Seems a reasonable position to me.
+ 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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
No, if she and the "hairdresser chap" had not gone to court then the judges would not have made their ruling, having said that these judges live in their own little world, and have no common sense whatsoever, and who is to say that their ruling is correct,it is all down to interpretation, personally I think that the government is correct regarding their own view on it
It's all too complicated for me so for that reason I'm out
I'm mean in
No out
Oh i give up
When she was born, Guiana was British.
Regardless of what her motives are, if there wasn't a legal case for it the judges wouldn't have agreed with her.
We are having brexit, but it will be one debated and voted on in parliament as it should be, not one concocted by right wing Tories however they see fit.
Anyone thinking these right wing Tories are looking to save the workers from the pernicious eu which will sell them out in favour of big business needs to take a step back and think again.
These same Tories are also looking at reducing the corporation tax to 10% - something which would cost the government budget 350m a week (where have I heard that number before?!). And you know that the right of the Tory party would not bat an eyelid at cutting public services in order to pay for that.
So yes it is good that we have had this court ruling, as otherwise we are just letting some people with fringe political views have a free hand on things that will effect millions.