Brexit, Engxit, Wexit or Scexit?

[PurpleGorilla]

One more thing.

If we turn now and don't go ahead with A50, the world will think we are a bunch of pussys. And the EU, well we will have ZERO negotiation power - like a sad old man who SWMBO has sucked any soul out of, just there, but not really.

[mudskipper]

Didn't the Welsh vote leave?

[mudskipper]

Electoral Commission | EU referendum results

Wales:

Region total


Remain: 772,347

Leave: 854,572

[d000hg]

What a joke!

It's awful when the law is followed.

For me it is quite an eye opener.

So we had the referendum and the majority said leave.

And now we are trying to leave we have people trying to make us stay.

If we had all voted stay would there be the same amount of campaging for us to ignore that and leave?

Of course the onus is on Leave, change requires action whereas Remain is not bothering.

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

Some people believe the laws and rules should be followed even if they don't like the outcome. If the rule is it has to go through parliament then that's what has to happen. If a court hearing is allowed, allowing people to state their case is what should happen.

The court case is only if MPs actually need to vote or not... Labour and Tory MPs both say they will vote to back the referendum result so we still get A50. Just a bit later after all the dicking about.

[PurpleGorilla]

The court case is only if MPs actually need to vote or not... Labour and Tory MPs both say they will vote to back the referendum result so we still get A50. Just a bit later after all the dicking about.

Remoaners think the dicking around might prevent brexit. It certainly will delay it. It doesn't really matter though, Le Penn will win, and then the EU is over.

[jamesbrown]

Of course the onus is on Leave, change requires action whereas Remain is not bothering.

Er, remain and status quo are two completely different things, despite the (failed) effort by the Remain campaign to conflate the two. I don't think anyone (sensible) would argue that nothing has changed over the last several decades we've been in the EU. Different timescales and rates of change, but remain was a vote for a fundamentally different future than leave. Two fundamentally different options, no status quo.

[Flashman]

BBC Question Time Audience Member Thinks ‘Democracy Has Been Lowered To Mob Rule’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6IKK9X_6j0

[Paddy]

Electoral Commission | EU referendum results

Wales:

Region total


Remain: 772,347

Leave: 854,572

[GB9]

No. It just shows the ignorance of most Brits who don’t bother to find out what they are voting for. It was quite clear to me that referendums are advisory in the UK and any change in EU status would have to go through Parliament. Instead of watching Top Gear and being over entertained, perhaps people should spend a few minutes educating themselves.

As for the government lawyers, I can only imagine that they are paid and bullied by politicians to deliver the answer they want. The same happened for the Iraq invasion, the government didn’t like the legal opinion so they asked for it to be revised.

Any person who can do joined up writing can visit the Supreme Court website and understand what the court is there for. It is worded in layman’s terms.

With such a narrow margin on Brexit winning in the Referendum and a vote based on dodgy claims, it was blatantly obvious how it would end up ie at the SC; it won't end with the current case!

The f’ing twatt who worded the referendum and who did not state a threshold for the winners should be shot.

Don't let that stop you showing your ignorance though.

No-one knows if the referendum was advisory or not. There is nothing in the constitution that says either way. The only reason this one wasn't is because the 3 EU supporting judges said it wasn't. The last referendum we had was mandatory so your first comment proves how dumb you are. I assume you will turn off Clarkson now and educate yourself.

The Government lawyers are following what the Government believes (that's their job) and arguing the case. If the 11 dumbasses who are about to hear the case decide the Government's argument isn't valid then the Government will lose. As one of them has already pretty much stated her verdict, then it's down to the remaining dumbasses.

With a massive majority of over 1.25m votes in a first past the post system, even in the face of project lie and threat, it's blatently obvious we will leave the EU. Indeed the majority in favour of leaving appears to have increased based on recent polls in the Indy and Mirror.

The idiot who worded the question should have made it absolutely clear that the vote was mandatory. Then the 6-1 in favour wouldn't have had the same issue some have suddenly developed now.

Now if only the thick Remnants would accept democracy rather than pathetically trying to stop it. Hysterical when you see Farron leads a party with the word 'Democrats' in the title.

[chopper]

No-one knows if the referendum was advisory or not. There is nothing in the constitution that says either way.

The European Union Referendum Act 2015 did not have a provision in it for enacting the result of the referendum; ergo it was advisory.

The last referendum we had was mandatory so your first comment proves how dumb you are.

The Parliamentary Voting System And Constituencies Act 2011 has specific provisions in it to enact the result of that referendum (Section 8, if you want to look it up).

So it follows that precendent was set in the 2011 legislation that for a referendum to be legally binding, it would have clauses in it to enact the result of the referendum.