OK MPs, you vote, we’ll be outside with the hempen

Metaphorically, of course:

Government is DEFEATED in High Court over Brexit as judges rule MPs MUST be given vote on starting EU exit

They do still have lampposts on Westminster Bridge, yes?

Only metaphorically, of course.

149 thoughts on “OK MPs, you vote, we’ll be outside with the hempen”

  1. Fuck metaphors. Are you listening security service scum?

    If the cunts need a civil war to get the message over to them –so be it.

  2. This is exactly why Brendan O’Neill was right: Article 50 should have been invoked immediately. When you’re facing a concerted and determined opposition, you don’t give that opposition as much time and opportunity as possible.

    Also, after the Referendum, every Remnant MP in a Leave constituency should have called a by-election. Without that, they cannot realistically claim to be representing their constituents on this issue.

    Be interesting to see how many Remnants vote Leave on democratic principle. Since fans of the EU have no democratic principles, I’m guessing not many.

    So, Parliament votes down Brexit. Then what? All fucking hell breaks loose, I suppose.

    Looks like Nigel needs to unresign.

  3. This is why it was invoked immediately. The Tories for the most part didn’t want to invoke it.

    As I posted earlier, this does show some pretty good contingency planning.

    Draft the terms badly, so that the referendum is non-binding. Check.

    Resign immediately in the hope your successor bottles it. Check.

    Got to say, they’ve played this very well.

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Also, after the Referendum, every Remnant MP in a Leave constituency should have called a by-election. Without that, they cannot realistically claim to be representing their constituents on this issue.”

    They can just invoke Burke.

  5. Given the current polling, we can expect a thumping conservative majority – which should put paid to the irritating rebellions over child migrants and benefits. A good thing. And hopefully Labour will be destroyed by UKIP in the north.

  6. Sorry, corrected below:

    This is why it wasn’t invoked immediately. The Tories for the most part didn’t want to invoke it.

    As I posted earlier, this does show some pretty good contingency planning.

    Draft the terms badly, so that the referendum is non-binding. Check.

    Resign immediately in the hope your successor bottles it. Check.

    Got to say, they’ve played this very well.

  7. If the Remain MPs had the numbers and the balls, they could get a no confidence motion against the government and kick off an election. They could do it today, don’t need no court cases.

    The fact they haven’t done this suggests they don’t want an election. The government will get its way.

  8. The hairdresser who brought this case voted Leave. Talking outside court about he brought the case because he didn’t want the Government taking away his democratic rights. What does he think is going to happen now, then? He’s a fuckwit.

  9. “This is your decision. The Government will implement whatever you decide.”

    Already written to the office of May. Emailed MP. Going to next MPs surgery to make matters very clear to the Remain cunt.

    I’d suggest everyone do the same. This will galvanise Leave and a lot of Remainers who still have regard for Democracy. I think 52:48 is yesterdays news –Leave will gain many adherents as people see what kind of future the Remainiac scum intend for them. As voiceless slaves in the EU machine.

  10. What does he think is going to happen now, then? He’s a fuckwit.

    He’s a hairdresser.

    If people think the referendum was nasty, wait until the election. If the Tory party doesn’t run on a Brexit ticket it is fucked. Labour will be fucked regardless of their position on Brexit. The Lib Dems will get the foreigners and traitor vote.

  11. I think it’s ace.

    Maximum confusion (and doubles) all around.

    The Government will win in the Supreme Court only to be told to fuck off in the European Court.
    Better still, Government lose in Supreme and have to grovel to EU courts.

    It’s all academic, we can not be allowed to leave, that’s not the democratic way.

  12. We are going to leave Bob regardless. None of these cunts can create a working system without consent any more. If Remain is forced on us then violence will be the only legitimacy the state has and it is MUCH harder to run a system that way. Esp a system that already shows signs of economic collapse.

  13. Lots of idiot lawyers on my Facebook timeline crowing about this.

    I don’t know what they think is going to happen. Do they seriously suppose that the result can just be overridden by a bunch of barristers and their MP mates, without any consequences.

    Fucking delusional.

  14. I can’t wait for the Remains to appear on TV and state that Brexit has been deemed illegal by the European Court. I can’t fucking wait. I want Corbyn and all the other wankers on screen, nodding in agreement. Then the election.

  15. Mr Ecks,

    all the doors marked OUT lead IN

    At the end of the day, those that protest too much will be sectioned and their power of attorney will vote to remain on their behalf.

    You can checkout anytime you want…

  16. ” If the Tory party doesn’t run on a Brexit ticket it is fucked. Labour will be fucked regardless of their position on Brexit. ”

    Problem, isn’t it? When there’s an election, the parties will contend. Unless there’s a serious pro-Brexit challenger, one of them will win. UKIP as a government? Maybe in some alternate universe. So it’ll be down to which one most fears losing votes.

  17. PS to above.
    And that’s just the election. It’s already accepted. Manifesto pledges are not binding on governments. So whoever wins …

  18. They don’t have the manpower or the brainpower Bob. If they did it would be 1984 already.

    They can’t control events and–despite having strung matters out for decades already–they can’t ultimately escape the economic shit heading everybody’s way. They don’t own the world–they just think and act like they do. Reality is knocking on their door. The only real danger is mugs buying into their shit–as you seem to be doing.

    Get out there and fight and IF we fail after having done our best –not after having done sod all but declare defeat without lifting more than a typing finger–then we can commiserate.

  19. Many MPs, whose profession is politics, may not be smart enough to realise that voting down A50 is politically insane.

    We need to be smart about this people if that does happen. Stop flapping, start thinking about how and what needs to be done, because we need to win and get this right, this isnt a joke, it could become very very important.

    UKIP need to get their house in order and we need something running outside of political parties. Anyone want to start a discussion about this and not be a time waster?

  20. May has just got her arse thro’ the door. She won’t want to risk it all on a GE if she can avoid it. But neither can she stay saying “Well I wanted Brexit but all these nasty Judgeboys and MPs won’t let me –boo hoo”. So if she can’t force them to vote Brexit thro’ she will have no choice. She is a stupid cow for letting matters get to this state but she IS a stupid cow.

    I think she is quite nasty enough however to put the needed pressure on Tory scum to make them tow the line as needed. They aren’t much good at conscience or backbone. And middle-class cultural Marxist triumph isn’t going to win out over their careers and pensions. The EU could promise them a pension but that would hurt rather than help their cause.

  21. If it ends up in a Commons vote, it’ll certainly be interesting electoral arithmetic.

    Given the way the Brexit vote went in England, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Tories go for a whip. Might still have the odd rebel, though.

    SNP will all vote Remain, makes sense given how Scotland voted.

    Wales… dunno.

    London, the Labour MPs can safely vote Remain.

    Not sure what SE Tories will do, given there was a Remain majority in quite a few places down here. A good chunk of that could be from the large LibDem minorities, so ignorable for a Tory.

    Labour oop north is likely to have some Leavers, like Dennis Skinner.

    I think Leave should still win in the Commons.

