Brexit - Will it be ratified?

[hhiusa]

I used to be young and callous once but time and the kindness of others have shown me a better way.

Apparently not. It certainly has not given you the wisdowm to have an educated conversation.

Abusive Ad Hominems definitely are evidence of immaturity not found in the wise.

 

[Pat494]

Apparently not. It certainly has not given you the wisdowm to have an educated conversation.

Abusive Ad Hominems definitely are evidence of immaturity not found in the wise.

I have only just taken cowboy off ignore and he is throwing his false logic around with his ad hominems etc. again. Oh well. No fun arguing the toss with an idiot. Back on ignore.

 

[hhiusa]

I have only just taken cowboy off ignore and he is throwing his false logic around with his ad hominems etc. again. Oh well. No fun arguing the toss with an idiot. Back on ignore.

Ok guy. I am sorry that they did not teach you the science of logic.

 

[Atilla]

It’s not over yet. A law that passed last year to set up the EU referendum said nothing about the result being binding or having any legal force. “Sovereignty” – a much misunderstood word in the campaign – resides in Britain with the “Queen in parliament”, that is with MPs alone who can make or break laws and peers who can block them. Before Brexit can be triggered, parliament must repeal the 1972 European Communities Act by which it voted to take us into the European Union – and MPs have every right, and indeed a duty if they think it best for Britain, to vote to stay.

Related: Petition for second EU referendum may have been manipulated

It is being said that the government can trigger Brexit under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, merely by sending a note to Brussels. This is wrong. Article 50 says: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” The UK’s most fundamental constitutional requirement is that there must first be the approval of its parliament.

Britain, absurdly, is the only significant country (other than Saudi Arabia) without a written constitution. We have what are termed “constitutional conventions”, along with a lot of history and traditions. Nothing in these precedents allots any place to the results of referendums or requires our sovereign parliament to take a blind bit of notice of them.

It was parliament that voted to enter the European Economic Community in 1972, and only three years later was a referendum held to settle the split in Harold Wilson’s Labour party over the value of membership. Had a narrow majority of the public voted out in 1975, Wilson would still have had to persuade parliament to vote accordingly – and it is far from certain that he would have succeeded.

Our democracy does not allow, much less require, decision-making by referendum. That role belongs to the representatives of the people and not to the people themselves. Democracy has never meant the tyranny of the simple majority, much less the tyranny of the mob (otherwise, we might still have capital punishment). Democracy entails an elected government, subject to certain checks and balances such as the common law and the courts, and an executive ultimately responsible to parliament, whose members are entitled to vote according to conscience and common sense.

Many countries, including Commonwealth nations – vouchsafed their constitutions by the UK – have provisions for change by referendums. But these provisions are carefully circumscribed and do not usually allow change by simple majority.

In Australia, for example, a referendum proposal must pass in a majority of the six states as well as in the country as a whole (this would defeat Brexit, which failed in Scotland and Northern Ireland). In other countries, it must pass by a very clear majority – usually two-thirds. In some US states that permit voting on public legislative proposals, there are similar safeguards. In the UK (except, under a 2011 act in the case of an EU expansion of power), referendum results are merely advisory – in this case, advising MPs that the country is split almost down the middle on the wisdom of EU membership.

So how should MPs vote come November, when prime minister Boris Johnson introduces the 2016 European Communities Act (Repeal) Bill? Those from London and Scotland should happily vote against it, following their constituents’ wishes. So should Labour MPs – it’s their party policy after all.



By November, there may be other very good reasons for MPs to refuse to leave Europe. Brexit may turn out to be just too difficult. Staying in the EU may be the only way to stop Scotland from splitting, or to rescue the pound. A poll on Sunday tells us that a million leave voters are already regretting their choice: a significant public change of mind would amply justify a parliamentary refusal to Brexit. It may be, in November, that President Donald Trump becomes the leader of the free world – in which case a strong EU would become more necessary than ever. Or it may simply be that a majority of MPs, mindful of their constitutional duty to do what is best for Britain, conscientiously decide that it is best to remain.

There is no point in holding another referendum (as several million online petitioners are urging). Referendums are alien to our traditions, they are inappropriate for complex decision-making, and without careful incorporation in a written constitution, the public expectation aroused by the result can damage our democracy. The only way forward now depends on the courage, intelligence and conscience of your local MP. So have your say in the traditional way: lobby him or her to vote against the government when it tries to Brexit, because parliament is sovereign.

• This article was amended on 28 June 2016. An earlier version said in Australia a referendum proposal must pass in each of the six states. The proposal must be approved by a majority of voters in a majority of the states, as well as by a national majority of voters.


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...vote-referendum-members-parliament-act-europe

 

[isatrader]

It’s not over yet...

This article was posted on the same site today: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/government-dashes-hopes-of-second-eu-referendum-in-e-petition-response

Back to trading - did anyone notice that the S&P 500 & S&P 1500 both broke out this week and closed near to their all time highs.

 

[kalott]

Back to trading - did anyone notice that the S&P 500 & S&P 1500 both broke out this week and closed near to their all time highs.

yes they are pricing in the next rate hike and trump for president?

 

[hhiusa]

"Make America Great" :cheesy:

 

[mike.]

Back to trading - did anyone notice that the S&P 500 & S&P 1500 both broke out this week and closed near to their all time highs.

yep...last hit a high of 2128.28 in 20th july 2015..This weeks close was 2129.90.. an all time high for s&p500.

Im guessing it will pull back for the next couple of weeks before trying to go higher..

 

[Sonicscooter]

It’s not over yet. A law that passed last year to set up the EU referendum said nothing about the result being binding or having any legal force. “Sovereignty” – a much misunderstood word in the campaign – resides in Britain with the “Queen in parliament”, that is with MPs alone who can make or break laws and peers who can block them. Before Brexit can be triggered, parliament must repeal the 1972 European Communities Act by which it voted to take us into the European Union – and MPs have every right, and indeed a duty if they think it best for Britain, to vote to stay.

Related: Petition for second EU referendum may have been manipulated

It is being said that the government can trigger Brexit under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, merely by sending a note to Brussels. This is wrong. Article 50 says: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” The UK’s most fundamental constitutional requirement is that there must first be the approval of its parliament.

Britain, absurdly, is the only significant country (other than Saudi Arabia) without a written constitution. We have what are termed “constitutional conventions”, along with a lot of history and traditions. Nothing in these precedents allots any place to the results of referendums or requires our sovereign parliament to take a blind bit of notice of them.

It was parliament that voted to enter the European Economic Community in 1972, and only three years later was a referendum held to settle the split in Harold Wilson’s Labour party over the value of membership. Had a narrow majority of the public voted out in 1975, Wilson would still have had to persuade parliament to vote accordingly – and it is far from certain that he would have succeeded.

Our democracy does not allow, much less require, decision-making by referendum. That role belongs to the representatives of the people and not to the people themselves. Democracy has never meant the tyranny of the simple majority, much less the tyranny of the mob (otherwise, we might still have capital punishment). Democracy entails an elected government, subject to certain checks and balances such as the common law and the courts, and an executive ultimately responsible to parliament, whose members are entitled to vote according to conscience and common sense.

Many countries, including Commonwealth nations – vouchsafed their constitutions by the UK – have provisions for change by referendums. But these provisions are carefully circumscribed and do not usually allow change by simple majority.

In Australia, for example, a referendum proposal must pass in a majority of the six states as well as in the country as a whole (this would defeat Brexit, which failed in Scotland and Northern Ireland). In other countries, it must pass by a very clear majority – usually two-thirds. In some US states that permit voting on public legislative proposals, there are similar safeguards. In the UK (except, under a 2011 act in the case of an EU expansion of power), referendum results are merely advisory – in this case, advising MPs that the country is split almost down the middle on the wisdom of EU membership.

So how should MPs vote come November, when prime minister Boris Johnson introduces the 2016 European Communities Act (Repeal) Bill? Those from London and Scotland should happily vote against it, following their constituents’ wishes. So should Labour MPs – it’s their party policy after all.



By November, there may be other very good reasons for MPs to refuse to leave Europe. Brexit may turn out to be just too difficult. Staying in the EU may be the only way to stop Scotland from splitting, or to rescue the pound. A poll on Sunday tells us that a million leave voters are already regretting their choice: a significant public change of mind would amply justify a parliamentary refusal to Brexit. It may be, in November, that President Donald Trump becomes the leader of the free world – in which case a strong EU would become more necessary than ever. Or it may simply be that a majority of MPs, mindful of their constitutional duty to do what is best for Britain, conscientiously decide that it is best to remain.

There is no point in holding another referendum (as several million online petitioners are urging). Referendums are alien to our traditions, they are inappropriate for complex decision-making, and without careful incorporation in a written constitution, the public expectation aroused by the result can damage our democracy. The only way forward now depends on the courage, intelligence and conscience of your local MP. So have your say in the traditional way: lobby him or her to vote against the government when it tries to Brexit, because parliament is sovereign.

• This article was amended on 28 June 2016. An earlier version said in Australia a referendum proposal must pass in each of the six states. The proposal must be approved by a majority of voters in a majority of the states, as well as by a national majority of voters.


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...vote-referendum-members-parliament-act-europe

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36754376


I used to respect your opinions, not because i had the same thoughts, but because you made valid arguments for the opposite manner of thinking, but after Brexit and your complete denial, you have sadly lost a lot of credibility, if you are genuinely looking to retire, make longterm plans and accept that no matter what, the country and Europe have changed permanently........good luck in your endeavours.

 

[Splitlink]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36754376


I used to respect your opinions, not because i had the same thoughts, but because you made valid arguments for the opposite manner of thinking, but after Brexit and your complete denial, you have sadly lost a lot of credibility, if you are genuinely looking to retire, make longterm plans and accept that no matter what, the country and Europe have changed permanently........good luck in your endeavours.

If, what Atilla posted, is true and Brexit has to be ratified by Parliament then it had better be done.

If it isn't done, one day, if things are not going well, this may crop up again to bite us in the ass.

In fact, there is no "may" about it.Every detail is important and there have to be no loose ends. This is a loophole and we all know what lawyers can do with those!

 

[Atilla]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36754376


I used to respect your opinions, not because i had the same thoughts, but because you made valid arguments for the opposite manner of thinking, but after Brexit and your complete denial, you have sadly lost a lot of credibility, if you are genuinely looking to retire, make longterm plans and accept that no matter what, the country and Europe have changed permanently........good luck in your endeavours.

First point, post is from the Guardian. It is a national paper. The EU membership has been on and off since 1950s. UK decided only to join in 1972-5 etc and even then quite a few were against it. Let's not personalise it. It is a national debate and has been for the last 70+ years.

After 1972, it was the leavers who were in complete denial (based on your reference above). Lady Thatcher, Major and of course Cameron have all suffered at the hands of the disillusioned complete deniers. They didn't exactly roll their sleeves and got on with the job of making EU work. UK is a desirable moaning partner in the EU. Always been that way.

Now the boot is on the other foot.

Some people suggesting, right we've had the referendum lets get on with it, are naive to the point of being silly. Having fought on the platform of sovereignty the most important aspect to some are now quite happy to rough shot our Parliamentary process based on law. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it.

Re-quoting from post It is being said that the government can trigger Brexit under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, merely by sending a note to Brussels. This is wrong. Article 50 says: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” The UK’s most fundamental constitutional requirement is that there must first be the approval of its parliament.. This is similar to marriage. Easy to get married but trying getting divorced and the legal profession fleeces the money out both parties. So we should all be prepared for fleecing in the UK and the EU.

So what happens if EU insists? Does England put two fingers up and say feck it I'm off. Well it can't simply just do that.

So what happens if MPs based on their rights to serve country do otherwise? Government brakes down.

Let's assume we then go to elections and parties put forward names who they'll think the country will vote for. Same parties with new MPs and new beliefs on EU run for parliament. We get a new government elected perhaps a coalitin. We may then have a vote to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and invoke article 50.


So the referendum has indeed opened up a can of worms with Cameron attempting to shut the usual moaners up. Hamster in a wheel. Wheel keeps turning. Hamster gets no where. Just that the hamster has decided to run in the other direction.


You see, this is not just about migrants. This is indeed a much bigger argument. This is about UKs Parliamentary process and her sovereignty and her position in the EU. Has been that way for the last 70 years.

You are confusing a mish mash half thought out referendum with parliamentary law. Moreover, a referendum won on lies and deceit. Leaders who fabricated the lies and the campaign now in oblivion. Leaders who for 17 years doggedly pursued a dream, now living the life of Riley considering a role in I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here. I doubt anyone of us here could have made these last two weeks up. Some who think the sun shines out of their rear may like to claim they knew it all, but you should really look at the long term view and analyse just what really is happening.

Yesterday's heroes like Blair who took Parliament to war are now today's traitors who are considered to have lied and misled parliament. Who abused their position.

Off topic but I noticed David Kelly wasn't mentioned for calling out the false 45min claim Blair trumpted as being based on authoritative intelligence to parliament. Why was he silenced for challenging or opposing government view instead of being debated as he was an expert in the matter.

His suspected suicide hanging in the air with a big question mark over it. Smacks of a cover up. I won't mention 9/11 cover up with 3 model demolition of buildings one that wasn't hit by an air craft either. In the history of the world no building has ever burnt down but in one day we had three, model demolition falls at the speed of gravity, all within an hour.

I took a lot of stick for speaking my thoughts then on what the yanks and UK were doing. I wasn't a traitor then as I am not one now. Obviously, I don't matter so my views aren't important at all. I know that and not in the slightest bothered. In fact it's my safety, as if I did matter, I may well end up like David Kelly.

However, you should respect Parliament and UK's sovereignty, one that is based on the rule of law :!:

 

[Atilla]

If, what Atilla posted, is true and Brexit has to be ratified by Parliament then it had better be done.

If it isn't done, one day, if things are not going well, this may crop up again to bite us in the ass.

In fact, there is no "may" about it.Every detail is important and there have to be no loose ends. This is a loophole and we all know what lawyers can do with those!

It is wholly true Split, we are a sovereign state with parliament that makes laws voted for by MPs and even then it has to pass the House of Lords too.

 

[barjon]

It is wholly true Split, we are a sovereign state with parliament that makes laws voted for by MPs and even then it has to pass the House of Lords too.

It's not as wholly clear cut as that. There is a contrary argument that the terms were specified when the referendum was approved by parliament and so no further debate is necessary to confirm it's result.

 

[Atilla]

It's not as wholly clear cut as that. There is a contrary argument that the terms were specified when the referendum was approved by parliament and so no further debate is necessary to confirm it's result.

That's an understatement.

What we have now is clarity on uncertainty! No government and no opposition.

Referendum, as far as I know and understand was legally non-binding. Who is making this contrary argument and does it hold up? Legally hold up? Did MPs and Lords agree to it. Where is the vote?

News to me :-0

https://constitution-unit.com/2016/...-what-will-happen-if-we-vote-to-leave-the-eu/

 

[Splitlink]

My Word! I thought that the Spanish political scene was a mess.

 

[Atilla]

My Word! I thought that the Spanish political scene was a mess.

Yes absolutely.

Brexiters made the false allegation that the EU always votes againts the UK (in fact only 6% went against us since about 2001). In fact 94 % of all laws and legislation we agree on.

That has to be written in to UK law. Chickens coming home to roost indeed.

From that link on what if re: constitution I think point 12. is a nightmare.

12. Whitehall, meanwhile, would be severely stretched by the mammoth exercise of withdrawal. The civil service has zero spare capacity after the cuts of the last five years: many departments have seen budget cuts of over a quarter since 2010, and total civil service employment has fallen by almost a fifth in the same period. Further spending reductions for the coming years were set out in last year’s spending review. The UK has no current capacity at all in trade negotiations, as this is a job that has been outsourced to Brussels. The task of reviewing 40 years of EU and domestic legislation could take five or ten years. It would make it very difficult for the government to embark on any new policy while it reviews all these old policies. Whitehall also risks becoming very clumsy in handling important relationships (such as with Scotland: see below) because it would be so severely distracted.


However, that doesn't sound quite as palatable as those freaking Europeans always against us, voting us down 55 or 77 times whatever???

How lucky for us. It means we will not have to bother with legislating for those we disagree on.


Parliament may also request to be updated on negotiations so it can have a say too. They have put down two years for divorce. I reckon it's more likely to be closer to 20 the way the legal profession works. No bother, there is £350m per week for the legal boys.

NHS can get in the queue

 

[Sonicscooter]

First point, post is from the Guardian. It is a national paper. The EU membership has been on and off since 1950s. UK decided only to join in 1972-5 etc and even then quite a few were against it. Let's not personalise it. It is a national debate and has been for the last 70+ years.

After 1972, it was the leavers who were in complete denial (based on your reference above). Lady Thatcher, Major and of course Cameron have all suffered at the hands of the disillusioned complete deniers. They didn't exactly roll their sleeves and got on with the job of making EU work. UK is a desirable moaning partner in the EU. Always been that way.

Now the boot is on the other foot.

Some people suggesting, right we've had the referendum lets get on with it, are naive to the point of being silly. Having fought on the platform of sovereignty the most important aspect to some are now quite happy to rough shot our Parliamentary process based on law. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it.

Re-quoting from post It is being said that the government can trigger Brexit under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, merely by sending a note to Brussels. This is wrong. Article 50 says: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” The UK’s most fundamental constitutional requirement is that there must first be the approval of its parliament.. This is similar to marriage. Easy to get married but trying getting divorced and the legal profession fleeces the money out both parties. So we should all be prepared for fleecing in the UK and the EU.

So what happens if EU insists? Does England put two fingers up and say feck it I'm off. Well it can't simply just do that.

So what happens if MPs based on their rights to serve country do otherwise? Government brakes down.

Let's assume we then go to elections and parties put forward names who they'll think the country will vote for. Same parties with new MPs and new beliefs on EU run for parliament. We get a new government elected perhaps a coalitin. We may then have a vote to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and invoke article 50.


So the referendum has indeed opened up a can of worms with Cameron attempting to shut the usual moaners up. Hamster in a wheel. Wheel keeps turning. Hamster gets no where. Just that the hamster has decided to run in the other direction.


You see, this is not just about migrants. This is indeed a much bigger argument. This is about UKs Parliamentary process and her sovereignty and her position in the EU. Has been that way for the last 70 years.

You are confusing a mish mash half thought out referendum with parliamentary law. Moreover, a referendum won on lies and deceit. Leaders who fabricated the lies and the campaign now in oblivion. Leaders who for 17 years doggedly pursued a dream, now living the life of Riley considering a role in I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here. I doubt anyone of us here could have made these last two weeks up. Some who think the sun shines out of their rear may like to claim they knew it all, but you should really look at the long term view and analyse just what really is happening.

Yesterday's heroes like Blair who took Parliament to war are now today's traitors who are considered to have lied and misled parliament. Who abused their position.

Off topic but I noticed David Kelly wasn't mentioned for calling out the false 45min claim Blair trumpted as being based on authoritative intelligence to parliament. Why was he silenced for challenging or opposing government view instead of being debated as he was an expert in the matter.

His suspected suicide hanging in the air with a big question mark over it. Smacks of a cover up. I won't mention 9/11 cover up with 3 model demolition of buildings one that wasn't hit by an air craft either. In the history of the world no building has ever burnt down but in one day we had three, model demolition falls at the speed of gravity, all within an hour.

I took a lot of stick for speaking my thoughts then on what the yanks and UK were doing. I wasn't a traitor then as I am not one now. Obviously, I don't matter so my views aren't important at all. I know that and not in the slightest bothered. In fact it's my safety, as if I did matter, I may well end up like David Kelly.

However, you should respect Parliament and UK's sovereignty, one that is based on the rule of law :!:

Can't be ar5ed reading it, it's more waffle, it's happening, get used to it, the legal aspect is but a formality, you have been wrong from beginning to end and still won't move on.............Hell, even trade agreements are starting and you don't get it.....absolute joke.

 

[barjon]

Can't be ar5ed reading it, it's more waffle, it's happening, get used to it, the legal aspect is but a formality, you have been wrong from beginning to end and still won't move on.............Hell, even trade agreements are starting and you don't get it.....absolute joke.

No, you've made it quite clear over the previous weeks that you can't be ar5ed to consider anything other than your own view.

The first legal case for halting Brexit is going to court later this month. Mr Justice Cranston, a high court judge, has scheduled the preliminary hearing for July 19.

Probably it will (and should) get thrown out, but you can't just deny the genuineness of Atilla's reporting as you do.

 

[Splitlink]

Can't be ar5ed reading it, it's more waffle, it's happening, get used to it, the legal aspect is but a formality, you have been wrong from beginning to end and still won't move on.............Hell, even trade agreements are starting and you don't get it.....absolute joke.

I suspect that very few people do "get it", but they will. As Reagan said, "You ain't seen nothin', yet"!

Still, what's done is done and first things first. Get a good pm and negotiating team together. Brussels is doing that, already, and they have a lot of choice.

 

[hhiusa]

Can't be ar5ed reading it, it's more waffle, it's happening, get used to it, the legal aspect is but a formality, you have been wrong from beginning to end and still won't move on.............Hell, even trade agreements are starting and you don't get it.....absolute joke.

I just saw a political cartoon. It depicted three flamingos standing near a marsh. They were arguing over whether the thing in the marsh was a log or a crocodile. Flamingo A said it was just log and FLamingo B said that it was a crocodile. Flamingo A walked up to it and said, "see, it is just a log". He was subsequently eaten by the crocodile. Even after Flamingo A was eaten by the (log) crocodile, the third flamingo still would not believe that the thing in the water was a crocodile.

Even after the Brexit has happened, people still refuse to believe that the Brexit is here to stay.