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

[surferjet]

Welcome

If people were daft enough to believe the Tories that's their look out. Cameron said he would trigger A50 after the referendum, he didn't he bottled it instead. It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost and the Brexiters have been played like a grand piano.

completely separate* debate

Yes sorry if it's me too - I just think it's a stupid idea. I'm sure you aren't stupid you just have a o e sided view lime the rest of us.

You can't possibly debate before triggering A50' if nothing else it would be a complete waste of time. Afterwards, yes and then we take this to the EU and I expect THEM to tell us exactly what we can and can't have. Whether that bears any resemblance to what we put on the table is anyone's guess. I wouldn't be surprised if they said you are either "all in or all out"and nothing much in between (especially since Thursday).

One sided view like the rest of us

Ghost - ridiculous post

Aaargh!

Bold fail now!

I meant to type:

"Completely separate debate".

Am confusing myself now...

Mango

WW it's clear you have learnt precisely nothing from the discussion yesterday and are still posting the same poorly informed wiffle.

Vulper and Informal have already covered everything, and I'm not prepared to waste more of my time explaining to you facts you seem genuinely not to have the competence to comprehend.

I was right : I didn't actually need to learn anything dear Gloria. So do take your sense of superiority and shove it.

I think the type of Brexit we go for needs to be debated, not whether it happens or not.

The binary nature of the referendum left too many important nuanced questions unanswered.

In the end THIS is the the democracy and soveriegnty much campaigned for, we have representative parliamentary democracy, held in check by the rule of law, this is the process that we must follow before declaring article 50 by our own constitutional laws, btw the EU might be able to reject an Art 50 deceleration if it didn't follow this process because it states:

". 'Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.'

So no following the requirements actually bad for anyone wanting art 50 to actually go through.

We do not need to debate the conditions before triggering article 50. That would be absurd.

Why would it be absurd?

The French government already know what we have offered Nissan and what we told them so the whole "showing our hand" thing is null and void.

We have a representative democracy, debating the type of brexit we are aiming for prior to declaring article 50 would be very undemocratic, as other people have pointed out the leave vote was not homogeneous, and it was a very slight majority overall, so our sovereign parliament debating and voting on the terms is the only way our democratic rights can be represented.

The ruling is about triggering 50. All else comes after.

That I think you'll find is for parliament to decide, the only thing on the advisory referendum was leaving the EU, not the process by which it would be done.

It's for MPs to approve or nor approve 50

howabout Sun 06-Nov-16 12:37:40

YY

Not really, the government could go for a basic yes/no vote, but this might be voted against untill the government lay out its position.

In a parliamentary democracy the government is answerable to parliament.

If it goes to parliament, and it will because the appeal will fail, the terms will be debated.

Even after that the final terms of the deal, and whether to accept them or not will be voted on in parliament ( will have to be by law) and we might reverse art 50 ( as is possible) if they aren't passed.

From a constitutional point of view its really interesting.

It is about overruling prior legislation not about designing new treaties. In or out: yes or no: this is what the ruling offers MPs.

If is is voted against it would be profoundly undemocratoc, hypocritical and stupid.

Well no, if it was voted against because parliament decided it wanted more scrutiny and the government wasn't willing to do this, it wouldn't be undemocratic.

MPs will probably demand this scrutiny, as has been said the French know what we offered Nissan so the "showing our hand" argument is void.

In fact as Parliament is a representative democracy demanding more scrutiny of the process is entirely more democratic in principle as it means the interests of all of the population are being represented. Its especially more democratic where the referendum vote was so close, it would be far more profoundly undemocratic to use royal prerogative.

The reasons why May and others have been using phrases like "the will of the people" and "The British people have overwhelmingly voted to leave" is because they have sought to justify the position of using the royal prerogative without parliamentary scrutiny, and they have done so by making these very powerful appeals to emotion.

Parliament can think what it likes. It would be hypocritical and undemocratoc.

If parliament over rules a democratic vote we enter very dangerous territory. We live in one of the richest, most liberal, least racist, democracies in the world. If we fail as a democracy it doesn't bear thinking about. I think this whole issue is really just a side show A50 will have to be triggered, a GE will more than probably result in an overwhelming Conservative victory. Corbyns latest antics just show his true colours: professional protestor with no actual morals or beliefs.

I don't post much but something has been bugging me and I am interested to hear opinions.

For those who believe the decision to trigger A50 should be down to TM. Currently it is clear that Freedom of movement is the red line, and many of those who do not want there to be a parliamentary discussion beforehand are clearly happy with this.

What I wonder, is if Cameron had kept his promise and triggered a50 straight after the election, what would the situation be? He could have ploughed straight into a Norway style deal so not ending FOM with no discussion (I was sent an official leave leaflet specifically naming this as an option shortly before the referendum so given DC's stance not an unlikely scenario). This would have pleased some leavers and enraged others, but would have fulfilled the referendum promise of not remaining a member.

In that scenario, wouldn't you have welcomed scrutiny by parliament in order for your wishes to be represented by pro Brexit mp's? Or would you have been just as happy to give DC free reign to make the decision even if it may not address the reason you voted leave?

I suppose my (Long winded) point is that you won't always have voted for or agree with the Prime minister and surely to have these checks and balances in place should be a relief for all of us?

It's a bit late for MPs to be demanding scrutiny now, they should have thought about asking what form an exit would likely take before they decided 6:1 to let the people decide. Thats their stupidity.