16 Word Brexit Begins Bill
Discussion
Ok, for a moment, pretend that I don't know anything about politics, the eu or article 50, and just tell me what the hell is going on.
The pm gives the vote to stay or go.
The public votes Leave.
We then trigger article 50 which is the legal process of leaving EU set by the EU? We must do this within two years.
Somebody goes, hold on the f
king noo. We need the MP's to discuss this and vote in house, the will of the people isn't enough. We have to draw this fker out helping no at great expense.
It opens up a cluster fk.
it goes to the super high supreme court.
They claim its unlawful, the pm goes, well fk you I'll use royal prerogative powers. The other side go, naw you'll bloody well no.
Am I missing something, WTF is the point? What is actually going to be the gain of this.
I'll be honest, it bores the living st out of me. My view on leaving or staying doesn't matter, I just cannot see why you would get in the way of the will of the people due to a technicality in the law.
Am I being a idiot. Or is there more to it. I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
Nor can I be arsed to read a million articles on something that seems like its going to happen one way or the other. Wheres morgan freeman to explain this for me.
The pm gives the vote to stay or go.
The public votes Leave.
We then trigger article 50 which is the legal process of leaving EU set by the EU? We must do this within two years.
Somebody goes, hold on the f
king noo. We need the MP's to discuss this and vote in house, the will of the people isn't enough. We have to draw this fker out helping no at great expense. It opens up a cluster f
k. it goes to the super high supreme court.
They claim its unlawful, the pm goes, well f
k you I'll use royal prerogative powers. The other side go, naw you'll bloody well no. Am I missing something, WTF is the point? What is actually going to be the gain of this.
I'll be honest, it bores the living s
t out of me. My view on leaving or staying doesn't matter, I just cannot see why you would get in the way of the will of the people due to a technicality in the law. Am I being a idiot. Or is there more to it. I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
Nor can I be arsed to read a million articles on something that seems like its going to happen one way or the other. Wheres morgan freeman to explain this for me.
moanthebairns said:
Ok, for a moment, pretend that I don't know anything about politics, the eu or article 50, and just tell me what the hell is going on.
The pm gives the vote to stay or go.
The public votes Leave.
We then trigger article 50 which is the legal process of leaving EU set by the EU? We must do this within two years.
Somebody goes, hold on the fking noo. We need the MP's to discuss this and vote in house, the will of the people isn't enough. We have to draw this fker out helping no at great expense.
It opens up a cluster fk.
it goes to the super high supreme court.
They claim its unlawful, the pm goes, well fk you I'll use royal prerogative powers. The other side go, naw you'll bloody well no.
Am I missing something, WTF is the point? What is actually going to be the gain of this.
I'll be honest, it bores the living st out of me. My view on leaving or staying doesn't matter, I just cannot see why you would get in the way of the will of the people due to a technicality in the law.
Am I being a idiot. Or is there more to it. I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
Bad losers behaving like kids stamping their feet in Tescos because they can't get their own way.The pm gives the vote to stay or go.
The public votes Leave.
We then trigger article 50 which is the legal process of leaving EU set by the EU? We must do this within two years.
Somebody goes, hold on the f
king noo. We need the MP's to discuss this and vote in house, the will of the people isn't enough. We have to draw this fker out helping no at great expense. It opens up a cluster f
k. it goes to the super high supreme court.
They claim its unlawful, the pm goes, well f
k you I'll use royal prerogative powers. The other side go, naw you'll bloody well no. Am I missing something, WTF is the point? What is actually going to be the gain of this.
I'll be honest, it bores the living s
t out of me. My view on leaving or staying doesn't matter, I just cannot see why you would get in the way of the will of the people due to a technicality in the law. Am I being a idiot. Or is there more to it. I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
moanthebairns said:
I just cannot see why you would get in the way of the will of the people due to a technicality in the law.
I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
Because this is not part of the plan for the Fourth Reich. Ve did not vant ziz to happen. The Fourth Reich must prevail.I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
They didn't get the answer they wanted. Ain't democracy a b
h eh?davepoth said:
The Lords are under threat and they know it. If they cause trouble on this then reform will be on the Tory manifesto next time around, and it's already on the manifesto of every other party. They'll all need to think very hard about whether they want to frustrate Brexit.
They bloody well should be under threat and why do we need 825 of them (or 760, it says both on www.parliament.uk).alfie2244 said:
moanthebairns said:
Ok, for a moment, pretend that I don't know anything about politics, the eu or article 50, and just tell me what the hell is going on.
The pm gives the vote to stay or go.
The public votes Leave.
