The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[Gamston]

No they wouldn't. For a start they have to represent the 48% of the people that voted against Brexit, which means at the very least understanding what the government actually has planned once the article is triggered.

Moreover they will want to act with the best interests of the country in mind, and that again means considering HOW exactly the government intends to execute the leaving of the EU and deciding if it's actually in the favour of the country or not and whether it's in line with the wishes of their constituents or not.

 

 

What bit don't you understand about how the process of voting works, when there are two options ? The way it works to a normal honest person, is which ever of the two options, that gets the most votes (over 50%) is chosen by the organisation, which called the vote to be carried out.

 

Are you a dishonest person, who doesn't respect or comprehend democracy ?

[Litotes]

What bit don't you understand about how the process of voting works, when there are two options ? The way it works to a normal honest person, is which ever of the two options, that gets the most votes (over 50%) is chosen by the organisation, which called the vote to be carried out.

 

Are you a dishonest person, who doesn't respect or comprehend democracy ?

 

There you go again "normal, honest,..." (my commas - not yours; 3 dots - ellipsis - the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues).

 

Anyway, the referendum was an option to express an opinion - not implement an Act of Parliament. The government has to now decide how to act on the wishes of the proportion of the electorate who wished for Brexit, while, at the same time, not ignoring the other 63% of the population who did not vote FOR Brexit.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Litotes
Missing full stop

[Gamston]

There you go again "normal, honest,..." (my commas - not yours; 3 dots - ellipsis - the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues).

 

Anyway, the referendum was an option to express an opinion - not implement an Act of Parliament. The government has to now decide how to act on the wishes of the proportion of the electorate who wished for Brexit, while, at the same time, not ignoring the other 63% of the population who did not vote FOR Brexit.

There is no point in beating about the bush, because any person who seeks to prevent the democratic wishes of the people who voted in the EU referendum, being carried out using whatever means, is a dishonest person.

 

The only honourable duty the Government has, is to carry out the wishes of the 52%, who voted to leave the EU, which is to exit the EU completely sooner rather than later.

IF the result had been the other way round and the 48% had been leave losers, then quite rightly their wishes would have been ignored, because the other side would have been the winners and the UK would have stayed 100% in the EU.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Gamston

[ez8004]

There is no point in beating about the bush, because any person who seeks to prevent the democratic wishes of the people who voted in the EU referendum, being carried out using whatever means, is a dishonest person.

 

The only honourable duty the Government has, is to carry out the wishes of the 52%, who voted to leave the EU, which is to exit the EU completely sooner rather than later.

IF the result had been the other way round and the 48% had been leave losers, then quite rightly their wishes would have been ignored, because the other side would have been the winners and the UK would have stayed 100% in the EU.

 

So if the Supreme Court comes back in January saying that the devolved governments need to give their consent for Brexit to be triggered are you going to throw your toys out of the pram. Since Scotland would effectively veto it because over 60% of Scots voted remain. The Northern Ireland Assembly would also veto it as the majority of their electorate voted to remain. Being all democratic like you keep on banging on about, this scenario would be completely acceptable.

 

Also, since you don't read and therefore tend to be ill informed. The chances of the UK getting a free trade deal is now effectively almost impossible because of the ECJ ruling yesterday with regards to Singapore. Yes, you really need to READ more. This is what educated people do.

 

So would you now force the UK to leave the EU in this instance even if you know it would be to the greater detriment of our economy?

[Gamston]

So if the Supreme Court comes back in January saying that the devolved governments need to give their consent for Brexit to be triggered are you going to throw your toys out of the pram. Since Scotland would effectively veto it because over 60% of Scots voted remain. The Northern Ireland Assembly would also veto it as the majority of their electorate voted to remain. Being all democratic like you keep on banging on about, this scenario would be completely acceptable.

 

Also, since you don't read and therefore tend to be ill informed. The chances of the UK getting a free trade deal is now effectively almost impossible because of the ECJ ruling yesterday with regards to Singapore. Yes, you really need to READ more. This is what educated people do.

 

So would you now force the UK to leave the EU in this instance even if you know it would be to the greater detriment of our economy?

 

The UK voted as an whole to leave the EU and there was nothing in the EU referendum Act, that stated that either the Northern Ireland Assembly or Scottish Parliament had a veto, to prevent the UK leaving the EU, so there is not a cat in hells chance the Supreme Court will make such a ruling. The only people who are throwing their toys out of the pram are sore losers, who do not want the democratic wishes of the UK electorate to be honoured.

 

It is irrelevent whether the UK's economy will be worse or better off as a consequence of the UK leaving the EU, because the decision to leave has already been made.

[apelike]

No, no we don't. We absolutely do not get any say in who forms the executive. We didn't vote for Theresa May or any of the cabinet positions. We simply don't get a say in it. There's a difference between voting for a party and electing the executive.

 

I didn't say anything about who forms the executive or whether we vote them in or elect them. I said we vote for MP's who represent a party and if they get a majority of seats then that party is in charge. Who forms the make-up of the government is then down to that party and its leader.

 

 

The supreme court will decide whether the executive has the power to trigger A50 (which almost certainly it will decide it doesn't)..

 

I agree and agree.

 

..and we will also find out whether the executive can agree and implement the terms without parliament.

 

No we wont as its not part of the brief. All they will decide in the appeal is whether this government can use executive privilege to trigger A50 without parliaments consent. As stated, that is almost certainly going to happen.

 

I strongly suspect it will decide that parliament can dictate the terms of our negotiating position if A50 is irreversible or that there must be a vote on the final terms if it is reversible.

 

I strongly suspect you are wrong as that is not what this judgement appeal is about.

 

Even so I have no wish to live in an authoritarian state so if it does turn out that that's the case perhaps I will find somewhere else to live.

 

Maybe if you feel so strongly about it that would be wise.

[ez8004]

The UK voted as an whole to leave the EU and there was nothing in the EU referendum Act, that stated that either the Northern Ireland Assembly or Scottish Parliament had a veto, to prevent the UK leaving the EU, so there is not a cat in hells chance the Supreme Court will make such a ruling. The only people who are throwing their toys out of the pram are sore losers, who do not want the democratic wishes of the UK electorate to be honoured.

 

It is irrelevent whether the UK's economy will be worse or better off as a consequence of the UK leaving the EU, because the decision to leave has already been made.

 

Are you a Supreme Court justice? Did you read the arguments made by the Lord Advocate? Wait, that involves reading so most likely not.

 

So you don't care if the economy burns. Ok.

[apelike]

So if the Supreme Court comes back in January saying that the devolved governments need to give their consent for Brexit to be triggered are you going to throw your toys out of the pram.

 

That is hardly likely as Scotland will have to appeal separately as according to the Scotland acts this government still reigns supreme over them.

[ez8004]

That is hardly likely as Scotland will have to appeal separately as according to the Scotland acts this government still reigns supreme over them.

 

You don't read either like Gamston? Geez, read the Lord Advocate's argument during the Supreme Court hearing and then comeback.

 

If it was that obvious, then the Supreme Court wouldn't be considering it.

[apelike]

You don't read either like Gamston? Geez, read the Lord Advocate's argument during the Supreme Court hearing and then comeback.

 

If it was that obvious, then the Supreme Court wouldn't be considering it.

 

Instead of me reading it why don't you just quote the juicy bits as it would be much easier as I cant honestly see anywhere in it that Scotland have a say in the final matter. To do so they will have to challenge the Scotland acts on their own.