High Court rules Parliament must decide on triggering Article 50

[AgnesIO]

I have a few genuine questions I want to know the answer to plz everyone mostly cos I like to know whats going on but haven't rly been keeping up

Ok hello one, what would a general election now actually do? Surely article 50 will still have to be triggered by parliament so why would an election change anything?

Nigel Farage probably wants another attempt at being elected in an election people vote in

Second of all dan you say we have to accept the result of the referendum but I don't understand what the result actually does except /say/ the people want this. Surely we all knew at the time the result of the referendum isn't the thing that directly changes whether or not we are in the EU or not? (Not challenging your post I genuinely don't understand why people seem to think the referendum was the number 1 deciding factor that would actually make a change

In fairness, whilst referendums aren't legally binding, they are typically politically binding. In that a government not following the result of a referendum can be fatal for the party.

Finally I don't understand ur point about democrats vs anti democrats. Cos surely British democracy doesn't work like that? Saying "the people have spoken therefore they must get their way" over specific matters is not democracy is it? If I could get a majority vote to paint the houses of parliament pink or randomly declare war on france for no reason are we doing that as well now because the people have spoken and disagreeing would make you an anti democrat? Cos that pink one would be cool and I would love to see that.


It doesn't. Dan just has dreams over the idea that it does.

Farage is publically calling for a General Election and Government Ministers are openly discussing it, sources are now saying.

Isn't it time Farage removed himself? I thought he was too busy supporting Trump in America nowadays, anyway.

If the referendum had been a general election, the Leave Party would have a majority of 166 seats #RespectTheResult #Democracy pic.twitter.com/9nWBRKQtVe

— Change Britain (@Change_Britain) November 4, 2016

Of course my posts are one sided. I'm here on the forum to give my opinion on matters.

What do you think I am, an AQA Politics & History text book?

Any successful debater can see one sides view, and then explain why it is wrong. You can't do this.

About what being unfair?

Many Remain voters (and certainly those in Parliament like the odious little rats David Lammy MP and Nick Clegg MP) still aren't accepting the result are are either threatening to block or keep us in the Single Market. Over my dead body.

Those in stages 4 & 5 have my respect and those in 3, 2 and 1 my increasing contempt and loathing.

Leave voters have been complaining that it is unfair that Parliament gets a say. Despite people clearly missing the irony that that is what they supposedly wanted when taking power back from the EU.

On the 5 stages of grief, 32% of Remain voters are stuck in denial over Brexit. High Court ruling won't have helped! https://t.co/LYBavFzzXd pic.twitter.com/p19gnYYrQc

— YouGov (@YouGov) November 3, 2016

It [the debate] is no longer Remain vs Leave but Democrats vs anti-Democrats. Pick a side.But it isn't.

Longer.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I have a few genuine questions I want to know the answer to plz everyone mostly cos I like to know whats going on but haven't rly been keeping up

Ok hello one, what would a general election now actually do? Surely article 50 will still have to be triggered by parliament so why would an election change anything?

A General Election would likely, according to polling, hand the Conservatives a majority in the House of Commons of over 100 MPs meaning she would be able to activate Article 50 without the risk of any funny business going on. At the moment the governments majority is something like 11 MPs - some of which are dogmatic Remainers - although if you add the DUP and Ukip you have something like 30 MPs. A larger majority simply means less chance of being held to ransom by people who pretend they are accepting the result but really are going for death by a thousand amendments.

Second of all dan you say we have to accept the result of the referendum but I don't understand what the result actually does except /say/ the people want this. Surely we all knew at the time the result of the referendum isn't the thing that directly changes whether or not we are in the EU or not? (Not challenging your post I genuinely don't understand why people seem to think the referendum was the number 1 deciding factor that would actually make a change)

Seriously?

We had a referendum asking us whether we wanted to Remain or Leave the European Union with the Government, Parliamentarians and each side vowing to accept and implement the will of the British people. What's not to understand? The question was very simple to understand and Leave received the largest vote share ever in British history.

Finally I don't understand ur point about democrats vs anti democrats. Cos surely British democracy doesn't work like that? Saying "the people have spoken therefore they must get their way" over specific matters is not democracy is it? If I could get a majority vote to paint the houses of parliament pink or randomly declare war on france for no reason are we doing that as well now because the people have spoken and disagreeing would make you an anti democrat? Cos that pink one would be cool and I would love to see that.

It does work like that in referendum matters. We rarely have referendums, and we only have them on important constitutional matters such as joining the EEC, Scottish and Welsh devolution, the status of the Falklands, the status of Gibraltar, the status of Northern Ireland, the voting system, Scottish independence and British independence from the EU.

We put constitutional matters directly to the people because ultimately the constitution belongs to we the people and any major changes must be approved by us. This has been the case now in our constitution since 1975. Had Scotland voted for independence, do you think it would be practical or acceptable to tell Scottish Britons to get bent as we're blocking it in the House of Commons or Lords? It would've broken my heart to see Scotland leave but I accept I have to abide by the will of the people.

@-:Undertaker:-; I find it funny you call Nick Clegg and David Lammy rats, but I highly doubt if it was the other way around you would be calling Farage a rat. I think that's what AgnesIO means by your awful bias.

Why would I call Farage a rat?

He's been speaking for the will of the people for years, not obstructing it or denying it like those two.

In a democracy, why do you think that people should just sit and accept the result? Isn't the whole point of a democracy and freedom of speech that you can and should keep fighting for your own view?

You don't have to 'accept' the result as just or right. You can disagree with it. The issue is, you cannot keep forcing people to vote in order for you to get what is the 'right' answer. That is not democracy. Now sure, if you really wish to stay in the European Union then you can still campaign once we have left to re-join in the future if you wish.

It is like with this referendum. I stated I would accept the result had it gone the other way, and I would have. Would I have stopped campaigning for British independence? No. But would I have accepted the result? Yes. I knew henceforth that my next chance was at the next EU Treaty, which would have been 10 years+ ahead which would've triggered the referendum lock. The same with Scotland. Had it gone the other way it would not have changed my belief in the Union (ever) but in Parliament I certainly would not stand in the way of the will of Scots and would have simply abstained.

I also tried to look for the actual document/report on that UEA/Change Britain image but couldn't actually find anything.

Various constituency estimates around. Or just look at a map of the vote.

https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/th...0e1#.6vtetpole

- 421 out of 574 English and Welsh constituencies probably voted to Leave- Of these, 270 English and Welsh constituencies almost definitely voted to Leave
- 152 constituencies probably voted to Remain.
- Of these, half (76) almost definitely voted to Remain.

Whether you want to view it through seats or votes we won.

Any successful debater can see one sides view, and then explain why it is wrong. You can't do this.

I've spent years on here explaining why EU membership is wrong. Wake up.

Leave voters have been complaining that it is unfair that Parliament gets a say. Despite people clearly missing the irony that that is what they supposedly wanted when taking power back from the EU.

It isn't unfair that Parliament as a *formality* votes through Article 50 however it would be more than unfair - and in my eyes make Parliament illegitimate which is huge for someone who respects institutions as I do to say - if Parliament dares to obstruct or block the will of the people. Parliament voted by a overwhelming margin to delegate this decision to the British public via a referendum, and we returned our decision. It is now up to Parliament and the Government to deliver it.

Or face serious consequences.

[dbgtz]

A General Election would likely, according to polling, hand the Conservatives a majority in the House of Commons of over 100 MPs meaning she would be able to activate Article 50 without the risk of any funny business going on. At the moment the governments majority is something like 11 MPs - some of which are dogmatic Remainers - although if you add the DUP and Ukip you have something like 30 MPs. A larger majority simply means less chance of being held to ransom by people who pretend they are accepting the result but really are going for death by a thousand amendments.

The DUP + UKIP is 9. And isn't that one UKIP MP very much a rebel?

Why would I call Farage a rat?

He's been speaking for the will of the people for years, not obstructing it or denying it like those two.

So much I need to say on this one bit alone.
One, I was speaking as if remain had won and Farage would inevitable call for a second referendum as he said he would. You would not be calling him a rat. The fact you even call people rats in what should be a rational discussion is quite laughable frankly.
Two, stop using "the will of the people". It is misleading and suggests it has significant support by everybody.
Three, the "will of the people", as you like to call it, has been has never been fixed. Support for the EU has generally had greater support than against, hence why even Farage himself thought the leave campaign would not win. Not to say EU support has ever been huge, though.

You don't have to 'accept' the result as just or right. You can disagree with it. The issue is, you cannot keep forcing people to vote in order for you to get what is the 'right' answer. That is not democracy. Now sure, if you really wish to stay in the European Union then you can still campaign once we have left to re-join in the future if you wish.

It is like with this referendum. I stated I would accept the result had it gone the other way, and I would have. Would I have stopped campaigning for British independence? No. But would I have accepted the result? Yes. I knew henceforth that my next chance was at the next EU Treaty, which would have been 10 years+ ahead which would've triggered the referendum lock. The same with Scotland. Had it gone the other way it would not have changed my belief in the Union (ever) but in Parliament I certainly would not stand in the way of the will of Scots and would have simply abstained.

