Will Govt. win in Supreme Court?

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

Called an election and dared anyone to stand on a Remain platform?

I guess I see that a referendum is a one issue vote whereas an election is a multi issue vote

ruggedtoast

It stands to be repeated that Brexit needs parliamentary scrutiny because most Leave voters have no idea what they have voted to leave.

They hate European laws but can't name a single one that affects them. They want sovereignty but can't explain in what way the UK has lost any by pooling some of it with other EU members. They seem to dislike human rights legislation irrespective of the fact that this is nothing to do with the EU.

And they hate immigration but that won't be reduced by half of 1% under Brexit anyway.

Meanwhile we are faced with losing access to the single market overnight and our own freedom to live and work in the EU.

As much as I am relishing being stuck on Brexit Island watching my fellow citizens slowly work their way up to their first BNP government I hope a brake is put on this insanity so that we can at least put in place transitional agreements that protect our, hard won, rights as part of the European family.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

with a house of commons 75% in favour of remaining and even higher percentage in the house of lords, what exactly would one have done?

Made it clearer that parliament would need to vote to trigger article 50 whatever the result of the referendum.

I'm not going to kid myself that this is the best of a bad job (you can if you like). It's a shambles and if it goes tits up you'll only have the Tories and UKIP to blame. It's toxic.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Made it clearer that parliament would need to vote to trigger article 50 whatever the result of the referendum.

I'm not going to kid myself that this is the best of a bad job (you can if you like). It's a shambles and if it goes tits up you'll only have the Tories and UKIP to blame. It's toxic.

I agree
it would be better if article 50 had already been invoked after going through parliament
but we are where we are.
I'm a little unclear how Clegg and Lammy etc saying they will stop brexit at all costs, is the fault of the Tories and UKIP but that your prerogative as some-one that doesn't accept the referendum result

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

I agree
it would be better if article 50 had already been invoked after going through parliament
but we are where we are.
I'm a little unclear how Clegg and Lammy etc saying they will stop brexit at all costs, is the fault of the Tories and UKIP but that your prerogative as some-one that doesn't accept the referendum result

Quite, it would've been better but, unfortunately, the Tories don't possess a time machine that will enable them to go back and do things properly.

If parliament vote against the triggering of article 50 and create a constitutional crisis that's on the Tories too.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Quite, it would've been better but, unfortunately, the Tories don't possess a time machine that will enable them to go back and do things properly.

If parliament vote against the triggering of article 50 and create a constitutional crisis that's on the Tories too.

I take it for granted that you consider every fault is with the people you oppose

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

I take it for granted that you consider every fault is with the people you oppose

Not at all. I voted for these idiots and, as it stands today, I'll be voting for the same idiots in 2020. Some people seem to think that means you have to conveniently look the other way when they handle things badly - or shamefully create smokescreens by waffling on about the IRA etc.

I want the government to put this through parliament, win the vote, and trigger article 50 asap.

The brexit bus has left the station and I'm on board but don't think I'm going to ignore it if the driver is incompetent or some of my vile fellow back seat drivers are trying to gain undue influence about where we stop.

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

I guess I see that a referendum is a one issue vote whereas an election is a multi issue vote

Ordinarily. But if - and I still consider it an if - Parliament is unwilling or unable to implement the stated will of the British people, then it is unfit to serve and must be dissolved and reformed.

An election is choosing 1/650th of your country's legislature, and giving a wishy-washy indication of the general direction you would prefer the country to go in. That's normally the pinnacle because that's normally all we have.

In a referendum the people's will has been expressed in a way which leaves extremely little room for ambiguity. We either leave the EU completely and opt back in to the single market, or we leave the EU completely and don't. Determining the second bit of each phrase is Parliament's job, and I'm sure you and I are of a different view as to which is better. But if it can't get the first bit right (leaving) then we must elect one which can. And I say that as someone who thinks the country was foolish to vote Leave without planning ahead.

StevieJ

HornetSaver wrote: »

Called an election and dared anyone to stand on a Remain platform?

I should imagine if only one party stands on a Remain ticket that 48% Remain share will look pretty tasty.

HornetSaver

Or to put a similar point another way. How can we not have an election, when what the country needs is a party with a cohesive view on how we leave and move forward?

The Tories of 2015 stood on holding a referendum. We are where we are now because they never dreamt of winning it. Labour of 2015's stance on the referendum was to oppose it being called. They never dreamt of having to accept a defeat. Both are radically different parties today. Interestingly, the SNP, Lib Dems and UKIP are not.

I don't think the political battleground has changed this much in two years since Blair's first two years as leader of the opposition. And arguably the writing was already on the wall in that instance.