High Court rules Parliament must decide on triggering Article 50

[-:Undertaker:-]

@Zak;

Never understood this elitist argument. The general public aren't qualified to make a decision on a single issue in a binary referendum you say but they're qualified at General Election to make a decision that will determine the entire governance of the realm? Huh?

And if you believe most modern Parliamentarians are informed you're very much mistaken. The two main parties are dominated by close-minded cliques at their centres who know nothing of much outside North London. What makes them so qualified and clever? If the threat of a referendum on Euro membership which people would've voted against was never hanging over them back in 2001 then they [the oh so clever politicians] would've took us into the Euro currency. A not-so-clever decision as it transpired.

Parliament voted something like 6 to 1 to give the decision to we the people. They work for us not the other way round.

For 40 years our laws have been made in Brussels, confirmed into British law by Royal prerogative with no debate or cost benefit analysis. https://t.co/IEWA5cmGw0

— Godfrey Bloom (@goddersbloom) November 5, 2016

[dbgtz]

Mr Carswell will vote to abide by the will of the people.

Stop saying the will of the people.
And that is not proof of which way he will vote.

If you think the rhetoric/discourse is turning poisonous now then just see what happens if you try and block our vote.

Yeah because it's been really nice until up to now with the xenophobia and racism. Not saying all leavers are such, but you would be foolish to think there was none.
And there's this nice comparison which was on Reddit:

Incorrect, going by the polling of the last few years you were heading for an even bigger hammering.

Is that why people continuously voted parties which were clearly going to do little about it?

Provided it votes it through.

"It's a good thing if it does what I want".

Enemies of the people, actually.

Not sure if you're just correcting me or actually agreeing with it also.

And in the binary choice we won by 1.3m votes.

Are you telling me MPs should block Article 50?

You've taken what I said to a new meaning. My point was you can't use the result of the referendum to predict the amount of MPs in Parliament who would vote out.

And considering A) MPs were elected to represent us and are actually educated on the matter, absolutely and B) You say 1.3m as if that's a huge number, when in actuality it's only ~2% of the population or ~4% of those who voted. In that context, 1.3m is not a huge number which is supported by recent polling that Remain would win. Using raw figures is bad practice, so stop doing it.

I find it funny when you mention margin of error in a different post when you don't seem to understand GCSE maths?

Also, in your response to Zak, firstly I want to say it was down to Gordon Brown we didn't join the Euro. Probably the only good thing he actually did. But I have to ask, for someone who clearly does not trust our Politicians, why do you advocate for such a strong state? Why do you advocate so hard for FPTP? Why aren't you campaigning for more local powers so that at least those who live in their own area can control what happens? Why are you even for the UK?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Stop saying the will of the people.
And that is not proof of which way he will vote.

It is the will of the people. We had a referendum with very high turnout, remember?

Yeah because it's been really nice until up to now with the xenophobia and racism. Not saying all leavers are such, but you would be foolish to think there was none.

You lost the referendum calling everyone racist or bigoted who believed different and it did you no good then nor will it now.

And there's this nice comparison which was on Reddit:

It was also a common tactic of mass-murdering Communist Russia to constantly compare their detractors to Nazi Germany.

So you compare us to Fascists and I compare you to Communists. Now what?

Is that why people continuously voted parties which were clearly going to do little about it?

But they didn't though, did they? Every single General Election we were treated to the Conservatives and Labour promising to either take back powers from European Union institutions or at the very best to stop transferring more powers. Yet again and again the complete opposite happened which is why Ukip came about and forced a referendum on the issue.

That's why the re-negotiation tactic failed too incase you're wondering. By 2016, your credibility on 'reform' was non-existent.

"It's a good thing if it does what I want".

Correct. Parliament delegated this decision to the British public and we have returned our verdict which must be upheld.

You've taken what I said to a new meaning. My point was you can't use the result of the referendum to predict the amount of MPs in Parliament who would vote out.

I wasn't, I was just pointing out that if we do need to go a General Election then an overwhelming majority of seats have a Leave majority in them around the country. The referendum in the end was called because of a huge disconnect on this issue between MPs and their constituents as evidenced by the gulf of opinion between the people and MPs on this. Hence the referendum.

And considering A) MPs were elected to represent us and are actually educated on the matter, absolutely and B) You say 1.3m as if that's a huge number, when in actuality it's only ~2% of the population or ~4% of those who voted. In that context, 1.3m is not a huge number which is supported by recent polling that Remain would win. Using raw figures is bad practice, so stop doing it.

It doesn't matter whether it was 1,300,000 margin of victory or 100,000. It was 50%+1 carried the day. End of story.

I find it funny when you mention margin of error in a different post when you don't seem to understand GCSE maths?

what

Also, in your response to Zak, firstly I want to say it was down to Gordon Brown we didn't join the Euro. Probably the only good thing he actually did. But I have to ask, for someone who clearly does not trust our Politicians, why do you advocate for such a strong state? Why do you advocate so hard for FPTP? Why aren't you campaigning for more local powers so that at least those who live in their own area can control what happens? Why are you even for the UK?

Firstly Gordon Brown did not prevent us joining, that was a campaign by Business for Sterling.

Secondly what makes you say I advocate for 'such a strong' state?

Thirdly because I believe FPTP is the best voting system.

Fourthly I have said for a long time that we should return to the pre-Local Government Act 1972.

Finally why would I not be the for existence of my country?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sky Sources: Government is preparing the first draft of a new bill to trigger Article 50 and begin the process of exiting the European Union

— Sky News Breaking (@SkyNewsBreak) November 7, 2016

[dbgtz]

It is the will of the people. We had a referendum with very high turnout, remember?

A high turnout with a rather small majority.

You lost the referendum calling everyone racist or bigoted who believed different and it did you no good then nor will it now.

I mean, I did say not every leaver but it's clear some were very xenophobic or racist. On the flip side, some on the remain were clear multiculturalists.
At no point have I ever dismissed someones argument for being as such.

It was also a common tactic of mass-murdering Communist Russia to constantly compare their detractors to Nazi Germany.

So you compare us to Fascists and I compare you to Communists. Now what?

Well, the UK does supposedly have the most fascist movements :¬:
I do think it highlights their clear lack of respect for law though.

But they didn't though, did they? Every single General Election we were treated to the Conservatives and Labour promising to either take back powers from European Union institutions or at the very best to stop transferring more powers. Yet again and again the complete opposite happened which is why Ukip came about and forced a referendum on the issue.

That's why the re-negotiation tactic failed too incase you're wondering. By 2016, your credibility on 'reform' was non-existent.

You know what might have helped? PR :¬:

No but people always bang on about not trusting politicians, so why would you vote those you don't trust?

But let's take a look back starting at 1997.

Labour manifesto 1997
High priority for enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of central and eastern Europe and Cyprus, and the institutional reforms necessary to make an enlarged Europe work more efficiently.
Mentions referendums for: voting system; devolved institutions; something about London; the Euro. Nothing on the EU as a whole.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab97.htm

Labour manifesto 2001
The Conservative policy of opposing the enlargement of Europe in the Nice Treaty and their pledge to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s EU membership is dangerous and ill thought-out.
Same referendum promises except for the one about London it seems.
http://www.politicsresources.net/are.../lab/lab01.htm

Labour manifesto 2005
We will continue to lead European defence cooperation.
Again, no referendum on the EU itself.
http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/tut...sto%202005.pdf

Conservative 2010.
No mention of a referendum on leaving the EU, only:
We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.
The Lib Dem manifesto goes without saying they did not want it.

Only in the Conservative 2015 manifesto is an in/out referendum actually mentioned.

Correct. Parliament delegated this decision to the British public and we have returned our verdict which must be upheld.

In a non binding vote. Please show me where it legally must be upheld.

I wasn't, I was just pointing out that if we do need to go a General Election then an overwhelming majority of seats have a Leave majority in them around the country. The referendum in the end was called because of a huge disconnect on this issue between MPs and their constituents as evidenced by the gulf of opinion between the people and MPs on this. Hence the referendum.

Was it? Or was it called because David Cameron wanted to unite his party and be PM for another 4 years? Or maybe because the public were very much mislead on certain parts (from both sides)?

I'm going to pose a hypothetical to you now. Let's say tomorrow, there's a referendum held on the type of processors in PCs. It is held because a group said that x86 architecture was outdated and that ARM architecture should be adopted.
Do you those who don't actually know anything about these should be able to vote on it?

It doesn't matter whether it was 1,300,000 margin of victory or 100,000. It was 50%+1 carried the day. End of story.

It kind of does when people's opinions are volatile. It does matter when the decision is actually irreversible in our current deal. It does matter when that one vote could have simply been a miscount.

what

Nae bother.

Firstly Gordon Brown did not prevent us joining, that was a campaign by Business for Sterling.

Secondly what makes you say I advocate for 'such a strong' state?

Thirdly because I believe FPTP is the best voting system.

Fourthly I have said for a long time that we should return to the pre-Local Government Act 1972.

Finally why would I not be the for existence of my country?

Going to need a source on that first point. I see no mention of that whatsoever. I mean, the tests for the Euro existed before that pressure group so I'm not sure exactly what your point is. And if Labour did stick to their manifesto, then we'd have got a referendum on the Euro.

Sorry, when I said strong state I mean a strong party in power. Miscommunication on my end. I do feel like this is getting slightly off topic at this point though and honestly I want to go watch my show now lmao

[-:Undertaker:-]

A high turnout with a rather small majority.

A 4% victory is by far enough, as would be 0.5%.

I mean, I did say not every leaver but it's clear some were very xenophobic or racist. On the flip side, some on the remain were clear multiculturalists.

At no point have I ever dismissed someones argument for being as such.

The fact you brought it up is you using it as a slur. But nevertheless it doesn't even matter of 1%, 5% or 20% of those who voting Leave were fascist, racist or the spawn of Hitler himself. We all had one vote each in the referendum.

Well, the UK does supposedly have the most fascist movements :¬:
I do think it highlights their clear lack of respect for law though.

Lack of respect for the law... or a story just made up on Twitter?

https://twitter.com/i/moments/795625410432299008

You know what might have helped? PR :¬:

As a constitutionalist I do not feel the need to meddle with the constitution in order to achieve my goals.

No but people always bang on about not trusting politicians, so why would you vote those you don't trust?

We both understand the power of the tribal vote. In many ways, the true feeling of euroscepticism in this country has been hidden for many years given the establishment agreement on it. The referendum showed us the true feeling.

But let's take a look back starting at 1997.

Labour manifesto 1997
High priority for enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of central and eastern Europe and Cyprus, and the institutional reforms necessary to make an enlarged Europe work more efficiently.
Mentions referendums for: voting system; devolved institutions; something about London; the Euro. Nothing on the EU as a whole.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab97.htm

Labour manifesto 2001
The Conservative policy of opposing the enlargement of Europe in the Nice Treaty and their pledge to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s EU membership is dangerous and ill thought-out.
Same referendum promises except for the one about London it seems.
http://www.politicsresources.net/are.../lab/lab01.htm

Labour manifesto 2005
We will continue to lead European defence cooperation.
Again, no referendum on the EU itself.
http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/tut...sto%202005.pdf

Conservative 2010.
No mention of a referendum on leaving the EU, only:
We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.
The Lib Dem manifesto goes without saying they did not want it.

Only in the Conservative 2015 manifesto is an in/out referendum actually mentioned.

I was not referring to an in/out referendum I was referring to numerous pledges on powers going to EU institutions. From the very start we were told it was a mere trading arrangement and no sovereignty would be lost. Then the Single European Act. Then Nice. Then Amsterdam. Then Maastricht. Then Lisbon. For the last forty years the European Union has acquired powers from our sovereign Parliament without explicit agreement from the British public or done so under a pretext of lies (oh its just a tidying up exercise. oh it's just about trade) and we rejected it in June.

In a non binding vote. Please show me where it legally must be upheld.

Legally Parliament doesn't have to abide by anything and could rip up constitutional documents like the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Acts of Union and Acts of Succession. Legally if it so wished, it could legislate for an end to elections, to behead the Queen, to abolish the Supreme Court and to build a giant pink elephant in London. Parliament is sovereign so legally and hypothetically it has the powers to do as it wishes.

However Parliament is bound (in an uncodified manner) both morally and by convention to uphold certain things such as the Magna Carta. Such as the Bill of Rights. And, more recently, the results of referendums that it puts to the people itself in Acts of Parliament as the EU referendum was. So yes, strictly legally and hypothetically Parliament can do as it wishes however Parliament ultimately has to abide by certain constraints unless it wants to follow Charles I or Louis XVI.

Was it? Or was it called because David Cameron wanted to unite his party and be PM for another 4 years? Or maybe because the public were very much mislead on certain parts (from both sides)?

And why did he have to unite his party?

Oliver Letwin: Cameron had no choice but to promise the EU referendum. Politics Home interview with @MLeftly https://t.co/4vJO0lIudN pic.twitter.com/i3NNNVTOWA

— John Rentoul (@JohnRentoul) November 6, 2016

I'm going to pose a hypothetical to you now. Let's say tomorrow, there's a referendum held on the type of processors in PCs. It is held because a group said that x86 architecture was outdated and that ARM architecture should be adopted.

Do you those who don't actually know anything about these should be able to vote on it?

Processors in computers isn't a constitutional/national issue of huge importance so.... no.

It kind of does when people's opinions are volatile. It does matter when the decision is actually irreversible in our current deal. It does matter when that one vote could have simply been a miscount.

Luckily it was a 1,300,000 winning margin then.

Going to need a source on that first point. I see no mention of that whatsoever. I mean, the tests for the Euro existed before that pressure group so I'm not sure exactly what your point is. And if Labour did stick to their manifesto, then we'd have got a referendum on the Euro.

You'll need to check out books on the history of Euroscepticism for that.

And surely you'd have been against a referendum on the Euro given most common people in your eyes are simply too stupid to decide on such matters. So as a result, the oh so clever experts would have taken us in. Great!

Sorry, when I said strong state I mean a strong party in power. Miscommunication on my end. I do feel like this is getting slightly off topic at this point though and honestly I want to go watch my show now lmao

I don't believe I have ever advocated for a strong party in power merely one that will respond to public opinion and which will stand up for the country against those seeking to do it harm. Domestically I have always rallied against a big state whether it be on detention without trial, terror laws, spying, extradition warrants, secret courts, gun legislation, free speech prosecutions and so on and so forth.

[Lucy]

I don't understand the small majority argument, if its declared a majority then that is what it is. If in an election a government has a majority even if its small it is still a majority. For example our "fantastic" Australian government only have a majority of 4 seats but they don't let us forget its a majority government.

[FlyingJesus]

My team lost 4-3 at the weekend, gonna petition the league to let us do it again because it was close