Brexit Referendum Superthread

KingBrian2

Calina wrote: »

UKIP is one of the key reasons the UK even had this ridiculous referendum in the first place. You're under playing the importance of him saying that.

Interesting about UKIP they are a one issue party. Get the vote to leave the EU and that's pretty much it. Most were disaffected Labourites and some Tories unwilling to back the leadership. Britain should have more one issue parties so they can get the promises they feel have been broken.

devnull

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening! One Brexiteer who wasn't on the official campaign. Not all.

Many people were agreeing with what Farage stated however, a lot of the exiters were pretty much saying the same thing as Farage, at least the ones I know and observed, Farage was effectively claiming that if his side lost then it was because of lies and misleading info.

recedite

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No serious person believes that Parliament is going to fly in the face of the referendum result, and block the invocation of Article 50.

No, but the court decision implies that Parliament could if it wanted to. So it appears as if the court is giving power to the parliament to overturn the will of the people. That has never happened before, because the UK does not usually hold referendums. It is the job of the Parliament to write or repeal the laws, but it is always assumed that the parliamentarians are the people who best represent the people.

In this scenario, Teresa May is acting as the first minister (or advisor) of the monarch, and claiming the "royal prerogative" ie governing on behalf of the Crown.
History tells us that both the monarch and the parliament get their power from the people. When the monarch got too uppity, Cromwell chopped off his head. When Cromwell got too uppity and declared a republic, the people restored the monarchy. So a delicate balance exists, and the people are the final arbiters of that balance. Whoever rules, whether parliament or monarch+govt, or both, it is only with the consent of the people.

If the courts gave the parliament sanction to overturn the express wishes of the people, it would set a dangerous precedent. I think the appeal will be made along these lines.
The High Court is inviting the parliament to become uppity and to go against the people. Even if the parliament declines that offer, it was wrong of the court to make such an offer.

I expect that the result of the appeal will be to defuse the situation. The Supreme Court could say that an Act of Parliament is required for Brexit, but if the wording of the act is simply to give effect to the wording in the referendum, then the parliamentarians are required to rubber stamp it, and no further debate is required or allowed.

BlitzKrieg

solodeogloria wrote: »

Talk of how the UK should leave is the next stage here. The June 23rd vote was perhaps one of the most resounding participations in a popular vote that Britain has ever seen and the clear conclusion was to leave the EU.

Honestly that should have been the first stage and will remain the single biggest problem with brexit regardless of what side you are on.

Because the tories did such a clusterf*ck of putting together a referendum you have the problem that by the end of this sh*tstorm the majority will not be in favour of any plan.

You already dont


People dont want to re-run the referendum, but there is not some magical 52% approved plan. It's 52% made up of multiple plans where there are common issues like immigration and sovereignty but people have different priorities.

The campaigns ran so many varients, A Norway plan, a Switzerland plan, A Canada plan, Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit etc etc. That any plan they go with in the end (If they can get it of course) is going to knock a chunk of that % off the majority because there will be people who rather keep access to some element of the EU over greater immigration control and there will be people the complete opposite to that. But both voted brexit because both got promised they could get the plan that suited them.


You dont have to look far to see that. You can go and look at this thread pre-vote result and see the numerous posters pushing the different brexit plans


You can see it today where it was a leave MP not a remain from the tories who resigned over the current brexit plan

This is the genuine problem here and arguably why a 2nd referendum would be easier but a referendum with a specific plan at its centre. Instead it may fall on the next general election to decide the brexit plan with every party pushing a different plan. From UKIP going full on hard brexit to the tories and labour pushing soft variations to the libdems and SNP pushing to remain. You wont see Brexit stopped by a parliamentary vote, but you may see it stopped by a general election.

Its again likely why Farage wants one now because he probably feels he could get UKIP in power in some form on a hard brexit stance now but if he lets it get debated over and over in parliament before an election it will break the perception of that solid 52% majority block and we will get a very different general election.

Its why brexit was simply a bad referendum regardless of your side, it has always been a bad referendum.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

UKIP is one of the key reasons the UK even had this ridiculous referendum in the first place. You're under playing the importance of him saying that.

Good morning!

My point is it's very easy to say that the referendum should be ignored from outside of the UK. That's where the Farage point came from - about a re-run. It's off the cards even if it was remain it would have been off the cards.

