Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
///ajd said:
Dammit man, how many times do people have to tell you to actually read links before you post them?1. Fieldwork on the poll was done before today's court decision, so no, it isn't the exact opposite of the Express story which was reporting public reaction to today's decision.
2. The story is trying to compare apples and pears. It is comparing the result of this poll with the referendum result, but as the pollsters themselves explain, the main reason for the difference is that the poll includes people who didn't vote in the referendum and are about 2-1 Remain. Right now I'm full of curry and can't be bothered to put together a little spreadsheet, but from the numbers reported in the Indy I suspect you might be able to demonstrate that opinion among those who voted has hardened pro-Brexit since the referendum. The question then being how many of those who didn't vote last time, would do so this time.
But at least you got in another plug for the Indy. They are paying you. I'm sure they are.
230TE said:
///ajd said:
Dammit man, how many times do people have to tell you to actually read links before you post them?<snip>
230TE said:
But at least you got in another plug for the Indy. They are paying you. I'm sure they are.
Never thought that - what a good way to get the page views up
Einion Yrth said:
Press spin story to fit their own agenda, what a surprise. If I were an M.P. I'd think very long and carefully before voting against the invocation of A.50. Things like, "have I got another job lined up?" would be towards the front of my mind.
I don't think they need to vote against it. They just need to insist it is done with due process/diligence.
Perhaps they insist on some form of roadmap and outcome plan before allowing it to be invoked - perhaps insisting on a clause to review the negotiation outcome before committing to actually leave.
That seem entirely sensible and to be careful about how we leave.
Once we can see what brexit looks like, there can be a full democratic debate with voters to check if they want the version of brexit that the govt has managed to negotiate.
Either we can negotiate a good deal or we can't. No-one knows for sure. Lets keep our options open and weigh up whether the govt could deliver the outcome vote leave promised.
No-one should need to dry their mattress over having a careful approach and not running headlong into the unknown. What is to worry about? If the EU will agree to all our tariff free needs and allow us to control migration etc. etc. then the public will enthusiastically vote again in support of leave, surely?
After all, we don't want to buy a pig in a poke, do we?
230TE said:
///ajd said:
Dammit man, how many times do people have to tell you to actually read links before you post them?1. Fieldwork on the poll was done before today's court decision, so no, it isn't the exact opposite of the Express story which was reporting public reaction to today's decision.
2. The story is trying to compare apples and pears. It is comparing the result of this poll with the referendum result, but as the pollsters themselves explain, the main reason for the difference is that the poll includes people who didn't vote in the referendum and are about 2-1 Remain. Right now I'm full of curry and can't be bothered to put together a little spreadsheet, but from the numbers reported in the Indy I suspect you might be able to demonstrate that opinion among those who voted has hardened pro-Brexit since the referendum. The question then being how many of those who didn't vote last time, would do so this time.
But at least you got in another plug for the Indy. They are paying you. I'm sure they are.
1. I saw immediately it was a poll.
2. It was posted by Ajd who is a troll.
But yes, it's very clear he skim reads the headline and then posts thinking it fits his agenda.
///ajd said:
I don't think they need to vote against it.
They just need to insist it is done with due process/diligence.
Perhaps they insist on some form of roadmap and outcome plan before allowing it to be invoked - perhaps insisting on a clause to review the negotiation outcome before committing to actually leave.
That seem entirely sensible and to be careful about how we leave.
Once we can see what brexit looks like, there can be a full democratic debate with voters to check if they want the version of brexit that the govt has managed to negotiate.
Either we can negotiate a good deal or we can't. No-one knows for sure. Lets keep our options open and weigh up whether the govt could deliver the outcome vote leave promised.
No-one should need to dry their mattress over having a careful approach and not running headlong into the unknown. What is to worry about? If the EU will agree to all our tariff free needs and allow us to control migration etc. etc. then the public will enthusiastically vote again in support of leave, surely?
After all, we don't want to buy a pig in a poke, do we?
Nonsense. The EU has said it will not negotiate before the UK invokes Article 50. They just need to insist it is done with due process/diligence.
Perhaps they insist on some form of roadmap and outcome plan before allowing it to be invoked - perhaps insisting on a clause to review the negotiation outcome before committing to actually leave.
That seem entirely sensible and to be careful about how we leave.
Once we can see what brexit looks like, there can be a full democratic debate with voters to check if they want the version of brexit that the govt has managed to negotiate.
Either we can negotiate a good deal or we can't. No-one knows for sure. Lets keep our options open and weigh up whether the govt could deliver the outcome vote leave promised.
No-one should need to dry their mattress over having a careful approach and not running headlong into the unknown. What is to worry about? If the EU will agree to all our tariff free needs and allow us to control migration etc. etc. then the public will enthusiastically vote again in support of leave, surely?
After all, we don't want to buy a pig in a poke, do we?
Zod said:
An amusing little bit of German.
For the record, today's decision was made by the High Court (the Queen's Bench Division to be precise). The appeal will bypass the Court of Appeal and go direct to the Supreme Court. The CJEU (as it is now called) has no jurisdiction in the case, because, as I pointed out above, this case is a question of pure UK constitutional law.
I thought that the procedure is governed by the the EU constitution, or the Lisbon Treaty as it is misleadingly known.For the record, today's decision was made by the High Court (the Queen's Bench Division to be precise). The appeal will bypass the Court of Appeal and go direct to the Supreme Court. The CJEU (as it is now called) has no jurisdiction in the case, because, as I pointed out above, this case is a question of pure UK constitutional law.
If we were doing this under the UK constitution, why bother with Article 50.
We could just tell them that we have decided to Leave and say thanks for all the fish.
Actually, that should really read thanks for all our fish.
///ajd said:
Perhaps they insist on some form of roadmap and outcome plan before allowing it to be invoked - perhaps insisting on a clause to review the negotiation outcome before committing to actually leave.
If only your beloved EU hadn't said there would be no negotiation before invocation of A.50. Lovely people aren't they?///ajd said:
Either we can negotiate a good deal or we can't. No-one knows for sure. Lets keep our options open and weigh up whether the govt could deliver the outcome vote leave promised.
There seems to be some debate as to whether invocation of A.50 is a one way ticket, which would make it "a good deal" or WTO, either will do me. OUT.BlackLabel said:
It's not the high court which will be responsible for subjugating democracy should MPs vote down article 50, it will be the MPs themselves.
The judges appear to have done their job properly - it's now up to the MPs to do theirs and act according to the wishes of the electorate.
They will be doing their jobs properly if they insist on proper scrutiny and debate as to how Brexit is delivered.The judges appear to have done their job properly - it's now up to the MPs to do theirs and act according to the wishes of the electorate.
Only a tiny minority want to rush into brexit headlong without looking over the edge first.
All these threats of pitchforks and revolution are only for the extreme 5%.
Many in the country - watching the pound yo-yo with some alarm as we lurch between hard/soft/in/out - will be quite happy if a more considered open approach is adopted.
I think that is what MPs will insist on, and in time a more rigorous public engagement as to whether the outcome is supported by a majority.
Einion Yrth said:
Press spin story to fit their own agenda, what a surprise. If I were an M.P. I'd think very long and carefully before voting against the invocation of A.50. Things like, "have I got another job lined up?" would be towards the front of my mind.
Let's hope all MPs are not entirely selfish and will vote according to principles and conscience. After all, that's what they are there for.Any rough ideas of numbers (MPs) for and against? Tory position will be leave I assume (with rebels backing remain), SNP will be remain, labour will be remain (with a lot of northern labour MPs rebelling and voting leave?)
Has ukip suddenly got a future again? Can see them sweeping to power with 18m votes next election if brexit is fudged or even worse, discarded
Has ukip suddenly got a future again? Can see them sweeping to power with 18m votes next election if brexit is fudged or even worse, discarded
Einion Yrth said:
Press spin story to fit their own agenda, what a surprise. If I were an M.P. I'd think very long and carefully before voting against the invocation of A.50. Things like, "have I got another job lined up?" would be towards the front of my mind.
In a marginal constituency maybe.Dr Jekyll said:
When the 1970s referendum voted to remain in, was parliament asked to vote on whether that decision should be implemented?
I think that was answered earlier - the act enabling the referendum was worded differently so it wasn't necessary.The supreme court may still decide that a vote in parliament is not required.
Or of course, all the corrupy/europhile/gay/ex-fencers could be summarily dismissed and replaced by proper, impartial judges who can make this mess go away.
Vaud said:
Einion Yrth said:
Press spin story to fit their own agenda, what a surprise. If I were an M.P. I'd think very long and carefully before voting against the invocation of A.50. Things like, "have I got another job lined up?" would be towards the front of my mind.
In a marginal constituency maybe.Dr Jekyll said:
When the 1970s referendum voted to remain in, was parliament asked to vote on whether that decision should be implemented?
See vol 1 - clickyjohnboy1975 said:
Any rough ideas of numbers (MPs) for and against? Tory position will be leave I assume (with rebels backing remain), SNP will be remain, labour will be remain (with a lot of northern labour MPs rebelling and voting leave?)
Has ukip suddenly got a future again? Can see them sweeping to power with 18m votes next election if brexit is fudged or even worse, discarded
I think DailyMash captures the democratic dominance of UKIP well here:Has ukip suddenly got a future again? Can see them sweeping to power with 18m votes next election if brexit is fudged or even worse, discarded
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-he...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff