This is potentially a game-changer!

[pensivepolly]

Breaking news from the High Court on Article 50: www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/parliament-must-trigger-brexit-high-court-rules

Misti, don't pin your hopes on a general election manifesto. The Courts have already ruled that manifesto promises don't need to be delivered or upheld. It was legally challenged when the Labour Party u-turned on their referendum promise from their Manifesto regards the Lisbon Treaty.

Our Judiciary made it clear and have ruled on that. If they overturn that judgment, then the whole Lisbon Treaty can be challenged and unpicked.

Now through legal action and parliamentary votes those groups are being handed responsibility for how Brexit looks in its entirety

How, exactly? I mean, I get that MPs would generally be considered to be in the AB social group. But so are TM et al, and you said 'now' which suggests you didn't think it was going to happen before. I'd be extremely interested to hear your rationale.

I think TM must ignore the Supreme Court if the judgement goes against her.

I can't imagine the EU would accept the invocation of A50 if it was done in a way that the UK courts had ruled unlawful.

Plus the only groups who voted 'remain' in the election were the AB social groups.

I know plenty of people who voted remain who are not AB. Really, what bollocks!

Everything is now Brexit.

So if we don't like it, we can get rid of it. Cos y'know Brexit.

Gay marriage. Brexit.
Freedom of religion. Brexit.
Science. Brexit.
Education. Brexit.
Definitely the NHS. Brexit.
Welfare. Brexit.
Pension. Well you know Brexit.

Disagree? You are a traitor. The law says so. Cos yes, Brexit.

All the fault of those terrible ABs for wanting a country that, get this, works for everyone and compromises and tackles inequality and unfairness in another way.

The tyranny of majorities is here alive and well and will lead to deaths. And that's not through violence.

This country does not understand what it is on the verge of quite clearly. The assumption of motives and blind faith and truth in Brexit shows it as an ideology.

When does the purge of the ABs start? When does the rounding up of the 'benefit scum' start? When do we send those who don't want to become citizens back? When do we force people to convert to Christianity?

Cos y'know Brexit...

Of course. This could never happen.

I think TM must ignore the Supreme Court if the judgement goes against her
Stupid, dangerous, ignorant rubbish. Do you want to follow that precedent to various possible eventual outcomes trying and then tell us if it's still the route that should be taken? Do you have the faintest idea what you are talking about or are you just coming out with the first pitchfork waving bollocks that comes into your head?

I think Nigel Farage is doing a great job defending our democracy and I think we need him right now.
Democracy my eye! Farage is a shit stirrer of the first order. If the country goes tits up after Brexit, you will see neither hide nor hair of him. He was seen at the German Embassy shortly after the Referendum - people believe he was getting passports for his children. We don't know, but he has never denied it.

read the Lisbon Treaty in the 3 hours they had to read it before the vote,

Which vote is being talked about here?

Who would like to join my 'I'm a flowerpot' club?

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners."

• Albert Camus

I'm not sure about the disclosing the positions to parliament thing weakens our hand, there are people out there who already know a fair amount of what our position will be.

The head of Nissan for example, which is 43% owned by Renault, 5% of which is owned by the French government, also Renault own 2% of Daimler AG.

So basically the French government know our position and what we have offered, and I'd be fairly sure that as they know, others know.

Chris Norway and Sweden are indeed not inside the EU. They are however inside the single market and (with some exceptions in Switzerland's case) have signed up to the four freedoms. Both are inside the Schenghen zone.

I'm really unclear as to what you are trying to say here, and I suspect you are too.

As far as I can see on these threads leave voters have denied repeatedly that their vote was mainly poor disenfranchised people ( I lurked a long time), yet now when the legal challenge comes along its all those AB people.

I get the impression there is a lot of having their cake and eating it going on in their heads.

On the subject of "secret negotiations" I am fairly sure that the only people intended not to be in the know are the British electorate (probably because May does not want to admit to the rabid brexiteers that they are going to have to swallow some FoM).

Sweden is in the EU. Norway is in the EEA. Switzerland is in EFTA. Both Switzerland and Norway have signed up to the four freedoms and Schengen.

Interestingly enough, where Norway shares a border with Russia, there is an agreement that locals within 30km of the border can cross freely in both directions, but they still have to go through the customs posts and barriers.

manifesto promises don't need to be delivered or upheld

Nor do referendum promises. I am, once again, complete in the dark as to your intended point.

May I refer you to the comment below the article, cos frankly I can't be fucking arsed to explain in my own words. Its been tweeted around, so is going semi-viral:

www.ft.com/content/6ef170c4-a36b-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6?lf-content=176830730:603745975&hubRefSrc=permalink
May tells Europhiles: ‘accept what the people decided’
PM says UK will get worse deal if courts force her to get parliament’s mandate

'That means sticking to our plan and timetable, getting on with the work of developing our negotiating strategy and not putting all our cards on the table — that is not in our national interest and it won’t help us get the best deal for Britain.”

May is either demonstrating that she's incompetent or dishonest or both. Does she have some mysterious idea that she'll go to the negotiations and pop, like Marilyn Munroe out of a cake yelling surprise. Does she think that the ambassadors of the EU 27 'swan around' at diplomatic receptions populated by models scoffing Ferraro Rocher and champagne. Does she think her government does not leak. Does she think the French won't know what she promised [Renault]-Nissan. Does she bother to read the very useful reports the FCO and British Embassies to the EU 27 generate and think: "I wonder do my counterparts read the same...." or not bother to read them because they contradict what she thinks, and assume that foreigners are too incompetent and disorganised to generate such reports.

Because here is an unshocking reality to anyone but, to seems Theresa May ... the UK 27 and the European Commission will know what the U.K.'s negotiating position is, they will know what the UK wants and needs - it will not come as a surprise. As for 'strategy,' this is not a game of chess - this is a formal multilateral negotiation process, where each side presents proposals, goes home, changes theirs a little, and returns. There are no bishops, knights or queens to capture - and the deal is not done until it's done.

There are only two ways to read what Ms. May said - either she is completely clueless about how multilateral negotiations work, or her government has not strategy and she's dissembling to conceal that harsh reality.

Mrs May can be both clueless about multilateral negotiations, having only held the Home Office brief, and be dissembling in the hope that she is not caught out. She will be, but it's a question of how much damage she does before hand.

"Complex issues like this are far better resolved by putting forward detailed proposals in a general election manifesto. I think the referendum question as asked was not fundamentally unreasonable. It was unreasonable to have a referendum on such a complex issue, IMO, but once the decision to have a referendum was taken, the question had to be reduced to a simple choice or series of choices. Referendums are not a suitable tool for delivering nuanced answers."

This was your comment I responded to Misti. THis does become painful when the poster doesnt understand their own original point. To repeat my earlier response, general election manifestos are utterly toothless and pointless since the judiciary ruled that the Labour Government indeed had no legal obligation to deliver theirs. (Re the EU Lisbon Treaty Referendum). Why was my point, in response to yours, so difficult to grasp?

Manifesto promises are not entirely pointless. The Lords have an agreement, I believe, not to vote them down. So May's grammar school ideas, for example, can be voted down because there was nothing in the manifesto about them.

On the other hand, there was a commitment to the single market.

"Chris Norway and Sweden are indeed not inside the EU. They are however inside the single market and (with some exceptions in Switzerland's case) have signed up to the four freedoms. Both are inside the Schenghen zone.

I'm really unclear as to what you are trying to say here, and I suspect you are too."

Misti, firstly I never mentioned Sweden. Secondly, the position has been clear from the outset regards any type of trade deal mirroring Norway, or Switzerland. Leave first, then come and negotiate a trade deal. What the remain camp, or should I say, those in the remain camp who believe there is some right to negotiations, are wrong. When we agreed to the Lisbon Treaty, we agreed to all the terms of exit. The Lisbon Treaty doesnt say, if you want to leave this contract, come and have a chat with us. You give notice, you leave. All 4 priciples of the EU. You leave. That is the black and white legal position with the Lisbon Treaty.

Now the fact that indeed, 'well hang on this is silly, off course post leaving, we and the EU will want to do trade together' has been so vigorously discussed and the Norway, or Swiss options bandied about, the legal position is, we must leave first, THEN negotiate. Norway and Switzerland negotiated from outside the EU membership. We are not in that position.

"the position has been clear from the outset regards any type of trade deal mirroring Norway, or Switzerland."

No these were held up by lots of leave campaigning politicians, even Farrage.

I agree with the rest though. We have to leave first before we negotiate anything else, which makes even more of a mockery of the appointment of Fox.

Chris yes sorry Sweden was a typo, obviously meant Switzerland

The Lisbon Treaty doesnt say, if you want to leave this contract, come and have a chat with us. You give notice, you leave. All 4 priciples of the EU. You leave. That is the black and white legal position with the Lisbon Treaty.

It allows a two year period to determine and negotiate the terms of exit. You don't simply give notice and walk.

Why was my point, in response to yours, so difficult to grasp?

It would help if you understand my point, which had nothing to do with whether manifestos or referendums are binding or not. The UK constitution explicitly places parliament as the surpreme lawmaking body, and if parliament refuses to pass legislation (even where there is a manifesto promise) there is bugger all the government can do.

A general election manifesto would require parties to spell out their intentions in some detail, and crucially, to reach some internal agreement on what their policy actually is. This is why general elections are preferable for deciding complex and contested issues.

Manifesto promises are not entirely pointless. The Lords have an agreement, I believe, not to vote them down.

The Lords, but not the Commons. And manifesto promises have to reach parliament. The Cameron government was elected on a manifesto promise to repeal the human rights act within 100 days; it was a stupid, unachievable promise that has been, predictably, kicked into the long grass.

That's not to say that all manifesto promises are worthless: a promise to brexit would be, I think, enforceable at the ballot box: a government which reneged on its promise would be punished at the next election.

Sweden not in the EU?

Sweden has the largest population among the Nordic countries and is the third-largest country in the European Union by surface area. To the west, Sweden is separated from Norway by mountains and is connected to the south by a road and rail bridge to Denmark.