Brexit - the next steps

[Nearly Sane]

Govt loses court case on triggering Article 50

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785


Moderator: As the subject of this is likely to run for sometime me, have split this from the Result of the Referendum thread and set it asva Stickied Topic.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jack, Jakswan, Sass and T8, ( there may be others lurking in the undergrowth )

given the decision of the high court do you think this is a good decision, is Brexit a small decision or a massive decision, should parliament debate every step/negotiating strategy we make before we trigger article 50.

Should it be left to the government to make every decision on how we leave the EU.

Given that the people who voted for Brexit came from all different walks of political life should it not be in their interests that all parties debate our exit from Europe.

Gonnagle.

[floo]

Govt loses court case on triggering Article 50

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

I have just seen this on-line and wonder if it will make any difference?

[wigginhall]

I don't think the Commons would oppose Brexit, as the consequences could be awful.   Not sure about the Lords.  But obviously, Parliament should have a say in what kind of Brexit.   I would think that Mrs May doesn't like that idea, as she seems to be interpreting the referendum like a medieval monarch.   

[Nearly Sane]

I have just seen this on-line and wonder if it will make any difference?

In a couple of ways it already has, the pound is up a bit and the betting for triggering Article 50 has shifted to later next year. Not sure that appealling it will look politically good, especially were they to lose again.

For parliament to actually vote it down when the time cones, would I suspect be a difficult one. There are more than enough MPs in favour of staying to defeat it but I suspect it would lead to an immediate GE where Labour would be annihilated, followed by it being triggered after that. I would suspect that a number of Tories would vote not to trigger it but they would need to be either not that ambitious or very principled.

The idea that thus is somehow a betrayal of the people is ludicrous rhetoric from Farage and his ilk

[wigginhall]

I've not seen many MPs saying they would vote against Brexit - very risky, I would think.   I think David Lammy has said this, but he is probably in a strong Remain area.  To do this in a Leave area courts disaster.   That is why Labour are saying that they support Brexit.

[Spud]

I ordered a 2" clipper comb from the US last week, as you can't buy them in the UK. It cost $25 including postage, so I reckon I paid about £6 more because of the exchange rate 

It's for the hair on top, by the way.

Saves a lot on barber costs in the long run.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Just been listening to the Labour man Stephen Kinnock who stated that this is the biggest decision we have had to make since WW11, I am not sure about that but this brexit is a massive step and should be debated across the house, I would go further and suggest that UKIP have a seat at the table, well as long as Farage desists from his yah boo sucks commentary.

This decision should not be left in the hands of the Tories, it is far to big to be left in the hands of a government who are so out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

I've not seen many MPs saying they would vote against Brexit - very risky, I would think.   I think David Lammy has said this, but he is probably in a strong Remain area.  To do this in a Leave area courts disaster.   That is why Labour are saying that they support Brexit.

There might be a way where they could vote against Article 50 being triggered in the absence of any real meaning of Brexit. They could argue that we need to know what Nissan appears to to approve it as not knowing could put the negotiations in jeopardy.

[Anchorman]

This is no real solution: I know one party which will oppose the unelected prime minister of a government we did not vote for's 'hard' brexit at every turn, and should May win the day, that will only be the start of the politics!

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Just been listening to the Labour man Stephen Kinnock who stated that this is the biggest decision we have had to make since WW11, I am not sure about that but this brexit is a massive step and should be debated across the house, I would go further and suggest that UKIP have a seat at the table, well as long as Farage desists from his yah boo sucks commentary.

This decision should not be left in the hands of the Tories, it is far to big to be left in the hands of a government who are so out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit.

Gonnagle.

UKIP have 'a seat'. In terms of the HoC, that is their representation. It should in my opinion be more but then I have been in favour of PR for 40 years. They missed a trick in not having it as a manifesto commitment years ago. I don't see how in the nature of the HoC they can have a bigger role in that discussion.

[wigginhall]

There is something comical in the Brexiteers saying they want sovereignty returned, and now they are screeching that this judgment is betraying the people, since parliament should not interfere.  Yet it's Parliament that is sovereign, isn't it?

Big danger is an election, where May could easily win a Brexit vote, and Labour would be annihilated.

[Nearly Sane]

I see also attacking the idea of unelected judges because that is all to do with the EU - oh wait it isn't, it's the constitution that they wanted back that has had that, but hey who cares about facts.

[Nearly Sane]

This is quite good as a summary, though doesn't cover that the Supreme Court could be appealed to the European Court of Justice! You have to love Dominic Raab's belief that being able to appeal to the law of the land is somehow dubious!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37860618

[Nearly Sane]

Labour continue to support Brexit, ergo why have an appeal, just have the vote that states govt has right to invoke Article 50, when it chooses


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-article-50-high-court-ruling-jeremy-corbyn-a7395101.html

[Nearly Sane]

I note that the DM originally headlined one of the judges as an 'openly gay ex-Olympic fencer' as if that was worthy of opprobrium. Even the twats at the Mail seem to have worked out that was offensively and idiotically stupid, though some of it still covered in the story. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

Why go for an early election, I just can't see any traction in it for the Tories, sure they might gub Labour but the whole election would be fought on the Brexit question which the Tories have no reply to well except Brexit means Brexit.

Every political party would be snapping at the heels of the Tories for answers, I can only see it damaging the Tories.

Why would another election affect this High Court ruling, the only possible way I can see this as a plus for the Tories is if they won by a landslide and the state they are in just now I can't see that happening.

Laura Kuenssberg ( BBC ) is also talking about an early election,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37861456

The only way of making this headache go away could be a general election.

How!! why!! It would only highlight the Tories short comings.

Just trying to get my head around this nonsense, I can't see any benefit for the Tories asking for a early election.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

This decision should not be left in the hands of the Tories, it is far to big to be left in the hands of a government who are so out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit.

Gonnagle.

Gonners, the people/party most 'out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit' are Labour.  There are probably more pro-EU Labour MPs representing constituencies that voted 'Leave' than there are pro-leave Tory MPs representing constituencies who voted 'Remain'.

I think my concern with the court ruling is that is places Parliament even further away from public opinion, since it appears that it allows MPs to potentially ride roughshod over public opinion.

[Gordon]

I think my concern with the court ruling is that is places Parliament even further away from public opinion, since it appears that it allows MPs to potentially ride roughshod over public opinion.

Whose opinion?

I'll go with the opinion of Scottish voters.

[Nearly Sane]

Gonners, the people/party most 'out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit' are Labour.  There are probably more pro-EU Labour MPs representing constituencies that voted 'Leave' than there are pro-leave Tory MPs representing constituencies who voted 'Remain'.

I think my concern with the court ruling is that is places Parliament even further away from public opinion, since it appears that it allows MPs to potentially ride roughshod over public opinion.

You mean it follows the law? You think that denying the constitution supports the rule of law?

[Anchorman]

Just when you thought things weren't 'interesting' enough, enter Nicola! http://news.sky.com/story/sturgeon-holyrood-might-join-brexit-court-case-10643023 Yep. it's a mess. all right!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In a couple of ways it already has, the pound is up a bit and the betting for triggering Article 50 has shifted to later next year. Not sure that appealling it will look politically good, especially were they to lose again.

For parliament to actually vote it down when the time cones, would I suspect be a difficult one. There are more than enough MPs in favour of staying to defeat it but I suspect it would lead to an immediate GE where Labour would be annihilated, followed by it being triggered after that. I would suspect that a number of Tories would vote not to trigger it but they would need to be either not that ambitious or very principled.

The idea that thus is somehow a betrayal of the people is ludicrous rhetoric from Farage and his ilk

"I will make it legal"  Emperor Palpatine.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

Gonners, the people/party most 'out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit' are Labour.

No, sorry but totally wrong.

 

There are probably more pro-EU Labour MPs representing constituencies that voted 'Leave' than there are pro-leave Tory MPs representing constituencies who voted 'Remain'.

Maybe, but it was underfunding by the Tories, a failure by the Tories through austerity to invest in certain sections of the British electorate which fueled this Brexit nonsense, it's there, it is fact, you can't argue with the facts, the Tories forgot about the little man sitting in the pub watching as immigrants took all the jobs and housing, this might be a myth, but people needed something to vent their anger on, the Tories allowed this.

I think my concern with the court ruling is that is places Parliament even further away from public opinion, since it appears that it allows MPs to potentially ride roughshod over public opinion.

No that is Tory propaganda, what it does is give voice to everyone, the British public voted for Brexit, the Tories are not the voice of Brexit.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Quite unbelievable that Brexiters are complaining that a British court has ruled that the sovereign and democratically elected British parliament should be allowed to exercise its right as a sovereign parliament. I thought it was all about bringing back control to our sovereign British parliament - clearly not according to the hypocrite Brexiters.

What I find supremely amusing if that if the government loses its appeal in the Supreme Court it would need to look to the European Court of Justice as its last hope of overturning the decision. Irony of ironies.

[Hope]

Dear Hope,
No, sorry but totally wrong.

Sorry, not wrong, Gonners.  The British people have been split over the EU for many years - and Nigel farage picked up on this when he started UKIP back in 1993.  As such, the referendum was only partly to do with internal party divisions - it was just as much about Labour's internal party divisions on the subject.

Maybe, but it was underfunding by the Tories, a failure by the Tories through austerity to invest in certain sections of the British electorate which fueled this Brexit nonsense, it's there, it is fact, you can't argue with the facts, the Tories forgot about the little man sitting in the pub watching as immigrants took all the jobs and housing, this might be a myth, but people needed something to vent their anger on, the Tories allowed this.

And, of course, research points to the fact that very few 'British' jobs were taken by immigrants.  For one thing, very few immigrants are able to work in the first place - especially asylum seekers; many immigrants who did get jobs often got well-paid jobs in industries such as engineering and IT, in part because they were 'head-hunted' as it were when the shortages of such people became clear after decades of under-investment by consecutive governments.  Ironically, their gatting such jobs has actually created more 'lower-tier' posts for Brits who don't have the skills for more highly skilled posts. 

The Tories and other Remain campaigners made all this very clear for months prior to the referendum; sadly, the British people chose to give more credence to the evidence-less claims of the likes of UKIP and the other Leave campaigners - some of whom were Tories, but not all.

No that is Tory propaganda, what it does is give voice to everyone, the British public voted for Brexit, the Tories are not the voice of Brexit.

Interesting that you call it Tory propaganda - I've been asking that question for weeks, if not months.  All the court ruling does is require that Parliament vote on the act of triggering Article 50.  It says absolutely nothing about anyone having a say on the progress and outcome of the negotiations. 

If anything, your interpretation suggests that you have imbibed more UKIP propaganda than you might like to think.