Except what seems to be happening is the process going through the correct legal procedure going through Parliament, and as you seem to like Parliamentary sovereignty and our legal system, I don't quite see what your issue is. At the end of the day, it's another check and balance on the executive which is not a bad thing.

I'm very interested to see which way certain MPs vote and see how the media castrates them as much as they did the judges. Enemies of the state

Various constituency estimates around. Or just look at a map of the vote.

https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/th...0e1#.6vtetpole



Whether you want to view it through seats or votes we won.

My mistake here, I misread it initially. I thought it was a poll conducted. It's still rather misleading since the referendum was a binary choice.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The DUP + UKIP is 9. And isn't that one UKIP MP very much a rebel?

Mr Carswell will vote to abide by the will of the people.

So much I need to say on this one bit alone.

One, I was speaking as if remain had won and Farage would inevitable call for a second referendum as he said he would. You would not be calling him a rat. The fact you even call people rats in what should be a rational discussion is quite laughable frankly.

If you think the rhetoric/discourse is turning poisonous now then just see what happens if you try and block our vote.

Two, stop using "the will of the people". It is misleading and suggests it has significant support by everybody.

Three, the "will of the people", as you like to call it, has been has never been fixed. Support for the EU has generally had greater support than against, hence why even Farage himself thought the leave campaign would not win. Not to say EU support has ever been huge, though.

Incorrect, going by the polling of the last few years you were heading for an even bigger hammering.

Except what seems to be happening is the process going through the correct legal procedure going through Parliament, and as you seem to like Parliamentary sovereignty and our legal system, I don't quite see what your issue is. At the end of the day, it's another check and balance on the executive which is not a bad thing.

Provided it votes it through.

I'm very interested to see which way certain MPs vote and see how the media castrates them as much as they did the judges. Enemies of the state

Enemies of the people, actually.

My mistake here, I misread it initially. I thought it was a poll conducted. It's still rather misleading since the referendum was a binary choice.

And in the binary choice we won by 1.3m votes.

Are you telling me MPs should block Article 50?

[Misawa]

It's the right thing to do - legally. Should parliament vote against the will of the people? No, because that's just bad for democracy (despite 'remain' more than likely receiving most votes if there was to be a second public referendum).

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's the right thing to do - legally. Should parliament vote against the will of the people? No, because that's just bad for democracy (despite 'remain' more than likely receiving most votes if there was to be a second public referendum).

I agree with first points but it really is a Remain delusion that they'd win a second referendum. All of the polling shows virtually no movement between either side and certainly nothing outside the Margin of Error. I know of no one who 'Bregrets' their vote.

Infact I have a friend of mine who voted Remain who said he would switch to Leave if the country were forced to vote again because he'd be that disgusted in having a democratic result overturned. Kudos for his principle on democracy.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9776

[Misawa]

I don't know, I personally know of a few people who voted for leave who have since regretted their choice. I think there were a lot of blind votes.

[peteyt]

You don't have to 'accept' the result as just or right. You can disagree with it. The issue is, you cannot keep forcing people to vote in order for you to get what is the 'right' answer. That is not democracy. Now sure, if you really wish to stay in the European Union then you can still campaign once we have left to re-join in the future if you wish.

Exactly. You do not set up a massive vote, get the results in and then just ignore the results or ask for a revote. The majority voted out, and so we have to leave, in the same way that if remain won, we would have stayed in. Not being happy with the results is one thing, but expecting something else is wrong. Believe me, if the government go against the majority, things will get ugly.

[hungryfront]

I mean okay I have to say I disagree with their decision and it's unfair, but I think part of the reason the High Court may have ruled it was because of how much the Leave campaign lied, with their £350m per week to go to the NHS. Because of budget cuts, my most local hospital (the Princess Royal Hospital) is possibly closing their A&E Department, so that means if I'm hit by a car I have to travel at BEST 21 minutes in the back of an ambulance, and that's with no traffic.

[Zak]

Parliamentary democracy is not such a bad thing. The general public were fed so much tripe in the lead up to the referendum - majority of us are the ill-informed - they are (supposedly) the informed. Therefore it makes sense give it to parliament.

Anyway they are to do the best for the country and if everything is telling them that it's going to bankrupt the country etc then it shouldn't be done. If it's a mixed picture then they should certainly consider the people's decision.

The general public can't the decisions on their own. Vote for higher taxes? Oh everyone votes against it, but it will still happen haha.

I really have a limited understanding of how all this works - so if I make any mistakes please correct me!