At the end of the day, the majority voted to leave the European Union. That has to happen now for democracy to be respected.

As for how the UK leaves the European Union, that's the next step. It's impossible to know how exactly Britain will leave the European Union until the negotiations begin. There are a number of options on the table, and they will be discussed.

The fact of the matter is irrespective of the referendum and whether or not you personally liked the outcome, the vote was to leave. I agree, how is open to discussion. There are clues from the campaign as to what it should look like, but if the constitution says that parliament has to be sovereign over that strategy then so be it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is it's very easy to say that the referendum should be ignored from outside of the UK. That's where the Farage point came from - about a re-run. It's off the cards even if it was remain it would have been off the cards.

No, "Democracy" is just a canard employed by Farage to assist in him getting his way. He moaned about UK laws being made in Europe and how Parliament effectively isn't sovereign. He was hedging his bets. I think he said he'd need a 70% remain vote to convince him it was done for good.

solodeogloria wrote: »

At the end of the day, the majority voted to leave the European Union. That has to happen now for democracy to be respected.

How though? People voted to leave, this is true. However, what did they also vote for? Shutting the door on the EU or maintaining friendly relations? Security cooperation? Access or abandonment of the crucial single market?

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for how the UK leaves the European Union, that's the next step. It's impossible to know how exactly Britain will leave the European Union until the negotiations begin. There are a number of options on the table, and they will be discussed. then so be it.

Which is why Parliament needs a vote on Article 50. If it decides on a hard Brexit, it doesn't matter but 2 years is too short a period of time to negotiate a free trade deal. CETA took over 7 years, remember.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

My point is it's very easy to say that the referendum should be ignored from outside of the UK. That's where the Farage point came from - about a re-run. It's off the cards even if it was remain it would have been off the cards.

At the end of the day, the majority voted to leave the European Union. That has to happen now for democracy to be respected.

As for how the UK leaves the European Union, that's the next step. It's impossible to know how exactly Britain will leave the European Union until the negotiations begin. There are a number of options on the table, and they will be discussed.

The fact of the matter is irrespective of the referendum and whether or not you personally liked the outcome, the vote was to leave. I agree, how is open to discussion. There are clues from the campaign as to what it should look like, but if the constitution says that parliament has to be sovereign over that strategy then so be it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The fact of the matter is that if a substantial number of people who voted in favour of leaving did so because a) they thought there'd be more money for the NHS (delusional in the face of a Tory government but hope is an amazing thing) or b) they believed that they could, per Boris Johnson, have their cake and eat it then arguably, the referendum was not debated in good faith. There is an argument for returning the question of what sort of exit is desired to the people particularly given that it appears to be obvious that the people, especially on the exit side, do not trust their elected representatives.

It is also worth remembering that the referendum was advisory only and is not legally binding on parliament. That many of the electorate appears not to understand this is worrying about the level of civic knowledge in the UK.

Also - because this appears not to be clear to you - Farage would not have accepted a 52-48 result if it went against him. You do not have to be in the UK to suggest that the other side of the debate is as entitled to fight against it if they feel it could be changed too.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that if a substantial number of people who voted in favour of leaving did so because a) they thought there'd be more money for the NHS (delusional in the face of a Tory government but hope is an amazing thing) or b) they believed that they could, per Boris Johnson, have their cake and eat it then arguably, the referendum was not debated in good faith. There is an argument for returning the question of what sort of exit is desired to the people particularly given that it appears to be obvious that the people, especially on the exit side, do not trust their elected representatives.

It is also worth remembering that the referendum was advisory only and is not legally binding on parliament. That many of the electorate appears not to understand this is worrying about the level of civic knowledge in the UK.

Also - because this appears not to be clear to you - Farage would not have accepted a 52-48 result if it went against him. You do not have to be in the UK to suggest that the other side of the debate is as entitled to fight against it if they feel it could be changed too.

Good morning!

Farage wasn't the only leaver in the campaign. As far as I can tell, nobody else argued that.

I was a remainer and I voted accordingly. However, people whinging about the result is silly. I'm hoping the UK will just get on with it and thrash it out with the EU.

Even if the Supreme Court appeal fails, parliament won't stop Brexit. Labour are clear that they won't and pretty much everyone in the Tory party plus the DUP won't. So, Article 50 will be triggered either way. Parliament will get a say either way also as they will have to ratify the Brexit deal.

The fact is Brexit will still happen. Stopping it despite what anyone claims is still anti-democratic. The vote needs to be respected and I think all MP's are clear on that. I suspect if it wasn't there would be a general election with an increased Tory majority (given that they are leading Labour by 16 points).

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I was a remainer and I voted accordingly. However, people whinging about the result is silly. I'm hoping the UK will just get on with it and thrash it out with the EU.

Is that what you think this is? We'd be getting plenty of whining from Brexiteers who are more than happy to ignore democracy when it suits them had it been 51:49 for remain. You also said you voted leave above.

There are literally millions of people in this country who don't know how much longer they'll be entitled to live here for. Nearly a fifth of life science funding comes from the EU and the state is nearly the same for the number of life scientists. That's a lot of hardworking people facing joblessness and you call this whining.....

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Farage wasn't the only leaver in the campaign. As far as I can tell, nobody else argued that.

Do you think that there would even have been a referendum if Farage did not exist?

solodeogloria wrote: »

I was a remainer and I voted accordingly. However, people whinging about the result is silly. I'm hoping the UK will just get on with it and thrash it out with the EU.

People are not whinging about the result. They are complaining - and justifiably so - about how the referendum was run.

Additionally, it seems to me that the UK isn't even ready to start negotiating with the EU since their petulant childish refrain seems to be "give us what we want or else". The EU is waiting for the UK to invoke Article 50, something the UK is incapable of doing because they don't know whether they want to leave the EU or not. What they want are training wheels from what I can see because otherwise they'd have gone with hard Brexit and not pussy footed about arguing over the when.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Even if the Supreme Court appeal fails, parliament won't stop Brexit. Labour are clear that they won't and pretty much everyone in the Tory party plus the DUP won't. So, Article 50 will be triggered either way. Parliament will get a say either way also as they will have to ratify the Brexit deal.

There isn't a Brexit deal. There are several Brexit deals. CER reckons six as far as I remember.

Parliament does not expect to stop Brexit. What Parliament might do is mitigate against the very worst excesses of the Liam Fox's vision of 16th century piracy for the future.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The fact is Brexit will still happen. Stopping it despite what anyone claims is still anti-democratic. The vote needs to be respected and I think all MP's are clear on that. I suspect if it wasn't there would be a general election with an increased Tory majority (given that they are leading Labour by 16 points).

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If the people choose to stop Brexit via a referendum, who are you to say it is undemocratic or anti-democratic? The UK is a representative democracy without a single basic law, but a body of constitutional legal memory which must be adhered to and funnily enough, referenda are not a key part of that.

Brexit was unquestionably a stupid decision. But it did not hand May the right to be a dictator or to be able to rely on royal prerogative for whatever she likes.

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

I was a remainer and I voted accordingly. However, people whinging about the result is silly. I'm hoping the UK will just get on with it and thrash it out with the EU.

You were a remainer and believe that the UK Governement should just get on with it thus ignoring the legality of getting on with it and call the folk who want this done correctly whingers. It is becoming clear that you voted remain in your head and leave on the paper

recedite

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Because the tories did such a clusterf*ck of putting together a referendum you have the problem that by the end of this sh*tstorm the majority will not be in favour of any plan.

A referendum can't have too many options otherwise it becomes a preferendum (which is generally a better method of consulting the people IMO)
Anyway, with your username you should be able to "see the wood from the trees" here. There is no need for a precise plan right now. Just circumvent the problem. The govt. will propose a catch-all type act of parliament which will say that all the current EU laws affecting the UK currently will continue to apply after article 50 is triggered. Then later, after Brexit, unwanted EU laws can be repealed one at a time.

The current judicial spat is mainly theoretical, as it is concerned with whether the parliament can refuse to co-operate in this endeavour, even though they almost certainly will co-operate.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nearly a fifth of life science funding comes from the EU and the state is nearly the same for the number of life scientists. That's a lot of hardworking people facing joblessness and you call this whining.....

UK sends money to the EU. EU gives some of it back in the form of grants. Brexiteers have already said they will just give the same money over as grants, but in a more direct way.

ancapailldorcha

recedite wrote: »

UK sends money to the EU. EU gives some of it back in the form of grants. Brexiteers have already said they will just give the same money over as grants, but in a more direct way.

