| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Seems a reasonable position to me.
Unbelievable that our nation's leaders didn't foresee, or plan for, this eventuality.
Was it ever put to "the people" that their vote would effectively be non-binding?
If you ran a business with this level of planning, you'd be out of business fairly quickly
The problem is that our nation's leaders didn't stick around to act on the vote, despite assurances to the contrary.Originally Posted by TH63
imho Cameron for fecked off one one or all of the following reasons
1. Having nailed his colours to the mast he took the result as a vote of no confidence
2. He didn't expect to lose so had no plan whatsoever of how to deal with it
3. He didn't want to be the one that had to implement a policy he didn't agree with
4. He couldn't be arsed dealing with the inevitable shitstorm
Well, you would wouldn't you ? RJK. Everyone now on the bandwagon trying to overturn a majority referendum vote to leave the EU, and some woman who owns a hedge fund company not acting on what the country voted for but acting so that she can make more money, stinks she is not even from the UK
Last edited by Igovernor; 04-11-16 at 10:20.
Fuk sake.Well, you would wouldn't you ? Everyone now on the bandwagon trying to overturn a majority referendum vote to leave the EU, and some woman who owns a hedge fund company not acting on what the country voted for but acting so that she can make more money, stinks she is not even from the UK
It seems a sensible standpoint to me.
I suggest you read up what this decision actually means (not in the express or mail).Well, you would wouldn't you ? RJK. Everyone now on the bandwagon trying to overturn a majority referendum vote to leave the EU, and some woman who owns a hedge fund company not acting on what the country voted for but acting so that she can make more money, stinks she is not even from the UK
seems perfectly sensible to me. surely Parliament and not the government is the ultimate authority in the UK, which is what Brexiters wanted? not even the Supreme Court can overturn primary legislation.
all that is being asked is for Parliament to give the Government consent. If we did not have this then MPs may as well stay in their constituencies on election night and forget about holding the government to account. Are Brexiters really advocating 5 year dictatorships?
99% of the people who are saying that this legal challenge was simply about asserting the primacy of Parliament is lying. They were and are hoping that it will mean that the verdict expressed at the referendum will be ignored and we will remain in the EU.
I don't think you're right there. I haven't heard a single person saying that they want to reverse the decision of the referendum. Not without another referendum anyway.
If anything it will at least make the politicians nail their colours to the mast and stand by any decision they make, then if they cock it up they can at least be held accountable for it afterwards.
Yesterday, you were (quite rightly, I thought) objecting to suggestions that Leave voters were thick.
Maybe it's time to stop the generalising on both sides?
Exactly, this woman is doing this because when we come out of the EU, she will not make so much money, greedy sod that she is, why doesn't she bugger off back to Guiana, where she comes from, and let us natives of this land get what we voted for
I would prefer to live in a country where the government has to abide by the law.Well, you would wouldn't you ? RJK. Everyone now on the bandwagon trying to overturn a majority referendum vote to leave the EU, and some woman who owns a hedge fund company not acting on what the country voted for but acting so that she can make more money, stinks she is not even from the UK
Otherwise, Teresa May can come round your house, have her heavies hold you down and piss in your mouth, you want that to happen do you?
Do you think the Supreme Court serves any purpose? If so, what purpose do you think it serves?
I thought one of the things the brexiteers wanted was to be able to pass our own laws,the first time a law is made they dont want it
Some of the independent judiciary have ruled that it would be illegal for the government to go for brexit without having a vote in parliament first - based on the terms that they set out in the first place.
Almost every mp has come out and said that they wouldn't be voting against brexit, even if they were remain before.
If we want Sovreignty and the right to rule ourselves, then we must abide by a High Court ruling. It seems the Brexiteers really do have the hump about all this , well they should fall in line with the ruling of the courts of the country they want to be independent of the EU. It doesn't say we can't or won't come out , just that we need more time to act of]n the referendum vote result.
As a country it would be foolish to rush in to a quick decision, accepted it's been 4 months already but the Government don't appear to have a plan at all.
Well said.
Parliament and the 4 regions also need to decide what form of Brexit eventually happens. This is far, far too important to be left to a sub committee of far right Tories.
What is to my mind quite rediculous is for these people to believe that the government under this ruling must tell the house exactly what deal they are going to go for before actioning clause 50.
There can be no negotiation with the EU on anything until after clause 50 is activated so this would be impossible. Also if the government in parliament said exactly what they intended to do it would give the likes of Junkers in the EU all the time they needed to make sure we don't get what we want.
To my mind all the high court says is that the government must get the authority of parliament to action clause 50.
so that is all the vote should be about.
The time to debate the conditions will be after the government has had time to meet officially with their EU adversaries and hammer out a framework agreement, then parliament can discuss it and the government can go back and deal with the particulars.
There has never been any argument that once a deal is truck it will be fully explained and debated in parliament and that the MPs will get a vote on whether to accept the deal or not.
It is then that the deal should be agreed or rejected.
I can see no way the government can tell parliament what they intend to get before they have even tried, and no discussions can take place before clause 50 is activated.
How can MPs demand the right to have a say in the agreement if the EU, knowing our position just effectively laughs at what they voted for and says piss off?
It is arse about face.
Last edited by xsnaggle; 04-11-16 at 11:44.
Spot on.
They don't have a plan.
They never had a plan.
Either unimaginable arrogance (that they would win the vote) or unimaginable incompetence.
No wonder Cameron fecked off.
It's all too complicated for me so for that reason I'm out
I'm mean in
No out
Oh i give up
As a leave voter who passionately believes brexit will be a roaring success I find the hysteria around yesterdays decision to be a little bit embarrassing. I think parliament should absolutely have the right to vote on brexit, I voted for brexit, not any brexit. I want the best deal for this country and parliamentary scrutiny is going to help that, not hinder it.
If it's a good deal and Mrs May and her team have done a good job then the MPs dare not vote it down, they dare not go against the will of the people (unless they are Scottish or Cockneys). If it's a shit deal by voting it down they are doing us a favour and it gives the government an opportunity to iron out those differences and come to some sort of compromise with the naysayers.
Apart from a few dissenting voices the vast majority of prominent remain campaigners have come out and said they may not want Brexit but it must happen. Brexit will go ahead in spite of the efforts of ball washing lawyers.
Good post
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote