Brexit 6?

Been waiting for that maize

Yes, maize, despite the fact that so many of the older citizens in eurozone countries regret the loss of their old currency. Another young/old divide. My own eurozone family reflects this well.
Thanks for the link.

Court ruling this morning

Listening to the Farming American rep. On the radio this morning. Anyone fancy eating meat with growth hormones and chicken washed in chlorine. Hope our lack of trade negotiators doesn't allow this to enter our market.

Not much hope, with Davis and Fox in charge. Trade deals with the US without EU regulations will mean just that.

I think this article from the Irish Times gives a more balanced view about the euro:

www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/happy-15th-birthday-to-the-euro-where-will-it-be-at-30-1.2919352

It ends with:

But if the euro is likely to survive, its design flaws and the reckless policies pursued by the politicians charged with defending it continue to have serious repercussions for the EU itself and for public confidence in its institutions.

Yes!!!!!!!

So the court recognises the referendum as being significant, but goes on to judge that what happens after the referendum was never settled by the referendum. So the assumptions by the Hard Brexiters about what the country wants is entirely incorrect.

The devolved parliaments don't win their case.

Well, Whitewave. I've never had such an enthusiastic response to a posting.

getting carried away with the judgement

Thank God for our rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. The government has been put back into its proper place. Only the people can decide such an enormous task ahead of us in our negotiations

Well even though I voted remain....I am furious re the cost of the brexit vote and furious that to me this is not a democratic country....think its all been a bloody expensive total waste of time?

Only the people? Didn't realise that was in the judgment.

Of course it has ana that is what this has all been about. We have a representative parliament. They represent the people. The people are sovereign. The plan to push ahead without the people being involved in the final say. This government doesn't like scrutiny, but without this scrutiny what it planned to do would have been illegal

A two line bill is not involving parliament. Not in the spirit of the court ruling. May still trying to frustrate the people. She has delayed and delayed. She should have accepted the original court ruling and got on with it.

'A Downing Street spokesman said: "The British people voted to leave the EU, and the Government will deliver on their verdict - triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today's ruling does nothing to change that."'

May could have proceeded much quicker as the Brexiters wanted if she hadn't challenged the people.

The two line bill is an attempt to minimise debate.

So, an Act is passed and Article 50 triggered. Negotiations take place and a Brexit deal is done. It is put to Parliament. If Parliament accepts, the deal is done. If Parliament votes against, we have a General Election.

At the last General Election, Conservatives and UKIP had almost 50% of the votes cast. If Conservatives win, the Brexit deal is done. If the Conservatives lose, what next?

Is there another Referendum? Does the Corbyn/Haddon/Sturgeon alliance go back to Brussels and say: 'What would the terms be if we now stay in the EU?' Under Article 50, I thought we had to leave so maybe we step out and step back in again.

This is not a diatribe, it is a question. Is this scenario wrong?

No it's right, but won't happen.In the event of a GE the the Tories would win.

It is totally immaterial whether there is a general election or not, the whole point about it, is now parliament wil debate terms. Democracy has won the day. The 3Brexiters have been put back into their proper place. This isn't the Boris and David show it is a process of Parliament that is right and proper.

It's not really immaterial ww because if the Conservatives feel they are not supported by Parliament on the plan for Brexit, then a snap election may well be called( which the Conservatives would win.)

And then the people can decide!!! That is the entire point of my argument. Democracy in action. The Brexiters wanted to shut democracy down.

It's important for the future too (not just about referendum issues).

The country should never allow a cabinet of a dozen or so people to decide what to do on an important issue, without a debate in Parliament. It would have been a very dangerous precedent.

This was about reinforcing democracy, not undermining it.