BREXIT: Why so personal?

[red devil]

Strange timing in light of yesterday's news though. If the appeal fails then MP's will get their chance to scrutinise Brexit. If the appeal wins then that's the time to resign...

[JohnL]

that was quick :)

http://www.stephenphillips.org.uk/

http://www.libdemvoice.org/just-when-you-thought-it-couldnt-get-more-complicated-52364.html

[Earl Aelfheah]

True, I guess he may have been annoyed how the government immediately announced their intention to appeal - or perhaps the way it's invited a firestorm of abuse on the judiciary from the press (he's a barrister I think). Who knows.

[JohnL]

Mail is an awful paper.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/11/i-thought-britain-voted-leave-eu-not-set-clocks-back-1950

[steveo]

Newsnight last night

 

[????]

That was brilliant!

[JohnL]

The Brexiteers have been trolling the wrong Gina Miller

@theginamiller versus @thatginamiller

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/article-50-bemused-us-presenter-gina-miller-flooded-with-abuse-as-she-is-mistaken-for-brexit-a3386781.html

[teddyboy23]

I thought parliament already had a say on June 9th.when554 MPs voted against 53 MPs .to let the British people. Vote on staying or leaving the EU.the government then spent 9million pounds of tax payers money saying a result either way would be binding.leaflets were sent to every home .stating unequivocally. This is your decision .the government will implement what you decide.

[Otta]

Yes, and the government will implement it. Once parliament have voted on the details.

You could find 100 leave voters and ask them all what exactly they want from brexit, and you'd get a range of answers. It's not as simple as "right we're off".

[JohnL]

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought parliament already had a say on June

> 9th.when554 MPs voted against 53 MPs .to let the

> British people. Vote on staying or

> leaving the EU.the government then spent 9million

> pounds of tax payers money saying a result either

> way would be binding.leaflets were sent to every

> home .stating unequivocally. This is your decision

> .the government will implement what you decide.

But they made a huge mistake by assuming remain would win

and not even looking at the consequences.

So we end up with no idea of where we want to go or how

to get there.

Camerons fault.

[teddyboy23]

I agree with both John and gotta I was just stating what the government said at the time

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought parliament already had a say on June

> 9th.when554 MPs voted against 53 MPs .to let the

> British people. Vote on staying or

> leaving the EU.the government then spent 9million

> pounds of tax payers money saying a result either

> way would be binding.leaflets were sent to every

> home .stating unequivocally. This is your decision

> .the government will implement what you decide.

I must admit I don't recall any politican saying the result would be binding. It would be very surprising given what the Referendum Act 2015 actually says, and what was briefed to Parliament.

I do recall them saying that there was no going back once we decided to leave, but that's not quite the same thing. Whether or not this was deliberately murky language that they knew could be interpreted as either the referedum or the actual leaving of the EU (i.e. the Art.50 trigger) is a matter of conjecture.

If you are able to point me to where any MP said the referendum was legally binding, I happy to stand corrected.

In any case, this judgement does not prevent Brexit from happening. It determines that it can't happen behind closed doors, with secret terms that we don't find out about until its too late. I would have thought the average Leave voter would be equally happy with this, as otherwise they could find leaving wasn't what they thought it would be either.

[ianr]

There's now an HTML version of the judgment available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2768.html.

[jaywalker]

So is May today when she says she is confident of a judicial reversal from the Supreme Court

a. receiver of inside knowledge (I think this very doubtful)

b. receiver of bad advice from an Attorney General who she should have fired (quite likely)

c. just in denial and not up to the job herself (very likely)

d. willing (for whatever reason) to over-rule the (always provisional) resolution of 500 years of antagonistic struggle (including civil war, and the realisation that victory in that had resulted in untrammelled powers just as bad as lost the King his head - see the judgement's reference to the Glorious Revolution) that eventually established the sovereignty of parliament over the executive (certain)

To be sure, these may all (logically) be true: but I think the last three actually.

The short-circuit to the narcissistic imaginary of the 'popular' is breath-taking. We KNOW that any vested power will be exploited and abused. We KNOW that a division of powers (for example parliament versus the executive, the judiciary as independent) are VITAL for any check to this. Yet this principle is now generally denied and ridiculed.

[teddyboy23]

Wondercat same as you don't remember a single spokesman saying it's binding .just worded goverment

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

Thanks Teddy.

