DS Forums

 
 

MPs have voted in favour of the Government's timetable to trigger Article 50 by March


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-12-2016, 21:26
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,682
Out means out. Mind you I am probably a dimwit so I probably didn't know exactly what I was voting for.
You couldn't possibly know what you were voting for as it's not as simple as "out means out". There are dozens of EU bodies which we might want to choose to remain as as associate members in the same way the Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Turkey and even Israel cooperate on issues as wide ranging as environmental protection, anti-terrorism and airline safety. Does "out means out" mean leaving all of those too?
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 07-12-2016, 21:28
outof thepark
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,622
Devolved corners of the UK are surely irrelevant in respect of the Royal Prerogative, which covers the UK as one single entity, with HM The Queen as Head Of State. There are no opt outs on that.
But from what I have been reading, the issue still remains as to wether triggering Article 50, can be done by Royal prerogative, or needs a vote in parliament, the devolved governments are arguing that their devolved governments should be consulted., I don't know how successful they will be
There still might have to be another vote in parliament to actually trigger article 50, I don't think this vote today supersedes that. (IMO)
outof thepark is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 21:33
swingaleg
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 76,811
When was the last time the Government used the Royal Prerogative or stated its intent ahead of time to use it.....and where was Gina Miller then exactly?
they use it all the time but presumably within the law, custom and precedent

on this occasion there is dispute over whether it is proper for them to use it ........ and the court case will clarify the position
swingaleg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 21:36
TelevisionUser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Storbritannia
Posts: 28,916
But from what I have been reading, the issue still remains as to wether triggering Article 50, can be done by Royal prerogative, or needs a vote in parliament, the devolved governments are arguing that their devolved governments should be consulted., I don't know how successful they will be
There still might have to be another vote in parliament to actually trigger article 50, I don't think this vote today supersedes that. (IMO)
^ Thank you for understanding things. In the event that the Supreme Court finds against the government then there'll be votes in the House of Commons and House of Lords. Since both major parties support abiding by the Brexit vote, then any Act of Parliament to vote to leave the EU will, in all probability, be passed.
TelevisionUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 21:38
MargMck
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 17,637
yes, I see that point

but it's diverting from the original point about 'Britain' having a best outcome

whatever the outcome might be will be the best for some but not the best for others because we all have different interests........'Britain' as such doesn't have an interest outside of the people who live here and who have a multitude of 'best' outcomes
This "what is best" is down to opinion and circumstances .It's impossible for a whole country to agree "what is best" on any matter. Sometimes decisions have to be made, and this one has been.
What you seem to want is like 10 people decide to go out for a meal, and end up in 8 different restaurants because individuals prefer particular ones. That all they all stay home and sulk instead. More sense to have a vote and all dine together on the majority decision. That's best.
MargMck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 21:50
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,071
so.......you agree that some will be happy and some won't

how can there be a 'best for Britain' when we democratically don't agree on what the 'best' is

it'll be the best for some people but not for others

we/they/the country can't agree on what is 'best'.........there is no 'best' that is 'best' for everyone !
Just like it always is, in fact.

Did you think everyone was always happy with everything before Brexit?
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 21:59
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
I do find it somewhat reassuring that most MPs believe in fulfilling the will of the public vote.
But it worries me that some of them didn't.

I think they should just let the government get on with negotiating now.
What remain MPs are hoping to do with a plan which is revealed to them I don't know. All I can see happening is that a plan is revealed, the Eurocrats get to know of it, and then repurpose their own negotiation strategy based on knowing our hand after being given a negotiating advantage they would otherwise not have had..
Stupid. I think some people may actually want us to get a bad deal.

