Article 50 Discussion

[cjcregg]

People have a vote, the losing side don't like it so they protest in London ignoring the principle of democracy via the ballot box. Have I missed something ?..

 

 

How are the protesters ignoring the principle of democracy? They're upholding it by exercising their right to protest.

[cjcregg]

I agree but, they are not just protesting, they are demanding another chance to have their say because they didn't get what they wanted the first time round. Yes, the referendum was close but the majority of those who voted, voted to leave. That is also democracy and anyone who tries to change that do not deserve to live in a democracy.

 

 

 

Everyone deserves to live in a democracy. Saying some don't invalidates the entire principle. I don't think that there should be another referendum either but then again I don't think there should have been one in the first place.

[cjcregg]

The referendum was never capable of being anything other than advisory. It was an exercise in establishing the view of the electorate hence the question "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?".

 

 

The general public don't have any standing to invoke article 50, only member governments do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/government-awaits-first-legal-opposition-to-brexit-in-high-court

 

 

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2016/07/19/government-awaits-first-legal-opposition-to-brexit-in-high-court/

 

 

It would appear the challenge is going to focus on the fact that the referendum was only advisory and only Parliament - not the Prime Minister can trigger Article 50.

 

 

Whether you voted in or out, it would be a great contempt for the UK voter if it was decided that this was indeed only advisory and if so, surely the voter should have been informed of this before they cast their vote ?

[cjcregg]

£65M per day NET.

That's what EU sucks out of our veins.

Start saving that.

That's an official figure, look it up.

But even if it was "only" £1M per day, that's £1M too much.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you have any idea how much the UK will have to pay in import & export tariffs as a result of having to leave the EU single market? The fact is until we do, banding figures around about how much the EU currently costs (or indeed saves) the nation are meaningless.

[cjcregg]

Yes, I have an idea: £0.00

Exiting the EU doesn't mean exiting the EEC agreements.

Besides, even if that was the case we import much more than we export, so if they want to sell their stuff to us they have to keep prices down or we buy from the rest of the world.

 

 

I've got my head in my hands.

[cjcregg]

 

 

Indeed, some people think they know everything, no idea where they get their "facts" from, that's why I challenged them to post up sources.

 

 

That's the problem though isn't it? Nobody knows the key facts on whether we'll be better off outside EU unless and until the Government have negotiated the zillions of trade agreements with nations around the world, which will clearly take decades.

 

 

The decision on whether to leave the EU should have been placed in the hands of independent economists. Instead, in his wisdom, David Cameron left the decision to the British public, the group least qualified to make an informed decision. Some of the comments on this thread illustrate just that.

 

 

The unintended consequences of Brexit are still largely as yet unfathomable by the Government, let alone the average individual.

 

 

Some people think that referendums are how a democracy is supposed to work. But frankly I'd rather my family's future wasn't in the hands of Mrs Miggins at number 92 and Daily Mail readers.

[cjcregg]

I also agree, that the referendum was handled very badly indeed - by the government for not telling us properly what would happen

 

 

How could the Government tell us what was going to happen if the country voted leave?

 

 

Nobody knew the answer and nobody will for years to come - meaning that the people who voted leave did so without so much as a clue as to what they were getting for their vote.

[cjcregg]

They must have had some inkling of how a leave vote would be considered by the rest of Europe. So many leaders from other EU countries put their tuppence worth in ?

 

 

You seem to blame the Government for everything. You can't make them accountable for a decision made by the nation's citizens.

 

 

The responsibility for how the rest of Europe would react to brexit rested entirely with those that voted for it.

[cjcregg]

With a yes or no question, David Cameron should have made contingency plans for government, if the leave campaign won the argument.

 

 

I don't understand how he could given that the current Government cannot make any plans (contingent or otherwise) until it has triggered article 50, then negotiated the UK's exit terms over the following 2 years and then the trading terms with the rest of the world at some unspecified decade in the future.

[cjcregg]

Parliament had already voted 6 to 1 to ask the people to decide in a referendum and three unelected old men in wigs have decided that the MPs should have another vote, what a crazy situation..

 

 

[cjcregg]

The trouble is we can all change our mind after the event, We all went into the referendum on a equal footing with a yes or no question and in politics lies are often told but as in a general election we don't get a second chance at it do we..

 

 

The Government are getting a second chance by appealing the judgment in the Supreme Court but I don't hear you or any leavers complaining about that.

[cjcregg]

 

No one seemed to moan about Tony Blair taking us into war without the approval of a majority of democratically elected members of Parliament ?

 

 

He did have the approval of Parliament, who vote 412/149 in favour of war, even though Governments don't actually need Parliamentary approval to go to war.

[cjcregg]

I wonder what would have happened if in 1966 after England won the world cup, they were told that the result wasn't good and they had to play best of 3...

 

 

This really is an inadequate argument and a complete waste of pixels as that wouldn't have happened and nor will it in the referendum. Get a grip.

[cjcregg]

I just get fed up of hearing that the losing side isn't happy but yet we had the vote and we decided as a majority to come out so why don't we just get on with it.

 

 

It is a fundamental principle of democracy that provides you the right to express unhappiness with any decision.

[cjcregg]

George Osborne, the then chancellor stated that the EU vote was a once in a life time decision so was that a lie ?.

 

 

He didn't state it as a fact, just a view.

[cjcregg]

It was the will of the people who got us into this mess. Our democracy works on the basis that we elect members of parliament to make complicated decisions on our behalf yet the then government abdicated its responsibility and left it to the likes of Mrs Miggins at number 39 to decide something that the public were hopelessly incapable of understanding the consequences of.

 

The referendum was democracy for democracy's sake.

 

Had the decision been left to parliament, as it should have, it would have voted no.

[cjcregg]

I think honeybee13 has given you the reason why he WILL win.

 

It's inconceivable that he won't be one of the last 2 candidates, the final vote being made by the 160,000 odd conservative party members and his tax cut proposal to raise the higher rate threshold to £80k was precisely aimed to appeal to those 160,000 people.

 

Politically, at least, he knows exactly what he's doing.

 

 

[cjcregg]

1 hour ago, London1971 said:

Correct but there is a strong argument that it is democratic.  And if the boot was on the other foot, and remain had won the referendum, we would be outraged if Parliament was trying to thwart it.  So both sides can throw accusations of being undemocratic around, and both are correct.

 

 

Where is the strength in an argument that the referendum was democratic? It was as undemocratic as the stunt that Johnson has just pulled as it is designed to exclude Parliament from the decision making process.

[cjcregg]

13 hours ago, king12345 said:

Exactly as I said.

The good ship to leave EU has now sailed.

Whatever they decide to do now we will pay for it.

It was their plan all along, whatever the referendum result.

Didn't I say that before the referendum?

 

P.S.: Climate change... I haven't seen a single unbiased report substantiated by evidence about the planet's climate being turned around by humans.

It's a fantasy to squeeze money out of us.

Think about it: what are they planning to do with our environmental tax money? Pay mother nature to stop the planet natural evolution?

No, they're gonna pocket the money and charge us more and more with help from brainwashed nobodies, i.e. Greta.

As I said a billion time before: you should be worried if the climate DIDN'T change,  very worried.

Who are ''they''?

[cjcregg]

5 hours ago, king12345 said:

"They" are the ones using your taxes to line their own pockets and making up shyte to charge you even more taxes.

 

Celotex anyone?

 

Just don't say it too loudly....they're everywhere....you know who I mean....them....

[cjcregg]

3 hours ago, king12345 said:

I never said BoJo was honest or consistent,  in fact he is exactly the opposite.

That doesn't make the eurocrats honest and consistent.

 

Whether the key EU players in the Brexit negotiations are honest or consistent is a subjective consideration but there is no doubt that they are stunningly bright and it's little wonder that the shower who went in to bat for the UK never stood a chance of out-negotiating them.

[cjcregg]

6 hours ago, king12345 said:

 

 

 

They thought they could rig the referendum but they didn't expect so many leave votes.

Now they're trying to repair the damage to their advantage.

 

 

 

 

Your opinion had the potential to be a tad less ridiculous had you chosen to identify this mysterious collective you keep referring to as 'they'. 

[cjcregg]

9 hours ago, Sali said:

 

I believe the leaflet that Cameron sent round to every house suggested that it could take 10 years to get a deal with the EU, so a no deal must have been out there.  The government at the time were very pro-remain and armageddon was preached at every opportunity.  I think you are under-estimating the electorate not to have considered the possibilities.  

 

 

You cannot truly believe that the likes of Mrs Miggins at number 94 had the foresight and perception to consider what effect Brexit would have on the Irish border or how the UK could adjust if it was suddenly plunged into a situation where it didn't have a single negotiated trading relationship with any nation on earth.

 

You harp on about the referendum being 'democratic' but Mrs Miiggins was neither voted for or elected but somehow got to make the most complex and important decision in generations. She had no qualification or mandate. How is that democratic?

[cjcregg]

10 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

If there were a moderate Tory in the hot seat, they would be solidly in power

 

 

Theresa May was a moderate Conservative. Remind me, how did that go?

[cjcregg]

1 hour ago, honeybee13 said:

I don't know much about this Twitter feed, no10leaks. It has this.

 

@number10leaks 13h

 

Just been told by a spad, Cummings & BJ are planning to #prorogue again from the 19th October to 1st November. It was decided in a private meeting between BJ & DC today. The palace will not be happy.

 

 

 

Sounds like complete BS to me.