursue a policy she has claimed she did not think was right for Britain, and has now flipped 180 degrees on the basis of a referendum decision that resulted from a fraudulent campaign that was seriously and deliberately misleading. The fiction that an MP appointed by the government as Attorney General can be an 'honest' legal adviser is equally preposterous.

 

 

Brexit has amounted to a coup d'etat to seize power by a clique of right wing demagogues who deliberately led a campaign based upon deception, lies and reckless disregard of any planning for the consequential destruction of the trade agreements, and the destabilisation of pan European partnerships upon which the prosperity and long term security of the now disunited Kingdom is primarily dependent.

 

 

These political clowns are rightfully ridiculed by European leaders of every hue. Guy Verhfostadt sums them up perfectly here.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/28/brexit-negotiator-hits-out-at-uk-ministers-mixed-messages

 

 

Neither this government, nor our dysfunctional, archaic, and unfit for purpose Parliament, have any credibility that can give legitimacy to the politically corrupt Brexit campaign.

 

 

Brexit has destroyed the unity of the United Kingdom; it has exposed how hollow and rotten is the constitutional pretence that we have a democratic system of government protected by strong checks and balances. House of Commons Select Committees are lacking in power to bring Ministers to acount. Prime Ministers are loose cannons.

 

 

Neither the fractured United Kingdom, nor England, will ever be reunited by this rogue unelected premiership nor by a Parliament that seeks to pass over what has happened by, meekly acquiescing to the ludicrous undemocratic Royal Prerogative.

 

 

Britain should be deeply ashamed that it has become so disreputable.

 

 

The constitutional legitimacy of the shallow dishonest Brexit campaign and the validity of the referendum as an informed democratic decision must be challenged in the House of Lords and/or the Supreme Court by Public Legal Officials acting on behalf of UK citizens.

 

 

There must also be a thorough inquiry as to what is so wrong with our entire system of government in the UK that it has lost touch with so many regions, and has failed the nation for so long that it has brought the nation to the brink of disintegration and collapse.

 

 

Nothing less than a total Constitutional Reformation is now required. Parliament is effectively an unrepresentative sham democratic one House institution. The fictional 'make it up' as you go along unwritten Constitution is a wizard of Oz construct. It is high time Britain got rid of fake democracy. Parliament has become a decayed house of ill repute as decrepit as the building in which it resides.

 

 

It is this or risk a constitutional crisis that might well provoke a second Cromwellian reformation. Either Parliament is seen to act honourably to cleanse itself or it will fall. Using the Royal Prerogative may end up bringing down Parliament and the Monarchy.

[badgerx16]

John B, re posts #2319 & #2320....

 

[Wes Tender]

Only 26% of the population voted for brexit

 

I think that the appropriate statistic should be based on the percentage of the electorate, not the population, unless of course you wish to include babies/children and others not entitled to vote.

 

On that basis, my calculations are that 37.4% of the electorate voted to leave, 34.7% to remain, 27% didn't bother to vote and 25000 spoilt their ballot papers.

 

I suspect that the winning margin would have been greater, had the Government not spent over £9 million of taxpayers money on pro-remain propaganda and if our public broadcasting service had not been so heavily biased towards the remain side themselves.

 

Regardless of how you wish to see it, the 17,410,742 votes to leave the EU was the biggest electoral mandate in British political history.

[Wes Tender]

There are times when MPs need to rise above their party interests, their own interests and the views of their constituents. That may risk being voted out, but they may earn more respect by standing up for the national interest as best they can determine: that’s what representative democracy is for. In times of war or national crisis, defending the country from grave error, at whatever personal cost, is their duty. Brexit is the greatest threat to national wellbeing since the war, and this will test the mettle not just of individual MPs, but of the nature and purpose of a representative democratic system.

 

The pound soared following today’s high court news because markets are idiotic, shaped by punters second-guessing one another’s idiocy. This doesn’t suggest, alas, that Brexit is much closer to being reconsidered. Reality will take the pound back down, predicted to sink further with each step towards to the exit gate. Next year’s prices will rise, NIESR reckons, by 4%, hitting those who are “just managing” even harder.

