Brexit or Britin

[Prufrock]

No-one is saying it's advisory in the sense you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It's advisory in the sense it didn't provide a mechanism that automatically takes us out. That now needs to happen.

You accept we are for now in the EU, yes? So we need to leave and we need to figure out what leave means. Does it mean no immigration and WTO rules, does it mean Norway style, or somewhere in between?

So who do you think should answer that question?

The electorate answered that question on the 23rd June. There were no levels of Brexit mentioned on the ballot so I'm sure it doesn't need spelling out. Therefore, everyone who voted to leave voted for total exit from the corrupt heap of shite otherwise known as the EU in the full knowledge that there may be a downside as well as an upside to the divorce. You see, it was a matter of principle to leavers. Obviously not a concept that politicians and lawyers are too familiar with.

No they didn't and no it wasn't. You might have done but Dan Hannah and plenty of others didn't.

Leaving the EU is the question that was answered, nothing more, nothing less.

[Worthy4England]

No-one is saying it's advisory in the sense you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It's advisory in the sense it didn't provide a mechanism that automatically takes us out. That now needs to happen.

You accept we are for now in the EU, yes? So we need to leave and we need to figure out what leave means. Does it mean no immigration and WTO rules, does it mean Norway style, or somewhere in between?

So who do you think should answer that question?

The electorate answered that question on the 23rd June. There were no levels of Brexit mentioned on the ballot so I'm sure it doesn't need spelling out. Therefore, everyone who voted to leave voted for total exit from the corrupt heap of shite otherwise known as the EU in the full knowledge that there may be a downside as well as an upside to the divorce. You see, it was a matter of principle to leavers. Obviously not a concept that politicians and lawyers are too familiar with.

No they didn't and no it wasn't. You might have done but Dan Hannah and plenty of others didn't.

Leaving the EU is the question that was answered, nothing more, nothing less.

From the remain side, I've always said I was fine with the result and we should leave. This ruling isn't saying we can't. As us snowflakes have been told. Get over it and stop whinging.

One of the big asks of Leave was to get our law lords doing a job under our Sovereignty. You should all be out partying.

Great quote from Brexit Secretary David Davis: "The judges have laid out what we can't do and not exactly what we can do, but we are presuming it requires an act of Parliament." - I do hope he's not suggesting it's a bad thing not to lay out a bit more detail...

[Hoboh]

I was happy to remain in Europe up to the referendum. However, the attitude of these European leaders since June has really got my back up. The big EU country leaders have pretty much said that they will punish us for having the temerity to vote leave. Not just that it will be difficult but to deliberately punish us.

If we had another vote, I would vote to leave. Feck em all.

I'm well with you on this one, if some of the sauerkrauts want to punish us then by all means slap a 50% import tax on their cars and spares, Merkel would be gone in a flash, same with the Frogs and we could take back control of our services from them.
Poland and other places would love thousands of their exports to come home to the dole queues.
Yes they would try it back on us, we'd survive and I'd suggest they keep one eye over their shoulder at what Putin would get up to in such a scenario.
In all honesty I fail to see what the continent has that we don't except a bit more sun and as I understand it the rising temperatures due to global warming will mean the bastards will be in a hurry to get here.
The EU is a dead man walking and when they cause enough bother with Russia, feck um!

[Worthy4England]

You don't believe in global warming, remember...

[Hoboh]

You don't believe in global warming, remember...

Always have believed in climate change, just not that we cause it, it's a natural thing.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

No-one is saying it's advisory in the sense you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It's advisory in the sense it didn't provide a mechanism that automatically takes us out. That now needs to happen.

You accept we are for now in the EU, yes? So we need to leave and we need to figure out what leave means. Does it mean no immigration and WTO rules, does it mean Norway style, or somewhere in between?

So who do you think should answer that question?

The electorate answered that question on the 23rd June. There were no levels of Brexit mentioned on the ballot so I'm sure it doesn't need spelling out. Therefore, everyone who voted to leave voted for total exit from the corrupt heap of shite otherwise known as the EU in the full knowledge that there may be a downside as well as an upside to the divorce. You see, it was a matter of principle to leavers. Obviously not a concept that politicians and lawyers are too familiar with.

I think we should be leaving and I think the so called hard Brexit is probably the option many leave voters had in mind. That said a lot of promises (or likely interpreted as such) were made by leading leave campaigners that were tantamount to having cake and eating it. So I'm not sure we can assume everyone did vote for a hard Brexit. I think there needs to be a debate and some level of consensus on where we go from here. We either have that in Parliament, a referendum or general election. Anything else would be undemocratic and personally think extra referendums would be a waste of everyone's time.

We should leave, it shouldn't be a fudge, but it also shouldn't be completely decided by a political party with 27%? of the electorate behind it and one with a PM not even voted into power by her own party.

[bedwetter2]

No-one is saying it's advisory in the sense you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It's advisory in the sense it didn't provide a mechanism that automatically takes us out. That now needs to happen.

You accept we are for now in the EU, yes? So we need to leave and we need to figure out what leave means. Does it mean no immigration and WTO rules, does it mean Norway style, or somewhere in between?

So who do you think should answer that question?

I notice that you didn't mention the comments of some MPs, particularly Labour and the little LibDems but also some Tories who continue to agitate for a second referendum. Hence my comments regarding Stephen Kinnock of the Kinnock EU dynasty. Do you really think that these MPs will not get up to as much mischief as possible through delay and worse?

Regarding the advisory, I don't think anyone would believe that the UK could leave the EU without enacting legislation (May's Great Reform Bill?). So it wouldn't be automatic anyway. However the intent and result of the referendum should be binding.

Let's not kid ourselves. There was a very popular reason for many to vote Leave:- reducing immigration. And so, as I wrote earlier, I doubt there was little equivocation by voters as to what they wanted and expected. A full divorce was implied and understood. That would mean no single market/paying fees for access, no customs union, no obligations to the EU whatsoever in existing or mooted treaties, no free movement of EU citizens across the UK border unless it suits the UK via a work permit system requiring UK based sponsors, no further jurisdiction for the European Court, etc.

Now I'm not dumb enough to think that some negotiation may temper some of the above if it suit the UK but we have plenty of things which we could do as a country to make life really difficult for the EU if threats continue. With regards to our stance on tariffs there is no way that the Government should be disclosing tactics in advance of talks, nor the ways in which we could tweak standards to stop the import of certain goods.

You didn't answer my query as to why an economically motivated individual should believe she has the right to interfere with the will of the people and the Government through the courts with the venal legal profession.

[Hoboh]

The true face of snowflake remainers.

An NHS worker provoked fury last night after she wished illnesses on the children of Brexiteers live on BBC One's Question Time show.
Nicola Gorb, 47, a language and speech therapist at Great Ormond Street children's hospital, now faces calls to be sacked.
Introduced by David Dimbleby as 'the woman shaking her head', she told the panel she is 'very much a Remainer' who believes that Brexit will impair medical research and funding.
And amid gasps from the audience, the self-proclaimed 'professional anti-Brexiter', from Watford, said: 'I want people who are leaving to one day unfortunately have a child who needs that treatment but it's not there because collaboration's not been there'.
Great Ormond Street distanced themselves from Ms Gorb's comments - but it is a PR disaster for the hospital, which relies on charitable donations to deliver its world class care for unwell children.

Look at me, me, me, me.
Rich bitch with a need to self promote.

[Prufrock]

No-one is saying it's advisory in the sense you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It's advisory in the sense it didn't provide a mechanism that automatically takes us out. That now needs to happen.

You accept we are for now in the EU, yes? So we need to leave and we need to figure out what leave means. Does it mean no immigration and WTO rules, does it mean Norway style, or somewhere in between?

So who do you think should answer that question?

I notice that you didn't mention the comments of some MPs, particularly Labour and the little LibDems but also some Tories who continue to agitate for a second referendum. Hence my comments regarding Stephen Kinnock of the Kinnock EU dynasty. Do you really think that these MPs will not get up to as much mischief as possible through delay and worse?

Regarding the advisory, I don't think anyone would believe that the UK could leave the EU without enacting legislation (May's Great Reform Bill?). So it wouldn't be automatic anyway. However the intent and result of the referendum should be binding.

Let's not kid ourselves. There was a very popular reason for many to vote Leave:- reducing immigration. And so, as I wrote earlier, I doubt there was little equivocation by voters as to what they wanted and expected. A full divorce was implied and understood. That would mean no single market/paying fees for access, no customs union, no obligations to the EU whatsoever in existing or mooted treaties, no free movement of EU citizens across the UK border unless it suits the UK via a work permit system requiring UK based sponsors, no further jurisdiction for the European Court, etc.

Now I'm not dumb enough to think that some negotiation may temper some of the above if it suit the UK but we have plenty of things which we could do as a country to make life really difficult for the EU if threats continue. With regards to our stance on tariffs there is no way that the Government should be disclosing tactics in advance of talks, nor the ways in which we could tweak standards to stop the import of certain goods.

You didn't answer my query as to why an economically motivated individual should believe she has the right to interfere with the will of the people and the Government through the courts with the venal legal profession.

Well great, but you've just made all of that up; it's supposition and convenient guess-work. That wasn't the question asked and it wasn't the answer given.

There are plenty of people for whom immigration was not the main (if any) factor. The whole libertarian Tory right and plenty in the City who want us in the single market but without the CJEU and EU legal system and not only don't care about cutting immigration but actively want it to remain high so they have a cheap workforce. Then you have plenty in between who want some caps on immigration but would like to keep trade and would happily compromise on some elements of immigration policy to keep the majority of trade. You have absolutely no basis for claiming a mandate for a Farage wet-dream two-fingers up to Europe policy, particularly given the closeness of the vote. It doesn't take many Dan Hannan's to put Farage on the wrong side of the line. There is no way at all of knowing what the "average" Leave voter wanted.

So somebody has to decide where on the spectrum our exit lies. Are we Norway or North Korea. Who has the competence to do that? Only Parliament. Certainly not a PM who is both by her own definition, and that of the whining Leavers, "unelected".

The judgment in no way "interfered with the will of the people". It simply decided who is responsible for carrying out that will. The referendum still said out, Govt. policy is still to take us out, all that was decided was, correctly, that that Govt. policy (like almost all Govt. policy ever) must proceed via the Parliamentary process.

Gina Miller believed that she had the right to bring a JR because, well... given the court heard the thing in the first place, I'll leave you to figure out why.

As for any MPs who vote against it, good luck to them at the next GE. If the Govt. lose a vote in Parliament against a sensible triggering of Art.50 I'll plat sawdust, before joining you on the barricades complaining about how our MPs are a bunch of tossers and how we need to take back control or something.

[Worthy4England]

Funny, innit. Most people didn't have immigration as their "popular reason" to leave prior to the referendum. They tried to say it was anything but.

The referendum question was quite clear as BW2 says - should we leave the EU, yes or no. It wasn't should we leave to reduce immigration nor should we leave because the EU is run by crooks nor should we leave so we can give the NHS £350m a week extra. The level below that wasn't tested in any way shape or form. And no one including the eloquent BW2 can say much different other than an opinion.

Leave asked on many occasions what shape leave would take - no one clearly articulated it. Under the terms of the referendum Leaving the EU and retaining free movement is just as valid as leaving the EU and not retaining free movement.

If it was about immigration, surely the question would have been something like "Should the UK reduce immigration?"

[Hoboh]

Funny, innit. Most people didn't have immigration as their "popular reason" to leave prior to the referendum. They tried to say it was anything but.

The referendum question was quite clear as BW2 says - should we leave the EU, yes or no. It wasn't should we leave to reduce immigration nor should we leave because the EU is run by crooks nor should we leave so we can give the NHS £350m a week extra. The level below that wasn't tested in any way shape or form. And no one including the eloquent BW2 can say much different other than an opinion.

Leave asked on many occasions what shape leave would take - no one clearly articulated it. Under the terms of the referendum Leaving the EU and retaining free movement is just as valid as leaving the EU and not retaining free movement.

If it was about immigration, surely the question would have been something like "Should the UK reduce immigration?"

More to do with 'decide' our future and what we do without some garlic muncher telling us or interfering.

[Worthy4England]

Funny, innit. Most people didn't have immigration as their "popular reason" to leave prior to the referendum. They tried to say it was anything but.

The referendum question was quite clear as BW2 says - should we leave the EU, yes or no. It wasn't should we leave to reduce immigration nor should we leave because the EU is run by crooks nor should we leave so we can give the NHS £350m a week extra. The level below that wasn't tested in any way shape or form. And no one including the eloquent BW2 can say much different other than an opinion.

Leave asked on many occasions what shape leave would take - no one clearly articulated it. Under the terms of the referendum Leaving the EU and retaining free movement is just as valid as leaving the EU and not retaining free movement.

If it was about immigration, surely the question would have been something like "Should the UK reduce immigration?"

More to do with 'decide' our future and what we do without some garlic muncher telling us or interfering.

Thanks for illustrating my point wonderfully well. BW2, speaking on behalf of Brexiteer's everywhere said it was all about immigration. So really you're not all agreed what was the main point.

[bedwetter2]

Funny, innit. Most people didn't have immigration as their "popular reason" to leave prior to the referendum. They tried to say it was anything but.

The referendum question was quite clear as BW2 says - should we leave the EU, yes or no. It wasn't should we leave to reduce immigration nor should we leave because the EU is run by crooks nor should we leave so we can give the NHS £350m a week extra. The level below that wasn't tested in any way shape or form. And no one including the eloquent BW2 can say much different other than an opinion.

Leave asked on many occasions what shape leave would take - no one clearly articulated it. Under the terms of the referendum Leaving the EU and retaining free movement is just as valid as leaving the EU and not retaining free movement.

If it was about immigration, surely the question would have been something like "Should the UK reduce immigration?"

More to do with 'decide' our future and what we do without some garlic muncher telling us or interfering.

Thanks for illustrating my point wonderfully well. BW2, speaking on behalf of Brexiteer's everywhere said it was all about immigration. So really you're not all agreed what was the main point.

I suspect the C2s, Ds and Es believed it to be all about immigration as they are the ones most likely to be affected by immigration in their communities. There were plenty of vox pops on tv which indicated just that.

[Worthy4England]

Funny, innit. Most people didn't have immigration as their "popular reason" to leave prior to the referendum. They tried to say it was anything but.

The referendum question was quite clear as BW2 says - should we leave the EU, yes or no. It wasn't should we leave to reduce immigration nor should we leave because the EU is run by crooks nor should we leave so we can give the NHS £350m a week extra. The level below that wasn't tested in any way shape or form. And no one including the eloquent BW2 can say much different other than an opinion.

Leave asked on many occasions what shape leave would take - no one clearly articulated it. Under the terms of the referendum Leaving the EU and retaining free movement is just as valid as leaving the EU and not retaining free movement.

If it was about immigration, surely the question would have been something like "Should the UK reduce immigration?"

More to do with 'decide' our future and what we do without some garlic muncher telling us or interfering.

Thanks for illustrating my point wonderfully well. BW2, speaking on behalf of Brexiteer's everywhere said it was all about immigration. So really you're not all agreed what was the main point.

I suspect the C2s, Ds and Es believed it to be all about immigration as they are the ones most likely to be affected by immigration in their communities. There were plenty of vox pops on tv which indicated just that.

But you would agree that immigration in itself wasn't actually tested? So under the terms of the referendum, Leaving EU and retaining some Free Movement has as much validity as any other "plan"...

[bedwetter2]

No-one is saying it's advisory in the sense you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It's advisory in the sense it didn't provide a mechanism that automatically takes us out. That now needs to happen.

You accept we are for now in the EU, yes? So we need to leave and we need to figure out what leave means. Does it mean no immigration and WTO rules, does it mean Norway style, or somewhere in between?

So who do you think should answer that question?

I notice that you didn't mention the comments of some MPs, particularly Labour and the little LibDems but also some Tories who continue to agitate for a second referendum. Hence my comments regarding Stephen Kinnock of the Kinnock EU dynasty. Do you really think that these MPs will not get up to as much mischief as possible through delay and worse?

Regarding the advisory, I don't think anyone would believe that the UK could leave the EU without enacting legislation (May's Great Reform Bill?). So it wouldn't be automatic anyway. However the intent and result of the referendum should be binding.

