Theresa May's U turn

[L00b]

What is embarrassing for our great nation, is that too many people, don't wish to accept the democratic wishes of the people, which voted to leave the EU. The court case and other disruptive actions initiated by sore losers are not helping the UK in negotiations to leave the EU.

I suppose the Daily Mail and other red tops continually referring to her as "anti-Brexit" is not helping factual objectivity, when her only 'crime' against Brexit is to have wanted the government to respect the primacy and sovereignty of Parliament about the form and modalities that Brexit would take.

 

It's wholly unsurprising that so many support, and seemingly would rather live in, the sort of Banana Republic which Mrs May and her 3 Brexiteers were taking the country towards before Gina Miller's challenge.

 

And then they have the gall to hail from 'democracy' and 'sovereignty'. Tragic.

Edited December 7, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

What gets my goat is who is footing the bill for all the pin striped suits sitting on the panel deciding how the peoples wishes should be carried out.

The Uk voted out and we should be just that no messing ,no panels , no back tracking . OUT.

 

It's not clear to me whether the supreme court should interpret the law in this case, or whether parliament should, but it can't be ministers.

It's quite right that the law should be followed. Hopefully we shall soon know what the law is. The case that this is a matter for the executive is quite convincing to me, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer.

[Gamston]

I suppose the Daily Mail and other red tops continually referring to her as "anti-Brexit" is not helping factual objectivity, when her only 'crime' against Brexit is to have wanted the government to respect the primacy and sovereignty of Parliament about the form and modalities that Brexit would take.

 

It's wholly unsurprising that so many support, and seemingly would rather live in, the sort of Banana Republic which Mrs May and her 3 Brexiteers were taking the country towards before Gina Miller's challenge.

 

And then they have the gall to hail from 'democracy' and 'sovereignty'. Tragic.

Name me a Banana Republic, which gives their citizens a referendum and then honours the democratic wishes of the people, who voted, even though the result wasn't, what the leadership of the ruling party who called the referendum wanted.

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2016 at 15:19 ----------

 

What gets my goat is who is footing the bill for all the pin striped suits sitting on the panel deciding how the peoples wishes should be carried out.

The Uk voted out and we should be just that no messing ,no panels , no back tracking . OUT.

The UK taxpayer is footng the bill, just like the UK taxpayer is footing the bill for the contributions, which the UK pay to the EU. As each day passes, before BREXIT is completed the UK taxpayer is continueing to fund an organisation, which the majority of UK voters, wish to not be part of anymore.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Gamston

[L00b]

Name me a Banana Republic, which gives their citizens a referendum and then honours the democratic wishes of the people, who voted, even though the result wasn't, what the leadership of the ruling party who called the referendum wanted.

The datum of the point is not pre-referendum, it's the day Ms May got into No.10.

The UK taxpayer is footng the bill, just like the UK taxpayer is footing the bill for the contributions, which the UK pay to the EU.

Who do you think should pay the judiciary, as a matter of interest?

As each day passes, before BREXIT is completed the UK taxpayer is continueing to fund an organisation, which the majority of UK voters, wish to not be part of anymore.

For balance, as each day passes, before BREXIT is completed the UK taxpayer the UK taxpayer is continuing to receive EU funding and other attributes of the UK's EU membership.

[sgtkate]

Name me a Banana Republic, which gives their citizens a referendum and then honours the democratic wishes of the people, who voted, even though the result wasn't, what the leadership of the ruling party who called the referendum wanted.

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2016 at 15:19 ----------

 

The UK taxpayer is footng the bill, just like the UK taxpayer is footing the bill for the contributions, which the UK pay to the EU. As each day passes, before BREXIT is completed the UK taxpayer is continueing to fund an organisation, which the majority of UK voters, wish to not be part of anymore.

 

So you believe that the law of the UK can be ignored at whim? Because this isn't about blocking Brexit it's simply about applying the law correctly.

[unbeliever]

So you believe that the law of the UK can be ignored at whim? Because this isn't about blocking Brexit it's simply about applying the law correctly.

 

The process is justified by proper application of the law. It's motivated by desire to block Brexit.

At any rate, since there seems to be legal ambiguity, it'll be good to firm up the law anyway.

[L00b]

So you believe that the law of the UK can be ignored at whim? Because this isn't about blocking Brexit it's simply about applying the law correctly.

Wasting your time with Gamston and consorts with that one.

 

IMHO it's either a lack of debating honesty, with failing to acknowledge the government's democratic deficit post June 24, or it's a cognitive deficiency, with failing to understand the gravity of the matter and its implications for the UK ('people' indeed).

The process is justified by proper application of the law. It's motivated by desire to block Brexit.

It isn't.

 

As made clear and a matter of record, both in written and oral submissions in the HC and more recently before the SC, and by the claimant herself in many interviews.

 

It's motivated by the cart and horse which Ms May has been driving through 'constitutional' (in quotes because the UK has no constitution as such) due process since June 24, and which she would continue to drive but for this challenge.

Edited December 7, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

 

As made clear and a matter of record, both in written and oral submissions in the HC and more recently before the SC, and by the claimant herself in many interviews.

 

Yes I understand. I just don't believe her.

[sgtkate]

The process is justified by proper application of the law. It's motivated by desire to block Brexit.

At any rate, since there seems to be legal ambiguity, it'll be good to firm up the law anyway.

 

Isn't one of the co-claimants a Brexiter? Also the motivation doesn't matter really. The MPs aren't going to block Brexit even if the court says they have to approve it. This is just pathetic arguing from the Schrodinger Brexiters who simultaneously want sovereignty and do not want it when it doesn't totally align with their utopia.

[unbeliever]

Isn't one of the co-claimants a Brexiter? Also the motivation doesn't matter really. The MPs aren't going to block Brexit even if the court says they have to approve it. This is just pathetic arguing from the Schrodinger Brexiters who simultaneously want sovereignty and do not want it when it doesn't totally align with their utopia.

 

A lot of them are. The SNP and the Liberal Democrats are. It's more about manoeuvring to water down Brexit than completely stopping it.

But all said, the whole point of this was to empower parliament. And parliament was going to be heavily involved in the repeal of the 1972 act anyway. So giving them a vote now is not something I object to. Let's just get on with it.