    What happens if the Lords then tries to block it, though? Force it through with something like the Salisbury Convention?

    http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/

  22. Quite clearly leaving the EU is a major part of the current government’s policy. Hence if a motion to leave fails, that will double as a vote of no confidence in the government and trigger a general election.
    No prizes for guessing what the major issue will be.
    Expect any Tory that voted against to be deselected, firstly for disloyalty, and secondly because Tory grass roots (as against MPs) tend to want out.
    Don’t expect Labour voters outside London to remain Labour voters if Labour campaigns to stay- which it will because that’s the only issue on which the members and MPs agree.
    Result- a large Conservative majority committed to leaving the EU.

  23. I just want to strangle all these little turds gloating about parliamentary sovereignty.

    When we give MPs the power to run our affairs, in our interests, we don’t do it on the basis that they will give that power away to someone else.

    Directors are not empowered to give control of companies away to other people without permission. An MP can’t give his duties up to someone else without a by-election.

    MPs since (at least) Maastricht have given away an increasing amount of the powers that were entrusted to them. The first chance the British people have been given to directly authorise this has resulted in a rejection of that decision.

    Pretending that Parliamentary sovereignty entails the right to give away that sovereignty is a category error and nothing more.

  24. Also if we might be able to get several million signatures on a petition to remove the Judges. Sack them without compensation, confiscate their pensions and disbar them from future legal practise.

  25. Mr Ecks,

    It’s been 1984 since before either of us was born.

    In or Out, revolution or not, the ruling class will still be in charge.

    Whilst TPTB are fighting TPTWTB they aren’t hassling me.

    I voted Out, I’m writing to my MP to get him to vote In (and when he does I will campaign to get him deselected)

  26. You seem challenged in the marbles department Bob.

    If you are on some Eris kick fine, do your weird thing. But claiming its all stitched up is just an excuse to do fuck all. If it was all stitched up the few of us to have been born would be breaking our backs building Pharaoh Rameses XXXXVVVVIIII th’s pyramid.

  27. “Parliamentary sovereignty” is starting to look awfully like openly being public sector dictatorship.

    I mean, let’s face it, that bunch of tax thieves, abortionists and family wreckers is a band of little Hitlers (or Stalins) anyway, but the mask has slipped a bit more today.

    How anyone can find that something to celebrate is a mystery to me, though. Again comes back to them not realising that one day, the boot could be on the other foot.

    At least most of the folks here don’t appear to live under that illusion, so we want to keep the state as small as possible.

  28. Charlie,

    > When we give MPs the power to run our affairs, in our interests, we don’t do it on the basis that they will give that power away to someone else.

    Exactly. I wish there were more people, especially MPs, making this point. I’m sick of having to quote Tony Benn.

    > Pretending that Parliamentary sovereignty entails the right to give away that sovereignty is a category error and nothing more.

    I am seeing Brexiteers getting towards making this point, at least. Been a couple of MPs saying (rightly) that the Court has completely ignored the Referendum result.

    > MPs since (at least) Maastricht have given away an increasing amount of the powers that were entrusted to them. The first chance the British people have been given to directly authorise this has resulted in a rejection of that decision.

    Quite. And what a lot of Remainers don’t recognise is that this means the EU’s power over the UK is now unequivocally illegitimate. They think they can block Article 50 and everything will be the same. But the EC is now an illegitimate government in the UK regardless of Article 50. Article 50 is merely the process whereby the mess gets tidied up. Refusing to tidy it up doesn’t mean it’s not a mess; it makes the mess worse.

  29. Here’s a question. If the Referendum was only advisory and the final decision is really up to Parliament, then, since a majority of MPs were pro-Remain, why did the Remain side even bother campaigning in the Referendum? Waste of their time and money, wasn’t it?

  30. If it came to a vote, even unwhipped, I think most Conservative MPs would support the Government. Just over half declared for Remain pre-Ref (with some abstainers), but Remain was then govt policy, and now it is not. May will see to it that the Government will abide by the results of the referendum.

  31. If those opposed are foolish enough to force an election, Labour is likely to be greatly reduced, the Lib Dems are unlikely to gain much if at all, and even the SNP might find the results not entirely to their advantage. Suddenly Scots are more visibly aware that the SNP has been governing badly for nearly a decade, and that’s likely to be reflected in a GE result.

    Of course the government should push through the boundary changes quickly as well.

  32. @Squander Two

    Exactly. Also had the result gone the other way it would obviously not have been “advisory” but “clearly decisive”.

  33. Mr Ecks,

    there was a whole industry of slaves servicing the needs of the pyramid builders.

    The toy train set is a modern day pyramid.

  34. Yeah…right Bob–obviously nothing has changed since those ole ‘gyptian days.

    I bet you are still looking for a bargain in salve to put on your whip scars.

    On the Internet.

  35. @ CHF

    “If those opposed are foolish enough to force an election, Labour is likely to be greatly reduced, the Lib Dems are unlikely to gain much if at all, and even the SNP might find the results not entirely to their advantage. Suddenly Scots are more visibly aware that the SNP has been governing badly for nearly a decade, and that’s likely to be reflected in a GE result.”

    There’s an increasingly Schoedingian quality to things since the referendum.

    Direct measurement of sentiment will knacker politicians- it takes away all their options. They are far better off by repeating what they hope to be the case, on the basis that a lie, told often enough, will eventually acquire the appearance of truth.

    The minute a referendum result comes in, all the artifice is stripped away, and the only thing they can do is get on with delivering what the people have asked for.

  36. You are right Mr Ecks, we are no longer slaves now that we have ‘the priceless blessings of freedom’.

  37. Another perspective from North’s blog is that as this judgement does confirm that Parliament is sovereign overall–it also confirms that it cannot hand powers over to the scum of the EU.
    Which is not really such good news for the Remain gang.

  38. Squander Two said:
    “why did the Remain side even bother campaigning in the Referendum?”

    Because they wanted to be able to claim that “the people” backed them? Not because they care what “the people” think (staying in the EU is far more important to them), but because it would have been good PR.

  39. “This is exactly why Brendan O’Neill was right: Article 50 should have been invoked immediately. When you’re facing a concerted and determined opposition, you don’t give that opposition as much time and opportunity as possible.”

    And I’ve been saying this OVER AND FUCKING OVER since June 23. I said on the day to invoke it immediately. And loads of cunts were saying there’s no hurry. They didn’t understand what they’re up against. (Or they wanted it thwarted.)

    Best case scenario: the legal appeal wins because the courts realize they’ve overreached themselves.

    Second best scenario: there’s a Parliamentary vote, and the Leave vote wins in Parliament. This is because Conservatives MPs obey the whip — they’re mostly prgamatists, and they know that if they vote for Remain their careers as MPs are over. Labour, even if they demand MPs vote Remain, will not be able to control most Labour Leavers from voting Leave.

    Third-best scenario: early election, Tory Remain MPs like Soubry are deselected, UKIP resurgent, landslide to the Conservatives.

    Worst-case scenario: widespread violence and insurrection.

