Who is in and who is out?
- Thread starter pip1954
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
to be honest the referendum should never have taken place without a brexit plan and the only one to blame for that is Cameron due to the fact he is the prime minister plus he allowed the referendum .
I know there's going to be people saying but he didn't want to leave , did he really not believe there was a chance we would leave .
He should have had a plan in place he is our countries leader !
I know there's going to be people saying but he didn't want to leave , did he really not believe there was a chance we would leave .
He should have had a plan in place he is our countries leader !
A Brexit plan wouldn't have helped much. It was pretty obvious that there was going to be carnage after an out vote. I'm afraid the economies of the world are very interdependent. We are seemingly heading for recession at an alarming rate.
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
He did have a plan; a firm commitment to prompt immediate implementation of Article 50 if the vote was to leave. He changed his mind straightaway. Unbelievably feeble.clk230":1outv0gp said:
Jacob":3v0m5jy2 said:
And your point is what exactly?
Rhossydd
Established Member
Or very smart ? Delaying may just allow the enormity of a decision to leave to really be seen for it was forecast to be, a complete disaster.Jacob":2mk1xdzc said:
We've already seen so many Brexiters frantically back peddling and denying their promises.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ?CMP=fb_gu
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/06/s ... or-brexit/
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/articl ... WySvafrAVZ
stuartpaul
Established Member
But what you don't know is what advice he received to the contrary. I doubt very much indeed if he made the decision on his lonesome.Jacob":br7zmvwo said:
I heard one financial 'expert' on Friday suggesting that an immediate trigger of 50 would cause even more financial chaos and time was needed to let the markets settle a bit.
Quite what that settlement will be is anyones guess as I note at least 3 cents off the pound in a single morning.
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
My point is fairly obvious.Inoffthered":lp2gkhax said:
But it has to be said - both the EU and our govt spend on schemes - regeneration or whatnot, which is good. But they are reluctant to spend on people direct i.e. give them proper benefits and a good standard of living when things are difficult.
It's all very well having a new swimming pool etc but if you are skint it may not improve your life a great deal if you have more pressing problems.
Paddy Roxburgh
Established Member
And so it begins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... exit-vote/
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Jacob":6upmjmk7 said:
I think if that tells us anything, it is that politics is changing, but one of the major parties isn't changing with it. Labour became the Blairite party of the Metropolitan bien-penseur, more recently the party of a revived Militant Tendency; neither of those has really bothered about the white working classes in the North, just taking them for granted as vote fodder. Those in Scotland have deserted it for the SNP, those in England and Wales are still looking for someone to support, UKIP being the answer for some (though not all).
A more thoughtful analysis from Douglas Carswell; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... leave-ukip
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Paddy Roxburgh":312ex9mh said:
Careful, Paddy. The photograph of the 'protest' in Newcastle shows a grand total of four protesters with a big banner. Still vile and distasteful in the extreme - and quite right to condemn it; but it's not a mass outbreak of racism and xenophobia.
custard
Established Member
stuartpaul":ybxziamx said:
Interesting question.
My guess is he would have taken legal advice from a constitutional lawyer. In which case we now know what that advice may well have been,
Geoffrey Robertson QC, a constitutional lawyer said this morning that because the act which set up the referendum says nothing about its implementation that means it was purely advisory, and a new bill must now be enacted in parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. But here's the rub, it's the constitutional right of MP's to make or break legislation and the constitutional right of peers to accept or reject that legislation, so progress depends on passing two further hurdles in which the referendum result per se carries no legal imperative whatsoever.
So the advice to Cameron would have been that for him to trigger Article 50 on his own, without the backing of the commons and the lords, would have been void and risked a subsequent legal challenge.
Indeed point one of Article 50 states that, "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements", and our "constitutional requirements" are crystal clear, sovereignty in this matter rests with parliament and not with the referendum. That appears to be the key fact, the way this country works is that we all vote for representatives to parliament who then vote on our behalf, and a referendum doesn't actually body swerve around that requirement.
So it looks as though the referendum itself doesn't have any actual legal weight, it was if you like an opinion poll, a testing of the water, an opportunity for the people to express their thoughts. But to have the weight of law it's now up to MPs to factor the referendum vote alongside other evidence and their individual consciences regarding what is in the best interest of the UK and then vote accordingly, and then it's for the Lords to accept or reject that vote. So if an MP believed the referendum vote was corrupted by inaccurate campaign promises, or that they thought many people had subsequently changed their minds, or they thought the referendum result was plain wrong for the UK, then they would be perfectly entitled to risk the wrath of their constituency voters and vote remain.
As Geoffrey Robertson QC says, backed up incidentally in a letter to The Times this morning from Charles Flint QC, another leading constitutional lawyer, "this has a long way to run yet".
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Jacob":3ctlsbmk said:
Governments of all stripe have spent years spending directly on people by giving them benefits, and eventually realised that all that did is trap them in welfare dependency. Whether IDS was right or wrong with his reforms, and whether or not they have some positive effects, he at least tried to find ways to get people off benefits and into supporting themselves. I'm sure there are a million and one objections to what he did, but at least he didn't just duck the issue like all his predecessors, of all political stripe, did.
The argument is that it's now been legitimised, read the article, there's more than 4 blokes in Newcastle being talked about. Similar story in the Guardian too if that's more your thing.Cheshirechappie":9pkrzy5z said:
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
One person's "benefit trap" is another persons liberation from poverty and the opportunity to make something more of his life other than merely surviving. Or merely to get through a difficult patch without losing house and home etc.Cheshirechappie":2zv4mmz3 said:
"Welfare dependency" a very old fashioned notion as by now I think everybody has realised that we are all state "welfare dependent" to a greater or lesser extent, from birth to the grave.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
custard":dcuunag6 said:
However - against that - is that a very clear majority (small, but nonetheless clear) instructed Parliament that the will of the people was to leave the EU. For Parliament to ignore the will of the people would be pretty well impossible, despite what constitutional lawyers may or may not say. A referendum is a means for the government to seek instruction from the people - it's now got its instruction.
The challenge for politicians is now to find an acceptable compromise that satisfies the instruction from the majority, as far as possible pacifies the large minority that voted for the status quo (including the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland), and extracts the UK from the EU with minimal damage to the economic positions of both. From news reports so far, it does seem that the saner heads in both London and on the continent are looking for ways to do just that.
Paddy Roxburgh
Established Member
Cheshirechappie":3pu3n81y said:
Hope you right. That's something I keep finding myself saying to Brexiters, my desire to be right is completely overpowered by my fears for the direction of travel in the nations politics.
I spoke to a neighbour of Jo Cox this morning, her kids play regularly with Jo's and are also friends of my daughters. It was quite clear who she blamed for the murder, in that conversation I was the one saying he was just a lone nutter and you couldn't put the blame on the change in the current political climate, funnily enough she hoped I was right.
Paddy
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Wuffles":34ljbz07 said:
Racism is not legitimised, except in the deluded heads of a few bigots. The sooner they are reminded that the vast majority do not share their views, the better.
We voted to regain control of governmental responsibility ceded to Brussels, not to demonise people.
By the way, I'm more Telegraph than Guardian, but I'll read thoughtful analysis wherever it's printed.
RogerS
Established Member
Inoffthered":24d5frk8 said:
Haven't you cottoned on yet? Jacob just loves quoting meaningless links to newspaper articles !!
- Status
