Fight "Brexit" if you want to

I have only skim-read it (will try to read it properly another time)

After much hard thought, I have concluded I am just not grown up enough to play the game of British politics and sit in a room with a man of whom I think so little
I wonder if this is the right decision though? Would it be better to go to the meeting and put across his valid points?
I wonder who else has been invited.

"After much hard thought, I have concluded I am just not grown up enough to play the game of British politics and sit in a room with a man of whom I think so little."

Well said, Jay Rayner.

You beat me to it, Jalima.

My wife and I went to learn about Liverpool for Europe on Saturday 22nd April and we learnt.

1 Democracy

It is not undemocratic to continue after losing a vote The “will of the people” has already changed.

“The sheer incompetence and infighting of the current May government can also be relied upon to undermine the case for Brexit on a weekly basis. At a certain stage, the British people might reach the obvious conclusion that the Brexiteers have had their chance – and failed. Then it will be time to take back control.” Gideon Rachman FINANCIAL TIMES 17/07/17

Winning a vote with lies is undemocratic “£350 M per week for the NHS”.

2. The Economy

We should remain part of the world’s largest single market.

£50bn investment per annum in jobs and businesses.

Live, work and travel anywhere in Europe.

Vital security cooperation fighting terrorism.

Vital collaboration with EU Prtners on science and research.

“The UK is fast becoming one of global investors’ least favourite places to put money” WALLSTREET JOURNAL 18/06/17

3 Save our NHS

“96% drop in EU nurses registering to work in Britain since Brexit vote” The Guardian 12/06/17.

4 What can you do?

Write to your MP. Your MP needs to know what you want them to do. Write to your MP ask them to vote against the Government’s plans in upcoming Parliamentary debates. Let us know you’ve contacted your MP and the response you’ve received, if any. Most MPs support remaining in the EU, but they won’t act against the referendum unless they receive lots of letters asking them to block Brexit.

Write to members of the House of Lords. Unlike MPs, we don’t have our own designated Peer. So you can just pick one at random (or one that has a connection with your area) and write to them asking them to vote against the Government’s plans for leaving the EU.

Attend Protest Marches. The Government and Parliament need to see the passion that is present amongst Remainers. Large scale protests can have huge effect on politicians.

So if you haven't already done so Google Britain in Europe and find out about your local group in any. I've written to my MP and other politicians. If enough of us keep on at them they may get the message. Apologies for the formatting on the message but the spirit has I think got through.

www.europeanmovement.co.uk/

"But since then he has disgraced himself. He was one of those who continued the £350 million-a-week EU lie and led us down the disastrous path to the utter folly of Brexit. He has been revealed to be a plotter and a conniver and all-round rather nasty piece of work. No, I cannot sit in a room with him and make talk, small, large or otherwise. Sorry. I’m just not that guy."

He did say why.

Glad you found your meeting so useful Cindersdad. It must have been nice to be in positive company about the continuing battle.

I am just not grown up enough to play the game of British politics


but if all those who know what they are talking about avoid the meeting there wouldn't be any progress.

Given that there is nothing grown up about the likes of Gove, Johnson et al I can only assume that Jay is being sarcastic....at least his reply to Gove consisted of more than 'go whistle'....

Even if Jay Rayner did not go and meet Gove, I hope that Gove has read his letter, and taken something from it.
It is full of good sense.

MaizieD Sat 22-Jul-17 12:15:55
Would you give a link to the article you posted at 10.45 please, POGS?
-
No can do. There is no article/link to be found my post was using my own words and made points I have referred to on oh so many threads, apart from the Poland issue which is current news.

Unless of course you want links to the fact that to be in EFTA/EU/EEA you must agree to the 4 Pillars/Freedoms , what leaders have stated over no 'Cherry Picking' and the Swiss Referendum which was presumably a waste of time and effort as the EU said 'NO'.

As for Poland I did state that " The rights and wrongs are a separate debate " I did not condone nor agree with their decision.

I am not going to argue whether Poland is correct in wanting to make changes or Switzerland was correct in voting for immigration numbers to be reduced and limit Free Movement at one time and subsequently changed it's mind to keep it's connection with the Single Market.

My post was giving another view over the issue of the Single Market that had been raised in previous posts and I gave a factual scenario as to why the UK if it leaves the EU will not have access to the Single Market, AS THINGS STAND / until negotiations have taken place. I raised the point of the loss of sovereignty countries have and the power of the EU to control Affiliated/Member States over their domestic policy making decisions as it is paramount to where we are likely to be heading when taking on the might of the desire of the Federal State of Europe or to be kinder abiding by the 4 Pillars/4 Freedoms which are 'non negotiable'.

Have you read the link Mamie posted earlier? There is a difference in the jurisdiction if we were to join the EEh etc than the ECJ - that has no jurisdiction of those agreements. It is very interesting article and facts.

Article written by a barrister which I think some people on here may find interesting. * Cindersdad* you may already have seen this as I think we may belong to the same group.

The Prime Minister’s March 29 letter to President of the European Council Donald Tusk supposedly gave notice under Article 50 of the 2009 Treaty on European Union of Britain’s intention to leave the EU, writes our Guest Writer for today, barrister David Wolchover.

But extraordinarily, it did no such thing.

The truth is that there has been no constitutionally declared decision to leave the European Union (decision and intention being synonymous in Article 50) and so nothing of which to give notice.

With no withdrawal decision, there is no mandate for our government to procure a treaty of secession under Article 54 of the Vienna Convention and the negotiations towards that end are unlawful.

What exactly to do about this is now occupying the minds of numerous UK and EU citizens. Litigation demands lots of cash.

The big mistake many people have made is in supposing that the Referendum of June 23, 2016, amounted to a declaration of intent by the British people to leave the EU.

Six months before it took place, David Cameron told Parliament that the result would be treated as final, but this was only because he confidently assumed the majority would vote to remain, and that would be an end of the matter.

In fact, his statement had no legal effect whatsoever.

As constituted by the European Union Referendum Act 2015, the Referendum was merely “advisory” - an expression of opinion to guide but not determine government policy. It was therefore fundamentally incapable of yielding a binding withdrawal decision, whether the vote was 51 per cent in favour of leaving or even 99 per cent.

Only Parliament could enact that decision, as the Supreme Court made crystal clear in the case brought against the Government by Gina Miller.

Following the Miller case the ball was now in the Government’s court, but although the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 authorised the Prime Minister to “notify, under Article 50(2) . . . the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union,” it gave her nothing to notify since it did not enact a withdrawal decision.

Nor, importantly, was it intended to do so. This is where things gets decidedly murky.

Introducing the Bill into the Commons, Brexit Secretary David Davis explained that it was merely a “procedural measure” and was not “about whether the UK should leave the European Union or, indeed, about how it should do so; it is simply about Parliament empowering the government to implement a decision already made – a point of no return already passed.” (The Lords were told something very similar.)

But here’s the rub. Senior cabinet ministers (and others) knew the Referendum was constitutionally incapable of standing as the decision. Their own Act setting it up had said so and the Supreme Court had unambiguously agreed.

So, what on earth was going on?

Faced with a court challenge the government would be obliged to contend that, in spite of what Parliament was wrongly told, the Bill did in fact implicitly enact the leave decision.

Otherwise, they would argue, the Act would have been pointless since, as Head of the Government, the Prime Minister already had authority to give notice under Article 50. Enactment of the decision must have been implicit, the Government would have to argue, because as a matter of principle statutes are presumed to have a tangible purpose.

For at least three reasons the government have no case.

First, we know of many statutes which have been entirely abortive.

Second, the courts have established the key principle that legislation affecting the fundamental rights of citizens must, as the Supreme Court put it, “squarely confront” the statutory objective with precise words clearly expressing the purported aim.

If the Bill was intended to declare the decision to leave it should have said so in terms. In failing to comply with that requirement it must be presumed not to have made the decision.

The third objection is decisive. The government predicated the Bill on the fundamentally untrue supposition that the Referendum result constituted a leave decision. They did not need to incorporate in the Bill an enactment of the decision, they claimed, because the decision had already been made.

If they should now contend that the Act did, after all, by implication make the leave decision, they would be forced to disavow, or resile from, what they had told Parliament, that the purpose of the Bill was very definitely not to make the leave decision, which had already been made.

They would have to argue that the effects of their own deliberate misrepresentation to Parliament can be erased simply by reading into the Act implicit words which are not there and which they expressly never intended should be there.