 

Every day another bad effect is revealed before anything has even happened. Today reveals an acute labour shortage in the food processing industries, as east Europeans are reluctant to come here. The shrinking pound decreases the value of their pay, and they hear awful stories of racist attacks and abuse. Without actually leaving, we are already keeping EU immigrants away. The damage is beginning already.

 

The latest regreters are the £4bn curry house operators, who voted out. They were lied to outright, as Priti Patel and others told them fewer EU migrants would open the door to the chefs they desperately need and promised a points-based system to let chefs in. This has now been reneged on. There will be massive closures, they say. How naive could they be? A public stirred by Mail and Sun anti-migrant horror stories were made even more fearful of Muslim refugees pouring than of Poles: of course the government now says the screw is tightening and there will be no more Asian visas. Others too will find how badly they were lied to.

 

Only 37% of the UK voted leave - since when is this a "majority" that many pro-Brexiteers are talking about

 

 

Theresa May's government is skating on very thin ice. The Royal Prerogative is incompatible with the sovereignty of Parliament, not to mention democracy - more so if it is to be used by an unelected Prime Minister to pursue a policy she has claimed she did not think was right for Britain, and has now flipped 180 degrees on the basis of a referendum decision that resulted from a fraudulent campaign that was seriously and deliberately misleading. The fiction that an MP appointed by the government as Attorney General can be an 'honest' legal adviser is equally preposterous.

 

 

Brexit has amounted to a coup d'etat to seize power by a clique of right wing demagogues who deliberately led a campaign based upon deception, lies and reckless disregard of any planning for the consequential destruction of the trade agreements, and the destabilisation of pan European partnerships upon which the prosperity and long term security of the now disunited Kingdom is primarily dependent.

 

 

These political clowns are rightfully ridiculed by European leaders of every hue. Guy Verhfostadt sums them up perfectly here.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/28/brexit-negotiator-hits-out-at-uk-ministers-mixed-messages

 

 

Neither this government, nor our dysfunctional, archaic, and unfit for purpose Parliament, have any credibility that can give legitimacy to the politically corrupt Brexit campaign.

 

 

Brexit has destroyed the unity of the United Kingdom; it has exposed how hollow and rotten is the constitutional pretence that we have a democratic system of government protected by strong checks and balances. House of Commons Select Committees are lacking in power to bring Ministers to acount. Prime Ministers are loose cannons.

 

 

Neither the fractured United Kingdom, nor England, will ever be reunited by this rogue unelected premiership nor by a Parliament that seeks to pass over what has happened by, meekly acquiescing to the ludicrous undemocratic Royal Prerogative.

 

 

Britain should be deeply ashamed that it has become so disreputable.

 

 

The constitutional legitimacy of the shallow dishonest Brexit campaign and the validity of the referendum as an informed democratic decision must be challenged in the House of Lords and/or the Supreme Court by Public Legal Officials acting on behalf of UK citizens.

 

 

There must also be a thorough inquiry as to what is so wrong with our entire system of government in the UK that it has lost touch with so many regions, and has failed the nation for so long that it has brought the nation to the brink of disintegration and collapse.

 

 

Nothing less than a total Constitutional Reformation is now required. Parliament is effectively an unrepresentative sham democratic one House institution. The fictional 'make it up' as you go along unwritten Constitution is a wizard of Oz construct. It is high time Britain got rid of fake democracy. Parliament has become a decayed house of ill repute as decrepit as the building in which it resides.

 

 

It is this or risk a constitutional crisis that might well provoke a second Cromwellian reformation. Either Parliament is seen to act honourably to cleanse itself or it will fall. Using the Royal Prerogative may end up bringing down Parliament and the Monarchy.

 

What is your next book going to be about?

[moonraker]

John B, nail on head, sadly Brexiteers do not want to address the real constitutional, political, economic and social damage that is happening, they are far to drunk on winning, and feeling superior. They have little grasp of what or how our democracy works. The ruling of the High Court was a clear example of taking back control, yet another reality they are incapable of acknowledging.

[Batman]

John B, nail on head, sadly Brexiteers do not want to address the real constitutional, political, economic and social damage that is happening, they are far to drunk on winning, and feeling superior. They have little grasp of what or how our democracy works. The ruling of the High Court was a clear example of taking back control, yet another reality they are incapable of acknowledging.

 

we will leave the EU but in the right way now.

Nothing wrong with that

[moonraker]

we will leave the EU but in the right way now.

Nothing wrong with that

 

I agree, so why did we have to go through all the bluff and bluster, May has behaved without any regard to our Parlimentary Democracy, something many in the Leave camp claimed they were camaigning to restore fully.

[sandwichsaint]

I think that the appropriate statistic should be based on the percentage of the electorate, not the population, unless of course you wish to include babies/children and others not entitled to vote.

 

On that basis, my calculations are that 37.4% of the electorate voted to leave, 34.7% to remain, 27% didn't bother to vote and 25000 spoilt their ballot papers.

 

I suspect that the winning margin would have been greater, had the Government not spent over £9 million of taxpayers money on pro-remain propaganda and if our public broadcasting service had not been so heavily biased towards the remain side themselves.

 

Regardless of how you wish to see it, the 17,410,742 votes to leave the EU was the biggest electoral mandate in British political history.

 

Genuine question, what does this 'stat' actually mean? I'm guessing it's 'the largest number of votes cast for one cause or party'. Which is unsurprising on it's own terms (the largest electorate ever, a binary choice rather than multiple choices, a topic that a lot of people felt passionately about etc) and for those reasons alone, it's essentially meaningless. It provides no reference to turn-out (we've had GE's with bigger turn-outs) nor to how close, or otherwise, the vote actually was.

 

I think we would now be in a far better place as a country if the referendum had been a) binding and b) with a threshold of 60% of voters needed to trigger a change. We now have the absolute worst of all worlds, you have to wonder how (why?) the 'advisory' part was ever left in; supreme arrogance/out-of-touchness from Cameron that they wouldn't lose or that the 'establishment' has never had any intention of leaving.

 

If it was left deliberately left in for a reason (to cover a close or inconclusive result and/or to ensure that due processes were followed and that any leaving was subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny) then that is surely exactly where we are?

 

Listening to question time on the way home last night was genuinely scary, panel and audience!

[John B]

I think that the appropriate statistic should be based on the percentage of the electorate, not the population, unless of course you wish to include babies/children and others not entitled to vote.

 

On that basis, my calculations are that 37.4% of the electorate voted to leave, 34.7% to remain, 27% didn't bother to vote and 25000 spoilt their ballot papers.

 

I suspect that the winning margin would have been greater, had the Government not spent over £9 million of taxpayers money on pro-remain propaganda and if our public broadcasting service had not been so heavily biased towards the remain side themselves.

 

Regardless of how you wish to see it, the 17,410,742 votes to leave the EU was the biggest electoral mandate in British political history.

 

It is not in dispute that 17,410,74 voted to leave the EU what is in dispute is what does leaving the actually meanmean.

 

It certainly does not mean that £350million per week is going to the NHS it does not mean that we are going to get a points based immigration system.

 

It does however mean that people's standard of living are going to fall as inflation and unemployment rise and economic growth falters.

 

It means a great deal of uncertainty for large numbers of UK citizens because of concerns in relation to foreign companies investing in the UK and UK citizens living in Europe on their future status.

 

There are huge concerns in the island of Ireland on how Brexit is going to affect their daily lives.

 

Is OK voting out but but when you dont know what voting out means I think is slightly naive .

 

The referendum was just a political ploy by the Conservatives in order to win the 2015 GE it had nothing to do with the well being of the country and its citizens.

 

Now unelected PM Mrs May wants to BREXIT by coming up with ideas of her own and her cabinet without any discussion and inspection by our democratically elected MPs.

 

We are going to leave the EU but we need agreement from most of the population otherwise we are in for a great deal of social grief in the future if the way some people are reacting with threats and violence

 

Theresa May has handled all this so badly. If when she first took charge she had said something along the lines of "we need to follow-through with what people voted for, but it's not going to be an easy task. The voices of those who voted remain should also be acknowledged. We will leave, but there may be some compromises to get the best possible situation for the UK. We will have a parliamentary session to trigger article 50 and begin negotiations, at the end of which we will present to the public for them to have a final say over whether to proceed." I think that would have acceptable to to the majority of people on both sides of the debate and would be democratic and people would know what they were voting for.

[Batman]

I agree, so why did we have to go through all the bluff and bluster, May has behaved without any regard to our Parlimentary Democracy, something many in the Leave camp claimed they were camaigning to restore fully.

 

its the media whipping up a story

like the punishment budget, WW3, £350m and the great recession that were vastly talked about

[badgerx16]

Wes, when replying to a post it normally makes sense to consider any previous post that it may be responding to, or quoting. You could have saved yourself several minutes of typing, ( and thinking ), for post #2322 if you had done so.

[Wes Tender]

John B, nail on head, sadly Brexiteers do not want to address the real constitutional, political, economic and social damage that is happening, they are far to drunk on winning, and feeling superior. They have little grasp of what or how our democracy works. The ruling of the High Court was a clear example of taking back control, yet another reality they are incapable of acknowledging.

 

The usual arrogance, I see. Only the Remainians have any grasp of what or how our democracy works and only they are capable of understanding the realities of the situation. And you have the gall to label the Brexiteers as feeling superior.

 

The High Court ruling was the considered legal opinion of three Judges, one of whom clearly had a conflict of interest because of his connections to the European Law Insitute, which has the goal of enhancing European legal integration.

 

Other legal eagles take a different view on the legalities of the situation:-

 

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-article-50-case.shtml

 

There has a been a long string of attempted challenges to the use of the prerogative power to extend EEC or EU powers, all of which have been rejected by the courts, sometimes in peremptory terms. However, when the prerogative is used to achieve “less Europe” in order to implement the decision of the British people which an Act of Parliament empowered them to take, it is suddenly found that there are implied limitations on the prerogative power which prevent it being used for this purpose.

 

Perhaps you would care to comment on this apparent contradiction. Or do these particular legal experts have little grasp of the legal aspects of the Parliamentary democratic process?

 

Perhaps the Supreme Court will arrive at a different conclusion to the High Court. If not, then time to call a General Election on the Brexit issue, which the Conservatives will win convincingly.

[Wes Tender]

Genuine question, what does this 'stat' actually mean? I'm guessing it's 'the largest number of votes cast for one cause or party'. Which is unsurprising on it's own terms (the largest electorate ever, a binary choice rather than multiple choices, a topic that a lot of people felt passionately about etc) and for those reasons alone, it's essentially meaningless. It provides no reference to turn-out (we've had GE's with bigger turn-outs) nor to how close, or otherwise, the vote actually was.

 

I think we would now be in a far better place as a country if the referendum had been a) binding and b) with a threshold of 60% of voters needed to trigger a change. We now have the absolute worst of all worlds, you have to wonder how (why?) the 'advisory' part was ever left in; supreme arrogance/out-of-touchness from Cameron that they wouldn't lose or that the 'establishment' has never had any intention of leaving.

 

If it was left deliberately left in for a reason (to cover a close or inconclusive result and/or to ensure that due processes were followed and that any leaving was subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny) then that is surely exactly where we are?

 

Listening to question time on the way home last night was genuinely scary, panel and audience!

 

I agree that there should have been a 60% threshold of voters to trigger a change. And that should have applied to all of the Treaties subsequent to the original one we signed to join the Common Market. All these arguments about the democratic process in connection to our EU membership are totally undermined by the lack of democracy accorded to the electorate by successive governments who allowed these substantial changes which gradually turned a trading bloc towards a Federal United States of Europe without their approval.

[shurlock]

See Stephen Phillips MP has resigned: if only a few more Brexiters were similarly principled.