This doesn't account for the economic benefits from free trade with the EU. The Brexiteers also drove a big, red bus around the country proclaiming that the NHS would get the £10 billion so that's the membership fee already ringfenced.

recedite

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This doesn't account for the economic benefits from free trade with the EU.

You're splitting hairs now. Tariffs may or may not be introduced. UK economic output and exports have been boosted by a weaker £. That may or may not be cancelled by tariffs.

On this note, tariffs between Ireland and UK would be harmful to both.
Why are we listening to unelected bureaucrats like Juncker telling us the UK cannot be part of a European wide customs union?

Its nonsense, we should be campaigning for free trade with the UK, post Brexit. Who's idea was it to irreversibly link free trade with residency permits anyway?

Calina

recedite wrote: »

You're splitting hairs now. Tariffs may or may not be introduced. UK economic output and exports have been boosted by a weaker £. That may or may not be cancelled by tariffs.

On this note, tariffs between Ireland and UK would be harmful to both.
Why are we listening to unelected bureaucrats like Juncker telling us the UK cannot be part of a European wide customs union?

Its nonsense, we should be campaigning for free trade with the UK, post Brexit. Who's idea was it to irreversibly link free trade with residency permits anyway?

It's not linked with residency permits. It's linked with free movement of labour.

In the meantime, we are not in this mess because of JC Juncker. We are in this mess because of David Cameron. He was elected. Juncker is probably far better at his job than Cameron was at his. Juncker was appointed by an elected government by the way, and agreed by an elected European Parliament. In this country you do not get to choose who becomes the Secretary General of any government department via election.

The UK may or not be part of a wider customs union but if they do join one, then like Turkey, there will be restrictions put on its liberty to negotiate its own trade agreements. The UK does not want those restrictions. This mess is of the UK's causing so while yes, it would be preferential for Ireland and the UK not to have tariffs, the fact that they are even up for discussion is the fault of the UK, not the EU.

ancapailldorcha

recedite wrote: »

You're splitting hairs now. Tariffs may or may not be introduced. UK economic output and exports have been boosted by a weaker £. That may or may not be cancelled by tariffs.

Which exports are you talking about, exactly? The UK has a huge current account deficit meaning that goods are more expensive than before as they're imported.

recedite wrote: »

On this note, tariffs between Ireland and UK would be harmful to both.
Why are we listening to unelected bureaucrats like Juncker telling us the UK cannot be part of a European wide customs union?

There'll be an incentive for EU businesses to slap tariffs on the UK competition where it exists.

recedite wrote: »

Its nonsense, we should be campaigning for free trade with the UK, post Brexit. Who's idea was it to irreversibly link free trade with residency permits anyway?

Trade with an island of 63 million versus a single market of hundreds of millions? Can't see too many multinationals and Irish exporters being too keen on that.

recedite

Calina wrote: »

It's not linked with residency permits. It's linked with free movement of labour.

Says who? Its like some religious mantra that keeps getting repeated by certain eurocrats. Did it come down from the heavens above on a stone tablet or something?

We should put it to a referendum here in Ireland. See what the people really think of it. Is the EU run for the benefit of its citizens? If so, it shouldn't be afraid of democracy.

Calina wrote: »

The UK may or not be part of a wider customs union but if they do join one, then like Turkey, there will be restrictions put on its liberty to negotiate its own trade agreements. The UK does not want those restrictions.

Seems like blackmail. If I do business with somebody, I don't try to restrict them in what legitimate business they do with other people.
Its different if it affects the EU.If a UK distributer say, imported electronic goods from India under a special UK/India low tariff regime, they would have to have EU tariffs imposed if re-sending those goods into an EU country. But the tariff involved in that kind of scenario could be negotiated; ie it would be similar to that existing between the EU and India directly.

recedite

Anyway, when was the UK offered a zero tariff customs union with "restrictions put on its liberty to negotiate its own trade agreements"? Without it being tied to free migration.

Calina

recedite wrote: »

Says who? Its like some religious mantra that keeps getting repeated by certain eurocrats. Did it come down from the heavens above on a stone tablet or something?

We should put it to a referendum here in Ireland. See what the people really think of it. Is the EU run for the benefit of its citizens? If so, it shouldn't be afraid of democracy.