We then trigger article 50 which is the legal process of leaving EU set by the EU? We must do this within two years.
Somebody goes, hold on the fking noo. We need the MP's to discuss this and vote in house, the will of the people isn't enough. We have to draw this fker out helping no at great expense.
It opens up a cluster fk.
it goes to the super high supreme court.
They claim its unlawful, the pm goes, well fk you I'll use royal prerogative powers. The other side go, naw you'll bloody well no.
Am I missing something, WTF is the point? What is actually going to be the gain of this.
I'll be honest, it bores the living st out of me. My view on leaving or staying doesn't matter, I just cannot see why you would get in the way of the will of the people due to a technicality in the law.
Am I being a idiot. Or is there more to it. I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
Bad losers behaving like kids stamping their feet in Tescos because they can't get their own way.The pm gives the vote to stay or go.
The public votes Leave.
We then trigger article 50 which is the legal process of leaving EU set by the EU? We must do this within two years.
Somebody goes, hold on the f
king noo. We need the MP's to discuss this and vote in house, the will of the people isn't enough. We have to draw this fker out helping no at great expense. It opens up a cluster f
k. it goes to the super high supreme court.
They claim its unlawful, the pm goes, well f
k you I'll use royal prerogative powers. The other side go, naw you'll bloody well no. Am I missing something, WTF is the point? What is actually going to be the gain of this.
I'll be honest, it bores the living s
t out of me. My view on leaving or staying doesn't matter, I just cannot see why you would get in the way of the will of the people due to a technicality in the law. Am I being a idiot. Or is there more to it. I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
kers. I'm sorry for such a crude post on such a serious subject but for the life of me I cannot understand why parliament just doesn't go, f
k you, the people voted, we are elected by the people, in cases like this where the public choose, their power of vote is unquestionable, if you don't agree, fk you, we will abolish you for moments like this where a national vote is held. moanthebairns said:
alfie2244 said:
moanthebairns said:
Ok, for a moment, pretend that I don't know anything about politics, the eu or article 50, and just tell me what the hell is going on.
The pm gives the vote to stay or go.
The public votes Leave.
We then trigger article 50 which is the legal process of leaving EU set by the EU? We must do this within two years.
Somebody goes, hold on the fking noo. We need the MP's to discuss this and vote in house, the will of the people isn't enough. We have to draw this fker out helping no at great expense.
It opens up a cluster fk.
it goes to the super high supreme court.
They claim its unlawful, the pm goes, well fk you I'll use royal prerogative powers. The other side go, naw you'll bloody well no.
Am I missing something, WTF is the point? What is actually going to be the gain of this.
I'll be honest, it bores the living st out of me. My view on leaving or staying doesn't matter, I just cannot see why you would get in the way of the will of the people due to a technicality in the law.
Am I being a idiot. Or is there more to it. I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
Bad losers behaving like kids stamping their feet in Tescos because they can't get their own way.The pm gives the vote to stay or go.
The public votes Leave.
We then trigger article 50 which is the legal process of leaving EU set by the EU? We must do this within two years.
Somebody goes, hold on the f
king noo. We need the MP's to discuss this and vote in house, the will of the people isn't enough. We have to draw this fker out helping no at great expense. It opens up a cluster f
k. it goes to the super high supreme court.
They claim its unlawful, the pm goes, well f
k you I'll use royal prerogative powers. The other side go, naw you'll bloody well no. Am I missing something, WTF is the point? What is actually going to be the gain of this.
I'll be honest, it bores the living s
t out of me. My view on leaving or staying doesn't matter, I just cannot see why you would get in the way of the will of the people due to a technicality in the law. Am I being a idiot. Or is there more to it. I just cannot understand why you'd fight democracy.
kers. I'm sorry for such a crude post on such a serious subject but for the life of me I cannot understand why parliament just doesn't go, f
k you, the people voted, we are elected by the people, in cases like this where the public choose, their power of vote is unquestionable, if you don't agree, fk you, we will abolish you for moments like this where a national vote is held. They need to be told to carry out the will of the people who elect them.
moanthebairns said:
ah so indy ref 2 down south wkers.
I'm sorry for such a crude post on such a serious subject but for the life of me I cannot understand why parliament just doesn't go, fk you, the people voted, we are elected by the people, in cases like this where the public choose, their power of vote is unquestionable, if you don't agree, fk you, we will abolish you for moments like this where a national vote is held.
No expert myself but I believe parliament voted by an overwhelming majority to put the vote to the people in the 1st place.......go figure.kers. I'm sorry for such a crude post on such a serious subject but for the life of me I cannot understand why parliament just doesn't go, f
k you, the people voted, we are elected by the people, in cases like this where the public choose, their power of vote is unquestionable, if you don't agree, fk you, we will abolish you for moments like this where a national vote is held. alfie2244 said:
moanthebairns said:
ah so indy ref 2 down south wkers.
I'm sorry for such a crude post on such a serious subject but for the life of me I cannot understand why parliament just doesn't go, fk you, the people voted, we are elected by the people, in cases like this where the public choose, their power of vote is unquestionable, if you don't agree, fk you, we will abolish you for moments like this where a national vote is held.
No expert myself but I believe parliament voted by an overwhelming majority to put the vote to the people in the 1st place.......go figure.kers. I'm sorry for such a crude post on such a serious subject but for the life of me I cannot understand why parliament just doesn't go, f
k you, the people voted, we are elected by the people, in cases like this where the public choose, their power of vote is unquestionable, if you don't agree, fk you, we will abolish you for moments like this where a national vote is held. Soov535 said:
alfie2244 said:
moanthebairns said:
ah so indy ref 2 down south wkers.
I'm sorry for such a crude post on such a serious subject but for the life of me I cannot understand why parliament just doesn't go, fk you, the people voted, we are elected by the people, in cases like this where the public choose, their power of vote is unquestionable, if you don't agree, fk you, we will abolish you for moments like this where a national vote is held.
No expert myself but I believe parliament voted by an overwhelming majority to put the vote to the people in the 1st place.......go figure.kers. I'm sorry for such a crude post on such a serious subject but for the life of me I cannot understand why parliament just doesn't go, f
k you, the people voted, we are elected by the people, in cases like this where the public choose, their power of vote is unquestionable, if you don't agree, fk you, we will abolish you for moments like this where a national vote is held. European Union Referendum Act 2015
The Act was subsequently passed by a ratio of six to one in the Commons,[3] approved by the House of Lords on 14 December 2015,[4] and given Royal Assent on 17 December 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Refer...
Corpulent Tosser said:
Surely it depends on how the voting goes, if most Torys vote for article 50 and most Labour/Libs vote against it, it will demonstrate that the Torys are trying to follow the will of the people and it will not weaken their position.
Also as others have said lack of credible opposition will counter any Brexit decision.
Sorry should have made myself much clearer, what I mean't to say was that if the Government arrange a soft Brexit the Brexiteers will punish them at the next GE.Also as others have said lack of credible opposition will counter any Brexit decision.
Maybe, just maybe it's a good idea to have the royal prerogative for this tested by the courts.
This time it's upsetting people who voted to leave as they fear parliament might upset the already packed apple cart. HOWEVER, maybe next time it will be something THEY dont want like or scares them that the government want to avoid the irritation of a democratic vote in parliament with.
I'm glad that the government are being tested on this. Theresa May positions herself as a libertarian but is nothing of the sort (and i'm no lover of the labour party). We had the Daily Hate Mail running headlines such as "Enemys of the people" regarding those judges. Some people think that to suggest overtones of 80 odd years ago is hysteria, but without the right checks and balances this is how a country begins to slip into the abyss without the masses even realising.
Of course that just happens with other countries governments, ours have only ever been totally trustworthy.
I wish to remain, but i'm certainly not stamping my feet about the result. I do hovever want the thing done properly and that includes correct legal procedure for leaving, whatever that may turn out to be.
It would appear to me that the only ones stamping their feet like children at the moment are Theresa May and co because they can't bypass parliament.
This time it's upsetting people who voted to leave as they fear parliament might upset the already packed apple cart. HOWEVER, maybe next time it will be something THEY dont want like or scares them that the government want to avoid the irritation of a democratic vote in parliament with.
I'm glad that the government are being tested on this. Theresa May positions herself as a libertarian but is nothing of the sort (and i'm no lover of the labour party). We had the Daily Hate Mail running headlines such as "Enemys of the people" regarding those judges. Some people think that to suggest overtones of 80 odd years ago is hysteria, but without the right checks and balances this is how a country begins to slip into the abyss without the masses even realising.
Of course that just happens with other countries governments, ours have only ever been totally trustworthy.
I wish to remain, but i'm certainly not stamping my feet about the result. I do hovever want the thing done properly and that includes correct legal procedure for leaving, whatever that may turn out to be.
It would appear to me that the only ones stamping their feet like children at the moment are Theresa May and co because they can't bypass parliament.
neilr said:
Maybe, just maybe it's a good idea to have the royal prerogative for this tested by the courts.
This time it's upsetting people who voted to leave as they fear parliament might upset the already packed apple cart. HOWEVER, maybe next time it will be something THEY dont want like or scares them that the government want to avoid the irritation of a democratic vote in parliament with.
I'm glad that the government are being tested on this. Theresa May positions herself as a libertarian but is nothing of the sort (and i'm no lover of the labour party). We had the Daily Hate Mail running headlines such as "Enemys of the people" regarding those judges. Some people think that to suggest overtones of 80 odd years ago is hysteria, but without the right checks and balances this is how a country begins to slip into the abyss without the masses even realising.
Of course that just happens with other countries governments, ours have only ever been totally trustworthy.
I wish to remain, but i'm certainly not stamping my feet about the result. I do hovever want the thing done properly and that includes correct legal procedure for leaving, whatever that may turn out to be.
It would appear to me that the only ones stamping their feet like children at the moment are Theresa May and co because they can't bypass parliament.
It is. I voted to leave but I have no problem with the current Court proceedings. In fact I think that they should be gone through as a matter of necessity so that neither side can say that the method by which we left was not lawful. The key point being though is that we are leaving - end of story.This time it's upsetting people who voted to leave as they fear parliament might upset the already packed apple cart. HOWEVER, maybe next time it will be something THEY dont want like or scares them that the government want to avoid the irritation of a democratic vote in parliament with.
I'm glad that the government are being tested on this. Theresa May positions herself as a libertarian but is nothing of the sort (and i'm no lover of the labour party). We had the Daily Hate Mail running headlines such as "Enemys of the people" regarding those judges. Some people think that to suggest overtones of 80 odd years ago is hysteria, but without the right checks and balances this is how a country begins to slip into the abyss without the masses even realising.
Of course that just happens with other countries governments, ours have only ever been totally trustworthy.
I wish to remain, but i'm certainly not stamping my feet about the result. I do hovever want the thing done properly and that includes correct legal procedure for leaving, whatever that may turn out to be.
It would appear to me that the only ones stamping their feet like children at the moment are Theresa May and co because they can't bypass parliament.
Let us not kid ourselves though. The motives of those bringing the case are not ones of having burning, deeply held desires to see the constitutionally correct legal principles applied to our leaving the EU. It is an attempt by people who do not wish us to leave the EU to string things out as long as possible and, hopefully, make it so difficult to actually leave that we end up never doing so. The whole case is based on frivolous underpinnings and is, to a certain extent, vexatious as it is being brought for what are essentially "fake" motives.
neilr said:
Maybe, just maybe it's a good idea to have the royal prerogative for this tested by the courts.
Not maybe - absolutely it is a good idea neilr said:
This time it's upsetting people who voted to leave as they fear parliament might upset the already packed apple cart. HOWEVER, maybe next time it will be something THEY dont want like or scares them that the government want to avoid the irritation of a democratic vote in parliament with.
It shouldn't upset anyone - it certainly shouldn't upset leave peopleCan you imagine the s
tstorm if TM used royal prerogative to activate the leave process and right at the start of the negotiation process someone starts a court process to challenge it??The two year clock would be ticking and resources would have to be diverted to fight the court process
Then it would probably come up with the same decision as the supreme court which is back to parliament for authority to start the negotiation process...
The EU would be laughing their tits off
neilr said:
I'm glad that the government are being tested on this. Theresa May positions herself as a libertarian but is nothing of the sort (and i'm no lover of the labour party). We had the Daily Hate Mail running headlines such as "Enemys of the people" regarding those judges. Some people think that to suggest overtones of 80 odd years ago is hysteria, but without the right checks and balances this is how a country begins to slip into the abyss without the masses even realising.
The Mail piddles me off with whatever they print but I've long since given up hope of balanced journalism from that paperneilr said:
Of course that just happens with other countries governments, ours have only ever been totally trustworthy.
I don't trust any politicians but any Government needs checks and balances and currently this might have a slender majority in the HOC but it certainly doesn't have a coherent oppositionneilr said:
I wish to remain, but i'm certainly not stamping my feet about the result. I do hovever want the thing done properly and that includes correct legal procedure for leaving, whatever that may turn out to be.
Excellentneilr said:
It would appear to me that the only ones stamping their feet like children at the moment are Theresa May and co because they can't bypass parliament.
I have another theory.......alfie2244 said:
Soov535 said:
alfie2244 said:
moanthebairns said:
ah so indy ref 2 down south wkers.
I'm sorry for such a crude post on such a serious subject but for the life of me I cannot understand why parliament just doesn't go, fk you, the people voted, we are elected by the people, in cases like this where the public choose, their power of vote is unquestionable, if you don't agree, fk you, we will abolish you for moments like this where a national vote is held.
No expert myself but I believe parliament voted by an overwhelming majority to put the vote to the people in the 1st place.......go figure.kers. I'm sorry for such a crude post on such a serious subject but for the life of me I cannot understand why parliament just doesn't go, f
k you, the people voted, we are elected by the people, in cases like this where the public choose, their power of vote is unquestionable, if you don't agree, fk you, we will abolish you for moments like this where a national vote is held. European Union Referendum Act 2015
The Act was subsequently passed by a ratio of six to one in the Commons,[3] approved by the House of Lords on 14 December 2015,[4] and given Royal Assent on 17 December 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Refer...
The Govt has decided that the next step is unilateral action by them, which will deny our elected MP's any role in agreeing our post Brexit relationship with Europe. It is not at all clear why they decided this as leading QC's were telling them it was unlawful in June. Nonetheless, May decided to contest it in court, lost and is now trying again in the supreme court.
All to avoid putting a bill to parliament asking MP's to ratify the decision in the referendum. May could have done this many times over by now.
And don't suggest that the court case was designed by remainers to delay Brexit. May has delayed it entirely on her own. It was her decision alone to wait 9 months before triggering a50. The big question is why?
neilr said:
I wish to remain, but i'm certainly not stamping my feet about the result. I do hovever want the thing done properly and that includes correct legal procedure for leaving, whatever that may turn out to be.
It would appear to me that the only ones stamping their feet like children at the moment are Theresa May and co because they can't bypass parliament.
You have to be joking. In fact I wondered if May set this up. She gets to buy time while the exit plans are being formulated, and can blame the remoaners for forcing the tax payer to fund the defense. And it protects her from any subsequent challenge if she had simply just gone ahead with A.50. Overall, well played PM, surely the hand of Sir Humphrey can be seen. It would appear to me that the only ones stamping their feet like children at the moment are Theresa May and co because they can't bypass parliament.
AJL308 said:
Let us not kid ourselves though. The motives of those bringing the case are not ones of having burning, deeply held desires to see the constitutionally correct legal principles applied to our leaving the EU. It is an attempt by people who do not wish us to leave the EU to string things out as long as possible and, hopefully, make it so difficult to actually leave that we end up never doing so. The whole case is based on frivolous underpinnings and is, to a certain extent, vexatious as it is being brought for what are essentially "fake" motives.
^ WHS However I really don't care where or who the challenge came from
In the days after "independance day" it was very clear that the Government got an answer they didn't want or expect.
It was also clear that many MP's in HOC were torn (on the matter of declaration of Article 50) if they should vote with with their constituencies (bearing in mind the "expanded districts" used in the referendum compared to a GE) or what they thought was best for the country (the two things were not the same in the case of some MP's)
The HOL had similar issues - but lets leave that sideshow.
Faced with a potentially hostile house TM and a referendum result to leave she needed to buy some time to let the dust settle a bit. Being honest she inherited a position where ZERO preparation had been done in the event of a vote to leave - I'd want as much time as possible. I'm pretty sure that the Royal Prerogative option was picked to shake some sense in to MP's (or maybe even to try and save them from the issue of potentially voting the opposite way to their constituencies) by providing a potential option to short circuit the HOC.
The court case was a bonus - it kept the Remainers with some hope, it meant that while the action was going on the position of HOC MP's wasn't an issue - their position on a vote to leave wasn't important.
When they lost the first case - everyone expected the Government to appeal - and so they did - plenty of time before the by then declared date for Art. 50 but more to the point if it dragged a little it would be an excuse to delay Art. 50 if more time was needed to prepare.
It's kept the press frothing and not digging (too much) into the Plan for exit
It's kept the EU frothing on one hand but sitting on the other because they can't interfere with domestic politics and law.
I'm no fan of TM but I think she's played this one quite well.......
JM2pW
B'stard Child said:
The court case was a bonus - it kept the Remainers with some hope
It's not about having some hope that it might not happen. It's about whether the law of the land allows a sitting government to implement legislation without it being voted on in the HoC. I hope the commons do have to vote on it. As i said previously, this time it might anger the people who voted to leave. Next time it might protect us all from a government looking to do who knows what.Theresa May isn't a fan of personal freedoms and finds democracy slightly tedious. I can't see her planning a scenario that gives the country a get-out at the last minute option. She might have come out as pro remain but she would much rather have nothing to do with things like the European Convention on Human Rights for example. I simply don't buy into this being a 'master stroke' by her or her team of buffoons.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff