Brexit, Engxit, Wexit or Scexit?

[PurpleGorilla]

I am 100% sure if you reran both the Brexit vote and the POTUS vote 10 more times there would be no Brexit and no Trump. 10-0 everytime.

People acted on the polls and didn't vote based on that, otherwise why the huge groundswell against Brexit and Trump? People with votes got lazy.

OK, a vote is a vote and if you don't vote you fooked it. But really, can anyone remember such reactions against these two popular votes?

Don't get me wrong, I accept it, I'm doing my own thing but isn't it plain to see with Brexit specifically that Gov didn't want it, Parliament didn't want it, Big Business didn't want it, but we relied on an split public to decide? Recipe for disaster and that's what happened.

So in view of the last para. we are gonna have endless tooing and froing until everyone gets fed up and forgets about it.

In the meantime, we'll still be in the EU, the EU will change as it has to, it's half a kick from this, and eventually it'll be a compromise.

I was 60:40 for leave when I voted. If I voted again I am now 100:0.

[Chuck]

I read a poll of polls a few days ago (not that anyone can rely on polls these days), they indicated that the result would be the same. There are some who would change, but the commentary alongside the polls was that most of those who voted leave tend to be hardening their opinion from "marginal leave" to "definite leave".

The threatened catastrophe of a leave vote has utterly failed to materialise. People see they were being lied to, by the Establishment, on a huge scale (Leave side also told a pack of lies).

My feeling is that if you vote for something, and the vested interests do everything in their power to frustrate the outcome, then people start to get very angry indeed.

[original PM]

I read a poll of polls a few days ago (not that anyone can rely on polls these days), they indicated that the result would be the same. There are some who would change, but the commentary alongside the polls was that most of those who voted leave tend to be hardening their opinion from "marginal leave" to "definite leave".

The threatened catastrophe of a leave vote has utterly failed to materialise. People see they were being lied to, by the Establishment, on a huge scale (Leave side also told a pack of lies).

My feeling is that if you vote for something, and the vested interests do everything in their power to frustrate the outcome, then people start to get very angry indeed.

Yeah I agree with this - maybe leave only won because people were doing a protest vote without expecting to win.

But now a leave vote has happened and the people in the EU have shown their true colours by threatening the UK and also by threatening every other country who might be questioning the benefit of being in the EU.

And many many many people are really not happy with that.

[chopper]

All the people trying to petition the supreme court to reverse the decision.

Nobody asked the High Court to reverse the result of the referendum, and nobody is asking the supreme court to reverse the result of the referendum.

All that is being asked is to ensure that the correct process occurs in order to enact the result of the referendum. This will be to avoid court cases once Article 50 has been triggered.

The High Court was asked whether prerogative powers can be used to enact Article 50 and it decided "no - parliament must be consulted".

The Supreme Court is being asked whether the High Court was right to say "no", i.e. were some of the arguments factually wrong? It is also now allowing the Welsh and Scottish administrations to put some arguments forwards as to whether they have a constitutional right to a veto (or at least a right to consultation).

They are not being asked to make something up, but rather to interpret various constitutional things which probably never considered this in the first place.

At the end of it, the decision will be made as to the correct process and article 50 can be triggered. If Article 50 is reversible (and surely only the ECJ can comment on that, not the supreme court?) then there is nothing to stop Article 50 being triggered. It would be the final settlement that would have to be put before parliament who would have to decide whether to reverse Article 50 and remain (would probably need another referendum to get that mandate), or whether to accept the settlement and leave.

If the supreme court decides that Article 50 is irreversible once triggered, then the triggering of it would correctly require an act of parliament as it would lead to the effective revocation of other acts of parliament.

That the referendum result was only advisory was probably because if the original legislation for the referendum was that it would be binding, then it would have probably not been approved by parliament.

Potentially, the Supreme Court could give the Scottish parliament a veto, which would be totes awks indeed.

So for all the people who think that people are asking the Supreme court to overturn the referendum - YOU ARE ALL TALKING OUT OF YOUR ARSE.

[PurpleGorilla]

Nobody asked the High Court to reverse the result of the referendum, and nobody is asking the supreme court to reverse the result of the referendum.

All that is being asked is to ensure that the correct process occurs in order to enact the result of the referendum. This will be to avoid court cases once Article 50 has been triggered.

The High Court was asked whether prerogative powers can be used to enact Article 50 and it decided "no - parliament must be consulted".

The Supreme Court is being asked whether the High Court was right to say "no", i.e. were some of the arguments factually wrong? It is also now allowing the Welsh and Scottish administrations to put some arguments forwards as to whether they have a constitutional right to a veto (or at least a right to consultation).

They are not being asked to make something up, but rather to interpret various constitutional things which probably never considered this in the first place.

At the end of it, the decision will be made as to the correct process and article 50 can be triggered. If Article 50 is reversible (and surely only the ECJ can comment on that, not the supreme court?) then there is nothing to stop Article 50 being triggered. It would be the final settlement that would have to be put before parliament who would have to decide whether to reverse Article 50 and remain (would probably need another referendum to get that mandate), or whether to accept the settlement and leave.

If the supreme court decides that Article 50 is irreversible once triggered, then the triggering of it would correctly require an act of parliament as it would lead to the effective revocation of other acts of parliament.

That the referendum result was only advisory was probably because if the original legislation for the referendum was that it would be binding, then it would have probably not been approved by parliament.

Potentially, the Supreme Court could give the Scottish parliament a veto, which would be totes awks indeed.

So for all the people who think that people are asking the Supreme court to overturn the referendum - YOU ARE ALL TALKING OUT OF YOUR ARSE.

Very nicely put.

But the constitutional macerations are being undertaken largely with the aim to frustrate and delay, and I find that very irritating.

[chopper]

But the constitutional macerations are being undertaken largely with the aim to frustrate and delay, and I find that very irritating.

I'd much rather they do it now. Imagine if David Cameron triggered Article 50 on the day of the referendum, there would be court actions running to ask whether he was legally entitled to do so. Now that would frustrate and delay far more than it is doing now.

Personally - I would rather parliament have its say once the settlement is known than have its say beforehand. This would allow parliament to decide whether the settlement (or lack thereof?) could lead us into an economic wasteland. The EU could say "you're out, but you still have to pay us some money, but no deal. We'll negotiate trade once you've left" and that would be dreadful.

If I was leading the negotiations: we need to leave the EU, and be EEA members at the other end of it, with the right to negotiate our own trade deals with countries outside the EEA, and the right to control our borders in the way we see fit (which will no doubt include a deal whereby workers from the EU have freeish movement, but no entitlement to state handouts for a looooong time).

[original PM]

Nobody snip

So for all the people who think that people are asking the Supreme court to overturn the referendum - YOU ARE ALL TALKING OUT OF YOUR ARSE.

Yes - but if they would they could - a bet if you spoke to these people their expectation if they win is that Brexit will be stopped.

Very nicely put.

But the constitutional macerations are being undertaken largely with the aim to frustrate and delay, and I find that very irritating.

Exactly this - if it is agreed that we are going to trigger article 50 and all the rest if it is just noise and machinations with no value then lets pay them the lip service they deserve.

[Chuck]

Yes - but if they would they could - a bet if you spoke to these people their expectation if they win is that Brexit will be stopped.

If A50 does get triggered, and I strongly think it will, that won't be the end of it. There will be further court cases demanding a veto on the final negotiations or a second referendum.

[PurpleGorilla]

I'd much rather they do it now. Imagine if David Cameron triggered Article 50 on the day of the referendum, there would be court actions running to ask whether he was legally entitled to do so. Now that would frustrate and delay far more than it is doing now.

Personally - I would rather parliament have its say once the settlement is known than have its say beforehand. This would allow parliament to decide whether the settlement (or lack thereof?) could lead us into an economic wasteland. The EU could say "you're out, but you still have to pay us some money, but no deal. We'll negotiate trade once you've left" and that would be dreadful.

If I was leading the negotiations: we need to leave the EU, and be EEA members at the other end of it, with the right to negotiate our own trade deals with countries outside the EEA, and the right to control our borders in the way we see fit (which will no doubt include a deal whereby workers from the EU have freeish movement, but no entitlement to state handouts for a looooong time).

I agree - this whole show us your hand before you play for Team GB is just stupid. Better to engage parliament during the negotiation, not before.

[vetran]

I'd much rather they do it now. Imagine if David Cameron triggered Article 50 on the day of the referendum, there would be court actions running to ask whether he was legally entitled to do so. Now that would frustrate and delay far more than it is doing now.

Personally - I would rather parliament have its say once the settlement is known than have its say beforehand. This would allow parliament to decide whether the settlement (or lack thereof?) could lead us into an economic wasteland. The EU could say "you're out, but you still have to pay us some money, but no deal. We'll negotiate trade once you've left" and that would be dreadful.

If I was leading the negotiations: we need to leave the EU, and be EEA members at the other end of it, with the right to negotiate our own trade deals with countries outside the EEA, and the right to control our borders in the way we see fit (which will no doubt include a deal whereby workers from the EU have freeish movement, but no entitlement to state handouts for a looooong time).

I'm all for it being legal but as chopper & Chuck said the intention of some of those involved is clearly to derail not ensure the safety of the process.