Jay, I'm going for c and/or d. I find the government's response astounding to be honest. I do understand what their logic was in trying to keep it within the executive and don't necessarily think it was sinister, but her apparent failure to understand the fundamental basis of the constitution and both the executive's and parliament's duty to uphold the separation of powers is very worrying.

[jaywalker]

So we are still waiting for the Justice Secretary to say something ...

Full marks to Kirsty and Newsnight yesterday for putting the man from the Mail on view (who seemed to me to be presenting mauvaise-foi in pretty much its pure form) and for allowing the excellent Dominic Grieve to explain the principles at stake.

[malumbu]

99% of Daily Express Readers believe that we should quite the EU now. Not sure about the maths though as only around 3 people read the Express, so one may have the slightest of doubts. Obivously not an open doubter or the Mail would have names him/her.

I had to Google mavais-foi. Perhaps that should have been the OED (or was it Collins) word of the year rather than Brexit.

[teddyboy23]

Great hormone street hospital is being urged to sack a speech therapist .for saying she hoped brexit supporters children get seriously ill.nicola born aged 47 made the comment on bbc1 Question time .adding it would serve the. Parents right if their kids were not cured.the audience gasped at her outburst .she said Quitting the EU will hit. research.,Gorb boasts she is a professional anti_brexiteer.Gorb yesterday apologised saying I hope nobody is in.that Position.The Health and care profession council are to probe her fitness to practice.i understand people being passionate about their jobs .but to say she hopes your kids get seriously ill .now that is personal.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

Well, if everyone who has said an OTT thing like that were to get the sack, then pretty much 2/3s of London's cabbies would have to hand in their licence judging from the immoderate and offensive comments I've had levelled at me from Leave-voting drivers.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

I had an interesting conversation today with a Leave voter about the judgement. He was very angry about it, even though he hadn't read it. When I explained what it actually said, he said he was still angry as he said it would be used as a way to stop Brexit and stop democracy, and said that banks would now be bribing MPs to vote against it.

I explained that, in the unlikely event that a majority of MPs were prepared to ignore the referendum result, if the majority of voters in this country really still believe we should go out, then at the next election UKIP or its equivalent would win and they could still get the exit they want. When he conceded that would be logical, I asked him if he was still angry and he said yes, but couldn't explain it.

I also pointed out that the fate of Jo Cox would probably weigh more heavily on MPs than being tempted by supposed bribes from the banks, leaving aside the fact that banks could just move if they wanted. His response was that they should be frightened because there will be violence and civil war if "we don't get what we want".

I'm beginning to think that people should only be entitled to vote in anything once they prove they have a basic grasp of the constitution. Some of the stuff I'm hearing is downright scary, and hugely offensive that they dare describe their warped view of the world as democracy.

[Jenny1]

In response to the multiple choice options offered by jaywalker - I think b and c (and hence not even really aware of d).

[Jenny1]

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I asked him if he was still angry and he

> said yes, but couldn't explain it.

>

Yvette Cooper's piece for the Huff Post talks about this kind of anger.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvette-cooper/article-50-high-court_b_12811676.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[Alan Medic]

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

>

> In any case, this judgement does not prevent

> Brexit from happening. It determines that it

> can't happen behind closed doors, with secret

> terms that we don't find out about until its too

> late. I would have thought the average Leave

> voter would be equally happy with this, as

> otherwise they could find leaving wasn't what they

> thought it would be either.

It does not prevent Brexit but you are assuming there will be an open debate in parliament requiring the government to reveal details of what it will involve. As many have said, to do that would be like showing your hand to your opponent in a game of cards. How can that happen? Also the EU has said that negotiations will only begin after Art.50 is triggered.

So the question is will the MP's who are mostly saying that the wishes of the people should be honoured, agree to trigger Art.50 with little if no detail? Maybe they will. If they don't agree and the motion is defeated, I can't see anything but a general election happening.

As of June the 22nd, MP's were 4 to 1 in favour of remaining according to what I read on the BBC's website.

[teddyboy23]

Cat I respect what your saying about people having a warped view about democracy .as I said before I did not vote in the referemdem .but if I voted in or out and someone said I hope your children get incurable illnesses because I did not vote the same as them would you not find that hugely offensive or a warped view on democracy.im just giving a opinion be gentle with me.