Seems like blackmail. If I do business with somebody, I don't try to restrict them in what legitimate business they do with other people.
Its different if it affects the EU.If a UK distributer say, imported electronic goods from India under a special UK/India low tariff regime, they would have to have EU tariffs imposed if re-sending those goods into an EU country. But the tariff involved in that kind of scenario could be negotiated; ie it would be similar to that existing between the EU and India directly.

Labour is a tradable good. Why should freedom to trade be limited only to companies? Why should individuals have their freedom to trade restricted? Funny how it's the rights of individuals you want to stamp on, isn't it? Could it be because you lack the nous to be able to exploit this freedom and don't care who else you stomp on because you don't care?

We regularly put EU related matters to referenda here in Ireland. We've even forced change on the EU as a result.

The UK is free to do business with other people, but if they want to be part of a customs union, then they adhere to the rules of that customs union. If they do not want to adhere to these rules, then they stay out of the customs union and accept the costs that go with being outside the customs union. It's not blackmail, it's business.

ancapailldorcha

recedite wrote: »

Anyway, when was the UK offered a zero tariff customs union with "restrictions put on its liberty to negotiate its own trade agreements"? Without it being tied to free migration.

Why should the UK receive tariff-free access to the single market when countries like Norway and Switzerland have to pay for the privilege?

recedite

The freedom to move to another country, to live and work there, is not "a right" it is a privilege to be granted by that country. The UK has a long history of granting that privilege in a fairly liberal and generous way.
Free trade is an agreement between two countries. There is no reason why the two must be linked.

Within a single country, such as a federal EU, all 4 freedoms must be respected to all citizens throughout the federation. There should be no internal borders. But in dealings with external countries, everything is negotiable individually.

ancapailldorcha

You didn't answer my question. There is no indication whatsoever that the UK will receive any sort of privileged deal.

Regarding free movement, that was effectively a right as the UK had been an EU member for over 40 years. That's a lot of time for people to come to see the ability to work, live and travel in other countries as a right. I suspect many Irish people would feel slighted were the UK to introduce borders, visas and other barriers.

recedite

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. There is no indication whatsoever that the UK will receive any sort of privileged deal.

Norway and Switzeland accepted the best deal they could get, from an unequal bargaining position. Now that the UK is in a similar position, they should all club together to increase their bargaining power.

The interesting question is whether EU citizens in countries such as France and Netherlands support the harsh line being taken by the EU to force sovereignty concessions from Norway and Switzerland. I suspect that if a referendum was held in many EU countries, the result would be similar to the British view; ie its a step too far.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Regarding free movement, that was effectively a right as the UK had been an EU member for over 40 years. That's a lot of time for people to come to see the ability to work, live and travel in other countries as a right. I suspect many Irish people would feel slighted were the UK to introduce borders, visas and other barriers.

Actually free movement and the CTA has existed for a lot longer between Ireland and the UK. It has existed since the foundation of this state, by mutual agreement. Nothing to do with the EU.
If it goes, it won't be because Ireland or the UK wanted it to go. It will be because Brussels told the Irish side to end it, and we followed their orders.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why should the UK receive tariff-free access to the single market when countries like Norway and Switzerland have to pay for the privilege?

Good evening!

This is where I think the EU's position is inconsistent.

There are several countries with free trade agreements with the European Union who don't require freedom of movement. South Korea, South Africa and soon to be Canada are just some that I can think of.

The reality is that Britain will leave and there will be a discussion about what arrangement will be made.

But, it's simply not true to say that every country with a free trade arrangement into the single market has to accept all four of these freedoms. I agree with recedite that it seems like a mantra without substance.

I agree strongly with recedite on the CTA, and to point out again, if there are tariffs on UK - EU trade, it will be because of the EU insisting on it and not the other way around. The UK wants a free trade relationship with the EU.

As I've said before - the sky won't fall in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

PeadarCo

solodeogloria wrote:

There are several countries with free trade agreements with the European Union who don't require freedom of movement. South Korea, South Africa and soon to be Canada are just some that I can think of.

The thing about those agreements is as far as I know don't cover services. Services particularly in the area of financial services are key exports and make a big contribution to the overall UK tax revenue. If a decent chunk of those companies were to leave London there would be a big hole in the UKs budget. For other countries in the EU like Ireland would very much like to get hold of some of that money.

djpbarry

recedite wrote: »

If the courts gave the parliament sanction to overturn the express wishes of the people, it would set a dangerous precedent.