  40. Corbyn will support triggering A50, he said we should have triggered on June 24th.

    Whatever you think of him, he is a democrat and probably still wants to leave.

  41. Cal: This is because Conservatives MPs obey the whip

    They’ve been whipped to vote Keith Vaz onto the justice select committee just this week so if the ovine flock can support an obvious wrong’un from the opposition, they might be persuaded to support their prime minister.

    What we are witnessing today is no more than the remainer’s corpse twitching (and the court overreaching itself).

  42. For what it’s worth, I emailed my Remainer MP (who then became a “Brexit means Brexit” type when the winds shifted with the result) reminding him of:

    “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.”

    For what it’s worth.

  43. > Second best scenario: there’s a Parliamentary vote, and the Leave vote wins in Parliament. This is because Conservatives MPs obey the whip — they’re mostly prgamatists, and they know that if they vote for Remain their careers as MPs are over.

    Also, to be fair, a few of them have changed their minds since the Referendum, and many of them have made it clear that they will support Leave even though it’s not what they want because they believe in democracy.

    The real spanner in the works is the Government being forced to exlpain publicly what they’re aiming for in their negotiations before the negotiations start. But the silver lining to that clusterfuck is that utterly screwing up the negotiations makes Hard Brexit — or, as I like to think of it, the “fuck it” option — more likely.

  44. Continuation of HS2 (which is a “connecting the regions” Euro project that makes no sense for an independent Britain) was a sure sign it’s business as usual for the establishment. That’s when I concluded we’re not going to Brexit.

    There won’t be rioting in the streets, so they’ll get their way steadily enough.

  45. Cal,

    > And I’ve been saying this OVER AND FUCKING OVER since June 23. I said on the day to invoke it immediately. And loads of cunts were saying there’s no hurry. They didn’t understand what they’re up against. (Or they wanted it thwarted.)

    Pete North has been particularly egregious in this respect. Claims to be anti-EU, yet has been advocating hard for Article 50 to be delayed as long as possible, on the spurious grounds that it’s terribly complicated, and has been openly derisive of the ignorance and utter stupidity of anyone who wanted it invoked quickly. Well, we morons were right, and the expert was wrong. Again.

  46. Bloke in North Dorset

    S2,

    Remainers arrogantly thought the sheeple would give them at least 60:40 majority but that they could get more. Then whenever anti EU concerns were raised they could answer “you’ve had your referendum, you lost, fuck off”.

    Thankfully not enough sheeple had read the script.

  47. PJF,

    > Continuation of HS2 (which is a “connecting the regions” Euro project that makes no sense for an independent Britain) was a sure sign it’s business as usual for the establishment.

    Nah, HS2 is perfectly explained by the Memoirs Theory of politics, invented by me: Politicians will always support any Bloody Great Big Thing, because it will look impressive in their memoirs. None of them want a biography about how they supported a series of piddling little incremental things that the public don’t even know about. They want to point to the Bloody Great Big Thing and proclaim “See? I did that!” If it dominates the landscape and makes lots of noise, all the better.

  48. Squander

    You Mean Richard North? I thought he and Booker were advocates of moving to EEA membership hence Article 50 would need to be invoked quickly and a Norwegian style deal set up?

  49. “The real spanner in the works is the Government being forced to exlpain publicly what they’re aiming for in their negotiations before the negotiations start.”

    I agree. So what’s to stop May accelerating the process, saying “Ok, Parliament can take a vote on it, NOW”.

    3 line Tory whip, reject any Benn / Corbyn style amendments, such as “only if we can still have our free red smarties” etc, and if Parliament does pass it, she has the authority she needs, and the Government can then simply continue with her pre A50 planning prior to invoking it.

    If Parliament doesn’t pass it…

    Does that stop the buggers?

  50. Both of the Norths are arrogant ego men . Which is why the father doesn’t like Farage. Also an ego man but much smoother. The father is a hard worker and well-informed. The son is a yob but he has annoyed his local council thieves so he can’t be all bad.

    Anyone who doesn’t share their idea of how things should be done is a moron. “Grow up” is seniors favourite put down which = “I’m your Daddy”.

  51. Squander Two, HS2 won’t complete until half these tossers are dead, let alone scribbling memoirs.

    As (host) Tim said, if they’re serious about Brexit they’ll be building fisheries protection vessels, etc. Hope you’re not holding your breath for those.

  52. I seem to remember North senior arguing that art 50 should be invoked early and that the 1st item of negotiation should be to increase the 2 year period…

    Which seemed perfectly sensible to me.

  53. “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.”

    Yes. Only a fucking lawyer could say that wasn’t binding on a government. That is a straightforward pledge. In any other situation bar politics that would be a contract.

  54. PJF,

    “Squander Two, HS2 won’t complete until half these tossers are dead, let alone scribbling memoirs.”

    As a slight modification to Squander Two’s idea, it’s about “leaving a legacy”. It’s driven by ego, though. The idea that people will have statues erected to them after their deaths.

    One of my pet litmus tests is whether a politician thinks we should host the Olympics. The ones that do are always wrong ‘uns. They’ll make lots of excuses about improving health or tourism, but it’s really just a massive piece of ego bling paid for by someone else for them.

  55. Triggering Article 50 to leave in Spring 2019 makes sense, as that co-incides with the end of the MEPs term of office and avoids terminating them early or the nonsense of elections to a body we’re about to leave – just like in various local government reforms any pending elections are cancelled and existing members cease when the new body takes over.

    Whether triggering Arctile 50 in Spring 2017 to leave in Spring 2019 is another question. There is a two-year transition period, but I don’t see anything in the documentation that says that starts the instant you submit Arctle 50, just that it requires a two-year transition. I can’t see why it couldn’t have been triggered in Summer 2016 stating “the two-year transition will be Spring 2017 to Spring 2019”.

    When I ask my tenants for two months’ notice of leaving that doesn’t mean I expect them to leave 61 days after telling me they want to leave. I expect them to leave at some mutually agreed date *at* *least* 61 days in the future.

  56. Unbelievable how the fundamental principles of democracy are so casually jettisoned by some factions on the left: http://bit.ly/28X8QsZ There’s still quite a bit of Lenin rattling around inside some moderate liberals…

  57. Wilts,

    > it’s about “leaving a legacy”.

    That’s how I used to put it, actually. Not sure why I switched to the memoirs formulation.

    > One of my pet litmus tests is whether a politician thinks we should host the Olympics.

    Oh, God, the idiot fucking adulation of Lord Coe. He was a runner. He stopped being a runner and became an MP in a safe seat who did nothing except keep asking for London to host the Olympics. The he got elevated to the Lords for some reason and devoted all his effort to lobbying for London to host the Olympics. And he persuaded our lords and masters to agree to the frankly totalitarian banana-republic demands of the IOC. Apparently, forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill for an extravaganza devoted to his personal hobby makes him some sort of national hero.

    I like music. How is what Coe did any different from me becoming an MP and then a lord and doing nothing whatsoever except arranging for the UK to put on a state-funded music festival? I hope that, were I to do so, the public would point out that I was obviously a corrupt narcissist.

    I really dislike Glenda Jackson, but at least she didn’t devote her entire parliamentary career to lobbying for state funding for theatre. She appeared to have some reason to go into politics other than grabbing money for her own hobbies.

  58. The further people try and stretch it, the harder it will smack them back in the face.

    It doesn’t matter what happens. They are subverting the will of the people. If they lose, we get Brexit. If they win, the people will rise up and destroy them by voting them out, and then a parliament of purple and blue votes for it.

  59. I’m mildly anti EU. A cartelist racket from the get go, a pig trough for rejected politicians, nothing to do with peace or the construction of Europe etc.
    But I’m astonished at the emotions, here and in Remainer-wonderland. I never thought it was that important.
    Likewise sovereignty. It seems obvious to me that Parliament is sovereign over the monarch. If Parliament decides it’s sovereign over the voters then we’ll get another Parliament PDQ.

  60. BIF – I’ve spent most of my life being mildly anti EU. I voted Remain out of economic timidity, so I’m not sure why this riles me quite so much.

    I think the truth is that the mask has slipped badly. A lot of people (those I know personally and those I don’t) have revealed themselves to be unpleasant sneering snobs. That can’t ever really be undone. I’m aware that some Remainers feel that Leave voters have reacted badly too.

    I don’t know how the country will recover in the short term. I suppose Cameron will get the blame for calling the referendum, though that ignores the fact that both major parties reneged on having one over Lisbon.

    Blaming Cameron for the division we’re going to have is like blaming Charles I leaving London for the Civil War, really.

  61. “You seem challenged in the marbles department Bob.”

    Correct, Ecksy, though under-statement isn’t your usual style. 😉

  62. Calm down, girls.
    All they said was that a vote in Parliament was necessary.
    Do you imagine that MPs and Lords will dare to vote against us hoi polloi? What balls.

  63. @Charlie Suet

    “A lot of people (those I know personally and those I don’t) have revealed themselves to be unpleasant sneering snobs.”

    Yes, this. My Faceache feed after the vote told me I had made the right decision to stay away from it for so long. Supposedly intelligent people who simply hadn’t grown up enough to realise that not everyone shares their opinion. Twattery.

    In a lot of ways, I was hoping Remain would lose just so I wouldn’t have to put up with the ignorant gloating, the same reason I hoped Obama would lose and Hillary will too.

    At least the hard-core Remainers only have themselves to blame in that regard so far, as most of the butthurt over the result has been self-inflicted. Lose quietly and with dignity, fine. Go on a personal Faceache or Twatter and proclaim “WAYCIST, WAYCIST” to the world and they’re just begging to get slagged off.

    I’d decided to keep quiet and not rub anyone’s face in it, the morning the result came in. Then they went and rubbed their own faces in it instead. Is there a good Latin term for that, something like auto-whatever?

  64. At the end of the day–or near it–the Tory MPs –and ditto ZaNu hacks who have de-selection already on the cards– are unlikely to want to put themselves up for a fight with a majority of the British voters plus a substantial number of non-Remainiac remain voters incensed at an elite “fuck your democracy” caper.

    We would all be well-advised to make sure the fuckers are in no doubt about how we feel about any impending betrayal. Already emailed May and the MP. Will be following up with written letters and visit to MPrick’s surgery. Which is what he’ll need if he proves a sell-out.

    Imagine that times 20+ million and I think we would have some impact.

  65. Meanwhile, you can read the BBC website and have no clue of the mounting Clinton scandals. Including those involving assistance from outside agencies.

    Pretty scary.

  66. Squander Two,

    To be fair, people in the UK were twats about the Olympics. I was warning people right back in 2005 that it was fucking stupid idea (but with an explanation) and they acted like idiots. “But, it’s the Olympics”. “So?” “Great sports like athletics” “When was the last athletics meet you went to” “That’s not the point”.

    Then afterwards, people up north were like “I thought it would do more for us”. I mean, why? What mental connection got you to think that other than just accepting what some politicians told you?

    The funniest thing was people I knew fighting the website to spend £200 on tickets for exciting sports like swimming and hockey who do not give a fuck about either. “yeah, but it’ll be a once in a lifetime for the kids”. Well, true, but so is chicken pox.

  67. I’m appalled by the High Court decision; but let’s see the result of the appeal to the Supreme Court.

    (BoboffyourRocker: EU courts are irrelevant here.)

    If the SC rules in favour of the HC judgement, then there’ll be a vote in Parliament. A majority would almost certainly vote to implement a.50, but the remainiacs would try to amend the legislation to allow for a soft brexit (and so a possible re-entry to the EU, which is their wet dream) with requirements to stay in the Single Market, etc. The ‘establishment’ will not deny the will of the people: it will aim to soften – even largely negate – it.

  68. If May had the balls the entire act of parliament would consist of the line “We’re leaving” and the vote would be tomorrow. What’s to fucking debate?

  69. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I predicted, in 2005, that the Olympics would cost £20 billion of taxpayers’ money. And in 2004, before it had been ‘awarded’, the ridiculous propagandist fervour and lambasting of anyone who dared call it into question was such I was moved to parody.

  70. Mr Ecks,

    “At the end of the day–or near it–the Tory MPs –and ditto ZaNu hacks who have de-selection already on the cards– are unlikely to want to put themselves up for a fight with a majority of the British voters plus a substantial number of non-Remainiac remain voters incensed at an elite “fuck your democracy” caper.”

    It goes deeper than that. People will simply never trust that party again who voted Brexit if their MP tries anything. They were fucking told what to do.

    Honestly, how do we legally “get” Nick Clegg?Anyone want to chip in on some private detectives?

  71. @ Squander Two
    One of the things about Seb Coe as an MP was that he refused to sign off a mildly corrupt claim by a fellow MP and then resigned because he felt the HoC was endemically corrupt.

  72. Bloke in North Dorset

    “If May had the balls the entire act of parliament would consist of the line “We’re leaving” and the vote would be tomorrow. What’s to fucking debate?”

    Yep. Been thinking about this most of the day and that’s my conclusion. There’s no point waiting for the SC and any other legal or political machinations to drag it out, all it needs is something like:

    “The Government has the right to implement the will of the people and trigger Article 50 at a time of its choosing so as to gain the best deal for the UK”.

    I’m also getting pissed off with the idea that the Government should tell Parliament its negotiating strategy and goals. Are these people that fucking stupid? Who goes in to a negotiation having told the the other side their tactics and, by extension, red lines?

  73. Mr. Eks:

    It is one of those rare but extant curiosities that the words, “tow the line” and identically-pronounced “toe the line” occur as English-language phrases. But their meanings are entirely dissimilar,–have nothing whatever to do with each other. And, in this case, you’ve chosen the wrong one.

    You want “toe the line,” as in two blokes (I think that’s what you call ’em) arguing, getting in each others’ faces, until, finally, one scratches a line in the dirt with the toe of his shoe, remains in place (toeing the line), challenging the other to “cross the line.”

  74. Quite.

    I’m okay with the judgement, which appears to be literally correct. You can view the initial vote to hold the referendum as an implied vote to uphold the result, however that’s a big call for a High Court judge.

    Bear in mind this is only our third referendum ever, and the first to have changed the status quo.

    The lesson is to make things clear next time.

    Regardless of which, the vote has to stand. Comments such as Sturgeon’s and others (the vote was illegitimate because we the exact new terms weren’t published, blah blah), are not only opportunistic but completely fucking repellent.

    I knew exactly what the terms were: vote leave and we leave the EU. How complicated was that?

  75. Gene Berman,
    That’s not what it means at all.

    “Toe the line” means to conform. MP’s obeying the whip are toeing the line.

    Probably from an old Navy expression: sailors would form up to receive their pay in-line, with their toes meeting the specified line.

  76. The judgement seems to me to be clearly saying that the UK Parliament is supreme, which is why I voted Leave, so that the UK Parliament would be supreme.

    And that’s the whole point. If Parliament forms a government that I don’t like and enacts laws I don’t like I have the ability to campaign and kick out that government and parliament through democratic means.

  77. A couple of weeks back I was pretty much resigned to hard Brexit. Now it seems there’s a possibility of at least a softer Brexit. Parliament is majority pro-EU – they may fear for their jobs and continue to bleat on about respecting the result of the referendum, but at least a little bit of their heads will be trying to influence the terms to be as soft was possible. The Euro-Tories have their vested business interests and the Euro-Labours have their hearts and their significant liberal/immigrant vote.

    Best (pie in the sky) case scenario, for a Europhile like myself, is the Government can’t get the majority of the house to agree on the Brexit strategy, they call a General Election and the electorate somewhat change their mind about Brexit, returning (at least) another weak Eurosceptic government.

    This rigmarole carries on until the only option is for the Government to go to the public with another plebiscite on their own clearly defined Brexit strategy (rather than the ill-defined Brexit that was presented last time out).

  78. If the Surpreme Court overturns the decision I trust the costs will be recovered from the High Court judges who made it go all that way?

    The judgment says that the Crown doesn’t have the authority to give up the rights granted by the European Communities Act 1972 without Parliament giving its consent. It already has. The exit mechanism (Article 50) predates the referendum. Passing legislation to authorise the referendum is all the consent that is needed imo. What else did they expect from a Leave vote?

  79. If there’s to be a vote in parliament on Article 50 there’s no actual need for the government to say anything about what they’re planning. Nothing at all. The vote just needs to be on whether we invoke Article 50 or not, ie. give notice to the EU that we are leaving. The negotiation comes afterwards. If there needs to be a vote on that later on, then so be it, but at this point the vote just needs to be about whether or not we invoke A50, and I think that will get through.

    The government just needs to ignore any Remainers like Soubry who try to get some concessions in return for voting Leave. No concessions. No compromises. No details. No seat on the board. Just a vote on Article 50. Vote for it, or be prepared to go back to your constituency and your voters and see what they think of you voting Remain after a new election is called.

  80. BIND, quite,there is absolutely no requirement to debate the negotiation,there is only the requirement for parliament to ratify the result of the referendum. As if we’re going to sit and and let Nick fucking Clegg demands amendments to the bill, fuck off.

    Call their bluff, ratify the result as an issue of confidence or face the electorate in four weeks time, your choice fuckwits. They’d all piss themselves at the idea of being kicked off the gravy train and their European principles would evaporate.

  81. May should have a debate on the subject in parliament. Draw out the quislings, then call an election. Have local Conservative groups deselect the scum. And the election will be all about Brexit “I want the people of this country to endorse my strategy”. Have a manifesto commitment to sign Article 50 by March.

    It will be a landslide as Brexiters turn out in huge numbers. Corbyn won’t have a clue. UKIP can win some seats in the North. Then, hold the vote immediately after and seal it. And after that, go to town on the Enemy Class.

  82. An election in a month or so, after parliament refuses to pass a carte blanche Brexit negotiating position, would be super-entertaining.

  83. > Pound soars 1% on news from High Court.

    It’s up about 2.5% against the RMB. The day after I take the rent out of my bank too. Not waiting a day has cost me a night in the pub! Damn it!

  84. What’s their basis for claiming it’s ‘advisory’?

    I’ve just searched the text of the European Union Referendum Act 2015

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted/data.htm
    and the word ‘advisory’ doesn’t appear.

    It all seems to be on quite shaky foundations:
    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-referendums-are-only-advisory-says-group-of-tory-mps-a3371716.html

    But. more positively, Guido links to this article
    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/11/calm-down-dears-article-50-is-still-going-to-happen.html?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter
    which quite cogently says we don’t need to worry.

  85. “The real spanner in the works is the Government being forced to explain publicly what they’re aiming for in their negotiations before the negotiations start.”

    and..

    “I’m also getting pissed off with the idea that the Government should tell Parliament its negotiating strategy and goals. Are these people that fucking stupid? Who goes in to a negotiation having told the the other side their tactics and, by extension, red lines?”

    Exactly.

    How about demanding of the Remainiacs the exact goals of the EU re Brexit? Seems only fair. Or would we find out that their objective is just to shaft us as hard as possible?

    Since the referendum, the EU has been spectacularly nasty (in public, at least). Why would we want to be part of such an organisation? Remainiacs might say “It’s not perfect, but…”, when in fact it is a failed experiment, impoverishing half of Europe. As others have said, the more things are stretched, the more it hurts when it breaks.

  86. I think it wuld be best if we just ignored all discussion of the government vote – just go ahead and have it when ready. This is clearly an attempt to move the political discourse towards overturning the referendum. Best ignored and soon forgotten.

  87. Cynic,

    > I’d decided to keep quiet and not rub anyone’s face in it, the morning the result came in. Then they went and rubbed their own faces in it instead.

    Ditto.

    > Lose quietly and with dignity, fine. Go on a personal Faceache or Twatter and proclaim “WAYCIST, WAYCIST” to the world and they’re just begging to get slagged off.

    One of my favourite political speeches of all time was John Major addressing the assembled Tories at Conservative HQ the morning after the ’97 election. Heard it on the radio. Much drunken good humour, then tink tink tink on a glass as he stood up, a pause, then “Well, we lost.” And the whole room errupted into cheers. At the time, I enjoyed it because it was just quite funny. In retrospect, it was an all-too-rare object lesson in how to lose.

    Gareth,

    > The exit mechanism (Article 50) predates the referendum. Passing legislation to authorise the referendum is all the consent that is needed imo. What else did they expect from a Leave vote?

    Exactly, yes. They voted for the Referendum; they didn’t object to the Government sending every voter a leaflet telling us it was our decision and the Government would implement whatever we decided. On what planet has Parliament not voted to invoke Article 50?

    What the Remnants really mean is that they only voted because they thought they were going to get their way, and now the bastard public have voted the wrong way they want another go.

    BiND,

    > I’m also getting pissed off with the idea that the Government should tell Parliament its negotiating strategy and goals. Are these people that fucking stupid? Who goes in to a negotiation having told the the other side their tactics and, by extension, red lines?

