Brexit and power to the people

No ww why should there be cognisance of those who voted to stay in? It was a majority decision vote taken not 'oh well, let's do half and half' sort of thing.If the majority of the vote had gone the other way, do you expect them to have taken cognisance of the half wanting to leave?

pogs I take your point with regard to the Lords. However we shall see what evolves when and if the time comes.

But I don't agree that the Commons will necessarily stop Brexit. There is no evidence that that is their intention. However what I hope they will do is to give cognisance to the half of the country who wished to remain in the EU.

Brexit should be tempered by this fact, and as a result division in the country could be along the road to healing, provided of course the media keeps its mouth shut - fat chance.

You said it POGS spot on.Now I don't have to. It seems to me, that the Remainers will do or say anything now to have their way because they didn't like the outcome.

Devorgrilla

So you honestly believe the House of Lords are impartial.

Good grief.

There is of course the irony that those who have protested at the mere existence of The Lords, for the most part those left of politics, are now looking to The Lords to do their heavy lifting.

That's politics for you.

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

And still nobody can give an answer why the Scottish Referendum is only advisory.

I am interested to know why Sturgeon cannot say Scotland will ignore the majority vote and put the question to the Scottish Parliament/Westminster to override the decision of the people and 'put it in the hands of politicians' because the people should not have been asked in the first place, they were too thick to understand .

I am not particularly bothered with the judges decision , I am very concerned the Lords and Parliament will overturn the referendum vote, do all they can to delay it ' ad infinitum', put one hand up the back for negotiating terms.

This is not without precedent there are too many voices saying this is what they are aiming to do. Nick Clegg et aI. I don't think it will be the Westminster MP's but the House of Lords that will dominate.

This could lead to a constitutional crisis, if we are not in one to a degree already. The fact an unelected group of people can overrule the wish of the people having gone through a democratic vote 'could' be a bigger constitutional issue than Brexit.

Whether you voted Remain or Leave the latter should concern you if you believe in democracy.

The media and some Brexiters are getting themselves into a real bind with what they argue as British sovereignty and "the will of the people" They seem to think that they are separate and in this case on separate sides of the argument.

So much hyperbole and hatred has been stirred Up since the verdict it is difficult to know where to start. Some of the following has been reported in the Guardian.

Much of the right wing media is owned by those they love to hate "the foreigner", and they clearly will never let facts get on the way of a good onslaught.

Reading all the various reports the biggest protagonists are the Telegraph, the Mail the Express and the Sun.

The Sun seems to blame Cameron because he apparently promised that the referendum verdict would be smoothly enacted by parliament, but the Sun tries to square the circle by arguing that the remainers want to keep Parliament subservient to Brussels whilst arguing that parliament should not have the power to deal with Brexit.

The Express is it seems a tad hysterical, is worrying about the enormous power wielded by the SNP and Lib-Dems. They worry endlessly for the 4 million voters whose UKIP beliefs are "being trampled into the dust"

Then we come to the Mail. Oh dear oh dear. So much hysteria so little accurate fact. One of its main moans is that the referendum was only advisory. It argues that "at no stage were we told that this referendum was only advisory"
Strange that as about 15 days before 23June they ran a piece which said "Lord Astor advices that the referendum is only advisory, it has no legal standing"

They also argue that the Supreme Judges may also allow subliminal prejudice to influence their decision.
Well done Mail, let's all attack the foundation on which our constitution and Nation was built and see where that gets us.

Finally the Telegraph. Well they argue that it should never have been allowed to go to court in the first place, that the judges should have thrown it out, but peculiarly it then goes on to argue that "this political dispute should be settled by parliament not by judges"

Excuse me Telegraph, isn't that the very point of the ruling?

"Yes, I do know this is a parliamentary democracy. But in 2015 parliament voted by a six-to-one margin to pass this decision directly to the voters, with the proposer of the bill declaring it meant that “the decision about our membership [of the EU] should be taken by the British people, not by parliamentarians in this chamber”."

From the Sunday Times today. Dominic Lawson.

I do like The Times. Yesterday there were two articles sticking up for the judges' decision. Today there are two, equally good, sticking up for the referendum majority vote.

Nothing about the response to this judicial judgement surprises me. The House of Commons has been ignored and neglected, dismissed and reduced in power as Prime Ministers have assumed an increasingly presidential role. It is crucial for UK democracy that MPs are restored to their proper role. That it should be the Brexit issue is coincidental; it matters that they are involved in every law, legal issue, decision and action.

Of course MPs have to listen to their constituents' concerns and, where they can, help them solve problems and injustice. However, they also have to vote with their conscience about huge issues that involve the whole country. It is time that they were allowed to do these things again.

What I find particularly worrying is the fact that three judges gave a verdict against the government as a result of which they've had to go into hiding with police protection.

Has anyone heard the Prime Minister condemning those who are threatening the judges?

Talk about moral laxity.
What is the message she is giving out by this lack of action?

The message is clear. The supreme Court judges must think on if their verdict goes the same way - the government will not stand against those who threaten your life or family.

Labour's 'bottom lines' are:

UK access to 500 million customers in Europe’s single market.

No watering down of EU workplace rights.

Guarantees on safeguarding consumers and the environment.

A promise that Britain will pick up the tab for any EU capital investment lost as a result of Brexit.

Of those, only the first - access to the single market - has anything to do with the EU. The other three are UK domestic policies, so won't play any part in the negotiating process. Why shouldn't May be able to guarantee them?

Well Corbyns announcement to block the triggering of Article 50 would ' possibly ' lead to a General Election being announced in December and Labour, Lib Dems, SNP will have to get the numbers. They will then have to deal with being in the position of explaining under what terms the U K will leave the EU , OR NOT as is their want, and hope to goodness 17 million people don't feel let down by our democratic system.

Labour MP's and Tory MP's who would block Article 50 being triggered and refuse to accept the referendum result will have to explain it to their constituents won't they.

My problem , as always, is the hypocrisy of it all.

Corbyn said after the referendum result Article 50 should be
triggered straight away, no mention of the referendum being only advisory. Now 4 months later he is openly saying he will block it unless his requirements are met.

He has just made Junkers dreams come true and put one hand up Theresa May's back with regard to any negotitiation chances. It demonstrates a total lack of comprehension how negotiations work.

How the hell can Theresa May or any UK representative negotiate now? How the hell can Theresa May commit to what Labour, SNP et al want. It would require the EU Commission to comply with her 'Demands' courtesy of the demands of those who do not have any faith in a democratic vote by the people and will do all in their power to stop any meaningful negotiations taking place.

A sad state of affairs and poor politics.

Do you think this is what happens when you choose someone who knows nothing about the law to be justice secretary? Cameron chose Gove, who also knew nothing about the law.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/05/jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-brexit-bottom-line-article-50-early-election

Saw it too rosesarered, he even complained he was being harassed because he was asked questions, his young female companions quickly came to his aid, he cannot keep avoiding legitimate questions, he would run if asked - is rain wet

The crowdfunding has worked. They have over £125,000.

Yes, daphnedill, I realise that, thank you...

@Ana

The court cases are about constitutional matters. In the future, the history of Brexit and conflict within the political parties will be small fry compared with the precedent which would have been set if parliament hadn't been consulted. Without a written constitution, this is how constitutional law is made and it will be relevant for decades, if not centuries.

Somewhat irreverent, and some swearing, so open at your peril:

www.facebook.com/officialrussellkane/videos/1234686179939700/

@roses

If I had any money, I would bet it all that there will be an economic downside...for a lot longer than a 'while'. The UK is losing a great deal beside finance. It is a huge thing to sort out and I wouldn't be surprised if some of us are dead before it's 'sorted out'. Hopefully, a new generation will be given the option of opting back in. Unfortunately, they won't get the good deal, will all its exceptions, which the UK already has.

A GE is the last thing the Labour Party should wish for at the moment. They should concentrate on getting some answers out of May and her ministers. They should find out what they want to do with the 'control' and get them to be more transparent. I am cautiously optimistic that Keir Starmer knows what he's doing.

Saw Corbyn on the news looking angry ( because reporters dared to ask him questions about a GE I think) his usual young female minders hustled him away from this nastiness.A Leader...... really?

I didn't expect any special treatment either ( for UK) but there will have been certain types of people on both sides who didn't think further than their noses.All I want and still do, is for us to be not tied up to the EU and all it's assorted madness.There may well be an economic downside for a while, it's a huge thing to sort out.

Yes, it's all the EU's fault!

I never expected any special favours and don't know anyone else who did. I'll just be glad when the Court cases are all over and Brexit can eventually go ahead.