And The Brexit Mess Grows Ever Deeper

[Zacs-Master]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/11/more-than-80-mps-join-lib-dem-plot-to-force-government-to-hold-a/

[Zacs-Master]

Snigger.

[naomi24]

:o)

[New Judge]

"The Brexcietables are obviously rattled."

I am not in the least bit rattled. Ineptitude from politicians is a given (and this situation was caused by the referendum bill not being properly drafted). Politicians thrive on chaos. It gives them an air of importance when they sort out the messes they have caused.

This sorry situation will be solved. I'm fairly sure the Supreme Court will not overturn the ruling (though stranger things have happened). I have read the full judgement and it seems fairly straightforward to me. But a way via Parliament will be devised to implement A50 fairly quickly. There's lots of "wind and puff" from anti-Brexit corners but we all need to calm down.

[Zacs-Master]

NJ, Some of them then. And thanks for addressing the question rather than claiming that I think the remoaners have won. Calming down in the face of such an unnecessary can of worms isn't easy.

[Old_Geezer]

If public opinion is worth so little why did the remainers bother to vote at all ? Unless they know it was to be taken note of and only found it necessary to claim differently after the vote didn't go their way.

"Expect" isn't really the right word, I don't tend to expect the public to act well all the time. I particularly don't expect them all to act well at any particular time. I'd might hope folk would always act with decorum and in this case accept the result of the referendum. But the public can't actually be expected to behave as they should and the actions since the vote proves this to be so.

[Zacs-Master]

Holy cow. It's nothing to do with how the public are behaving. The illegality always existed it just took someone with nouse to bring it to the fore. Would you rather we were a society who ignored the law? That way lies anarchy.

[jim360]

"If public opinion is worth so little why did the remainers bother to vote at all?"

I wasn't aware of the legal position before the vote. I don't think many of us were. It was understood that the vote was binding, in one sense or another. Not legally, it turns out -- there's no doubt that Parliament, when the question is put to it, should honour the result of the referendum, but that's no excuse to turn aside the rules by which laws are made and unmade in this country.

[ToraToraTora]

will you answer a straight question zacs:
Do you think the result of the referendum should be respected?

[Zacs-Master]

I thought that was patently obvious and I hadn't realised you'd asked me that direct. No I don't. Straight enough answer?

[Old_Geezer]

You asked how you were expected to react and don't like the answer so claim it isn't anything to do with it ? In fact until tested it was not going to be clear whether a further debate beyond that which has already occurred is necessary. In fact until the appeals process finishes it still is not clear. And so it never had to be taken to court to find out if that would be upheld; but I've pointed this out many times already but it still seems to be ignored, possibly because it is inconvenient when denying that this is all troublemaking.

I'm sure whether it was legally binding on the government was even discussed on this forum before the vote. I have doubts many would not be aware. But the idea was that legally binding of not, the government would enact it anyway.

[Zacs-Master]

'I wasn't aware of the legal position before the vote. I don't think many of us were.'

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

[Old_Geezer]

OK so you think you (and presumably everyone) should not respect the view of the public. Do you think that the public should respect your view, or is it a one way street ?

[jim360]

I suppose I should say that I knew the referendum was "advisory", what I mean is that I hadn't appreciated that from a legal point of view it was Parliament who was being advised rather than Government.

[ToraToraTora]

yes thank you that is very straight, you are willing to see the will of the people ignored because of you hold a different view personally. I suspect that view is common among the remainers but I thank you for being honest about it. Ok supplementary question. Do you hold that view because you think that somehow the opinion of the majority is flawed? Or is it just a simple matter of not agreeing with the majority.

[Zacs-Master]

I don't give a fig whether the public respect my view. My view is irrelevant.

Tora- it's just a simple matter of believing that the law should be upheld really. It's as simple as that. Stop trying to make it personal.

[ToraToraTora]

you just said that you want to ignore the will of the people, we are not talking about the legal situation. Did you misinterpret my question at 13:49 that you answered in the affirmative.

[ToraToraTora]

anyway I'm going to watch England v South Africa so I'll get back later.

[Zacs-Master]

I Want to ignore the will of the people because the process of the result has been (subject to an appeal or two) proven to be unfounded in law thereby making the will of the people irrelevant. I've said this around half a dozen times now on here.

[whiskeryron]

If it is a fact that the law is such that it can go against the will of the majority then the law is a Ass. The people have spoken & the majority have declared that we should leave the EU. Just get on with it for heavens sake & stop all this dilly dallying or I shall be forced to agree that the tactics involved are delaying tactics designed in the end to change the democratic will of the people.

[jim360]

I guess what TTT is asking is: "Do you want to see Parliament refuse to invoke Article 50 if and when the vote comes before the House?"

For myself, I suppose there's a part of me that would like to see that happen, but it's a small and bitter part, and as much as I may not like it I think the referendum result has to be honoured by Parliament in the end.