    No, they’re not stupid; they’re deliberately trying to scupper it. The plan is: (1) insist on getting a vote or a second referendum on the final deal (“The British people voted to leave the EU, but not the precise terms of how we leave”); (2) fuck up the negotiations; (3) get a shit deal; (4) win the vote because the deal’s shit. I’d love to say that they’re naive to think the public are stupid enough to fall for this, but the recent controversies over TTIP show that a lot of the public don’t understand the basics of negotiation at all (“It was negotiated IN SECRET! OMG!”).

    I too think May should call a vote today. Sadly, she won’t. But she is ruthless and Machiavellian, so I still have some confidence she’ll pull this off.

  88. The referendum was 52:48, not 70:30. If the politicians feel that there has been a 3 percent swing towards remain before A50 is triggered, there is every chance that they will not take Britain out of the EU.

    It’s all very well you lot talking about pitchforks, gallows and the like, but I doubt they are that arsed about trash-talking keyboard warriors

  89. > If the politicians feel that there has been a 3 percent swing towards remain before A50 is triggered, there is every chance that they will not take Britain out of the EU.

    Oh, is that how elections work? You have the initial vote, and then the results get changed a few months later if someone feels that the vote might be different if it were held today? Good to know.

  90. Fatty, newspapers today are full of “constitutional crisis” and other bullshit.
    So if you think you’ve got a chance, go for it.
    Otherwise, a vote in Parliament along the lines of “Does Parliament make the laws or do judges make them up – yes or no?” should suffice.

  91. Fuck off Fatty. Do you really think it’s just keyboard warriors who will be pissed off and itching to vote out MPs who go against the public vote? As Ecks has said they’ve had the numbers in Parliament all along to block Brexit if they really wanted to. They either don’t dare, or they don’t want to overturn democracy.

  92. “The real spanner in the works is the Government being forced to explain publicly what they’re aiming for in their negotiations before the negotiations start.”

    There is no requirement for the government to explain *anything* with a Parliamentary vote on Article 50. They just need to have a vote on whether we invoke it or not. You just vote Yes or No, that’s it.

  93. T.May has the support of the majority of MPs to go ahead and use the Prerogative as this gets them off the hook.

    They are trying to dodge the bullet by getting Treesa to act alone so they can say ‘my hands are tied’, tough.

    The MPs must be held accountable, they were the ones that got us into this mess in the first place, D.Cameron wanted to silence the EuroSceptics in his party once and for all and all the rest went along with it because they thought they would win.

    They were in charge of the referendum, they should have been clear on it being binding, what constituted a result (simple majority, 60/40, whatever) and what would happen immediately after the result is declared (Art.50, carry on, join Euro, whatever).

    They didn’t do that which shows them to be stupid/lazy/incompetent/complacent or any combination, they must now be forced to do their jobs properly.

    They must be forced to debate and vote and at the next election they will be held accountable for their actions.

    Theo,

    ‘(BoboffyourRocker: EU courts are irrelevant here.)’

    from the Independent yesterday

    ‘Following the Supreme Court ruling, there is a chance the Government could lodge an appeal to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, the EU’s highest court.,

    This would be a hilarious outcome, the UK Government having to go to the ECJ to be allowed to override Parliament so that they can exit from the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
    Imagine the humiliation of the Government when the ECJ has to point out that Chuck only kept his head because he bowed to Parliament and that if the ECJ rules in the Governments favour then heads are back on the block.

  94. If it’s in the Indignant it’s probably rubbish. Why the hell would the government go to the ECJ? Miller might, if she lost in the SC. But whatever dipshit lawyers think, using the EU to force us to stay in the EU would be a very bad plan

    It’s telling that you think this country being humiliated by foreigners would be hilarious.

  95. May is stupid but that is forgetting-how-to-get-out-of-bed stupid.

    No –she is likely to win any HoC vote.

    The Tories are gutless and won’t want to bring on an election with their local crews trying to de-select them.

    ZaNu MPs are already facing de-selection from within by Corbyn’s gang. They are hardly likely to want the voters after the same result as well.

    Corbyn is no real fan of the EU. And a GE now would see ZaNu get its worst kicking evah–which would likely end his leadership. He may be too delusional to see it but the cunning scum around him are not.

    No –the worst Corboid would do is allow his gang a free vote . And a fair few would vote as their constituents want.

    Brexit wins again tho’ the danger is amendments from Remain scum.

  96. Tel, it was “hempen” a minute ago, and now the threat is to “vote them out”. What next, tickle them till they say “uncle”?

    Brexit people are shitting themselves that this means they won’t get to force their will onto 48 per cent of the population (and we all at least suspect that another referendum, where pro-Remain people realise that there is a genuine risk of a majority in favour of Brexit, and where people realise that short of being “out”, none of the Brexit camp had a fucking clue what we were going to do next, might deliver a different result).

    Good, they’re gloating cunts and they deserve some misery. After all, they want to inflict it on everyone else.

  97. Fatty,
    I note that the FTSE is down by x billions as a result of the court case.

    That’s money that could have gone on hospitals and needy children.

    Are you happy now?

  98. Jack C, the FTSE “bounce” since the Brexit vote is explained away completely by the corresponding decline in the pound. The pound surged yesterday. Value the FTSE in USD terms and I suspect it didn’t budge significantly

  99. Dream on you treasonous fatfuck.

    You and your gang of traitors are played out.

    As for hangings –compared to the bullshit your crew of crybabys puked out after 23/6?

    The people voted. Several million ordinary people who voted for Remain don’t fancy that a bunch of cunts like you can have set aside results they don’t like. So the GE will result in an even bigger kicking for your gang.

    Civil war might be better in some ways cos I really want to see treasonous scum like you suffer .

    Bring it on you corpulent slime.

  100. Charlie Suet,

    ‘Why the hell would the government go to the ECJ’
    because that is the next court of appeal.

    Why would either side back down until all avenues have been exhausted ?

    It is not the country that is being humiliated, it is the Government and the HOC.
    As they have clearly demonstrated, this bunch of wankers couldn’t organise a fuckup in a brothel and need as much humiliation dumping on them as possible.

  101. LOL I do enjoy threats of violence over the internet, they’re so…convincing…

    In civil wars both sides suffer, sweetcheeks

  102. Fatty,

    Please clarify three things. One: do you believe all elections should have a second run if you don’t like the result, or just this one? Why? Two: had the vote gone Remain, would you now be calling for a second referendum? If not, why not? Three: if we have a second referendum and it does go your way, will you then observe the fucking obvious fact that it’s a one-all draw and demand best of three, or will you claim that the first referendum is invalid but the second is valid and completely final? If the latter (and we all know it’s the latter), explain why.

  103. Fatty,
    Yes, that’s at least partly true regarding the FTSE, though the dollar was already falling as the US election race tightens.

    It’s short-term and irrelevant. A point I bet you made on the 24th June. No?

  104. Let’s see if the turnout changes on a second one. I bet it would

    Maybe, maybe not, The third could see a dip in interest.

  105. I thought the vote on June 26th was for a Norway model though – continued access to the single market, and continued freedom of movement. Where was the stipulation that Brexit wasn’t a Norway model?

    There was no stipulation – the choices were EU ‘as is’ (with Cameron’s shite breaks on immigration) or ‘something else’.

    Parliament should have an input on what that ‘something else’ is. The people should be able to change their minds if ‘something else’ is not what they were sold (where the NHS money, etc?)

  106. > Brexit people are shitting themselves that this means they won’t get to force their will onto 48 per cent of the population

    Except, constitutionally, this is not what is happening.

    When you elect your MP, you do not give them any power; you lend them your power. They are supposed to give it back to their electorate at the end of their term. It is never theirs. Therefore, they are not supposed to be able to give it to anyone else; only the electorate are supposed to be able to do that. However, our MPs decided to give their power away anyway, without their electorates’ permission. The Referendum was the first time the electorate were asked for permission, albeit retrospectively, and they declined to give it. That means that all the ceding of powers from MPs to the EC over the last couple of decades is illegitimate. And remember this is the only time the matter has been voted on.

    So no, no-one is forcing anything on anyone now. A constitutional change was forced on the public some years ago, without permission. The lack of permission has now been made explicit. That change therefore is to be undone.

    The real idiocy on the part of the pro-EU crowd is that they didn’t do this legitimately in the first place, because I’m pretty sure Remain would have won in, say, 1993.

  107. Malta,

    > Where was the stipulation that Brexit wasn’t a Norway model?

    Well, there were the repeated claims by leading Leave campaigners (Johnson, Gove, Hannan, others) and by the Remain side (Cameron, Osborne, others) that a vote for Leave would lead to leaving the Single Market. They were quite unequivocal.

    > where the NHS money, etc?

    As I’ve said before, (a) I genuinely don’t think the British people are so stupid they thought it was a general election; (b) the NHS slurps up the UK’s state budget to a ridiculous extent and no political party is electorally viable in the UK unless they promise it more money, so, once we stop paying all that money into the EU, we can be absolutely sure that the NHS is where most of it will go instead. Unless anyone thinks we are likely to have a government who’ll spend it on defence or roads? Ha!

  108. BobRocket

    Leaving aside the legal niceties of whether this is a matter for the ECJ, the fact that the government can appeal doesn’t mean they will.

    “Why would either side back down until all avenues have been exhausted ?”

    Er, because the government will know quite well that in doing so they’ll make themselves look foolish, as you yourself gloat over.

    I think Gina Miller and her lawyers are stupid and arrogant enough to try and take it to the ECJ, if it comes to that. But at that stage it would be perfectly reasonable for the government to think “Sod it, we’ll put it through parliament, then”.

  109. “Except, constitutionally, this is not what is happening.

    When you elect your MP, you do not give them any power; you lend them your power. They are supposed to give it back to their electorate at the end of their term. It is never theirs. Therefore, they are not supposed to be able to give it to anyone else; only the electorate are supposed to be able to do that. However, our MPs decided to give their power away anyway, without their electorates’ permission. The Referendum was the first time the electorate were asked for permission, albeit retrospectively, and they declined to give it. That means that all the ceding of powers from MPs to the EC over the last couple of decades is illegitimate. And remember this is the only time the matter has been voted on.”

    I think you know this, but the above isn’t constitutionally correct at all (although there is practical truth to it).

    The UK never did cede any power to the EU from a constitutional perspective – if they had, Brexit wouldn’t be possible. Parliament passed a law which enacted various treaties into UK law, and could have chosen to repeal that Act at any time. Sure, there would have been practical and diplomatic issues with that, but not constitutional ones.

    The UK did, in practical terms, delegate powers to the EU that many thought should be a matter for only Parliament. That’s what we’ve just voted to repeal. There is nothing unconstitutional about any of that.

    By contrast, Scotland gave powers away when it joined the union. There is nothing Scotland can do, short of independence, to reclaim those powers.

    More generally, there’s a whole lot of argument in this thread about what the public agreed to in the referendum. While some of the points as to what was implicitly agreed aren’t unreasonable, the point is that Parliament alone gets to decide.

  110. “It’s distressingly clear that an alarming number of people care more about the EU than they do Britain.”

    Hence their demand for the negotiating position and strategy to be made public. They are openly playing for the other side.

  111. “They are openly playing for the other side.”

    This – at every turn. In the old days, didn’t it used to be called treason?

  112. BoboffyourRocker

    ‘Following the Supreme Court ruling, there is a chance the Government could lodge an appeal to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, the EU’s highest court.’

    What is at issue is a matter of British law and governance, and – IIRC – the constitutions of member states are beyond the remit of the ECJ. It is conceivable that the UK Supreme Court might ask the ECJ to rule on interpretations of art.50 – eg whether its use can be cancelled or reversed in certain circumstances – but that’s quite distinct from the ECJ ruling on whether the UK parliament has to vote on art.50.

  113. “It’s distressingly clear that an alarming number of people care more about the EU than they do Britain.”

    Is it clear? And what is an “alarming number”? I doubt that hard core remainiacs number as many as a few hundred thousand at most.

  114. Charlie Suet,

    “Sod it, we’ll put it through parliament, then”

    Why didn’t they just do that at the start then ? It is only now that a few of them are waking up to the mess that they have created.

    They try to blame Brexiteers for voting the wrong way and then Remainers for wanting Parliamentary supremacy.
    (this last one is a bit shit because one of the people taking them to court is a Brexiteer)

    They can’t re-run the referendum and they don’t really want to be forced to vote because they want to be In but their constituents voted Out

    Nobody is to blame but them.

    I’ve paid good money for this, now I want to see those fuckers dance.

  115. I care more about the EU than Britain, to be honest – that’s probably why I don’t live there. If I had to give up my British passport to maintain my other EU passports, then it wouldn’t even need consideration.

    Anyway, Squander Two, I’d consider myself fairly read up on the whole Brexit thingy and not only did I have no real idea what model post-Brexit UK would take up, but I still have no fucking idea what model it will take since May keeps feeding us nothing but the ‘Brexit means Brexit’ mongoism.

    A couple of minutes of Googling and there didn’t seem to be much clue pre-vote from the tabloids https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1237879/remain-camp-says-mps-could-keep-britain-in-the-single-market-even-if-public-vote-to-leave-eu/ or the broad(ish) sheets http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/can-uk-have-deal-eu-switzerland-or-norway

    There were a lot of people saying that you can’t have access to the single market while controlling immigration – but nobody had ruled out the Norway or Swiss models. If even 2% of the 52% were misled on what they were actually voting for (including on the NHS), then they should be able to change their mind once they see the actual deal on the table.

  116. There was no official line on post Brexit because the treasonous, arrogant cunts never thought they’d lose. Camoron very clearly staked all on his pack of lies and lost.

    So don’t blame Brexiteers for the lack of “official” vision.

    The only vision needed is maximum freedom. Tyranny-junkies who can’t take a piss without state permission and a govt framework in place can slurp shit and die.

  117. Malta,

    > If even 2% of the 52% were misled on what they were actually voting for (including on the NHS), then they should be able to change their mind once they see the actual deal on the table.

    Is this your position for all elections or only this one? Why?

  118. You are able to change your mind after elections – you get another chance to vote in 5 years. In a single issue plebiscite it would be useful if both the yes and no options were actually defined before the vote took place. 5 months after the vote one side still hasn’t been defined.

  119. Perhaps we should spare a kind thought for David Cameron. He promised a referendum he thought he’d never have to deliver on, won an election he hoped he’d lose, lost a referendum he thought he could win, promised to trigger Article 50 immediately and then didn’t, promised to stay around for a few months but then buggered off.

    Cameron’s incompetence continues to draw EU quislings from the corridors of power and out into the open. None of this would have happened if he had put public service ahead of political desire and simply set out a credible plan for arranging our exit. Even if it was a bit vague and just covered a timeline up to triggering Article 50. I can guess why he didn’t – the Leave vote would have been bigger if we thought the government had an exit strategy.

    Bloke in Malta said: “Parliament should have an input on what that ‘something else’ is. The people should be able to change their minds if ‘something else’ is not what they were sold (where the NHS money, etc?)”

    Article 50 doesn’t concern the shape the ‘something else’ takes. All Article 50 is is the starting gun for negotiations and is the exit mechanism defined in the Lisbon treaty and that is what the judgment was about. Parliament voted on the treaty. Parliament voted on the referendum legislation. They have exercised parliamentary sovereignty on this matter twice already.

  120. BiM: ” In a single issue plebiscite it would be useful if both the yes and no options were actually defined before the vote took place.”

    It didn’t come down that way and so too late. And what positive vision did the EU trash have? Their campaign was ALL fearmongering cockrot. They had nor have anything positive–only lying bullshit.

    Since you don’t live here it hardly concerns you. Your beloved EU masters have you safe in their grasp so get on with your life and leave those who want freedom from tyranny to get on with the next step.

  121. Mr Ecks, if someone with an authoritarian mindset like your good self ever took power in Malta I’d use EU freedom of movement to move somewhere else fairly quickly. That’s freedom from tyranny, for me.

  122. > You are able to change your mind after elections – you get another chance to vote in 5 years.

    OK, so, had the vote gone to Remain, would you be asking for another referendum every five years, in case people change their minds?

  123. BiM–in what manner am I authoritarian please.

    Your buddies are the tingod trash who tell people what fucking lightbulbs they can have among a legion of other crooked capers.

    In your book “authoritarian” equals “whatever I don’t like”.

    Were I to take over Malta it would end up as a free market Hong Kong style Marvel in the Med.

    You might have a few problems tho’.

  124. It’s all very well talking about what Brexit should mean, what deal we’ll get, what Brexit will look like.

    Trade-wise, a lot of that depends on the EU, over whom we have little control; hence the need to get on with negotiating and leaving.

    The choice was between Remain and do what the EU tells you, or Leave and try to get the best deal you can from the (stagnant) EU while going after the other (increasing) opportunities out there.

    I understood clearly that we couldn’t dictate trade terms to the EU. But I did want out of it.

  125. If we are talking about people being ‘deceived’ about Brexit, let’s also be honest about the decades of deceit by Europhiles about what the EU is and where it is going. NOT ONCE have I heard a senior Europhile politician of a UK political party talk about ever closer political union, and why they want it.

    Instead they deceived the British public literally for decades on this. As lies go, it’s a fucking whopper. How they have the gall to whinge about some £350m or £250m figure is breathtaking.

  126. I gather it used to be seen as unconstitutional to bind future parliaments as well. But it seems likely that all governments since Maastricht have engineered just such a situation.

    We can’t get out of the EU without considerable economic and political damage. That would be true even if the Eurozone collapsed so badly that more than 52% wanted it.

  127. BiM

    “I care more about the EU than Britain, to be honest – that’s probably why I don’t live there. If I had to give up my British passport to maintain my other EU passports, then it wouldn’t even need consideration.”

    Then give up your British passport now, and go.

  128. Malta,
    I don’t wish to appear simplistic, but the referendum question was pretty simple (In or Out). I’m not sure what additional information you feel was missed.

    You seem to be assuming that the following should have happened:

    1) That the various Leave campaigns and their supporters should have agreed on a tightly defined version of Brexit (presumably rubber-stamped by all possible trading partners in advance)

    2) That the various Leave campaigns should have ensured that all future governments agreed to abide by this agreed version ad infinitum.

    The electorate will get an opportunity to vote on all this every 5 years.

  129. What really gets me is the arrogance and snobbery of the remain side.

    They thought they could announce a referendum, renegotiation (and if it was crap, would campaign for out), have a crap negotiation (and then campaign for in), offer no exit strategy to put the fear into people, lie throughout the campaign (Cameron’s “we will be able to negotiate further” followed by Juncker saying no).

    These people were so utterly certain of victory that they had no plan for losing. They had no thought of doing anything serious to win which showed any respect for people with a Brexit perspective or their opponents.

    I think Brexit is a shocking wake up call to the London/Oxford bien pensant in this country. It goes far deeper than the EU. They might not get a Marxist PM filling their pockets, but the difference between Blair and Cameron isn’t much. All those people with wanky jobs at the equality commission or the DCMS have realised that the enormous amount of propaganda to create a world that suits them has failed, that the public will resist them.

    I’ll bet if the people on a Brexit march were struck by lightning that it would make little difference to the country. I doubt there’s even many bin men or local planning officers on there – even if you get zero-based budgeting, you need those jobs.

  130. Manhattan,

    > The UK never did cede any power to the EU from a constitutional perspective – if they had, Brexit wouldn’t be possible. Parliament passed a law which enacted various treaties into UK law, and could have chosen to repeal that Act at any time. Sure, there would have been practical and diplomatic issues with that, but not constitutional ones.

    Sorry, no, this is bollocks — although I realise it is the official position. But the 1972 Act didn’t just put existing treaties into UK law; it put future ones that didn’t yet exist in as well, thereby explicitly giving away the power to create law — which, as I said, wasn’t Parliament’s to give away. Saying “Oh, but it was an act of parliament, so it’s OK” doesn’t hold any water, and has only had the illusion of holding water because a lot of British people think of themselves as European. But imagine an act of Parliament that gives, say, Taiwan the power to decide all future British food hygiene laws, and it is immediately obvious that “It’s OK because it’s an act of Parliament” is ridiculous.

  131. Squander Two:

    You’re missing the point. If the British Parliament passed a law saying Taiwan could make all British hygiene laws, that would do NOTHING to the constitution.

    Whether giving Taiwan having that power is a good thing is a separate question. Likewise, I’m not saying the ECA 1972 was a good thing or a bad thing – I’m saying constitutionally Parliament didn’t give away any power, and so it wasn’t constitutionally illegitimate.

    Parliament delegates it’s authority all the time, BTW. e.g. It has delegated powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Treasury can make certain minor tweaks to the tax code, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *