Gransnet forums

News & politics

Government must have vote on Brexit

(368 Posts)
Ginny42 Tue 24-Jan-17 10:33:55

Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament must vote on whether the government can start the Brexit process.

This means Theresa May cannot begin talks with the EU until MPs and peers give their backing - although BBC says this is likely to happen in time for the government's 31st March deadline.

Howver, the court ruled the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies did not need a say. Not sure why.

David Davis to make a statement to MPs at 12:30.

However wasn't British law, sovereignty largely what a Brexit was about and this is a judgement by the highest court in the land. As Theresa May was originally a remainer, do you think she's been secretly hoping this would happen?

Beammeupscottie Mon 30-Jan-17 12:44:36

This petition, even if debated, will not turn the Government - remember the Brexit one? Trump will come and he will meet the Queen. This has nothing to do with people or personalities but the honouring of one State to another.

Anniebach Mon 30-Jan-17 13:15:14

The visit will not be stopped, end of

trisher Mon 30-Jan-17 14:28:00

No but I bet Her Maj is having a good laugh about it.

rosesarered Mon 30-Jan-17 14:31:02

A wry smile perhaps.

Ana Mon 30-Jan-17 15:16:21

More like a 'tut' and an eye-roll.

Ankers Mon 30-Jan-17 15:42:12

Is it the same people signing the petition, who last week were very happy for Theresa May to try and get a good trade deal from him/USA?

I think people either have to agree to both or agree to neither. You cant expect to have it both ways.

daphnedill Mon 30-Jan-17 15:44:09

Which people?

I don't really know what you mean.

MaizieD Mon 30-Jan-17 15:49:30

but the honouring of one State to another.

honouring in this context has a very sour taste.

Proposals for invitees for state visits are made by a Foreign office Committee we have learned today. I would imagine that this visit was discussed soon after the result of the Presidential election was known and all the necessary steps, such as asking for the Queen's approval, taken long before the Inaugaration. I heard about this on the R4 World at One today. I just wondered who suggests possible invitees

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-state-visit-downing-street_uk_588f35b2e4b0a70a94d24d47

The Royal Visits Committee is chaired by the Foreign Office Permanent Under Secretary Sir Simon McDonald, and is made up civil servants representing the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and the Prime Minister.

Also present are the Keeper of the Privy Purse and Treasurer to the Queen, the National Security Adviser, a representative from Department of International Trade and the Foreign Office’s Director of Protocol.

Former Foreign Office Minister Chris Bryant, who served in the department from 2009 to 2010 when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, said it was extremely unlikely May did not have an influence in whether to invite Trump for a state visit.

He told Huff Post UK: “Somebody in the meeting would say what are we going to offer when we go on a visit? What are we going to get them for a gift? What about a state visit?

“I don’t believe for one minute that Theresa May didn’t have a say on whether a state visit would be offered.”

So, to be a little bit fair, May didn't really have any idea of just how nasty Trump was going to be at the time the possible invite was discussed. Though I still think it was issued with unseemly haste. President Obama didn't get a State visit until 3 years into his first term of office

Ankers Mon 30-Jan-17 15:49:58

I think this point is more suited to the direction the other Trump thread has taken.
I have got them both a bit muddled up.

Ankers Mon 30-Jan-17 15:50:23

x post.

MaizieD Mon 30-Jan-17 15:53:10

I signed the petition, Ankers and no, I was not at all happy about T May trying to get a good trade deal from him.

But, let's not forget, we don't actually have an independent trade deal with the US at the moment and one cannot be officially negotiated for at least two years yet. We have to leave the EU first. A lot might happen in 2 years.

rosesarered Mon 30-Jan-17 16:22:51

Yes, the whole of the EU may well have imploded.

durhamjen Mon 30-Jan-17 16:43:22

Trump might not be president.

varian Mon 30-Jan-17 16:48:39

Bobby Ewing might come out of the shower and we find it was all a bad dream

Ana Mon 30-Jan-17 17:00:55

Or we might be on our third or fourth EU referendum if the Remainers still haven't got their own way...

durhamjen Mon 30-Jan-17 17:22:03

That'd be nice, varian, and I speak as someone who never watched Dallas.
It was Dallas, wasn't it?

varian Mon 30-Jan-17 19:58:18

It was Dallas but is now part of our modern mythology. If only!

MaizieD Mon 30-Jan-17 20:54:00

I'd be perfectly content with just one more referendum, Ana so long as it was properly thought out and we had something like a detailed plan to vote on.

Ana Mon 30-Jan-17 21:04:44

Maybe you would, but if the result was the same or similar there would still be an awful lot of people who wouldn't accept it.

Ankers Mon 30-Jan-17 21:22:54

Just like the Scottish Referendum result.

Mair Mon 30-Jan-17 21:25:50

Ankers said:

"Is it the same people signing the petition, who last week were very happy for Theresa May to try and get a good trade deal from him/USA?"

No I don't think so Ankers. Signing the petition are the hardcore Globalist extremists who also want to open our borders to anyone who wants to come here, ignore Brexit, and failing that see our economy go down the pan in the hope we are forced to grovel to the EU.

Most sensible people who didnt support Trump still accept that Britain always gets on with the POTUS. It would be mad not to!

whitewave Mon 30-Jan-17 21:30:31

grin

rosesarered Mon 30-Jan-17 21:34:14

No more bloody referendums please.

whitewave Mon 30-Jan-17 21:39:40

There will be if the hardcore globalist extremists have their way rose grin

Mair Mon 30-Jan-17 21:46:15

Would be not "will be" WW.