The courts have done no such thing, nor will they. In the context of Brexit, aside from leaving the EU, nobody knows what the “express wishes of the people” are, so how can anyone overturn them?

As Tim Farron said, people were asked if they wished to depart, but they were not asked where they wish to go.

recedite wrote: »

Seems like blackmail. If I do business with somebody, I don't try to restrict them in what legitimate business they do with other people.

Sorry, but this is nonsense – businesses are accused of anti-competitive practices all the time. Try and buy a PC that doesn’t have Windows pre-installed, for example.

recedite wrote: »

Norway and Switzeland accepted the best deal they could get, from an unequal bargaining position. Now that the UK is in a similar position, they should all club together to increase their bargaining power.

You mean they could form some sort of “European Union”?!?

recedite wrote: »

The interesting question is whether EU citizens in countries such as France and Netherlands support the harsh line being taken by the EU to force sovereignty concessions from Norway and Switzerland. I suspect that if a referendum was held in many EU countries, the result would be similar to the British view; ie its a step too far.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is the case. If anything, pro-EU sentiment rebounded strongly across the EU in the wake of the Brexit vote.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why should the UK receive tariff-free access to the single market when countries like Norway and Switzerland have to pay for the privilege?

The UK wants a free trade relationship with the EU.

As I've said before - the sky won't fall in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK would like is full access to the single market without an of the obligations, not a trade deal.

Jim2007

recedite wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. There is no indication whatsoever that the UK will receive any sort of privileged deal.

Actually free movement and the CTA has existed for a lot longer between Ireland and the UK. It has existed since the foundation of this state, by mutual agreement. Nothing to do with the EU.

If you look at the Protocols to the EU treaties, you will discover that the CTA plus any other similar agreements is allowed between between Ireland and the UK as member states (it does not constitute an international agreement). Once the UK becomes a third country it is history!

devnull

I've just seen some of the media front pages from the UK over the last few days, some of the front pages would be hilarious if they would not be so tragic about how they are misleading people, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express and the Sun really are inciting hatred and division in the UK,

I now read that remainers are being subject of death threats, gang rape threats including those who took the matter to court, which is absolutely disgusting and reflects terribly on the kind of society that has been allowed to blossom thanks to all of the propaganda that has led to people being pitted against each other.

The continual confusion of the words "Democracy" and "Dictatorship" is also tragic and so many people have been brainwashed that its got to the point where I feel that the UK is now in serious danger of turning into a complete hell hole of a country in the next few years, divisions are growing every day and "Enemies of the People" type headlines are making that worse.

The UK is in a real danger of turning into a fascist country that is run by one person who is accountable to nobody and nothing she does can ever be challenged since the elected representatives don't have a say and neither do the courts, how can that be considered democracy? It's the complete opposite of it. It's ploughing along doing everything you want when you want without anyone being able to stop you apart from once every 5 years with nobody that can challenge it.

The big problem with this is if the appeal is up-held, it gives the green light for a Prime Minister just to do whatever she wants, when she wants and nobody can do anything to stop her, neither the courts, nor the elected people of the UK, every time she feels she won't get her own way she can just bypass Parliament.

This essentially means the Prime Minister becomes a de-facto dictator, because she no longer has to hold votes for anything at any time unless she doesn't want to. Now of course this can be offset by the politicians voting no confidence in her, but many of them won't do that, especially with the increasingly right wing nature of the tory party, which is assisted by a deliberately misleading press.

devnull

Jim2007 wrote: »

The UK would like is full access to the single market without an of the obligations, not a trade deal.

The problem with the UK is that the brexit supporters don't understand the word negotiation

What they essentially appear to want is all of the benefits of the EU without having to pay for it or any of the bad parts that they don't like, essentially they want to pick and choose.

If the vote showed remain winning by a small margin it should be open to a re-run as it's not decided. If the vote showed leave winning by a small margin it should never be re-run as the issue is decided

They also want to pick and choose when Parliament should have a sign or should be sovereign, it basically comes down to if they agree, Parliament should be, if not, they shouldn't be.

They also want to pick and choose when the courts should have a say. It basically comes down to this. If they agree with the court, it should be, if not it shouldn't be.

Essentially they want to dictate everything based on what suits them.

Anything we don't agree with doesn't count.

That's Democracy apparently in their world.