Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

[Derek Smith]

jsf said:

AC43 said:

Derek Smith said:

It probably shows a weakness in my character to say I will enjoy her gradual destruction - in all probability, nothing is certain in politics, not even brexit - but I don't care. I'm going to relish it.

Quite understandable given what you've experienced - I'd feel the same way.

Derek retired from the Police in 2005 working the last years of his service under a Labour government.

Theresa May became Home secretary in 2010 under the new coalition Government by which time he was retired 5 years.

So what exactly did Derek experience under May?

I used to enjoy some of Derek's posts in the early days of PH, but he is now so negative on pretty much every subject I struggle to read his posts.

Do you think it might have something to do with me disagreeing with your assertions and bringing in evidence to support my point of view rather than attack the person?

We are all affected by May's attack on the police.

[b2hbm]

don'tbesilly said:

I snipped your post if only to link your first point to an article backing up the debate on the EU armed force, this article which I read yesterday,is what Reuters is referring to:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/security/opinion/...

Good find, it looks very much as if it's a source article.

If I'm honest I feel that the EU nations should be spending more on defence, but as individual nations and not taken out of the EU budget. We spend our share on defence as outlined for NATO (or at least we did) but not all other EU/NATO members pull their weight. I can see the logic of not duplicating effort but that doesn't mean it has to be under EU control.

[Murph7355]

Camoradi said:

///ajd said:

...the discussion on the EU army is quite remarkable. The fact that the EU is pressing ahead is because we are leaving. Brexit CREATED the EU army we were previously blocking. If any brexiteers didn't want one, face the facts - you helped make it happen.

Ridiculous analysis. I think the opinion of most people who voted for Brexit would be that the EU can have an army if they want to, but we do not want our armed forces to be part of it. I think you know that.

Exactly.

///ajd - try thinking a bit more than you type

[B'stard Child]

///ajd said:

<snip some boris stuff> PS the discussion on the EU army is quite remarkable. The fact that the EU is pressing ahead is because we are leaving. Brexit CREATED the EU army we were previously blocking. If any brexiteers didn't want one, face the facts - you helped make it happen.

Funniest thing I've read in ages - takes blaming it on Brexit to a new level

PS Funny how faced with a "crisis" the EU answer is more integration

[CaptainSlow]

The EU is like the US Gun lobby, completely deluded.

[Stickyfinger]

B'stard Child said:

PS Funny how faced with a "crisis" the EU answer is more integration

No, it is about exploiting a crisis to grab more power for the Eurocrats of the EU

[Fastdruid]

B'stard Child said:

///ajd said:

<snip some boris stuff> PS the discussion on the EU army is quite remarkable. The fact that the EU is pressing ahead is because we are leaving. Brexit CREATED the EU army we were previously blocking. If any brexiteers didn't want one, face the facts - you helped make it happen.

Funniest thing I've read in ages - takes blaming it on Brexit to a new level

PS Funny how faced with a "crisis" the EU answer is more integration

To be honest though it's what they need to do to survive. Especially the Eurozone. It's not what the "public" really wants though.

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

Exactly.

///ajd - try thinking a bit more than you type

Indeed, we all know what we voted for in terms of an EU army. Obtuse trolling is ajd's forte.

[Zod]

don4l said:

Graemsay said:

The fact that they're pushing for a hard Brexit, which I suspect is a minority position, isn't helping.

We voted to Leave.

You can tell yourself that we didn't want a "hard Brexit", but you are only fooling yourself.

Not as much as people like you who voted Leave, but have no idea what it entails (e,g. your blather about bank capital), much like the three idiots May has put in charge of negotiations (who seem to have forgotten that they're supposed to negotiate with the EU, not each other).

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

jsf said:

AC43 said:

Derek Smith said:

It probably shows a weakness in my character to say I will enjoy her gradual destruction - in all probability, nothing is certain in politics, not even brexit - but I don't care. I'm going to relish it.

Quite understandable given what you've experienced - I'd feel the same way.

Derek retired from the Police in 2005 working the last years of his service under a Labour government.

Theresa May became Home secretary in 2010 under the new coalition Government by which time he was retired 5 years.

So what exactly did Derek experience under May?

I used to enjoy some of Derek's posts in the early days of PH, but he is now so negative on pretty much every subject I struggle to read his posts.

Do you think it might have something to do with me disagreeing with your assertions and bringing in evidence to support my point of view rather than attack the person?

We are all affected by May's attack on the police.

No Derek, I hope to learn something from people with opposing views to my own and I hope to read posts that bring something new to the debate. All I have seen from you recently has been moaning.

Anyone who wishes to see someone fail because of their perceived view on how that person attacked their former employer, with that meaning the General population will suffer as a result, has zero credibility when suggesting they care about the service that population receives.

So yes, it is a weakness in your character to relish the destruction of another, what tends to happen with that approach is you end up destroying yourself whilst you obsess on your perceived enemy, whilst they are just getting on with life and doing their job.

[SilverSixer]

Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

A quick google suggests that only The Guardian are reporting this. Surely this is worthy of wider coverage?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/28/g...

Edited by SilverSixer on Thursday 29th September 11:52

[Fastdruid]

SilverSixer said:

Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

The belief by "remainers" that the previous stated positions of MP's on the EU still stands post the referendum and hence that a Parliamentary vote would block Brexit is exceedingly naive.

[SilverSixer]

Fastdruid said:

SilverSixer said:

Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

The belief by "remainers" that the previous stated positions of MP's on the EU still stands post the referendum and hence that a Parliamentary vote would block Brexit is exceedingly naive.

