...Theresa May brought to book by the courts:
...Theresa May brought to book by the courts:
I was wondering when someone would bring this up.
Fantastic opportunity for the public to see if their MP is the type who respects the people's wishes or tries to go against them.
At last, the chance for the MP's to put the matter to bed once and for all and ensure that our leaving is done on our terms, without pandering to the wet liberal left.
I agree Hubble.
No problem at all with parliament discussing it, but if they fail to implement a firm and categoric exit, then I cannot begin to imagine the trouble that will befall the streets of this country.
Can anyone explain what hard and soft brexit means please? As a guy studying physics my only real concern is funding decreasing for experiments but most of the other stuff has gone completely over my head.
hard = no trade deal, we can do what we like.
The soft option is imo essential for our financial stability, otherwise the tariffs will kick in hard. Also think a low pound was a miserly fiscal return for Brexit, leaving everything else to one side the financial case for which was 90 % fantasy. £ on the up following court case.
The harder the better in my view.
The EU had their chance to treat us fairly and with respect.
Tariffs would hurt them as much as us. Nothing other than tit for tat childish behaviour.
Free trade deal and control of our borders is the best option. It's the EU that is against that, not us.
the thought of Nicola Sturgeon and the rest of the bitter SNP stopping what the British voted for turns my stomach
I must away now, I can no longer tarry
This morning's tempest I have to cross
I must be guided without a stumble
Into the arms I love the most
Riots soon come. Massive excuse for that lot who ransacked the whole country a few years back to go on another free for all.
I think all parties should now insist upon every MP declaring if the are going to vote as per the democratic wishes of the people, or directly against them.
As daft as it sounds, a UKIP government is entirely possible if an election were to be held. With a 52% share of the vote, they'd have the biggest majority we've ever seen.
Although to be honest, I cannot imagine that parliament would not do the right thing. They're all far too concerned about their own jobs.
It's absolutely disgusting mate and makes a total mockery of democracy. I'll be 100% going to the 'march' if they totally disregard and over rule this vote.
Financially, I voted to stay in for reasons of self interest - I think you'll find self interest a motivating factor in most voting. Places like Wales and Cornwall which received massive EU subsidy inexplicably chose to ignore that fact and poorer rural areas will be hit hard, but I respect their choice. I find British bureaucrats and indeed governance just as incompetent as the European variety, so voting purely on medium term economic grounds kind of made sense to an old cynic like me.
We will of course remain co-signatories to European Human Rights legislation (which we drafted) in the event of Brexit, we will remain subject to rulings of the court in Strasbourg, and the vast majority of immigrants will continue to come from outside the EU, meaning that the two issues which seemed to upset people the most will continue exactly as they did pre Brexit.
Nicola Sturgeon has played a very clever hand in all of this. I have no problem whatsoever with the break up of the UK, good luck to Scotland but the fact is the existence of the UK is subsidised by English tax payers. There is a very strong argument that we on this side of the border would be better off without other parts of the UK. The UK is in any case a relatively recent historical innovation. It is another irony that Engish people who are pro Brexit may ignore the fact that Brexit itself arguably provides the same justification for Scotland to leave us. Like I say though, that could work out OK......
Yet another irony is that an English parliament could get a hard Brexit vote through. That wont happen at Westminster if the Supreme Court rubber stamps the High Court decision. Never mind UKIP, what Brexiteers really needed was an EIP and a referendum on the establishment of an English parliament. After that would have been the time for Brexit, but UKIP made the mistake of assuming that England and the UK were indivisible concepts. For many people on both sides of the argument and border, they are not.
In my view the Courts must remain above political intervention, unlike in the USA. It is not the fault of the Court that the legal ramifications of Brexit (never mind the financial ones) were insufficiently articulated pre referendum. Which is where I came in.
EDIT: after all that I forgot to answer the question! Choosing to abide by the court's ruling isn't going against anyones wishes, because the court isn't ruling on Brexit per se. It's simply saying that the terms of Brexit - ie the thing everyone forgot to mention beforehand - must be put before parliament.
Last edited by hal9thou; 04-11-2016 at 02:44 AM.