BS: Brexit again

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 03:45 AM

MGOH:

Such a turn in discussions would not occur if those responsible for throwing allegations and accusations about actually provided evidence to substantiate their claims.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 05:07 PM

It does seem to be turning a bit pre-school.

"You're telling lies"
"No I'm not . You're telling lies. And you stink."
"Yes you are telling lies. And no one likes you..."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:05 PM

May I just point out that the last few posts seem to have been a personal argument that has no relevance whatsoever to the point in question. Not that I really know what the point in question is any more. As I said earlier, I seem to have lost the plot. Does anyone know or we now just arguing for arguments sake?

DtG

PS - Checking my post and auto correct had changed a misspelling of arguing to gunrunning. How odd!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:02 PM

I don't suppose there will be another referendum, but that is nothing to do with democratic principle, or "accepting the verdict of the British people" - it is because of cowardice on the part of politicians. Far more truthful to call it a retreat from democracy.

A fresh referendum could determine whether there is in fact a general wish to get out of the single marketplace, as well as the EU, and whether there is actually a majority for ending the free movement arrangements under which all of us have the right to live and work in whichever EU country suits us. The referendum we had did not soecify anything like that. And of course it could be made binding rather than advisory.

Brexiters should welcome that - but of course they are too scared of the result.

Cowards all round.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:59 PM

"There are implications to our leaving that were obviously not clear before the vote to politicians, let alone the public. There is bad news on the future of the economy, especially for the low-paid, that was not clear in June. There are very hawkish noises from the EU that want us out quickly and with very few concessions. The government had no plan for brexit and the vote took them by surprise. There is an extra £59 billion brexit black hole that has nobbled future investment in the NHS and social care that we either didn't know about in June or were lied to about. We can't stop people movement because we need the people to do our jobs. All this is before we have even the faintest clue about any deal that the government will make, a government that is fearful of letting the people know what they are negotiating. We must have a chance to change our minds when we know the full implications of leaving, BEFORE Article 50 is invoked. That would be democracy. Turkeys voting for Christmas are lied to less than we were lied to, and we are in the same boat as them."

Correct on all points. IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:32 PM

Indeed I don't Greg.
You are just joining in the lying and smearing.

Will you produce an example of what you claim?
No. How could you?
It is just lies because you people have no reply to what I actually say.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:26 PM

Indeed you do, Professor. Thanks for admitting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:23 PM

"You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it. "

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 10:33 AM

Go away. A suggestion, not an order.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 09:35 AM

Orders Steve? Where did that come from??

You made more of your wild assertions, and as usual were unable to justify them.

I just asked you to justify them as is normal and expected in discussion.

Just days ago you even (falsely) attacked someone else for the same thing!

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 07:47 PM

... You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 09:25 AM

You will not give me orders, Keith. Do be clear on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 09:18 AM

Steve,
. I've given up playing your stupid games.

It is not a stupid game to ask you to justify your claims.
Don't make them if you can't.

Howard, yes.
We never really disagreed on this.
FWIW, my opinion is that Parliament chose not to have a say as the government states.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 08:46 AM

Well I don't agree with a lot of that. There are implications to our leaving that were obviously not clear before the vote to politicians, let alone the public. There is bad news on the future of the economy, especially for the low-paid, that was not clear in June. There are very hawkish noises from the EU that want us out quickly and with very few concessions. The government had no plan for brexit and the vote took them by surprise. There is an extra £59 billion brexit black hole that has nobbled future investment in the NHS and social care that we either didn't know about in June or were lied to about. We can't stop people movement because we need the people to do our jobs. All this is before we have even the faintest clue about any deal that the government will make, a government that is fearful of letting the people know what they are negotiating. We must have a chance to change our minds when we know the full implications of leaving, BEFORE Article 50 is invoked. That would be democracy. Turkeys voting for Christmas are lied to less than we were lied to, and we are in the same boat as them.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Howard Jones
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 07:27 AM

Keith, from what I have read it is fairly settled law that referenda are not binding because this conflicts with the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament can choose to make a particular referendum binding, but in this case it did not do so. Nevertheless some have argued that its being binding was implied because of statements made by the Government.

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say if that claim has merit. It does seem to overturn the usual presumption, however the Government did not seek in the case before the High Court to argue that it is legally bound by the result. That suggests to me that the Government chose to accept the result of the referendum not because it believed it was legally bound to do so but because it felt it was the right thing to do. Indeed, the point of the referendum was to "let the people decide". I call that a political decision.

Let me be clear that, although I am unhappy with the result of the referendum, I agree that the Government has no real choice but to accept it. To ignore it would be unthinkable (politically, not legally). The issue now is to see that it is done properly and lawfully. This is in both sides' interest, but I keep making the point that Brexiteers should want this even more than Remainers, if they don't want the process to be disrupted by further legal challenges in both the UK and European courts.

I think it is important that in this the Government is subject to proper Parliamentary oversight, not because I think this offers a hope of overturning the result (I believe this is wishful thinking) but because the country is so divided over this and because there is still no clear idea of what success looks like.

Everyone who voted to leave seems to have their own priorities: for some it was simply to leave and damn the consequences, others want to have varying degrees of free trade with Europe, some will accept some movement of people while others won't have any. That's before you factor in the views of the only slightly smaller number who voted to remain, and those who for whatever reason didn't vote but have now woken up to the fact this affects them too. We need a clear strategy for leaving, and in a representative democracy it is the role of Parliament to help frame that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 07:08 AM

What Merkel wants or doesn't want is irrelevant, we are leaving the EU, that is what the electorate of the UK voted for and, at the politicians peril, that is what they are going to have to deliver (Just the fact that Blair wants us to remain in the EU is a good enough reason for us to leave).

Now German finance ministers are warning Merkel of the danger to the German economy which is the powerhouse of the EU. They are stating that Germany, Note that - Germany, NOT the EU, must have deal with the UK after we leave as we are their biggest and best customer in Europe. Simply put they cannot afford to lose us without them catching a cold and at present post-Brexit vote our economy is performing better than theirs. Anybody ignoring those facts, Merkel included, proves that they are the ones living in cloud cuckoo-land.

Still no evidence, let alone increasing evidence, of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 06:03 AM

I really must start to type only when I'm wearing my reading glasses. 🤓

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 06:01 AM

You'll have to make your own mind up. I've given up playing your stupid games.

It's true thst Merkel doesn't want us to leave, but it's equally true that the EU csn survive without us and that we will not get many favours. That stream of Article 50 triggerers you refer to will emanate from us getting an easy brexit, not the results of elections in Europe. Anyone thinking that we'll keep the single market without allowing free movement, for example, is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 04:13 AM

The economy is currently the best performing of all developed countries, and the predicted fall in growth is to the predicted level of Germany, and higher than France and every other EU country.

Steve, are you gong to produce examples of my ignorance or twisting of facts, or was that just a baseless smear in place of actual debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:42 AM

"In the light of increasing evidence of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country" - MGOH

What evidence? So far we've had a catalogue of predictions of which none have come to pass.

Yesterday it was reported that Angela Merkel is now being told that Germany must make a deal with the UK and ignore calls from France to "make Britain pay" for having the temerity to vote to leave the EU. At the moment it is basically the German economy that is keeping the Eurozone afloat and Merkel has been warned that if Germany loses her trade with the UK then Germany will no longer be capable of keeping the Euro afloat.

Simple fact is there are a number of "hawkish" leaders of European countries who have to face elections before Brexit happens, Merkel and Hollande are but two of them. Somehow Jean-Claude Juncker has to keep the wheels on the bus because after those national elections in Europe there might be a queue of countries triggering Article 50.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 08:17 PM

Well, Mike, I know that forecasts can end up being wide of the mark, but the ones this week in the budget statement and subsequently were generally those born of independent bodies, not remoaners. Like it or not, economic forecasts have to be listened to and acted on by the government. They are ignored at our peril. The lowest-paid in this country are in for a tough time on top of the tough time they've had over the last decade, that's a certainty, and the NHS is going to struggle through lack of funding, another certainty.

Stevie is a scouser and dyed-in-the-wool Liverpool FC man to his core. I hope his move into coaching will be gradual and measured. Seen too many footballing greats fall at the first hurdle in management. Not least Bobby Charlton, eh!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:18 PM

I meant fought over, not fought for.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:16 PM

I agree with everything you say, Kevin, except for this:

"If it's down to prerogative power, the government (ie the Prime Minister) has the power to ignore the result of the referendum entirely. In the light of increasing evidence of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country that would be perfectly correct constitutionally."

Prerogative doesn't come into this as the referendum was advisory. If she decided not to accept the result she would merely be declining the "advice" of 37% of the electorate. There is no constitutional issue there. Prerogative, on the other hand, IS a constitutional issue, fought for in a civil war to stop ignorant kings and queens ruling by diktat and successfully defended for hundreds of years. Hence the court case. If she decided to reject the result (the right thing to do, though politically suicidal), no doubt somebody or other would pursue it in the courts but they would have their case thrown out. As the referendum was advisory, remainers would have just as strong a case as brexiteers for complaining about her decision on the advice given to her by the referendum, as they could argue that only just over one-third of the electorate advised her to leave, all of which would lead to an absurd situation. Advisory means that the government asked for advice. There is nothing in our constitution that says that advice MUST be followed, regardless of what "promises" about it were made in advance of the vote. But there are safeguards in our constitution that protect parliamentary sovereignty. It would be beyond amazing if the Supreme Court overrode the High Court - worse, it would be downright suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: MikeL2
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 02:50 PM

Hi Steve

<" With the news on the economy we've just been getting I think that brexit would be national suicide ">

May I remind you that the news of which you speak are just forecasts with no real knowledge of what will actually happen. Furthermore these forecasts are largely made by the very people who are the most determined " Remoaners".

Recent forecasts show that nobody really knows what is really happening. The forecast result of the Referendum proves this.

Regards Mike

PS Just heard about Steven Gerrard's retirement from playing.

I wish him well in whatever he decides to do. As a Man United supporter I seen many great players and Steven IMHO stands at the top.
I saw him several times and each time I yearned for him to come to Old Trafford, but he is Liverpool through and through.I wish him well

Sorry for going off the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 02:13 PM

If it's down to prerogative power, the government (ie the Prime Minister) has the power to ignore the result of the referendum entirely. In the light of increasing evidence of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country that would be perfectly correct constitutionally.

She won't of course. She lacks the courage to do so. It's not a matter of respecting the result on principle as being democratically necessary. A second referendum, a binding one this time preferably, would be perfectly consistent with democratic principles.

As has been pointed out, when you buy something, in most circumstances you have the right to take it back to the shop if it proves unsatisfactory, or if you change your mind. Any time a couple get divorced there is a decree nisi before the final decree, to give a chance for thinking twice.

And there are plenty of examples where referendum results which have been widely seen as unwise have resulted in repeat referendums which have gone the other way. It happened in Ireland in respect of the EU Treaty of Nice, which was rejected in 2001, and then carried the following year with modifications, by a larger majority on an increased turnout. Ireland has if anything a better record as being true to democratic principles than the UK.

In the same way, when Denmark voted in 1992, there was a narrow majority to reject the Treaty of Maastricht, on a large turnout, very analogous to what happened with our referendum. The following year there was a second referendum, with a few modifications to the terms, and it was accepted by a significantly larger majority, on an even larger turnout. Would anybody suggest that Denmark is not a model of democracy?

And does anybody believe that if the referendum had gone the other way the Brexiters would not have fought energetically for another referendum to reverse its results? Nigel Farage in fact promised that, on the eve of the result, when he thought the vote would go the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 01:20 PM

Can we rewind a bit. I have lost track of what the argument is about again. Is it as first stated in the opening post? If not, what have we moved on to and what is it now? It is rather difficult to hold a debate when we have lost sight of just what we are debating over.

Thanks.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 01:15 PM

Steve,
It is quite clear from your last post here posts, Keith, that you wish to twist things to fit your own predilections.

I do not have any predilections on this Steve, and unless you can produce a specific example, which you can't because it is a lie, this is just another baseless personal attack in lieu of actual debate.

In fact, you appear to know very little about anything.

Then give a specific example of a statement from me that is wrong.

You can't because that too is a lie and another of your baseless personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 01:10 PM

Howard,
I think the majority of informed opinion is that it is not binding,

What makes you think that?
All we know for sure is that it is disputed.

The Government itself seems to think that is a political commitment rather than a legal obligation, since this was not an issue before the High Court, or the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The courts only consider legal issues, never political ones, so your statement must be untrue.

In our system the will of the people is expressed through Parliament,

No. In our system the will of the people is usually expressed through Parliament but sometimes, rarely, by referenda.
In this specific case it was expressed through a referendum.

Because the role of the court is to interpret the law, there will never be certainty.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 09:21 AM

In reply to Keith:

"Whilst the referendum result was a political decision which Cameron, May and Corbyn all feel politically obliged to accept, in legal terms it was not a decision made in accordance with the country's constitution, which is required for Article 80(sic) to be triggered.

That is just an assertion and it is disputed."

I accept it is disputed, but you can find a lawyer to argue the opposite of every legal position. I think the majority of informed opinion is that it is not binding, but I recognise that some experts have argued otherwise. I don't claim to be an expert. The Government itself seems to think that is a political commitment rather than a legal obligation, since this was not an issue before the High Court, or the appeal to the Supreme Court.

It now falls to the Government to exercise Article 50 and the question is how to do this lawfully. I'm not saying the government is right or wrong to claim this can be done under prerogative powers. That will be decided by the Supreme Court.

What tends to be overlooked is that it is not the role of the courts to consider the will of the people. Their job is to interpret the law. In our system the will of the people is expressed through Parliament, and if Parliament doesn't like how the courts interpret law it has the power to change the law. Referenda don't sit easily in this system, which is why they are usually advisory rather than binding. The problem in this case is the referendum has raised very high expectations whilst lacking any agreement on what Brexit actually means, and with only a slim majority.

The legal question is necessary and will bring necessary certainty to the legal process, which both sides should welcome. However even if the Supreme Court decides the government can use prerogative powers it would be naive to think that the process won't be anything other than highly political. We are in for a rough ride.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 08:33 AM

It is quite clear from your last post here posts, Keith, that you wish to twist things to fit your own predilections. In fact, you appear to know very little about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

Yes, it was certainly worth a link. As a prominent academic and philosopher his arguments are always worth considering as well as being quite readable and entertaining at times. As has already been said, until the appeal is settled, all views on the subject are just opinions on the possible outcomes. I would not dream of simply deferring to authority but some opinions do carry more weight than others.

As the governments defense has already been dismissed once but an appeal has been allowed we can safely say that legal opinion about the outcome is divided.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:26 AM

Grayling has no more legal training than I have!
" His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic.[1] He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement,[4] and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'.[5] He appears in the British media discussing philosophy."

So just an opinion piece from someone with no relevant expertise at all.
Was it worth a link?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:18 AM

Howard,
Keith, you are mixing up politics and law.
No I am not.

Whilst the referendum result was a political decision which Cameron, May and Corbyn all feel politically obliged to accept, in legal terms it was not a decision made in accordance with the country's constitution, which is required for Article 80(sic) to be triggered.

That is just an assertion and it is disputed.

We are awaiting clarification of whether the constitutional decision can be made by the government alone or by Parliament. That clarification is essential if Article 50 is to be correctly and successfully invoked.

Yes. As I have said all along.

Whatever was said by politicians during the campaign, or afterwards, about accepting the result or immediately implementing Article 50 were simply politicians' promises and we all know what those are worth

It may transpire that they were right to make those promises.
The government holds that they were, as they explained to Grayling in the link.

But in any event, even where politicians intend to keep their promises they can only act within the law, as the courts frequently have to remind them.

Yes of course.

The only case I am making here is that it is wrong to state unequivocally that the government lawyers have all got it wrong.
I am sure you agree with me on that Howard.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:06 AM

Grayling has his opinions.
Others including the government do not share them.

"On 23 June, the country voted to leave the European Union and it is the duty of the Government to make sure we do so. The Government's position is clear that invoking Article 50 is a prerogative power and one that can be exercised by the Government. Parliament legislated for the Referendum, which it did by large majorities in both Houses, and with cross-party support.
Although the Act itself does not include provisions that make the result of the referendum legally binding, the Government made repeated and clear statements that the outcome of the referendum would be acted upon. Indeed, the manifesto on which the Conservative Party was elected in 2015 stated "we will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome." The arrangements for the referendum were also supported by Parliament."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 06:04 AM

Thanks for that, Dave. Read and digest these remarks of Tony Grayling from that piece, Keith et al.:

First, earlier in your letter you say, 'The Government's position is clear that invoking Article 50 is a prerogative power…' We have seen that the Chief Justice and his colleagues in the Divisional Court do not agree with the Government on this, and we await the Supreme Court's view too. Should the justices of the Supreme Court concur, you have the delicate irony of a possibility: that of making a further appeal to the European Court of Justice. It will however be a matter of surprise if any panel of justices were to think that the UK Government has a prerogative power which would have enabled it to take the UK out of the EU even without a referendum, and whenever it wished; which is the clear – and absurd – implication of the Government's position.

...as to the larger sense of sovereignty you wish to imply, namely the sovereignty of the UK as a state: well! we are members of NATO, the WTO, the UN, we have obligations under international law, we have duties to allies; we have constraints as a result of treaties, trade deals, and internationally-binding contracts; and we exist in a tightly globalized world economy. In light of this the concept of the 'sovereignty' of any state is an empty piece of rhetoric. So talk of 'sovereignty' in this connection it is the kind of waffling cant used by politicians in elections and referendums which signifies little.

The government's position is that it has the prerogative to invoke Article 50. As the referendum was advisory and not legally-binding, the implication is that it wasn't actually necessary to hold one at all in order to gain that prerogative. The result is simply being taken by the government as non-legal support for that already-existing prerogative. An advisory referendum can't alone accord prerogative to the government. The government's position is that it can trump constitutional requirements. Well I think we need to remind them that we are still a democracy. The second bit I quoted is a solid argument for saying that all the "taking back control" talk by the brexit side was just another pack of lies. "Sovereignty" as a concept for the nation is in disrepute as a consequence of the term's serial misuse by little Englanders. We should make sure that the Tories are not allowed to bring the word into disrepute with regard to parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 04:40 AM

Once again, Howard, thank you for a clear explanation.

Some good points made by A C Grayling, here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 04:36 AM

Keith, you are mixing up politics and law. Whilst the referendum result was a political decision which Cameron, May and Corbyn all feel politically obliged to accept, in legal terms it was not a decision made in accordance with the country's constitution, which is required for Article 80 to be triggered. We are awaiting clarification of whether the constitutional decision can be made by the government alone or by Parliament. That clarification is essential if Article 50 is to be correctly and successfully invoked.

Whatever was said by politicians during the campaign, or afterwards, about accepting the result or immediately implementing Article 50 were simply politicians' promises and we all know what those are worth. They were not the only misleading statements and promises made. But in any event, even where politicians intend to keep their promises they can only act within the law, as the courts frequently have to remind them.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 05:02 PM

It's all mine!!! :-)

Not only Jim and I assert that it is true but the judge also decreed it. He ruled that the government could not do what they said they would without taking it to the house. The judge in the appeal mat rescind that ruling but no one knows what the outcome of that will be as yet.

I don't understand what the issue is here. Unequivocal - Not ambiguous. Judges make a living out clarifying ambiguity and the judge at the high court said that in his opinion the government did not answer the case satisfactorily. An appeal has been allowed and that may change things.

Can I make a suggestion? Until the appeal is ruled on can we call it a day? I am sure everyone is getting bored with this argument anyway. Maybe continue by PM?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:37 PM

I offer 500 as a gift to anyone who wants it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:36 PM

Dave,
Jim's assertion that whoever thought etc. was proved wrong is unequivocal but it also happens to be correct.

Then you are both asserting unequivocally, that the government has no case!

Whoever thought that the result was final without Parliamentary consent was wrong and has been proved so by a court decision

The High Court gave its interpretation of the law, which the government disputes.
The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether, in their opinion, the interpretation was correct.
It is about interpretation, not "proof," and the final decision is not yet made.

I have no opinion at all, not ever having studied obscure and ancient constitutional laws. If I had to bet, I would bet they decide against the government but just a hunch and not based on law.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 01:23 PM

Ref 10:46 AM. Only by different definitions of unequivocal, Keith, and I have given the dictionary definition above. Not being patronising here but the only other way I can think of explaining is is by example.

1. The government has no case to answer. Unequivocal. Leaves the reader in no doubt. Stated as a fact.
2. I believe the government has no case to answer. Equivocal. Ambiguous in that it is merely a belief and beliefs can change. Uncertain and questionable.

I have always tended toward the latter and have even been upbraided on here for being too vague.

Jim's assertion that whoever thought etc. was proved wrong is unequivocal but it also happens to be correct. The current court decision has proved the government wrong in their assumption. The appeal may overturn that at which point the statement becomes false but, at present, it is a fact. No one is prediction the outcome of the appeal.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 11:12 AM

Dave, there is another unequivocal assertion that the government has no case!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 11:02 AM

Keith seems to be going in his ever-decreasing circles again
I suggest that, for the sake of sanity at least,nobody allows themselves to get caught in the undertow.
Whoever thought that the result was final without Parliamentary consent was wrong and has been proved so by a court decision
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:46 AM

Dave, both quotes are unequivocal assertions that the government has no case.
You choose to deny that clear and obvious fact, as is your perfect right.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:44 AM

Also,


Corbyn,
"The referendum has taken place, a decision has been made, I think we have got to respect that decision and work out our relationship with Europe in the future."
("Decision" not "advice.")
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36628305

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:42 AM

And those are unequivocal assertions in what way, Keith? Yes, I still think we could stop quibbling about semantics but it is you who seem to be saying that I have asserted something as the unequivocal when I have obviously not.

For the record

unequivocal
ʌnɪˈkwɪvək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: unequivocal

    leaving no doubt; unambiguous.
    "an unequivocal answer"
    synonyms:        unambiguous, unmistakable, indisputable, incontrovertible, indubitable, undeniable;

None of the statements I have made, one of which you quote above, has been unequivocal. The example you give above is purely illustrative, clearly demonstrated in the opening words 'I find the governments position rather akin to...'

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:39 AM

The Independent said that both sides assumed the referendum result would be final.
Steve said that the result was "irrevocable."

Cameron said throughout the campaign that article 50 would be triggered the day after a leave vote.
That precluded any intervention by Parliament.

No-one on Mudcat took issue with that.
No-one in the media took issue with that.
No-one in Parliament took issue with that.
No-one brought a legal case to prove it illegal to do that.

He was expected to do that without consulting Parliament.
No-one expected him to resign instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:29 AM

Dave,
We still await "examples of unequivocal assertions made here that the government has no case".

Sorry, but three minutes after asking for examples you said, "Alternatively we could stop quibbling about semantics and who said what."

Here are the first two I came across.

"May wants to use the power of 'Royal Prerogative' to invoke Art. 50. The High Court has judged that a law passed by parliament cannot be trumped by Royal Prerogative. That's the fundamental principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty on which our entire constitution is based, and rightly so.
The legislation clearly stated that the referendum was 'advisory' only. A promise made by the Prime Minister cannot, and does not, change that piece of legislation. Only parliament can do that."

"I find the governments position rather akin to a used car salesman who has been found out clocking his vehicles. He is taken to court for misleading people but his argument is that the mileage on the car is what he promised it to be, regardless of the truth. It would be laughable if it wasn't going on at such a high level."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 09:19 AM

With the news on the economy we've just been getting I think that brexit would be national suicide. Our politicians need to grow big balls so that we can readdress the whole thing. I still think that the right thing would be to give people a chance to change their minds. Can't shut our eyes to the looming disaster just because 38% of the electorate were hoodwinked into making a bloody stupid decision. Even Teribus accepts that the campaign was a farce. Read the papers today. This country is in big trouble. We need to stay put.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stu
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 09:00 AM

Great explanation. Thanks Howard.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:43 AM

Thanks Howard, that's what the sensible ones of us have been trying to explain right through this thread. Unfortunately, the trolls and the ones lacking intellect seem utterly incapable of grasping what is actually fact v. what is the product of their own delusions.