Brexit and power to the people

Cromwell would be proud that some case law dating back to his time established that parliament is sovereign and the executive cannot ignore it, where it has no legal authority to do so.

Maizie d. Yes

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Because Devorgilla was talking about judges, not the House of Lords.

Which makes your response nonsensical.

Rees-Mogg obviously doesn't believe in listening to his own constituents in North East Somerset, 57% of whom voted to Remain.

Maizie d

Fair point.

I apologise for misinterpreting your post Devorgilla.

However my post is not 'nonsensical' in what it is saying , albeit not in respond to devorgilla.

I appologise if I'm repeating anything on here as I've only got involved with the last few pages. Have any of you heard of Vernon Coleman who could be termed as somewhat of reactionary? Much more about him I daren't say. I was forwarded an article,by him, via an email:-

"Was Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?
by Vernon Coleman – 2011

Many constitutional experts believe that Britain isn’t actually a member of the European Union since our apparent entry was in violation of British law and was, therefore invalid".
(Google Vernon Coleman and you'll find it)

I for one would certainly wish it was fact as it would make our extrication from the EU extremely simple.

No, it wouldn't, gangy.

There would still be the question of the single market, around which much UK trade has been built over 40 years, the compensation for groups of people who stand to lose a lot and much more.

It's always been about much more than turning the clock back to the time when the UK was the 'sick man of Europe'.

And the fact that it has been incorporated into UK domestic law. The rights that I enjoy as an individual etc.

daphnedill apropos of nothing and from over a year ago, but this is a video of Jacob Rees-Mogg showing Jess Phillips round the constituency:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMQLSkM1_sU

Sorry - and whitewave too

Both sides should NOT be considered, in fact no side should be considered when it comes to terms for Brexit IMHO....simply what is best for the UK.Obviously unlimited immigration is bad for the country, so that will have to be taken into consideration, perhaps a limited cap on EU immigration would work, but in the end, we need the best possible outcome .

So hoping that all politicians both in the Commons and in the Lords will think hard on this, I know a petition!

Or maybe not a petition.

Seems Corbyn's changed his mind again, or had it changed for him.

Labour MPs were concerned by the prospect of voting against Article 50, with one saying it was "unthinkable" for most of the party's MPs as it would defy the result of the referendum.

Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson confirmed that Labour were not seeking to do this. He said: "We're certainly not going to hold up Article 50 if we don't get the deal (we want)".

Which is more or less what Lisa Nandy said on Newsnight the other night (she must have checked with JC et al before she said it).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIt3PM5DF_c

This is better.

Who do you think should decide what's best for the UK, roses?
Theresa May or parliament?
That's what it's about. Theresa May does not have a mandate to do what she wants to do without input from parliament.
We have a democracy, not a dictatorship.

Loved that dj.This photo of an election when the Liberals held the seat and the suffragettes campaigned against them might interest some people

Shows how important South Shields is!
I wonder how much Rees-Mogg's train fare cost; probably more than most of those people earn in a week.

It was never going to be May alone, but the Cabinet.Parliament was then going to get a vote.
Once it was given to the judiciary to decide, they had no choice but to consider it as a point of law , so no blame attaches to them.
If MP's won't vote on article 50 ( although I think they will) they would have to be prepared to lose their seats in some areas.
In the end, although it may hold things up, we will leave the EU.

That has been ruled unconstitutional rose

I think we have confusion ww on my post?

If you mean about losing their seats....that was thinking that if some MP's try and block article 50, the voting public in case of a GE, wouldn't vote for them in future ( and in the North East for example, Labour would then lose to Conservatives possibly.)

Part of the confusion over my post arose because I found I was unable to respond to POGS response to my post. For some reason whether I can review or post seems a bit erratic at the moment. I have referred the matter to GN. I was talking about the Judges but I agree with POGS that the House of Lords, or at least some Members of it, will not be impartial. I do not approve of an unelected second Chamber but that is what we have at the moment and there is a great deal of expertise there across all parties and issues. Taking issues to the Lords is a way of safeguarding our interests in what the Government/Commons are proposing and can give an opportunity to reflect and alter. They cannot hold it up indefinitely but they can raise concerns about the Government's plans which could be very significant for our long term post-Brexit future. I think that is a worthwhile use of their time and ours. Too late when it is all done and dusted. The PM has been repeatedly told the Commons will vote to Brexit. She seems to fear the Lords' reaction rather more hence the appeal. Several very prominent voices on all sides are urging her to bring Article 50 to the House and kick start it all. Why doesn't she? Drop the appeal and get it done.

Hurrah! I can post again.

Because then she will have to tell them what her ideas are....and she hasn't got any.