A soft Brexit? Do some people think we can pick and choose what we get? The only way to enter a negotiation like this is to go in strong and then we have the best chance of walking away with a deal which is mutually agreeable to both parties. Ask for some so-called 'soft' Brexit and we'll end up with a really poor deal because we showed that we are weak.
Anything which involves us politely asking to still depend on the EU and be a bit in and a bit out with their permission and we will be shafted. They should be trying to get a good deal off us, not the other way around. It's about attitude.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:04
outof thepark
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,622
^ Thank you for understanding things. In the event that the Supreme Court finds against the government then there'll be votes in the House of Commons and House of Lords. Since both major parties support abiding by the Brexit vote, then any Act of Parliament to vote to leave the EU will, in all probability, be passed.
Well it most likely will be passed I agree, however Mrs May will have to more transparent about what her plans are, which overall must be a healthy thing. Personally I don't see the objection on these forums to not wanting that. Secrecy is not good for both sides of the arguement whichever way people voted.
outof thepark is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:07
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
You couldn't possibly know what you were voting for as it's not as simple as "out means out". There are dozens of EU bodies which we might want to choose to remain as as associate members in the same way the Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Turkey and even Israel cooperate on issues as wide ranging as environmental protection, anti-terrorism and airline safety. Does "out means out" mean leaving all of those too?
I believe that out means that we choose what deals we agree with and which we don't. Where we can choose to take on certain trade agreements and reject what is not in our best interests without umbrella rules foisted onto us whether we like it or not. Where we are not under any political power other than the usual rules of any trade agreement. Closer to what it was supposed to be like when we first joined the EEC and before it became the political entity of the EU.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:08
rusty123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 20,693
You keep saying that. But as Andrew Neill has proved these past few weeks by showing clip, after clip, after clip of people ranging from Cameron to Johnson that people seemingly knew EXACTLY what they voted for. I think remainers and folk like your good self suggesting that leave voters went into the booth blindfolded is offensive.

It was made perfectly, utterly clear, that a vote to leave the EU was also a vote to leave the single market. Only Remain voters deny this. But, the evidence is there for all to see.
Whilst you are 100% correct in regard to what we were repeatedly told Brexit meant with regard to membership of the single market, it's also the case that people went to the polling booths with promises of the EU playing ball and agreeing wholeheartedly to whatever free trade deal we might propose in the event of a leave vote. It was usually backed up by using the German automotive sector as the logical assumption/example.

Challenging that assumption was dismissed as scare mongering

So it's not about what we were told we were walking away from. It's what we were promised we could walk towards where there is legitimate criticism.
rusty123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:12
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,038
They want sufficent details in order to hamper negtiations.
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:15
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
Well it most likely will be passed I agree, however Mrs May will have to more transparent about what her plans are, which overall must be a healthy thing. Personally I don't see the objection on these forums to not wanting that. Secrecy is not good for both sides of the arguement whichever way people voted.
If that's the case why aren't people making demands of the EU itself to tell us what its plans are?
Are the EU going to release a plan for us to look at and scrutinise?
Of course they aren't. They made it clear that their plans will be kept secret from us, even though technically we're still a part of the EU at the moment.

It's quite incredible that so many people trust the EU more than our own government when it comes to what is in the best interests of the UK. I'm not joking, it really is incredible.
Not that we should just trust anything our government say. Not at all, we should be holding them to account whatever government it is. But with the EU it feels like an almost blind trust where people have some kind of faith in them that they're nothing but good.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:17
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,888
Whilst you are 100% correct in regard to what we were repeatedly told Brexit meant with regard to membership of the single market, it's also the case that people went to the polling booths with promises of the EU playing ball and agreeing wholeheartedly to whatever free trade deal we might propose in the event of a leave vote. It was usually backed up by using the German automotive sector as the logical assumption/example.

Challenging that assumption was dismissed as scare mongering

So it's not about what we were told we were walking away from. It's what we were promised we could walk towards where there is legitimate criticism.
Well, so many people told us the EU would play hardball that it made me think "Sod 'em. If they feel like that then best thing is to leave them!" Three days before the vote, we were told by Juncker that out is out and we will be the loser! Obama told us we'd be at the back of the queue. So we were told that it would be tough. We still voted to leave.
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:18
MargMck
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 17,637
Whilst you are 100% correct in regard to what we were repeatedly told Brexit meant with regard to membership of the single market, it's also the case that people went to the polling booths with promises of the EU playing ball and agreeing wholeheartedly to whatever free trade deal we might propose in the event of a leave vote. It was usually backed up by using the German automotive sector as the logical assumption/example.

Challenging that assumption was dismissed as scare mongering

So it's not about what we were told we were walking away from. It's what we were promised we could walk towards where there is legitimate criticism.
Dozens of differing "expert opinions" were rolled out by both sides. No doubt some people voted Remain because they were scared shyteless by Project Fear. It's the same in any vote.
But by far the majority on both sides made a decision for Britain's future on the weight of evidence of their own experience, what they read and discussed with others. No one expected an easy ride from the EU, a thank you for staying 40 years with good wishes.
Everything pulled out now about Brexit voters in particular, eg apparently not knowing what they voted for, is clutching at straws. They voted Out, and if that means no more than limited access to the Single Market, so be it. The vote meant everything was up for negotiation - we knew that.
MargMck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:19
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,682
I believe that out means that we choose what deals we agree with and which we don't. Where we can choose to take on certain trade agreements and reject what is not in our best interests without umbrella rules foisted onto us whether we like it or not. Where we are not under any political power other than the usual rules of any trade agreement. Closer to what it was supposed to be like when we first joined the EEC and before it became the political entity of the EU.
So by your definition, "out" could mean being in the single market and customs union if the government and Parliament decide that they are in our best interests. Surely nobody (apart from the suicide squad) wants a deal which isn't in our best interests and would make us much worse off.
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:20
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,888
If that's the case why aren't people making demands of the EU itself to tell us what its plans are?
Are the EU going to release a plan for us to look at and scrutinise?
Of course they aren't. They made it clear that their plans will be kept secret from us, even though technically we're still a part of the EU at the moment.

It's quite incredible that so many people trust the EU more than our own government when it comes to what is in the best interests of the UK. I'm not joking, it really is incredible.
Not that we should just trust anything our government say. Not at all, we should be holding them to account whatever government it is. But with the EU it feels like an almost blind trust where people have some kind of faith in them that they're nothing but good.
It is also baffling as to why EU law categorically states that we will be entitled to a two year negotiation period once A50 is triggered. Yet they have changed their own treaty to suit their own agenda! Shouldn't this be up for contention?
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:20
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
They want sufficent details in order to hamper negtiations.
I think that some definitely will. Whatever the plan is which is revealed it will never be good enough. The other day after people made demands that Theresa May reveal her plans they were criticising her for backing down a bit by agreeing to Labour that a plan of some form will be revealed.
This is what they wanted, so why are they being critical of her for offering some compromise?
This is what I mean in saying that some will never be reasonable and any concession they demand of the government which they oblige them with will be seen as a sign of weakness as they will smell blood.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:22
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,682
It is also baffling as to why EU law categorically states that we will be entitled to a two year negotiation period once A50 is triggered. Yet they have changed their own treaty to suit their own agenda! Shouldn't this be up for contention?
That's a fair point. Someone should take this to the European Court of Justice to get their definitive ruling on the matter.
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:23
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,888
I think that some definitely will. Whatever the plan is which is revealed it will never be good enough. The other day after people made demands that Theresa May reveal her plans they were criticising her for backing down a bit by agreeing to Labour that a plan of some form will be revealed.
This is what they wanted, so why are they being critical of her for offering some compromise?
This is what I mean in saying that some will never be reasonable and any concession they demand of the government which they oblige them with will be seen as a sign of weakness as they will smell blood.
Yes, I'm afraid over the next few months the public are going to see politicians at their sleaziest worst.
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:26
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
It is also baffling as to why EU law categorically states that we will be entitled to a two year negotiation period once A50 is triggered. Yet they have changed their own treaty to suit their own agenda! Shouldn't this be up for contention?
I agree. If they can faff around rewriting bits of a treaty then it suggests to me that the treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on if they don't respect it. And if they don't respect their own rules then why should we abide by the protocols we are expected to comply with?
The only reason why we're going along with the given protocols is that we are trying to do things the right way and be reasonable. If we wanted to be belligerent then we could tell them to stuff it and go our own way anyway. But we won't do that because we're trying to do things the correct way.

