Thought I'd start a new thread as this is going to be a major talking point this year...have not made up my mind yet...(unlike bucksfizz)....but thinking of voting for an exit as Europe is not doing Britain any good at all it seems....

Jeremy Corbyn says Labour MPs will vote to block Article 50 if the PM does not guarantee Single Market access.

the way things are currently heading, it would come as no surprise if a GE was forced
but who or which party would benefit from that?

And that's another nail in his coffin.

Cynic , Tories and UKIP. Labour would get battered in its heartlands where the largest majority of out voters were.

SNP would probably get a good kicking too.

so who or which party then wins?

Tories win big majority , UKIP eat into Labour and SNP vote and shut the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments up.

Government has mandate to deliver Brexit as it see fit.

Corbyn standing on a free movement of people ticket will get wiped out and replaced by a proper leader within weeks of an election.

And Fred will probably call for a re vote -)

Government has mandate to deliver Brexit as it see fit
is exactly what i'ld like to see and the country deserves


and before others start rattling ....
the voting public thought the referendum was precisely that, and were not aware of the weasel clause
thus, whether you like the result or not, and TM probably didn't, TM has rightly taken it on her shoulders to fight as hard a corner as she can for the benefit of the country

Manuel,

Do you think you tory pal Cameron and his cohorts should have drawn up a more "precise" referendum, rather than showing the conceit he had regarding the electorate and thinking they would bend to his "superiority" of "judgement".

He did not consider losing "his" referendum and his party falling down around him.

I am not sure about holding referendums, but the difficulty I see is drawing up a clear idea of goals and the practical ways and cost of implementing the "intents", especially with a Yes or No format.

Also, understand the reasons for having to hold one, but it should have been done after a "deal" was on the table.

Referendums have been carried out when there are "devolutionary processes" to be enacted. This is a similar situation.

I don't think that in a democrat system with and electoral government should give carte blanche to a small cabal and their "advisers" to push through "deals" without those deals being perused.

What would be the next series of decisions the cabal would wish to push through?

The drawing up of this referendum seems to be done as if it was a simple poll and of little, or no importance.

-=-=-=-=

It is probably the most costly deal that a UK tory government will ever be responsible for.

-=-===

Another interesting feature of the controversy as to whether the elected MPs (and lords) of the UK's Houses of Parliament has a right to evaluate the results of the polls and suggest the future contracts that should be asked for, is than many who are hostile to this procedure seem to be rushing to the exit door without asking for their "views" or "thoughts", while at the same time calling and boasting that they want sovereignty of the HP over EU "governing" bodies.

-=-=-=-=-

Another form of democracy, as long as it suits.

.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3909314/PETER-HITCHENS-Forget-EU-vote-Britain-really-needs-patriotic-leaders.html

As I've already stated, and for the benefit of those who are slow on the uptake
(fred) i'l repeat it...


The commons had a vote on whether to have a referendum, they voted nearly
10-1 in favour, what that vote 'should' have given us, is to allow the government
to invoke article50, WITHOUT having to revert back to the commons to get further
permission to trigger article50.

Anyone with an ounce of sense, or in positions where they have to read AND
understand contracts and TREATIES, and who pass rules and laws that govern
people and countries.

In this case, there is a clause in the Lisbon Treaty that states any country
wanting to leave the EU, has to invoke article50 in writing.

When they had the referendum, having already had the commons vote on
having the referendum, then that gave the government the right to trigger
article50 to begin the whole process, so it has absolutely nothing to do with
denying sovereignty to parliament..It had already obtained it!!!..

Pardon,

Didn't hear you!

gb

That's exactly the way I see it, too.

Unfortunately, the judiciary are the arbiters of the situation. They are the ultimate deciders if the executive has over reached itself. There is nothing wrong with what has happened. I hope the Supreme Court overturns the judgement but if not then Parliament decides.

The referendum was advisory only. Then it comes down to whether the executive can use Royal Prerogative and the courts so far say no. Their decision is based on law and not the right or wrong of triggering Article 50. We should be pleased that we have an independent judiciary. It can hold governments to account.

Hays,

I agree with you.

another in agreeance, for all sorts of reasons

fred - 5797 - though i understand your point and whence you are coming, in this instance - somewhat rarer of late - i do not agree

to start from the beginning ...... the result of the referendum was a fairly significant majority in favour of "out"

therefore, given that we live under a "first past the post" system, imo once it has been agreed that article 50 should be triggered (as i think is the most likely result), then it is for the gov't to negotiate the best deal it can without interference from the rest of westminster who will assuredly not know (and nor should it) the full detail of the whys and wherefores

little difference between this scenario and other matters of state where the gov't of the day has the sole responsibility

This article seems a reasonable summary :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/06/brexit-high-court-parliament-government-law

-=-=-

For me it is reasonable for the executive to "suggest" to parliament, to investigate and plan the course and goals of the agreements they may agree to, and would possibly to sign on behalf of the British Government and "all" the people of the UK.

In such negotiations which are intended it should not be dependent on one upmanship or who has the bigger cudgels.

The deal should be best for ALL involved, not some smart arses.

==-=-=-=

Anyway the article is interesting. (To me.)

If you read the previous article, scan this:

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-observer1702/20161106/282106341204247

I must check my portfolio!