The Thread of BREXIT

[cronus]

Aside from being power-hungry, self-serving egotists...

That's why elections/democracy...don't want them too comfortable with their positions and if they behave too much like ass-holes they can be torn down like ass-holes.

[Brian Peacock]

If the government is forced to accept his ruling, and leave it for Parliament to decide, is it thought that Parliament will not allow a Brexit?

Hard to call. It's difficult to gauge the extent of any 'buyer's remorse' among Brexit voters or how much that might influence MPs, their constituents or their parties. But a sensible, dispassionate debate on the pro-and-cons wouldn't go amiss. In reality, I see little chance of that. The usual suspects among the Brexiteers are already up on their hind legs and criticising the judgement basically for existing, complaining about un-elected judges betraying the people and telling Parliament how to do its job, sabotage by a corporate elite who are abusing the law for their own gain, calls for the judges to be sacked (they're Law Lords and can only be disbarred under certain exceptional circumstances), and suggestions that The House of Lords have been secretly conspiring to subvert the referendum result. Whatever's being said at the moment it'll be twice as bad once the pro-leave press hit the streets tomorrow, but it doesn't change the fact that, as it currently stands, the Prime Minister doesn't appear to have the power to trigger Article 50 themselves.

[cronus]

If the government is forced to accept his ruling, and leave it for Parliament to decide, is it thought that Parliament will not allow a Brexit?

Hard to call. It's difficult to gauge the extent of any 'buyer's remorse' among Brexit voters or how much that might influence MPs, their constituents or their parties. But a sensible, dispassionate debate on the pro-and-cons wouldn't go amiss. In reality, I see little chance of that. The usual suspects among the Brexiteers are already up on their hind legs and criticising the judgement basically for existing, complaining about un-elected judges betraying the people and telling Parliament how to do its job, sabotage by a corporate elite who are abusing the law for their own gain, calls for the judges to be sacked (they're Law Lords and can only be disbarred under certain exceptional circumstances), and suggestions that The House of Lords have been secretly conspiring to subvert the referendum result. Whatever's being said at the moment it'll be twice as bad once the pro-leave press hit the streets tomorrow, but it doesn't change the fact that, as it currently stands, the Prime Minister doesn't appear to have the power to trigger Article 50 themselves.

[Svartalf]

If the government is forced to accept his ruling, and leave it for Parliament to decide, is it thought that Parliament will not allow a Brexit?

Yeah, the problem is that, knowing what britain has to lose, they'll bury brexit and simply not comply with the "consultation" referendum...

[Svartalf]

If the government is forced to accept his ruling, and leave it for Parliament to decide, is it thought that Parliament will not allow a Brexit?

Hard to call. It's difficult to gauge the extent of any 'buyer's remorse' among Brexit voters or how much that might influence MPs, their constituents or their parties. But a sensible, dispassionate debate on the pro-and-cons wouldn't go amiss. In reality, I see little chance of that. The usual suspects among the Brexiteers are already up on their hind legs and criticising the judgement basically for existing, complaining about un-elected judges betraying the people and telling Parliament how to do its job, sabotage by a corporate elite who are abusing the law for their own gain, calls for the judges to be sacked (they're Law Lords and can only be disbarred under certain exceptional circumstances), and suggestions that The House of Lords have been secretly conspiring to subvert the referendum result. Whatever's being said at the moment it'll be twice as bad once the pro-leave press hit the streets tomorrow, but it doesn't change the fact that, as it currently stands, the Prime Minister doesn't appear to have the power to trigger Article 50 themselves.

Trigger a constitutional crisis? Your country doesn't have a constitution beyond what parliament and the government can agree on... which is basically "the royals are like kids, better seen and not heard".

[Scot Dutchy]

Yes always amazing for a country that does not have a written constitution as such it always amazing how often there is a constitutional crisis.

[rainbow]

Chortle.

I foresee an election that could finally break the two-party system in the UK.

[Scot Dutchy]

Doubt it.

[Svartalf]

Chortle.

I foresee an election that could finally break the two-party system in the UK.

If UKIP is to be another major party, I'm not sure it's such a great thing.

[Scot Dutchy]

Chortle.

I foresee an election that could finally break the two-party system in the UK.

If UKIP is to be another major party, I'm not sure it's such a great thing.

UKIP is dead Svarty. They cant find a cunt to lead them.

[Brian Peacock]

A number of Friday’s front pages have been lambasted for their hyperbolic headlines on the successful legal challenge to the triggering of Article 50.

The High Court ruled yesterday that Theresa May cannot trigger Brexit without first consulting Parliament - a decision which left many Leave supporters furious.

In reaction, Today’s Daily Express front page said: “WE MUST GET OUT OF THE EU”:

It went on to claim that the UK “faces a crisis as grave as anything since the dark days when Churchill vowed we would fight them on the beaches” and called on its readers to “fight, fight, fight” for their “freedom”.

It also likened the EU’s treatment of the UK to being raped and forcibly sterilised.

It asked: “Where were the self-styled champions of British sovereignty when the Mother of Parliaments was being forcibly sterilised by the European Communities Act and then politically raped by the treaties of Maastricht, Dublin and Lisbon?”

The paper added: “Truly, November 3, 2016, was the day democracy died.”

The Daily Mail also got stuck in with their own dramatic front page, which featured a line-up of the High Court judges involved in yesterday’s ruling.

It branded them “ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE”.

Inside it also profiled the trio behind the Article 50 legal challenge as “The Ex Model” (Gina Miller), “The Brazilian Hairdresser” (Deir Dos Santos) and “The Plumbing Boss” (Charlie Mullins).

It described Miller as “sultry” and “cougarish”, drawing attention to her relationship history and clothing, and claiming she “prowls the City...in killer heels and tight-fitting frocks”. ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/g ... 57a9a82b16

[Sean Hayden]

The American in me wants to encourage the people to hang their leaders. But the thinking person in me can see the sense in letting democracy take a hit here. Perhaps they hang just one of the elite?

[JimC]

...“prowls the City...in killer heels and tight-fitting frocks”...

Like many an Anglican bishop or Tory cabinet member...

[JimC]

The American in me wants to encourage the people to hang their leaders. But the thinking person in me can see the sense in letting democracy take a hit here. Perhaps they hang just one of the elite?

Boris?

[mistermack]

Maybe Parliament should have a vote, to end the war in Syria?
Or have a vote to make the pound worth two Euros?
Or vote to abolish Alzheimer's ?
Or vote to make that thing on Mars start up sending data?

It makes just as much sense, as having a vote on the terms of withdrawing from Europe.
They can vote for everything they fucking want, but they can't make it happen.

Parliament had a vote on leaving Europe. They had a full debate on the Brexit referendum.
And passed it overwhelmingly.
They didn't vote to have another vote. They voted to ask the country if it wanted to stay or leave.
Not, "do you want us to have another debate?"
But, "do you want to leave ? "

So Parliament HAS debated it and given it it's assent.
The clear understanding in that debate, was that if the vote is to leave, the government negotiates to leave. Not to have a debate.