Cycling UK Forum

bovlomov wrote:

kwackers wrote:

bovlomov wrote:Question: If it considered that Brexit is a substantial threat to the UK economy, would the security services intervene to kill it?

Edit: In other words, would they act to protect us from ourselves?

A military coup? That might hit the pound quite hard...

That's not the British way. I was thinking more of compromising photos, blackmail, a word in someone's ear, a strategic suicide... ..that sort of thing.

Well it's been done often enough before,so I don't see why it won't work again

Well done to Ms May, the assurances to Nissan didn't involve the chequebook. That must have been an absolutely fantastic bit of negotiation, I look forward to hearing the details. I wonder if she'd be so good as to offer the rest of us some similar assurance?

PH wrote:Well done to Ms May, the assurances to Nissan didn't involve the chequebook. That must have been an absolutely fantastic bit of negotiation, I look forward to hearing the details. I wonder if she'd be so good as to offer the rest of us some similar assurance?

It was a strange phrase to use, as it invites the obvious response: what then? Bank transfer? Standing order? Brown envelope? Payment in kind?

Brexit means Brexit isnt meaningless - it is the utterance of an inflexible mindset - sane people realise that most things in life are inponderable and need various review stages as you explore the matter with a final decision whether to go ahead. Thats rational behaviour that you find in business and other human acivity but not it seems in politics, in this case the most important decision that will be made for a long time?

So the courts have decided Ms May cannot initiate Article 50 without going through Parliament

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/parliament-must-trigger-brexit-high-court-rules wrote:Parliamentary approval needed for Brexit, high court rules

Rather embarrassing for Ms May and the Leave campaign given how they campaigned about the "Sovereignty of Parliament" and then immediately proceeded to announce that they would be bypassing Parliament for a massively significant action impacting the future of the UK.

Particularly embarrassing given how May argumed (in 2007) about Parliamentary right to veto EU talks

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-article-50-brussels-negotiating-strategy-brussels-a7386156.html wrote:Speaking about European legislation and restoring Parliamentary sovereignty, Ms May added: “Our feeble system of scrutiny undermines Parliament’s ability to check or restrain the Government’s actions in Europe.”

“In our constitution, Parliament is supposed to be sovereign, but this weakness means that in practice it is not. We therefore need a system that gives Parliament real powers over ministers, enough time to scrutinise new EU laws, and the transparency to restore public trust in the process.”

And then as soon as she might have to take her case to Parliament then she runs scared and ignores Parliament ...

Ian

well if Parliament tries to water down the referendum goodness know what then? ours is supposed to be a representative parliament in which the mps represent the people, not soley their own views.

The last time parliament tried to rule for its own sake was rudely stopped by the person represented by the bronze figure standing outside the Commons?

mercalia wrote:well if Parliament tries to water down the referendum goodness know what then? ours is supposed to be a representative parliament in which the mps represent the people, not soley their own views.

But our MPs are obliged to act in the best interests of the country. And given how much has been learnt and started to happen and given how many of Leave Campaign promises have been shown to be lies then they can make their decision with a degree of hindsight. Which allows them to act in the best interests of the country with more knowledge than was available to the electorate at the time of the referendum.

If Parliament intended to be bound by the outcome of the referendum then the referendum legislation would have made the outcome legally binding. But it was not and the outcome was only advisory meaning that our MPs would take the (marginal) result as advice only when making their decisions (together with other sources of information and advice e.g. what sort of deal we might ask for and/or get from the EU).

Ian

Psamathe wrote:

mercalia wrote:well if Parliament tries to water down the referendum goodness know what then? ours is supposed to be a representative parliament in which the mps represent the people, not soley their own views.

But our MPs are obliged to act in the best interests of the country. And given how much has been learnt and started to happen and given how many of Leave Campaign promises have been shown to be lies then they can make their decision with a degree of hindsight. Which allows them to act in the best interests of the country with more knowledge than was available to the electorate at the time of the referendum.

If Parliament intended to be bound by the outcome of the referendum then the referendum legislation would have made the outcome legally binding. But it was not and the outcome was only advisory meaning that our MPs would take the (marginal) result as advice only when making their decisions (together with other sources of information and advice e.g. what sort of deal we might ask for and/or get from the EU).

Ian

well Margaret Thatcher once said there is no such thing as society, I assume meaning that a country is made up of competing groups of people with conflicting interests. so whose "country" would they be acting in the interests of? I think the suprising Brexit result indicates that a majority of people think that the present setup is not in their interest. And who can blame them - not a single banker has been held to account for bringing us down? The rich have got richer and the poor poorer. Osborne tried to make the weakest of this country pay for the mistakes of the richest. That was the views of the UN? Maybe you are willing to trust the establishment - but many dont and wont. That sort of deference belongs pre WW1. I suppose a way out would be a 2nd binding referendum after it gets clearer what the deal would be - I read today that even after calling article 50 it is possible to change ones mind ( right from the horses mouth of the guy who wrote it!) A general election would be no good as all the parties of the establishement who account for all the power in this country are remainers

pwa wrote:

Vorpal wrote:I'm quite interested in the suit being heard tomorrow http://fortune.com/2016/10/13/brexit-la ... miller-eu/

Independent of whether it prevails, I think that the constitutional question posed is an interesting one.

The EU referendum act only made provision for holding and counting the referendum, and granted no powers to withdraw from the EU should that be the outcome of referendum.

The power to govern is vested in parliament. Can either the the will of the people through referendum, or the executive powers of the Prime Minister bypass parliament to invoke article 50? If not, what does that mean for an already complex process? If so, does it set a precendent for bypassing parliament?

It may be interesting from a technical point of view, but if it comes to Parliament versus The People, there can only be one winner.

I think you have your answer

I don't think there is any real danger that Parliament (both Houses) will directly try to block Article 50. That would cause outrage and they know it. Parliament voted to give the electorate the choice of In or Out, and at that point Parliament gave us the choice. They did not say "have a vote and we will approve it if you vote the right way". Parliament can undermine our negotiations with the EU. If, for example, Parliament only allows Article 50 to be triggered on the condition that we retain full access to the Single Market, our government will not be able to lever any concessions from the EU. The EU will be able to name their price, safe in the knowledge that our government cannot say that they would prefer to be outside the Single Market rather than accept bad terms. The EU will then be able to block Brexit by offering terms that they think Parliament will find unacceptable. It will be blocking the will of the people by the back door. If we were not really allowed to leave the EU we should have been told so, then we could have avoided the sham of a referendum.

Parliament needs to think long and hard about this. If they get it wrong and stand in the way of an exit they will lose authority in the eyes of me and a lot of other people.

pwa wrote:.... The EU will be able to name their price....

The EU can already "name its price" as they are very aware that UK leaving will do far more damage to the UK than the EU. Leave campaign claims of "they need us more than we need them" have now been seen as complete rubbish from people who really didn't understand the laws and processes (e.g.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-for-brexit-davis-davis-eu-european-union-germany-single-market-trade-deals-unaware-mistake-a7136121.html wrote:Minister for Brexit David Davis appeared unaware of how EU trade deals actually work

.

Even German motor industries consider EU stability more important that their exports to the UK

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:L1_wCJqmyZAJ:https://www.ft.com/content/e801b67a-9206-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk wrote:Mr Wissmann [head of Germany’s auto industry lobbying group] backed that position. “The UK is an important market for us but the EU market is much more important,” he said. “If the EU were to fall apart, that would be a lot worse for our industry.”

The EU are very aware of how crucial access to the EEA is for UK business and as such can "name their price" (in fact they have and it's called "Freedom of Movement").

Ian

544 of our MPs, most of them pro EU membership, voted to give us our referendum.

They will now vote to allow Article 50 to be triggered.

To do otherwise is to tell us the referendum they allowed us was utterly meaningless, a sham, a fraud, a lie, a deceit, that the result was always an irrelevance, and that all the campaigning by both sides was a complete waste of time.

The wider political class and its cronies in big business and the metropolitan, public school, Oxbridge elites are not above such cynicism and contempt for the will of the people, but too many MPs like being MPs and voting against Article 50 will mean a P45 for most of them at the next election.

Happily, the referendum result has poisoned our relationship with the EU, probably beyond repair. That's the main guarantee that Brexit means Brexit.

If the appeal fails:
How MPs vote might depend on the mood of the constituents - whether or not their constituency had a majority Leave vote. That's partly to do with the economy and partly to do with the media. If an MP sees that the economy is going south and the constituents are getting spooked, then it might not be so risky to vote against the referendum. On the other hand, if the constituents are still gung-ho for Brexit, then they might consider that voting against Brexit will be the end of their political career.

blackbike wrote:544 of our MPs, most of them pro EU membership, voted to give us our referendum.

They will now vote to allow Article 50 to be triggered.

To do otherwise is to tell us the referendum they allowed us was utterly meaningless, a sham, a fraud, a lie, a deceit, that the result was always an irrelevance, and that all the campaigning by both sides was a complete waste of time.

The wider political class and its cronies in big business and the metropolitan, public school, Oxbridge elites are not above such cynicism and contempt for the will of the people, but too many MPs like being MPs and voting against Article 50 will mean a P45 for most of them at the next election.

Happily, the referendum result has poisoned our relationship with the EU, probably beyond repair. That's the main guarantee that Brexit means Brexit.

I would re-phrase that as:
544 of our MPs, most of them pro EU membership, voted to give us our advisory referendum to help them make their decisions.

They will now vote in the best interests of the UK based on information available.

To do is to tell us that subsequent information and data show how disastrous breaking from the EU/EEA would be for the people of the UK.

The wider political class and its cronies in big business and the metropolitan, public school, Oxbridge elites are not above such cynicism and contempt for the will of the people, but too many MPs like being MPs and now appreciate that the "regret" levels are such that a referendum re-run would result in a Remain vote.

Unfortunately, the referendum result has poisoned our relationship with the EU, probably beyond repair. Meaning they will do us no favours in negotiating our exit and any subsequent trade deals meaning the only hope for the UK is to remain a member where we already have those crucial trade deals, etc.

Ian

blackbike wrote:Happily, the referendum result has poisoned our relationship with the EU, probably beyond repair.

To take such pleasure from conflict! ...are you a divorce lawyer?