The Brexit Arms goes forth! All welcome. Leavers, Remainers, Couldn't give a Tossers, & openly gay athletes.

[surferjet]

Welcome

*The leaver stance that this is anti democratic is rather ironic, as they are objecting to the rule of law and our sovereign parliament being subverted for their own needs.

I think it ties in with the need for leavers to be the victim, first it was the wicked EU, now its the wicked rule of law.*

The 'leaver stance' is no more a homogenous group think than 'the Remain stance' is.

It is insulting to be repeatedly patronised to.

If you have indeed read the threads, then you would notice that a large proportion of Leavers are perfectly ok with the ruling.
What we are not ok with is the way in which this ruling may be used to go against what a majority of the country voted for - that is, to leave the EU.

"They didn't 'leave it up to their MP to represent them', because it was a national referendum.
By choosing not to vote, they consented to go along with the majority outcome.

It would be sensible, therefore, to presume that:

65.2% are in favour of Leave
34.7% are in favour of Remain"

That's a bit of a leap of faith is it not.

It could quite easily be put the other way, the 27% thought that along with all the other reports that remain would win so didn't bother coming out to vote.

Parliament needs to represent everyone, put it to parliament.

There you go again. MPs still have a duty to be representatives and not delegates. Given the amount of misinformation from both sides in the run up to the advisory referendum, MPs have a duty to review whether leaving the EU is in the best interests of the country.

The referendum was advisory only and not binding. My understanding is that for it to have been binding a greaer threshold would have had to be met e.g. 66% of the vote for such a massive constitutional change. I really wish it had been binding as that would have resulted in a victory for remain.

Villa stop pretending. The electorate voted in a party offering a referendum. A referendum was voted through parliament. The electorate voted mjn Dave in that referendum.

Remainers who claim we should therefore stay in the eu because ' no one really meant it ' are talking a special kind of rubbish

Didn't vote for Dave
Voted for leave

The best thing Leave supporters can do right now is to write to their MP and tell them that they expect them to abide by the result of the referendum and that they will campaign against them at the next election if they refuse to do so.

That would be 100x more constructive than playing "pub lawyer" on MN.

Not in this case - obviously. The entire referendum option is rendered entirely useless and pointless otherwise.

I agree with WW.
As TM said Brexit means Brexit.

And 27% of people may have thought "fuck it, I don't have a clue, I'll leave it to my MP to decide what is best for the country, that's what they are there for".

*That's a bit of a leap of faith is it not.

It could quite easily be put the other way, the 27% thought that along with all the other reports that remain would win so didn't bother coming out to vote. *

So because they 'thought' Remain would win, they therefore 'didn't bother' to vote.

Wow.
And it's leavers that are apparently stupid...???

"What we are not ok with is the way in which this ruling may be used to go against what a majority of the country voted for - that is, to leave the EU"

Again, the majority of those voting did so, and even then only a slight majority, in an advisory referendum.

I think that the referendum is politically binding, but the terms on which we seek to deal with the EU were not on the ballot paper.

I agree that the leaver stance was not homogeneous, and probably was far more divided than the remain group, it is for that reason that the issue must be debated in parliament before article 50 is declared so that the whole of the population's interests are represented, not one particularly hard right part of the leave population.

Vulpa: mango is being a lot more realistic than informal. She's right - if you don't vote you're going g along with the majority. It's dumb to suggest most non voters left it to their MPs to represent them. Nobody even knew until this week that MPs would be voting on it.

"What we are not ok with is the way in which this ruling may be used to go against what a majority of the country voted for - that is, to leave the EU"

Again, the majority of those voting did so, and even then only a slight majority, in an advisory referendum.

I think that the referendum is politically binding, but the terms on which we seek to deal with the EU were not on the ballot paper.

I agree that the leaver stance was not homogeneous, and probably was far more divided than the remain group, it is for that reason that the issue must be debated in parliament before article 50 is declared so that the whole of the population's interests are represented, not one particularly hard right part of the leave population.

So all those promises we're reading - 'don't worry brexit WILL happen' - more lies then.

Nobody on MN can possibly make you any promises on what might happen. People are expressing an opinion on what they think will happen, not making any kind of promise.

The 'leaver stance' is no more a homogenous group think than 'the Remain stance' is.

Well, Leavers not being homogenous seems like a mighty fine reason for parliament to discuss exactly the hows and whys of Brexit.

They weren't on the ballot paper because it's now up to the govern mm ent to negotiate them. That's what governments do.

Purpose of debate being what?

Nobody even knew until this week that MPs would be voting on it.

And nobody knew that TM would try and use royal prerogative to drive roughshod through Parliament.

Thanks for calling me stupid.

The point I was making that you can't claim the 27% who didn't vote for any side, you are just making sweeping statements and claiming them as part of the leave vote because it suits you.

But yeah, thanks.

The point I was making mango is that its as easy to claim the 27% for either side, in reality you can't do either, so the point you made about the leave vote being bigger is erroneous.

Informal: what a lie. They were told article 50 would be invoked by the prime minister. Riding roughshod my fanny. They assumed it would be done without parliament voting because that's what they were told.

Apologies Vulpa, I wasn't calling you stupid, or even suggesting it, although I can see how it looked like that.

I meant the non-voters who didn't vote because they assumed Remain would win.

No it's obviously occams razor to say they were going g along with a majority.

It's a major knicker stretch to assume they thought: well if leave win, even though Cameron said he'd invoke article fifty, a group of remainers will go to court and three judges will decide MPs should vote on this, so my mp will get a vote, so I'll leave it to them to decide for me. That just DID NOT happen. Why would you pretend it did?

Well, Leavers not being homogenous seems like a mighty fine reason for parliament to discuss exactly the hows and whys of Brexit.

I agree Elements.

But that is a completely debate to:

Should the result of the referendum be upheld?
Yes/No.

I.e. Brexit will happen / Brexit will not happen.

Once this has been decided by parliament, then begins the nitty gritty of how we do it, and when we trigger A50.