We're trying to get things right due to the current political and legal wranglings over whether parliament should be involved in the triggering of article 50. While the EU are just doing as they please. It probably won't be long before many remainers see the EU as the Mickey Mouse outfit which it is if they carry on like they are while we're trying to at least proceed in the correct manner.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:27
MargMck
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 17,637
I think that some definitely will. Whatever the plan is which is revealed it will never be good enough. The other day after people made demands that Theresa May reveal her plans they were criticising her for backing down a bit by agreeing to Labour that a plan of some form will be revealed.
This is what they wanted, so why are they being critical of her for offering some compromise?
This is what I mean in saying that some will never be reasonable and any concession they demand of the government which they oblige them with will be seen as a sign of weakness as they will smell blood.
Yes, all of this is chaff and heel dragging as they watch the calendar turn on and on towards A50. Blair, Clegg and the architects of the Stop Brexit campaign first warned Remainers to stop calling Brexiters thick etc. This was to limit the amount of digging in. Then the legal challenges started piling up. Recently Blair told them to act as "insurgents" - great choice of words for the old warmonger, but there you go - and what he means by that is keep slowing and undermining with the equivalent of political landmines in the hope of eventually stalling Brexit.
I sometimes think that the person who could end up coming out of all this smelling of roses is Corbyn the not-so-secret Brexiteer. Now that would really outrage the Remoaner Farron fans and Blairites.
MargMck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:34
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,606
I agree. If they can faff around rewriting bits of a treaty then it suggests to me that the treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on if they don't respect it. And if they don't respect their own rules then why should we abide by the protocols we are expected to comply with.
The only reason why we're going along with the given protocols is that we are trying to do things the right way and be reasonable. If we wanted to be belligerent then we could tell them to stuff it and go our own way anyway. But we won't do that because we're trying to do things the correct way.
Article 50 hasn't been rewritten. It speaks of there being a two year time limit for a country to leave the EU not that it should actually take two years : if both sides agreed on three months, that would fine.
Eurostar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:34
Puterkid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,920
Meanwhile farm produce is rotting away in fields as the flow of migrant pickers has been stemmed.

I hope brexiters are happy.

https://www.ft.com/content/7ceb876c-...e-a1acd97f622d
Puterkid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:37
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
Yes, all of this is chaff and heel dragging as they watch the calendar turn on and on towards A50. Blair, Clegg and the architects of the Stop Brexit campaign first warned Remainers to stop calling Brexiters thick etc. This was to limit the amount of digging in. Then the legal challenges started piling up. Recently Blair told them to act as "insurgents" - great choice of words for the old warmonger, but there you go - and what he means by that is keep slowing and undermining with the equivalent of political landmines in the hope of eventually stalling Brexit.
I sometimes think that the person who could end up coming out of all this smelling of roses is Corbyn the not-so-secret Brexiteer. Now that would really outrage the Remoaner Farron fans and Blairites.
I would like to think that this would be Corbyn's aim, but it will probably be wishful thinking on my part.
The truth is that Corbyn has to do something or he's toast. He can't really go full on pro-EU because other people like Farron have taken on that role. That ship has sailed a long time ago. Throughout the last year with the EU referendum saga Corbyn has always been late to react and has been playing catchup ever since all this started.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 22:38
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,888
Article 50 hasn't been rewritten. It speaks of there being a two year time limit for a country to leave the EU not that it should actually take two years : if both sides agreed on three months, that would fine.
Exactly. A two year time limit is just that. A two year time limit. That does not mean 18 months. Even Remainers have questioned this.
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:11.