Today's Brexit vote

[Lancasterclaret]

and completely undemocratic.

Only if you don't understand democracy

[Bacchus]

But it was. 3 of the judges voted that it didn't need to go back before parliament, therefore at best it's a grey area. Parliament said let the people decide, and they did. Your right, it probably will get ratified anyway, but this whole scenario has been a massive waste of tax payers money, and completely undemocratic.

A majority voted that it did need to go through Parliament. A much bigger majority, I might add, than the referendum resulted in.

If legally challenging the government in the courts is undemocratic in your eyes I'm not sure what kind of democracy you want to live in. Sounds more like a dictatorship.

[Paul Waine]

[quote="quoonbeatz"]

for me there were good and bad reasons on both sides and it was a really hard decision to make but to actually find those parts of the argument you had to wade through all the wildly polar headlines[/quote

Agree this, quoonbeatz.

[Bacchus]

To pick up on the argument that had the referendum result gone narrowly the other way it wouldn't have ended up in the Supreme Court; well of course it wouldn't, because there would be no government action to challenge. Remain meant maintaining the status quo, doing nothing. It's difficult to legally challenge someone who is doing nothing.

It would have been challenged politically of course, but that's a whole different issue.

[nil_desperandum]

I'm a brexiteer, whoever wrote the referendum bill made a mistake in not making it explicit that the government had the power to trigger article 50. Anyway they're is a big majority for triggering it so they're is no problem.

You're totally correct in your first point.
I assume in point 2 you mean a big majority in Parliament, in which case you are correct, and this is why May's strategy / behaviour has brought her leadership credentials into doubt.
If you mean in the country as a whole, then statistically it's a very small majority, and probably not a majority in favour of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. (A majority nonetheless).

[Lancasterclaret]

One thing that we can all agree on is that we are leaving the EU.

The argument now switches to what we can get out of it for the best deal for our country, whilst at the same time maintaining little stuff like workers rights.

[Paul Waine]

A majority voted that it did need to go through Parliament. A much bigger majority, I might add, than the referendum resulted in.

If legally challenging the government in the courts is undemocratic in your eyes I'm not sure what kind of democracy you want to live in. Sounds more like a dictatorship.

I'm not sure I'd compare the votes of Supreme Court judges with the votes of the electorate. The judges have all the learning (the "latin") and all the resources to gather and consider all the facts that are relevant to their legal decision.

The electorate, in general, were asked to consider a different question - possibly a much harder one - and we are all limited in the resources we have available to us to help us make that decision.

It is very good for our democracy that the government can be "called to account" in the courts. I found it educational and fascinating to read the earlier High Court decision (not read today's, yet).

Of course, there is a question mark over the way numerous laws concerning Europe were enacted originally, plus the drafting of the EU treaties. It will be great for democracy if one outcome of the legal actions re brexit result in much better drafting of all laws in future.

[dsr]

You're totally correct in your first point.
I assume in point 2 you mean a big majority in Parliament, in which case you are correct, and this is why May's strategy / behaviour has brought her leadership credentials into doubt.
If you mean in the country as a whole, then statistically it's a very small majority, and probably not a majority in favour of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. (A majority nonetheless).

I doubt there will be any problems getting it through the House of Commons, but there might be with the House of Lords. I hope not.

[Paul Waine]

One thing that we can all agree on is that we are leaving the EU.

The argument now switches to what we can get out of it for the best deal for our country, whilst at the same time maintaining little stuff like workers rights.

Hi Lancs, when we are separate from EU we will be able to improve on workers rights - we will no longer need to follow the rights than the workers of France (or any other EU country) believe are right for workers in their country.

[summitclaret]

I think May will be very happy tonight. Only needs a short Bill and she can ignore whatever Nicola Krancky says. These 2 things are now undisputable, unless appeals to the European Court are allowed. If they are then she will do it and if she does prepare for war!!!!

Without this judgement I thinkthat there was a lot f scop for delaying tactics from above Hadrian's wall.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm glad that you believe that Paul.

I don't, and the track record and the rhetoric of a long term conservative govt means it will be very hard to share your optimism.

