Brexit will be a Titanic Success - Boris Johnson

prosaver

brexit means
br... Britain
exit..
mean leave the EU
with brexit camp mps making the decisions
and the ex PM T50 the next day as said.
ask anyone who voted ..a bit simple.
There was no way of going back to the houses of parliament. to T50 as it was passed by parliament before referendum. or thereabouts till super judges butted in.

I said NO.
no no................ no!

jimjames

prosaver wrote: »

ask anyone who voted ..a bit simple.
There was no way of going back to the houses of parliament. to T50 as it was passed by parliament before referendum. or thereabouts till super judges butted in.
no!

I think anyone who thinks the judges "butted in" are certainly ignorant. It might be inconvenient to you and the government but unfortunately they need to stick to the laws that parliament made. Maybe leavers should have asked about the process before voting not afterwards.

prosaver wrote: »

ask anyone who voted ..a bit simple.

That's the problem. Anyone who voted thinking this was a yes/no question is a bit simple. It is a hugely complex situation and the lack of plans are not helping.

The headlines in some of the tabloids yesterday were shocking and anyone who supports such grotesque attacks on our judiciary should be ashamed of themselves. It's a shame the government haven't popped anyone up to condemn it #WheresLizTruss

prosaver wrote: »

I did and it was clear we could decide. Passed in pariment
Thanks:)

You clearly didn't. If you had you'd have read that you'd see it was purely advisory. It really is very simple if you actually read the original material not the Daily Mail's version of it. BTW what is T50?

jimjames

Glen_Clark wrote: »

You are missing the point. Which is that Theresa May would not have been using the Brexit vote to by pass the commons vote. She would have been using powers granted to her by Her Unelected Majesty the Queen.

Indeed. Powers that were curtailed after the English Civil war.

I find it absolutely shocking that so many Leavers seem to think this judgement is anything to do with Brexit itself. As the judges made clear there is no political element, it is all entirely down to the law. If parliament makes a law to enable something then only parliament is able to remove that law.

In a democracy isn't that something we should all support?

bowlhead99

prosaver wrote: »

brexit means
br... Britain
exit..
mean leave the EU
with brexit camp mps making the decisions
and the ex PM T50 the next day as said.
ask anyone who voted ..a bit simple.
There was no way of going back to the houses of parliament. to T50 as it was passed by parliament before referendum. or thereabouts till super judges butted in.

Oh thanks, for telling us that brexit means br exit. So, with that resolved, we just need to decide the best way to achieve an exit while keeping as much as possible of the things we liked about EU and as little as possible of the things we didn't, so that we get the best possible outcome.

The 'best way to achieve' something should be influenced by the views of parliament, which is made up of people representing the public whose rights will be changed by the laws which will be made or repealed. The idea that only "brexit camp mps" get to have their shout, when there are literally hundreds of other MPs, would be ridiculous.

The referendum is a large-scale opinion poll to find out how many people are bothered about some general issue and what they would prefer as an outcome. Nothing in the Act that parliament approved which set the questions for the referendum and the finances for the referendum and various other matters of procedure and process, said that once the public opinion had been measured, something would definitely have to be done, or what specifically had to be done. It is not binding and does not force an exit, let alone a destination, let alone tell you specifically how to get to that destination.

However, if you have concluded that this large-scale opinion poll means that we *definitely must* leave the EU - which is dead wrong, but as you don't have any interest in law or facts let's just make that assumption - then all of the MPs representing all of the constituencies of the UK will automatically be "brexit camp mps" because there is no other camp in town. Every MP is on a train hurtling towards exit with no going back.

So it is pretty important for those MPs, representing 60 million residents, to be able to discuss what we want to take through the exit door and where we'll try to land after we jump out.

Leaving those decisions and discussions to only the former 'pro brexit mps' who are blinded by their idea of nirvana, and think that whichever direction we head outside the door we'll land on a fluffy pillow, is quite dangerous. Because it may result in us not taking any cushions with us, either because we don't ask the EU for any, or we ask and they say no and we say that's fine, it's all fluffy pillows anyway. But what if it's a bed of nails?

talexuser

jimjames wrote: »

Indeed. Powers that were curtailed after the English Civil war.

Precisely, the judges have upheld the principle of parliamentary democracy, as opposed to the random power of a prime minister to enact law, through proxy with an un-elected monarchy, without any agreement from anyone else. If you say it is ok to ignore the law now for something you like, eg brexit, what happens when another prime minister starts to ignore the law for things you don't like, eg putting you randomly in prison without charge or trial because he doesn't like your opinions.

EnglishMohican

Reading this thread is a bit like listening to children shouting names at each other in a school playground. Almost nobody has a genuinely sensible or valuable point to make.

Glen Clark banging on about "unelected" monarchy is on to a looser if he is claiming that elected presidents are better - anybody for Trump or Clinton?

The remainer MPs who are banging on about wanting to know on what terms we want to leave the EU are also just playing politics. Nobody in their right senses would publicise whatever red lines the government has identified before the start of the negotiations. It might be right for Parliament to look at the terms of the agreement that is reached, but publicising red lines before we start, guarantees that we get a poorer deal than otherwise.

I do not know the intricacies of British Parliamentary law to comment on the Judges decision. I also doubt if anybody else on here does. Lets just agree that they have taken their decision and the Supreme Court will now decide to either support them or reverse the decision and that decision should be accepted as final. Ultimately we have to trust somebody not to base their judgement purely on their own self interest.

On the other hand, I cannot blame Mrs May for trying to avoid Parliament at the moment when some remainer MPs seem intransigent and keen to ignore the will of the British public and stay in the EU. Words like intransigent might also be applied to Brexiteers on occasions but not as far as this specific item is concerned. The "wise" forecasts I have seen seem to say the MPs will ultimately respect the referendum and allow Article 50 notification to be made. In that case, all this trouble and confusion is a waste.

Finally can I point of that it was David Cameron who said he would honour the referendum and implement article 50 IMMEDIATELY if the public voted for Brexit. He then reneged on this and resigned probably because he had totally failed provide a plan for the Brexit option and thereby dropped all of us into a mess that Mrs May has to try to get us out of as beneficially as possible for everybody. You cannot blame Brexiteers for wanting immediate "exit" when that was what they were promised by the government of the day.

Glen_Clark

EnglishMohican wrote: »

Glen Clark banging on about "unelected" monarchy is on to a looser if he is claiming that elected presidents are better - anybody for Trump or Clinton?

The worst elected President might be worse than the best unelected Monarch. But thats beside the point. The people don't always make the best choice, but its their choice. And a few years later they get another choice. They won't be stuck with Donald Trump, plus his extended family and hangers on, plus all Donald Trumps descendants, their extended families and hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, for evermore.

Gadfium

EnglishMohican wrote: »

probably because he had totally failed provide a plan for the Brexit option and thereby dropped all of us into a mess that Mrs May has to try to get us out of as beneficially as possible for everybody.

A more critical person than me might point out that the responsibility for providing the plan surely must lie with the people that wanted Brexit?
I have little fondness for Cameron- after all his inability to control his party and his pandering to the Eurosceptics is what got us into this sorry mess in the first place, but what he did was a masterstroke. He basically let the whole mess to the people that primarily caused it.

Offering a binary referendum on such a complex situation was crazy. To offer it in an attempt to win the next election and to stave off sections of his supporters from defecting to UKIP was electioneering at its most deplorable. Cameron effectively traded the long-term stability of the UK and the future of generations of people for a short-term goal. And a goal that he failed to deliver.

prosaver

[QUOTE=jimjames;71565490

]I think anyone who thinks the judges "butted in" are certainly ignorant. It might be inconvenient to you and the government but unfortunately they need to stick to the laws that parliament made.

it was made law when parliament passed the act on the referendum and said we will Respect your decision.

Maybe leavers should have asked about the process before voting not afterwards.

Didnt neeed too..
Cameron said the next day he would trigger article 50..T50

Tat's the problem. Anyone who voted thinking this was a yes/no question is bit simple. It is a hugely complex situation and the lack of plans are not helping.

So does scotlland referendum doesnt count too.?

The headlines in some of the tabloids yesterday were shocking and anyone who supports such grotesque attacks on our judiciary should be ashamed of themselves.

freedom of speech, this is the time of we can do our own research and find government stats and not listen or get brain washed by the TV media. Especially the BBC who receive grants from the EU ..conflict of interest yet again.And we are forced to pay for the licence fee or we cant have a TV

It's a shame the government haven't popped anyone up to condemn it #WheresLizTruss

oh grow up, its not medieval times, the judges had conflict of interest ..like i said

You clearly didn't. If you had you'd have read that you'd see it was purely advisory. It really is very simple if you actually read the original material not the Daily Mail's version of it. BTW what is T50?[

/QUOTE]
its news to me it was advisory.
didnt say on the voting form ..yes or no... btw this is advisory..
Its shocking that the people have been fooled by all of the government MPs
,

doe808

prosaver wrote: »

brexit means
br... Britain
exit..
mean leave the EU
with brexit camp mps making the decisions
and the ex PM T50 the next day as said.
ask anyone who voted ..a bit simple.
There was no way of going back to the houses of parliament. to T50 as it was passed by parliament before referendum. or thereabouts till super judges butted in.

I said NO.
no no................ no!

You might want to read paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgement then. The only people subverting the democracy of the United Kingdom are the current Government, who tried to exercise powers they did not have.

They don't have these powers due reasons developed since 1707 and before (which I cant be bothered summering for you. And I doubt you reactionary brain would comprehend anyway - you'd rather run off and blame a judge. Sad.)