Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is factually incorrect. As a parliamentary democracy we voted for all the governments that agreed to all such treaties and had the right to veto or reject any of them (which we did, the Schengen or euro treaties being examples thereof).
People voted in general elections for many different reasons. People voting for a pro-EU party didn't necessarily support the EU. And all those elections took place under a flawed first-past-the-post system.
British Government loses Article 50 court fight
231–240 of 316 posts
Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight
#232Ultimately a clear majority of the UK population is in favor of leave. This has increased since the vote as the lies of the remain campaign proved not to be true. Much of the remain support is concentrated in a handful of London consistences meaning that almost all english MPs have a significant majority of leave supporters. They have to vote for that or they won't be selected in a future election. In any case. If th…
> This has increased since the vote as the lies of the remain campaign proved not to be true. Just curious as an outsider, what lies are those?
Cameron said he was on the fence and he'd choose how to campaign based on the results of his renegotiation. During campaigning he told the nation it'd be morally wrong to leave the EU, so obviously that was a lie.
Even 4 days before the vote, Cameron was saying the UK could stay in a reformed EU, despite Juncker saying simultaneously that there were no further concessions on offer and despite the Remain campaign choosing not to mention Cameron's "renegotiation" because it had achieved so little.
Osborne: Brexit will make every household exactly £4300 worse off. This figure was quickly dropped by the campaign because it was based on garbage calculations and focus groups showed nobody believed it (too high, too specific, inability to explain where it came from). Moreover it came from the Treasury which Osborne himself had slated as being unfixably politically biased when he first came to government.
Osborne: punishment budget, despite that he must have known that his best mate and political protector Cameron would quit rather than "do the hard shit", as he put it.
Turkey will never join the EU, despite the government's official position being that Turkey should join the EU.
The business uncertainty caused by an out vote will wreck the economy. Reality: all economic indicators not directly controlled by Mark Carney (i.e. devaluation of the currency) are doing fine.
There is no chance of an EU army. In reality an EU army was the very first thing the EU discussed after the Brexit vote.
etc etc etc. There were just tons of statements already proven to be lies thrown around by the pro EU camp, mostly coming from top politicians like the PM and Chancellor. The absolute blindness of EU supporters to this fact is remarkable.
Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such.
I've never seen anyone call this a clear majority, all the news I've read, seen and heard called it close. Anyone who calls this a clear victory or clear majority is kidding themselves.
And yet I believe that words to that effect have been used in parliament.
Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rhetorical question, isn't it. Of course they wouldn't. Support for the EU is deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves: they need to delegate 'complex matters' to elite experts who, of course, only have the people's best interests at heart. The sudden belief that the referendum was only a fancy opinion poll entirely fits with this narrative.
> deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves Of course I believe that. Everyone who isn't a rabid libertarian or anarchist believes that, whichever side of political spectrum they come from. I imagine you believe it too to some degree. In representative democracies we don't rule ourselves, we choose the people who will rule us, which isn't the same thing at all. There's a lot of valid argum…
Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
MP's are in a hard place because of this. The majority of them are pro-remain, having concluded that brexit is damaging and dangerous and cannot result in a better deal. ... but they will be whipped into line by government (Tory) and party leadership (Labour) insisting that they follow the settled will of the clear majority of the people ... but the will of the people is neither settled nor a clear majority.
I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such.
Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they? I thought they could only vote in local authority and European elections. Parliamentary is only British and commonwealth citizens.
Sorry, I was confused because they're allowed to vote in Scottish Parliamentary elections. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registr... "Citizens of EU countries other than the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta cannot vote in UK Parliamentary general elections, but can vote at local government elections, Scottish Parliamentary elections if they are registered in Scotland, National Assem…
Well . . . the reason is pretty much imperialist in nature. In recent history, citizens of those countries (along with citizens of commonwealth countries) were unequivocally citizens of the United Kingdom. When the countries became independent, the UK government chose not to take away those erstwhile citizens' right to vote.
Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
My take on this is that it was a "qualified" majority to "Leave" but no specific plan was outlined as to what "Leave" entailed. "Remain" is easy: Status quo. "Leave" means many different things to many people. In a constitutional republic (such as Ireland for instance) a referendum clearly specifies the change to the constitution down to the wording and an open informed debate is had on what the consequences, and pos…
There was no real way to define what "Leave" means: clearly it means ceasing to be a member of the European Union, and the only means provided for that is Article 50, but beyond that the UK does not have the power to decide unilaterally what "Leave" means (as it requires coming to an agreement with the Council of Europe), and therefore any referendum in the UK could not decide what "Leave" means.
What I mean is, there was a whole sales pitch during the campaign about what it might mean (e.g. more money for the NHS) which we all found out subsequently to be tosh.
Now we have: "Free trade but not free travel" or something to that effect. Never was such detail ever discussed prior to the referendum.
Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight
#238"Well, time to move to another European country... oh wait, they're all economically f* and have no jobs for me.
Well, gonna stay in the UK for a bit longer, see how it goes."
Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the 72.2% turnout[1] it was just 37.5% of the voting-eligible population that voted for Brexit. The whole Brexit saga makes me think more than ever that voting on issues of such national importance (including general elections) should be made mandatory. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/how-did-turnout-a...
Kind of surprised that only 72.2% turned out, given the implications of the vote. When Quebec was voting for sovereignty in 1995, 93.52% of the eligible voters in the province voted. When Scotland voted for the same recently, it was around 85%. In any case though, if people don't want to show up, then why force them? I'd put the 'blame' on the campaigners for not underlining the importance to get out to vote to const…
Re: British Government loses Article 50 court fight
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
The referendum gave the What. Parliament would give the How and When.
The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work. I haven't heard Labour or other parties set out how they want Brexit to work, except the Lib Dems who don't want Brexit to happen at all. If the only plan for Brexit out there is the one the government has, then of course that's the one that is going to be implemented. Parliament does have the opportunity to influence that plan, though.
the whole point is that the government does not get to decide. Even if, as it is likely, the parliament ends up voting for brexit, in the same bill it might constraint how the government is to conduct the negotiations.