Hell, I might be wrong, this bunch of hard brexiteers might be the best thing for the north ever, but my fear is a modern day version of William the Conqueror in 1069-70.

[JohnMcGreal]

i think the point was less money rather than no money.

i'm not massively knowledgeable about such things but i'm not sure any other tax havens have populations of 64 million people.

Yep.

If we were to become a tax haven, how would we fund millions of people's pensions and also essential public services? It couldn't happen on that scale. If you look at most tax havens, a lot of ordinary residents live in crushing poverty.

I'm pretty sure most people who voted to leave the EU weren't voting for the UK to become a tax haven.

[Lancasterclaret]

Have to be quick, but Radio Five have two experts dealing with questions on this.

On till seven this though.

The only leaver who is on so far is genuinely a very scary person. She wants the 48% to have no say whatsoever. She's also, no surprise, a complete UKIP lunatic.

[Colburn_Claret]

A majority voted that it did need to go through Parliament. A much bigger majority, I might add, than the referendum resulted in.

If legally challenging the government in the courts is undemocratic in your eyes I'm not sure what kind of democracy you want to live in. Sounds more like a dictatorship.

But they aren't challenging government, they're challenging the vote of the people. Taking it to court is just an excuse to try and avoid a democratic decision. The bitterness of the remainers is hysterical (and by that I don't mean funny). It is ridiculous that they are still scratching their nails down the side of the ship when it's already sailed.
Of course there is a solution. If they don't want to live in a Britain post Brexit they could always **** off.

[RocketLawnChair]

Farage even said before the vote that if the result ended up being 52-48 then it wouldn't be the end of the issue.

Did he . Well he would have been ignored and told to accept defeat along with everybody else who had voted to leave the EU.

[Lancasterclaret]

Colburn, that is the gist of the leavers on the radio right now.

Apparently we can just f**k off.

Pretty hard to find any compromise room with that attitude.

[Darthlaw]

It is the BBC though Lancaster.

Still searching for sensationalist headlines by giving airtime to nutjobs at both ends of the scale.

[Lancasterclaret]

Hope you are right.

Very depressing listening to it, especially as they all sounded rather elderly.

[Colburn_Claret]

Colburn, that is the gist of the leavers on the radio right now.

Apparently we can just f**k off.

Pretty hard to find any compromise room with that attitude.

If the vote had gone with remain I would have been seriously gutted, but I wouldn't have spat my dummy, just suck it up and get on with life. This idea that democracy only counts if the vote goes your way is frankly sad.
I'm not wanting anyone to **** off really, just get on and deal with it and try and make the most of the situation. This continuing chucking of the teddy out of the pram helps nobody.
There are opportunities to be had from leaving the EU, just as there will be some knockbacks, but whichever side of the fence you HAVE to make the most of it. If the remainers can't see that then maybe they should go.
It's a bit like having a team with a Payet or Mccormack in the team, if they don't want to do their best you're better off without them.

[Lancasterclaret]

But you would still have wanted to leave the EU?

Still wanted that good old "take back control"

You wouldn't just stop. I mean, you wouldn't.

Farage wouldn't for example, all those geriatrics I've just heard on the radio certainly wouldn't.

You can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

Point I'm making is that there has to be some attempt at compromise so that we move on. I've no idea what society those people on the radio wanted, but the comments on the EU and their attiutude to anyone who disagreed with them gave me a very good idea.

And I'm expected to go "Fine, you won, do your worst and we won't mention it again".

This is going to go on for generations.

[Imploding Turtle]

Did he . Well he would have been ignored and told to accept defeat along with everybody else who had voted to leave the EU.

Not by me. And not by anyone before the vote either otherwise there'd have been a fuss made about him saying he wouldn't accept defeat.

[Damo]

But you would still have wanted to leave the EU?

Still wanted that good old "take back control"

You wouldn't just stop. I mean, you wouldn't.

Farage wouldn't for example, all those geriatrics I've just heard on the radio certainly wouldn't.

