UK government suffers Brexit court blow

prosaver

Moto2 wrote: »

She has her top people working on it night and day

I think he not allowed to say out..
I heard He got a Memo from May saying...
Boris F.off..
And he thought it meant foreign office.. and didn't have the heart to tell him, so she let him have the job

Graham_Devon

mwpt wrote: »

hysterical
hɪˈstɛrɪk(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
affected by or deriving from wildly uncontrolled emotion.

But back to my question, would you respect the will of the people?

Well, first off, your point is poor. Therefore you have had to rely on an extreme example to make it.

Secondly, there are laws surrounding sexualities. So such a referendum would never be had in the first place.

So you are asking me to answer a hypothetical question based on extremities - which you are then trying to link back to the EU referendum.

I just don't see the point in the question.

Conrad

FOREIGN SECRETARY AND EUROPE MINISTER COMMITTED IN PARLIAMENT TO INVOKE ARTICLE 50 WITH NO FURTHER PROCESS

The Government committed that the Referendum vote would be treated as an instruction and that Article 50 would be invoked with no further process in Parliament. The people voted in the Referendum to tell the Government to leave the European Union.

Informing our European partners that the UK will leave the EU has nothing to do with the negotiations, which can’t even start until the Article 50 letter has been sent. This is only about sending that letter to the Council of Europe, announcing the UK’s intention to leave the EU.

MPs who are trying to conflate the Article 50 letter with the nature of the Government’s negotiations are simply Brexit deniers, pretending to obey the will of the people but in reality doing everything they can to thwart it.

We have consistently argued starting from June 27th that Article 50 should be invoked straight away. Our argument was that invoking Article 50 was essential to stop Brexit deniers from trying to obstruct and overturn the Referendum result. It gives us no pleasure to have been proved right.

On February 25th both the pro-Remain Foreign Secretary and the pro-Remain Europe Minister clearly told MPs that the decision on whether to trigger Article 50 would be a decision for the government, not for Parliament.
Here’s Philip Hammond, then Foreign Secretary, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, addressing Parliament in February:-
“Let me be clear; the Government will respect the outcome of the referendum, whatever the result. There will be no second referendum. The propositions on the ballot paper are clear, and I want to be equally clear today.”
“Leave means leave, and a vote to leave will trigger a notice under article 50. To do otherwise in the event of a vote to leave would represent a complete disregard of the will of the people. No individual, no matter how charismatic or prominent, has the right or the power to redefine unilaterally the meaning of the question on the ballot paper.”
“A vote to leave would trigger a fixed two-year time period under the treaty for the UK to negotiate the terms of our exit from, and our future relationship with, the EU.”
“...the Government will regard themselves as being bound by the decision of the referendum and will proceed with serving an article 50 notice.”
“It is the Government’s position that if the electorate give a clear decision in this referendum to leave, the Government will proceed to serve an article 50 notice; there will be no need for a further process in this House.”
Can he have been any clearer?
And here’s the then Minister of State for Europe, now Leader of the House of Commons, David Lidington, also addressing Parliament in February:
“It is for the Government of the United Kingdom … to decide whether to trigger an article 50 process after such a referendum result.”
“The United Kingdom is the signatory to the European treaties, and therefore it is the UK Government who take the decision on whether to invoke article 50.”
Can he have been any clearer?

MPs had opportunities not only to object, but to force through a motion asserting their counter-claim and prevent the government promising in its official booklet sent to every household in the country that:

“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

As pro-Remain MPs were not sufficiently bothered to do that before the vote we can’t see how they or anyone else could maintain they have any right to change the rules now that the vote has gone the “wrong” way for them.

[ Source : Hansard: Europe Debate, House of Commons ]
Facts4EU.Org - Research by D Cooper 04 Nov 2016

dunstonh

sann420 wrote: »

The unelected PM.... snip

Theresa May was elected. She won the constituency vote with a large margin. That is how we vote in the UK. We do not vote for a PM.

As you used American spelling in your post, it is possible you are from America where they do vote for a president. That is not how it works here.

has the mandate to leave the EU, not to leave single market as that option wasn't part of the referendum. The mandate of people should be respected and we should leave. But we should stay in the single market for atleast a couple of years after leaving. See how things go and then have another referendum to see if people want to actually leave the single market as well.

The referendum was vague enough to allow many different interpretations. However, soft brexit is the least logical as the country cannot control immigration, would still be subject to the European courts and would have decisions thrusted on your from Brussels which you have no ability to influence and no opt outs. There would also be no UK specific trade deals. It would be a worse position that we have now.

This policy of because we have had a 52-48 victory therefore we will jump in the middle of Atlantic because a woman and her 4,5 chummies want us to is sheer madness.

It is called democracy. The majority won.

People keep on saying who will Germany sell their BMW's to once Britain has trade tariffs imposed need to know that the beamers will be bought by citizens of the country who got all the high paying British jobs.

That is a very narrow view. My BMW is coming up to three years old next year and when I replace it, it will not be with a BMW. I will go British. That also is a very narrow view and you dont position these things on narrow views.

We havent had a surplus in trade since the 90s. The country has had to use sales of assets, tax and debt to fund this. That is not sustainable. Brexit may well be the thing thing allows the rebalance of the economy, even if it ends up smaller. Not saying it will but we have already heard multiple business leaders state that they will look to source more goods from the UK than they did previously because of the exchange rate.

I was speaking to a friend of mine the other day who did vote for brexit and he said the same thing that this Hard brexit non sense would bring this country down to its knees.

And soft brexit is even more nonsense because it is worse than the current position. You are better of remaining in the EU than having a soft brexit.

The govt does not have any mandate for a hard brexit and now they don't even want the parliament to scrutinize the deal. Brilliant. And who will be answerable if this country goes in a deep recession? The 17 million who each voted for their individual reasons. Some right some wrong but different reasons none the less.

It doesnt have a mandate for a soft brexit either. An exit that does not control immigration, leaves us subject to the European courts, does not allow individual trade agreements, removes all of our opt outs and prevents us from having any say in EU decisions which we would be required to follow.

So, logically, the options are either to remain in the EU (and try and reform within) or a hard brexit with a trade agreement and co-operation on selected issues.

Moto2

westernpromise wrote: »

Romani ite domum

It's ad domum, actually. Motion towards takes the accusative case.

You'd best have a word with Messrs [strike]Chapman[/strike], Cleese, Gilliam, Idle, Jones and Palin

Moto2

Conrad is getting all shouty now.

Calm down fella, it's only Brexit and all the shenanigans just add to the show

Moto2

News just in

JP08

What I want to know is why Brian May signed that press statement ...:rotfl:

Moto2

Here's a quote, guess who?

“Our feeble system of scrutiny undermines Parliament’s ability to check or restrain the Government’s actions in Europe.”

“In our constitution, Parliament is supposed to be sovereign, but this weakness means that in practice it is not. We therefore need a system that gives Parliament real powers over ministers, enough time to scrutinise new EU laws, and the transparency to restore public trust in the process.”

TrickyTree83

Moto2 wrote: »

News just in

Huff is such a liberal left rag, it's the Daily Mail for lefties.