Article 50 decision imminent! Parliament could vote.

Original post by RF_PineMarten

The remain side were responsible for lies and misleading claims as well. I don't see how the state of the media has any relevance to this, considering the problems are on both sides of the debate. And politicians are likely to fall for them as well, whichever side they're on.

I really wish this argument would just die already. It completely ignores that the majority of politicians are not likely to be any more "qualified" than a lot of the public on any one particular issue.

If the public are "too stupid" to vote on stuff then so are most politicians. This whole idea of "people are too stupid to know what's best so they should let politicians (their betters) do it" is incredibly insulting and it's the wrong attitude to have. It's basically the remain camp blaming the voters themselves for their own side's failure to win voters over. A hell of a lot of people out there care about current affairs and are capable of making an informed decision, far more than certain people are giving credit for.

One way to test the limits of the acceptability of the referendum tool as a means of government in Britain is to ask if it would be possible to have a referendum on the banks, for example, "no more taxpayer support for banks in difficulty" - our government and all of the right wing Brexit-backing Tories would as one person be unanimous in their rejection of such a preposterous scheme.

As with all these things, the referendum is handy when you have whipped the population into hysteria over some nationalist scheme or other, rather than as a sensible means of national decision making over the things that count.

We are being asked to kowtow to the Tory hard right, which is a TINY minority, not even most Tory voters would really support leaving the Single Market if they knew what it would actually mean to the economic future.

The referendum means that flippin' idiots like Duncan-Smith and the like are dictating our national agenda because he's got foreign press tycoons who don't give a monkey's arse about our real interests on his roster.

Reply 102

Willy Pete

Original post by QE2

Travel insurance will become more expensive to cover the portion currently covered by the EHIC.

How much more expensive?

I currently pay about £20 a year for my travel insurance in Europe.

Reply 103

SonOfNineMothers

Original post by stoltguyboo

That Gina woman is vile.

Remoaners should accept the result they are beginning to sound like the SNP! Referendums and more referendums until they get the result they want.

Liberal Democrats are repulsive.

Disgraceful display.

Lol!!!!!!!

another clueless and hypocritical brextwit. u wanted our sovereignty back didn't you ? So that's exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled, that the article must be triggered in the correct, democratic way and that Theresa may cant just do it herself like a dictator. funny how these brextwits don't like democracy or national sovereignty when it doesn't suit them!

Reply 104

Original post by SonOfNineMothers

It's still a bit pointless. They've gone through all the hassle of legal fees to make a point about parliamentary sovereignty, which, in truth, is just a smokescreen for their attempt to frustrate the referendum result, only for Article 50 to be triggered anyway through a huge majority decision in parliament. It was going to be triggered either way, so I genuinely don't see any point. It will only strengthen the mandate for Brexit.

Reply 105

LGBTvoice

Anyone with a basic understanding of Parliamentary Sovereignty will understand how today's ruling is necessary. It is by no means a way to stop Brexit, it is to decide how it will come about. Under the doctrines of Parliamentary Supremacy, Parliament has the power to create and end any law, except one which will bind a future Parliament. Theresa May would like a "hard" Brexit and so one in which we cannot enter the EU again - this was repeated many times during the campaign and so is a hard truth of the referendum result. Therefore, creating such a legislation is binding future Parliaments as they will not be able to unmake or change the law which has been made. Therefore, this has had to go through the HOC to ensure this DOESN'T happen and because Parliament as one is supreme compared to Theresa May herself. We are a democracy, not a dictatorship. Parliament call the shots in this country, not one leader with "power".

Reply 106

Original post by Fullofsurprises

We are being asked to kowtow to the Tory hard right, which is a TINY minority, not even most Tory voters would really support leaving the Single Market if they knew what it would actually mean to the economic future.

Not really. You need to get outside your metropolitan elite bubble.

Out there in the country, opinion has swung even further against you, I am afraid. 57% of voters now support leaving the Single Market.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/18/public-back-brexit-plan-think-eu-will-nix-it/

Suck it up, Remainer buttercup. :biggrin:

Reply 107

nulli tertius

Original post by richpanda

The 2 main backers of the legal bid weren't even born here!

Neither was the leader of Vote Leave!

Reply 108

Original post by astutehirstute

It isn't metropolitan or elitist to want British industry, economy and people to do well. Leaving the Single Market will progressively destroy the first two and impoverish the third.

People are currently fooled by the temporary economic bubble caused by very cheap money from the B of E and the surge in liquidity they performed after the vote. The economic writing is already firmly on the wall - profits are looking down in many corporate sectors over the coming year for example and pretty much everyone outside the Tory Party is predicting a sharp slowdown. The polls simply reflect the current false optimism.

Reply 109

Original post by Willy Pete

How much more expensive?

I currently pay about £20 a year for my travel insurance in Europe.

Get ready for Visa application forms from every EU country as well, not to mention arbitrary blocks because for example there simply aren't enough customs people in the country to cover the ports, so they will periodically have to shut the Channel Tunnel, Gatwick, etc.

Reply 110

Willy Pete

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Actually, I have dual citizenship with Ireland so I can still travel freely and I still have to buy that insurance because extreme sports requires additional cover.

Not really my problem.

Reply 111

Sephiroth

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Get ready for Visa application forms from every EU country as well

Really? Have you ever travelled anywhere? I have been to a lot of countries outside Europe and I have not needed to apply for a Visa for any of them.

And travel insurance going up? By what, pennies? I mean you can currently get an annual worldwide travel insurance policy for under £20.

As for the topic itself, this court case was a massive waste of money. Theresa May should have given MPs a vote from the start because no MP worth their salt will vote against a referendum result.

Reply 112

Original post by Fullofsurprises

As a defender of the working classes (I'm assuming you are from most of your posts), do you not think they would significantly benefit from us leaving the common external tariff? Poorer people spend most of their income on food and clothes, which will become substantially cheaper outside of the customs union. Why do you advocate protectionism when it makes everyone poorer?

Reply 113

Original post by midnightice

I don't know how you get there. Outside the CU and the SM, we are on WTO rules and that means import tariffs on just about everything, including many common foodstuffs.

Not to mention that a large slice of British farming output is about to head south as they lose subsidies and cheap E. European crop pickers, leading to inevitable price increases as shortages kick in.

TBH, parts of what happens post-departure will be more like the rationing after the war than a wave of abundance.

Reply 114

Original post by Fullofsurprises

It isn't metropolitan or elitist to want British industry, economy and people to do well. Leaving the Single Market will progressively destroy the first two and impoverish the third.

It is metropolitan elitist to argue for what is in the best interests of the metropolitan elite. No?

Are you really that worried that it will be harder for them to find a Portugese nanny, Romanian builder and Polish cleaner?

You seem to have some cognitive dissonance going on in which Brexit is being driven by evil right wing Tories and capitalists in top hats smoking cigars.

The court case we are discussing today was brought by a hedge fund wife.
Most of the top hatted capitalists (most of the Tory Party pre the referendum!) are on your side of the argument. Along with the Eurocrats and establishment politicians running Europe.

Brexit was a bottom up revolution, of the poor and oppressed. The left behind, those whom the metropolitan elite thought they could tell what was best for them.

Just like you are doing now.

Reply 115

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Outside of the CU we would be on WTO rules with the EU, yes, that's what constitutes 'Hard Brexit'. We will not be seeking this 'Hard Brexit', instead a 'Medium Brexit' (stupid terminology, I know) where we will keep tariffs free for EU exports to the UK and vice versa. I hoped we would join EFTA but it looks like we will be doing this sector-by-sector in a deal from scratch. This will be a big issue for the WTO and they will want a comprehensive FTA between the EU and the UK for their 'substantially all trade' principle to stop discrimination in just a few sectors.

The whole point of Brexit for many liberals is that we can rejoin the WTO and start removing tariffs from outside the EU. In the most extreme form, we could opt for unilateral free trade, which would pretty much destroy British agriculture, but of course for the benefit of the consumer. The customs union continues to impoverish many African farmers wishing to sell their produce into European markets; it's about time we paved the path.

I don't understand why you think, even in the extreme case of WTO rules with the EU, we can't benefit from reducing tariffs outside of the EU.

Reply 116

Original post by Fullofsurprises

TBH, parts of what happens post-departure will be more like the rationing after the war than a wave of abundance.

This is just nonsense. I am sorry.

You are going more and more over the top. First there was bizarre post which seemed to portray Farage leering over a malfunctioning Trident missile.

Now you are predicting some kind of second Irish Potato famine because we are leaving the dreadful CAP. :rolleyes:

Calm yourself. You can't seriously believe this?????

Reply 117

nulli tertius

Original post by astutehirstute

Brexit was a bottom up revolution, of the poor and oppressed. The left behind, those whom the metropolitan elite thought they could tell what was best for them.

The ones who are going to shafted. The ones who though there would be less immigration:-

Theresa May and Donald Trump to hold talks on trade deal that cuts tariffs and allows workers to move between the US and UK
Daily Telegraph
Britain must relax immigration rules for Australians if it wants a free trade deal, says high commissioner to UK
The Independent
Theresa May urged to accept more skilled Indian workers to help trade deal
The Guardian
The environment secretary says she is "absolutely committed" to ensuring that British farmers have access to migrant workers after Brexit.
BBC
In other words the UK intends to exercise its sovereignty, and of course that is what the Brexiteers said it was about, sovereignty not numbers of immigrants, to let more folk in as long as they are not from the hated EU.

Reply 118

Original post by nulli tertius

Polls show huge public favourability of skilled migration from English-speaking countries. Not sure what point you're making.

Reply 119