You can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

Point I'm making is that there has to be some attempt at compromise so that we move on. I've no idea what society those people on the radio wanted, but the comments on the EU and their attiutude to anyone who disagreed with them gave me a very good idea.

And I'm expected to go "Fine, you won, do your worst and we won't mention it again".

This is going to go on for generations.

It won't go on for generations though will it?
Article 50 will be invoked this year. Within another 2 years we will have left the EU and then I expect other countries will follow suit.
A section of remain voters will still be complaining about it for generations. Still be predicting a post Brexit wasteland for generations. And still be acting like they know better than everyone else about the matter for generations.
The rest of us will get on with our lives

[Lancasterclaret]

Only problem with that Damo is that its a prediction, which weirdly matches exactly how you want it to go.

What are the chances eh?

I'll just be happy if we've signed our first trade deal in two years to be perfectly honest.

[lakesclaret]

I really wish the remainers would accept the bloody vote and start making the thing a success and getting behind the fact that we're leaving and no amount of bitching and moaning will change that .

That odious divisive little Krankie woman ( I say woman loosely as I just can't get round her actually having s vagina) not helping matters.

I find it comparable in attitude to a combination of Wenger,Fergie and Jose conceding a late winner

[summitclaret]

We are doing things in a civilised way relative to much of Europe, if the Dutch PM Rutte's recent comments are looked at. He is basically telling people that don't share Holland's values to leave the country

That is because he is under pressure from the hard right in the election campaign for the vote in mid March.

[Damo]

Predictions lol. Have any of the remain camps come true yet?

[Lancasterclaret]

I think you are struggling with the concept of what a prediction is.

The only thing we can be sure about is that we are leaving, and we are going for a full on hard brexit leave.

[Guich]

I think you're being ageist Lancaster. Is that a hate crime?

I'm not old or a brexiteer by the way but I thought I'd try being offended on behalf of someone else

[lakesclaret]

Surely the hard business reality will soften the collective EU " toys out of the pram" attitude they've shown thus far?

[Lancasterclaret]

I think we are more than matching them on "toys out of the pram" Lakes!

I'm hoping its all sabre rattling

[RingoMcCartney]

I really wish the remainers would accept the bloody vote and start making the thing a success and getting behind the fact that we're leaving and no amount of bitching and moaning will change that .

That odious divisive little Krankie woman ( I say woman loosely as I just can't get round her actually having s vagina) not helping matters.

I find it comparable in attitude to a combination of Wenger,Fergie and Jose conceding a late winner

I've accepted that arsenal beat burnley on Sunday.

The Remoaners would still be banging on about it.

What's really amusing is that if people don't join in their communal whinge and whine fest, their written of as racist, uneducated or a little englander!

Simply because somebody is of a later vintage, their opinion is worthless and they're hysterically described as "geriatric"

Disgraceful.

And these same people claim to love diversity.

They hate diversity of opinion.

Arsenal beat burnley at the weekend

The UK is leaving the EU

[Colburn_Claret]

But you would still have wanted to leave the EU?

Still wanted that good old "take back control"

You wouldn't just stop. I mean, you wouldn't.

Farage wouldn't for example, all those geriatrics I've just heard on the radio certainly wouldn't.

You can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

Point I'm making is that there has to be some attempt at compromise so that we move on. I've no idea what society those people on the radio wanted, but the comments on the EU and their attiutude to anyone who disagreed with them gave me a very good idea.

And I'm expected to go "Fine, you won, do your worst and we won't mention it again".

This is going to go on for generations.

I'm not privy to what's being said on the radio , stuck at work.
Of course there will need to be comprises but I don't think it is up to us to dictate any terms. The rhetoric from Europe that we HAVE to be punished is wishful thinking. I'm sure they would love to stick it to us, but they also understand that what goes around comes around. There's a whole world out there that wants to fill in any gaps left by Europe, whether that's importing or exporting.
Eventually common sense will prevail and a deal that suits all will be reached. The chest beating is just for the watching audience, the participants know the truth.

[Imploding Turtle]

Predictions lol. Have any of the remain camps come true yet?

What's worse, making predictions that only partially come true, or campaigning for something and not having a plan to actually do it after you've convinced enough people?

[Damo]

I think you are struggling with the concept of what a prediction is.

The only thing we can be sure about is that we are leaving, and we are going for a full on hard brexit leave.

Really?
I seem to remember certain members of the remain campaign predicting the melt down of the economy post Brexit.
And the need for an emergency budget.
They were predictions weren't they?
Or were you just continuing your stance of 'all leave voters are stupid'

[Paul Waine]

Yep.

If we were to become a tax haven, how would we fund millions of people's pensions and also essential public services? It couldn't happen on that scale. If you look at most tax havens, a lot of ordinary residents live in crushing poverty.

I'm pretty sure most people who voted to leave the EU weren't voting for the UK to become a tax haven.

Hi JohnMcG,

I understand it was someone within the EU that suggested the UK would become an (unregulated) tax haven. I don't think is what Philip Hammond (or Theresa May) have suggested.

Hammond suggested (and May repeated) that UK may lower corporation tax. I don't think they've suggested lowering income tax, national insurance (both employers and employees), VAT or any of the "sin" taxes (tobacco, alcohol and petrol).

A true tax haven would have lower/no income tax (and NI) and lower taxes on other activities.

I'm sure you know that Republic of Ireland, Luxembourg and one or two other EU member states operate low corporation tax regimes (Netherlands has a very favourable tax on certain corporate income that flows through Netherlands). Ireland lowered corporation tax in order to attract more jobs - and so collect more income tax and more tax overall. If the UK followed this approach in addition to income tax it would also collect more NI from both employers and employees (I don't know if RoI has NI... possibly).

I've argued before that corporation tax should be abolished: it is much too easy for corporate entities to avoid in an international world (which country does the overseas income "belong to" for tax purposes)? Capital raised by debt is tax free, capital raised as equity is rewarded after tax has been paid - this distorts capital structures - too much leverage was a major factor in the financial crisis. Getting rid of this distortion would be an economic gain for everyone. In UK if you receive dividend income you can "recover" the "deemed" corporation tax paid on dividend. If you abolish corporation tax then there is no recovery and income tax on dividends will automatically rise.

I'm not sure whether Hammond mentioned Singapore - or whether this comes from media. Yes, Singapore is a small island state, approx. one tenth the size of UK. It is very hard working, very well educated and (generally) very prosperous. Its achieved this in 50 years of independence from Malaysia. It's only "natural" advantage was as a shipping/trading post. It presents as a very unified, yet racially/culturally diverse nation. Public holidays include celebrations of Christian, Hindu and Muslim religions. Everyone, whatever their own religion, share these holidays. I'm sure we'd all be proud if the UK took and developed some ideas from Singapore.

[Lancasterclaret]

Damo, wtf are you on about?

My predictions are just as worthless/ brilliant as yours are. Thats why they are called predictions.

You seem to be struggling with the concept that both sides made predictions that have not come true, so it would be fair to say that no one has clue what is going to happen from here on in.

I'm not naive or daft enough to believe that the stuff coming out the UK govt on a daily basis is for anything other than domestic consumption, and I hope the same is true of the EU.

One thing that will completely mess this up is jingoistic nonsense, so I hope when we get to that stage, that is avoided at all costs (again, by both sides)

[RingoMcCartney]

Predictions lol. Have any of the remain camps come true yet?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... uk-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... uk-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those poor memory democracy deniers....

[Bacchus]

But they aren't challenging government, they're challenging the vote of the people. Taking it to court is just an excuse to try and avoid a democratic decision. The bitterness of the remainers is hysterical (and by that I don't mean funny). It is ridiculous that they are still scratching their nails down the side of the ship when it's already sailed.
Of course there is a solution. If they don't want to live in a Britain post Brexit they could always **** off.

You either don't understand what the court judgement was about or you're deliberately misinterpreting it for the sake of an argument. Nobody has challenged the referendum outcome. They challenged whether it meant the PM could just interpret it however she wanted to without referring to Parliament. It's about process, not policy. It's about ensuring that we live in a Parliamentary democracy and not a dictatorship. And as the judges found, Gina Miller was right to take this to court. Of course, if you don't want to live in a Parliamentary democracy where people free to challenge the actions of government through the court you are free to f**k off yourself.

[Imploding Turtle]

Are you surprised, Bacchus?

[dsr]

You either don't understand what the court judgement was about or you're deliberately misinterpreting it for the sake of an argument. Nobody has challenged the referendum outcome. They challenged whether it meant the PM could just interpret it however she wanted to without referring to Parliament. It's about process, not policy. It's about ensuring that we live in a Parliamentary democracy and not a dictatorship. And as the judges found, Gina Miller was right to take this to court. Of course, if you don't want to live in a Parliamentary democracy where people free to challenge the actions of government through the court you are free to f**k off yourself.

I don't see that there's any question of anyone, PM or otherwise, misinterpreting what was meant in the referendum. The question was:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

with options:

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

Now, the "Leave the European Union" option was chosen by the majority of voters. The question was deliberately chosen by the Electoral Commission to be unambiguous, and I think they succeeded. The vote was to leave the European Union.

So there would be no need for Parliament to be called to vote, if all they are after is to work out what the question meant. It's an easy question to understand. The vote was to leave the EU; the only way to do this under EU rules is by invoking Article 50. The point of Parliament having another say is merely to ensure that Parliament retains sovereignty over the People. Oliver Cromwell had the same idea.

To me, Parliament is supposed to represent the people. Not to be the masters of the people. If there is a national election, whether a general election to elect MPs, or a specific issue referendum, the votes of the people must be paramount. If (as the Supreme Court says) the law is designed so that Parliament can override the result of a national election just because they don't like it, then the law must be changed.

[Colburn_Claret]

It's a point of order. Just because it's 'legal' doesn't male it right. What can parliament tell TM to do after today's judgement. They might like her terms, they might not, but regardless they shouldn't have a say in the result.
If they were to vote NO, we don't like them terms, they would be contravening a democratic vote.
I voted leave, hopefully with some common sense balanced settlement, but if it were to be a hard Brexit then so be it. I, and 17million others just want out. You will never ever come up with a compromise that will suit everybody inside or out of parliament, so why muddy the water by undermining our representatives.

We should be debating with Europe not with each other.

[BabylonClaret]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... uk-economy

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... uk-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those poor memory democracy deniers....

No-one is saying the remain campaign didn't say these things. Not sure what your point is Ringo?

And I've yet to see any "remoaning" on here except in response to the outrage from people thinking that this is an attempt to "deny democracy". No-one's saying it means we shouldn't trigger article 50. It's largely about reinforcing the sovereignty of parliament which (like it or not) is the system of democracy we have.

A vote in parliament on article 50 allows the House to challenge the PM and Govt on how we get through this - to appeal for particular lines or approaches as part of the debate. I don't think (nor does anyone else either) that it won't get passed - same as the referendum act didn't get passed. But it's quite clear in all the legislation prior to the referendum that it is in fact advisory and not binding. Exactly because Parliament is the Sovereign power. If you didn;t realise that then maybe you should have paid a bit more attention to the detail?

[nil_desperandum]

It's a point of order. Just because it's 'legal' doesn't male it right. What can parliament tell TM to do after today's judgement. They might like her terms, they might not, but regardless they shouldn't have a say in the result.
.

That's a ludicrous position to take since it gives TM and her team carte blanche to do as they please without being held to account.
How do you know what sort of a deal Mrs May and her close advisers may come up with? You were a Brexiteer, fair enough, but as things enfold you might totally disagree with her interpretation of Brexit and the compromises that they make.
It's very important that MPs of all different parties and perspectives have an input in the process. Some MPs (e.g.) will want to give very careful scrutiny to aspects that involve workers rights and responsibilities, some will have a special interest in taxation or health, others will want the best for the City and financial services, whilst others will be more concerned about specific issues that impact on their own constituents.
Hopefully all MPs will keep their finger on the pulse and work together to fairly represent the views and concerns of those who elect them, in helping to deliver a Brexit that benefits as many as possible and leaves as few victims as possible.

[Colburn_Claret]

That's a ludicrous position to take since it gives TM and her team carte blanche to do as they please without being held to account.
How do you know what sort of a deal Mrs May and her close advisers may come up with? You were a Brexiteer, fair enough, but as things enfold you might totally disagree with her interpretation of Brexit and the compromises that they make.
It's very important that MPs of all different parties and perspectives have an input in the process. Some MPs (e.g.) will want to give very careful scrutiny to aspects that involve workers rights and responsibilities, some will have a special interest in taxation or health, others will want the best for the City and financial services, whilst others will be more concerned about specific issues that impact on their own constituents.
Hopefully all MPs will keep their finger on the pulse and work together to fairly represent the views and concerns of those who elect them, in helping to deliver a Brexit that benefits as many as possible and leaves as few victims as possible.

But that is the very problem. Too many different voices just muddies the water. It also weakens our bargaining position. The EU would be rubbing their hands listening to the HOP arguing about what is a good deal.
Taking control of our borders is non negotiable.
Leaving the ECOHR should be no negotiable.
Leaving this schenken nonsense is non negotiable

We want to trade with Europe post Brexit, it's in their own interests that we continue to do so. Let them make an offer, I don't believe it's right or proper that we dictate any terms. If they play reasonable fair enough, if however they want to play hardball so be it. As TM said no deal is better than a bad deal.

To allow parliament to water down the terms in order to appease those remainers who lost the vote is undemocratic and dangerous. You'd end up with an outcome that nobody voted for.

[Imploding Turtle]

I don't see that there's any question of anyone, PM or otherwise, misinterpreting what was meant in the referendum. The question was:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

with options:

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

Now, the "Leave the European Union" option was chosen by the majority of voters. The question was deliberately chosen by the Electoral Commission to be unambiguous, and I think they succeeded. The vote was to leave the European Union.

So there would be no need for Parliament to be called to vote, if all they are after is to work out what the question meant.

... *snipped*

The referendum result holds no legal weight whatsoever. Whether Leave won or Remain won, the result would have had no bearing on this case. This case isn't about the result of the referendum, it's about whether a Prime Minister has the legal power to unilaterally pull the country out of the EU. If the PM does have that power then it would mean she/he had that power before the referendum, and it would mean that she/he would have that power even if Remain had won.

You've had this explained to you enough times already, in past threads, that i think the only reason you're not understanding this is simply because you don't want to.

[Spijed]

The sad thing after Brexit is that campaigns like this: http://www.kickitout.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; are pretty much dead in the water.

[Lancasterclaret]

It's a point of order. Just because it's 'legal' doesn't male it right

If (as the Supreme Court says) the law is designed so that Parliament can override the result of a national election just because they don't like it, then the law must be changed.

Ladies and Gentleman, two perfectly normal people, one wanting us to ignore the law, one wanting to make it so it doesn't interfere with anything that might stop the prime minister doing whatever she wants.

Dsr and Colburn. You need to think about what you are saying and remember that we are not a totalitarian dictatorship but doing stuff like this sets us down the road to becoming one.

[Bacchus]

Are you surprised, Bacchus?

Not really. Some people are so blinkered and fanatical about Brexit that they are incapable of rational thought on anything perceived as getting in the way of it.

[Bacchus]

Leaving the ECOHR should be no negotiable.
Leaving this schenken nonsense is non negotiable

I'd assumed you were deliberately misunderstanding things for the sake of argument. Now I realise that you actually don't understand what you're arguing for.

We are not leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. That is entirely separate from the EU.
We are not part of the Schengen area, so we cannot leave it.

[Imploding Turtle]

I'd assumed you were deliberately misunderstanding things for the sake of argument. Now I realise that you actually don't understand what you're arguing for.

We are not leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. That is entirely separate from the EU.
We are not part of the Schengen area, so we cannot leave it.

We should also withdraw from the African Cup of Nations because too many of our players are having their seasons interrupted.