Let's not kid ourselves. There was a very popular reason for many to vote Leave:- reducing immigration. And so, as I wrote earlier, I doubt there was little equivocation by voters as to what they wanted and expected. A full divorce was implied and understood. That would mean no single market/paying fees for access, no customs union, no obligations to the EU whatsoever in existing or mooted treaties, no free movement of EU citizens across the UK border unless it suits the UK via a work permit system requiring UK based sponsors, no further jurisdiction for the European Court, etc.

Now I'm not dumb enough to think that some negotiation may temper some of the above if it suit the UK but we have plenty of things which we could do as a country to make life really difficult for the EU if threats continue. With regards to our stance on tariffs there is no way that the Government should be disclosing tactics in advance of talks, nor the ways in which we could tweak standards to stop the import of certain goods.

You didn't answer my query as to why an economically motivated individual should believe she has the right to interfere with the will of the people and the Government through the courts with the venal legal profession.

Well great, but you've just made all of that up; it's supposition and convenient guess-work. That wasn't the question asked and it wasn't the answer given.

There are plenty of people for whom immigration was not the main (if any) factor. The whole libertarian Tory right and plenty in the City who want us in the single market but without the CJEU and EU legal system and not only don't care about cutting immigration but actively want it to remain high so they have a cheap workforce. Then you have plenty in between who want some caps on immigration but would like to keep trade and would happily compromise on some elements of immigration policy to keep the majority of trade. You have absolutely no basis for claiming a mandate for a Farage wet-dream two-fingers up to Europe policy, particularly given the closeness of the vote. It doesn't take many Dan Hannan's to put Farage on the wrong side of the line. There is no way at all of knowing what the "average" Leave voter wanted.

So somebody has to decide where on the spectrum our exit lies. Are we Norway or North Korea. Who has the competence to do that? Only Parliament. Certainly not a PM who is both by her own definition, and that of the whining Leavers, "unelected".

The judgment in no way "interfered with the will of the people". It simply decided who is responsible for carrying out that will. The referendum still said out, Govt. policy is still to take us out, all that was decided was, correctly, that that Govt. policy (like almost all Govt. policy ever) must proceed via the Parliamentary process.

Gina Miller believed that she had the right to bring a JR because, well... given the court heard the thing in the first place, I'll leave you to figure out why.

As for any MPs who vote against it, good luck to them at the next GE. If the Govt. lose a vote in Parliament against a sensible triggering of Art.50 I'll plat sawdust, before joining you on the barricades complaining about how our MPs are a bunch of tossers and how we need to take back control or something.

Super. You have set my mind to rest with your comprehensive and knowledgeable response. Apart from.....

How many persons fall into the categories of senior city boys (the bosses, not the underlings) or the Tory libertarian right may I ask? I'll wager it is more than one and less than 100,000. Their views are probably somewhat different to the larger part of the Leave vote. As are those of Owen Smith who admitted on the Politics thing with Andrew Neil today the he will vote against Article 50 and is still banging on about a second referendum, the nice person. Polly Toynbee is, I'm sure, one of your heros and has advised MPs to ignore the referendum result. The nice person. Despite your protestations that no one would be mad enough to ignore their constituents or the population at large.

"Keep trade" - that is another one which has been brought up by Remoaners. Do you believe that trade is conducted between governments or is it actually between companies and individuals? Trade will continue between the EU and the UK regardless and it is the terms need to be settled. I suppose the EU cutting off it's nose to spite it's face when it has a trade surplus with the UK is unlikely but not impossible.

The judgement did interfere with the will of the people as expressed in the referendum vote firstly by adding potential delay to the process, secondly by causing further uncertainty to commercial operations. It also, as I understand it, added the need for a further layer of legislation on top of that required to remove the existing European Act from the statute book before notice of Article 50 is given to the EU. The competence must lie with the executive and not with Parliament because it will be those in power at the time who will carry the can if things go horribly askew.

Oh, by the way, plait has an i in it. Innit bruv.

[bedwetter2]

Funny, innit. Most people didn't have immigration as their "popular reason" to leave prior to the referendum. They tried to say it was anything but.

The referendum question was quite clear as BW2 says - should we leave the EU, yes or no. It wasn't should we leave to reduce immigration nor should we leave because the EU is run by crooks nor should we leave so we can give the NHS £350m a week extra. The level below that wasn't tested in any way shape or form. And no one including the eloquent BW2 can say much different other than an opinion.

Leave asked on many occasions what shape leave would take - no one clearly articulated it. Under the terms of the referendum Leaving the EU and retaining free movement is just as valid as leaving the EU and not retaining free movement.

If it was about immigration, surely the question would have been something like "Should the UK reduce immigration?"

More to do with 'decide' our future and what we do without some garlic muncher telling us or interfering.

Thanks for illustrating my point wonderfully well. BW2, speaking on behalf of Brexiteer's everywhere said it was all about immigration. So really you're not all agreed what was the main point.

I suspect the C2s, Ds and Es believed it to be all about immigration as they are the ones most likely to be affected by immigration in their communities. There were plenty of vox pops on tv which indicated just that.

But you would agree that immigration in itself wasn't actually tested? So under the terms of the referendum, Leaving EU and retaining some Free Movement has as much validity as any other "plan"...

Yes I do agree with you that no part of Leave or Remains results were tested. I will also admit to you, so long as this remains our secret, that I am a white van driver and my van always carries a flag of St George in the back windows so the views on immigration are pukka. I even believe in Santa Claus although I'm informed he may be a foreigner but at least he goes home when his work is done.

[TANGODANCER]

So, in summation, there are more than a few folk that I've spoken to that were as conned as I was in thinking we were being asked as British people to vote whether we should we stay with Europe or exit?.....and the voting was actually just a huge waste of time and effort.....that about it?

[Worthy4England]

You won't find a UK person who can deliver all those presents in one night...

I am proud to wave the flag of St George (who was of course not from the UK as far as we can tell), I don't wave the Union Flag and am generally xenophobic.

I'm happy to concur that Remain's results weren't tested either, that's because the status quo was generally known - I'm nut sure what you'd have tested them for - I was certainly in the camp that didn't much care one way or another about being part of the European super-structures. Could live with it or without it. I did want to know the shape of the trade agreement, but leave were clearly too thick to be able to tell us.

[Hoboh]

You won't find a UK person who can deliver all those presents in one night...

I am proud to wave the flag of St George (who was of course not from the UK as far as we can tell), I don't wave the Union Flag and am generally xenophobic.

I'm happy to concur that Remain's results weren't tested either, that's because the status quo was generally known - I'm nut sure what you'd have tested them for - I was certainly in the camp that didn't much care one way or another about being part of the European super-structures. Could live with it or without it. I did want to know the shape of the trade agreement, but leave were clearly too thick to be able to tell us.

Does the above include all other member states of the EU as well, because threats apart they quite clearly have not got a fcuking clue either.

Will Merkel really drive heavy trade tariffs and risk infuriating her industry chiefs?

I don't trust the French but with their employment regulation, taxes and red tape they are hardly going to benefit either.

I reckon sooner or later the EU will take a long hard look at why, generally, it is becoming more and more unpopular and the likes of Junker and co will get the well deserved boot.

Biggest crisis in years, migration and they all cannot agree, what makes you think they will agree on punishment tariffs on the UK?

[Worthy4England]

You won't find a UK person who can deliver all those presents in one night...

I am proud to wave the flag of St George (who was of course not from the UK as far as we can tell), I don't wave the Union Flag and am generally xenophobic.

I'm happy to concur that Remain's results weren't tested either, that's because the status quo was generally known - I'm nut sure what you'd have tested them for - I was certainly in the camp that didn't much care one way or another about being part of the European super-structures. Could live with it or without it. I did want to know the shape of the trade agreement, but leave were clearly too thick to be able to tell us.

Does the above include all other member states of the EU as well, because threats apart they quite clearly have not got a fcuking clue either.

Will Merkel really drive heavy trade tariffs and risk infuriating her industry chiefs?

I don't trust the French but with their employment regulation, taxes and red tape they are hardly going to benefit either.

I reckon sooner or later the EU will take a long hard look at why, generally, it is becoming more and more unpopular and the likes of Junker and co will get the well deserved boot.

Biggest crisis in years, migration and they all cannot agree, what makes you think they will agree on punishment tariffs on the UK?

Still a struggle, I see. The other member states know exactly what the terms are and have already agreed. As, currently, have we. They wouldn't have laid out their terms for UK as they, like us have no fcking clue what our government want.