Brexit and power to the people

Those of you who think that Brexiters are all mildmannered philosophers should think again.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11/04/enemies-of-the-people-brexit-campaign-putting-lives-risk

Some people on twitter have actually asked for the judges to be executed for treason.

Phoebes, do you not remember how every time someone tried to explain the possible effects of Brexit you highlight they were accused of scaremongering? Who wants to listen to the experts now?

Theresa May apparently knew exactly what was likely to happen when she spoke to business people a month earlier. She said it would be a disaster and it is and now she's pretending to know what she's doing leading us towards the EXIT sign.

To attempt to bypass Parliament over such a crucial issue is either extreme arrogance or downright stupidity. Now we see just how dangerous that decision has proved to be, yet as far as I'm aware she has remained silent on this whole sad episode. I guess she's afraid of what she's unleashed.

The report DJ has posted above for chilling calls to harm the judges because their rulings did not go the way Brexiteers want, make alarming reading. No contesting outcomes so long as they go your way!

British justice is admired and copied throughout the world for its integrity, and the fact that it is totally removed from the political sphere.

The fact that the right wing press and government by its silence is trashing that view by suggesting that it is partisan and thereby questioning its integrity is beyond disgraceful and a very dangerous game to be playing. It should stop immediately and the government show enough guts to say so. what is the matter with the Tory government that it lacks so much spine? As for integrity, that seemed to have gone down the pan years ago.

No, the vote did take place- in February 2014- and the Swiss Government now has to implement it- as a referendum in Switzerland is totally binding. They have been working very hard behind the scenes at trying to find a 'compromise' - and were very close to reaching one with the EU- being a 'special' case as we are NOT part of the EU but are part of the single market- and this means having free movement of people with the EU. But at the last minute, the EU said 'sorry no can't do- asit would set a precedent and we want to show we are tough on free movement being part of the deal - and with Brexit in mind- we just can't waiver one little bit.

Jobs are going, massive international research programme are at risk, and all sort of other nasty consequences, Erasmus- etc. The Swiss GVT is therefore in a very similar- albeit different, situation. The referendum being binding, they have to implement it- even though the margin was tiny (as with Brexit) and whole regions, like Romandie, the French speaking part, were massively against the 'limit free movement' initiative- a little bit like Scotland in the UK. It's a mess- here and there. As said, déjà vu big time (and we happen to be caught in the middle of both disasters- neither here nor there in the grand scale of things, I know).

What the GVT is now saying- is that they should not have allowed the Referendum on free movement to take place in the first place. They can stop referendum if they fly in the face of current Treaties, or the Human Rights Act (for instance they would not allow a vote on the death penalty).

Rings a bell?

It's clear that Cameron wanted a referendum to show that a significant % of British people wanted out - so he could then use this as an argument to get a better deal- wringing his hands and saying 'yes, I know, but you see I have no choice because of those 30 or 40% of voters breathing down my neck- etc, etc. He never ever even considered for 1 second that the vote would go in favour of Brexit- albeit by a tiny margin- and what could happen next. None of them did- apart from Farage perhaps. And of course, that he was NOT allowed to promise that the people's vote would be implemented without having to go through Parliament - as it is Constitutionally against BRITISH Law as set out from 1915. He had NO right to make that promise, in BRITISH Law.

Maybe so, and yet six MP's to every 1 MP in Parliament agreed to give all in the UK a clear choice of in or out.They could have all disagreed and it wouldn't have happened, but they didn't.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/04/us-sports-presenter-gina-miller-mistaken-target-of-online-abuse

She's getting some pretty horrible hate mail, too.
How many Gina Millers do you think there are in the world?

Brexiteers didn't say this was going to happen.

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/05/trade-uk-india-suffer-double-hit-theresa-may-visit-brexit-sterling

Remainers said it would. Tata Steel is going to decide on Port Talbot after this meeting, too.

'Meanwhile, the legal and political complications facing May intensified on Friday after the Welsh government’s law officer, its counsel general Mick Antoniw, said it would formally join the complainants’ side in the supreme court case next month.

Scottish government sources said Antoniw’s intervention increased the chances that Nicola Sturgeon would also join the action, because both devolved governments worry that their legal and parliamentary interests are being overlooked in May’s rush to push through article 50 without a vote. '

Scotland and Wales want their say, too. I think the government seems to forget how many lawyers there are in parliament.

So if referendums are not legal but only advisory can somebody pleeeease answer this question I repeatedly ask.

If referendums are only 'advisory' why the hell doesn't Sturgeon say the Scottish Independence Referendum was only 'advisory' .?

Granjura

We have discussed the similarities between Brexit and Switzerland quite a bit and I remain of the opinion the likes of Junker and the EU Commission are only interested in the 'Ever Closer Union ' enshrinement, the 'Free Movement of People' and the desire for a 'Federal European State' .

Trade, wellfare, ecomics required for the 28 countries to be progressive and compete world wide is secondary and that is the crux of the problem, not only in The UK but clearly in other countries in the European Union also.

You say this about the EU Commission, I say Commission, Junker et al,because my understanding is there has been no vote in the European Parliament by the MEP's to have input, is that correct?

"But at the last minute, the EU said 'sorry no can't do- asit would set a precedent and we want to show we are tough on free movement being part of the deal - and with Brexit in mind- we just can't waiver one little bit."

This sort of behaviour, showing of strength and power to over rule a democratic vote by countries in the EU shows they are worried the tide is turning against them.

