Implications of Brexit!

[eharding]

don'tbesilly said:

eharding said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

That's day one. Believe me; there's a st storm coming the like of which none of us have ever seen

Chill, Winston.

Whilst I can fully understand various folk performing due diligence in the light of the referendum result, I don't think we'll actually ever invoke Article 50.

The Brexiteers have long been chuntering on about the sovereignty of Parliamentary decisions.

I think they'll find that in the final analysis, Parliament will decide - probably after a General Election - and it won't be decision the Brexiteers will like.

You seem to be implying that Cameron was indeed scaremongering when in one of his last speeches during the last week of campaigning, he said this:

EU vote 'is an irreversible decision. There is no going back'.

I don't think 17.4 million people are going to be best pleased that it was indeed a lie, and that their decision to leave is going to be disregarded.

Is the above what you're suggesting?

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

[loafer123]

eharding said:

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

You, sir, are a bad loser.

[vonuber]

loafer123 said:

You, sir, are a bad loser.

Bad loser? This isn't a bloody game you know.

[ClaphamGT3]

LK

eharding said:

don'tbesilly said:

eharding said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

That's day one. Believe me; there's a st storm coming the like of which none of us have ever seen

Chill, Winston.

Whilst I can fully understand various folk performing due diligence in the light of the referendum result, I don't think we'll actually ever invoke Article 50.

The Brexiteers have long been chuntering on about the sovereignty of Parliamentary decisions.

I think they'll find that in the final analysis, Parliament will decide - probably after a General Election - and it won't be decision the Brexiteers will like.

You seem to be implying that Cameron was indeed scaremongering when in one of his last speeches during the last week of campaigning, he said this:

EU vote 'is an irreversible decision. There is no going back'.

I don't think 17.4 million people are going to be best pleased that it was indeed a lie, and that their decision to leave is going to be disregarded.

Is the above what you're suggesting?

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

Heart would love that to be the case. Head says we wouldn't survive the uncertainty. For better or worse, we now have to leave and make the most of it. The supreme irony is that the people who will make Brexit work will, overwhelmingly, be people who voted to remain, not the narrow-minded simpletons who voted to leave

[eharding]

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

You, sir, are a bad loser.

Possibly. But then, tell me that the scenario above is unworkable?

Granted, the composition of the post-election parliament isn't one I'd be keen on - a Labour / SNP coalition most likely - but, as I've said in a couple of other threads - if they win a General Election with a Remain mandate, then the Referendum result would be effectively set aside - the electorate having been deemed to have stared into the abyss, and not been comfortable with the abyss staring back.

[don'tbesilly]

eharding said:

don'tbesilly said:

eharding said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

That's day one. Believe me; there's a st storm coming the like of which none of us have ever seen

Chill, Winston.

Whilst I can fully understand various folk performing due diligence in the light of the referendum result, I don't think we'll actually ever invoke Article 50.

The Brexiteers have long been chuntering on about the sovereignty of Parliamentary decisions.

I think they'll find that in the final analysis, Parliament will decide - probably after a General Election - and it won't be decision the Brexiteers will like.

You seem to be implying that Cameron was indeed scaremongering when in one of his last speeches during the last week of campaigning, he said this:

EU vote 'is an irreversible decision. There is no going back'.

I don't think 17.4 million people are going to be best pleased that it was indeed a lie, and that their decision to leave is going to be disregarded.

Is the above what you're suggesting?

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

So you are confirming Cameron did lie, because your reasoned response would I imagine be one Cameron could have thought through himself.

When Cameron said "There is no going back", and based on the above hypothesis, he was lying.

Your suggestion that the electorate will be invited to confirm the result of the first referendum would require a General Election.

To take your suggestions further you are supposing that the 17.4 million people who voted out would buy into all the above.

It's one hell of a gamble, a lot of people who were teetering on the edge of voting out would turn against the above because of one of the largest lies ever told to an electorate.

Of course a lot of people who voted out could/would change their position and vote for the elected representative of this fictional (presently) scenario.

I think your suggestion whilst on the face of it is plausible, however I don't think it's got legs.

[eharding]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Head says we wouldn't survive the uncertainty.

Steady, Hudson. You're a gnat's tadger away from yelling 'Game Over, Man!'. Calm down, breathe, and get a grip.

Just because the Remain drop-ship crashed and burned without warning, and there are hordes of horrible nasty reptilian Brexit feckers running around looking like they own the place, that's no reason to panic.

Trust me.

[eharding]

don'tbesilly said:

So you are confirming Cameron did lie, because your reasoned response would I imagine be one Cameron could have thought through himself.

When Cameron said "There is no going back", and based on the above hypothesis, he was lying.

Well, let's assume he was lying. He's gone anyway, so what's your point?

At what point do you anticipate Parliament passing legislation to invoke Article 50?

[loafer123]

eharding said:

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

You, sir, are a bad loser.

Possibly. But then, tell me that the scenario above is unworkable?

Granted, the composition of the post-election parliament isn't one I'd be keen on - a Labour / SNP coalition most likely - but, as I've said in a couple of other threads - if they win a General Election with a Remain mandate, then the Referendum result would be effectively set aside - the electorate having been deemed to have stared into the abyss, and not been comfortable with the abyss staring back.

It isn't the fact that it is unworkable, it is the fact that you have worked it out deliberately to avoid the democratic mandate determined last week through the referendum.

[ClaphamGT3]

K

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

You, sir, are a bad loser.

Possibly. But then, tell me that the scenario above is unworkable?

Granted, the composition of the post-election parliament isn't one I'd be keen on - a Labour / SNP coalition most likely - but, as I've said in a couple of other threads - if they win a General Election with a Remain mandate, then the Referendum result would be effectively set aside - the electorate having been deemed to have stared into the abyss, and not been comfortable with the abyss staring back.

It isn't the fact that it is unworkable, it is the fact that you have worked it out deliberately to avoid the democratic mandate determined last week through the referendum.

Do you understand the concept of the supremac of Parliament?

[vonuber]

How, exactly, is article 50 implemented?
Via act of parliament?

[eharding]

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

You, sir, are a bad loser.

Possibly. But then, tell me that the scenario above is unworkable?

Granted, the composition of the post-election parliament isn't one I'd be keen on - a Labour / SNP coalition most likely - but, as I've said in a couple of other threads - if they win a General Election with a Remain mandate, then the Referendum result would be effectively set aside - the electorate having been deemed to have stared into the abyss, and not been comfortable with the abyss staring back.

It isn't the fact that it is unworkable, it is the fact that you have worked it out deliberately to avoid the democratic mandate determined last week through the referendum.

Well, yes, I suppose it does - by placing faith in the ultimate decision of our Parliamentary system.

However, as I hope this demonstrates, this isn't a done deal. Far from it.

[loafer123]

ClaphamGT3 said:

K

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

You, sir, are a bad loser.

Possibly. But then, tell me that the scenario above is unworkable?

Granted, the composition of the post-election parliament isn't one I'd be keen on - a Labour / SNP coalition most likely - but, as I've said in a couple of other threads - if they win a General Election with a Remain mandate, then the Referendum result would be effectively set aside - the electorate having been deemed to have stared into the abyss, and not been comfortable with the abyss staring back.

It isn't the fact that it is unworkable, it is the fact that you have worked it out deliberately to avoid the democratic mandate determined last week through the referendum.

Do you understand the concept of the supremac of Parliament?

I do understand the supremacy of parliament.

I also understand that the government asked the electorate a direct question and that they have given a direct answer.

[Murph7355]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Heart would love that to be the case. Head says we wouldn't survive the uncertainty. For better or worse, we now have to leave and make the most of it. The supreme irony is that the people who will make Brexit work will, overwhelmingly, be people who voted to remain, not the narrow-minded simpletons who voted to leave

Would you care to share the data that makes you think only Remain voters can save the UK economy? (If it's overwhelming I imagine there's lots of data). Or is this just a personally held belief

[ClaphamGT3]

loafer123 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

K

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

You, sir, are a bad loser.

Possibly. But then, tell me that the scenario above is unworkable?

Granted, the composition of the post-election parliament isn't one I'd be keen on - a Labour / SNP coalition most likely - but, as I've said in a couple of other threads - if they win a General Election with a Remain mandate, then the Referendum result would be effectively set aside - the electorate having been deemed to have stared into the abyss, and not been comfortable with the abyss staring back.

It isn't the fact that it is unworkable, it is the fact that you have worked it out deliberately to avoid the democratic mandate determined last week through the referendum.

Do you understand the concept of the supremac of Parliament?

I do understand the supremacy of parliament.

I also understand that the government asked the electorate a direct question and that they have given a direct answer.

Parliament would have every right to refuse to pass the primary legislation necessary to authorise the Government to invoke Article 50

[loafer123]

In law, it would.

In following the will of the people it serves, it would not.

[don'tbesilly]

ClaphamGT3 said:

LK

eharding said:

don'tbesilly said:

eharding said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

That's day one. Believe me; there's a st storm coming the like of which none of us have ever seen

Chill, Winston.

Whilst I can fully understand various folk performing due diligence in the light of the referendum result, I don't think we'll actually ever invoke Article 50.

The Brexiteers have long been chuntering on about the sovereignty of Parliamentary decisions.

I think they'll find that in the final analysis, Parliament will decide - probably after a General Election - and it won't be decision the Brexiteers will like.

You seem to be implying that Cameron was indeed scaremongering when in one of his last speeches during the last week of campaigning, he said this:

EU vote 'is an irreversible decision. There is no going back'.

I don't think 17.4 million people are going to be best pleased that it was indeed a lie, and that their decision to leave is going to be disregarded.

Is the above what you're suggesting?

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

Heart would love that to be the case. Head says we wouldn't survive the uncertainty. For better or worse, we now have to leave and make the most of it. The supreme irony is that the people who will make Brexit work will, overwhelmingly, be people who voted to remain, not the narrow-minded simpletons who voted to leave

A sensible exchange, or so I thought until the last sentence.

Shame.

[eharding]

don'tbesilly said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

LK

eharding said:

don'tbesilly said:

eharding said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

That's day one. Believe me; there's a st storm coming the like of which none of us have ever seen

Chill, Winston.

Whilst I can fully understand various folk performing due diligence in the light of the referendum result, I don't think we'll actually ever invoke Article 50.

The Brexiteers have long been chuntering on about the sovereignty of Parliamentary decisions.

I think they'll find that in the final analysis, Parliament will decide - probably after a General Election - and it won't be decision the Brexiteers will like.

You seem to be implying that Cameron was indeed scaremongering when in one of his last speeches during the last week of campaigning, he said this:

EU vote 'is an irreversible decision. There is no going back'.

I don't think 17.4 million people are going to be best pleased that it was indeed a lie, and that their decision to leave is going to be disregarded.

Is the above what you're suggesting?

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

Heart would love that to be the case. Head says we wouldn't survive the uncertainty. For better or worse, we now have to leave and make the most of it. The supreme irony is that the people who will make Brexit work will, overwhelmingly, be people who voted to remain, not the narrow-minded simpletons who voted to leave

A sensible exchange, or so I thought until the last sentence.

Shame.

I agree - I think the term "narrow-minded simpletons who voted to leave" is unfortunate, I'd prefer to think of them as "re-education opportunities, broadly already aware of the negative effects of their previous referendum decision"

[s2art]

ClaphamGT3 said:

loafer123 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

K

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

loafer123 said:

eharding said:

Well, Cameron has gone.

The invocation of Article 50 will need to be done as a result as an Act Of Parliament.

I'm suggesting that the electorate may well be invited, after a period of reflection, to confirm - or revise - their referendum choice by electing representatives to Parliament, based partly on whether those representatives are willing to vote to invoke Article 50....

...and, after a period of due reflection, I don't think they will.

You, sir, are a bad loser.

Possibly. But then, tell me that the scenario above is unworkable?

Granted, the composition of the post-election parliament isn't one I'd be keen on - a Labour / SNP coalition most likely - but, as I've said in a couple of other threads - if they win a General Election with a Remain mandate, then the Referendum result would be effectively set aside - the electorate having been deemed to have stared into the abyss, and not been comfortable with the abyss staring back.

It isn't the fact that it is unworkable, it is the fact that you have worked it out deliberately to avoid the democratic mandate determined last week through the referendum.

Do you understand the concept of the supremac of Parliament?

I do understand the supremacy of parliament.

I also understand that the government asked the electorate a direct question and that they have given a direct answer.

Parliament would have every right to refuse to pass the primary legislation necessary to authorise the Government to invoke Article 50

Not sure if they do. I think the PM can do this without parliament. The legislation in question is the Treaty of Lisbon, not domestic British law.

[///ajd]

vonuber said:

loafer123 said:

You, sir, are a bad loser.

Bad loser? This isn't a bloody game you know.

Its odd when you compare this decision to say a making a business case to spend as little as £1m on a new project at work, I'm at a loss to understand why we would make such a huge change on what could be on very shakey analytical grounds.