Brexit, Engxit, Wexit or Scexit?

[stek]

Now there's no chance of Brexit in my lifetimes at least, this will drag on for years just debating how to start the debate to debate how to talk about the Parliamentary debate to debate triggering Article 50 so we can debate with the EU.

Scots and Welsh can have say in Brexit court case - BBC News

[PurpleGorilla]

Now there's no chance of Brexit in my lifetimes at least, this will drag on for years just debating how to start the debate to debate how to talk about the Parliamentary debate to debate triggering Article 50 so we can debate with the EU.

Scots and Welsh can have say in Brexit court case - BBC News

What a joke!

[original PM]

What a joke!

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?

The impression I get is no we would not.

So is this a case where democracy has failed and we see that the true power rest in the hands of a few individuals who will make the decision on our behalf? (and for our own good as well no doubt!)

Sounds more like a socialist dictatorship to me.

[VectraMan]

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.

Who's trying to make us stay?

If Remain had won all the Brexiteers would have carried on moaning about the same issues. Nothing would have been settled. Farage even said that he'd consider 52% too close to be decisive and demand another referendum.

[original PM]

Who's trying to make us stay?

If Remain had won all the Brexiteers would have carried on moaning about the same issues. Nothing would have been settled. Farage even said that he'd consider 52% too close to be decisive and demand another referendum.

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

[Paddy]

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?

The impression I get is no we would not.

So is this a case where democracy has failed and we see that the true power rest in the hands of a few individuals who will make the decision on our behalf? (and for our own good as well no doubt!)

Sounds more like a socialist dictatorship to me.

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.

[jamesbrown]

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.

You're partly correct on the legal status of a referendum. Since we don't have a written constitution, a referendum cannot be, in principle, legally binding. However, it would be perfectly possible to frame legislation in such a way that it becomes active upon the outcome of a referendum (with any conditions attached). Had they done that, we wouldn't be arguing about this now. Also, there's a massive difference between legality and political expediency. It would be politically impossible to ignore the result of the referendum, regardless of the advisory status.

Again, all of this is a sideshow. Tick, tock....

[PurpleGorilla]

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.

My anger is with Cameron. He as PM should have developed a rudimentary contingency plan if the Leave vote won. He should also have triggered article 50 on day one, and then we would just be getting on with it.

[original PM]

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.

I agree with all of that what I am saying is does the supreme court have the right to ignore the will of the majority of the UK people who voted and why?

I understand it was advisory - and we advised to leave therefore by all means jump through whatever hoops you have to jump through but it is not acceptable to ignore the will of the british people.

[stek]

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.