Brexit

Lucien wrote:
I wasn't being pedantic. I found it a little amusing that you actually gave my answer without meaning to: "it's okay to use the term Remoaner if an individual deserves it, but we shouldn't insult Leave voters with our horrible slurs".

Obviously individuals can be criticised, do you seriously believe I think no Leave voter should be? When I say Leave voters shouldn't be insulted, I mean as a group: "They're stupid, racist, etc".

Sorry for delayed reply, family visiting. One of them voted Leave I think

Your point is as pedantic as I would have been if I replied to your original post with "Ah, but what if I call them racist one at a time!" It's the equivalent of the No Homers Club. Also, by jumping on how I arbitrarily chose to phrase a sentence, you imply that criticism cannot be levelled at more than one person at a time until I've got to know them properly. Don't really have time for that, so I'm gonna call blatant racism racist and blatant stupidity stupid.

I don't think anyone worth listening to thinks all Leave voters are stupid or racist, but a vocal proportion are (certainly racist anyway, I would accept an argument of systematically misinformed instead of stupid), and this has been massively evident from discourse. For the record, I would say a vocal proportion of Remain voters have been condescending and snobbish, which has not aided said discourse either. Note I did not say majority in either case.

Because relations with the EU weren't strained enough at the moment, Theresa May is now planning to defy EU law and begin negotiating trade deals with other countries before even triggering Article 50

Lagamorph wrote:Because relations with the EU weren't strained enough at the moment, Theresa May is now planning to defy EU law and begin negotiating trade deals with other countries before even triggering Article 50

People need to stop giving this woman a clear pass, she is an idiot.

I totally forgot the Supreme Court case releases its ruling tomorrow.
Almost everyone expects it to rule against the Government (then again almost everyone expected Remain to win the Referendum and for Trump to not be President of the United States), but they're also ruling on if Scotland/Wales/Northern Island will be given the ability to Veto the triggering of Article 50.

They'll rule with the government, because they're strawberry floating cowards.

I hope they vote to give Scotland, NI and Wales a chance to Veto.

Scotland and NI are a shoein to veto, Wales not so much but I think they're realising how much they're strawberry floated with no EU funding.

Lagamorph wrote:I totally forgot the Supreme Court case releases its ruling tomorrow.
Almost everyone expects it to rule against the Government (then again almost everyone expected Remain to win the Referendum and for Trump to not be President of the United States), but they're also ruling on if Scotland/Wales/Northern Island will be given the ability to Veto the triggering of Article 50.

For me surely the veto bit is the bigger news. MPs voting won't make a difference. I think they will pass whatever the government puts to them but there is a massive likiehood that the Scottish government would veto it over and over if they have the legal power to do so. For some reason this is being largely ignored by the media.

I think it's being ignored because nobody actually expects the veto power to be given. Scotland more or less openly admitted during the court case they didn't think they had any legal basis for a veto and didn't actively pursue it. It's a stronger likelihood that Northern Island would get some kind of veto power, but that would depend on them actually having a government to veto it. It seems like there's a very real possibility that the court will rule against the Government, will grant Norther Island a veto, but Westminster will push a bill to trigger Article 50 through extremely quickly and it'll be before the Northern Island government can actually reform to use that veto.

Qikz wrote:They'll rule with the government, because they're strawberry floating cowards.

Not even the government themselves are expecting the Supreme Court to rule in their favour. Remember, the High court already ruled against them, that's why we're here.

Lagamorph wrote:Because relations with the EU weren't strained enough at the moment, Theresa May is now planning to defy EU law and begin negotiating trade deals with other countries before even triggering Article 50

What is wrong with that strawberry floating moron, how does she think she can do whatever she wants!

I'm half expecting her to claim some state of emergency when it is coming up to election time to prevent an election and hold on to power.

I'd expect the ruling to confirm that parliament has to vote on Article 50 but that nobody has a veto.

Giving Scotland a veto would basically kill Brexit though so fingers crossed!

If any nation was given the right to veto Brexit and used it the amount of bad blood would be unbelievable.

Should be an interesting day in the world of politics.

Dig Dug wrote:If any nation was given the right to veto Brexit and used it the amount of bad blood would be unbelievable.

While I don’t expect them to be given that power, it would certainly be interesting how the government proceeded from there. Would they take it to the European Court?

Assuming all three were given a veto (again, this almost certainly will not happen!) Wales should not use theirs as Wales voted Leave. Scotland and Northern Ireland though would be perfectly within their rights to use it, both countries voted to Remain. And of course only one would have to do it in order to stop the whole thing.

Even if NI was given the right to veto, we couldn't do anything in our current state. Power sharing needs to be restored. We effectively have no first minister at the moment, and we are heading for an election.

And if Arlene Foster retains the FM position, she would just blindly follow the Conservatives position anyway.

It's up to Based Scotland if this happens.

Squinty wrote:Even if NI was given the right to veto, we couldn't do anything in our current state. Power sharing needs to be restored. We effectively have no first minister at the moment, and we are heading for an election.

And if Arlene Foster retains the FM position, she would just blindly follow the Conservatives position anyway.

It's up to Based Scotland if this happens.

This is all very unlikely but I would imagine another court case would be held where it would be decided if Article 50 would have to wait until there was a government in N Ireland that could decide on whether they wanted to use their veto. If May doesn't have the power to trigger Article 50 by herself, then I doubt Arlene Foster has the power to decide on the veto one way or the other.

Moggy wrote:I'd expect the ruling to confirm that parliament has to vote on Article 50 but that nobody has a veto.

I think this is the most likely result too. Anything less than this though will be very concerning, continuing to ride this 'the people have decided' line is one step towards something quite nasty.

I still don't know why they're arguing the toss on this though. If they brought it up before parliament tomorrow then it would pass with little problem, you'd get the SNPs and Lib Dems voting against and a smattering of Labour and rebel Tories but they'd struggle to get 100 votes.

Lagamorph wrote:they're also ruling on if Scotland/Wales/Northern Island...

Lagamorph wrote:It's a stronger likelihood that Northern Island...

Lagamorph wrote:It seems like there's a very real possibility that the court will rule against the Government, will grant Norther Island a veto...

Rex Kramer wrote:

Moggy wrote:I'd expect the ruling to confirm that parliament has to vote on Article 50 but that nobody has a veto.

I think this is the most likely result too. Anything less than this though will be very concerning, continuing to ride this 'the people have decided' line is one step towards something quite nasty.

I still don't know why they're arguing the toss on this though. If they brought it up before parliament tomorrow then it would pass with little problem, you'd get the SNPs and Lib Dems voting against and a smattering of Labour and rebel Tories but they'd struggle to get 100 votes.

Power crazed May thinks that she is the only power that should decide.

I think it's odd as well, the government expect to lose, so why waste time and money with an appeal when they are almost certainly going to get their own way with a parliament vote? The only thing I can think of is that the government are trying to look like the voice of "the majority" and are able to point at the courts if there are any delays.

Knoyleo wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:they're also ruling on if Scotland/Wales/Northern Island...

Lagamorph wrote:It's a stronger likelihood that Northern Island...

Lagamorph wrote:It seems like there's a very real possibility that the court will rule against the Government, will grant Norther Island a veto...

You know, the North part of That Island Over There.

Most people seem to think the government will lose the appeal, which would likely just see a quickie bill run through that no-one opposes.

Would be hilarious to see the courts go even further and rule in favour of devolved governments having a veto. Parts of the government would probably prefer that scenario as it gets them out of a mess they didn't have to create using a nice, north of the border scapegoat.

The press reaction is going to be grotesque though. The most depressing part of Brexit for me, after seeing the Women's March over the weekend, is the complete lack of unified opposition to it. It's fine to say there is a slight mandate to process with leaving the EU, that's obvious, but it's insane to not keep what that looks like in check. It's insane how a majority xenophobic press has the power to keep that from properly happening. It's demoralising that those voters opposed to it don't make more noise about it in protest.

It's all just going to happen.

Supreme court rules by 8 votes to 3 that government cannot trigger article 50 without act of parliament

Neuberger says the government generally has a prerogative power to change treaties.

But it cannot do that if it will affect people’s rights.

He summarises the claimants’ case, and the government’s response.

Today, by a majority of 8 to 3, the supreme court has ruled that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament.

I'm only surprised it wasn't unanimous, but whatever. That's pretty good news I guess.