Instead of embracing democracy the likes of Junker, fellow Arch Federalists, are electing to crack down on what they see as rebellion. They cannot see they are a major cause of the problem and I think the people of the 28 countries in the EU will either accept the central dominance of the EU Commission over their countries affairs or go the other way and do as Junker et al 'fear' the most rebel against them.

The elections in Italy, Germany and France coming up soon will be interesting to see if the 'threats' from Junker et al will prove fruitful.

If referendums are only 'advisory' why the hell doesn't Sturgeon say the Scottish Independence Referendum was only 'advisory' .?

As no-one on GN is apparently able to answer that perhaps you should ask Nicola Sturgeon...

Referendi can be set up in a number of ways - they can be binding but just need to say so. Normally referendums which are binding have a set percentage of the electorate needing to vote (75%) and the result to be a much higher and definite percentage split such as 60/40 being the more usual one. This is why a couple of Irish ones failed and the point in question being tweaked before they got through. The Eu advice in holding a referendum is quite clear on this. Had these points been in place when Cameron set the referendum up it would have failed on all counts - this is what is causing a lot of the feeling by many of those who wished to remain. It was an ill thought out piece of legislation and why Cmaeron ran for the hills immediately.

Laws still need to go through the elected EU Parliament and Juncker et al have not actually changed anything yet.

Parliamentary scrutiny is not just about Brexit.
Liam Fox bypassed it to agree to CETA. It should have been debated in parliament.

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/european-scrutiny-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/ceta-16-17/

A copy of the resignation letter from the Tory MP/QC to say why he resigned and couldn't just give up the Tory whip.

i2.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/161105-Stephen-Phillips-resignation-letter1.png?w=540

He could no longer consider himself a Tory!

Truss/May have just issued a luke warm statement supporting the judiciary. Very limp wristed, and not sufficient considering the vitriol that has been issued over the past 24 hours.

Gosh there are some unpleasant people around.

She had to be told to by the Bar Council, according to the Telegraph - just to prove I don't only read the Guardian and the Mail.

Took No 10 long enough

'A statement from the body, which represents more than 15,000 barristers, urged Ms Truss to condemn "serious and unjustified attacks on the judiciary".

"The Bar Council of England and Wales condemns the serious and unjustified attacks on the judiciary arising out of the Article 50 litigation,” the statement said.

"It regrets the lack of public statement by the Lord Chancellor condemning these attacks and calls upon the Lord Chancellor to do so as a matter of urgency.

“A strong independent judiciary is essential to a functioning democracy and to upholding the rule of law." '

Liz Truss's response was “The independence of the judiciary is the foundation upon which our rule of law is built and our judiciary is rightly respected the world over for its independence and impartiality.”

But she added: “In relation to the case heard in the High Court, the Government has made it clear it will appeal to the Supreme Court." '

So that's alright, then.

Iain Duncan Smith said that Phillips' resignation was nothing to do with Brexit. He obviously hadn't read the resignation letter before he said that.
It is now being suggested that other Tory MPs could follow him to force a general election.
Good.

Remainers that want to obstruct Brexit are looking for any out any way they can. Why did Gina Miller seek to delay the process. A referendum is not advisory, it is the will of the people. If you do not believe in the voting system and democracy, do not live in a country has has those values, feel free to go and live in a dictatorship. I am fed up with the minority especially those with money and a knowledge of the technicalities of the law making these challenges about anything that doesn't suit their objectives.. I feel the same about those ambulance chasing lawyers. No doubt I will be vilified for my views by those unhappy remainers who want to rerun the referendum until they get the result they seek. If it has resulted in stay, we would have respected democracy.

Sorry Pogs, been out all day.

'"But at the last minute, the EU said 'sorry no can't do- as it would set a precedent and we want to show we are tough on free movement being part of the deal - and with Brexit in mind- we just can't waiver one little bit."

This sort of behaviour, showing of strength and power to over rule a democratic vote by countries in the EU shows they are worried the tide is turning against them.'

Not at all - they do not want to over rule a democratic vote at all - they are saying 'if you are a member of the Club, you have to play by the same rules. If you don't wish to, fine- but then you will have to leave the club and the advantages that go with being a member'- it makes total sense. Otherwise, no-one can have their cake and eat it, and pick and choose the rules they want to follow, and those they don't ... You can't play Monopoly or Golf with everyone picking their own rules to suit, can you?

Luckylegs, if you study any text about invoking article 50- it always says clearly 'in the UK this would require the approval of Parliament' - this has always been so. British Constitution, British Law, British Parliamentary Democracy- and clear from day one. That was widely available to all who took time to study the Constitution and Art. 50- and many of us put link after link, and expert videos and articles - which were all poopooed with 'ah rubbish, don't want to read, don't want to know, don't want to listen - experts are rubbish doommongers...

Experts explained what the British Constitution demands, under British Law under British Parliamentary democracy.

The Swiss system has referendi which are binding, however small the vote is.

Luckylegs, if the vote had been for remain- it would't have had to go through Parliamentary approval as it would have been the Status Quo.

Farage himself stated all the way that a 48/52 win for remain would have had to be challenged as too close, did he not.

The split in this country is getting worse it seems to me. The vitriol is getting worse.

Where is the leadership to bring this to a halt? May's instinct is always to say nothing in the first instant, and as PM whilst we do not want her to shoot off her cuff we do expect integrity and statesmanship.