BS: Brexit again

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 11:16 AM

It could be the 38% just wanted to leave! Do not try to increase the strength of you argument by making crass assumptions about fear and ignorance.

Leave won the vote: Get over it!

We shall see if it ever gets to Parliament to be voted on.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 05:10 AM

If the elected government of the day promises to get us out of the EU come hell or high water if we tell them that's what we want, they are telling the voters that they are voting for an irrevocable decision. That is the covenant they made. The fact that they "forgot" to tell us that parliament may have to debate Article 50 first is a sideshow to that substantive matter. If you have a problem with that, Keith, get your old cobber Teribus to 'ave a word in your shell-like. He's been saying exactly that for months. Whether Cameron was entitled to make that promise is another matter. One part of it, "Article 50 tomorrow," has already been dishonoured. But we're coming out, aren't we, Keith. Whatever further screw-ups come to light. irrevocable. We knew what we were voting for regardless of the legal status of the referendum. Now don't ask me again, you clown, otherwise I might have to try to get you to rearrange a couple of choice words into a well-known phrase or saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 06:39 AM

Steve,
If the elected government of the day promises to get us out of the EU come hell or high water if we tell them that's what we want, they are telling the voters that they are voting for an irrevocable decision. That is the covenant they made. The fact that they "forgot" to tell us that parliament may have to debate Article 50 first is a sideshow to that substantive matter. If you have a problem with that, Keith,

I do not have a problem with that. It is a fair description of the situation.
My problem was that you claimed to know all along that it was not an irrevocable decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 06:51 AM

I don't use the worst swear-words online to you'll just have to guess what the initials stand for.


Ahem.


"FOUTC"

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 07:07 AM

You once again resort to abuse because you have no other response.

You said, " I knew months before that the vote was advisory."

You clearly did not, because you were still calling it "irrevocable" long after the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 07:44 AM

Well whether Steve knew of not, it's a fact that the legislation makes it perfectly clear that the referendum result was advisory. And it's a fact that I knew it was advisory, months before the vote took place.

But I don't blindly believe everything that comes from the mouths of politicians, especially Tory politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 08:09 AM

I disagree with Steve Shaw in just about everything except beer and pubs in Manchester, but in this case even I can see the difference between saying that the act of leaving the EU would be irrevocable and saying that the verdict of the referendum was irrevocable.

I understood him to be saying say that having left the EU getting back in would be nigh on impossible. I had also heard, before the vote, that a referendum was 'advisory'. I also understood that the government was committed to implementing the result, although that was when they expected the result to be 'Remain'.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 08:15 AM

I know I said I had done but, in case anyone has any issues with comprehension. Do they still do that at school BTW? Anyway, just in case...

Your vote was irrevocable. Once cast it cannot be undone. If you did not check out the implications, more fool you.
The decision was advisory whichever way it went. That was set in stone.
Once article 50 is invoked, it is irrevocable. That is set in stone.
Once we are out of the EU it is irrevocable. That may or may not be true. No one has ever tried re-joining.
The Government said they would implement article 50 based on the decision.
The Government lied

End of story until we know whether the government is entitled to act without a full vote in the house and, if not, how that vote will go. What is the argument about and why is this thread still going?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 08:48 AM

Yep. Everything that all three of you have said. Keith is monkeying around with words again. Trying to pin me down with shades of meaning. Pity he couldn't pin himself down a bit better with his Geoffrey Wheatcroft fiasco.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 09:23 AM

In fact there is nothing irrevocable about "triggering Brexit". We shouldn't be fooled by a metaphor like 'triggering". All Article 50 means is giving notice of an intention to leave the EU, with at least a two year period of negotiations, which can only begin at that point. That two years can be extended if that is agreed by both sides.

But there is nothing to stop a government which has given such notice of its intention from anandoning it, and cancelling the whole thing. There is no need to seek permission from the rest of the EU for doing that. It seems pretty evident that one reason for insisting on at least two years delay is to give time forsecond thoughts, or a change of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 09:28 AM

Thank you, Kevin. I was not aware of that and I will amend my mind's eye view of what happens post Article 50 from 'irrevocable' to 'negotiable' :-) I hope others do the same.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 10:00 AM

"But there is nothing to stop a government which has given such notice of its intention from abandoning it, and cancelling the whole thing." - MGOH

Once Article 50 has been "triggered" there is no going back:

Article 50


1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 10:29 AM

It may be theoretically possible to reverse article 50 but Teribus is correct. Once Article 50 is triggered we're coming out. There will be no political will, or bravery, to reverse the thing either here or, especially, in the other major EU countries, who do not want to see anyone pissing around with this lest it triggers a landslide. If there's a fight to be had at all, it will have to be before Article 50 is triggered. Realpolitik, je pense.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 11:36 AM

Well whether Steve knew of not, it's a fact that the legislation makes it perfectly clear that the referendum result was advisory. And it's a fact that I knew it was advisory, months before the vote took place.

How very clever of you to know that before it has even been established in law!
How could you know the outcome before even the first hearing, never mind the appeal that has yet to be heard?

The legislation says that referenda are advisory but it is yet to be decided if a government has the power to make one binding.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 11:42 AM

'Referendums' is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.

in or out ain't a plurality!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 01:42 PM

We are agreed that the referendum was advisory
We are agreed that the government said it would abide by it's results
We are agreed that the government lied about that
We are agreed that the court case will decide if the government can or cannot break its own rules
We are agreed that we do not yet know the outcome of that yet
There was a slight hiccup in what was agreed about article 5o but Teribus has kindly made that clear by posting the legislation so,
We are agreed that, once triggered, Article 50 takes us out of the EU
We are agreed, I hope, that this is a very major issue with serious consequences whatever happens

If we are agreed on all the major points, what is the argument about? Whatever it is must be pretty trivial. Surely something to settle on another thread or by private communication?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 02:07 PM

Keith, I've linked to the legislation that was put in place to set the referendum in motion, and I've linked to the explanatory notes. It's perfectly clear to anyone with even half a brain that the referendum is advisory, and it was stated in the media on a number of occasions prior to the referendum that the referendum was advisory.

The only person on this thread who seems to be completely incapable of understanding this perfectly straightforward principle is you.

You need help.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 02:25 PM

If the result of the referendum had been to remain in the EU, that would have been the end of the matter........we can all be agreed on THAT.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 02:48 PM

Well, Iains, I've been discussing just that on several forumses recently.

Had the result been to stay in, especially had the result been as narrow that way as it was in fact, there would have been clamours for a rerun, and it would have happened eventually. The idea that brexiteers would have been far better losers that we are is laughable. Farage would have had us all in court by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 03:24 PM

It would certainly have been the end of the matter on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 04:09 PM

Close run votes generally tend to a contentious outcome. Whatever the vote was on, the losing side would argue the toss. But a majority is a majority.
It is lucky we do not have an electoral college to give the regions more say because regionally the vote was around 60+% for out.
This would cause even more strife and whining that it is not fair.
For myself voting was not a straight issue. Many aspects of the EU are of benefit. Many are not, especially the race to federalism and the holy trinity of france , germany and stupidity trying hard to alienate the majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 04:13 PM

It would have been the end of the matter for now simply because the government would not have had to break any rules to stay in.

D

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 07:02 PM

"But a majority is a majority."
Trump - a misogynist, racist, antisemitic fascist achieved a majority - do we accept that without comment?
THE WORLD ACCEPTED THIS MAJORITY - LOOK WHAT HAPPENED

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 07:19 PM

Not much of a majority, in fact. Clinton is projected to win the popular vote by about two million. The archaic electoral college system is wot got Trump elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 05:12 AM

Jim Carroll
You may feel Trump is the Devil Incarnate, others feel Killary Klingon
would likely have caused a massive extinction event with WW3

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 06:16 AM

"You may feel Trump is the Devil Incarnate, others feel Killary Klingon"
We only have Trumps own words and actions to go on - and your, it would appear
Do you believe him to be a misogynist, racist, hate monger or not - if not, why not, if he is, why are you supporting him, unless you are a misoginist.....?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:18 AM

We are agreed that the referendum was advisory

No we are not. It is disputed.
It had to be challenged in court, and the appeal is yet to be heard.

The government believes it had the right to call a referendum that would be binding, and so did Labour and the Lib Dems.

The court case was brought by private individuals, not any organisation or political group.

During the campaign, neither side disputed that it would be binding, and the electorate were told it would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:30 AM

We are agreed that the referendum was advisory

No we are not. It is disputed.
It had to be challenged in court, and the appeal is yet to be heard

Keith, surely you have understood by now that the cases are nothing to do with whether the referendum was advisory and entirely to do with who is authorised to invoke Article 50: the government or Parliament?

What would it take to demonstrate this, as neither the official documents nor discussion appears to be enough. You can even read the transcript of the hearing which is perfectly clear what they were ruling on.(page 2, line 19 and following)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:38 AM

The government believes it can invoke Article 50 because the referendum was binding not advisory.
That is the disputed case now being decided at law.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:48 AM

You're wrong. Read the legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:56 AM

BBC on the High Court action,
"But Mr Wright, the government's most senior legal officer, said it was clear Parliament had had "multiple opportunities" in recent years to circumscribe the government's prerogative powers with regard to EU exit, most recently in last year's act authorising the referendum, and had chosen not to do so.

The power to activate Article 50, he told the court, was a "classic example of the proper and well established use of royal prerogative" with regard to treaty making and breaking.

The use of executive powers to give effect to the will of the British people in respect of the referendum result, he added, was "wholly within the expectation of Parliament".

And he suggested that those now urging Parliament to be given a veto on the removal of specific rights and their subsequent retention risked transgressing on the referendum verdict itself by asking Parliament "the same question as put to the people".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37704117

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:59 AM

BWM, you are wrong.
The validity of the legislation is disputed.
Read the government case to the High Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:25 AM

When asked to decide on whether something is so, and I have the court proceedings, legislation, and the grounds on which the government is appealing the case - all available on government websites - on the one hand, and on the other a BBC report of what the government legal advisor said during an interview, I am more inclined to regard the former as more reliable.

And since you quoted the BBC news pages, why not quote www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37864983 (hope I have typed that correctly) where there is a paragraph entitled "Was the referendum result mandatory or advisory?" Care to guess what it says?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:25 AM

Mr Carroll
If you have to resort to insults to further your debate you are pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:44 AM

At the time the referendum was taken the legislation stated quite clearly that is was advisory. That cannot be disputed. It is a fact. I am surprised that the courts have not already ruled that the government were in breach of promise knowing that the leaflet they put out was a lie but I am no lawyer. I suspect the that the government is desperately trying to find an agreement with the judiciary to save face. Just my opinion of course.

I really don't know how many different ways this can be put and I am not at all sure I want to :-(

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 11:03 AM

"If you have to resort to insults to further your debate you are pathetic."
My respone to yuo was two questions - not an insult, unless of course, you believe my recognizing you as a Trump supporter is insulting
Only you can answer that by responding to my points
Are you a Trump supporter?
If you are, where have I insulted you and tell us why you are?
If you are not, say so, stop supporting him and join in the condemnation
Your attempts to dodge questions by describing them as insults are every bit as "pathetic" as Ake's - and about as played out.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 11:49 AM

Once again, and As usual, you're wrong, KAoH. The validity of the Referendum legislation is disputed.

What is disputed is the procedure required to enact the result of the Referendum. The government wish to trigger Art. 50 by Royal Prerogative, but the High Court says (correctly) that parliament is sovereign, and trumps RP - therefore a debate and vote is required before Art. 50 can be enacted.

What's the weather like up there on Planet Zog?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 11:51 AM

Mr Carroll misogynist is insulting. Go and blather elsewhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 11:55 AM

"The validity of the Referendum legislation is disputed."

Correction - should have read "The validity of the Referendum legislation is NOT disputed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 12:32 PM

"Mr Carroll misogynist is insulting. "
Have I called you a misogynist?
I didn't call you an misogynist - I asked why you were supporting Trump and suggested that, if you were you were supporting his misogyny
Take your cowardly lying elsewhere.
You people are all the same - all bluff - no backbone to face the consequences of the monsters you support.
Trump is a racist, misogynist hate monger and that is what those wo support him are condoning
Doesn't get more complicated than that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 12:38 PM

Mr Carroll you obviously have issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 12:53 PM

Mr Carroll why do you throw your toys out of the pram whenever someone has the audacity to argue with you. Is it your extremme arrogance, or lack of medication?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 01:11 PM

"Mr Carroll why do you throw your toys out of the pram whenever someone has the audacity to argue with you."
Why do you refuse to respond to straightforward questions?
I have no problem with argument - I just hate hypocrites and dishonest people is the answer to your question
Any supporter of Trump has "issues" - with common decency and humanity
The man is a hate-mongering fascist.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 02:15 PM

At the time the referendum was taken the legislation stated quite clearly that is was advisory. That cannot be disputed. It is a fact.

The government believed it had the authority to be bound by the result of that referendum, and their belief was never questioned by Parliament.
The electorate were told the result would be binding, and were given no guidance by any political party or campaign group that it was not.

and on the other a BBC report of what the government legal advisor said during an interview, I am more inclined to regard the former as more reliable.

Read it again. It is not from an interview it is the government's case as put to the High Court.

BWM,
but the High Court says (correctly) that parliament is sovereign,

Clever of you again to know they were correct when the appeal has yet to be heard!

The government wish to trigger Art. 50 by Royal Prerogative,

Yes. That is how they intended to make the referendum binding despite the legislation you keep on about.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 03:00 PM

At the time the referendum was taken the legislation stated quite clearly that is was advisory. That cannot be disputed. It is a fact.

Yes, exactly. No qualifications. No excuses. What the government may or may not have believed and what it conned people who did not appraise themselves of the facts into is of no consequence.

At the time the referendum was taken the legislation stated quite clearly that is was advisory. That cannot be disputed. It is a fact.

Is anyone disputing that as a fact?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:09 PM

Clearly it was an advisory referendum - that's what the legislation made crystal clear. The fact that the government had indicated that it intended to act in accordance with the referendum result, whatever that might be, made absolutely no difference to that legal position.

The court case wasn't about that at all. It was about whether the Prime Minister has the legal authority to act in accord with that advisory referendum by virttue of her constitutional role as "Crown in Parliament", or whether that authority lies with Parliament. So far the ruling has been that the Prime Minister does not have that authority. The Supreme Court might decide differently, though it is hard to see how that could be justified.

But the decision as to whether and when to "trigger Brexit" depends on a choice to be the made by politicians, either by the PM or by her fellow MPs. The referendum vote provides a context within which that choice has to be made. It would be perfectly legally possible to reject the advice given by that referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:31 PM

Not according to The Professor, The All-Knowing. He says that the government is challenging the legislation.

Very odd that the government would challenge, via the High Court and Supreme Court, the very legislation that they themselves introduced.

But, of course, it's all in his fevered, OCD imagination....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:53 PM

The government is challenging the court ruling. The outcome of the Supreme Court hearing will determine whether the Prime Minister (who is for these purposes "the government" ) has to get the agreement of parliament in order to trigger Brexit.

If the Supreme Court determines that under existing law she does not have that authority then parliament's approval has to be obtained. It would of course in theory be possible to introduce legislation that would change existing law, and give her that authority, but that would require parliamentary approval in itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 03:01 AM

Precisely, Kevin. You understand that, I understand that, almost everyone else on here understands that. There's just one person who doesn't 'get it', despite having been told umpteen times by those of us who do understand it.

I've had battles with the Muskets, Jim, Steve, et al, where I stood up for him and told them they were being unfair. I'm beginning to understand where they're coming from now.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 03:06 AM

and on the other a BBC report of what the government legal advisor said during an interview, I am more inclined to regard the former as more reliable.

Read it again. It is not from an interview it is the government's case as put to the High Court.

Yes, I made a mistake. I misread it as the BBC interviewing the government lawyer and him explaining his case, rather than a BBC report of what was said in court. My error, fully admitted.

Which does not change one iota that the argument was about who had the right to invoke Article 50, and not a claim the referendum is binding.

We could go further: exactly the same issue would arise even if there had not been any thought of a referendum. It would still be necessary to clarify who invokes Article 50.