Do I Use Shampoo Or Conditioner First?
Shopping & Style1 min ago
Enemies Of The People? I'd Say So.
172 Answers
http://
Don't these pro EU Liberal judges realise what they have done? Perhaps if they came down out of their ivory towers occasionally and visited their country they'd realise the fury they have caused.
Don't these pro EU Liberal judges realise what they have done? Perhaps if they came down out of their ivory towers occasionally and visited their country they'd realise the fury they have caused.
Answers
Jim, I’m not trying to subvert anything. The people who brought this before the courts are doing that. Pretty much convinced of a ‘Remain’ result, Parliament elected, in not insubstantia
12:03 Sat 05th Nov 2016
There seems to be a lot of confusion here (compounded by the government) regarding exactly what the electorate voted in favour of in the referendum. The question was straightforward, unambiguous and had only two possible answers – Remain or Leave. The answer was leave. It was not “Leave provided the terms of our future relationship with the EU are acceptable”; it was not “Leave provided it’s not too difficult to do so”; it was not “Leave provided we retain access to the Single Market”; it was not “Leave provided those citizens from other EU countries living in the UK will have their rights protected.”. Or anything else. It was “Leave”, pure and simple.
As a result, IMHO, all the government has to do is to introduce a bill to Parliament which gives the government permission to invoke A50. There is no need to make provisions for the “terms of negotiation”. It has no bearing on leaving. The electorate has chosen to leave and all the pros and cons on doing so were well aired – some would say interminably so - before the vote. Equal amounts of truth stretching (and sometimes even downright lies) were evident on both sides and voters – as usual – had to sort out who they believed and who they did not and how important what they eventually believed was to them.
Our leaving is dependent on nothing and most certainly least of all on what “deal” the EU chooses to cobble together for our departure. The government should not trouble with an appeal to the Supreme Court (which, having read the full 32 page judgment of Their Lordships, I believe is unlikely to succeed anyway). Instead it should have its lawyers in this weekend drafting a Bill for presentation to the Commons next week. If it fails to get through the Commons a General Election must be held (finding a way to by-pass the ridiculous Fixed Term Parliament Act which is now being exposed for the nonsense that it is) with the triggering of A50 as a specific and unconditional manifesto commitment. If the Lords thwart the Bill then the Parliament Act must be invoked to see it through.
There is no need to over-egg the pudding because by hook or by crook the government must ensure that the wishes of the people, expressed through their "consultative" referendum, must be granted asap.
As a result, IMHO, all the government has to do is to introduce a bill to Parliament which gives the government permission to invoke A50. There is no need to make provisions for the “terms of negotiation”. It has no bearing on leaving. The electorate has chosen to leave and all the pros and cons on doing so were well aired – some would say interminably so - before the vote. Equal amounts of truth stretching (and sometimes even downright lies) were evident on both sides and voters – as usual – had to sort out who they believed and who they did not and how important what they eventually believed was to them.
Our leaving is dependent on nothing and most certainly least of all on what “deal” the EU chooses to cobble together for our departure. The government should not trouble with an appeal to the Supreme Court (which, having read the full 32 page judgment of Their Lordships, I believe is unlikely to succeed anyway). Instead it should have its lawyers in this weekend drafting a Bill for presentation to the Commons next week. If it fails to get through the Commons a General Election must be held (finding a way to by-pass the ridiculous Fixed Term Parliament Act which is now being exposed for the nonsense that it is) with the triggering of A50 as a specific and unconditional manifesto commitment. If the Lords thwart the Bill then the Parliament Act must be invoked to see it through.
There is no need to over-egg the pudding because by hook or by crook the government must ensure that the wishes of the people, expressed through their "consultative" referendum, must be granted asap.
You are mischievous, naomi but I am sure you now know full well as it that the law requires parliament to approve such a change. It's the MPs you need to persuade to endorse the people's wishes. if the government words it correctly it should be straightforward and the sour grapes on both sides will hopefully go away
"The question was straightforward, unambiguous and had only two possible answers – Remain or Leave. The answer was leave. It was not “Leave provided the terms of our future relationship with the EU are acceptable”; it was not “Leave provided it’s not too difficult to do so”; it was not “Leave provided we retain access to the Single Market”; it was not “Leave provided those citizens from other EU countries living in the UK will have their rights protected.”. Or anything else. It was “Leave”, pure and simple. "
And that, of course, is the whole problem!
The reason it was "Leave" pure and simple was because you need to ask simple questions in referendums. But "Leave" is complicated, no matter now you might try to claim otherwise.
And, ironically, legal experts reckon the government shot itself in the foot by banging on about the "finality" of Article 50, which apparently is not necessarily the case. Had they not done so they reckon the judges would probably have ruled the other way. So maybe now ...
And that, of course, is the whole problem!
The reason it was "Leave" pure and simple was because you need to ask simple questions in referendums. But "Leave" is complicated, no matter now you might try to claim otherwise.
And, ironically, legal experts reckon the government shot itself in the foot by banging on about the "finality" of Article 50, which apparently is not necessarily the case. Had they not done so they reckon the judges would probably have ruled the other way. So maybe now ...
no ich only the remainers think it's complicated, or more to the point would want it to be complicated. The fact is that we voted for freedom alone. Nothing else is relevant, that's what you and your like cannot comprehend. we don't care of we are worse off, we don't care about trade we don't care about anything else, that cal all be negotiated but there are no pre conditions. we leave, then talk, if the EU want a trade war they can have one, if they want a deal they can have one but it has to be acceptable and all this H0rs3 *** about free movement etc ain't gonna fly.
NJ....I am somewhat surprised that you, of all people, should not be siding with the law in this case.
The High Court has made it quite clear, that Parliament is sovereign. They have not expressed a view, yea or nay, about whether the Referendum is correct or not....that is clearly not for them to adjudicate on.
As regards to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, might I remind you that the Bill was brought in and agreed upon, by the Tory Government of 2010 to 2015.
Or, if any of our pedants are still on here, the Tory Majority so-called Coalition regime of 2010-2015.
So, as a Tory supporter, I am unsure why you are criticising the Act now ?
The High Court has made it quite clear, that Parliament is sovereign. They have not expressed a view, yea or nay, about whether the Referendum is correct or not....that is clearly not for them to adjudicate on.
As regards to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, might I remind you that the Bill was brought in and agreed upon, by the Tory Government of 2010 to 2015.
Or, if any of our pedants are still on here, the Tory Majority so-called Coalition regime of 2010-2015.
So, as a Tory supporter, I am unsure why you are criticising the Act now ?
TTT I am not playing semantics with figures and I have made no assumptions. Saying a majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU is clearly wrong. The electorate was 46,500,001 meaning a majority was 23, 250,001. You may say it's semantics but there is a huge difference in meaning between majority of those who voted and majority of the electorate.
//NJ....I am somewhat surprised that you, of all people, should not be siding with the law in this case.//
Pay attention, Mikey, NJ went on to say:
"As a result, IMHO, all the government has to do is to introduce a bill to Parliament which gives the government permission to invoke A50."".
That is exactly what I'd like to happen. Members who voted against the Referendum Bill vote will be both consistent AND honest in voting against the new bill; members who voted for will be neither. Let's find out.
Pay attention, Mikey, NJ went on to say:
"As a result, IMHO, all the government has to do is to introduce a bill to Parliament which gives the government permission to invoke A50."".
That is exactly what I'd like to happen. Members who voted against the Referendum Bill vote will be both consistent AND honest in voting against the new bill; members who voted for will be neither. Let's find out.
You said " we don't care of we are worse off, we don't care about trade we don't care about anything else, that cal all be negotiated but there are no pre conditions." I am not being obtuse and I am not sure who you mean by "we" either. First you say you're not bothered about trade agreements and then you say they have to be acceptable. Who decides if a deal is acceptable or no? Judges? MPs? The general public? You appear to have little or no respect for anyone if their opinion does not match yours.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Mps Have Voted In Favour Of Assisted...
News12 mins ago
Body & Soul13 mins ago
