If Brexit needs house of commons and Lords backing ...

setmefree2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Parliament won't block brexit - but they'll scrutinise, slow down, and supervise Brexit and put clear limits in place to the range of outcomes parliament will accept - so a chaotic, destructive, hard brexit now looks much less likely.

They'll slow it down perhaps - which is good - as it allows The Brexit department to get its ducks in a row with the WTO. It won't however put limits on Brexit as May can call an election at that point and get a massive majority.....if the opposition slow everything up - all well and good - won't change the outcome however.

setmefree2

Conrad wrote: »

For years the trough feeding liberal elites like Gina Miller quaffed fine wine whilst British sovereignty was handed over at Maastricht and elsewhere, not a ripple.
Now all of a sudden when the people dare decide the liberal elite are out of touch and only out for themselves, and thus voted for change, these gluttonous snobs want one over on the people once more.

No way, literally over my dead body will these creeps keep us paying £28 million per day in return for uncontrolled mass immigration and ceding sovereignty.

Everyone is acting as if Judges are politically independent - they are not - at least they are honest about that in the US were the judges are political appointments. These judges are up to their necks in the EU justice system - they are not independent.

But don't worry - delay can be good. Remember Michael Gove wanted 2 years before Article 50 was triggered. Managing Britain’s exit is such a formidable and complex challenge that politicians and civil servants need all the time they can get.

Time is needed to get everything in place for a smooth and painless transition.

Positive Procrastination.

setmefree2

prosaver wrote: »

Why does most people think the lords will say yes to brexit.
Lord sugar,
Lord Lichfield. .lord charles goottle of gear..sorry going into meltdown

Ha ha

The Lords could hold things up for a year - during which time the Brexit department will be getting our ducks in a row with the WTO and carving out new trade deals. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

setmefree2

Conrad wrote: »

Lisa Nandy on QT kept saying 'MP's must have a say on the shape of Brexit'.

Lisa Nandy and other Labour Remainers are being dishonest - they say they won't not vote to trigger article 50 whilst they clearly intend to frustrate all attempts at brexit....

It will backfire.

setmefree2

Backbiter wrote: »

Calm down. And don't ignore the fact that 45million or so Brits did not vote to leave.
Democracy is a complicated business. Clarifying points of law - which is all the High Court has done - is not for one second undermining democracy.
The reaction of some of the leave voters - and the tabloid press - is genuinely scary. Death threats, threats of rioting...all because of a judgement they haven't bothered to read or haven't understood.

I don't think you can claim the stay at home voters are Remainers - they gave their vote to the winners so that's 45 million who voted for Brexit versus 16 million who voted Remain...

Violence is something everyone should be worried about.

RIP Jo Cox

setmefree2

LHW99 wrote: »

So presumably the Government could put a motion to the House that "Article 50 should be triggered on 31st March 2017, in order to enact the majority referendum result"
That could be discussed and voted on, possibly as a guillotine, and things proceed as planned once passed?

I believe, from what I've read, that the government want a clear ruling on this from the Supreme Court - motion or Act of Parliament. A motion need only be put to HoC and is clearly the May government's preferred option.

MobileSaver

setmefree2 wrote: »

I don't think you can claim the stay at home voters are Remainers - they gave their vote to the winners so that's 45 million who voted for Brexit versus 16 million who voted Remain...

There were enough blatant lies by the Leave campaign before the referendum...

I don't think you quite realise how damaging to your cause such ludicrous claims are; so keep up the good work, more nonsense like this and we'll easily sway enough people to get the original result overturned.

BobQ

Masomnia wrote: »

I suspect that the government will have a change of heart re the 'revocability' of Article 50, and potentially win the appeal on that basis. If article 50 can be revoked then, as I understand it, Parliament won't be bound to withdraw any rights and thus their approval won't be necessary.

In any event Parliament will need to be consulted at the end of the process to repeal the European Communities Act. As I understand it, even if the government wins the appeal they will still need to go to Parliament to repeal that Act and put in place the new arrangements.

The Government cannot change the revocability of Article 50 without a Treaty change. It is a matter of fact.

asajj

Conrad wrote: »

How does Japan sell huge amounts of services, let alone goods, to Europe?

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_111836.pdf

What does that even supposed to mean? Turkey sells huge amounts of goods to Europe but not a member. No one said there would be no trade.

BobQ

setmefree2 wrote: »

Everyone is acting as if Judges are politically independent - they are not - at least they are honest about that in the US were the judges are political appointments. These judges are up to their necks in the EU justice system - they are not independent.

But don't worry - delay can be good. Remember Michael Gove wanted 2 years before Article 50 was triggered. Managing Britain’s exit is such a formidable and complex challenge that politicians and civil servants need all the time they can get.

Time is needed to get everything in place for a smooth and painless transition.

Positive Procrastination.

No system is perfectly independent of the executive, but the judges have not been appointed by the Executive since 2006. They are now appointed by an independent panel.

Of course this decision, based on a point of law, has still been the subject of the most vile and detestable hysterics by the intellectual pygmies in the pro-Brexit camp, including in the media, who cannot differentiate between an honest decision on a point of law and their own political wishes.

Ms Miller, who has done nothing wrong other than use the law to test a point of principle, supported by crowd funding, has been vilified on social media with comments that include the suggestion she deserves to be gang r@paed. A former Conservative Lord Chancellor has described the behaviour of some Brexit supporters as similar to a fascist state.