This would be for the purpose of making the statute do the job which they had deceitfully asserted had already been done.

Quite apart from the chutzpah involved in such a claim there is an absolutely key objection. It assumes that a majority of Parliamentarians would have agreed to enact the leave decision if they had known that they had enjoyed that option when the Bill was presented, instead of being wrongly assured that the decision was a fait accompli.

There is no evidence to support such an assumption.

To import a decision into the wording of the Act it would have to be read as if it included the bracketed words as follows:

“The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention [hereby resolved] to withdraw from the European Union.”

It may be asked why it occurred to no one in Parliament to ask for the insertion of those two words. The answer is compellingly obvious. They took their cue from the Government.

They were told that they were not being asked to make the withdrawal decision because it had already been made… so they didn’t!

The whole future of our country and of Europe could be decided in a courtroom squabble over the omission or inclusion of two words!

Why did the cabinet knowingly mislead Parliament? There are undoubtedly two reasons.

One, they wanted to pass the buck to the “British people” in the event that Brexit proved to be the disaster which so many are now predicting.

Two, they knew they would be left as hostages to fortune if they asked Parliament to make the decision. They knew there might well be enough remainers in Parliament who would only relish the chance to refuse to make a decision based on the snapshot opinion of a mere 37 per cent of the registered electorate.

An entity that excluded the millions of expatriate UK citizens whom the government late last year conceded ought to be restored to the franchise.

I have demonstrated elsewhere that in knowingly misleading Parliament the Prime Minister and David Davis (and almost certainly others) committed the high crime of ‘Misconduct in Public Office’, an indictable offence carrying imprisonment for life.

Some might ask would they really have taken such a risk? I can only say that for 45 years I have been asking juries that very question, but times beyond number, they have potted my clients. Maybe I’m just not a very good barrister.

But perhaps to clear up the fallout from the Cabinet’s mendacity and utter incompetence the only solution may be to impose on a wearied public a second Referendum. This time it will be made decisive but will require the traditional two-thirds of the electorate (including expatriates) to change the status quo.

• David Wolchover was called to the Bar in 1971 and has practised at the criminal bar ever since, acting exclusively for defendants. Although he says he has never wished or sought to become a QC, he was for many years Head of Chambers at 7 Bell Yard, Temple Bar. He has written a number of leading text books in his field and over nearly 40 years a very large number of articles on law in a variety of journals and national newspapers. He is now semi-retired. More about David Wolchover at: davidwolchover.co.uk/general_info_biog.htm

my post was using my own words

I which case POGS I apologise and also congratulate you on writing like a Daily Mail reporter.

WW I have not seen this one and it is most informative. It confirms what many of us suspected in that the Government really has little idea of which way to turn. Despite my outspoken view on Brexit I do have doubts about the EU but on balance staying part of it is better than being out. There is no reason why we have to leave other than a vote passed by a small majority who were confused and lied to. I voted to stay but that decision was far from clear cut and rational. As more facts have in hindsight it was and remains the right decision.

"Project Fear" was childishly complacent and played into the hands of the Leave Campaign allowing them to spread many falsehoods with little challenge. Now the truths are coming to light we have to just hope that sense prevails. "Project Fear" was basically true for dreadfully put together.

"Project Fear" was basically true

What's the point of that post, exactly Primrose? Could you elaborate?

Gosh what excellent posts there are on here today.

I've signed up cindersdad everything crossed for sanity to eventually prevail.

I don't think it was true. I think both sides made wild claims that were untrue.

welsh that was a marathon!!! But thank you, I need to re read it.

maizie I choked my tea over your last post

ww

Welshwife -
*What are you and Cindersdad signed up to? Is it what whitewave has signed up to or are there two sources of wonderful information?
*Thank you for your post - as whitewave said, it needed to be read.
*It there any crowdfunding to follow-up what David Wolchover says as a legal challenge.
*Thank you for cheering up my day. I am only 75% pro but I am 100% against what is happening - if that makes sense.

Does that make you like Corbyn, GracesGran?

Do you mean the 75% (or there abouts) Jen. I imagine it makes me similar in that way to a lot of people but perhaps for varying reasons. He was explaining his on, was it Marr?, today. I certainly didn't find anything to fall out with what he said.

Exactly, GracesGran. Makes perfect sense.