Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
Jazzy Jag said:
Well, when it goes to the HOC, each MP has to decide whether they want to keep their jobs at the next election.
If there were a General Election, anytime soon (as some have suggested) it would be interesting to see UKIP's share of that vote being the only Brexit party.
Can there be a vote of no confidence in am MP if they choice there own agenda rather than going with what there constituency wants ?If there were a General Election, anytime soon (as some have suggested) it would be interesting to see UKIP's share of that vote being the only Brexit party.
Edited by Jordan210 on Thursday 3rd November 19:24
Jordan210 said:
Jazzy Jag said:
Well, when it goes to the HOC, each MP has to decide whether they want to keep their jobs at the next election.
If there were a General Election, anytime soon (as some have suggested) it would be interesting to see UKIP's share of that vote being the only Brexit party.
Can there be a vote of no confidence in am MP if they choice there own agenda rather than going with what there constancy wants ?If there were a General Election, anytime soon (as some have suggested) it would be interesting to see UKIP's share of that vote being the only Brexit party.
Sadly the guy that made that promise also promised to respect the outcome of the referendum and trigger article 50.
Regardless of the impact on whether and when Art 50 is invoked, it's reassuring to see the judiciary reminding the executive of the rule of law; you'd have thought the exec might have been a bit more mindful of this given the likes of Cala Homes (x several rounds), the Reading and West Berks planning policy case, and many other attempts to override basic constitutional tenets. Who'd be a judge?
///ajd said:
What is your current position?
And if your position isn't changing, why would anyone elses?
Well not everyone is the same. I'm just wondering what your thoughts on it are. If you don't want to answer that's fair enough.And if your position isn't changing, why would anyone elses?
I think that it will attract more violence and hate towards them personally.
SidewaysSi said:
I can't see Brexit happening to be honest. The Tories won't win if it goes to a vote.
Disagree. A50 will still be invoked.That doesn't mean I'm not going to thoroughly enjoy Don4l, 'Bugler, Powerstrokeoff and Kippers in general topping up their Kanga's every half hour in the meantime though
Jordan210 said:
Jazzy Jag said:
Well, when it goes to the HOC, each MP has to decide whether they want to keep their jobs at the next election.
If there were a General Election, anytime soon (as some have suggested) it would be interesting to see UKIP's share of that vote being the only Brexit party.
Can there be a vote of no confidence in am MP if they choice there own agenda rather than going with what there constituency wants ?If there were a General Election, anytime soon (as some have suggested) it would be interesting to see UKIP's share of that vote being the only Brexit party.
Edited by Jordan210 on Thursday 3rd November 19:24
minimoog said:
SidewaysSi said:
I can't see Brexit happening to be honest. The Tories won't win if it goes to a vote.
Disagree. A50 will still be invoked.That doesn't mean I'm not going to thoroughly enjoy Don4l, 'Bugler, Powerstrokeoff and Kippers in general topping up their Kanga's every half hour in the meantime though
As for the three stooges, their appointment was clearly a joke by May, as she showed at last night's Spectator Awards. Incidentally, BoJo promised that Brexit would be a "titanic" success. "Watch out, iceberg!", shouted a heckler.
Jazzy Jag said:
Well, when it goes to the HOC, each MP has to decide whether they want to keep their jobs at the next election.
If there were a General Election, anytime soon (as some have suggested) it would be interesting to see UKIP's share of that vote being the only Brexit party.
I've done some work on that in the "What a disaster the Tories are" threadIf there were a General Election, anytime soon (as some have suggested) it would be interesting to see UKIP's share of that vote being the only Brexit party.
I think people over think the UKIP thing - they are frankly f
ked If candidates of all parties declared support for either "leave" or "remain" there would be 423 MP's elected if they were supporting "leave" after a general election (based on the referendum results - district by district)
Now whether the useless feckers could work together - that's a whole different ball game.
It was in response to JawKnee after I said the Lib Dems are stuffed if they stay with "remain"
Edited by B'stard Child on Thursday 3rd November 20:02
Greg66 said:
Elysium said:
Well that escalated quickly ....
Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
Interesting stuff. Adds fuel to the fire that is the idea that the Govt has in truth always wanted this to go to the Commons, but wanted to be seen to be forced to do so. And then the scrutiny/conditions that the Commons impose on Brexit will likewise be seen to be forced upon the Govt, which was always desperately trying to implement the will of the people in its purest form. Our Government has been aware for months of legal opinion that it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without an Act of Parliament.
This exact point was covered on page 13 of a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper published 30th June titled "Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?". The paper is still available for download here:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
Worth noting that one of the legal opinions referenced is by Lord Pannick who represented the claimants in the this case and who wrote about the matter in the Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-giving-notic...
A further report based on the same points was published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the 13th Sept 2016.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The Govt declared an intention to trigger article 50 without a parliamentary vote in the full knowledge that this approach may be unlawful.
This was a ridiculously dangerous move as the consequences of a successful JR challenge after the unlawful issue of an article 50 notice would be disastrous. It was entirely correct for this challenge to be brought now and there is no excuse for the Govt's actions and I am surprised that they have decided to appeal.
I hope there will not be a backlash against the claimants as in this case as this challenge was inevitable. They have simply allowed the lawyers to bring it in their names on a pro-bono basis.
I think Keir Starmer was spot on on the World at One earlier:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37860787
For those unable to listen, his view was that parliament would bring scrutiny to the Govt strategy rather than attempt to block Brexit.
I am generally scathing about conspiracy theories, but from the day the Govt announced that the AG would lead the team in this case I've been feeling increasingly like I am watching a charade unfold.
I am still certain that we will invoke A50 and leave, but I think the terms of departure may end up being closer to EU membership than many Brexiteers will be comfortable with.
This would all be greatly more enjoyable if we didn't have to live through it!
I assumed that they would use caution and go for the safe option (using parliament) and recall being surprised when they chose to defend this challenge.
Ironically, I suspect it would have been relatively easy to get Parliament to approve an a50 notice in the days following the referendum.
///ajd said:
pollsIt's only a matter of time before stories of hate crimes will start circulating (going back to my previous point)
It's quite amazing that you're reluctant to talk about potential immigration issues given your track record. I'll just have to assume you know that I'm right.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff