Riddle for the day:
What's a referendum called when you:
1. Like the outcome?
2. Don't like the outcome?
Answer to #1: Democracy in action.
Answer to #2: Mob rule.
What's a referendum called when you:
1. Like the outcome?
2. Don't like the outcome?
Answer to #1: Democracy in action.
Answer to #2: Mob rule.
4
Hard to believe you're serious:
"Basing government actions based on any popular referendum is a horrible plan. What may seem 'popular' today may be seen as anathema tomorrow."
That's equally true of measures that elected representatives vote on.
"Basing government actions based on any popular referendum is a horrible plan. What may seem 'popular' today may be seen as anathema tomorrow."
That's equally true of measures that elected representatives vote on.
2
Too many forget that the EU is the greatest peace and prosperity enterprise ever created by humankind.
The civilized. tea-drinking Brits forgot what Churchill told them: "Never give up" -- he meant that not only for occasions when their country is under direct threat but also towards advancing a better way for nations and people to co-exist in harmony.
They forgot about when British, German, French and American soldiers battled in trench warfare for months and years on end, while mothers and wives wept when the news came home that ... and when WWII created an existence characterized by unspeakable atrocities, fear, hunger, death and destruction.
They listened instead to Boris and his minions, who turned a few fancy xenophobic phrases and won a vote to break from what the Brits will miss and long for in the not so distance future.
The civilized. tea-drinking Brits forgot what Churchill told them: "Never give up" -- he meant that not only for occasions when their country is under direct threat but also towards advancing a better way for nations and people to co-exist in harmony.
They forgot about when British, German, French and American soldiers battled in trench warfare for months and years on end, while mothers and wives wept when the news came home that ... and when WWII created an existence characterized by unspeakable atrocities, fear, hunger, death and destruction.
They listened instead to Boris and his minions, who turned a few fancy xenophobic phrases and won a vote to break from what the Brits will miss and long for in the not so distance future.
2
Thank goodness this court ruling will force parlament to do the right thing for the UK, instead of the Xenophopic Myopic NIMBY ulta-conservatives who afraid of a few refugees. The EU is the best thing that happened since the US bailed the UK out of WW-II. Britain is better than BEXIT.
1
Members of the British parliament will not vote against Brexit for the same reason turkeys do not vote for Christmas.
2
Thank goodness the British people have something to save them from the ridiculous notion that they know what's best for themselves. They should just sit back and let their betters go on with taking care of them.This whole 'democracy' idea was never a good idea, anyway.
2
Well that to me shows how undemocratic Parliamentary "democracy" can be. They had a massive referendum which did not turn out the way they elite wanted. So they are trying to overthrow the will of the people via the courts.
What is happening over this referendum is truly disgusting. PM May should have triggered Article 50 almost immediately and that would have avoided this current mess.
What is happening over this referendum is truly disgusting. PM May should have triggered Article 50 almost immediately and that would have avoided this current mess.
4
The will of the people? Only 37% of the electorate voted to leave. Most of the people I've spoken to who voted "leave" were retired. They blamed everything on the EU, including heal and safety regulations!
2
That is not how government works in the UK. Legally, the referendum was only advisory. Theresa May wants to invoke royal prerogative, or the right of the sovereign, to invoke Article 50.
The High Court has held that Parliament is sovereign and the Prime Minister may not rely on royal prerogative to withdraw the UK from the European Union.
Here are links to a summary and the judgment:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for...
The negotiations to leave the EU without crashing the UK economy (if that is possible) are fiendishly complex. The referendum was held with no plan in place if the vote was to leave. May has appointed three Brexiters to handle this who are manifestly incompetent in this role, and she so far has been insisting on keeping plans and negotiations secret. Parliament would be allowed to debate all it wanted, but ultimately she was to be in charge.
THAT is what is profoundly undemocratic. The people have the right to know what is going on and to have their elected representatives act in their behalf.
The High Court has held that Parliament is sovereign and the Prime Minister may not rely on royal prerogative to withdraw the UK from the European Union.
Here are links to a summary and the judgment:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for...
The negotiations to leave the EU without crashing the UK economy (if that is possible) are fiendishly complex. The referendum was held with no plan in place if the vote was to leave. May has appointed three Brexiters to handle this who are manifestly incompetent in this role, and she so far has been insisting on keeping plans and negotiations secret. Parliament would be allowed to debate all it wanted, but ultimately she was to be in charge.
THAT is what is profoundly undemocratic. The people have the right to know what is going on and to have their elected representatives act in their behalf.
What a travesty...the people of UK have spoken, why do three judges get to over turn their vote? This is such a "we know better than you do" upper class attack on the millions of English voters.
3
This is a blatant move by the British elite Globalists and political class to overrule the vote of the people. Same thing is happening in the U.S. and the working people of the world are sick and tired of this and it won't stand much longer. Globalists are looking for a one-world government with the U.N. and E.U. in charge being directed by groups such as the Bilderburg Group and the Trilateral Commission........time to stop them in their tracks!!
3
I suggest that Parliament committed Treason in approving the European Communities Act and that it and the Court are no longer worthy of Her Majesty's confidence.
2
Democracy is an ideal, not a actual method of government. In the real world every little implementation detail has its origin, weight and consequence. So we call a variety of systems democratic, even when viewed from the many perspectives possible, any give aspect can be criticised as flawed.
The British Parliamentary system has a very long and at times violent history, yet it can't NOT be called democratic by any stretch of the imagination, by a rational observer. Does it have faults? Of course. Even the most elaborately conceived systems do. What do Americans think about the 24/7/365 political campaign cycle generated by its form of government?
When protagonists disagree on an issue, in the end the rule of law settles disputes by way of the courts. That is clearly what has happened here. Does it create an appearance of conflict ? Of course. The inevitable conclusion is that the current conflict was entirely conceived, generated and executed by Cameron and May who can rightly be said to have made poor short term expedient choices on the issue. They may call themselves leaders but played with fire and not only got burned, but seem intent on leading from behing and continue to burn down Britain to save their own skins. And so as with much of democratic process, and with so much at stake, there seems no easy solution out of this mess.
The British Parliamentary system has a very long and at times violent history, yet it can't NOT be called democratic by any stretch of the imagination, by a rational observer. Does it have faults? Of course. Even the most elaborately conceived systems do. What do Americans think about the 24/7/365 political campaign cycle generated by its form of government?
When protagonists disagree on an issue, in the end the rule of law settles disputes by way of the courts. That is clearly what has happened here. Does it create an appearance of conflict ? Of course. The inevitable conclusion is that the current conflict was entirely conceived, generated and executed by Cameron and May who can rightly be said to have made poor short term expedient choices on the issue. They may call themselves leaders but played with fire and not only got burned, but seem intent on leading from behing and continue to burn down Britain to save their own skins. And so as with much of democratic process, and with so much at stake, there seems no easy solution out of this mess.
1
Hope the American system works the same. In case Hillary wins we need a second election just to be sure. The irony here is that the British voted but the Politicians don't like it. Europe doesn't like it. What to do with the refugees? The fault here lies with Mrs. May who should have made a swift exit.
1
And so Britain finds itself flummoxed and confused by the very laws that have been chartered and codified by English legal tradition. A tradition that so many respect and endorse. Obviously, there is one more important lesson to be learned here by American voters about to go to the polls. Approaching politics as a referendum is not something to be taken lightly. Democracy is not mob rule.
2
Mob rule is only when referendums don't achieve desired outcomes for one group or the other. Depends on whose ox is being gored.
3
Refusing to reconsider the referendum is akin to telling a depressed patient who has chosen assisted suicide that he is not allowed to reconsider and must now go through with it.
Completely nuts!
Completely nuts!
3
The liberal courts in England are the same as the liberal courts in the USA they think they are above the will of the people, you know the "deplorables"
5
Sad to see the British leave .E.U.
A lot of us are sad to leave. I won't forget my teenage sisters eyes light up when she was made aware that she is entitled to an Irish passport and will remain a citizen of the EU.
Pass a constitutional amendment to existing law and abolish hereditary Peerages immediately. They are a fossilized institution serving nothing but their own interests. That way the people's will will be done. The political power of the faceless Brussels bureaucrats must be smashed and free trade being the only issue of importance to try Europeans who value their heritage and cultures..
2
With Canada joining the EU this week it seems to me everything is all the clearer.
When Justin Trudeau announced the one thing not negotiable was Canada's sovereignty and our democracy the reasons for Brexit vanished into dust.
When Prime Minister Trudeau told us that the referendum on trade policy happened every election it put in place a new way forward for international trade where citizens vote with their ballots and corporations and their lawyers and their economists are no longer the principal actors.
The Brexit vote was not about trade it was about democracy and for the western democracies democracy won for the USA it has yet to be determined.
When Justin Trudeau announced the one thing not negotiable was Canada's sovereignty and our democracy the reasons for Brexit vanished into dust.
When Prime Minister Trudeau told us that the referendum on trade policy happened every election it put in place a new way forward for international trade where citizens vote with their ballots and corporations and their lawyers and their economists are no longer the principal actors.
The Brexit vote was not about trade it was about democracy and for the western democracies democracy won for the USA it has yet to be determined.
3
The ruling of the High Court says simply this:
- The decision to join the EU is so fundamental that Parliament had to make a law. Crown prerogatory was not estimated as sufficient these days. Parliament made this decision in 1972.
- The decision to leave the EU is just as fundamental as the decision to join so Parliament has to make this decision according to the prejudice of 1972.
- Because "Leaving" is the opposite of "Joining" and only Parliament is entitled to abolish the 1972 law only Parliament can make a contrary decision.
- The law of 1972 excludes Crown prerogatory on this matter as long it is not expired or abolished. A referendum without legal grounds cannot alter this in any way. There is no way around not for politics, not for voters, not for the press - even not for the Crown.
- Conclusion: The law prevails.
It´s only logic thinking, not British, European or whatever. and it doesn´t depend on whether a constitution is written or unwritten or common law or continental law is to apply.
PS: Judges who think logically have to face that they might referred to as "enemies of people".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touc...
Professional risk. Nothing new in history.
- The decision to join the EU is so fundamental that Parliament had to make a law. Crown prerogatory was not estimated as sufficient these days. Parliament made this decision in 1972.
- The decision to leave the EU is just as fundamental as the decision to join so Parliament has to make this decision according to the prejudice of 1972.
- Because "Leaving" is the opposite of "Joining" and only Parliament is entitled to abolish the 1972 law only Parliament can make a contrary decision.
- The law of 1972 excludes Crown prerogatory on this matter as long it is not expired or abolished. A referendum without legal grounds cannot alter this in any way. There is no way around not for politics, not for voters, not for the press - even not for the Crown.
- Conclusion: The law prevails.
It´s only logic thinking, not British, European or whatever. and it doesn´t depend on whether a constitution is written or unwritten or common law or continental law is to apply.
PS: Judges who think logically have to face that they might referred to as "enemies of people".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touc...
Professional risk. Nothing new in history.
3
Just as Brits habitually misunderstand the USA by talking about "the American system for" whatever, Americans habitually misunderstand the so-called parliamentary democracy across the pond. A sufficiently well-supported PM can get whatever he or she wants from Parliament in short order, as demonstrated by many instances of laws being passed in days where Congress would have needed months. While it would certainly be foolish for the PM and the Cabinet to railroad something through at the cost of fragmenting the majority party, there is every prospect that authority to invoke Article 50 won't be long in coming, and won't be subject to the kinds of delays and filibustering that Americans expect of their politicians.
2
It is interesting to read other people's opinions of the Brexit situation here in the UK. The amount of incorrect reporting is quite surprising. The result of the referendum vote actually drew attention to the fact that a number of MPs, who campaigned on behalf of their constituency for 'Remain', actually didn't represent the opinions of their constituents when the constituents voted for 'Brexit'. These people being those who actually voted them as a Member of Parliament. It for this reason that there is concern about any protracted debates in Parliament. The statement below regarding 'millions of Britons were marching in the streets' is a twist of figures and purpose. Some 'gatherings' such as here in York, were conducted in popular shopping areas, on a Saturday afternoon, to give the appearance of higher numbers than what were genuinely involved. Some being labelled as 'Anti-democracy marches', but again this is all rhetoric. And should be dismissed.
2
If Joseph Goebbels had got away with writing the front pages of some of the UK's main newspapers today such as the Daily Express, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph during the Second World War he would have been awarded an Iron Cross. Just who do the owners and editors of these hypocritical hatred inciting papers think they represent?
Brexiteers wanted sovereignty. They got a taste of it yesterday, the day democracy truly spoke and the constitution of the United Kingdom was upheld by justice. They got it in the form of a decision made by British judges interpreting British law in an English court confirming British parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, Brexiteers got their just deserts, namely precisely what they voted for, sovereignty.
Surely they should be able to stomach a decision upholding their democracy? Perhaps they should have been intelligent enough to have thought through the consequences of voting for
Brexit on 23 June. They weren't and those fascists or Trotskyites who don't uphold the principles of justice in this democratic country are more of a problem for the UK now than any law abiding immigrants whom they are trying to extradite have ever been.
Brexiteers wanted sovereignty. They got a taste of it yesterday, the day democracy truly spoke and the constitution of the United Kingdom was upheld by justice. They got it in the form of a decision made by British judges interpreting British law in an English court confirming British parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, Brexiteers got their just deserts, namely precisely what they voted for, sovereignty.
Surely they should be able to stomach a decision upholding their democracy? Perhaps they should have been intelligent enough to have thought through the consequences of voting for
Brexit on 23 June. They weren't and those fascists or Trotskyites who don't uphold the principles of justice in this democratic country are more of a problem for the UK now than any law abiding immigrants whom they are trying to extradite have ever been.
2
First, - "Who rules ", parliament or the king ? ( that is , the King's Government ) An interesting question. It has been fought over since 1215, again in 1642.
Second, - England is just ONE member of The United Kingdom, has taken charge over the rest of the members on the question of ' Home rule'.
The United Kingdom, is at least on paper, A UNION of sovereign nations.
Third, - How the referendum was staged to begin with is a scandal, with just a single majority, 37 %, affecting not just two sovereign nations that decided against, but actually the majority of the union on such an important question.
Second, - England is just ONE member of The United Kingdom, has taken charge over the rest of the members on the question of ' Home rule'.
The United Kingdom, is at least on paper, A UNION of sovereign nations.
Third, - How the referendum was staged to begin with is a scandal, with just a single majority, 37 %, affecting not just two sovereign nations that decided against, but actually the majority of the union on such an important question.
2
Since Parliament derives its authority from the people, I would argue that a majority vote of the people takes precedence over Parliament.But, as everywhere, elites do not gladly part with power and will apply loads of legal tricks to underminde a popular vote.
3
As Johnny Rotten said at the end of the Sex Pistols' last concert:
"Ahaha, ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"
"Ahaha, ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"
2
Maybe the people of Britain will rethink their decision and rescind it.
1
Now that Britain's citizens are facing up to the actual cost of Brexit, their enthusiasm appears to be ebbing fast. They should vote all over again, just to make sure that it is the will of the people now that the pro-Brexit lies have been exposed.
2
At least the British Parliament is doing its job and voting. It's more than Mitch McConnell and his buddies are doing in Congress for our Supreme Court. Democracy only works when everyone works.
1
Just curious:
"The referendum was a terrible idea, the result even worse..."
If the result had been "Remain," would you still say the referendum was "a terrible idea?" Or would you think the referendum was the best thing since sliced bread?
"The referendum was a terrible idea, the result even worse..."
If the result had been "Remain," would you still say the referendum was "a terrible idea?" Or would you think the referendum was the best thing since sliced bread?
1
The judgement is worth reading. We have good judges in Britain - no, they aren't elected, who cares if that makes them 'elitist'? The people who brought the case didn't, it would seem, bring it because they wanted to halt the Brexit process. They were aghast at the idea that a project allegedly designed to restore parliament's power, could be set in motion without parliamentary approval - in a country without a written constitution where the ultimate guiding principle is parliamentary sovereignty. You can regard the government's position as stupidity or bad faith - I prefer the latter. As for referenda, these are 'advisory' in Britain. Many people think they are a bad idea. I agree. Parliament is now being asked to participate in a referendum, validating critically its outcome, or perhaps overturning it. That is surely a good idea. As for the Britush Constitution, The French historian Elie Halevy said he loved it because it was a cupboard full of fossils. But it can be a source of innovation too - and it has done.
1
The politicians say Brexit means Brexit. So it's kinda laughable to think that these same politicians worded the referendum in such a way as to make it non-binding. Why did they do that? Was that an oversight? I would strongly doubt that.
Referendum is the worth tool democracies have. It's time to explain why and say goodbye. France was the country which put down by referendum the creation of a European Constitution.
If the American constitution have to be approve today by referendum, I'm not sure the historical words of Franklin would suffice:
"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise".
If the American constitution have to be approve today by referendum, I'm not sure the historical words of Franklin would suffice:
"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise".
1
They made a mistake. It had no measurable ripple effect on the economy that God.
Referendum is the worst tool democracies have. It's time to explain why and say goodbye. France was the country which put down by referendum the creation of a European Constitution.
If the American constitution have to be approve today by referendum, I'm not sure the historical words of Franklin would suffice:
"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise".
If the American constitution have to be approve today by referendum, I'm not sure the historical words of Franklin would suffice:
"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise".
1
Democracy is fake. Only a true revolution can change things.
I'm 22, i swear to god that the EU and the establishment will collapse.
I'm 22, i swear to god that the EU and the establishment will collapse.
2
Bless you! The rare young person who has not been brainwashed by the New World Order and globalism! Thankfully your numbers are growing as the young in every Western countries realize that with little industry, few jobs and the ones available low paying, and their countries swamped with Third World proles to take what few jobs are available, the only thing remaining to sustain life are the shrinking nets of the debt ridden welfare state.
2
Brexiters voted for the tooth fairy.
Now May has donned Cameron's top hat and wand, and is dancing dancing around frantically trying to distract the tabloid addled mob long enough to collect sufficient pension credits (and as much expense money as she can stuff in her pickets) to retire to the Costa Brava , far away from her preschool audience.
It's popcorn and suds, Trump-lite theatre without the consequences for the rest of us.
Now May has donned Cameron's top hat and wand, and is dancing dancing around frantically trying to distract the tabloid addled mob long enough to collect sufficient pension credits (and as much expense money as she can stuff in her pickets) to retire to the Costa Brava , far away from her preschool audience.
It's popcorn and suds, Trump-lite theatre without the consequences for the rest of us.
It's somewhat difficult to predict the outcome because, despite the court's admonition, Parliament is sovereign and can pass any law it so chooses. This would include reversing its pledge to abide by the outcome of the Brexit referendum, which was not a plebiscite but rather advisory and not binding.
4
"...the current believe on the streets of the UK appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of Remaining in the E.U."
Well, then, I guess "the streets" settle it! Or do you think we should put it up to a vote? Wait -- I guess that's already happened.
I've got the solution! Let's have the Brits vote on it again -- and then again and again and again until they get it right! If it looks like that might take too long, we could speed it up by prohibiting all "stupid" people from voting. Or maybe let the "stupid" people vote but don't count their votes -- that might be easier.
I wonder how we'll figure out which voters are "stupid."
Well, then, I guess "the streets" settle it! Or do you think we should put it up to a vote? Wait -- I guess that's already happened.
I've got the solution! Let's have the Brits vote on it again -- and then again and again and again until they get it right! If it looks like that might take too long, we could speed it up by prohibiting all "stupid" people from voting. Or maybe let the "stupid" people vote but don't count their votes -- that might be easier.
I wonder how we'll figure out which voters are "stupid."
1
"...an ill-defined referendum..."
Huh? Whatever one might say about the outcome, the choice was clear as a bell and presented as simply as can be imagined:
Shall the UK remain in the EU, or leave the EU?
That strike me as anything but "ill-defined."
Huh? Whatever one might say about the outcome, the choice was clear as a bell and presented as simply as can be imagined:
Shall the UK remain in the EU, or leave the EU?
That strike me as anything but "ill-defined."
1
It is good to see the constitution of one of the world's great democracies functioning, even if it is unwritten. Teresa May's inane "Brexit means Brexit" non-argument will now, presumably, have to come before Parliament and be supported with something more substantial. Given that simply sleepwalking into Article 50 seemed likely to break up the UK, there is abundant room to hope for a different result. Whatever the voters thought they were voting on, dissolution of the United Kingdom was manifestly not on the table, and now it is most definitely is.
2
birthplace of democracy, and its graveyard
1
The Brints want the cake and heat it as well. Once again they are getting the taste if it... The EU should let the UK go, the US did, India did and both have done VERY well ever since!!
2
If the British people's vote to exit EU didn't truly count and mean Brexit, then the impact of voting was wildly misunderstood and exaggerated. It would be easy to cast judgment, but we too live in a political glass house.
1
Major flaw in this article is to not discuss the relationship between the "High Court" and the "Supreme Court." What is the purview of the former relative to the latter?
Sounds like this is a tempest in a teapot.
MPs vowed to respect the voters' expressed preference, and it's hard to imagine an MP would renege on that -- probably political suicide if he or she does.
Why is it that anyone who votes differently from how a commenter thinks he or she should vote is "ignorant" or "stupid" or "uneducated?" And why is it that a voter's education level is mentioned only if that voter is likely to vote in a way the commenter doesn't like? I've read about many "uneducated white male voters," for example, but the education level of "minority voters" is never mentioned. Would it simply be racist to point out that many of them are "uneducated?" If so, why is that observation so freely made about "uneducate white males?"
MPs vowed to respect the voters' expressed preference, and it's hard to imagine an MP would renege on that -- probably political suicide if he or she does.
Why is it that anyone who votes differently from how a commenter thinks he or she should vote is "ignorant" or "stupid" or "uneducated?" And why is it that a voter's education level is mentioned only if that voter is likely to vote in a way the commenter doesn't like? I've read about many "uneducated white male voters," for example, but the education level of "minority voters" is never mentioned. Would it simply be racist to point out that many of them are "uneducated?" If so, why is that observation so freely made about "uneducate white males?"
2
Firstly despite what observers think it's by no means certain a majority can be found in parliament for invoking A50 and repealing the 1973 European Communities Act (ECA). The conservative MP's in the commons have not now largely and enthusiastically embraced its outcome. The are still split down the middle. Then it has to go to the House of Lords where it's even less likely. So call an election say some. Another route that is effectively closed off by the 2011 parliament act which fixed the life of parliaments and is hard to overturn. If the supreme court affirms the lower court verdict and it's hard to see how they don't all bets are off. The British government is negotiating with itself and this ruling has driven a bus through an already somewhat chaotic process.
2
John,
That is not the feeling amongst many here in the UK. Like you have quite rightly pointed out, the 1973 Act was interpreted as becoming a member of the European Economic Community. Over the decades this has been transformed into a political system that has dictated to countries within the European Union. An act of parliament can be repealed. Takes 326 votes to 324. Likewise, a discussion in parliament, and subsequent vote requires 326 votes to 324 to initiate any Article 50. Imagine the impression of the rest of the world if the EU ignored the wish of a country that had voted to leave. I commented earlier, however I think it was not accepted. Thank you for reading.
That is not the feeling amongst many here in the UK. Like you have quite rightly pointed out, the 1973 Act was interpreted as becoming a member of the European Economic Community. Over the decades this has been transformed into a political system that has dictated to countries within the European Union. An act of parliament can be repealed. Takes 326 votes to 324. Likewise, a discussion in parliament, and subsequent vote requires 326 votes to 324 to initiate any Article 50. Imagine the impression of the rest of the world if the EU ignored the wish of a country that had voted to leave. I commented earlier, however I think it was not accepted. Thank you for reading.
Election is the best way to solve it all.
6
@KotoKoto
Montreal, Canada
They can't hold an election since the 2011 parliament act effectively means parliaments have a life of 5 years.
Montreal, Canada
They can't hold an election since the 2011 parliament act effectively means parliaments have a life of 5 years.
There WAS an election. Now it's Parliament's turn.
Not correct. The 2011 Law only stipulates the maximum time for a government to serve, not a minimum time. The PM can request the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call an election at any time. The major issue can and will be Brexit. Who is elected tp Parliament would then determine if the U.K. goes through with the referendum to restore British sovereignty, freedom, and independence.
1
It's more complicated than that. The referendum on Scottish independence held in 2014 was won (narrowly) by the stay side, largely on the premise that leaving the UK would also mean leaving the EU. As it turns out, the opposite was true -- Scotland is going to have to leave the UK if it is to remain in the EU. So now the SIP is (rightly) demanding another referendum as the outcome of the first was based on a false premise.
The Brexit "victory" was also won on a series of false premises which (conveniently) came to light after the referendum. Things like Nigel Farage's inability to do basic arithmetic, or Boris Johnson's post-"victory" musings that leaving the EU wouldn't affect immigration policy after all -- the entire campaign was based on a pack of lies sold to the English white working class. (Some parallels to the current American election come to mind here, but we won't go there).
The point is that when a product is sold to the public based on false advertising, the public has the right to void the deal. The Brexit "deal" was a con job from beginning to end -- under those circumstances what alternative is there other than to throw out the entire process and begin again.
The Brexit "victory" was also won on a series of false premises which (conveniently) came to light after the referendum. Things like Nigel Farage's inability to do basic arithmetic, or Boris Johnson's post-"victory" musings that leaving the EU wouldn't affect immigration policy after all -- the entire campaign was based on a pack of lies sold to the English white working class. (Some parallels to the current American election come to mind here, but we won't go there).
The point is that when a product is sold to the public based on false advertising, the public has the right to void the deal. The Brexit "deal" was a con job from beginning to end -- under those circumstances what alternative is there other than to throw out the entire process and begin again.
7
Brexit= end of Great Britain. Scotland and N. Ireland both wanted to remain and I doubt they will stick with England.
Much of this is incorrect. The falsehoods spread were mostly on the remain side's campaign, warning of an economic Depression if Britain left the EU. Also once the UK fully exits the EU it will indeed have complete control over its immigration policies as any and all independent nations can and do. Scotland is not going to leave the United Kingdom. Teresa May has already visited the Scottish Parliament leaders and read them the riot act. If they leave the UK they will assume full responsibility for their own defense, assume their share of the national debt, get a proportional share of the North Sea oil and gas fields, and the millions of Scotsmen living and working south of the border in England would have to apply for residency and work permits which might or might not be granted. The Scots are not called canny for nothing. They are nobody's fools and such extreme economic hardship is not acceptable to most sturdy Scots north of the border. Same is true for Northern Ireland. Brexit was fought and won fairly by the leave side while the remainders spread every lie, scare and innuendo imaginable and allowed millions of foreigners to vote in the referendum to boot, but still lost by over a million votes. Brexit is a done deal and Parliament will either fulfill its obligations or be turned out of office. The globalists need to get over it. The EU will shortly go out of existence. The United Kingdom will remain united, strong, free, and sovereign once more. End of story.
2
Makes total sense. It takes parliament to enter into treaty agreements, so it's only logical that they should only be undone by the same process.
4
Referendums are not binding on Parliament. So, the Hight Court ruled that the May Government does have to get Parliamentary approval to leave the E.U. But keep in mind that, a couple of days following the vote (June 23), millions of Britons were marching in the streets, asking for another chance to vote. They realized that they were sold a bill of goods. The promised benefits were a charade.
The Pound has dropped 11% versus the Euro, and 15% versus the Dollar. Even though the Brexit would not be finalized, at the earliest, until March of 2019, Britain has already seen the cost of fresh food--and other things--imported rom the Continent skyrocket. The economic projections for GDP are even more dire.
Although some articles have suggested that MP's would face backlash by not confirming the Brexit, the current believe on the streets of the UK appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of Remaining in the E.U. So, a vote by Parliament to ignore the referendum--and Remain--would immediately be heralded as a good move. The Pound would surely rally on the news!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The Pound has dropped 11% versus the Euro, and 15% versus the Dollar. Even though the Brexit would not be finalized, at the earliest, until March of 2019, Britain has already seen the cost of fresh food--and other things--imported rom the Continent skyrocket. The economic projections for GDP are even more dire.
Although some articles have suggested that MP's would face backlash by not confirming the Brexit, the current believe on the streets of the UK appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of Remaining in the E.U. So, a vote by Parliament to ignore the referendum--and Remain--would immediately be heralded as a good move. The Pound would surely rally on the news!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
4
You state that the current belief "on the streets of the UK appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of Remaining..."
I can find no scientific polling data to support that. My observation from being in London last August was that that applies to London. But then London voted Remain in the first place. In my other August travels in some of the smaller cities and rural communities in Shropshire and Wales found that Brexit supporters were happy with the results, 2 months on.
I can find little scientific polling done in the last few months that shows Brits would vote in favor of Remain. YouGov did a poll in August and that pretty much matched the June vote, i.e. pro-Brexit beat Remain by a few percent.
Other than that, what I find is mostly anecdotal recounting of opinions.
Many of the media news outlets such as the NY Times and Guardian were for Remain and repeatedly post stories about "regret" by pro-Brexit voters. But the YouGov poll flies in the face of that.
The Brexit vote had the highest voter turnout of any British election in the last 20 years. The margin of victory was not huge but was significant.
The "people marching in the streets" after the election were in London, the very same people who voted for Remain. My friends in the small towns of Shropshire, who voted Brexit, were not out marching in the streets. Nor were the British all over Britain, in its smaller cities and rural communities.
I can find no scientific polling data to support that. My observation from being in London last August was that that applies to London. But then London voted Remain in the first place. In my other August travels in some of the smaller cities and rural communities in Shropshire and Wales found that Brexit supporters were happy with the results, 2 months on.
I can find little scientific polling done in the last few months that shows Brits would vote in favor of Remain. YouGov did a poll in August and that pretty much matched the June vote, i.e. pro-Brexit beat Remain by a few percent.
Other than that, what I find is mostly anecdotal recounting of opinions.
Many of the media news outlets such as the NY Times and Guardian were for Remain and repeatedly post stories about "regret" by pro-Brexit voters. But the YouGov poll flies in the face of that.
The Brexit vote had the highest voter turnout of any British election in the last 20 years. The margin of victory was not huge but was significant.
The "people marching in the streets" after the election were in London, the very same people who voted for Remain. My friends in the small towns of Shropshire, who voted Brexit, were not out marching in the streets. Nor were the British all over Britain, in its smaller cities and rural communities.
13
You can't keep having votes until you get the result you want. The people voted. That's it.
2
Don't worry we won't allow you back in. Too many of us have been waiting for this day.
1
And why has this come up now? Must be unbelievably frustrating for the British people. I trust Parliament will uphold the "once in a lifetime, no going back" vote and allow the UK to leave the EU without delay.
8
"and why has this come up now?"
It's in the article. The reading comprehension skills required are of a grade 8 level, but one must also be mature enough not to simply ignore the facts presented. These basic life skills however seems beyond the capacity for a good proportion of commenters. Which goes a long way to explaining Trump's astounding success in polls.
It's in the article. The reading comprehension skills required are of a grade 8 level, but one must also be mature enough not to simply ignore the facts presented. These basic life skills however seems beyond the capacity for a good proportion of commenters. Which goes a long way to explaining Trump's astounding success in polls.
1
So, are calmer (read 'more intelligent') heads prevailing? And, what will happen when the general election is called in the Spring?? This is good theater.
2
Overtly, this was a major setback for Theresa May. Covertly, everyone in the British government is uncorking champagnes.
3
Leave the EU. Pay the price for staying in the market. Finance it with a Nigel tax - and if that isn't enough, add a Boris tax. Accept free migration from the EU - Britain will be better for it. A bitter pill, but in exchange you will keep Scotland and Northern Ireland. This will have the added benefit of taking EU sceptics out of the European Parliament, and they can get on with creating an "Ever closer Uniion".
2
No they leave and they are out. No market access without tariffs! Even if they accept the free movement of EU citizens, they must pay a hefty price. They benefited from their special relationship with Europe, they slowed the process of EU integration and now they have a tantrum and we are suppose to smile and say it's ok because you're british... Forget that make them pay and enjoy the watching the break up of Great Britain, the end of the city, they no longer have a say in the matter!
1
Another last gasp by the elites and those in power now trying to put the cat back in the bag. Not happening. Pro Brexit forces will find a way to make sure that their vote has been heard.
10
I recommend reading England, England by Juian Barnes. England gets more or less replaced by a disneyfied version of itself in order to preserve its "true character and culture." Scathingly funny.
2
Yes, democracy is messy, and messes with stock prices while it's messing about. If Britain were like China, one man at the top would make the decision, alternate viewpoints would be censored and anyone disagreeing would find themselves in prison.
6
Here's the problem with 50%+1 referendum votes on irrevocable actions - the proponents can lose over and over but only need to win once. Meanwhile, that one win allows for no buyers' remorse and disregards the wishes of those on the other side.
Canada faced this kind of situation in 1995 with the referendum in the province of Quebec that called for that province to separate from the rest of the country. It was the second vote and this one barely failed by less than a 1% margin. Had it passed the country and the province would have been irrevocably changed regardless of those native Quebecers who considered themselves first and foremost Canadians. Now, some 20 years later, although the separatist movement still stirs, it lags far behind in polls. Some times it's just better to work within a status quo, as Quebec has done quite successfully, than throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Canada faced this kind of situation in 1995 with the referendum in the province of Quebec that called for that province to separate from the rest of the country. It was the second vote and this one barely failed by less than a 1% margin. Had it passed the country and the province would have been irrevocably changed regardless of those native Quebecers who considered themselves first and foremost Canadians. Now, some 20 years later, although the separatist movement still stirs, it lags far behind in polls. Some times it's just better to work within a status quo, as Quebec has done quite successfully, than throw out the baby with the bathwater.
3
The relationship between Quebec and Ottawa is not the same as the relationship between the UK and Brussels.
2
Of course. The point I was making was about tossing such irrevocable questions into the political maelstrom of the moment.
The fact is that the Brits do not really want to leave the EU because they know it will be a disaster for them. However, as arrogant as they are they wanted to tell the world that they can by a vote - very typical of the Brits. However, now they are scrambling to save their face by these legal meanderings. In the end I am quite sure the Brits will stay in the EU. EU on the other hand needs to demand currency integration as well and be rid of that pound. Let's see what happens. Frankly, I care very little for the British, especially for their "monarchy".
1
My British friends who voted for Brexit WANT Britain to leave the EU. They were not "protesting" anything. They were voting based on their opinions. And as of now, their opinion hasn't changed.
My other British friends who voted Remain have also not changed their opinions and are hoping this political process will give them a second chance. It's a dangerous wish because it risks firing up the Brexit voters still further. Brexit voters were indeed the majority and if their concerns are simply shoved aside they will probably bring down both the major parties and very possibly bring UKIP into the top spot.
My other British friends who voted Remain have also not changed their opinions and are hoping this political process will give them a second chance. It's a dangerous wish because it risks firing up the Brexit voters still further. Brexit voters were indeed the majority and if their concerns are simply shoved aside they will probably bring down both the major parties and very possibly bring UKIP into the top spot.
3
The fsct is we do want to leave, and we will leave. Noone is scrambling to save their face except a very wealthy couple who make their money on the stock markets. As for the EU making demands on us, do you not think we have more than paid to be a member of this elite group of people who are out of touch with people in the street. Frankly, I care even less about you but I wouldn't generalise about a whole nation. As for the monarchy - they bring in the tourists and generally make for a good turnout on state occasions but they have no power in decision making.
2
Even if they beg, they accept the euro, and they stop halting EU integration. They are no longer welcome.
"Vive le Quebec libre!"
"Vive le Quebec libre!"
1
Clarity on the correct process is very welcome.
But if "Remain" parliamentarians think this gives them a carte blanche to ignore the will of a majority of British voters, they are in for a rude surprise come the next election.
The issues of concern to pro-Brexit voters are many, and have been very poorly addressed for many years by the mainstream parties. This fueled the rise of UKIP. If those same parties think they can now sweep those issues under the rug they clearly do not understand the people they are supposed to represent, and parties such as UKIP will continue to grow.
But if "Remain" parliamentarians think this gives them a carte blanche to ignore the will of a majority of British voters, they are in for a rude surprise come the next election.
The issues of concern to pro-Brexit voters are many, and have been very poorly addressed for many years by the mainstream parties. This fueled the rise of UKIP. If those same parties think they can now sweep those issues under the rug they clearly do not understand the people they are supposed to represent, and parties such as UKIP will continue to grow.
11
Your comments drip with condescension. Stick to facts. May tried to bugger parliament out of the very goal the referendum sought to preserve: sovereignty precisely because the rule of law is too complicated to explain to the pitchfork wielding know nothing mob. Not wanting to face their ire, she led from behind and let the courts burst brexiter's bubble. Between Cameron, May, Farage and Boris, Britain has the politicians it deserves. They're basically Trumped.
If the Brits aren't careful, they could end up suffering like other non-members of the EU – Switzerland, for example.
10
The utter stupidity of Brexit just floors me. Can the world's greatest Parliament rise up and assert itself against an insipid populist spasm? At least now there is an opportunity for that.
5
Let's get some facts straight. The United Kingdom joined the EU on January 1, 1973. This was a government decision. In June 1975 a referendum was held on whether to stay in the EU. This was confirmed by 67% of the voters in the referendum.
In 2016, following pressure from Nigel Farage MEP, and Boris Johnson MP, Prime Minister David Cameron held the non-binding "Brexit" referendum which passed.
The present constitutional crisis stems from this most recent referendum.
In 2016, following pressure from Nigel Farage MEP, and Boris Johnson MP, Prime Minister David Cameron held the non-binding "Brexit" referendum which passed.
The present constitutional crisis stems from this most recent referendum.
5
Brexit was never approved by a true majority of voters, only by a majority of those who voted. Turnout was 73%, which means that the Yes vote (51.9%) only spoke for 37.4% of the electorate. It seems obvious to me that, where a matter of national destiny is at stake, a majority of *all* voters should be required. Or if the matter is to be decided on turnout alone, then at the very least a super-majority of votes should be required--which was the result (67%) when Britain joined the Common Market in 1967.
1
The Brexit vote had the highest voter turnout of any British election in the last 20 years.
Changing the rules after the fact, to reverse the outcome, is hardly a sound democratic approach to holding elections.
Things are progressing as they should. The vote was a non-binding referendum. One side won, with a decent majority and overall high voter turnout. Now their recommendation goes to Parliament, as it should, since Parliament is in charge of treaties.
If the MPs choose to ignore the referendum results they will surely face the consequences in the upcoming election. That's what elections are for.
Changing the rules after the fact, to reverse the outcome, is hardly a sound democratic approach to holding elections.
Things are progressing as they should. The vote was a non-binding referendum. One side won, with a decent majority and overall high voter turnout. Now their recommendation goes to Parliament, as it should, since Parliament is in charge of treaties.
If the MPs choose to ignore the referendum results they will surely face the consequences in the upcoming election. That's what elections are for.
1
73% is the highest turnout in over 20 years.
1
As much as I welcome this decision as a victory for parliamentarian democracy, I must wonder about its impact on the Brexit process.
To date the British government was not able to clarify how it wants to reconcile the opposing goals of 'control over migration' and 'unfettered access' to the EU market.
If the EU provided one irrevocable stance, it would be that the UK won't be able to accomplish both. The EU members that benefit from free movement won't budge on it.
How will that change with Parliament having a say?
Imagine after long and enthusiastic deliberation and debate Parliament and government would forge a negotiation position based on which article 50 were to be triggered.
Since there can be no pre-negotiations with Brussels, what makes them believe that their position would be accepted? What would they do, if the EU says no to some important key positions over which Parliament and government fought so hard?
I am afraid other than giving the City the time it asked for to 'prepare' for Brexit, Parliament's say will only complicate matters more.
To date the British government was not able to clarify how it wants to reconcile the opposing goals of 'control over migration' and 'unfettered access' to the EU market.
If the EU provided one irrevocable stance, it would be that the UK won't be able to accomplish both. The EU members that benefit from free movement won't budge on it.
How will that change with Parliament having a say?
Imagine after long and enthusiastic deliberation and debate Parliament and government would forge a negotiation position based on which article 50 were to be triggered.
Since there can be no pre-negotiations with Brussels, what makes them believe that their position would be accepted? What would they do, if the EU says no to some important key positions over which Parliament and government fought so hard?
I am afraid other than giving the City the time it asked for to 'prepare' for Brexit, Parliament's say will only complicate matters more.
3
Since Tories MPs were free to support Brexit or Remain during the referendum campaign and should the Supreme Court rule that the ones who have been elected by the people are the ones who have to decide whether to stay or leave, my understanding is that MPs should be free to vote as they see fit regardless of the result of the referendum.
The referendum was not legally binding. It was just a consultation to get the pulse of the people. UK has a parliamentary democracy and what was entered into through Parliament must be exited through Parliament.
What was done through a vote of the elected representatives cannot be undone by a popular vote. I see absolutely no outrage in holding a free vote in both houses on that subject. Should the bill fail to be enacted, then it would be the end of Brexit altogether.
One thing is sure, the EU won't allow UK to cherry-pick the features of the EU that suits it fine and throw the rest away. It is IN or OUT.
The referendum was not legally binding. It was just a consultation to get the pulse of the people. UK has a parliamentary democracy and what was entered into through Parliament must be exited through Parliament.
What was done through a vote of the elected representatives cannot be undone by a popular vote. I see absolutely no outrage in holding a free vote in both houses on that subject. Should the bill fail to be enacted, then it would be the end of Brexit altogether.
One thing is sure, the EU won't allow UK to cherry-pick the features of the EU that suits it fine and throw the rest away. It is IN or OUT.
3
Not correct. If a major bill such as Brexit fails in Parliament becuase it was blocked by the corporate politician puppets an election would be called. Those who betrayed their constituents and attempted to block Brexit can and will be defeated and a Parliament of, by and for the people elected who will carry out the wish of the people for freedom and independence for themselves and their nation in a sovereign U.K. Brexit is a done deal. Get over it.
1
The referendum was a terrible idea, the result even worse. Unfortunately the cat cannot be put back in the bag. There are very bad times ahead for the UK. If a small amount of the talk gets turned into action then there will be riots and assassinations. I am leaving the UK, luckily my partner is Swedish.
And when the Swedes get fed up with migrant lawlessness where will you run to? I gather that much of Europe is going to be chaotic in the coming years.
6
Sounds as though the Brits were just disenfranchised...!
13
Just the opposite.
Parliament is sovereign in these matters. The PM doesn't get to decide matters of such import on her own and in secret.
Parliament is sovereign in these matters. The PM doesn't get to decide matters of such import on her own and in secret.
1
Ever since the Brexit vote, "Leave" voters (most of the voters, of course) have been portrayed in the US press as unwashed knuckle draggers who hit themselves in the forehead every few seconds or so and ask rhetorically "How could I have been so stupid?" I doubt that's a fair description. I'll wager the UK would vote "Leave" again if the vote were held tomorrow.
20
Doubling down on every mistake is the village idiot way.
2
Why is anyone surprised? The whole thing was designed as a nonbinding poll created as a stunt that was expected to fail. The surprise win of what is a patently stupid policy has drawn the goverment into knots since. Brexit, is not and never was, going to happen, it was a farce. Furthermore, if as expected the Germans hang tough the whole excercise will be a lesson in humility for the UK.
6
The ones "hanging tough" will be the Visigrad Four. They and members in similar situation will block any attempt at undermining freedom of movement.
1
Tell that to the people who print the California voter pamphlets:
"That is why the elected representatives of the people should govern. The people can then go about their business knowing that the affairs of the nation are in capable hands."
For better or worse, that's not how it works here in San Francisco. I'll sit down this weekend with the California and San Francisco voter pamphlets -- over 450 pages, altogether -- and try to figure out how to vote on several dozen measures being put before the voters.
Apparently the people of California are less than fully convinced that they're in "capable hands" if they leave all important decisions to their elected representatives.
"That is why the elected representatives of the people should govern. The people can then go about their business knowing that the affairs of the nation are in capable hands."
For better or worse, that's not how it works here in San Francisco. I'll sit down this weekend with the California and San Francisco voter pamphlets -- over 450 pages, altogether -- and try to figure out how to vote on several dozen measures being put before the voters.
Apparently the people of California are less than fully convinced that they're in "capable hands" if they leave all important decisions to their elected representatives.
6
I have relatives in San Francisco who've told me about the ballot.
Frankly, I'm in favor of an educated electorate who are actively involved in the governing of their city, state and country. I think we could use a great deal more of that.
I abhor the idea that we turn over that responsibility ENTIRELY to people who are nominally our "representatives" but basically get their information from, and respond to, lobbyists paid by private corporations.
I am what is called a "populist". That seems to have become a bad word these days. I don't want Big Daddy and Big Mommy ruling in the name of what's good for me.
Frankly, I'm in favor of an educated electorate who are actively involved in the governing of their city, state and country. I think we could use a great deal more of that.
I abhor the idea that we turn over that responsibility ENTIRELY to people who are nominally our "representatives" but basically get their information from, and respond to, lobbyists paid by private corporations.
I am what is called a "populist". That seems to have become a bad word these days. I don't want Big Daddy and Big Mommy ruling in the name of what's good for me.
1
Let the outcome of the Brexit referendum be a lesson for anyone who entertains the idea of casting a "protest vote."
7
"Let the outcome of the Brexit referendum be a lesson for anyone who entertains the idea of casting a "protest vote.""
The message being that your vote is ultimately meaningless. The globalists of superior intellect to yours will ensure that the courts reverse the result in order to keep the money flowing for the oligarchs who know better than you what's best for yourself. We've seen it here in New York with Michael Bloomberg, who assured us that it was in our best interests that he bribe the city council into allowing him a 3rd term for the dangerous times ahead. And people are concerned about President Trump's supposed authoritarian inclinations. The myopia and hypocrisy is sadly laughable.
The message being that your vote is ultimately meaningless. The globalists of superior intellect to yours will ensure that the courts reverse the result in order to keep the money flowing for the oligarchs who know better than you what's best for yourself. We've seen it here in New York with Michael Bloomberg, who assured us that it was in our best interests that he bribe the city council into allowing him a 3rd term for the dangerous times ahead. And people are concerned about President Trump's supposed authoritarian inclinations. The myopia and hypocrisy is sadly laughable.
2
At least the Brits can't laugh as much about our politics.
1
Come back in a week on that
8
Nothing unusual about this decision -- it only reiterates the law that only the Parliament can amend an earlier law, in other words, rights entrusted by an earlier law can be abridged or amended only by a subsequent act of the Parliament.
1
The court systems around the world have grown far too powerful at the expense of democracy. If you told most people that an unelected small group of elite members of society would have the power to overrule the votes of citizens and even the acts of their legislators, most people would cry tyranny. There is no real check on the power of court systems around the world. Nor is it a given that the founding fathers of our nation ever intended to give such power to the supreme court, something that the court arrogated to itself over time and which is now accepted without critical thought. Nowhere is such power written into our constitution, and indeed there is no reason to believe that the members of our executive and legislative branches of government do not have the same capacity to interpret the constitution. Let the lesson in the UK be a lesson to us all.
5
We ALL have the "capacity to interpret the constitution". The Supreme Court is simply the final arbiter when there are disagreeing interpretations... in most cases ...
In fact, "We the people" are the final arbiter in that we can actually change the Constitution, through the adding and removing of amendments. But as you must be aware if you recall your Civics classes, that is a process that requires ratification by 2/3 of the states. This provides stability so that each passing majority cannot simply re-write things each time.
In fact, "We the people" are the final arbiter in that we can actually change the Constitution, through the adding and removing of amendments. But as you must be aware if you recall your Civics classes, that is a process that requires ratification by 2/3 of the states. This provides stability so that each passing majority cannot simply re-write things each time.
3
The Judicial Clause of the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to remove any and all matter from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. For decades we have had judicial dictatorship/ tyranny in America because the corrupt and craven Congress wants it that way.
1
Aaaannnndddd ... this couldn't have been pointed out six months ago?
1
I would just like to see the EU just kick the Brits to the curb. As if the weren't troublesome and pesky enough IN the EU while there as U.S. proxies, now they insist on exceeding their record of disruption and obnoxious entitlement in leaving.
3
Well...no.
3
The EU position is not one driven by malice or snide. Nations have joined the union because they see benefits in their membership outweighing cost.
For the former Eastern Bloc nations the ability of exporting their workforce helping out family back home with remittances may represent the most fundamental benefit of membership. If they surrendered this privilege to the UK, others might follow. Why risk it for the Brits?
For the former Eastern Bloc nations the ability of exporting their workforce helping out family back home with remittances may represent the most fundamental benefit of membership. If they surrendered this privilege to the UK, others might follow. Why risk it for the Brits?
1
My thoughts exactly. These Brits are a thorn in everyone's side.
1
Good news. It's taken the pro-EU side some time to organize to reverse this disastrous decision, which squeaked through thanks to a combination of lies and ignorance. Parliament is supposed to be sovereign so, constitutionally, a referendum at best can only be advisory; and this is what the court confirmed.
I would not bank on Parliament going along with Brexit, in view of the buyers' remorse that has set in. At least the system is flexible enough to allow the Brits to reverse bad decision without undue delay, should they so decide. I wish I could say the same about the US, should it elect the disaster that is Trump.
I would not bank on Parliament going along with Brexit, in view of the buyers' remorse that has set in. At least the system is flexible enough to allow the Brits to reverse bad decision without undue delay, should they so decide. I wish I could say the same about the US, should it elect the disaster that is Trump.
2
You should read more closely - try The Guardian. Only a handful of MPs would be willing to block Brexit - they know what it would unleash in the electorate. Even a deeply pro-EU MP admitted as much today. And as for the buyer's remorse: not a single poll supports your assertion. They all indicate that if the referendum were held next week, the vote would be nearly identical.
Dissatisfaction with the EU is higher in France than in Britain, and is rife across the bloc. The Eurozone is stagnant and no matter what they do, they cannot get it to grow.
I would not bank on Parliament, in league with the interests of the rich and corporate. to reveal just how much contempt they have for the voters by going against a clearly express 52-48% result. The political fallout would cause damage beyond anything BREXIT could do.
This is about May's political tactics, and about having a voice in the final terms of BREXIT. It is not about stopping BREXIT, and it will not stop BREXIT, only delay it.
Dissatisfaction with the EU is higher in France than in Britain, and is rife across the bloc. The Eurozone is stagnant and no matter what they do, they cannot get it to grow.
I would not bank on Parliament, in league with the interests of the rich and corporate. to reveal just how much contempt they have for the voters by going against a clearly express 52-48% result. The political fallout would cause damage beyond anything BREXIT could do.
This is about May's political tactics, and about having a voice in the final terms of BREXIT. It is not about stopping BREXIT, and it will not stop BREXIT, only delay it.
16
Elizabeth, I do read the Guardian as much as I do the NY Times. There's more than one article about this in the Guardian and you picked the one that falls in line with your expectations. You are not necessarily wrong, but you assume that public opinion will be static.
Given that there's already buyers' remorse (especially after the Brexit side told them a pack of lies) I would not guarantee that MPs will support hard Brexit. Furthermore, you assume that the British economy will continue to coast without the vote further negatively affecting Brits' standard of living (and it won't be the "rich and the corporate" that get hurt). Take it from me, if that happens, all bets are off.
Given that there's already buyers' remorse (especially after the Brexit side told them a pack of lies) I would not guarantee that MPs will support hard Brexit. Furthermore, you assume that the British economy will continue to coast without the vote further negatively affecting Brits' standard of living (and it won't be the "rich and the corporate" that get hurt). Take it from me, if that happens, all bets are off.
2
If the democratic vote is overturned, many British people will take up arms. And rightly so.
5
I wouldn't make too much of this. Theresa May is for Brexit, and I doubt too many Tories are going to break with her over this. Add Jeremy Corbyn's lukewarm opposition to Brexit, it seems like this ruling will not change very much. Maybe, as the article mentions, it will affect the final form of Brexit. But it won't stop Brexit.
Americans should remember the UK has a Parliamentary system. Government and Parliament are not far separated.
Americans should remember the UK has a Parliamentary system. Government and Parliament are not far separated.
10
They aren't going to break with the electorate north of Essex, either. They know perfectly well they would never survive their next by-elections, either. It would be tantamount to political suicide.
8
Nigel Farage, clearly a cousin of Trump's, said “I think we could be at the beginning, with this ruling, of a process where there is a deliberate, willful attempt by our political class to betray 17.4 million voters.”
Like all the crazy conservatives in the world, he has confused the UK judiciary with the "political class," unless, of course, he uses the American conservative propaganda claiming they have "activist" (read: doesn't agree with me) courts in the UK.
Like all the crazy conservatives in the world, he has confused the UK judiciary with the "political class," unless, of course, he uses the American conservative propaganda claiming they have "activist" (read: doesn't agree with me) courts in the UK.
3
A narrow majority of presumably informed people voted to commit economic suicide, so they are now quibbling about whether to use a gun or a knife? The absurdity of it all does begin to make me wonder whether any of us are ready for self-government.
4
Sounds like Britain is rigging its elections just like they do in the states. The voters didn't poll the way the elites wanted so the election was made secondary to Parliament. Here in the states, if the elites candidate loses, super delegates are added to her total or if she loses on Election Day, pre-voting comes into play. If your vote really mattered, they probably wouldn't let you vote.
6
Its not an election, it was an advisory referendum and the courts ruled that the UK constitution requires Parliament to decide on a removal of rights rather than the government by royal prerogative.
Maybe you should inform yourself a little?
Maybe you should inform yourself a little?
3
The will of the people is fickle and easily swayed by events. Attempting to govern by continually or even occasionally consulting the people does not produce steady consistent policies.
That is why the elected representatives of the people should govern. The people can then go about their business knowing that the affairs of the nation are in capable hands.
Prime Minister Cameron misjudged the mood of the people and now the United Kingdom finds itself in a constitutional crisis that could have been avoided.
Prime Minister Teresa May must put the matter of an exit from the EU before parliament. Only if it passes both Houses of Parliament can she then execute the will of the people and parliament and invoke Article 50.
The last person who tried to govern without the assent of parliament was Charles I which produced the English Civil War of the 1640's and the monarch's own execution in 1649.
That is why the elected representatives of the people should govern. The people can then go about their business knowing that the affairs of the nation are in capable hands.
Prime Minister Cameron misjudged the mood of the people and now the United Kingdom finds itself in a constitutional crisis that could have been avoided.
Prime Minister Teresa May must put the matter of an exit from the EU before parliament. Only if it passes both Houses of Parliament can she then execute the will of the people and parliament and invoke Article 50.
The last person who tried to govern without the assent of parliament was Charles I which produced the English Civil War of the 1640's and the monarch's own execution in 1649.
5
The ineptitude demonstrated by the UK government in the handling of this referendum is astounding. The wisdom of calling a referendum at all is questionable given the complexity of unravelling a 40 year integration. The EU is not a club you can join then leave every generation as is now obvious as we try to come to grips with the enormity of the task at hand. However, if a referendum was to be held, then surely it should have been better desiged, with requirements about voter participation, super majorities required to pass as well as a multi stage referendum with a clear path to how Parliament would lead us to a solution. Finally, we should have voted for something concrete rather than Everyman's vision of what he wanted Brexit to be. Cameron is a fool and should not have bet the fate of the nation on such a poorly designed referendum that we couldn't afford to lose. In all his hubris, he didn't believe he could lose so he did no planning. While he bears the bulk of the responsibility for this fiasco, the fact that Parliament actually approved the referendum demonstrates gross incompetence. So now we are stuck with a Prime Minister driving a political agenda that no one voted on in the last election based on what she thinks the electorate wants. It is time for her to step up to plate and lead. That means explaining to the electorate why the referendum is only advisory and working with Parliament to fix this before we destroy our country.
9
The Brits now have a whole new government that nobody voted on; something unthinkable here in the US.
2
“I think we could be at the beginning, with this ruling, of a process where there is a deliberate, willful attempt by our political class to betray 17.4 million voters.” NIgel Farage
Of course we should note that Nigel, elected as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) since 1999, is a member of that political class, receiving a salary of £79,000 plus a daily expense allowance of about £220 plus the “general expenditure allowance”, which “covers the cost of carrying out the duties of an MEP not covered by other allowances”.
On the day of the referendum there were estimated to be 46,499,537 eligible voters whom the Leave campaign betrayed through some deliberate, willful and significant untruths, e.g. the true net cost of membership. But the poor little boy has to complain about the High Court ruling that Members of the House of Commons (MP) should step up to do their historic job!
Of course we should note that Nigel, elected as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) since 1999, is a member of that political class, receiving a salary of £79,000 plus a daily expense allowance of about £220 plus the “general expenditure allowance”, which “covers the cost of carrying out the duties of an MEP not covered by other allowances”.
On the day of the referendum there were estimated to be 46,499,537 eligible voters whom the Leave campaign betrayed through some deliberate, willful and significant untruths, e.g. the true net cost of membership. But the poor little boy has to complain about the High Court ruling that Members of the House of Commons (MP) should step up to do their historic job!
2
so the good old US of A isn't the only country finding democratic government not working so well and providing a nesting place for some seriously bad people who appear to only be interested in stroking their own egos.
2
The Brexit vote was itself a Parliament approved referendum. So the court is not clear on what aspects of the process must now be approved by Parliament.
7
No, the court is very clear, the referendum was advisory as decided by Parliament. What Parliament has to approve is invoking Article 50 (or not) and whether it wants to attack conditions to such a declaration.
The Government are in violation of the UK Constitution by not adhering to The European Communities Act of 1972 which transferred laws and rights into the Constitution, Parliament and the People. The PM and the Government can not remove those rights from the people. i.e Free Movement, Single Market Access, Access to the European Court System ect, without Parliament as a whole in both chambers of MPs and Lords first repealing that act, which requires considered discussion of Brexit, Terms of Exit under Art 50, The Referendum and it's result in both Houses. However as the Government has filled a appeal in the Supreme Court this can not happen until the Appeal is heard and if it's rejected it's then referred to the European Court of Justice. Then the Government can either work with Parliament and the House of Lords to attempt to exit the EU or they can call a Election which may allow them to Exit the EU via a Manifesto Promise ascended to law in the Queens Speech if they are elected again.
1
The only real way forward is to dissolve the current gov. and have an election. The parties and the mp candidates can make Brexit or no Brexit the main issue. After the election, the parliament can vote on Brexit. This will encode the "will of the people" on this issue within the framework of a representative parliamentary democracy. Looks like there will be months of legal wrangling first. But I hope it gets to a new election.
7
Now we will see the fight between the Imperialists who see an opportunity to revive the old British Empire and those who like being a relatively civilized nation.
Smiles and politeness does not civilization make.
Smiles and politeness does not civilization make.
1
The entire Brexit disaster is a potential preview of the catastrophe that could well occur in the United States next Tuesday if Americans make the monumental error of handing power to a tyrannical demagogue named Donald Trump. Brexit has deeply wounded the British economy already and the worst is yet to come, but certainly will come because most MPs who opposed it will vote for it for fear of being labeled anti-democratic. Just as there will be no turning back on a Trump presidency after Tuesday if Americans wildly leap off that cliff.
3
You are mixing apples and skunk cabbage. One is good and beneficial, the other stinks and is poisonous. Clinton and Trump are both skunk cabbages, Brexit is a delicious and health giving apple.
7
Fine, stay. At least, like the Sanders campaign in the US, the powers that be have heard the warning that people are restless, and citizens are country partisans, not global pushovers. Whether governments heed these warnings is another story.
2
The people have spoken and article 50 must be invoked. I cant see too many members of the commons going against the electorate and voting against article 50. If members of the Lords tried to frustrate the process it very well could spell the end of that unelected house. I do think May should not have telegraphed the time period of invocation, its better to have some element of surprise. Britain should agree to a quota of 50000-100000 Eu migrants per year (and be allowed to send the same number the other way), common market access, be able to opt out of some EU law, and out of ECJ jurisdiction.
4
Oh, you should, huh? How about no? Conform or leave.
1
I am not really surprised that the remainers have thrown a spanner in the Brexit process. For those of us who voted for Brexit it was only a matter of the timing. The big danger is the unelected House of Lords, once the domain of doddering Dukes and Bishops but now of former politicians, dodgy business men and wealthy party donors, none of whom are answerable to the electorate. Although they can't override the wishes of the elected chamber they can delay the process. They certainly don't have to worry about being voted out of office.
12
Bloody egotistical English! Do you think your opinion matters anymore to the rest of europe? We tried to dissuade you. You voted to leave. Now you're looking for a loophole to wither out of your bad bad decision. But you forget that we might not want you back. What have you brought to Europe? Not a thing! Have you profited from Europe? Absolutely, the city wouldn't exist without access to the EU market. And what do you fools do? You vote to leave. This is the first time and probably the last time a parasite will vote to leave it's host. As far as I am concerned good riddance and don't let the door nob hit you in the .... on your exit!
3
The British people voted to leave the EU and it is my hope that the British Parliament honors these wishes. The EU itself may collapse soon enough due to its complete lack of accountability and financial recklessness. The handling - or lack of handling - of the migrant crisis is only one failure among a long record of dismal failures. If the U.K. Parliament chooses to sidestep the expressed will of the people, it will empower the UKIP or the BNP - definitely not desirable.
12
Yet with all our failures we seem to do quite well and we overcome every challenge and we don't quit. Must be our lack of accountability, after all the Eu is ruled by royal prerogative...oh wait, no, that's actually the UK.
1
3-11-2016: The day the Magna Carta died.
Today the Remoaners put the Magna Carta through the shredder before throwing it onto the bonfire. I hope they really realised the ungodly nightmare they've just created for everyone. The nightmare is simple - don't like the result of a national election? No problem, get a pansy court to throw the result out. Simples...
People who supposedly intelligent enough didn't understand what they were voting for? Seriously? There's a village looking for them!
The House of Lords, self-important useless nobody's who are only Lords because of money, accountable to no one will block Brexit. The MPs won't be able to do a darn thing when "Their Lordships" further squash democracy here.
Democracy is now dead, forever in the UK!
Today the Remoaners put the Magna Carta through the shredder before throwing it onto the bonfire. I hope they really realised the ungodly nightmare they've just created for everyone. The nightmare is simple - don't like the result of a national election? No problem, get a pansy court to throw the result out. Simples...
People who supposedly intelligent enough didn't understand what they were voting for? Seriously? There's a village looking for them!
The House of Lords, self-important useless nobody's who are only Lords because of money, accountable to no one will block Brexit. The MPs won't be able to do a darn thing when "Their Lordships" further squash democracy here.
Democracy is now dead, forever in the UK!
9
I hope you are wrong. However if the Lords do try to block legilsation to enable Brexit, PM Teresa May can simply create enough pro Brexit Lords to ensure it passes----or make them think she will. That is if she really supports Brexit as she loudly proclaims. Remember this chamber increase to ensure passage of legislation was almost done in 1911 when the House of Lords blocked the Irish Home Rule Bill. However the House of Lords needs to be abolished. It is completely undemocratic. Most are there due to financial connections and the others are hereditary imbeciles (lol).
3
Oh...but the Leave campaing keeps telling the world that EU is undemocratic yet here you are talking about loading the upper house with paid toadies to vote?
Interesting notions, as a mainland EU citizen I'm starting to think that the UK is actually the only undemocratic aspect of the EU
Interesting notions, as a mainland EU citizen I'm starting to think that the UK is actually the only undemocratic aspect of the EU
1
Farage did resign UKIP's presidency, but is actually now back as its president, following the subsequent resignation of the president who'd followed him...
How so very British of them...To regret leaving a union they never desired.
1
If I were a MP, I would want a public second "confirmation referendum" on Brexit. If the public voted a second time to leave the EU, I think Parliament would have no practical alternative to complying with the public's directive.
Sometimes, national priorities are to take a national course that does not involve maximization of economic interest. And the freedom to do so is a matter of sovereignty.
Sometimes, national priorities are to take a national course that does not involve maximization of economic interest. And the freedom to do so is a matter of sovereignty.
4
Best two out of three, eh?
5
The High Court ruling threw the Tories' Brexit plan into turmoil and uncertainty? There is no such plan, not before the referendum nor after it. The PM refuses to discuss a plan either privately or in public, by all reports, because it is impossible to talk about a nonexistent plan. The turmoil continues and won't be ended, especially if the High Court decision is upheld, which it is likely to be, because the fundamental error, if not plain stupidity of Brexit cannot be cured with a "plan". If Parliament now must be asked to vote not only for Brexit but for each and every one of its necessary corollary legislation, Brexit is dead. As a doornail.
2
Don't think so. The British people are fed up. Brexit is just the start. the entire evil European Union will be on the dung heap of history within a decade at most. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
3
The leave vote was essentially a point or two more than the remain vote. Approx. half the UK population wants to stay, as do practically all Scots and Northern Ireland voters. As the economic consequences become clearer, and they are, and they are going to be even more negative for the UK, support for Brexit will evaporate. The High court's ruling, if upheld, means that the entire process of trying to leave the EU while maintaining access to the common market (can't and won't be done) will consume years. The Tories will never manage it, divided as they are on the issue. It will likely sink the present government.
Britain is leaving and wants access to Europe's free trade area. It will try and negotiate the best deal it can. The plan is very simple.
The U.K. does not use the euro. It is a semi-detached member. European law has already been incorporated into British law. That legislation will remain intact for the time being. Much of it is anti-business so getting rid of it will improve GDP. Finally, Britain stops paying its membership fee which is substantial. Leaving should not be difficult.
The U.K. does not use the euro. It is a semi-detached member. European law has already been incorporated into British law. That legislation will remain intact for the time being. Much of it is anti-business so getting rid of it will improve GDP. Finally, Britain stops paying its membership fee which is substantial. Leaving should not be difficult.
2
Where are the statesmen (or stateswomen) in England, a country with a long heritage of public service over personal gain.
Ms. May isn't doing what is right for the UK, or even what she herself believes (she was caught on audio tape telling bankers at a Goldman Sachs event that she believed Brexit would be bad for the UK economy before she was appointed Prime Minister).
No. Ms. May is kowtowing to the worst elements of British society for one, and only one reason -- to keep Ms. May in power as Prime Minister. Shame on her.
Ms. May isn't doing what is right for the UK, or even what she herself believes (she was caught on audio tape telling bankers at a Goldman Sachs event that she believed Brexit would be bad for the UK economy before she was appointed Prime Minister).
No. Ms. May is kowtowing to the worst elements of British society for one, and only one reason -- to keep Ms. May in power as Prime Minister. Shame on her.
3
Basing government actions based on any popular referendum is a horrible plan. What may seem 'popular' today may be seen as anathema tomorrow. As the British seem to be finding out. Woe to all those who march to the seductive tune of the piper. You may be led into oblivion.
3
The referendum decided that we will leave the EU. Parliament has asserted its right to decide how we leave. As much as I would like to see 'Brexit' reversed it's extremely unlikely. These are the same MPs that abrogated their responsibility in the first place by granting a referendum. They are unlikely to vote against the will of their constituents; the same constituents they have to answer to at a general election.
7
Hummm. Just like our supreme court. The people voted for it now some court says the vote really mans nothing. That's how UK says in the EU.
2
You seem to resent the saving grace of our democracy, that the courts can pull the people back from their own stupidity. Of course stupid courts might just let them hurt themselves.
4
Did you read the article at all? The court ruled that the exit process could not be triggered by the prime minister, but had to be triggered by the parliament instead. You see, the UK is a Parliamentary Democracy, not a presidential one, and there is a constitution to abide to...
4
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO..... For god sake no! We do not want the Brits back in. They voted to leave, please let them leave! For us Europeans, it's like shedding three tons of dead weight. Imagine your an American liberal and you could get rid of the bible belt, a region that has held you hostage politically with it's backward religious ways and contributes absolutely nothing to the country... Wouldn't you be popping the bubbly if theses blood sucking parasites voted to leave?
5
They are not picking up their skirts and going. Their sceptered isle is still right there off your port bow. So stick a sock in it, and deal.
3
This 'representative democracy' had already democratically voted by an overwhelming majority to hold the referendum.
Members of Parliament had their chance to vote like everyone else in the actual referendum and those who voted to remain lost.
What was the point of the referendum if has to return to parliament for another vote?
The ruling elite (and comments on here) didn't like the result of the electorate and insist they must have somehow been confused over the whole thing and didn't know what what they were doing...
Yet it is the same electorate who have seen their wages suppressed, their schools full, their NHS overwhelmed, their culture eroded all due to uncontrolled immigration. Of course they knew exactly what they were doing.
This has all the signs of an establishment stitch up.
Members of Parliament had their chance to vote like everyone else in the actual referendum and those who voted to remain lost.
What was the point of the referendum if has to return to parliament for another vote?
The ruling elite (and comments on here) didn't like the result of the electorate and insist they must have somehow been confused over the whole thing and didn't know what what they were doing...
Yet it is the same electorate who have seen their wages suppressed, their schools full, their NHS overwhelmed, their culture eroded all due to uncontrolled immigration. Of course they knew exactly what they were doing.
This has all the signs of an establishment stitch up.
7
Had the U.S.A. helping out to thwart the will of the people democratically. Knew this would be undone when it happened. Even Hillary stated something to the effect. This should set an example around the world; the will of the people and voting is a sham. Most of the time the policy makers have control; but when they lose control; they can still do as they wish (just gets a little messier). Fortunately, most westerners have short memories.
3
Remember: The "Yes" vote margin for Brexit was hair thin, thin enough to argue credibly that impulsive voting was more than the margin, and a new referendum (not that there should be one!) would vote against Brexit. Following the vote, all expert opinion was about coping with the result, not about the result being good for Britain. THEREFORE, the Parliament's duty to think of the good of Britain does not imply that they imply certify a very, very weak popular vote for Brexit. In fact, if Parliament had voted days after the referendum, they would have voted against Brexit (a survey showed). It is the duty of Parliament to vote for the good of Britain. DEMOCRACY IS NOT SIMPLY POPULISM. Democracy is intelligent, best-informed government for the good of the people. The Parliament could save Britain, the EU, and the global economy a lot of stress if they vote against Brexit. It is their entitlement, and it is their duty to vote deliberatively and wisely.
4
Leave it to the globalists to make a spin. The EU and the so called globalized economy and mass migration are what led to Brexit to begin with. The average Briton has had enough. Leftists always seem to want democratic votes only when they go the way they want them.
4
Parliament won't overturn the will of the people. That would be too risky politically, and politicians, here and there, are the biggest cowards of all. They know it, we know it. Instead, British pols will use this opportunity to both confirm the will of the people and at the same time reassure their European neighbors of their continued friendship, even if it means the won't take their quota of Syrian refugees.
And meanwhile, the other European countries, while scolding the Brits, will re-examine their own capacity to take millions of foreign people under their own shriveling wings - just as they are doing now - goading the United States to take more, while letting Saudi Arabia and othe Middle Eastern countries off the hook for not helping. How many refugees has China taken? Japan?
And meanwhile, the other European countries, while scolding the Brits, will re-examine their own capacity to take millions of foreign people under their own shriveling wings - just as they are doing now - goading the United States to take more, while letting Saudi Arabia and othe Middle Eastern countries off the hook for not helping. How many refugees has China taken? Japan?
2
Britain already has an exemption from common EU broder controls and non-EU immigration. The EU was not trying to force the uk to take syrian or any other refugees. That is not at issue here.
The other EU countries are scolding the Brits because the Brits went into Iraq and are one of the two countries most responsible for the waves of fugitives heading into Europe.
The UK has barely taken in any refugees and quite frankly, that's beyond ridiculous but then, neither has the US.
Saudi Arabia has taken in more refugees than the US and UK combined btw, so, what exactly is your point there?
Lastly, leaving the EU has nothing to do with refugees, its about stopping EU citizens migrating, refugees aren't citizens and do not have EU citizen rights, they only have a guest status in the country that accepts them
The UK has barely taken in any refugees and quite frankly, that's beyond ridiculous but then, neither has the US.
Saudi Arabia has taken in more refugees than the US and UK combined btw, so, what exactly is your point there?
Lastly, leaving the EU has nothing to do with refugees, its about stopping EU citizens migrating, refugees aren't citizens and do not have EU citizen rights, they only have a guest status in the country that accepts them
Parliament should have had the last word on this, from the beginning. "Brexit" is certainly not an issue that should have been basically " thrown" to the people. We ELECT knowledgeable people to take care of stuff like this, for Pete's sake! I hope they decide NOT to honor the referendum. It would be the wisest thing to do.
5
To say our politicians are knowledgeable is a bit of an exaggeration. We ordinary Brits know more about what is going on in our country than they do. If they are so brilliant why have we degenerated into the laughing stock of a nation we are now?
7
Deplorable action by elitist, establishment pro EU snobs - circumvent the will of the people, throw it to the courts and Parliament to gain a work-around despite a popular vote. So sick of the elites in this country and in Europe thinking they need to save people from themselves. GO TRUMP - GO BREXIT!!!!! DOWN WITH ELITES!!
6
Huh? A government ruling by royal prerogative isn't an elitist deal? In what universe?
1
Are you surprised? The English invented soccer/football and they can't put a national team together to win anything.
4
This was understood quite early on. Theresa May doesn't get it? The brexit vote was a referendum; unless Parliament endorses it it's just an elaborate opinion poll. The very idea of putting it to a popular vote rather than getting it through the legislature was foolish, the purpose of having representative democracy with a deliberative body is largely to keep the populace from doing rash foolish things. Any subversion of democracy that happened in this case happened because a certain unwise Prime Minister short-circuited the legislative process for his own short-term gain.
10
May knew. She doesn't want to alienate Brexit supporters so she is being a sly fox (a follower) letting the courts do her job of bursting the bubble of delusion (a leadership responsibility).
1
You are subjects and will do as your told. You will not depart.
11
The UK citizens are indeed subject, EU citizens are, well...citizens. I know, I'm one of them.
Next, the British people will vote to exile Parliament to Elba!
9
Capital idea!
2
Thankfully, for now at least, the courts have put a stop to the lemmings taking Britain over the cliffs of stupidity, fuelled by the kind,of,immigration bias that Trump admires so much.
3
The elitist tone of so many of these remarks is reflected in the people bringing this case--the wife of a billionaire hedge fund manager. Globalists want the scope to make ever more money and the free movement of immigrant workers for the cheap labor they provide. Ordinary British folk receive NO advantage from this. What they get is a diminution of their British history and culture. Brexit was a protest against rule by unculturated cosmopolitans and faceless bureaucrats. All this is dressed up in suddenly patriotic breast beating about the "mother of parliaments" from people who couldn't care less about Britain.
42
It is very true that much of the leave vote was ordinary people feeling left behind due to globalization and pressure on public services perceived to be caused by freedom of movement within the EU.
But these problems were caused or made worse by the Tory/LibDem government and continued by the present Tory government. NOT membership in the EU.
Withdrawing from the EU will have consequences, none of them good, and the ordinary people who are fed up with globalization will be the worst off.
But these problems were caused or made worse by the Tory/LibDem government and continued by the present Tory government. NOT membership in the EU.
Withdrawing from the EU will have consequences, none of them good, and the ordinary people who are fed up with globalization will be the worst off.
3
No advantage, huh? What about the manufacturing jobs for cars and airplane parts? What about the service jobs that will disappear with the "unculturated cosmopolitans and faceless bureaucrats" that will move to the continent? And who/what is unculturated? Without culture? I would argue that the lying Brexit politicians (remember these bus ads?) and too-lazy-to-check Brexit voters are the ones who have some work to do on their "culture"...
3
Your comment demonstrates why decision making cannot be handed over to people through a referendum. The court case was brought by 3 individual petitioners - Gina miller, a Spanish hairdresser and a British national who was disallowed from voting because he hadn't been resident in the country for 15 years. It was also brought about through a crowd funded group called the " The people's challenge" with £160,000 raised through 4,918 contributions of £20 or less (less than 20 contributions were over £200). It is not elitist to want to hold on to your citizenship of EU which has given opportunities to so many to live and work in 27 countries. 1.2 million Brits live in the EU also. Their citizenship and that of so many others in the U.K. Is tied through family, friends and community kinship to the idea of a European citizenship. Why wouldn't they rise against somebody trying to strip that part of their identity away.
1
This decision may be a blessing in disguise.
The Brexit vote was technically a referendum, not a plebiscite.
Also, circumstances have habit of changing and here the circumstances have changed, as the effect of a Brexit are not a bouquet of roses envisaged in June but are actually a bed of thorns.
Sometimes, the school of sober second thought and other circumstances provide an opportunity to back off from a plunge into a shark-filled ocean.
I hope Prime Minister May's and her cabinet make this Parliamentary vote an early vote, that the vote is scheduled before Article 50 is invoked, and the vote is a "free" vote in the House of Commons, rather than a "whipped" or required vote.
The Brexit vote was technically a referendum, not a plebiscite.
Also, circumstances have habit of changing and here the circumstances have changed, as the effect of a Brexit are not a bouquet of roses envisaged in June but are actually a bed of thorns.
Sometimes, the school of sober second thought and other circumstances provide an opportunity to back off from a plunge into a shark-filled ocean.
I hope Prime Minister May's and her cabinet make this Parliamentary vote an early vote, that the vote is scheduled before Article 50 is invoked, and the vote is a "free" vote in the House of Commons, rather than a "whipped" or required vote.
4
At least your parliamentary system allows for the possibility of complete change of direction of public policy in a single election, and the possibility of calling a snap election whenever the majority votes that it has lost confidence in the current course of public policy.
The US system is much stickier. Some of the worst senators in the US don't even even have to run for re-election this year.
The US system is much stickier. Some of the worst senators in the US don't even even have to run for re-election this year.
3
Charles--Person after person has told us, through news outlets, that they wish they could take back their votes for Brexit. They say they had no idea what it would really mean. The referendum was foolish from the get-go.
2
Why is this news and a surprise? This issue was analyzed and reported right after the vote. The vote itself was not sufficient to start the Brexit process. An act of Parliament is required.
I hope they "backslide" and the exit does not actually happen.
I hope they "backslide" and the exit does not actually happen.
3
There WILL be a second vote on Brexit. It's called a general election.
8
Brexit is the best thing that has happened to the Brits. Their real estate and stock market is up. They have their independence which is wonderful. Parliament should speed up the approval vote so the Brits can get on with their economy and better quality of life.
7
Nope best thing that has happened for the rest of Europe!
2
Janis, this is just wrong in so many ways. It is not a matter of just leaving and everything will remain pretty much as it was.
Leaving the EU single market will change the economy in fundamental ways which will make everyone worse off. Negotiations will be long and complex.
If you want to use the divorce analogy, all that has happened so far is one spouse has said to the other "I want a divorce." The divorce papers have not even been filed yet. The arguments over the house, cars, children, health insurance, pensions, alimony, dogs, furniture and so on are yet to come. In fact, the party wanting the divorce has given no thought to how he/she will live once the divorce is final.
Suggesting that the UK should just get on with it and leave is the equivalent of walking out with just the clothes on your back.
Leaving the EU single market will change the economy in fundamental ways which will make everyone worse off. Negotiations will be long and complex.
If you want to use the divorce analogy, all that has happened so far is one spouse has said to the other "I want a divorce." The divorce papers have not even been filed yet. The arguments over the house, cars, children, health insurance, pensions, alimony, dogs, furniture and so on are yet to come. In fact, the party wanting the divorce has given no thought to how he/she will live once the divorce is final.
Suggesting that the UK should just get on with it and leave is the equivalent of walking out with just the clothes on your back.
5
Your lack of knowledge of British History and the history of the EU is breathtaking. I know little but I can say with certainty that breaking up the EU is all bad for all concerned.
Remember the stock markets went up as reagan and the GOP systematically destroyed our manufacturing base so they cold move it out of the country.
We have not recovered back to where we were in 1976 and won't for a century at least if we don't just let foreigners continue to manipulate our Press into making us destroy ourselves entirely.
Remember the stock markets went up as reagan and the GOP systematically destroyed our manufacturing base so they cold move it out of the country.
We have not recovered back to where we were in 1976 and won't for a century at least if we don't just let foreigners continue to manipulate our Press into making us destroy ourselves entirely.
No one thought of this as a possibility. Were they all on herring or something?
2
What is more Democratic then a referendum. But like in the U.S. you get a Judge to stop the will of the people. Majority rule vs one "Judge". The referendum said majority wins. Now doesn't the majority have legal rights? I guess not.
5
There has been an abundance of very British irony in this Brexit saga. Many stated that their priority was the return of democratic sovereignty to the British Parliament...but now aren't so keen on this as there is just the slightest of chances that Parliament may not endorse this gormless lemming like leap into the post EU abyss. Still more, judging by UK based message boards, seem to misunderstand altogether that democracy is not a football match - if you win, the other side doesn't applaud you, then disappear back to the dressing rooms. They hang around, trying to change minds. Lastly, if it was meant to be the disenfranchised giving the elite the finger, given that the disenfranchised are the most likely losers of this economically and socially illiterate decision, they have reminded the metropolitan elite exactly why complex issues are usually best left to those that have some understanding of the nuances of them, and aren't dazzled by slogans like 'taking our country back' (or Make America Great Again).
11
Of course this seems to mean only the "informed", i.e.: banksters, crapitalists and fingerciers, the so called self anointed socia-economic elite on issues should decide to give away their nation's independence, freedom and sovereignty.
5
Mark I agree with everything you said up until this:
"they have reminded the metropolitan elite exactly why complex issues are usually best left to those that have some understanding of the nuances of them, and aren't dazzled by slogans like 'taking our country back' (or Make America Great Again)."
It was the Eton/Oxbridge educated politicians who got us into this mess in the first place.
If Cameron felt he had to have a referendum to hold the Tory party together, it should have required a supermajority (not a simple majority) or a leave vote from each country in the UK, to decide an issue with such long-term and profound consequences.
Instead, we have our "elite" destroying the country in the name of party politics. Theresa May is continuing this tradition, which is why this court case was necessary.
"they have reminded the metropolitan elite exactly why complex issues are usually best left to those that have some understanding of the nuances of them, and aren't dazzled by slogans like 'taking our country back' (or Make America Great Again)."
It was the Eton/Oxbridge educated politicians who got us into this mess in the first place.
If Cameron felt he had to have a referendum to hold the Tory party together, it should have required a supermajority (not a simple majority) or a leave vote from each country in the UK, to decide an issue with such long-term and profound consequences.
Instead, we have our "elite" destroying the country in the name of party politics. Theresa May is continuing this tradition, which is why this court case was necessary.
1
And without all those people bringing in capital the UK is utterly bankrupt and economically back in 1972.
As Parliament gave the go-ahead for the referendum, it tacitly handed the decision to the electorate, so the claim that Parliament is "sovereign" and should have final say in this is a bit specious. By agreeing to the referendum, Parliament agreed to let the electorate decide. At the time, no one, not least in the predominantly pro-EU Parliament, thought BREXIT had a snowball's chance in June of winning. Now, the REMAIN camp is seeking every possible route to overturning the clearly expressed will of said electorate. Nor was the High Court's ruling given by an impartial party: one was a noted pro-EU lawyer. The government will appeal to the Supreme Court, but the underlying spectre here is of deepening the already huge chasm between London and the rest of the country, and the huge risk of exponentially increasing the bitter perception that the populace is powerless even when it expresses its will through a Parliamentary approved vote, at a time of rising populism and sense of disenfranchisement. May could, of course, call an election in which MPs whom voters know will try to undermine their LEAVE vote could be booted out. The risk is that not enough of them will be.
The real culprit is David Cameron, with a history of saying what he thinks the public will like and unrepentant when it becomes clear he didn't mean a word he said. BREXIT will occur, but the bitter REMAINERS clearly don't care if they rip the country apart in protest. And Cameron will get rich on book deals.
The real culprit is David Cameron, with a history of saying what he thinks the public will like and unrepentant when it becomes clear he didn't mean a word he said. BREXIT will occur, but the bitter REMAINERS clearly don't care if they rip the country apart in protest. And Cameron will get rich on book deals.
7
As a former resident of the UK - with a deep fondness for that rather wet and gloomy country, it is my hope that Parliament votes against leaving the EU. There is simply too much at stake and surely it cannot be decided on a non-binding vote that was oh-so-very close (particularly where large swathes of voters were misled into believing that suddenly all non-whites and/or Slavic whites would be deported and/or stopped from entering their little island in the first place) . . .
11
"Few observers believe that Parliament would go so far as to block a departure from the bloc, as lawmakers themselves voted overwhelmingly to hold the referendum and pledged to abide by the results."
Five months ago, we could just as easily have said, "Few observers believe that a majority of British voters would go so far as to vote to leave the European Union." Anything that "observers" are saying deserves intense scrutiny. Do we have any empirical reason to believe that British legislators will stand by a pledge they made several months ago to support the results of a referendum that isn't legally binding and whose margin of victory was so slim? It's difficult for me to respect speculation in a situation as unprecedented as this.
Five months ago, we could just as easily have said, "Few observers believe that a majority of British voters would go so far as to vote to leave the European Union." Anything that "observers" are saying deserves intense scrutiny. Do we have any empirical reason to believe that British legislators will stand by a pledge they made several months ago to support the results of a referendum that isn't legally binding and whose margin of victory was so slim? It's difficult for me to respect speculation in a situation as unprecedented as this.
4
The Brexit vote cost Great Britain almost 20% of the value of its currency. Everybody wants a do-over now.
3
Who is everybody? Most British citizens staunchly support Brexit according to all surveys.
2
Britain is a parliamentary democracy, and supporters of Brexit can't circumevent the parliamentary sovereignty - a principle of the UK constitution. The Parliament is the supreme legal authority, and can create or invalidate a law. In 1972 it passed the European Communities Act, enabling the UK to join the European Economic Community. By the same token the MPs need to be consulted on triggering Article 50.
Even though the Parliament views any form of direct democracy as nonbinding, and lawmakers don't have to abide by the outcome of the June 23 referendum, but ignoring would lead to public outrage. This is one of the most important constitutional court cases in generations. And the ruling has created a nightmare scenario for Theresa May's government.
Even though the Parliament views any form of direct democracy as nonbinding, and lawmakers don't have to abide by the outcome of the June 23 referendum, but ignoring would lead to public outrage. This is one of the most important constitutional court cases in generations. And the ruling has created a nightmare scenario for Theresa May's government.
39
If PM May had triggered Article 50 nothing could have been done about it. She was foolish to wait so long when she knew the elite could care less what the people wanted, but wanted to stay in the EU for their own well-being not that of the country.
1
A referendum in the UK is only advisory, and is not mandatory. In an elected democracy we confer the responsibility of making decisions that effect the nation to our elected representatives who (we hope) have a wider and deeper knowledge of all the issues. As we have no written constitution all our laws are tested in Courts of Law. The Prime Minister attempted to circumvent Parliament on the issues of invoking Article 50 as she well knows she could lose the vote, and the whole Brexit thing could be chucked out. Hopefully and thankfully
53
Possible. But have you asked yourself if the rest of europe wants you back? I'm French and I certainly wouldn't approve a return of the Britain. The Scots are welcomed! But you lot have never embraced the principles of said union, always trying to slow down the process or get an exemption because of your britishness. I guess you all thought you were something special and now you realize that on your own your are nothing! You produce nothing! You are nothing but a platform where bankers take their cuts for transactions and get taxed less. But without access to the European market the parasites of the city just lost their golden egg. Sorry chaps, you can no longer have your cake and eat it too...
5
We love you arm19. Always stay French and we will always stay British.
1
French? I would never have guessed....
1
Huh. In the US, the executive branch can negotiate anything they want/can, internationally, but it doesn't take effect until the leg branch confirms it. I guess UK is different.
2
Obviously Parliament will not vote YES on Brexit. Close call.
Obviously same hidden agenda should work to get rid of Trump.
Obviously same hidden agenda should work to get rid of Trump.
2
The British Parliament will either vote to follow the people's will or be replaced by politicians who take their oath of office seriously and will go through with Brexit. Refusing to obey the will of the majority will lead to ignominious defeat.
2
So, the once worldwide empire, unparalleled in trade and naval might, is thrashing around in its twilight years and will soon be just another minor welfare state, dependent on the charity of others. Parliament slowing things down will only postpone the inevitable, unless Parliament does the smart thing and overrides the will of the ignorant people, and cancels this exit plan.
Doesn't look like they'll do that, so Britain is headed for irrelevance, regardless. Still, I look forward to visiting it in a couple of years, and touring around the beautiful and historic countryside for less than $5 a day. If I time it right I can get there before the shanty towns destroy most of the views.
Doesn't look like they'll do that, so Britain is headed for irrelevance, regardless. Still, I look forward to visiting it in a couple of years, and touring around the beautiful and historic countryside for less than $5 a day. If I time it right I can get there before the shanty towns destroy most of the views.
8
It's not going to happen. London is still London.
3
Dear Zejee,
I wouldn't be so sure. Baghdad used to be the finest, most progressive and learned city in the world. It's a third-world slum today. Rome was also the largest, most powerful city around, now it's a city of interesting and historic ruins. If England falls apart economically, London won't be the same.
I wouldn't be so sure. Baghdad used to be the finest, most progressive and learned city in the world. It's a third-world slum today. Rome was also the largest, most powerful city around, now it's a city of interesting and historic ruins. If England falls apart economically, London won't be the same.
2
While the referendum is a useful tool as part of democratic governance, its use needs to be confined to the appropriate circumstances. A winner-take-all binary up-or-down referendum on a complex policy issue is a recipe for confusion and undesired outcomes. Winner take all is bad enough in electing people (leading to virulent two-party systems, as we see in the US), but at least when you're voting for a person, there's a clear package there.
Voting -- and especially "advisory" voting" -- on a massive program of social change, such as Great Britain's leaving the EU, is bound to lead to problems like the ones in this case, but more broadly as well. Referenda should be constitutionally limited to specific and fairly narrow issues (hard to do in a constitution, I know...), and may well require super-majorities.
Another strange referendum outcome (or, rather, initiative) was California's Proposition 13. Part of it was about maximum tax rates, a clear and decidable issue. But Proposition 13 also established (by a 62% majority) that all future votes on local taxes would require a 66% majority. That's absurd: a referendum should never be able to establish a higher threshold for future votes than it itself got. I'd rather that referenda required a 60% vote to pass, but could not require any supermajorities themselves.
Voting -- and especially "advisory" voting" -- on a massive program of social change, such as Great Britain's leaving the EU, is bound to lead to problems like the ones in this case, but more broadly as well. Referenda should be constitutionally limited to specific and fairly narrow issues (hard to do in a constitution, I know...), and may well require super-majorities.
Another strange referendum outcome (or, rather, initiative) was California's Proposition 13. Part of it was about maximum tax rates, a clear and decidable issue. But Proposition 13 also established (by a 62% majority) that all future votes on local taxes would require a 66% majority. That's absurd: a referendum should never be able to establish a higher threshold for future votes than it itself got. I'd rather that referenda required a 60% vote to pass, but could not require any supermajorities themselves.
27
Wants it both ways depending on the issue at hand. In the South we call that having your cake and eating it too.
3
Gee, that pesky two party system where is Communism" when you need it, oh yeh in the dust bin of history.
1
It was interesting to see that about, or almost, 30% of the populace didn't vote. I think some information about the statistics of the actual vote topography, if you will, would be interesting in any analysis because of the corollary and social ramifications the vote has here with respect to Trump supporters.
https://medium.com/@jakeybob/brexit-maps-d70caab7315e#.uu2a7sl10
I also think it should have been underscored, if it wasn't, and it can't be underscored enough, that the referendum WAS NOT LEGALLY BINDING. If there's one thing British politicians (all parties) have mastered beyond the shadow of a doubt it's the ability to dissemble, move the goal posts, and protect the monied interests against every exigency--including this ridiculous non-event called Brexit, which I think ought to be termed Brenegotiation instead. The spread, though, does tend to flush the various elements ruling the UK into declaring their disgust--both sides of the argument--with...pick your topic.
The High Court will rule in favor of allowing Parliament to control, ultimately, the destiny of the British economy and therefore people (vice versa if you like), because of the legal precedent already in place with respect to the EC underscored in this story, of 1973 and its not being legally binding--DUH!!. Populism is not popular in the Parliament (but ppp is!) and the Referendum was nothing more than a silly PR stunt by a very cynical group of very clever people.
https://medium.com/@jakeybob/brexit-maps-d70caab7315e#.uu2a7sl10
I also think it should have been underscored, if it wasn't, and it can't be underscored enough, that the referendum WAS NOT LEGALLY BINDING. If there's one thing British politicians (all parties) have mastered beyond the shadow of a doubt it's the ability to dissemble, move the goal posts, and protect the monied interests against every exigency--including this ridiculous non-event called Brexit, which I think ought to be termed Brenegotiation instead. The spread, though, does tend to flush the various elements ruling the UK into declaring their disgust--both sides of the argument--with...pick your topic.
The High Court will rule in favor of allowing Parliament to control, ultimately, the destiny of the British economy and therefore people (vice versa if you like), because of the legal precedent already in place with respect to the EC underscored in this story, of 1973 and its not being legally binding--DUH!!. Populism is not popular in the Parliament (but ppp is!) and the Referendum was nothing more than a silly PR stunt by a very cynical group of very clever people.
2
The biggest flaw with the Brexit Referendum was that no-one knew the terms of Brexit at the time they voted for or against Britain staying or leaving the EU.
The Pro-Brexit campaigners promised a painless Brexit with additional millions pouring into the National Health Service. Since the vote, the Government has admitted that a 'painless Brexit' looks unlikely and Brexit doesn't mean additional millions for the National Health Service.
Article 50 is similar flawed. It makes sense for the Government to begin negotiations and for Parliament to vote on the Brexit terms once these are known. However, once Article 50 is triggered, no one knows whether Britain can opt in or out of Brexit, making any subsequent Parliamentary vote meaningless. Article 50 is silent on this crucial point.
Article 50 makes it impossible for any nation to trigger Brexit with any knowledge of what departure from the EU might mean for their country and the rest of the EU.
All sides need to act like adults in the face of this poorly drafted Treaty. The UK Government needs to immediately strike a deal with both Parliament and its EU counterparts which would allow the Government to trigger Brexit negotiations by March 31, 2017 on condition that the British Pariliament is given the option to opt out of Brexit once the Brexit terms are known. Nothing else makes sense.
The Pro-Brexit campaigners promised a painless Brexit with additional millions pouring into the National Health Service. Since the vote, the Government has admitted that a 'painless Brexit' looks unlikely and Brexit doesn't mean additional millions for the National Health Service.
Article 50 is similar flawed. It makes sense for the Government to begin negotiations and for Parliament to vote on the Brexit terms once these are known. However, once Article 50 is triggered, no one knows whether Britain can opt in or out of Brexit, making any subsequent Parliamentary vote meaningless. Article 50 is silent on this crucial point.
Article 50 makes it impossible for any nation to trigger Brexit with any knowledge of what departure from the EU might mean for their country and the rest of the EU.
All sides need to act like adults in the face of this poorly drafted Treaty. The UK Government needs to immediately strike a deal with both Parliament and its EU counterparts which would allow the Government to trigger Brexit negotiations by March 31, 2017 on condition that the British Pariliament is given the option to opt out of Brexit once the Brexit terms are known. Nothing else makes sense.
1
Basta ya. Britain has played it's card, and burned bridges with the EU for a generation whether it stays or goes.
There is no opt in or out. Article 50 is VERY clear. it's a one way ticket OUT, with a 2 year limit to concentrate minds on the efforts required. Cameron already tried to blackmail EU on fundamental membership principles, as is Britain's tradition since even before entering.
Imagine the brinkmanship if there was an opt out!?! Very strange comment IMHO.
There is no opt in or out. Article 50 is VERY clear. it's a one way ticket OUT, with a 2 year limit to concentrate minds on the efforts required. Cameron already tried to blackmail EU on fundamental membership principles, as is Britain's tradition since even before entering.
Imagine the brinkmanship if there was an opt out!?! Very strange comment IMHO.
2
Whistling pat the grave yard we call it in the U.S. Within the next few years there will be a Frexit, an Italix, a Spaxit, and so forth and the evil European Union will be history. Hopefully Marine le Pen will be elected President in France next year with a clear mandate to restore France's freedom and independence and will hold a referendum that true Frenchmen will overwhelmingly vote for liberte, egalite and fraternite in a sovereign free nation called the Republic of France. Otherwise the French economic and political so called elite are facing a re-run of 1789 with revolution and civil war.
2
Marine le Pen has no viable project for France. I don't appreciate anyone wishing her on me, nor my kin. Vote Trump if you want to finish as radioactive cinder, but don't bother commenting on what you don't know elsewhere.
5
The true irony of this business is that it is a minority of British voters, pushing for the rejection of the "Over The Rainbow" promises of the EU, and a large group of immigrants who've managed decent there in the relative "heaven" of Britain, would be perfectly happy to slam the doors on more people like themselves: economic immigrants. In many ways similar to the US where numerous "recent" immigrants from Cuba or South America who now have happy, middle class lives, see themselves as "real Americans" who "immigrated legally" because a President declared them legal, or they got here before a certain date or, like Cubans, they receive special political status to give now dead Communism a black eye.
All the while, as thousands await permission to legally move here, millionaires who robbed Chinese via political connections or who became wealthy on bribes, and many more who are rich off numerous other forms of crime and corruption, can legally pay their way in, with their entire extended families for $500,000 for some sort of alleged capital investment. In other places like Australia they just sell them legal status for $2 million and don't bother to pretend it's legitimate. Pressure to move to a few Anglophone nations, where banking protection and legal rights are strong, continue to make them havens for wealthy criminal elites.
All the while, as thousands await permission to legally move here, millionaires who robbed Chinese via political connections or who became wealthy on bribes, and many more who are rich off numerous other forms of crime and corruption, can legally pay their way in, with their entire extended families for $500,000 for some sort of alleged capital investment. In other places like Australia they just sell them legal status for $2 million and don't bother to pretend it's legitimate. Pressure to move to a few Anglophone nations, where banking protection and legal rights are strong, continue to make them havens for wealthy criminal elites.
1
"the ruling might ultimately be referred to the European Court of Justice,"
I don't see how the ECJ is competent to pronounce itself on UK's "own constitutional requirements", to quote Article 50 TEU.
Have the Brexiters realised what a disaster that referendum was and now are trying to stay in the EU, but somehow also save face, because 'we wanted out but the evil EU bureaucrats in the ECJ twouldn't let us'?
Good luck with that.
I don't see how the ECJ is competent to pronounce itself on UK's "own constitutional requirements", to quote Article 50 TEU.
Have the Brexiters realised what a disaster that referendum was and now are trying to stay in the EU, but somehow also save face, because 'we wanted out but the evil EU bureaucrats in the ECJ twouldn't let us'?
Good luck with that.
4
The ECJ is not competent to pass judgment on the UK constitutional requirements, however the judgment of the High Court turned in part on the question of whether Article 50 was irrevocable or not. That is pre-eminently a question of EU law.
Sorry British law is preeminent in the United Kingdom despite the globalists desiring otherwise.
1
So much for the democratic processes. The Eiltes will decide for the British voters.
10
Not even half of the UKs eligible voters voted on the referendum. That's hardly a mandate.
3
Dear Dan Kuhn,
As they should. It's been proven over and over that a large part of any population has no analytical skills, no knowledge of what's going on, and will make bad decisions no matter what. The referendum should never have been held in the first place, and the exit was decided upon by the majority of voters, who were acting out of bigotry, ignorance, and unfocused anger.
As they should. It's been proven over and over that a large part of any population has no analytical skills, no knowledge of what's going on, and will make bad decisions no matter what. The referendum should never have been held in the first place, and the exit was decided upon by the majority of voters, who were acting out of bigotry, ignorance, and unfocused anger.
9
So according to what you are saying why in the world is the West always trying to foist democracy on the world? Your argumant is right in there with that of the Royal Families, Josepf Stalin, Mao and the present day communist party in China. How curious is that from an American who from your comment shows that you do not hold out much faith in the democratic process.
2
So, the Brits still have checks and balances in their system? Remember the "good old days" of Constitutional law in the US when we had that?
Perhaps, as Trump has been suggesting we do here, nationalist and populist fervor may fade in the harsh cold light of economic reality and some of those voters may want to reconsider their initial choice.
Perhaps, as Trump has been suggesting we do here, nationalist and populist fervor may fade in the harsh cold light of economic reality and some of those voters may want to reconsider their initial choice.
3
Makes sense, but this shouldn't be used as a tool to try and "undo" the results of the referendum just because some people don't like the result. Lots of predictions about whether Brexit is bad or good. In truth, nobody has the answer, and the answer, in any event, depends on the time horizon (possible short term upheaval but long term prosperity). The EU in its current form is not working too well. It should always have remained simply a trading union. Having Germany decide the continent's immigration policy, or financial policy, for example, is absolutely toxic. And tolerating semi-dictatorships like Viktor Orban, makes the European club a lot more diminished than it was just 5 years ago.
8
Also nation traitors and banksters' molls like Madwoman Merkel trying to have Germany dominate the rest of Europe with crushing debts and dictating other nations' policies will hopefully result in the downfall of the European Union/New World Order.
2
This is good news, and an opportunity to look into the future and to undo some of the damage been done by an ill-considered referendum.
It is useful to recall that in round numbers, the UK population is 64M and the registered electorate is 45M. 32.4M voted in the referendum and 16.8M - just 37% of the electorate - were persuaded to support leaving the EU. This was scarcely a mandate for a massive change that has its origins in ideology rather than pragmatic politics or statesmanship.
It is useful to recall that in round numbers, the UK population is 64M and the registered electorate is 45M. 32.4M voted in the referendum and 16.8M - just 37% of the electorate - were persuaded to support leaving the EU. This was scarcely a mandate for a massive change that has its origins in ideology rather than pragmatic politics or statesmanship.
11
This is a liberal response, don't like the results try again. I don't care how many voted, they lost. No wonder the founding fathers left and tried to give the people a voice. Well it's happening here too, ask bernie sanders
2
A great day for the statist left. Take that little guy who won the plurality. Government and judicial oligarchs overrode the will of the majority.
7
Judicial oligarchs? The referendum law clearly acknowledged it was non binding because parliament is sovereign. You are aware that the government is trying to end run parliament with "royal prerogative". It's their own words. Look it up, you don't get more authoritarian (fascist) than that.
4
In an ideal world this should trigger a general elections with each party detailing what their EU exit positions are so we can have an clearer idea what direction we are headed. MPs should not vote along party lines but on the will of their constituents.
6
Representation without taxation, wot?
And there you have it my English heathen friends...
The escape hatch to spread out the colossal ( conservative ) blunder of actually going through with a referendum in the first place. ( and a misguided yes vote )
A vote to stay in the EU. is forthcoming. ( guaranteed )
The escape hatch to spread out the colossal ( conservative ) blunder of actually going through with a referendum in the first place. ( and a misguided yes vote )
A vote to stay in the EU. is forthcoming. ( guaranteed )
5
Guaranteed not. Ireland is crushed with banksters' debts, double digit unemployment and widespread poverty and misery brought on by EU policies. The Stockholm Syndrome is alive and well across much of Europe it seems.
2
Hope you're right.
1
@rice
Sorry mate, I only deal in facts.
Irish seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent in October 2016 from 7.9 percent in September and from 9.2 percent a year earlier. It is the lowest rate since October 2008, as the number of unemployed continued to decline.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate
You may try again if you wish.
Sorry mate, I only deal in facts.
Irish seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent in October 2016 from 7.9 percent in September and from 9.2 percent a year earlier. It is the lowest rate since October 2008, as the number of unemployed continued to decline.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate
You may try again if you wish.
5
So the blowhards in Parliament have to vote on whether or not to leave a dysfunctional, fundamentally broken institution that won't exist in five years anyway. Priceless.
The establishment is collapsing, everywhere you turn, and is flailing wildly to try to slow the runaway train down. Very disconcerting. But most welcome, and necessary.
It's going to be a wild ride.
The establishment is collapsing, everywhere you turn, and is flailing wildly to try to slow the runaway train down. Very disconcerting. But most welcome, and necessary.
It's going to be a wild ride.
5
Theresa May, aka Maggie Redux, continues her single minded drive to destroy the lives of as many middle class Brits as possible by making it more difficult for them to conduct their day to day lives in isolation from the rest of Europe.
The British politicians who spent much of the year grandstanding about Brexit, and then were caught with their pants down when it actually happened and immediately started to backpedal on every single promise they made about it, should be forced to defend their position before Parliament, no matter how much Maggie, er, I mean Theresa wants everything conducted in secret.
Parliament voted for the laws to have the Brits join the EU, and they have to vote to dissolve them. Simple as that, Theresa.
The British politicians who spent much of the year grandstanding about Brexit, and then were caught with their pants down when it actually happened and immediately started to backpedal on every single promise they made about it, should be forced to defend their position before Parliament, no matter how much Maggie, er, I mean Theresa wants everything conducted in secret.
Parliament voted for the laws to have the Brits join the EU, and they have to vote to dissolve them. Simple as that, Theresa.
10
Actually there was one referendum back in the 70s I believe about joining the EEC (a trade partnership) as it was then, and people voted (narrow victory too I think) for that, not what the EEC later became. Some of us have waited a very long time to be asked our opinion on the current EU membership, and while Cameron may have miscalculated by actually agreeing to the referendum (where Blair had only teased the possibility of one to get votes), many are pleased he finally gave us that opportunity. We aren't all rabid Farage/UKIP supporters; only 4 million voted for them in the last election - 17 million voted Leave.
20
Yes, the initial referendum was about joining "The Six," which was the common name for what was then the Common Market, with little of the political ambition and scope that later overtook it. The original six were Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany.
The idea to ask the population if it still wanted to remain in what the EU has become was perfectly legitimate, but it was shoddily carried out, and Brexit makes about as much sense as a Trump Presidency.
The idea to ask the population if it still wanted to remain in what the EU has become was perfectly legitimate, but it was shoddily carried out, and Brexit makes about as much sense as a Trump Presidency.
3
Yes, 17 million UK voters said Yes--out of an electorate of 45 million. That comes out to 37.4%. If there must be a referendum--and frankly, it's a rotten way to govern, except possibly at the municipal level--then a super-majority (66.7%) of those voting should be required for the measure to pass; with any turnout less than 75% rendering the whole process null and void.
Such hand wringing over the details. The UK existed long before the EU, and it'll exist long after it. In fact, to the extent that Brexit helps manage England's immigration woes, it will help the UK chart its own identity and its own destiny long into the future.
5
And which immigration woes exactly are those? I find that British food has gotten immeasurably better thanks to immigration, but then, I'm only a tourist.
1
Well apparently British workers -- like American workers -- don't like losing their jobs to low-paid immigrants.
4
There are no longer citizens; there are only judges, modern-day clerics that run the established order, regardless. So sad.
4
My god, liberals of this country are just TOO much. They criticized Trump when he said he may not accept the result of this election. Now they think the Brits should have another vote that favors those desire to remain in the E.U, never-mind those who voted to leave. The hypocrisy and whatever else of these people is just too much, I think.
15
yup.
2
You clearly have no idea what a "liberal" is or you wouldn't have posted that.
And yet you feel free to posit what all "liberals of this country" think, feel or believe because of a few comments in a newspaper. Wow. The Trumpness of that is just too much...
And yet you feel free to posit what all "liberals of this country" think, feel or believe because of a few comments in a newspaper. Wow. The Trumpness of that is just too much...
2
I know very well what "liberal" is. Every time I drive through closed factories, hear stories of overcrowded schools, listen to people perfectly healthy people brag about how they can just sit at home and have their rent/food paid by the government I'm reminded of what liberal means.
1
Britain has survived twice as long as the Roman Republic because its constitutional system keeps the less enlightened segments of society running amok.
The American Republic is disintegrating in less than half the lifetime of the Roman Republic because its popular democracy gives equal weight to everyone.
While British democracy has the check and balances of reason, American democracy has the checks an balances of uninformed passions and racial resentment. Without an educated populous, or without an enlightened aristocracy, history shows that a popular republic sooner or later collapses. Trump is the clearest proof of this.
The American Republic is disintegrating in less than half the lifetime of the Roman Republic because its popular democracy gives equal weight to everyone.
While British democracy has the check and balances of reason, American democracy has the checks an balances of uninformed passions and racial resentment. Without an educated populous, or without an enlightened aristocracy, history shows that a popular republic sooner or later collapses. Trump is the clearest proof of this.
4
As if the people have a decent candidate to vote for. What about Bernie Sanders' popularity? And all the polls showed that he could win - -by a greater margin than HIllary. But, the DNC and the corporate elite wouldn't stand for it. And yes, we have Trump. Just blame those stupid Americans -- and not the corrupt system that has give the people horrible "choices." (Do you want arsenic or ptomaine in your tea?)
3
And who qualifies to be part of this fabulous "enlightened" aristocracy. Does it require a certain educational degree? Does it have to be from a college or university of a certain elite standing? Does it also require a certain level of wealth? Does that wealth and your social status have to be vetted by a fabulous aristocracy committee? Who decides who gets to be on said committee? Do we bother to take into consideration that aristocracies tend to increase restrictions to joining their ranks over time? Do we consider that you are essentially signing the death warrant of even the hope of upward mobility in our society?
Slippery slope and, I have to suspect, advocated only by someone who believes they will be included in the ranks of the uber-lords or at least one of their well cared for functionaries.
Slippery slope and, I have to suspect, advocated only by someone who believes they will be included in the ranks of the uber-lords or at least one of their well cared for functionaries.
2
Oh, the poor 51%, swept up in a wave of populism, xenophobia and the hope that those politicians (with only their self interests at heart) would steer the ship safely into the port. That naivety has caused the ship to head for a rock. As a Brit living in this country for 24 years, I can only say, "Watch and learn, US."
4
The naivete of thinking that only one side of the campaign had politicians 'with only their self interests at heart' is a sad reflection indeed of what we should really be worried about. The taking of sides without an open mind to new information or other view points is the most damaging aspect of current political activity. Opinion put before Fact - that is a tragedy.
2
It doesn't matter what the people want, think or voted on...the corporate oligarchs control both the government and the judiciary...worldwide.
15
Yes and if they do not give way peacefully they will force violent revolution and very soon.
2
It makes sense to allow Parliament to have a say in the matter, since they do reflect the will of the people who elected them. I just find it a bit whimsical that, ultimately, it may take a European Court to give Parliament the power to remove the UK from the EU.
3
On something like Brexit MPs don't necessarily reflect the will of the people at all. Look at the numbers of MPs across the country who voted Remain when the majority of their constituents voted Leave. Other than UKIP we have not had an established Party stand in an election on a manifesto of Leaving the EU, so all the 17 million who voted Leave had no voice on membership of the EU (other than UKIP) at the last election or any other for that matter.
Britain will end up deciding what it wants to do, Britain meaning England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Just one observation: The high visibility of a figure like Nigel Farage in the pro-Brexit ranks (mean-spirited, bullying, loud, intransigent) gives me the creeps and leads me to think the anti-Brexit pro-stay position would be the best for Britain. It's also pretty transparent that Farage and a man like Trump are two of a kind. Need I say more?
10
The institutions of the West appear so brittle. The courts need to be careful. Their power is fragile. Much of their authority can be curtailed or expanded by legislation. The popular reaction will be forceful if the anti-democratic globalist EU forces win this round.
7
Despite this, it is still troubling that the whole BRexit thing could still signal the beginning of the end of the post-WWII world order, as I write here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brexit-heralds-end-positive-era-possible-...
All patriots who love their nations and their freedoms hope your beloved New World Order dominated by the 0.1% White Collar Mafia is on its way out. Long live liberty and sovereignty for all free peoples everywhere.
2
I am of the opinion that centuries of "brain drain" to North America has left Britain with with a permanent intellectual deficit, and to paraphrase Trump, they sent their best people.....
By way of example, when Québec was looking to the ballot box to gain independence from Canada we set the bar for passage at 60% to ensure that the decision was truly the people's mandate (it wasn't).
Yet the British chose for Brexit a simple majority as being enough. And then they voted to leave. Barely. And now it has to go through Parliament.
Talk about dumbed down.
By way of example, when Québec was looking to the ballot box to gain independence from Canada we set the bar for passage at 60% to ensure that the decision was truly the people's mandate (it wasn't).
Yet the British chose for Brexit a simple majority as being enough. And then they voted to leave. Barely. And now it has to go through Parliament.
Talk about dumbed down.
8
Exactly: referenda on major issues should, at the very least, require a supermajority (and should never be "advisory"... what does that mean?)
Trying to act on a 51-48 decision on a matter as vital as EU membership is a recipe for bad decisions and bad feelings on all sides, as the evidence shows.
Trying to act on a 51-48 decision on a matter as vital as EU membership is a recipe for bad decisions and bad feelings on all sides, as the evidence shows.
1
No we did not set the bar at 60%, and the referendum failed under the 50% mark (not by much mind you).
1
Although the Brexit forces won the referendum they did not have a majority of all potential voters, they had a plurality. Cameron's folly should have been a 2/3 majority to insure this did not happen. If Parliament were to vote on the results by doing what they were put into office to do in the first place, that is, make momentous decisions the whole process would gain authority. As was stated it was not legally binding,the Conservative majority wanted this to silence a noisey bigoted wing of the Conservatives and there is no guarantee for a good outcome to the UK. There has been a lot of hand wringing about keeping many of the advantages of being in the EU. The EU probably will be harder on the UK than the UK expected.
6
"Cameron's folly should have been a 2/3 majority to insure this did not happen."
It wasn't "Cameron's folly" - it was the decision of the majority of voters, who voted against Cameron's campaign. You may not like it, you may regard it as foolish - well, your individual opinion is not the majority opinion and it doesn't have any more value than anyone other individual's does.
And why would the non-votes of people who could have voted but chose not be counted? On that same basis the UK would never elect a government - and nor would most countries.
It wasn't "Cameron's folly" - it was the decision of the majority of voters, who voted against Cameron's campaign. You may not like it, you may regard it as foolish - well, your individual opinion is not the majority opinion and it doesn't have any more value than anyone other individual's does.
And why would the non-votes of people who could have voted but chose not be counted? On that same basis the UK would never elect a government - and nor would most countries.
4
Now I wouldn't be surprised if Brexit doesn't even happen, but it's a very risky strategy for the proEU contingent because it only weakens the UK in the negotiations, and increases the probability of a Brexit with no free trade deal at all.
9
I do not think the UK had any leverage to begin with, and the possibility of a free trade deal is already inexistent.
3
Try 60,000,000 prosperous consumers in the U.K. for "trade leverage".
1
Not really a setback for Mrs. May, because when she does eventually proceed with A50, it will be with full and undisputed constitutional authority and also parliamentary vote if ultimately ruled required.
If Mrs. May had sought a parliamentary vote of her own initiative, it would have been seen as foot-dragging. Ditto if she had proactively sued the courts for affirmation of authority. This way, May obtains and overcomes all hurdles without she herself being accused of seeking them.
All in all, politically at least, the British PM has played her cards perfectly. If there's one good pro-Brexit argument that everyone should be able to agree on, it is that because of it, the UK are now lead a very capable, smart, in-for-the-long-haul leader. One who just might make Britain, err, Great again.
If Mrs. May had sought a parliamentary vote of her own initiative, it would have been seen as foot-dragging. Ditto if she had proactively sued the courts for affirmation of authority. This way, May obtains and overcomes all hurdles without she herself being accused of seeking them.
All in all, politically at least, the British PM has played her cards perfectly. If there's one good pro-Brexit argument that everyone should be able to agree on, it is that because of it, the UK are now lead a very capable, smart, in-for-the-long-haul leader. One who just might make Britain, err, Great again.
13
The British people have been conned into a Brexit by frauds who lied to their face and skipped out of the way after the deed - best (or rather worst...) example is Nigel Farage. The pro Brexit result is based on deception so it ought to be rendered null and void.
It's very disheartening though that right now in Parliament nobody but the LibDems seem to support the other half of the electorate that voted to remain in the EU.
It's very disheartening though that right now in Parliament nobody but the LibDems seem to support the other half of the electorate that voted to remain in the EU.
34
Sad. Greece has been nearly destroyed by the EU acting as the enforcer for the Germans. They have crushed Greece with unpayable debts which money was squandered and stolen and now Greece has become one vast refugee camp because Madwoman Merkel refuses to allow the traitorous Greek government to stop the invasion. Greece's economy is in ruins with double digit inflation, unemployment and widespread bankruptcy and poverty and yet the Greek elite still support the EU dictatorship while the common people suffer. Clearly 21st Century Greece, with many Greeks suffering Stockholm Syndrome, is a far cry from Classical Greece when the Greeks fought off any and all invaders, started Western civilization, and were exemplars of freedom and justice.
3
I disagree. While there were many (heavily represented in the media) who were deemed by said media to have been duped, they were not the only people who voted Leave. Many quiet citizens who ignored the very unedifying campaign presented by both sides, cast their vote for their own well established reasons. But apparently because they 'won' they must be ignorant and mistaken. So much for democracy these days.
1
"Mrs. May would be forced to give to Parliament a detailed strategy for negotiating the British departure, known as Brexit. She has adamantly resisted doing so ... "
So much for the democracy-in-action argument of those who oppose the role of Parliament here and prattle on about the sovereignty of the results of a referendum which posed a single and simple question in order to deal with a complex problem.
So much for the democracy-in-action argument of those who oppose the role of Parliament here and prattle on about the sovereignty of the results of a referendum which posed a single and simple question in order to deal with a complex problem.
8
And yet a similarly simple question was asked to take us into the EEC back in the 70s.
1
This isn't a surprise. Parliament voting on Brexit has been tossed around in both UK and Irish press since shortly after the popular vote. As people become aware of the economic uproar possible if the UK leaves the EU, there's a lot of discussion.
Ireland's interest is not simply academic and economic. There is still a border separating the six counties the UK claims from the rest of Ireland. Between the Good Friday Agreement and EU membership by both Ireland and the UK, armed British soldiers no longer stop cars at the border.
No one in Ireland knows if the guards will return after Brexit. Most people know that border crossings were a flash point during the war (the Troubles). It is not a situation anyone takes lightly. If a PM like Thatcher gains power, anything can happen. The NI government is working on the issue to try to prevent problems.
England and Wales voted for Brexit; Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to stay in the EU. They are not independent of the Queen, so they may be forced to go along for the ride.
Ireland's interest is not simply academic and economic. There is still a border separating the six counties the UK claims from the rest of Ireland. Between the Good Friday Agreement and EU membership by both Ireland and the UK, armed British soldiers no longer stop cars at the border.
No one in Ireland knows if the guards will return after Brexit. Most people know that border crossings were a flash point during the war (the Troubles). It is not a situation anyone takes lightly. If a PM like Thatcher gains power, anything can happen. The NI government is working on the issue to try to prevent problems.
England and Wales voted for Brexit; Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to stay in the EU. They are not independent of the Queen, so they may be forced to go along for the ride.
6
Ireland needs to also leave the EU and restore her freedom and sovereignty. Ironic the Irish fought for centuries to drive the British invaders out but now many Irish want to remain salves to the New World Order/European Union for a few crumbs from the banksters' tables and the Irish government are the EU's puppets.
8
Mr. Rice Pritchard, you had me at "New World Order." It would be so great if some Americans at leas tried to inform themselves about what the EU is and how it works before volunteering an opinion on the matter... *sigh*
3
Bummer, I was planning a trip to little England with a much depreciated pound.
8
And so an 800-year old tug-of-war over royal prerogative continues.
It will be really interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules.
To be continued...
It will be really interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules.
To be continued...
3
The One World/ New World Order Globalists can and will do anything to frustrate democracy and freedom in any and every Western nation they are attempting to undermine and destroy with massive Third World immigration, de-industrialization/unfair trade, moral and social decay and breakdown,crushing debts, foreign wars, and setting up tribunals of self styled experts to rule the common people and overturn the duly passed laws and referendums of sovereign people and nations int their mad lust and endless quest for ever more wealth and power. They are as out of touch with any known reality as Marie Antoinette playing at being a shepherdess or Czarina Alexandra and her dabbling in magic and revering Rasputin as a holy man. If the self anointed socio-economic elite are not very careful and quickly step back and stand down from their evil deeds and return democracy and freedom to the people of their homelands that they have enslaved and oppressed they may soon find themselves suffering the same fate as those two queens. The elite seem to be ever yearning but never learning.
8
The whole issue, if you read the article, is a conflict between 'duly passed laws' and 'referendums of sovereign people'. Or, where does sovereignty reside: the Parliament or a referendum result? The Court ruled that it's the former, which has been the case for 800 years.
4
By "the elite" and the "One World/New World Order Globalists" we presume you are referring to all the owners and shareholders of the world's largest corporations, be they oil, pharmaceuticals, cigarettes, automotive, technology, aviation, social media, and agriculture. (Let's leave The Church for another article.)
Of course, you must be including the ever profitable military-industrial complex and its defense contractors....and all the "foreign wars" fighting (or is it colonizing?) to monopolize or protect oil, pharmaceuticals, precious minerals, technology....
Of course, you must be including the ever profitable military-industrial complex and its defense contractors....and all the "foreign wars" fighting (or is it colonizing?) to monopolize or protect oil, pharmaceuticals, precious minerals, technology....
1
The New World Order is the big banks and big corporations. Not the common shareholders who are regularly duped and cheated by the executives at these trans-national corporations and banks. The 0.1% are the super rich billionaire brigands who own and control these companies and their lackeys, knaves, and varlets who run the companies and their political and media prostitutes. A tiny, tiny minority intent on plundering, pillaging and oppressing the entire planet. Unfortunately for them the little people worldwide are quickly waking up and the Globalists' day is rapidly coming to a close---hopefully by peaceful means but other means if necessary.
1
America should try this same maneuver if Donald Trump should win the general election. Before he can become president it first must be approved unanimously by the senate, house and Supreme Court. How's that for democracy?
6
Don´t worry that option is in all likely hood being kicked around. The Elites in the US don´t want him and will do anything to make sure they have Clinton, and to Hades with the popular vote. The New York Times will be righ there supporting them in their nefarious plans
2
Only the dummies thought Parliament didn't have to vote. Article 50 made it so regardless of what the "people" voted. Sometimes the "people" have to be saved from themselves in a democracy.
16
Saved from themselves? Wow what an elitist comment! Are you a member of the self anointed economic aristocracy?
13
John Adams, a Founding Father of the US, warned about the same thing: we must always remain vigilant against the tyranny of the majority, since 'the people' are not always right or just. See: slavery, segregation.
4
So what kind of democracy is Mr. Flanagan talking about? Why bother at all with a vote if an Elite group should just over turn the popular choice , ( for the general good of course) which usuallt means for an elite rich group that likes things just the way they are.
2
Perhaps Parliament will vote in favor of Brexit but with the caveat that it remains as part of the union's single market...effectively creating a relationship with the EU akin to non-member Norway's relationship with the continent.
5
Didn't the EU already put the kabash on that?
3
The British Parliament cannot decide to remain in the single market (i.e., retaining all advantages) while losing all obligations. That depends now on a negotiation between two independent foreign powers (the UK and the EU) and, as such, on the leverage and interest of each of the parts. On a side note, the UK has way more interest and way less leverage (1/5th of the size, with 48% of their exports going to the EU, vs only 16% of EU exports going to the UK; the British financial sector depending on keeping the EU financial passport; EU immigrants in the UK being net contributors to the tax and pension system; UK retiree emigrants depending on the EU healthcare systems; etc). The idea of a better deal than what they already had is wishful thinking at best.
3
The British represent 60,000,000 consumers. The German car makers, French wine and cosmetics producers, Italian clothiers, Swedish appliance makers, etc. are weeping at the thought of losing that vast consumer market. In the end the European White Collar Mafia will overcome their anger and pique at the British desire for freedom and independence and agree to a single/common market with few strings attached post Brexit. Remember these people worship Mammon always. Gold is their God and Greed their lode star. As Lenin once stated: The capitalists will build their own scaffold and we will sell them the lumber, nails and rope with which they will hand themselves. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
2
What is the point of referenda if not to respect the will of the people? It is dangerous to ignore it. We cannot be surprised by the distrust in our institutions and political class if, time after time, officials dance around popular opinion they dislike. Let the people suffer the consequences of any ill-considered choice and learn to do better next time.
14
The key point of the Brexit campaign was to preserve the sovereignty of the UK parliament .... to demand now that parliament be ignored is rather hypocritical of the Brexit campaign.
And as the courts have determined its also against the law.
And as the courts have determined its also against the law.
44
This whole thing is a money grab by the Politicians. What's new eh?
Funny, I thought the question was do you want to Leave the EU or not.
1
The irony is too great.
Even if I were opposed to Brexit,
I would support it wholeheartedly,
if the European Court of Justice rules against it.
Even if I were opposed to Brexit,
I would support it wholeheartedly,
if the European Court of Justice rules against it.
6
If you bothered to read the headline even you would know it's a UK court, not EU.
27
Except it is not the European court that has ruled against it, it is our UK courts that have ruled against it.
It would be better manners to allow our country's own courts to determine the legality of the issue rather than issue untruthful statements .... you are after all a foreigner in this matter..
It would be better manners to allow our country's own courts to determine the legality of the issue rather than issue untruthful statements .... you are after all a foreigner in this matter..
20
Hooj,
If you read the last paragraph you can see that it may end
up being heard in the European Court of Justice.
You make the simple but easy mistake that just because
I live in Idaho, that I am not British.
Sang for the Queen, sang and was in "Oliver" in the Summer
of 1968. Was at the glorious victory over Germany in 1966.
The statement is not untruthful - the last paragraph in the article
speculates that the issue may end up in the European Court of Justice.
England and Saint George forever !
If you read the last paragraph you can see that it may end
up being heard in the European Court of Justice.
You make the simple but easy mistake that just because
I live in Idaho, that I am not British.
Sang for the Queen, sang and was in "Oliver" in the Summer
of 1968. Was at the glorious victory over Germany in 1966.
The statement is not untruthful - the last paragraph in the article
speculates that the issue may end up in the European Court of Justice.
England and Saint George forever !
2
This ruling is a relief. The referendum vote for Brexit was obtained by fraudulent advertising to ignorant people, many of whom had no idea what they were voting for. Under contract law a contract obtained by fraud is null and void, and by the same reasoning the Brexit vote should be nullified by a vote in Parliament against Article 50.
123
And yet the idea that a referendum, popularly agreed upon (despite it's logic) can we conveniently maneuvered back away from the people undermines democracy at large. This whole debacle is tragic.
13
This whole thing is a money grab by politicians. The only people who would like this are socialists who don't think the people should have a voice... or the freedom to control their own lives.
2
Complete rubbish!
Both sides were guilty of misleading statements. There was a very good reason the remain side was called project fear. Ignorance was present on both sides also; many people frightened into voting for the status quo.
In my opinion if the vote was held again leave would win by a much bigger margin. The economic scare stories by so called experts have come to nothing - no emergency budget, good growth is now forecast instead of recession, investment is happening into UK industries (helped by the currency drop).
Inflation is now forecast at 2.7% next year due to the pound falling - I think most people would accept that as an acceptable cost for the benefits of leaving the EU.
Both sides were guilty of misleading statements. There was a very good reason the remain side was called project fear. Ignorance was present on both sides also; many people frightened into voting for the status quo.
In my opinion if the vote was held again leave would win by a much bigger margin. The economic scare stories by so called experts have come to nothing - no emergency budget, good growth is now forecast instead of recession, investment is happening into UK industries (helped by the currency drop).
Inflation is now forecast at 2.7% next year due to the pound falling - I think most people would accept that as an acceptable cost for the benefits of leaving the EU.
1
Smart. Majority rules is generally a terrible idea.
13
Well, at least in terms of treaty obligations. Of course, one can't frustrate the majority forever.
3
Wow! More elitism! You probably need to go live in Red China or North Korea and have a dictatorship decide everything for you if you feel this way.
4
@ rice pritchard
You might want to take a close look at our system and ask a couple of questions:
Why for half the country's history were Senators appointed by State legislatures?
Why does the Electoral College exist?
Why isn't there a direct election of the President and Vice President.
A hint: Because "the people" weren't trusted enough to make important decisions.
If this elections is any indication, the mistrust was well-placed.
You might want to take a close look at our system and ask a couple of questions:
Why for half the country's history were Senators appointed by State legislatures?
Why does the Electoral College exist?
Why isn't there a direct election of the President and Vice President.
A hint: Because "the people" weren't trusted enough to make important decisions.
If this elections is any indication, the mistrust was well-placed.
6
The UK is a representative democracy, not a "pure" democracy. The Parliament is shunning its responsibility to the nation if it approves Brexit. The vote to leave the EU, which was very confusing to many Brits, won by a scant 52%. The reason we have representative democracies is shown by this vote.
People cannot possibly study all the ramifications of these populist positions. The Brexit vote is a good example of "mob rule" , depending on disinformation, and emotion, rather than careful study and intelligent debate.
The job of Parliament (and all representative governments) is NOT to be led by the mob, but to LEAD the nation. To do what is best in the long term, not respond to emotion and short term political pressure and mob excitement.
As legal representatives of the nation, let us hope that "cooler heads prevail" and the Parliament stands up like adults and says "no, this Brexit is just wrong"
People cannot possibly study all the ramifications of these populist positions. The Brexit vote is a good example of "mob rule" , depending on disinformation, and emotion, rather than careful study and intelligent debate.
The job of Parliament (and all representative governments) is NOT to be led by the mob, but to LEAD the nation. To do what is best in the long term, not respond to emotion and short term political pressure and mob excitement.
As legal representatives of the nation, let us hope that "cooler heads prevail" and the Parliament stands up like adults and says "no, this Brexit is just wrong"
176
What is best for the U.K. long term should be decided by a majority of the citizens of that nation. It appears most British prefer freedom, independence and national sovereignty for their nation over being serfs and victims of the non elected Globalist bureaucrats known as the EU running wild in Brussels.
5
In fact there is an established precedent of the UK holding referenda to decide lasting constitutional questions and matters of political sovereignty.
Examples
The 1973 referendum on whether Northern Ireland should remain a part of the UK or join with the Republic of Ireland.
The 1975 referendum on whether the UK should stay in the EU.
The 1997 referendum on whether there should be Scottish devolution and a Scottish Parliament.
The 1997 referendum on whether there should be devolution for Wales and a National Assembly.
The 1998 referendum on whether there should be a London Assembly and Mayor.
The 1998 referendum to approve the Good Friday Agreement for Northern Ireland.
The 2011 referendum on voting reform.
The 2014 referendum on Scottish Independence.
Presumably you think these should all be overturned?
As for insulting characterisation of the majority of voters as a "mob", I'm surprised you don't find this mob too stupid to also elect MPs! None of the people I know who voted Leave are in the least "mob-like."
"To do what is best in the long term"
Um, this is the first time the UK people have been allowed a vote on whether they want to belong to the European 'project' in more than 40 years! The majority of voters alive today were even unborn or children the last time the people were consulted.
"no, this Brexit is just wrong"
You may think this - it is a minority opinion. And your opinion is worth no more than anybody else's.
Examples
The 1973 referendum on whether Northern Ireland should remain a part of the UK or join with the Republic of Ireland.
The 1975 referendum on whether the UK should stay in the EU.
The 1997 referendum on whether there should be Scottish devolution and a Scottish Parliament.
The 1997 referendum on whether there should be devolution for Wales and a National Assembly.
The 1998 referendum on whether there should be a London Assembly and Mayor.
The 1998 referendum to approve the Good Friday Agreement for Northern Ireland.
The 2011 referendum on voting reform.
The 2014 referendum on Scottish Independence.
Presumably you think these should all be overturned?
As for insulting characterisation of the majority of voters as a "mob", I'm surprised you don't find this mob too stupid to also elect MPs! None of the people I know who voted Leave are in the least "mob-like."
"To do what is best in the long term"
Um, this is the first time the UK people have been allowed a vote on whether they want to belong to the European 'project' in more than 40 years! The majority of voters alive today were even unborn or children the last time the people were consulted.
"no, this Brexit is just wrong"
You may think this - it is a minority opinion. And your opinion is worth no more than anybody else's.
1
So if Trump should win a scant 52% of the vote for President you would disqualify him and put Clinton in the White House just because it would be the right thing to do. The hubris of the ruling classes is getting stiffling.
1
Ah, how many tools the elites have at their disposal to try to get their way, no matter what the populace wants. Here in the US there will probably be tremendous pressure for Electoral College delegates to vote for Clinton even if Trump wins.
I find this revolting and only serves to make me more determined to pry their hands of the levers of power by voting in someone like Trump.
I find this revolting and only serves to make me more determined to pry their hands of the levers of power by voting in someone like Trump.
40
Trump and his 'brain trust' are certainly not the answer to any of our problems. He is the embodiment of everything that is wrong. See his brilliant solution to healthcare costs... hope you can pay the ever-escalating medical bills from your HSA!
23
What is the problem Dan.
The Brexit campaign demanded that our UK parliament be sovereign. Our UK courts have ruled that parliament must be sovereign.
Are you seriously suggesting you believe it is best if governments ignore the law and the demands of the winning side in a referendum? And you claim it is somebody else wishing to rig the result?
The Brexit campaign demanded that our UK parliament be sovereign. Our UK courts have ruled that parliament must be sovereign.
Are you seriously suggesting you believe it is best if governments ignore the law and the demands of the winning side in a referendum? And you claim it is somebody else wishing to rig the result?
28
Did you also find it revolting when Bush won even though the people voted for Gore? Probably not...
11
Parliament is supreme. Every act is the US's equivalent of a constitutional amendment.
Given the number of treaties that must be amended or ended in order to implement the referendum, and given the number of statutes that must be amended to effect the same end, the decision by the Executive Branch to trigger Article 50 always required Parliamentary action. It may even lead to further referenda.
By sidestepping a vote, Ms. May hoped to avoid a crushing defeat for the Tory majority in Parliament, including her own Prime Ministership, but it was never constitutionally possible. The British people may have some bona fide reasons for wanting Brexit, but maintaining that a parliamentary vote to implement Brexit is unconstitutional is not one of them.
Given the number of treaties that must be amended or ended in order to implement the referendum, and given the number of statutes that must be amended to effect the same end, the decision by the Executive Branch to trigger Article 50 always required Parliamentary action. It may even lead to further referenda.
By sidestepping a vote, Ms. May hoped to avoid a crushing defeat for the Tory majority in Parliament, including her own Prime Ministership, but it was never constitutionally possible. The British people may have some bona fide reasons for wanting Brexit, but maintaining that a parliamentary vote to implement Brexit is unconstitutional is not one of them.
105
There will be no crushing defeat against Brexit. Any Tory and most Liberals and Laborites who do not want to be trounced in the next Parliamentary election will wisely vote to restore the U.K.'s freedom and sovereignty as the people want.
5
As the only established Party (given UKIP puts off way more people than it attracts) to stand on supporting the outcome of a democratic referendum I think, if anything, the Tories would win by a landslide. This court action is about process not outcome - that is the declared view of the lead claimant in point of fact. Meanwhile, Parliament voted in favour of holding the referendum, so Parliament must stand by the result of that referendum.
2
This is one smart Englishwoman! Rule Brittania!
2
Even though the people have spoke on this issue the voice of reason steps in. The whole world is not only watching crazy America's a election but how the UK's Brexit will play out.
24
Wendi:
And when " the voice of reason" says you may no longer comment on issues?
And when " the voice of reason" says you may no longer comment on issues?
4
In America, it won't be the voice of reason saying that. It will be the voice of Donald Trump.
4
We can only hope.
3
The EU seems to have character in common with "The Hotel California." When the people try to leave, the guards are there to prevent their doing so. Our lame duck champs of one-world corporate government are rushing to get the American people checked in to the TPP, which likely will prove to be just another residence hall of that same Hotel California. It's unfortunate the same due diligence and open debate isn't done when checking into the hotel that gets done when the incentive occurs to check out of it.
21
It's a UK court not EU that made this ruling.
33
The EU are not stopping the UK leaving.
The UK courts are insisting our elected parliament be sovereign and not bypassed by the elites in government.
Given that it is the Uk government that is dragging its heels and refusing to immediately implement the process for leaving, despite the urging to do so by the EU, it is extremely hypocritical to try and blame the EU.
The UK courts are insisting our elected parliament be sovereign and not bypassed by the elites in government.
Given that it is the Uk government that is dragging its heels and refusing to immediately implement the process for leaving, despite the urging to do so by the EU, it is extremely hypocritical to try and blame the EU.
22
The UK Courts are the guards at the Hotel California in this case. Are you too thick to see that?
5
Oh how the mighty have fallen. There was a time when sun wouldnt set in the british empire. Now the brits cant even with theor fellow euro people let alone compete with rest of the world.
5
That's that! The mob will not win.
9
Oh Thoreau:
Again with your no one but me has the right to an opinion stuff. Time to move to a country more suited to your beliefs.
Again with your no one but me has the right to an opinion stuff. Time to move to a country more suited to your beliefs.
7
I'm confused here. The British voted to leave but it's not official? And their elected officials can decide otherwise even though they made their will known? How will they handle this, they being the MPs, especially those who believe it's not a good idea to leave the EU?
14
Parliament still needs to go through the legislative process to make brexit happen. It is doubtful that MPs would throw out the voting results.
7
That is because you are missing the point.
The referendum result was to leave. Everyone knows that.
However the terms of leaving, the removal of laws and their replacement by other laws, the negotiation (or not) of an entire raft of trade agreements, and a host of other matters were never mentioned during the referendum.
The passing of laws, trade deals etc is the job of elected representatives in parliament. 'The people' did not give any indication of which laws and trade agreements were to be scrapped and which kept.
The courts have today ruled against the government's suggestion that it can, in secret, and against the wishes of the elected parliament, impose its own views. It is hardly a surprise that the courts did so , this result was widely predicted..
The referendum result was to leave. Everyone knows that.
However the terms of leaving, the removal of laws and their replacement by other laws, the negotiation (or not) of an entire raft of trade agreements, and a host of other matters were never mentioned during the referendum.
The passing of laws, trade deals etc is the job of elected representatives in parliament. 'The people' did not give any indication of which laws and trade agreements were to be scrapped and which kept.
The courts have today ruled against the government's suggestion that it can, in secret, and against the wishes of the elected parliament, impose its own views. It is hardly a surprise that the courts did so , this result was widely predicted..
19
Take some time to learn about Parliamentary democracy. It's the very thing Brexit supporters voted to maintain. How can you expect them to oppose it now?
5
It is SO ironical that some people here would want to see an elected parliament go against the result from a referendum.
You might need to check the definition of "Democracy"..
Results from a vote do not always go in your way, it is time to learn to deal with that..
I don't know this could help you in 5 days, who knows ?
You might need to check the definition of "Democracy"..
Results from a vote do not always go in your way, it is time to learn to deal with that..
I don't know this could help you in 5 days, who knows ?
20
It is a real pity you read the comments and not the ruling.
The point they are making is that ultimately Parliament needs to vote on how Brexit gets implemented. The PM does not have the power to decide that on her own. Given the results of the referendum, it is hardly likely that Parliament would 'cancel' Brexit. However, they do appear to now get more of a say on the type of Brexit it will be (depending on your creativity there are 3-4 models to choose from).
I know on the Internet we love to read too much into things, but this is a simple one.
The point they are making is that ultimately Parliament needs to vote on how Brexit gets implemented. The PM does not have the power to decide that on her own. Given the results of the referendum, it is hardly likely that Parliament would 'cancel' Brexit. However, they do appear to now get more of a say on the type of Brexit it will be (depending on your creativity there are 3-4 models to choose from).
I know on the Internet we love to read too much into things, but this is a simple one.
1
As the story notes, this ruling was quite predictable as a matter of British legal precedent.
David Cameron's opportunistic folly, passing this crucial decision to an advisory referendum rather than having the courage to exercise Parliament's responsibility, comes back to haunt the Conservatives. Even without Donald Trump, there's more than one way to mess up a democracy...
I hope the Parliament will use judgment and reverse the Brexit folly. Cameron's misjudgment can be tepaited, with courage.
David Cameron's opportunistic folly, passing this crucial decision to an advisory referendum rather than having the courage to exercise Parliament's responsibility, comes back to haunt the Conservatives. Even without Donald Trump, there's more than one way to mess up a democracy...
I hope the Parliament will use judgment and reverse the Brexit folly. Cameron's misjudgment can be tepaited, with courage.
56
Theresa May would have had a heart attack if the court had ruled otherwise. She opposed Brexit, and can now gradually bury the non-binding referendum in parliament, as the British constitution requires. Most likely outcome, early elections.
50
Which true Conservatives and the UKIP will win hands down. Brexit is going through whether sooner or later despite all the crying and hand wringing from he nation traitors/globalists.
3
It was pointed out at the time that the "Brexit" referendum was advisory only. Parliament is the sovereign and only Parliament can vote to leave the EU. As sometimes happens in the US, Britain's courts have given Britain at least the opportunity to avoid a serious mistake.
125
The mistake being to stay in the U.
3
In a Constitutional Monarchy within a Parliamentary System, parliament is supreme not a popularity vote. Those who have written about the matter knew this but it's doesn't make good headlines.
82
Yeah, I'm sure those individuals who have been banging on about parliamentary sovereignty like Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, and Michael Gove will fully welcome the High Court's decision ;)
17
This very much has a sight-impaired leading the sight-impaired feel to it. The Brits have made their own version of the circular firing squad, to continue down Metaphor Lane.
12
So Brexit will be paralyzing the UK government and economy for the foreseeable future.
Meaning both the UK and USA are completely sidelined as global influences as China and Russia assert their influence.
As long as we keep pointing fingers at other people, I'm sure it'll all work out fine.
Meaning both the UK and USA are completely sidelined as global influences as China and Russia assert their influence.
As long as we keep pointing fingers at other people, I'm sure it'll all work out fine.
123
The political class must be consulted and the people must get their approval.
10
Meanwhile the UK is also paralyzing the EU project, blocking initiatives such the joint army and meddling with everything that could bring the member states closer together. Your assessment about Russia and China benefiting from it all is spot on; the more disunited we stand, the more vulnerable we all become.
14
By the way I really wish we could edit our comments to tweak the grammar a bit.
1
Gina Miller, by contesting the legality of Brexit in court, has acted the way Americans do when they're dissatisfied with a political act. Now it's going to Britain's Supreme Court for appeal. It seems like she and her co-plantiffs are political outsiders. This would be not out of the ordinary in America, but how often does it happen in Britain and does it signal any fundamental change in Britain itself?
6
...do you really think the wife of a hedge fund manager is really a "political outsider" though??
2
It would appear that a lot of MP's do not have a better understanding of their constitution than the Trumpistas have of ours.
63
Again and again as in this country Brexit shows an enormous lack of education by its citizenry.
139
Despite the mainstream media trying so hard to spin it, Brexit is not the same type of issue as the Tea Party or 'Trumpism'; those who throw them together show considerable lack of understanding.
1
The corporate media and their globalist woners want guilt by association any time anyone crosses them they are immediately condemned and vilified as racist, bigoted, xenophobic, ignorant, backward, etc. Their arguments are unsound, illogical and frankly bizarre so they resort to slander and libel to try and stop their patriotic and loyalist foes.
2
A degraded education system means a placid citizenry, more interested in TV reality shows. For imperialist countries like US and England (its not great or united) it is so much easier to control ones citizens. They tend not to ask unpleasant questions and usually follow the herd.
1
Such wonderful irony. The British people vote to "take back control" and restore sovereignty to Parliament, and then they complain when Parliaments tries to exert this sovereignty to stop the autocratic whims of the government.
258
Expect to hear similar comments on January 20, 2017 from those who want to "take our country back," if Trump wins.
I wish the effects of Brexit happened sooner so other democracies could more fully understand the potential consequences of ONE vote.
I wish the effects of Brexit happened sooner so other democracies could more fully understand the potential consequences of ONE vote.
5
It's not the British people complaining about this.
It's the evil Theresa May, who wants everything conducted in full secret, with her having the final word.
And a small correction: In Britain, Parliament IS the government. May, as head one of the parties, has far less power than our President, can be removed from power at any time by losing a Parliamentary vote of non-confidence, but nonetheless seems to delusionally believe that in her case, L'Etat, C'est Moi.
It's the evil Theresa May, who wants everything conducted in full secret, with her having the final word.
And a small correction: In Britain, Parliament IS the government. May, as head one of the parties, has far less power than our President, can be removed from power at any time by losing a Parliamentary vote of non-confidence, but nonetheless seems to delusionally believe that in her case, L'Etat, C'est Moi.
6
Not a fair comparison. The issue was unelected foreigners imposing unpopular laws on parliament. Laws which nobody wanted and could not be repealed.
1
52% voting to leave, isn't a stunning majority considering many people didn't vote. The UK should have another referendum, this time people will know it matters, and participate in the vote.
I feel entitled to offer this opinion on the politics of a country I'm not from, because John Oliver keeps lecturing me in an English accent on the telly.
I feel entitled to offer this opinion on the politics of a country I'm not from, because John Oliver keeps lecturing me in an English accent on the telly.
224
That 52% was 1) a nation-wide count, of 2) voters. As to the second, on the election night, ITV had commissioned a huge national poll indicating a narrow Remain majority but outside the margin of error. It was less confident than preceding polls and pundit assurances, and the voter turnout in Remain was around 65% while that for Brexit was around 75%. More importantly given the return to Parliament, where members are elected on a "constituency" basis "first past the post" - not proportionally to the national total. On that basis, Members of Parliament looking to their own local constituencies don't care nearly so much about the national sentiment - Remain is probably even stronger on that basis.
4
No matter what, the British people voted out. What is the problem with that? You can't have a sort of best out of three in a vote. Your point means you don't support a democratic decision.
The MP's are there to represent the people who voted them in. They are not there for their own individual beliefs.
I support democracy. The people voted to leave. To emphasize- the people.
The MP's are there to represent the people who voted them in. They are not there for their own individual beliefs.
I support democracy. The people voted to leave. To emphasize- the people.
83
Since the British public was mislead and manipulated by the Leave campaign just prior to voting I would say the vote is not valid at all.
56
What welcome news. Despite it's unwritten nature, Britain's constitution has proved worthy of checking an ill-defined referendum and providing a 'second chance' for lawmakers and the voters who chose them to act in their best interests by AT LEAST forcing some clarification but hopefully ending the non-sensical folly that promised nothing other than 'control'. If the past months have proved anything, control seems to be the last thing the UK has gained.
190
Perhaps they should have a written constitution. Maybe they can borrow ours, it seems that we hardly use it these days.
1
Britain doesn't have a codified constitution.
Unfortunately for the US, Trump has replicated Farage anti-intellectualism campaign here, emboldened by Brexit win. Farage and Trump don't appreciate democracy, they're willing to use it as a means towards an end, but they don't appreciate or respect it. The democratic foundation of British democracy doesn't allow Government to act unilaterally, but instead must work with Parliament.
1
A central problem that led to Brexit is a failure to recognize a millennial scale conflict in the constitutional laws of fundamental rights in Britain v. the Continent & Ireland (i.e. the conflict between the Anglo-Norse-Scottish-Welsh system and the Roman Empire system, over which a zillion wars have been fought), a conflict that has come to the fore yet again over some Copernican-style scientific advances of "English-speaking-peoples", I think this is far from over.