Brexit and power to the people

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

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 .

Sorry - and whitewave too

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

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

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'.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

The House of Lords is not reflective of the number of seats held in Parliament.

For example the Lib Dems have 104 Lords plus a few Crossbench peers yet only 8 MP's in Westminster. The Conservatives have 255 Lords plus a few Cross benchers but 328 MP's.

It is well known the Lords has a percentage in favour of the left of politics and that has been as issue for the Conservative government since 2010.

I do believe that the House of Lords are going to do all it possibly can to delay Article 50, ad infinitum if they can get away with it, most certainly make negotiations as difficult as possible for the government. I am also of the belief that there are many Conservative Lords who will be acting the same way.

The judges ruled that the governments argument was contrary to the "fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament"

The Victorian constitutionalist A V Dicey was quoted " The judges know nothing about any will of the people in so far as that will is expressed by an act of Parliament"

In conclusion "the government does not have power under the crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union"

Both sides will not have to be considered.

Unfortunately for you, roses, and all who hold these beliefs, the British Constitution requires that the views of the minority are able to be voiced in Parliament.

I would suggest that people who comment on constitutional matters should take the trouble to find out something about how our British Constitution works.

Devorgilla 10.30
We have unelected judges so that they are impartial and not in the pockets of others like we had decades ago.

POGS 10.35

Devorgilla
So you honestly believe the House of Lords are impartial.

Can you confirm, POGS that your post of 10.35 is in response to Devorgilla's post of 10.30 ?

In a civilised society there are unwritten rules that keep the wheels oiled nicely. The press should remember those rules.

Rees-Mog I can never take him seriously - I'm not sure people do actually

Who would prosecute them? Inciting hatred doesn't automatically press some button that there will be a prosecution. Having a free truthful press is part of a civilised society.

POGS- Rees-Mog wants to create 1000 new Tory Peers to force Brexit though - so you are right, the House of Lords is certainly NOT impartial talk about 'Power to the People' ...

If it was really thought that the press was committing an offence by inciting racial or religous hatred then they would be prosecuted......otherwise ARE free to print their criticisms.Having a free press is part of a civilised society.

Brokering the best deal does mean considering both 'sides'.

Newspapers are not free to incite hatred.

Both sides will not have to be considered......what should matter is that the best deal is brokered for the UK, whatever that is.

Newspapers should be free to criticise anybody I would have thought, that's why it's called 'the free press'.

As I said on another post rose -never confuse populism with democracy, that is why both halfs will need to be considered when the decision is made.

Yes the press should definitely stop the vitriol and hate. They should understand the power they have to incite hatred and temper their reporting accordingly. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech but everything to do with a civilised society.

The media should never have to keep it's mouth shut.