You may be right but I am not advancing that argument. I make no assumptions about the result of a House of Commons vote. I just think they should vote. It's the first hurdle to achieving brexit, and as such is concrete evidence that, as per the title of this thread the UK could U-turn on the referendum result. Could. It is not a done deal.

Cue purple coloured spittle flying around the place asserting that such an outcome would provoke war on the streets.

[WinstonWolf]

SilverSixer said:

Fastdruid said:

SilverSixer said:

Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

The belief by "remainers" that the previous stated positions of MP's on the EU still stands post the referendum and hence that a Parliamentary vote would block Brexit is exceedingly naive.

You may be right but I am not advancing that argument. I make no assumptions about the result of a House of Commons vote. I just think they should vote. It's the first hurdle to achieving brexit, and as such is concrete evidence that, as per the title of this thread the UK could U-turn on the referendum result. Could. It is not a done deal.

Cue purple coloured spittle flying around the place asserting that such an outcome would provoke war on the streets.

Alternatively those of us who are less naive understand the ramifications for UK politics.

If the Tories didn't honour their promise they'd be out on their arse and they know it.

You keep holding on to your dream, did you know every time you say you don't believe in fairies one dies.

[London424]

SilverSixer said:

Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

A quick google suggests that only The Guardian are reporting this. Surely this is worthy of wider coverage?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/28/g...

Edited by SilverSixer on Thursday 29th September 11:52

I'm not a legal expert but they have't 'lost' anything in terms of the process have they?

They've just been told that the papers need to be published in advance and can't be kept confidential.

Have I read that correctly?

[Fastdruid]

SilverSixer said:

Fastdruid said:

SilverSixer said:

Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

The belief by "remainers" that the previous stated positions of MP's on the EU still stands post the referendum and hence that a Parliamentary vote would block Brexit is exceedingly naive.

You may be right but I am not advancing that argument. I make no assumptions about the result of a House of Commons vote. I just think they should vote. It's the first hurdle to achieving brexit, and as such is concrete evidence that, as per the title of this thread the UK could U-turn on the referendum result. Could. It is not a done deal.

Cue purple coloured spittle flying around the place asserting that such an outcome would provoke war on the streets.

Arguably they have already voted!

They voted for the referendum in the knowledge that we'd leave if the vote went that way.

The only reason I see for a vote in the HoC now is on specific details of how "Brexit" is taken rather than on if it's done or not.

I half wish tbh that Cameron had kept his word and delivered A.50 the week after the vote. I don't think it would have been ideal, the timing would have sucked (I think 2017 with ~6months of prep first is probably best) but it would at least have prevented this squabbling.

[SilverSixer]

Fastdruid said:

SilverSixer said:

Fastdruid said:

SilverSixer said:

Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

The belief by "remainers" that the previous stated positions of MP's on the EU still stands post the referendum and hence that a Parliamentary vote would block Brexit is exceedingly naive.

You may be right but I am not advancing that argument. I make no assumptions about the result of a House of Commons vote. I just think they should vote. It's the first hurdle to achieving brexit, and as such is concrete evidence that, as per the title of this thread the UK could U-turn on the referendum result. Could. It is not a done deal.

Cue purple coloured spittle flying around the place asserting that such an outcome would provoke war on the streets.

Arguably they have already voted!

Well quite, but the operative word there is 'arguably', hence the court case.

[SilverSixer]

London424 said:

SilverSixer said:

Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

A quick google suggests that only The Guardian are reporting this. Surely this is worthy of wider coverage?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/28/g...

Edited by SilverSixer on Thursday 29th September 11:52

I'm not a legal expert but they have't 'lost' anything in terms of the process have they?

They've just been told that the papers need to be published in advance and can't be kept confidential.

Have I read that correctly?

Yes, they have 'lost' in terms of having their attempt to keep their defence case secret fail.

"The government had refused to allow its legal opponents to reveal before the case its explanation of why it ought to be able to use royal prerogative powers to trigger article 50.

But in an order handed down by Cranston on Tuesday, he told both parties: "Against the background of the principle of open justice, it is difficult to see a justification for restricting publication of documents which are generally available under [court] rules."

[London424]

SilverSixer said:

London424 said:

SilverSixer said:

Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

A quick google suggests that only The Guardian are reporting this. Surely this is worthy of wider coverage?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/28/g...

Edited by SilverSixer on Thursday 29th September 11:52

I'm not a legal expert but they have't 'lost' anything in terms of the process have they?

They've just been told that the papers need to be published in advance and can't be kept confidential.

Have I read that correctly?

Yes, they have 'lost' in terms of having their attempt to keep their defence case secret fail.

"The government had refused to allow its legal opponents to reveal before the case its explanation of why it ought to be able to use royal prerogative powers to trigger article 50.

But in an order handed down by Cranston on Tuesday, he told both parties: "Against the background of the principle of open justice, it is difficult to see a justification for restricting publication of documents which are generally available under [court] rules."

Right, but they haven't lost anything in relation to A50. They just have to publish their argument earlier than they would have done anyway.

[alock]

///ajd said:

I'm afraid you miss both points.

Those that suggest the recent EU army debates confirm we would have had it if we stayed in continue to be wrong and fundamentally fail to grasp how brexit has already changed EU dynamics

You should care if there is an EU army, especially one we will have reduced influence on. If you genuinely don't care you can't have any real grasp of international and military politics and UK influence. The latter would not surprise me.

It appears to be OK for the EU to ignore certain rules while in this post-referendum, pre-brexit phase, such as our veto. If it's OK for the EU to start acting as if our veto is already worthless, which rules can we now start ignoring?