Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Folks: Please. Debate the issue. Do not attack the poster. Thank you.
    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

    Comment


    • Debate ????????????? , how , im trying my best not to unload on zara but ater all the attacks n B/S coming from her its bloody hard not to ,,ffs brexit voters are murderers now , xenephobic racists , all of which im NOT , zara , democracy RULES we voted out , accept it , end of debate with you ,,,,, be warned ,

      DO NOT ATTACK ME AGAIN WITH YOUR TOTALLY ABSURD RHETORIC AND ACCUSATIONS

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Pedicabby View Post
        Are you insane?
        Nope, I voted remain.

        Comment


        • Note to all: A moderator has warned all twice in 2 pages to keep the tone civil. All are at risk of having this thread closed and locked. Please don't force us to do that.[/
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tankie View Post
            Debate ????????????? , how , im trying my best not to unload on zara but ater all the attacks n B/S coming from her its bloody hard not to ,,ffs brexit voters are murderers now , xenephobic racists , all of which im NOT , zara , democracy RULES we voted out , accept it , end of debate with you ,,,,, be warned ,

            DO NOT ATTACK ME AGAIN WITH YOUR TOTALLY ABSURD RHETORIC AND ACCUSATIONS
            If you look back at my posts you will see I never called YOU any of that.

            Im saying that there was a large component of the leave vote was racist. Thats undeniable. Look at the poster UKIP put out. Hate crime 'is up since the vote, the government is trying to adopt xenopbic policies as a result. Why are all my European friends planning to go back home now? They feel threatened and unwelcome. I cannot understand why you cannot see that.

            If I implied that you are racist or xenophobic then Im sorry. That wasn't my intention

            Comment


            • Originally posted by zara View Post
              If you look back at my posts you will see I never called YOU any of that.

              Im saying that there was a large component of the leave vote was racist. Thats undeniable. Look at the poster UKIP put out. Hate crime 'is up since the vote, the government is trying to adopt xenopbic policies as a result. Why are all my European friends planning to go back home now? They feel threatened and unwelcome. I cannot understand why you cannot see that.

              If I implied that you are racist or xenophobic then Im sorry. That wasn't my intention
              Ok , Im with that , your snivelling grovelling knee crawling trouser leg ruining appology is accepted , send vodka , lol
              Last edited by tankie; 19 Oct 16,, 19:57.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by cataphract View Post
                That's an interesting thought. Maybe it would've made sense to iron out the terms of Brexit before putting it to referendum
                Cameron did have a 're-notiation'.

                Originally posted by tankie View Post
                I reckon its because they thought the vote would not be out and they would carry on with bizz as usual , so no exit strategy was in their mind needed !
                No Government opts for a referendum unless it believes it will get the answer it wants. It was 'brave' or 'stupid' or both and though I do not have great hopes of 'making Britain great again' from any Brexit deal that denies Britain access to the single European market I will admit that it is too early to judge with certainty. The problem is that if you do wait for 'certainty' and the results are bad you will be in a considerably weaker position to negotiate from, so cataphract does have a point; negotiating on the basis of "we might leave unless we get..." rather than "we are leaving so give us..." would be an far stronger position. Cameron's real mistake was that he didn't push hard enough during the 're-negotiation' possibly, as you say, because he believed he had the referendum in the bag.

                Originally posted by zara View Post
                It is a legal non event. It's non-binding and simply advisory. The government has no obligation to carry out the advice of the public.
                I believe legally speaking you are correct but it would be a disastrous policy for a Government to ignore the democratic will of the nation though as I have said that does not rule out a future referendum to over-rule the Brexit one, which in reality is almost assured at some point in the future.

                Originally posted by zara View Post
                Brexit is responsible for the murders of that Polish child and Joe Cox
                I am Polish though I can speak English without an accent, yet I find it hard to be sure that Brexit is responsible for murder or racially based crime... nutters are going to be nutters and though it may have provided an excuse for their crimes it remains only an excuse whereas the economic migration problem is not about trying to read one nutcases mens rea but a general and real issue that deserved to be responsibly addressed. Sure Britain has always had migrational workers - the Irish built alot of the railways I believe, Londoners used to do the hop harvest in Kent etc... and there's an argument that it is needed and beneficial for the country but blaming nutters for whatever motivates them is not part of the debate. Personally I would be glad if all the Poles went back to Poland and we certainly do not need - but are bound to suffer from - a youth 'brain drain' in Ukraine but not for 'racial' reasons - simply because Poland and Ukraine would benefit from a higher population.

                Comment


                • Well Sarah , zara ,, It would appear that we have been given the opportunity to excersise our democratic preference, now after Mays announcement today ref a vote of MPs moaning about the result , it seems they will use their constitutional powers to ensure the correct "result" prevails . Stitched again maybes . No wonder May was confidently saying brexit means brexit , if the door is opened to overturn , she can state not my fault ? but does this then mean another ref ? if not another total stitch up and waste of tax payers money ,and camoron proving to be the liar and POS he is , but i hope if they get their way that the backlash from the great unwashed doesnt ruin their careers . 17 million + pissed off disillusioned voters gathering and braying for blood wont be pretty , unless of course the sheeple roll over as usual . Im looking forward to Farages coming statement , with of course Boris's ,


                  Mind tho , this is from the Express so its probz a load of gutter bollox , lolol


                  Parliament will get a vote on Brexit treaty, Theresa May confirms
                  The Prime Minister
                  The Prime Minister CREDIT: TELEGRAPH
                  Kate McCann, senior political correspondent
                  18 OCTOBER 2016 • 6:32PM
                  Theresa May has pledged to give MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal secured by the Government in a move that could lead to a battle with europhile backbench MPs.

                  Parliament will be given the chance to approve a new treaty agreed with the EU following the Article 50 process, a spokesman confirmed, but the vote could come after a deal has already been agreed and MPs will not be able to prevent the UK leaving the union.

                  The move prompted fears that remain-supporting MPs could block the treaty, putting any agreement with the EU under threat and triggering warnings that such a plot would be unconstitutional.

                  Theresa May
                  Theresa May CREDIT: REUTERS
                  Andrew Bridgen MP said: "Unfortunately there is a rump of unreconcilable remainers who are still very bruised from the Brexit result, some of whom's only fast-track back to high office is if Brexit is an economic disaster.

                  "Everything they say and do needs to be seen through that prism. It'll be very 'courageous' remain supporting MPs who would defy the clear will of the British people."


                  It came after James Eadie QC, defending the Government over claims Mrs May should seek Parliamentary approval before triggering Article 50, told the high court: "The Government view at the moment it that it is very likely that any such agreement would be subject to ratification.

                  "Almost all treaties are subject to ratification", he added.

                  But such a vote would be on the final treaty, not the negotiating process, and is unlikely to happen before 2019 when the deal may already have been done, lawyers said.

                  And while Parliament would have the opportunity to block the treaty by voting against it, it cannot be amended.

                  Priti Patel: Brexit defeat in Commons goes against public willPlay! 00:40
                  David Pannick QC, acting for the complainants in the case, told the court that Britain will still leave the EU even if Parliament refused to back the new deal.

                  He said: “Parliament cannot reverse the notification. All that happens is either there is no agreement and we still leave or there is a new agreement but the new agreement cannot restore the [citizens] rights lost.

                  The Prime Minister's decision not to seek approval before triggering Article 50 is under attack in a historic legal challenge launched by a group of campaigners, referred to as "concerned citizens".

                  David Cameron triggered the vote
                  David Cameron triggered the vote CREDIT: PA
                  They are asking the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, to rule that Mrs May is in danger of undermining the sovereignty of Parliament because MPs have not been given the chance to vote on the process.

                  Mr Eadie told the court there still would be scrutiny. He said: "Any such changes are a matter for future negotiations, Parliamentary scrutiny, and implementation by legislation."
                  Last edited by tankie; 19 Oct 16,, 20:16.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tankie View Post
                    Ok , Im with that , your snivelling grovelling knee crawling trouser leg ruining appology is accepted , send vodka , lol
                    wow. gracious

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                      I believe legally speaking you are correct but it would be a disastrous policy for a Government to ignore the democratic will of the nation though as I have said that does not rule out a future referendum to over-rule the Brexit one, which in reality is almost assured at some point in the future.
                      It would be a disastrous policy for a Government to break the good friday agreement and send Northern Ireland back to war. It would be a disastrous policy for a government to enact a policy that will likely lead to the breakup of the UK.


                      Originally posted by snapper View Post
                      I am Polish though I can speak English without an accent, yet I find it hard to be sure that Brexit is responsible for murder or racially based crime... nutters are going to be nutters and though it may have provided an excuse for their crimes it remains only an excuse whereas the ..
                      The huge rise in hate crime is directly linked to the referendum result. The Police say as much. It has emboldened the racists and hatemongers. Its not some freak coincidence.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tankie View Post
                        I reckon its because they thought the vote would not be out and they would carry on with bizz as usual , so no exit strategy was in their mind needed ! The Tories badly underestimated the feelings of the , electorate, or the great unwashed masses , Camoron stated there will be no 2nd vote because he thought there would be a resounding vote to stay in so therefore denying the brexiteers the chance of another vote until it went their way ,which is what the remain camp is busy trying to do now .Democracy, what democracy !! PM May is saying the things the brexits want to hear , have to wait n see on delivery.
                        I agree. They completely misread the public mood before promising a referendum. But it also goes to show how easily the lemmings can be led off a cliff these days. The kind of outright lies that the unwashed masses bought into from the leave camp. I think we won't have a govt-led referendum anywhere in the world anytime soon.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by zara View Post
                          wow. gracious
                          Hahahaha,yup that's me right enough , but after yesterday's announcement by May its gonna get hmmmm , interesting to say the least

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by cataphract View Post
                            I agree. They completely misread the public mood before promising a referendum. But it also goes to show how easily the lemmings can be led off a cliff these days. The kind of outright lies that the unwashed masses bought into from the leave camp. I think we won't have a govt-led referendum anywhere in the world anytime soon.
                            Totaly misread with typical tory arrogance methinks .

                            And now the great unelected telling the elected and unwashed what the score is ,,herumph herumph



                            Hugh Bennett: The House of Lords again flexes its muscles on Brexit – but peers should be careful about trying to frustrate the will of the people
                            Hugh Bennett 20th October 2016


                            house-of-lordsThe House of Lords European Union Committee has set itself on a collision course with the Government with the publication of its report on Parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit this morning.

                            Although the report stops short of calling for a formal scrutiny reserve resolution (“at this stage”) to legally bind ministers’ actions, and is careful to deny suggestions from ministers that it is seeking to “micromanage” the negotiations, it nonetheless calls for measures that have the potential to impinge on the Government’s ability to manoeuvre swiftly and decisively during the negotiations.


                            Essentially, the report demands that Parliamentary Committees be provided with a “wide range of documents relevant to the negotiations” in “sufficient time for the Committees to provide comment to Government and for the Government to take those views into account”. The Government would then be expected, if not legally obliged, to “respond to any formal recommendations on the negotiations made by Committees and give reasons for any it does not accept.”

                            Whilst it is not entirely clear what this process would involve in precise practical terms, it is fair to say that adding an onerous exercise in protracted to-ing and fro-ing between the Government and a plethora of Parliamentary Committees at every stage is hardly likely to streamline the negotiating process, particularly when the report simultaneously stresses the importance in its eyes of securing at least some sort of deal, whether transitional or permanent, within the two-year Article 50 negotiation period.

                            Moreover, the report argues that the Government is in fact already bound to do this, and here the Committee does potentially have a point – David Davis did undertake to “certainly match and, hopefully, improve on what the European Parliament sees” when previously giving evidence to the Lords EU Committee on the question of what level of access to information Parliamentarians would receive. It will be interesting to see how the Government responds to this.

                            Perhaps most significantly, the Committee calls for a debate and a vote on the Government’s negotiating strategy in both Houses of Parliament before the negotiations begin. Lord Boswell, the Chair of the Committee, is clear in saying: “Parliamentary scrutiny should start before Article 50 is triggered, with the Government asking Parliament to approve the negotiating guidelines.”

                            This is materially the same demand as in the case brought by Gina Miller to the High Court last week – you can read my piece about that case here – the outcome of which is yet to be determined, as the Committee notes with interest in its report. Miller has claimed that the case was about “process not politics”, although that has not prevented her underlying motives being called heavily into question.

                            Given the heavily pro-Remain makeup of Parliament – overwhelmingly so in the Lords – and hence the inherent difficulty of passing a vote on Article 50 in a reasonable timeframe, it seems only fair to question the underlying motives behind this latest demand from the Lords EU Committee as well – a committee which includes Lord Liddle, who was Tony Blair’s special adviser on Europe before going off to work for José Manuel Barroso.at the European Commission; the former Lib Dem MEP Lord Teverson; and Baroness Brown of Cambridge, co-signatory of the open letter from university Vice-Chancellors against Brexit – to name just three Remain supporters among its members.

                            Much as there is a reliable conveyor belt transporting many of Europe’s politicians facing failure in their own domestic arenas to the safe havens of the European Parliament and Commission, there has similarly been a steady stream of ‘Brussels Club’ alumni coming back the other way to be welcomed into the Lords with open arms.

                            This, combined with the significant over-representation of the Europhile Lib Dems and the bureaucratic background of many of its appointees, has left the Upper House completely out of step with the general population in its attitudes towards the EU.

                            At a time when Lords reform is firmly back on the agenda, peers should be very careful that they do not, by attempt to frustrate the will of the electorate, shift public opinion sufficiently that, rather than waiting for the Lords to give in, the public decide that the easier solution would simply be to get rid of them altogether, at least in their current form.

                            Lord Stoddart made this point excellently on BrexitCentral last month – and his colleagues would be well advised to heed his warnings.

                            It smacks of more than a little wishful thinking, with a faint whiff of disingenuity, to suggest that sending a legally-mandated shopping list of demands to Brussels whilst simultaneously tying the Government’s hands behind its back is somehow the best way to enter the negotiations with a view to securing the optimal Brexit outcome for Britain.

                            The more the Government is restricted in its ability to compromise and negotiate, and the more the European Commission is able to identify the weaknesses in its negotiating position, the easier it will be for the EU to back the UK into a corner and force us into accepting a deal on its own terms, rather than on terms that are ultimately the most mutually beneficial.


                            The public themselves will be able to distinguish between genuine attempts to support and enhance the process and cynical attempts to bog it down with spurious delays. Parliamentarians – and peers in particular – should be certain that their actions are of the former kind, otherwise the backlash from the public may be severe.
                            Last edited by tankie; 20 Oct 16,, 13:09.

                            Comment


                            • And the stitch up begins ,,,,, MPs are elected to represent us. We voted to leave the EU - Parliament must respect this result for the sake of democracy.

                              quote from N Farage .

                              I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand.
                              Last night at the Spectator Parliamentary Awards I had a distinct feeling that our political class, who were out in force, do not accept the 23rd of June Referendum result.
                              I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke.




                              EU referendum and Brexit
                              Setback for Theresa May as high court says MPs must approve Brexit
                              Judgment that MPs rather than government must trigger article 50 is likely to slow pace of UK’s departure from EU
                              An EU flag is seen near the Houses of Parliament. ???????????????????
                              The challengers maintained that parliamentary approval and legislation was required for such a fundamental change. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA
                              Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent
                              @owenbowcott
                              Thursday 3 November 2016 10.35 GMT Last modified on Thursday 3 November 2016 10.39 GMT
                              Parliament alone has the power to trigger Brexit by notifying Brussels of the UK’s intention to leave the European Union, the high court has ruled.

                              The judgment, delivered by the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is likely to slow the pace of Britain’s departure from the EU and is a huge setback for Theresa May, who had insisted the government alone would decide when to trigger the process.

                              The lord chief justice said that “the most fundamental rule of the UK constitution is that parliament is sovereign”.

                              A government spokesman said that ministers will appeal to the supreme court against the decision. The hearing will take place early next month.

                              Live High court says parliament must vote on triggering article 50 - Politics live
                              Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen, including the high court ruling on whether parliament should get a vote on triggering article 50
                              Read more
                              The lord chief justice said: “The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the 1972 European Communities Act to support it. In the judgment of the court the argument is contrary both to the language used by parliament in the 1972 act, and to the fundamental principles of the sovereignty of parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers.”

                              Unless overturned on appeal at the supreme court, the ruling threatens to plunge the government’s plans for Brexit into disarray as the process will have to be subject to full parliamentary control.

                              Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect “to the will of the people” who voted by a clear majority to leave the European Union in the June referendum.

                              But the lord chief justice declared: “The government does not have power under the crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.”



                              By handing responsibility for initiating Brexit over to MPs, the three senior judges – Lord Thomas; the master of the rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales – have ventured on to constitutionally untested ground.

                              The legal dispute focused on article 50 of the treaty on European Union, which states that any member state may leave “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” – an undefined term that has allowed both sides to pursue rival interpretations.

                              The decision may undermine the prime minister’s authority in conducting negotiations with other EU states in the run-up to the UK’s withdrawal.

                              Analysis What could happen if the article 50 legal challenge is successful?
                              The high court is to decide whether government or parliament has the authority to trigger exit process. We look at what a pro-parliament verdict could mean
                              Read more
                              The court took barely two and a half weeks to deliver its judgment. Lawyers for the government had argued that the prime minister has authority under the royal prerogative – its executive powers – to give formal notification.

                              The challengers maintained that parliamentary approval and legislation was required for such a fundamental change that would deprive millions of UK citizens of their legal rights. If ministers alone triggered Brexit they would be undermining the sovereignty of parliament, it was argued.
                              Last edited by tankie; 03 Nov 16,, 11:55.

                              Comment


                              • And another view , which im afraid may come true . From the commentator .


                                INSTANT VIEW: UK High Court in direct attack on democracy over Brexit

                                The High Court has launched a direct assault on the people of Britain by ruling that their Brexit referendum vote is invalid without Parliamentary approval. Will the people rise up against this legally nonsensical decision?

                                Eu_flag_union_jack Who flies the flag for democracy?
                                The_commentator_logo_updated9
                                the commentator

                                On 3 November 2016 10:52

                                The High Court has ruled that democracy must not be allowed to prevail without elite sanction. That is the only rational conclusion following Thursday's ruling that the June 23 Brexit vote has no meaning unless sanctioned by a vote in Parliament.

                                The Guardian, a news outlet which routinely mocks the people as bigots and xenophobes, reported, gleefully:


                                "Unless overturned on appeal at the Supreme Court, the ruling threatens to plunge the government’s plans for Brexit into disarray as the process will have to be subject to full parliamentary control."

                                The paper further reported:

                                "The lord chief justice said that, 'the most fundamental rule of the UK constitution is that parliament is sovereign”'.

                                This is nonsensical. The referendum was approved by Parliament.


                                While The Commentator is shocked and appalled by the rise of populists and demagogues -- such as Donald Trump -- it is no wonder that our democracies are in crisis.

                                This ruling is a direct attack on the people of Britain, and their democracy.

                                If this disgraceful (and legally idiotic) decision is upheld, civil disobedience should not be ruled out as a possible outcome.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X